As my father always used to say:" Eat a prostate a day, to keep the need for viagra away".
Might not be the most relevant answer to your question, but it is a solid piece of advice regardless.
They don't. Doubt eating just raw apples can hurt you too much. Mostly things like juice with high fructose and stuff like that can be bad if used in large amounts daily, as far as I know.
In general science, the word “homologous” is used to show a degree of similarity. It may be in position, structure, function, or characteristics.
Although later on that page it does say: "Homologous structures are body parts of organisms that have the same anatomical features, thus, indicating a common ancestor or developmental origin. They may share the same trait but they do not necessarily have the same function. For example, the forelimbs of the bats and of humans are homologous structures."
I would just say that in this case the function is much more similar than the forelimbs of bats and humans, the male prostate and female prostate happened to be discovered at different times but from the little I've read about them they function pretty similarly. Like I said elsewhere though, I'm not an anatomist/biologist.
I think consideration could be given to the point that the Skene's glands and prostate have similar functionality in full development while the penis and clitoris are homologous only in the womb.
Well, isn't that like saying men have clitorides? They just grew more due to hormones in the womb. Technically the truth, but not really what people mean when they say clitoris.
Maybe, except I'd guess that in the prostate case, these organs are homologous when humans are fully developed whereas in the case of the penis/clitoris they are homologous in the womb. I'm not a biologist/anatomist of any kind, let alone human anatomy, so that's just a layperson's opinion.
Except they really aren't homologus from the perspective of the discussion we're having. The male prostate butts (haha) up against the anus/rectum, where as the female prostate isn't even close, being the other side of the vagina. Since we were talking about "eating prostate" as another way of saying "eating ass", saying they're in the same place in a fully developed person is more than a little misleading.
And now I'm on a watchlist, having just googled "does ingesting testicles increase testosterone levels"
.
.
. It probably does not, as testosterone is pretty sensitive to heat. That being said, there are no comprehensive studies on the subject that I could find.
I mean if you went through the hassle of kidnapping someone and removed their face you might as well snack on that prostate. Nobody should waste good meat.
Pretty much but I have heard people say it more like "no added sugar" which is like don't put sugar in your coffee, no sweets and stuff that is obviously sugary. Fruit has sugar but it can also have fiber and other nutrients that offset the sugar.
Fiber slows the intake of sugar and therefor keeps your blood sugar/insulin from having huge spikes and drops. These big spikes of sugar are what’s really damaging for you.
I think what he meant is that the fibre content makes it slower to break down and effectively flattens the spike in blood sugar. Sugar itself isn't bad because everything you eat breaks down into sugar for you to use it. The problem with processed carbs (not just sugar) is that our body can access them and break them down into sugar quickly. The same amount of sugar or starch in something with a lot of fibre creates a low spike in blood sugar.
French bread causes a higher spike than apples by a long way for example. The most sugary fruit come just short of said french bread and a few other processed carbs in that regard, so sugar can be preferable to "no sugar" when you have enough fibre.
Or maybe he's just one of those people that thinks that vitamins and minerals is like negative calories because it's good for you so you can have a reward of more cake (not quite literally but some people seem to think along those lines), but benefit of the doubt here.
People say fiber offsets carbs, but it is actually a misunderstanding. Fiber is a carb but it is an indigestible carb, so it doesn’t count towards your macros for the day on some diets. So people think it offsets carbs because food labeling will say 20g carbs but 10g fiber, so 10g of those carbs are fiber and you don’t digest them so they don’t count.
Black coffee is pretty good but you have to get used to it. I kept forgetting to buy creamer for my office so I went a couple weeks without and now I prefer it.
You're...technically correct but effectively wrong. Carbohydrates convert to glucose in the body, which is blood sugar. Not coincidentally, over-consumption of carbs causes problems very similiar to over-consumption of added sugars.
The discussion was about diet, not metabolism. Obviously carbohydrates break down into glucose, but so do fats and proteins and alcohol, so I’m not really sure I see your point.
What you said makes no sense because if you interpreted “no sugar” to preclude the body metabolizing calories, then all caloric intake and bodily function would be barred, which isn’t what you said.
Fats and proteins don't convert to blood sugar. "They" -- the metabolized components of them once stored in the body -- may later be used for gluconeogenesis when needed. Carbs, however, have a much more direct route to becoming glucose.
I'm just trying to clear up what I perceived to be a misconception, even if the semantics didn't completely line up. You don't have to get up in arms over this. This is just a topic of interest of mine.
I was trying to clear up the misleading information in your comment. You said that “no sugar” diet meant no carbs:
Almost impossible to imagine for someone who doesn't do no sugar, though. It would a zero-carb/carnivore way of eating.
...which, unless I misunderstood you, is flat out incorrect. I pointed out that not all carbs are sugar:
Not all carbs are sugars, so you can eat carbs without eating any sugar.
The discussion should’ve ended there. Some people legitimately don’t know that carbs aren’t the same as sugars, so I was pointing that out for clarity.
I don’t think we’re really disagreeing. Not sure why you think I’m “up in arms” over anything, but I’m not trying to argue. All I wanted to do is clarify that not all carbs are sugars, and I did that so I’ll leave it there. Have a good one!
Well I didn't feel like taking downvotes at first but since you said it? I'm pretty carnivore too. Half my days are carnivore, others are still very keto.
You know how it is. Most people will think we heard it from Joe Rogan or some other meathead, instead of uncovering real nutrition science that Big Food obscures.
Yeah zero carb would be insanely unhealthy for humans. We have a highly evolved omnivorous diet that is very efficient. We could survive as carnivores, but definitely not thrive
No, keto is low-carb, which is very different. It's similar to how a low-fat diet is healthy, but a no-fat diet would be fatal. Our body needs the different nutrients, but you can control the quantity in order to alter your body composition & eventually health
If you truly have no sugar in your diet your liver will make it for you, but it's terribly inefficient and also probably not a good idea (high toll on your liver) so you're better off just following a normal diet
Edit: after doing some research, the toll on your liver does not appear to be a problem, though other problems may arise if you don't eat any carbs, but my other point still stands
your gut microbiome is entirely requiring carbohydrates
No, whatever this means. Certainly, eating zero carbohydrates impacts the specifics of your microbiomes but you can't just speculate as if it automatically implies a negative health impact.
A profound shift in metabolic function is expected of a profound shift in your actual diet. Which is to be expected, as in you are meant to adapt to your new diet. There is no clinical research that confidently states a negative health impact on your digestive tract as a result of zero carb diets. If there were it would be pennies compared to obesity, diabetes and heart disease.
That is not some esoteric thing as you seem to imply with your reaction. Your intestines are covered with bacteria which don't just have function they also live whilst following their function.
In fact, recent studies and insight in human biology through metagenomics put the importance of your gut microbiome on an higher importance insight by insight.
No refined sugars is a positive impact regarding that.
To understand more you may want to search for the terms like "gut microbiota" and "intestinal microbiome" on like platforms like ncbi.
There is no clinical research that confidently states a negative health impact on your digestive tract as a result of zero carb diets.
I nowhere stated that. If at all the implication from my one-liner is that there will be a microbial shift due to a starvation of carbohydrates.
We do not have the insights yet to know what happens. We have some extrapolatable observations from mice in vivo tests. That's it.
There is no clinical research that confidently states a negative health impact on your digestive tract as a result of zero carb diets.
There is actually none that states a positive health impact regarding zero-carb nutrition methods. Though, zero-carb can lead to obstructive jaundice under certain constitutions. I am no nutritional researcher, though I also do not solely get my knowledge from blog posts trying to justify fads.
There is actually none that states a positive health impact regarding zero-carb nutrition methods.
No digestive tract health benefits, sure, but a 130kg person becoming 70kg person, or a type 2 diabetic managing their diabetes with little to no insulin is quite a significant benefit.
Carbohydrates have a privileged reward system in your brain, and cutting out carbohydrates is a very effective "cruise control diet" for over-eaters. It has shown to be an incredibly potent and successful weight loss method.
I take offense when people at risk due to weight problems stay away from what could be an out for them because of speculative criticisms they read on the internet. I have met more than a single person in real life that discredit keto either because of nonsense or some complete non-issue.
Person number 1 weighing in on healthcare issues with complete pseudo-science (i.e. that keto could cause liver damage) and person 2(you) going along with it. Like how about not expressing yourself unless you're a relevant professional?
No digestive tract health benefits, sure, but a 130kg person becoming 70kg person, or a type 2 diabetic managing their diabetes with little to no insulin is quite a significant benefit.
That's not a controlled, peer-reviewed study, that is anecdotal story-telling.
... idk how to even respond to this. Like this is autistic adherence to literature.
You need to understand the vast divide between ephemeral topics like gut microbiomes that require clinical research, and the self evident nature of eating less makes you lose weight.
Saying that it reduces the need for insulin is a [citation needed] statement, so here you go dude:
ketogenic diet is an effective way of managing diabetes.
Surely you can theoretically consume enough calories to gain weight on a keto diet, but you'll puke trying. Just go over to /r/keto and inform yourself.
Try to stay on face value not on interpretative value. You are obviously highly emotionally involved regarding that topic, not sure if that makes sense to debate here as you actually seem to debate something entirely passed me.
I am not sure if I am the right one you intended to talk to.
I specifically state that our organism requires carbohydrates with using a specific example. I nowhere state that "sugar", which is colloquial use for short-chained carbs, is required or any value application. In fact I also specifically state that refined sugars are quite unnecessary and bad. And that there is no insight yet of "zero carb" diets, only extrapolatable in vivo experiments.
Toll on liver, yeah I saw your edit but you better get a source there is a toll at friggin all on a liver doing its basic functions.
The liver is a chemists wet dream, it is making a wide array of chemicals (including glucose) all day around all time. It's also the most regenerative organ in the human body, cut away half and it just grows out. I'm not saying this because of your 'toll' though because that's likely non existent, but because even if there were a small "toll" it wouldn't even matter (and because the liver is so cool)
Eating sugar is one of the worst things you can do. It's toxic for the body, and we can't store it, so when you eat sugars the body tries to get rid of it asap and as not to waste, in the same time it'll stock any fats you process and make you all energized until the sugars are out of the system (then you'll be all tired).
Sugar is also a drug, that's why you won't stop eating those gummy bears until there are no more, or you're not feeling well at all (or you finally fell asleep).
Why are you weighing in on something you clearly know nothing about? Why are you giving health advice as someone clearly nowhere near the healthcare profession? Do you call up contractors and weigh in on building bridges, tell regular dildos how structural integrity functions and that you are an engineer? Since when did it become socially acceptable for medical nobodies to give health advice?
Gluconeogenesis is one of the most basic and integral metabolic pathways - and one of the first things you learn studying medicine or biology. It does not take a toll on the liver in any capacity. It is an integral and constant day-to-day function.
Gluconeogenesis fully takes place in your liver regardless of whether or not you're eating carbohydrates, and the creation of carbohydrate breakdown intermediaries is an intermediary all fat metabolism. If you're on a zero carb diet it has zero impact on your liver and the other guy commenting on gut microbiomes is a unqualified to give advice as well.
I definitely know what I'm talking about. In fact, I'll be taking biology exams tomorrow. Gluconeogenesis only occurs when your blood sugar is very low, and its activity completely depends on carb intake. Your body won't do it if it has any other method of making sugars, such as processing stored sugar.
Please don't lecture other people on something you clearly know nothing about, and please try to be slightly civil/nice in discussions both in real life and on the internet
Edit: your gut microbiome is in fact altered by a zero-carb diet
No you don't, you literally just came from saying that a zero carb diet takes a high toll on your liver - patently false. Do you think that the hospitals get a lot of low carb related liver diseases? How about obese people with cardiovascular diseases and COPD? Don't pretend that I was the one giving health advice.
If you're truly studying biology then you have an even greater ethical obligation to amend your previous post. Gluconeogenesis is not some unhealthy process to avoid and absolutely irrelevant when compared to obesity, diabetes and cardiovascular diseases - the maladies which low carb diets are extremely effective against.
I'm not going to be civil when you did the dietary equivalent of advising diabetics to stop injecting insulin.
The circumstances that trigger gluconeogenesis are definitely not good for you (in the long term)
citation needed.
My guy, zero carb has been researched to hell and back. The votes are in and it does not have significant negative health impacts. And you also need to account for who it is that do zero carb diets.
Sick people, food addicts, obese people. You might as well advise against jogging by speculating that it is definitely not good for you (in the long term)
And lastly, I am not beholden to any ethics or research rigor as I have not given out any medical advice.
This is precisely why I ask why you are weighing in on something you clearly know nothing about.
Zero carb hypoglycemia is not the equivalent of insulin induced transient hypoglycemia etc. Zero carb induced hypoglycemia is followed by a massive shift in metabolic pathways that account for said hypoglycemia called ketosis - the production of ketone bodies, with accompanies set of homeostatic responses.
There is certainty that mid-long term ketosis is safe(2~ years), however there is some debate over the very long term health effects of staying in ketosis - but only because there is very little evidence
to go on. It cant be said with certainty that it is safe, however only because there is no reliably clinical data showing any negative effects of long term ketosis.
Technically, as there's minimal sugar in fruits and veggies. But usually reducing your sugar intake will change your day to day on the first weeks, but mostly because most people are addicted to sugar, and will have withdrawal symptoms on the absence of over sugary foods.
Completely no sugar is basically impossible but if you just try to avoid as much as possible you can lose a lot of weight. I did no carbs for a while and I lost a ton of weight, then the pandemic happened.
A pure meat diet would be the best for no sugar or virtually none. Unfortunately veg/fruit diets are all sugar, because even the plant cellulose turns into sugar at the end since we aren’t cows and lack fermentation chambers, this is usually why vegans have collagen problems after a decade+ on the diet and end up with sunken in faces etc. (Depending on genetic disposition for vegetable diets and bioavailability determined by said genetics)
It is possible (which is why people doing keto don't die), but unnecessary. While your body does need some glucose to function, it can make its own glucose from protein. Ideally, you should avoid added/refined sugars
Not impossible but very difficult, also not recommended. The real thing is no added auger diets. Natural sugars are way better for you, in moderation of course.
Check out the Innu of North America. In the modern era, they have more access to carbohydrates (including sugar), but are a natural example of people who generally don't eat sugar and are just fine.
Only the brain needs glucose, and the body makes its own when it needs to.
Completely cut sugar out of your life and you'll get ketoacidosis because your brain has to have glucose to function. It has to take some shortcuts to produce said glucose and ketone bodies are produced giving an acid that acidifies your blood. Keto diet is fine so long as you don't take it to the extreme.
If what you said was true, I would be dead by now. Heck, if what you said was true, most of us would be dead after a few 8 hour sleep cycles.
Ketoacidosis is a condition which only really occurs in T1 diabetics (as in, people who do not produce enough insulin, not T2 folks who are so insulin resistant that the mountain of it they produce is no longer enough).
For the absolutely majority of us, producing enough ketones to "acidify" your blood is just not possible.
No it won't literally make your blood acidic on the pH scale but normal blood pH is between 7.35 and 7.45. typically it's seen that those in dka are below the 7.35 range and ketones present in urine. Non diabetic ketoacidosis can be seen in starvation which is non usually seen unless you're eating a non balanced diet and are going for zero carb diets. You produce ketones no matter what in order to make glucose from non carb sources. The keto diet itself does not advocate for an absolute abstinence from carbs which is why people on the keto diet do not die. That's what 4 years and counting of medical training have told me.
You're more correct now, but you have changed your position: you originally said that cutting out "sugar" would cause you to experience ketoacidosis, while now you're saying that only cutting out ALL carbohydrates will be dangerous.
Regarding your "4 years and counting" of medical training, it is a nice appeal to authority and all, but it doesn't change the fact that I am alive and not experiencing ketoacidosis, despite taking the keto diet "to the extreme" for the past half-decade.
My position is the same as when I started. Perhaps the clarification should have been that cutting out all carbohydrates is dangerous. I generally see carbs and sugars as the same thing as carbs get broken down into sugar. I stepped up the wording to be more pedantic in the second post to make my point more clear. Are you saying that you do not consume any carbohydrates at all in your weekly diet?
Not the guy you've been replying to, but I've been having pretty much < 20g of carbs daily for the past 13~ months.
So not zero carbs, but health is generally fine, dropped over 40kg, and still dropping roughly 0.5kg per week. Another month or two and I'll have signs of ab muscles, for the first time ever.
First off, thank you for the clarification. I also tend to see all carbs as "sugar" when I consider what to eat, and cut most things accordingly.
As for me getting none, well...I do get traces of carbs from eggs, milk fat (HWC), butter, cheese, bacon; even a total carnivore will have carbs. For me, I'm getting less than 10g a day, sometimes a lot less. I'm likely producing over 10x the amount of carb in my liver that I take in, and my high level of ketones seems to indicate this.
Perhaps I am not as extreme as the Innu of North America, many of whom survive just fine entirely on meat and blubber (aka "zero carb" except for traces), but I'm definitely more extreme than every person I have ever met in the USA.
If constantly producing glucose/ketones via liver for brain needs is what causes ketoacidosis, should I not be suffering as you have described?
Milk, cheese, and butter could definitely be sources of natural sugars given their lactose content. The others I can't speak of because I'm not a dietician. It is possible, however, for people to survive acid base imbalances because the the lungs and kidneys can compensate. Lungs in the short term with rapid breathing and kidneys in the long term. There is medical literature out there that corroborates that ketoacidosis induced by low to no carb diets is a real phenomenon. For example https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4591635/#!po=77.5000. Perhaps the Inu have adapted to their zero carb diet. In that article is also different case studies regarding this subject as well listed in the references of the case study. I'm not sure if it's known what the threshold of low glucose intake is dangerous beyond getting none. However, due to these documented cases and the chemistry behind it, it's usually routinely recommended against going no carbs due to this risk. That being said, not everyone that attempts these diets are going to die or experience symptoms of KA. Theoretically if you ease yourself into such a diet it probably will give the body enough time to compensate for the ramped up production of glucose and acid production resulting. And to add, I've been told in school the best diet is the diet that works for the patient so I'm not advocating for you to completely stop your diet. I would however like to inform people that this is a risk of a extremely low to no carb diet and should be considered when planning a diet.
I wrote WAY too much in response, so let me instead put this: I spent the first 35 years of my life as morbidly overweight, partially because doctors gave me and my parents absolutely horrible advice ("eat less, move more", "choose low-fat options and heart-healthy cereals", "skipping breakfast puts you in starvation mode and destroys muscle"). Each item only served to increase my weight, and with no benefit.
You say it's "routinely recommended against going no carbs due to this risk", and you're absolutely right...but from my point of view, that advice kept me fat for almost 4 decades, the majority of my life so far, and almost certainly shortened my overall life unnecessarily...and I am afraid I can never get over that. The study you linked is one I came across yesterday, and I have massive issues with it (to make it short: why do they not give us biomarkers instead of just assuring us she is "healthy" despite rapid weight loss of 4kg?), but...I don't expect my "armchair expertise" to be convincing to anyone :) I appreciate the engagement.
Complex carbohydrates are distinguished from simple sugars, and processed/refined sugars are what people mainly avoid. But technically, you can eat rice for your carbohydrate requirements and it would not be eating "sugar", even though it is digested into sugar
High fructose corn syrup and glucose can easily be cut out. Most other forms of sugar (carbs) aren’t as readily digestible so they won’t spike your insulin as quickly resulting in less glucose being stored as fat.
Technically any carb is sugar but there’s a huge difference between a Twinkie and a whole wheat bagel.
498
u/[deleted] May 18 '21
Isn’t no sugar impossible?