The body is perfectly capable of deriving carbohydrates from essential fats and essential proteins.

Beyond the physical addiction there's also a lifestyle addiction, this is a similar problem chronic cigarette smokers who want to quit encounter. Sometimes they do quit and get through the physical discomfort of withdrawal but often fall back in because a pavlovian response has been built into many experiences like socializing, hanging outside and chatting, having a smoke as a break from severe stress, etc.

Because refined carbohydrates have been threaded through almost every food marketed to people in our society there are second order lifestyle addictions too which require clever environmental structuring, determination, and often times social support to overcome.

Social support is key and is often the failure point for most people. Particularly when engaging non-mainstream methods or ideas. Most people across many different social groups think the idea of self experimentation to be an alien or downright stupid idea.

[Edit] the body doesn't derive carbohydrates, it derives glucose.

I think you're mistaken. Carb is the only macronutrient that is not required. The body can make glucose via gluconeogenesis. Take someone who has not eaten a single carb for a month and measure their blood glucose level and you will find a stable 90mg/dL. This is why Type-1 diabetics still need insulin (although much much lesser than otherwise) in spite of being on zero-carb diets.

That said, I'm keto and find it difficult to stay under 30 grams of carbohydrates per-day simply because carbs are in so many foods. I've, a few times, gone "strict" keto i.e 10g< of total carbs per day which includes indigestible fiber and I (anecdata coming at you) felt great.

On a keto diet, one can attain < 20g carbs per day with some struggle but to cut it out entirely is really hard without missing some other essential nutrients - because at least some carbs tag along with other things.

If you refuse to consign yourself to the fate that most MD's in the US describe for their diabetic patients (mine told me, "there's nothing you can do to improve it, other than some exercise, take the medicine, annual check ups, and then hope there aren't complications as you age"...I got another general practitioner), then self-support groups like this are the only way to go to find what works for you, IMHO. The Reddit group is also helpful when starting out, but I found them not as hardcore about control as I wanted, which I found in some members of the DD group.

https://www.amazon.com/Dr-Bernsteins-Diabetes-Solution-Achie...

Are you saying that "She's had several endocrinologists tell her that she needs to eat carbohydrates" is wrong and deadly? (There seems to be no other advice in mcone's post https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14812819 to which you are responding.) If so, are you adducing the book you link as your evidence?

Without knowing anything about that book or its author, I think that it's fair to say that any one persons's conclusions should be treated with profound scepticism. That's not the same as saying that they're wrong, but it does mean that calling contrary advice "wrong and deadly" seems very much to be excessively certain.

He is a well-known proponent of cutting carbs for all diabetics, even Type 1's, see his Wikipedia entry for an intro [1]. He's been open about his own Type 1, and:

"As of 2006, Bernstein had an HDL cholesterol of 118, LDL of 53, Triglycerides of 45, and average blood sugar of 83 mg/dl.[3] By 2008, at 74 years of age, Bernstein had surpassed the life expectancy of type 1 diabetics."

I wouldn't go as far as to say any carbohydrates is "wrong and deadly". However, OP you're responding to is correct: there is a metabolic pathway [2] that generates the necessary carbohydrates from fats and proteins in your diet if you don't eat enough. There are challenges with the ketogenic diet if not carefully followed, and it doesn't work for everyone [3].

0.14% of the diabetic population have qualified for a diagnosis of complete remission [4]. There is no cure, but some Type 2's can manage without medication and still diagnostically show no sign of Type 2 via blood glucose and HbA1c tests; those that maintain it for over a couple of years qualify as complete remission. I've found more of these people or diabetics approaching that level of control at the Diabetes Daily site than any other location on the Net [5]. Overwhelmingly, carb restriction is the first go-to they recommend all newly-diagnosed who want to join this small club try as among the first treatment protocols. Even many Type 1's report benefiting from not requiring nearly as much insulin after restricting carbs. It's worth investigating, if only to rule it out if it doesn't happen to work for your wife.

Good luck with your wife's Type 1.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_K._Bernstein

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluconeogenesis

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketogenic_diet

[4] http://www.diabetes.org/research-and-practice/patient-access...

[5] https://www.diabetesdaily.com/

Just for the record, not mine, but mcone's (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14812819).

That said, eating only animal products makes keto look tame in comparison.

Carbs were only available in the summer/spring, and food became even more scarce in autum/winter. Thus, humans developed a powerful chemical response to carb intake - we crave carbs because they were the only means to fatten up and avoid starvation and death.

If you keep your incidental carbs low enough, they will be burned off without taking you out of the ketogenic, fat-burning state.

It is not the incidental carbs in these vegetables for which we might have a nutritional need, but the vitamins and minerals.

I'm sorry but this is simply not true. Since switching to a ketogenic several months ago I have maintained a very low (< 15g / day) net carb intake and not only have I not experienced any adverse effects from this, I feel much better (better mood, more energy, less hunger cravings) overall. I should also point out that I am a very active person as well (yoga & Crossfit daily), implying that a high fat diet is suitable (in terms of energy requirements) for maintaining an active lifestyle.

Not my intention at all, and honestly I don't see how my comment conveys this.

> Your single data point

Sure, plus the countless others who lead a healthy, low-carb lifestyle.

> 99.9% of humans that ever lived included various sources of carbs in their diets (save famine and other such events), and our bodies have evolved to support such diets

My point wasn't that carbs preclude you from leading a healthy lifestyle, hut rather that they aren't necessarily for leading a healthy lifestyle, as OP's remark suggested.

> We're here because our ancestors ate carbs

Not "because", but "in spite of the fact".

> You should make it clear that you're pushing a position based on your opinion

I'm not "pushing" anything, merely citing a personal experience (my experience, not my opinion).

They are not countless though, people who have at some point in time, experimented with keto or low-carb diets are in the extreme minority (I did as well). And an even smaller subset would be the people who have completely switched over to a keto diet on a long term basis.

>Not "because", but "in spite of the fact".

That is merely an opinion. We can't do the experiment of not having a certain adaptation. Having the option of surviving on a variety of diets, including heavy carb (vegetables/fruits) diets, is definitely an evolutionary strength.

> hut rather that they aren't necessarily for leading a healthy lifestyle, as OP's remark suggested.

But practically speaking, the vast majority of healthy people consume carbs. There is no evidence to suggest that a keto diet is capable of providing the same result - in a large portion of the population (comprising of various genetic makeups and other factors), over a large period of time.

However, I believe they are technically correct that we "are here because our ancestors ate carbs". This is not to say that carbs are healthy or necessary for modern humans, only that our ability to live on a diversity of energy sources was hugely beneficial, and almost certainly necessary, for the survival of our distant ancestors.

Research the ketogenic diet which is < 20 (net) carbs a day - usually in the form of just random sneak in carbs from green veggies.

Starting with a low carb diet and transitioning to keto can be done without a lot of pain and I've eaten less than ~30 carbs a day for 6 months with no loss of energy - in fact I think my energy levels have increased since going keto, but I've also lost significant weight.

Weaning off carbs is not hard.

Ultimatley, what kept me on track was the improvements I was seeing in the gym. I did, however, always acknowledge that was fighting the temptation to cheat quite often.

Going keto would mean hating eating forever. Which would be very effective for weight loss, I guess.

As I'm in my 40s, and just exercise for fun and the health benefits, this is a tradeoff I'm more than happy to make. I'd much rather be able to cycle for another 10 miles without thinking about it than to increase my pace from 12 to 14 mph. But it is something to be aware of.

On the other hard, weight lifters have complained that being keto has diminished their peak capacity. (They don't seem to care that it increases their stamina.)

It would be more accurate to say it wasn't hard for you.

I don't recommend going from full carbs to keto. Start out lazy low carb (that looks like carbs I should t eat it) and work your way into fully tracking macros etc.

Easy is relative but I think done correctly it's easier then folks think. It's a pretty lovable lifestyle once you figure it out.

That really doesn't increase my confidence

This is factually wrong. The human body ~100 grams of protein, ~10 grams of fat, and zero carbs to stay healthy. The minimal amount of glucose required for brain function can be synthesized from protein intake. And carb deficiency is not associated with any impairment or disease.

Could you provide source (studies not blogposts or youtube videos) on this matter?

Also what is your opinion on 80/10/10 or Okinawa diet? Okinavians used to get most of their calories from carbs and they had one of the longest lifespans in the world.

All things considered I am not against the keto diet but the food that people on it eat. Animal based fats, usually heavily processed meats like bacon, sausages etc on which there are peer reviewed studies that show their correlation to cancer and heart deceases. Most of the information can be found here: https://nutritionfacts.org/ the videos linked have their sources provided in the description. And those are mostly peer reviewed studies as well!

I will say that there's interesting research surfacing that is implicating insulin as the big nasty, not specifically carbs. Which would mean to me that if you consume foods that have a more moderate insulin response coupled with regular physical activity and other hormone balancing behaviors that kind of lifestyle would be okay.

Our addiction to convenience as mediated by oil and refined carbohydrates doesn't ground people in their bodies, causing the acceleration towards extremes (obesity or ascetic diets like keto--which I personally follow).

Also "An effective, medically sound diet that lets you eat bacon, eggs, steak, even cheese? It's true!"

Is just wrong. Medically sound my ass. Of course you're going to get people to buy a book that says that you can eat what you want (E.g. lots of animal fats), doesn't make it the right... far from it actually.

As I said before I have nothing against keto/high fat low carb diets but the commonly consumed foods are awful. Basically no micronutrients, mostly animal fats and excessive amounts of protein. Those really aren't doing you much good. If books on keto diet were suggesting nuts, seeds, berries, avocado and some meat that wasn't heavily proccessed as basis of it's diet I wouldn't comment at now I am sure that lots of people are going to look into keto and hop on bacon + eggs all day every day kind of regime.

As a counter to the Okinawans, we can look at the Maasai people of northern Africa https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maasai_people#Diet, who exclusively ate meat, milk and blood from cattle yet had no incidence of heart disease, cancer, tooth decay, or obesity.

I think the point here is that we haven't really honed in on what exact macronutrient composition is the perfect one for a human body. Humans appear to adapt well to any macronutrient composition, as shown above by the diets of different cultures (I think if you took a global survey in 1900 of what different societies were eating, you would find all manner of different diets but very low rates of disease in all or most of them). What we have identified is that we're seeing unprecedented levels of cancer, obesity, alzheimers and cardiovascular disease. So the question to ask is "What changed in the past 50 years?" I would say it's a few things (ordered by severity):

1. Sugar. We don't need sugar to survive, yet we eat mountains of it.

2. Refined, high GI carbohydrates.

3. Vegetable oils. Seed oils like canola, sunflower, or palm oil (not Olive/Avocado/Coconut oil) are high in pro-inflammatory Omega-6 fatty acids and polyunsaturated fats.

4. Factory farmed meats, also high in Omega-6 fatty acids.

You can find counterexamples to any macronutrient focused diet, as we did above, but there doesn't exist a society that consumes sugar, refined carbohydrates, or vegetable oils in abundance and still lives long, disease free lives. To date, there is no counterexample that says the modern western diet is in any way healthy.

Regarding the studies you mention, I don't doubt that heavily processed meats like bacon and sausages are bad for you, though it's because of the Omega-6 fatty acids in factory farmed meats which are known cause arterial inflammation and contribute to atherosclerosis (grass fed beef, pork, or pastured chicken does not have this problem). That said, I am heavily skeptical of any studies that show 'links' to cancer. Just because two things correlate doesn't mean that one causes the other. Nutritional studies are notoriously difficult to conduct accurately, and have been plagued with bad logic (correlation != causation), bad statistics, and perverse incentives (such as the incentive to reach an interesting conclusion or risk losing government funding) or conflicts of interest (being funded by the sugar industry or big pharma). You ask for a good source (not blogposts/youtube videos) on what the OP posted; in kind, could you link to the studies that you're talking about?

> And carb deficiency is not associated with any impairment or disease.

This is an entirely false statement. Different people have different reactions to carbohydrate restriction based on genetics, past diet, medical issues, environmental factors, and a boatload of other well understood reasons.

Edit: My mistake, it looks like someone else made the following mistaken argument, first - not you. My apologies.

[ Elsewhere in this thread your invocation of kidney problems was already corrected, and yet you invoke it here, again. This has everything to do with over-consumption of protein, nothing to do with a supposed "carb deficiency". This is not evidence of any alleged "impairment" resulting from insufficient carbohydrates. ]

The phrase carb deficiency is vague. I took it as 0 carb since that was the context of the original comment. But if you take it to mean anything value you want, then that is shifting of the goalposts from 'you can remain healthy with a 0 carb diet' - a claim that has not yet met its burden of proof.

Bags can vary greatly in amount, what weight does that represent, is it 150g or 3kg?

Here's the exact brand I've been using most-recently, it's 300g uncooked: https://happyspeedy.com/sites/default/files/steamfresh-brocc...

Not true. While it might be true that your body (e.g. your brain) needs some glucose, this can easily be synthesised by your liver from fat as required once you have been running on ketones for a few weeks. You do not need "good" carbs to survive.

Keep in mind that the glycemic index of foods influences how your body reacts. Broccoli is a very low GI food. Carrots are quite a bit higher.

I would guess you can eat quite a bit less broccoli than you can carrots, because the insulin response to carrots is going to be much more severe.

You're on the right track, but what you mean is not the GI of carrots is low, but the glycemic load. For blood sugar and diet considerations, the GL is at least as important as the GI

http://www.health.harvard.edu/diseases-and-conditions/glycem...

She tried cutting lactose (milk, cheese), which had a good, but small effect. Would like to try anything else before laser treatments.

Thank you!

What makes it worse is that the withdrawal from the sugar-high seems to sometimes make the pimples hurt more than they otherwise would, and makes me feel some kind of intense compulsion to pick at the pimples, and so my face ends up looking much worse than it otherwise would if I just left the pimple alone; it honestly reminds me of the descriptions of drug addicts who pick at their own body (I think meth addicts do that?).