Err, they said this

> 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.

Can you list anything specifically that anyone is likely to encounter? Your comments are rather vague.

The field is so vast that it depends on what you want to look at. So for e.g. When you consume a high protein diet (proteins > purine > uric acid) you can have problems with your kidneys. I've seen reports of people ending up in the hospital because the body couldn't regulate blood glucose, caused by a low-carb diet. Now, since its more ethical to experiment on rats, you can find numerous studies which show problems with both LCHF/LCHP diets - including long term bone health impact, growth hormone, etc. Note that you can also find benefits (none of which are unique to low-carb AFAICT), but its one of those things where continuing to eat a normal diet doesn't require "proof", but even a single major problem with an extreme diet, is cause for concern. his is a problem with extreme diets in general, because you have to become somewhat of a mini-expert yourself to be able to determine if the diet is providing you all the things you need. The people who tell you its "simple" are the ones who have invested a lot of time (or they were already knowledgeable) in learning about the various factors.

You haven't answered the question. Nothing you say is evidence of any impairment due to insufficient carbs.

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. ]

Claiming that 0 grams of carbs allows you to remain healthy is not accurate. It is plainly obvious that unless you want to starve someone, a 0 carb diet, _necessarily_ means a diet that's either high protein or high fat. Both of which have documented problems, in humans, and in other models such as mice.

What are the documented problems in humans with low carb, high fat diets?

I've read about high LDL levels, inflammation, etc. I've experienced the latter, not the former. You can go look it up if that interests you. The original 0 carb statement continues to remain unsubstantiated because no such data exists.

If you skim through the whole thread, you can get a feel for where this poster is coming from. The comment is "hand waving" because the fact of the matter is: Carbs are not an essential nutrient, and the parent poster was correct to say "carb deficiency is not associated with any impairment or disease"

> Carbs are not an essential nutrient, and the parent poster was correct to say "carb deficiency is not associated with any impairment or disease"

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.