Nutritionalist recommending 150g carbs


(cheryl) #1

Hi Guys,

so interesting a friend of mine is trying to lose weight and has not had a lot of luck – over 50 – menopause… and she eats lower carb but still eats probably 90-100 carbs or so a day… she also eats low calories… like not sure how she does it but 800 a day…

She went to a nutritionist… and she wants her on 150 g of carb a day and around 80 g of protein… but low fat…

Curious to see what happens…

What are your thoughts? Will she gain weight? Lose weight?

it does sound like her metabolism is messed up… she’s not a fan of Keto because she is constipated from it…

Do you think different WOE work for different folks? I know I really only work well with Keto…


#2

I don’t agree with only 80g protein, but 150g carbs a day and low fat will definitely pull weight off. That’s still very much a low carb diet. I do some what of a hybrid TKD/CKD now and average around 150g/day around my workouts and a slight bump 1 day a week and I’ve pulled off more fat doing that than I did eating 20g and strict keto. My fat’s not “low” but it’s not high either.

Mine was completely screwed up, most WOE can work for most people if they’re done right. Many people that do keto pick a selective way of doing it based on either who taught them or where they read up on it. Keto has it’s dogma’s just like every other diet.

I was also indefinitely constipated from it, to the point of blood and having to get a colonoscopy over it. Doc yelled at me to eat more fiber, you know, that thing we’re supposed to beleive we don’t need? Well, many of us DO need it. Upping fiber fixed years of pooping issues almost overnight. There’s also the difference of people who track vs ignore calories, the people who eat fat to fill in the blanks vs the sticks of butter and bacon grease all over everything crowd, the people who spend more time recreating keto junk foods and fat bombs than they do eating whole foods, the I hate all sweeteners crowd etc etc etc.

Find 10 people eating “keto”, and they’re all doing different things. Just like most diets but if people get locked into one version that’s not right for them, they blame the whole WOE.


#3

https://nutritionsciencedegree.org/what-is-the-difference-between-a-nutritionist-and-a-dietician

In the US, the title “nutritionist” is not as regulated as “dietitian,” and tends to have a broader, more general meaning. The title is not generally protected, meaning that it can be used by anyone, unlike “doctor”, for instance, which requires proof of qualifications. Nutritionists typically do not have any professional training, and therefore, should not be involved in the diagnosis and treatment of any diseases.

They could be old school, teaching dogma they were taught.

In particular, this common dogma of the medical community came from an Iowa State University food sciences web page less than a decade ago:

“The minimum recommended intake of carbohydrates necessary for survival is 130 grams or 520 kcal per day. However, this level is recommended only to support the central nervous system, red blood cell production, and tissues dependent on glucose; it does not support any physical activity.”

IMO, that’s why so many sources cite “45-50 grams of carbs” per meal.

But if that dogma were true, and 130 grams per day were necessary for survival, then all of us that have been on keto for an extended period should be dead.


(cheryl) #4

now that I think of it I’m not sure if it was a nutritionalist or a dietician… not sure it matters… If it works for her I’m happy for her…

It won’t work for me. I feel best on Keto. :slight_smile:


(A fool and his bacon are soon parted) #5

One hundred fifty grams of carbohydrate is most likely too high for ketosis, would be my guess. It might just be possible for your friend to be in ketosis when she eats only 90-100 g, however.

I believe the 150-gram figure was calculated by Dr. George Cahill as the brain’s minimum glucose need in his landmark study, Starvation in Man, published in the late 1960’s or early 1970’s. But that is clearly wrong, since many people do fine eating far less carbohydrate than 150 g. Prof. Benjamin Bikman questions whether the brain actually needs any glucose at all.

What is not in question is that the brain does very nicely getting a very high percentage, if not all, of its energy from ketones. It is also a known fact that the liver is capable of supplying all the glucose needed by the rest of the body (which is not all that much, actually), even when we eat no carbohydrate at all.

Eighty grams of protein seems okay, but 800 calories is starvation level. If your friend agrees to eat 150 g of carbohydrate, that will at least bring her intake up to 960 calories, which is still starvation.

All in all, I think it unlikely that your friend will lose any fat. Eating at a starvation level of calories prevents the body from shedding excess fat until a point late in the process of starvation. The body actually consumes muscle for a while first, before starting in on the fat. She may lose weight, but not fat.

Your friend is probably constipated because she isn’t getting enough salt. If she consumed between 10 and 15 grams a day (including the salt already present in her food) and drinks enough liquid to satisfy her thirst, she will most likely stop being constipated. Too much salt, by the way, brings a problem very much the opposite of constipation, so she wants enough salt, but not too much.


(Michael - When reality fails to meet expectations, the problem is not reality.) #6

Discussion

In this study, we describe the persistence of an altered microbiome configuration following cycles of obesity and dieting, which contributes to enhanced metabolic derangements upon weight regain, through metabolite-induced effects on host metabolism. We hypothesize that diet-induced microbiome persistence may have evolved to act as a ‘buffer’ contributing to the stability of metabolic homeostasis over prolonged periods of time, by preventing overly fluctuating metabolic responses to incidental nutritional or environmental signals. However, in contexts of erratic changes in host physiology, such as cycling weight gain and dieting, this microbiome persistence may predispose the host to exaggerated metabolic consequences in ensuing weight-gain cycles. Similar contexts of microbiome persistence include its hysteresis-like behaviour of reduced reversibility during recurrent dietary changes[24], or following low-fibre feeding[25].

Our results highlight two potentially interdependent yet inherently different microbiota effects on weight and metabolism. First, the microbiota from obese donors induces weight gain in faecal transplanted mice even when recipient mice are maintained on a normal chow diet[8,9]. This dominant obesogenic property is lost upon remission of obesity. Second, the persistent post-dieting microbiota influences the degree of relapsing obesity following weight cycling, but only upon encounter of a ‘second hit’ that gives rise to recurrent weight gain. While we suggest one mechanism for the common failure of formerly obese individuals to maintain long-term reduced weight after dieting, the reasons for this failure are probably complex and include contributions form a multitude of behavioural, genetic, environmental, and metabolic factors[26]. The findings described here suggest that the remission of metabolic derangements after treatment of obesity precedes the remission of dysbiosis, with the time window of post-obesity microbiome persistence marking the susceptibility phase for accelerated recurrent obesity. Corroboration of these findings in dieting humans as well as additional variables not reflected in mouse models merit further prospective human studies.

Finally, our study provides an example for how rational post-biotic metabolite therapy could serve as a potential means of modulating physiological function downstream of the microbiota. As such, we found that obesity-induced loss of the flavonoids apigenin and naringenin enhances the susceptibility for accelerated weight regain, potentially through impairment of energy expenditure, while replenishment of these metabolites ameliorated these metabolic abnormalities. Future studies are warranted to examine the potential clinical use of flavonoids, as well as modulation of other bioactive metabolites such as bile acids that we found to be persistently elevated after dieting, as novel therapeutics in the quest for effective long-term weight management solutions.


#7

We don’t even know basic numbers but it’s very individual anyway. I would lose fat like crazy (due to the low calorie intake) and I would feel utterly miserable… But my metabolism is fine as far as I can tell and nothing interferes seriously with my fat-loss. It’s not nearly that simple for everyone.

Yep, different people need different woe. But “keto” can be very different from another keto. I did vegetarian keto and carnivore too, well, they weren’t very similar… And I didn’t do the typical version of either… Oh and I need very low-carb but I couldn’t do it right after high-carb. So these things may change with time. And we may need our own macro ranges, fat/protein ratio, food items… One person does horrible on vegetables but pork is wonderful for them while the other one is the opposite… Fat percentage can be all over the place. I definitely would have felt horrible on 75% fat! Especially on carnivore in the beginning.
Fiber intake is somewhere between zero or too high on keto too…
Many people is sensitive to things like dairy…
So it’s possible some kind of keto is good for her but I don’t think it’s a problem if she start with low-carb, I needed years around 80g net carbs to be able to do keto smoothly.

Starving is definitely bad. I would keep the low-carb and gradually raise the fat. But I know myself. I can’t possibly say what is good for her right now.

I would focus on my HEALTH, she eats alarmingly unwell. Fat-loss may be needed for proper health for her but first starving should be stopped, metabolism should be improved (it doesn’t seem she need immediate fat-loss because she is so extremely fat, you probably would have said so and she would have some other doctor, probably).


#8

150g carbs
I would be bigger in fat and full of joint pain and brain fog and sleep troubles and massive bathroom issues, ICK and being a massive addict of sugar which is rotting my insides and I would be just a food sheeple even at that level cause I did way more than a 150g carb count in my day of being miserable.

150g doesn’t truly ‘help anyone on a physical level’ but if one can comply and ‘feel ok eating that way’ then cool…but the 150g of sugar intake is a BAD issue what will rear up and bit everyone in the azz sooner than later.

of course talking ‘us dieting’ people more than regular old people here.


(Bob M) #9

And you’ll be freaking starving. This has been the approach for years. And it has failed every time.

I am in total disagreement with this. Total.

If you’re younger, not insulin resistant, have no issues with food, this might work. If you’re past menopause, insulin resistant, have issues with food, it’s a disaster. There is zero chance this will work.


(Kenny Croxdale) #10

She’s Clueless

An 800 a day calorie diet is idiotic for a multitude of reason.

As per OgreZed…

Also, many individuls who take some type of short term nutrition course often call themselves nutritionist; yet are unqualified an incopentent.

Calorie Intake

It appears her new diet recommendation will increase her calorie intake.

If so, she going to gain weight. Consuming more calories with any diet will increase body weight.

Metabolic Adapation

However, at some point the body will adapt to an increase intake or calorie deficit. One the body adapt, weight gain will stop (in the case of a calorie surplus) or weight loss will stop (in the case of a calorie deficit).

Kenny Croxdale


#11

Starving based on what? I eat around that amount and I eat around 3k cals/day. Why would I be starving? How much food do you eat? You forgetting about fat and protein?


#12

One test I suggest to those on Reddit is to ask the nutritionist/dietitian they plan to see to briefly explain the difference between nutritional ketosis and ketoacidosis.

The simple answer is that nutritional ketosis is driven by a restriction of dietary carbs, while ketoacidosis is typically caused by an exhaustion of insulin in the blood.

It’s amazing how many healthcare professionals think they are the same thing, which is one reason why they think keto is unsafe.


#13

Low-fat was mentioned with 80g protein. It’s truly not much (though I don’t know what low-fat actually means. even with 60g, it’s below 1500kal) and some of us would be super hungry.
But the one in question eats 800 kcal… If more carbs or following some macros help her to eat more, that’s good. Maybe she would be better off with more fat but I can’t possibly tell… Some people automatically starve on low-carb for some reason.
And of course, there are zillion factors and we never can tell if a bunch of macros would satiate someone we don’t even know or not…

It would be best to find the woe that suits her, not just following some general advice. But she seems to be pretty bad to do it right herself…


#14

Agreed, which is why I said I didn’t agree with the low protein.


(Jane) #15

I predict she will initially lose weight, her metabolism will slow down, her hunger will increase and eventually her willpower will break from hunger and cravings.

She will gain back what she lost plus a few extra pounds. Then blame herself, not her diet.

I hope I am wrong.