is there such a thing as 'necessary' carbs?

[Elima]

I'm confused. I've read so many books on the low-carb WOE and have been following a very low-carb plan since 24 February 2011 (eating only meat, fish, eggs, cheese, a few nuts and non-starchy vegetables). I do have some problems which may or may not be to do with my new diet, mainly irritability, occasional lack of energy and poor sleep (due to very vivid, disturbing dreams). (I have posted elsewhere about some of these issues.) NB I am losing weight slowly, at a rate of no more than 2 lbs. a week.
What I would like to know is whether eating almost no carbs for longer than a couple of weeks could actually be doing me harm? Last weekend I attended the London conference of the Weston A. Price foundation where I met Barry Groves and Zoe Harcombe, both experts on low-carbing, and asked them this question. Both of them said there is no such thing as a necessary carb so I would not be harming myself by not eating any starchy vegetables, grains or fruit.
But Diana Schwarzbein, in her second book, says it is dangerous to restrict your carbs to this degree, especially if you have burned-out adrenal glands (as one forum member has suggested I might have).
Who is right? And if we evolved to eat meat, fish, eggs and non-starchy vegetables, why are writers such as Schwarzbein advising their patients that starchy vegetables and grains are essential?

[Elizellen]

I think they are afraid to go out on a limb and suggest too radical a difference from the government/food pyramid recommendations.

[Jay1988]

The body converts protein and fats into glycogen/blood sugar pretty efficiently with lack of carbs (58% of protein and 8% of fats I believe are the figures). I've seen people bulking with little-to-no carbs but never little-to-no fat or protein, as an anecdote.

[BeefyPork]

We all (our bodies) seem to react differently to carbs. It's interesting.

I'd also like to hear more answers to the OP's question.

Also, what's wrong with the occasional snack of two tablespoons of coconut oil, a handful of mixed (unsalted) nuts and an apple?

Just interested in hearing some perspectives. :agree:

[rightnow]

It's really up to YOUR body.

Some people can eat quite a few carbs and for all we can tell are happy, healthy and fit. Some can eat close to zero and be the same way.

Some people (I notice it around the forums with women in particular) feel like crap if they don't have at least a few carbs. How many, depends on the person.

Also, I think it's not just about how your body reacts in general, but also how your body reacts over time. By that I mean, if you eat nearly zero carb for months this may have side-effects (it seems to kick up thyroid effects in some people).

Other things can influence it, like: are the carbs consistent or occasional? And if they're occasional, is it within the context of an eating schedule like IF, or in the context of eating 3 times a day? It might matter (since IF might help 'balance' some of what people eat, by having the insulin lower for longer in between times).

As for what is 'necessary', I'm not sure I've seen anything that'd say objectively they are necessary for much of anything, given the body can convert what little it needs them for, from other substances (such as protein). But there are other kinds of 'necessary' including simply 'how you feel', and the more complex 'what you can actually live with eating or not-eating over the long term'.

PJ

[cnmLisa]

We all (our bodies) seem to react differently to carbs. It's interesting.

I'd also like to hear more answers to the OP's question.

Also, what's wrong with the occasional snack of two tablespoons of coconut oil, a handful of mixed (unsalted) nuts and an apple?

Just interested in hearing some perspectives. :agree:

Nothing. It's called OWL, pre-maintenance and maintenacne.

If you look at most plans. The iniatle 2 week period is a lower carb period. LOW carb, not NO carb. This is where many make their mistake. As you move thru the levels of your chosen plan, carbohydrate is introduced in measured specific quantities and type.

For those who have thyroid issues, a higher carb level is usually preferable to help convert some of the thyroid hormones--higher carb which could mean 30-70. As compared to the SAD, still LC.

Progress not perfection.

Lisa

[Za'atar]

I must say that I think that many carb fruits and veg have good and needed amount of micro nutrients. I am atkinsing now but I want to be able to eat blueberries, all manner of nuts, berries, fruits, vegs. I think that my Atkins Start will end up as a Paleo diet. I've read both books and agree with both. I need to lose the weight, but want to eat healthier and better.

[Elizellen]

I must say that I think that many carb fruits and veg have good and needed amount of micro nutrients. I am atkinsing now but I want to be able to eat blueberries, all manner of nuts, berries, fruits, vegs.
When you are at the relevant OWL rung if your body can handle them you can eat them.

[mizski]

After doing a lot of reading on paleo/primal eating I really do believe that grains are not good for us. I can't imagine that the push to eat grains will change anytime soon as Big Agriculture and Big Pharma have too much influence on what we eat. As far as starchy veggies, the paleo folks believe that nightshades (white potatoes are one) are harmful. Other starchy veggies like sweet potatoes, winter squashes, carrots, etc. are healthy foods if one can afford the higher carbs. I don't think they are necessary foods though as those nutrients can be found in other lower carb veg.

As far as "necessary" carbs, I do believe we need some from plant sources for the nutrients they provide. Nutritionally, total carnivore (animal sources only) could be done if one ate the entire animal except for the fur/feathers but who does that? With eating a low carb ketogenic diet, I'm not sure what the long term effects are. Some argue that it's fine while others (Mark Sisson for example) believe that should be reserved for those who are obese with a lot of weight to lose. I tend to agree with him.

Schwarzbein and others on the "you must eat grains" bandwagon really can't change their POV despite what current research is showing as it would cancel out their teachings and what they have written and would therefore end their profits and income sources.

[Elima]

My impression, having read both the Schwarzbein books, is that she is playing it safe in the later books by insisting on a higher level of carbs, so nobody can turn round and accuse her of peddling a dangerous diet. But maybe I'm being unfair.

[abbykitty]

\NB I am losing weight slowly, at a rate of no more than 2 lbs. a week.\

Completely non responsive, but I wouldn't consider 2 lbs a week slow, especially at your weight! Just sayin.

[Za'atar]

Completely non responsive, but I wouldn't consider 2 lbs a week slow, especially at your weight! Just sayin.

2 pounds per week is over 100 pounds a year. That is a lot.

I think we do need carbs for the micro nutrients. Carbs like collard greens and blue berries, not starchy carbs and grains.

Too much lean meat in the diet will lead to malnutrition just as easily as eating only corn meal, both in different ways. Then you have "rabbit starvation" which people suffered from long ago when they could only find lean sources of meat to eat and nothing else. Fat, strangely enough, leads in the list of necessary nutrients as far as I have been able to tell. The people of the far north who could only catch seals and such to eat, were not ill and not overweight and they subsisted on a mainly fat diet (some protein as well). Moreover, it was raw fat, (and meat) not cooked. There was not a lot of fuel to use for heating the pot.

Moreover, not a lot of words are spent on the facts that many paleo-archeology sites in more temperate climates were littered with many hundreds of thousands of oyster shells and so on-- that is, small creatures that were basically easy to catch. Early people generally set up their tents near rivers where fishing and critters that live under rocks were abundant. Also consider insects. What is the most abundant life form on earth? Bugs.

Did early man eat them? Most likely.

I keep thinking there is more to the micro nutrient story than even what I have read. I am no researcher and do not know much about biology but it seems to me that there are micro nutrients as well in meat. Fat stores the vitamins from what we eat? Would that mean that something that eats the animal that ate the plant life would also gain benefit from those vitamins?

As far as protein foods, people here at least (US) have selected only a small amount of "meat" to consider on a regular basis, where people of earlier times had something like 10 or more different choices of "meat" animal, as well as the body parts (liver, heart etc.,) of animals that many modern people in the US do not even eat, in some cases due to pollution.

So there are really a lot of food sources that we as "modern" people avoid, but which are plentiful and fairly easy to catch.

Even into the 18th century: I just found a biography of a man living in Omaha, and he said that "chops" that is "meat" was the cheapest thing to get in Omaha. Vegetables out of season, or in were expensive to buy.

People ate more small animals than just beef or chicken in the pioneer days (here in the US). That is: rabbits, squirrels, possum, racoons, various small birds, pigeons, as well as deer, and domesticated animals. Don't forget bears, and fishing. Lots of fat on a bear. There was no refrigeration, so a rabbit is a perfect meal size for a few people.

We would not think of going into the backyard and catching a squirrel to make into stew, and yet that was a daily activity in the pioneer days.

[Seejay]

One point that Kwasniewski makes that has not been mentioned yet. He says the "effort" required by liver to make glucose out of protein, and the "fight flight or feed" hormones that are pumped out when glucose gets too low, is hard work on organs that are compromised. So why not keep it simple and take in 40-50 net dietary carbs for the body's glucose needs.

I do think I had difficulty with lowered thyroid and adrenal exhaustion from my bad eating years. So a plan that basically makes it easy on the organs appeals to me.

Also a notion from Native Americans here in the Pacific NW of USA has always stuck with me. They say the Great Spirit said to eat the salmon with berries and roots. !!! How paleo is that.

[katoman]

Also a notion from Native Americans here in the Pacific NW of USA has always stuck with me. They say the Great Spirit said to eat the salmon with berries and roots. !!! How paleo is that.
OMG! Now I'm actually salivating!

[Elima]

Thank you to everyone who replied - I really appreciated your responses.
Za'atar - I thought you might be interested to know that I went to a lecture at the British Museum last week about archaeological sites in Norfolk, England, which showed that our very early ancestors living on an estuary there ate mostly wild game and shellfish. He didn't say anything about eating plants, although it's much harder for them to find the evidence for that, especially from such an early period. Animal-eating had left archaeological traces such as animal bones with marks from butchery.
Anyway, I've decided to add a few more carbs - more non-starchy vegetables and small quantities of nuts. I'm feeling pretty good now. Thanks for all your replies.

[JohnGibson]

Elima,

The list of Induction veggies can give you a place to start.

http://forum.lowcarber.org/showthread.php?t=236482

[black57]

We all (our bodies) seem to react differently to carbs. It's interesting.

I'd also like to hear more answers to the OP's question.

Also, what's wrong with the occasional snack of two tablespoons of coconut oil, a handful of mixed (unsalted) nuts and an apple?

Just interested in hearing some perspectives. :agree:


Occasional snack? Coconut oil is a regular part of my diet. I am trying to get even more of it. Our bodies need no carbohydrates to manufacture glucose and I believe that the two often get used interchangeably which is sorta incorrect. No matter how many carbs we consume, it gets changed into glucose for fuel but do we need carbs to make this? No, some people may need more glucose than others but they don't need carbs to make glucose, well, unless they've had their livers removed ;) The human body needs the equivelancy of a teaspoon of sugar to run efficiently. Some people may need more simply because they are accustomed to running on more sugar than a teaspoon's worth. I know when I first became a low carber I needed to consume atleast 15 grams of carbs to make it through a work day. But now, I consume no carbs in the morning and work is a breeze.

However, 15 years ago, there was no way in heck I wiuld even consider consuming less than 100 grams of carbs, no how no way.

[PilotGal]

back to the original question of whether we "need" necessary carbs in our diets... the answer is no.

one study here (http://www.mendosa.com/stefansson1.htm)
and here (http://blog.zeroinginonhealth.com/2009/01/05/bellevue-the-all-meat-trial-part-1/)
research and experiment journaled for all to read.
what we know is that man seems to likes variety in his food, but doesn't "need" it.

[Nancy LC]

Completely non responsive, but I wouldn't consider 2 lbs a week slow, especially at your weight! Just sayin.
Yeah, two pounds a week is really good.

[Nancy LC]

Anyway, I've decided to add a few more carbs - more non-starchy vegetables and small quantities of nuts. I'm feeling pretty good now. Thanks for all your replies.
A perfectly sensible thing to do! So many people think in terms of all or nothing.

[pinkmonkey]

According to Drs. Eades in the Protein Power Lifeplan, carbohydrates are the only completely non-essential macronutrient for the human body. Realistically, you can go your entire life without a single carb and can still be healthy. :)

I eat a lot of salad, but not because I want the carbs, but because it fills me up on less money than meat, and since I made the switch to only organic grass-fed beef and free-range chicken, I'm really having to watch my expenses!