To not understand why my healthy (I think) way of eating isn't making me feel energetic and fabulous

But you were eating carbs. Just not the average amount

You quoted, and I suspect you'll agree this fluctuates day to day, 66g of carbs

Thats lower carb.

What was the weight of the items you quoted that are protein based?

As for pointing out my 'questionable logic', feel free to question. It's how we identify gaps in our knowledge. Hopefully, I can address them.

If myfitnesspal says I need 1400 calories and I am losing weight on 1600, what could be wrong? Well, my fitnesspal could be. It almost certainly IS because how much energy anyone needs is way more complex than that. But it's the best we have, so we'll have to go with it. (I am very short and pretty slight).

But I wasn't eating carbs. That changes your metabolism. It fundamentally changes how your body processes calories and what it does with them. I also uses more of them. I will (obviously) happily expand on that, but I want to deal with your other points first, because they are very good points.

I'm talking about low carb diets in the past tense because I am not doing it now. I'd prefer to be and I genuinely believe it is healthier and better for everyone, and it DEFINITELY is for me. But it is HARD. You have to cook every bloody thing yourself, from scratch. It's inconvenient. You can't eat out. You can't buy a meal deal. You pretty much have to eat at home. You have to THINK so much about food. And you can't eat much that's easy. The fridge is always too full because everything is fresh and you have to lug more shopping home. It's also expensive. I'm not saying this is an option open to everyone. And that's a problem. A political one.

Of course I know that my personal experience is not data. BUT people are saying, repeatedly 'you need carbs for energy'. 'complex carbs stop sugar crashes' low carb diets lack'. There's no study to cite to say you don't. So I've used myself as an example. I don't think there will be any studies - there are massive barriers to them. Not least there is no profit in vegetables. Who is going to fund sizeable, quality studies? You can't blind the participants - we know what we're eating! But I wanted to show in a real way that it's not 'massive slabs of meat' or consitpating. Or swimming in fat. That it actually doesn't look as radically subversive as people think. To show what I am actually suggesting she try and that it's not 'dangerous advice' And, the (poor!) OP asked how she could feel more energetic. Which is subjective. And I think that's how.

This conversation is giving me a stomach ache

takealettermsjones I am not 'vastly more intelligent' than anyone, and I certainly don't pretend to be. I'm not flexing, Im trying to establish credibility, because I'm fully aware this not a usual view. I KNOW a lot about carbs. A lot more than most people. That's not a flex. I should probably have a more interesting life and a more balanced interests! But is does mean I'm not just trotting out something I read in the Daily Mail. Why should I not be passionate about it? How should I come across? I this argument is factually correct, so how should I respond when people say 'are you the one with those insane carb theories' or 'you don't know a complex carb from a Kit Kat' and many people won't read the full thread, so I need to prove again and again that I don't mean Kit Kats.

A question first. Tell me why your body needs carbs. Not calories - carbs specifically. What do they add to a diet, nutritionally or physiologically that taking them out would mean is a problem?

There is loads to unpack there, you're right. To respond to the points you chose....

Firstly, this isn't advice. It's information for people make decisions. It's GOOD information. I don't think I've ever said 'don't eat carbs' I've said 'carbs are bad and have nothing you need'.

You are equating a food GROUP with a single FOOD. You can't compare an egg to carbs. You need to compare and carbs to protein. (Or eggs to wheat-flour). And the 'so what' is....Does it make a difference to how the protein is digested and the nutrients extracted if you 'refine' the egg by removing the shell and cooking it? No. Does it make a difference to how the carbohydrate is digested and the nutrients extracted if you husk/hull/mill flour and cook it? YES!

You need the fibre or you get too much glucose hitting the system too fast, and your body is struggling to process it.. Because it's not a naturally-occurring food GROUP. Priotein IS. Fat IS. Vegetables (sort of) ARE. It's not a nutrient our bodies are physiologically evolved to metabolise in the form and quantities we ingest it. And it's causing us harm. Complex carbs have fibre, which helps to slow down glucose release into the bloodstream, so complex carbs are less stress for your body. But 'less bad' doesn't mean 'good' If you don't HAVE the glucose, which you don't need and aren't equipped to process in those quantities, you need the fibre to release a harmful substance into your blood more slowly so that you can process that harmful substance and get it out of your system somewhere safe.

But why aim to release a harmful substance slowly. Why not...not eat it? We are all approaching this backwards by trying to mitigate the significant problems of processing a nutrient we could just....not eat. I'm not using the 'it's not natural' argument as a philosophy or a woo-woo lifestyle choice. I am arguing that our bodies are not physiologically evolved to derive energy from a diet where carbs form a large percentage of the calories, and it's creating problems when we do. It is a scientific argument based on biological facts. Why eat them? WHY? When other calories are available (there are actually reasons. They just aren't physiological)

So I stand by my statement that 'carbs have nothing you need'. They don't. I can't edit it, but I've expanded more than enough. I don't know how to say not more accurately in a format anyone would bother to read. There is no physiological advantage TO eat carbs versus other food. And a lot of problems. That's not ridiculous or bizarre. It's not a silly argument unless you reduce it to 'eat like a caveman'. And I'm not. I'm saying carbs are food we are really ill equipped to digest, and struggling to digest it is causing us big problems and making us ill.

Nobody is asking

'why is glucose in the blood so bad?'

'Why do we need to get it out of our bloodstream fast'?

'How do we get it out of our bloodstream fast?'
'Where does they go?'
'If we don't have carbs, what do we use for energy'?

And those are really important questions.

It sounds broadly healthy.
Smoothie is the only thing that rang a bell because of the thing about eating solid food rather than blended (???), but if that feels better to you than eggs, porridge etc, then it's not exactly terrible like some people seem to think!

I would think about what you eat over a week as much as in a day. Make sure you mix it up a bit day to day, different fruits, veg, protein sources etc. Add seeds and nuts where they work, e.g. a handful of pumpkin seeds to a salad. Make sure your quantities are enough especially if you are active. Make sure your iron levels are normal esp given you are pescatarian and also if you are active. Mine are sometimes on the low side so i supplement with spatone.
And make sure you're hydrated. I sometimes eat two breakfasts, porridge and fruit first thing as that works for me, then scrambled egg, sourdough and avocado/tomatoes mid morning. Light lunch (soup / small portion of dinner leftovers) or snack, then dinner with salmon or a vegetarian/vegan recipe. Riverford have some excellent menu boxes so I make those a couple of times a week to make sure I'm eating a wide range of vegetables. And they are really tasty.

Have you looked at hormones at all? I felt quite a bit better and less fatigued when I got a (private) testosterone prescription.

But yes as some others have said, keep an eye on the whole picture- exercise but not to excess, stay hydrated, chase good quality sleep etc. The best I've ever felt was when looking at the Whole30 diet but it isn't super pescatarian friendly- but in terms of how your plate looks with loads of veg, unprocessed protein sources and fats (nuts, seeds, good olive oil, avocadoes etc). Felt great on that but it costs a fortune and is quite hard to follow if you don't eat meat!

What on earth does 'natural' mean in your context, guestsareinvited? Even leaving aside the fact that plenty of 'natural' plants are poisonous to humans, what in our food chain today is 'natural' by your strange definition?

Sure, grains have been developed by centuries of agriculture but so have all the fruits and vegetables we eat today. You know of course that apples today are nothing like Stone Age wild apples, and carrots are very different, and cultivated strawberries are dissimilar to wild strawberries and so on and so on.

The animals we eat today are nothing like Stone Age animals either - even if you buy organic grassfed beef and higher welfare pork. Pigs are not wild hogs, cows are not the bony cattle that were originally domesticated by our ancestors. They've all been bred to human specifications, just like grain.

You have to process olives to eat olive oil, just like you have to process wheat to eat it. As others have pointed out, you also have to cook or soften lots of vegetables and some fruits to make them edible and safe.

I don't think there was some ideal pre-lapsarian age of Food that Humans Were Supposed to Eat as you seem to. Humans have always been moving, adapting, improvising, domesticating, farming.

What was the weight of the ricotta in your omelette and the weight of your steak and the weight of your cheese portion and the weight of your cashew nuts then?

I didn't say that.

Because you seem to think brown rice and kit Kats are both processed. 🤷‍♀️ one of them is, one is ultra processed.

What makes you think I don't understand the difference?

@takealettermsjones have you read “ultra processed people”? It might help you better understand the difference between processed food and ultra Processed food.

Very science degree, much knowledge

Yes I was under the impression that fibre is really important for all those reasons.

Maybe make an appointment to see a dietician. They can be very helpful.

The difference between complex carbs and simple ones is largely fibre, but not a lot. And yes fibre is a good thing in itself, but mostly to mitigate the bad carbyness.

Fibre, soluble and insoluble, is an essential part of a healthy diet for many reasons - including reducing cancer risk, impact on cholesterol levels, reduced risk of diverticulitis, increased beneficial gut bacterium, likely beneficial impact on heart disease, reducing inflammation, reducing diabetes risk etc. It's nonsense to suggest that's it's mostly to mitigate against the 'bad carbyness' whatever that might be.

The avocado is missing an o.
Does that help? 😋

There is so much to unpack here, but the long and short of it is that you're still peddling potentially dangerous "advice" on the internet.

Firstly, nobody is misled about the grains point. You seem to think you are vastly more intelligent and informed than the rest of us, but please rest assured that everyone knows you are talking about grains and you're still way off.

"[carbs] have nothing you need".....that you can't get from other food groups...

Right. So your original statement was wrong? Will you edit it now, in case someone reads your incorrect diet "advice"?

You could also say this about many other foods. Mushrooms don't contain anything that you can't get from other food groups either. It's just a silly argument. Foods are building blocks to an overall diet.

Your whole shtick about whether something is natural or not is equally bizarre. Grains are plants. I don't know what your definition of natural is but the idea that something isn't natural if you have to husk it first is at best unusual and at worst ridiculous.

You can't chew on an ear of wheat.

So what? You can't chew on an egg with shell either, or a raw sweet potato, or a whole coconut, or a raw chicken breast. Again, silly argument. And it just shows how much kool aid is being drunk on the extreme fringes of the anti-UPF movement.

As for your personal anecdata - well, surely with your science degrees you can see that the experience of one person doesn't constitute robust evidence that can be repeated across a population, so again, you're completely out of order to start handing this out as "advice" on the internet.

Besides, I'll point out some of the ways in which your logic is questionable:

1. if My Fitness Pal says that your maintenance calories are 1400 but you were losing weight on 1600, then there's a flaw in the system somewhere;

2. if your maintenance calories are indeed 1400 then you are either shorter, slighter, or far more sedentary than most of the adult population, meaning that again, you shouldn't be trotting out your "advice" as though it would apply to everyone;

3. if you were so healthy and thriving on a low-carb diet, why are you speaking about it in the past tense?

It is just calories

Well no, as I stated upthread. But even so, calories aren't evil. They provide energy to do work, which most of us need.

You're coming across as a zealot.

positive and negative is being used in the same context as in the article, you can’t swap positive for good as TSH needs to be balanced - it’s detrimental and can be dangerous to move in either direction to excess.

I didn’t draw a straightforward conclusion, it’s not my research. What I’m suggesting is that your original statement that the opposite is true is not the case

So, firstly I have already clarified I meant grains, and not fruits and vegetables. (I've stopped thinking of them of carbs now). Even starchy ones like sweet potatoes. I realise that's mislead people. (I'm not even going to go there with sugar. I'd already assumed people know I don't mean Kit Kats!). I will also acknowledge that I stated the point flippantly, and that was unhelpful. It was intended to be brief and conversational.

I am talking about eating meat, vegetables (not potatoes) fats and dairy. I don't eat fruit myself. (Dairy is controversial, but I'm not giving it up and I don't care what the evidence says)

"[carbs] have nothing you need".....that you can't get from other food groups with less processing, in higher quantities, without a lot of carb.

They don't. Really. You NEED fat. You NEED protein. You NEED fibre. You NEED vitamins and minerals. If you cut them out you'll die. You don't NEED carbs themselves. You can derive energy from fat and protein. Yes, they have energy, and yes you CAN use the energy from them. But it's not necessary. You can derive what you need from protein, fat and fibre. And while they do have smaller quantities of other micro-nutrients, they are not the best sources of any of them. If you're eating vegetables instead of carbs, you're getting plenty of fibre. If you're eating red meat you're getting plenty of B vitamins and protein. And you're not getting carb as well. Which IS just joined up sugar. That your body breaks down into sugar. The carbs don't add anything else.

"[carbs] are not a natural food group" bearing in mind I am talking about grain. Not fruits and vegetables.

I've covered this quite a lot above. But they aren't, as we produce them now. If Stoneage man ate a mammoth, he got fat and protein in a pretty similar format to if we eat meat now. But you can't say the same about rice. Even if its brown. Let alone cornflakes. It didn't exist. You can't chew on an ear of wheat. Even if you cook it. But THAT didn't exist. It was just grass seed. That hairy stuff you see in grass fields. You'd spend a lifetime picking out the itty bitty grass seed, or chewing on hairy grass. And we aren't ruminants. We can't digest grass.

"all carbs are heavily processed"

Again, bearing in mind I'm talking about grain, not fruits and vegetables. And they are. They are all at least threshed, hulled, and milled. Even the brown stuff. Even Quinoa. And that's AFTER the agricultural point above. I've grown quinoa. I've actually processed it (it takes ages. Don't do it. It's a right pain) grains are very processed. Sure brown stuff is LESS processed. But its still not much like the stuff on the plant.

"grains ... really do have limited nutritional value"

The difference between complex carbs and simple ones is largely fibre, but not a lot. And yes fibre is a good thing in itself, but mostly to mitigate the bad carbyness. But if you don't have the bad carbyness you don't need to slow down glycemic load with fibre. Because you don't have the glycemic load. And they don't ADD anything to a diet that already contains enough fibre and vitamins from vegetables which don't have the carbs (in anything like the same quantities) and aren't processed (even a sweet potato or a squash. You can just bake them and eat them) and protein and fat from meat and dairy.

Carbs just don't do anything other foods don't do better, without the drawbacks.

A typical days food for me on low carb would have been

Breakfast: Two large coffees with full fat lactose free milk. I hate breakfast.

Brunch: 2 egg omelette with spinach and ricotta (11 ish)
Dinner: steak, mushrooms in butter, peas, onions in olive oil, steamed broccoli, courgettes, with garlic and herbs. (5ish)
snack - cheese and cashew nuts (10ish)
cocoa with full fat lactose free milk and no sugar.

I drank water and herbal tea. Occasionally had dark chocolate. I didn't eat any carb substitutes (except the lactose free milk). Sometimes I'd have soup for lunch as well, with cheese. or cooked veg with herb butter or oil ( I'm not really a salad fan)I was STUFFED.

That is 112g of protein. 84g of fat and 66g of carbs 15g fibre. I'm happy with that. It's not 'massive slabs of meat' just normal amounts. Plenty of veg. Fibre is fine for me. Yes, there is extra fat, but it's not swimming, and it's below my recommended cholesterol intake. And it's around 1600 calories - 200 more than my fitness pal reckons I need. It's actually really hard to overeat in terms of calories if you don't eat grains and sugar. You just can't put away enough food! Apparently this doesn't meet my iron (75%) or calcium (56%) RDAs. (There's two pints of milk in there! I don't know how accurate MFP is for micrinutrients though) Let's add these ESSENTIAL complex carbs and see if that fixes it....

A cup of brown rice adds 238 calories I don't need in the form of 46 grams of carbohydrate. 5g of protein I don't need. 1.98g of fat I don't need. 2g of fibre I don't need. no vitamin C, 2 percent of my calcium RDA, which isn't significant. 5 percent of my iron RDA, which isn't a game changer. Really why would I bother? It its just calories. And I had enough energy. I have never felt better. And DD didn't sleep through then.

I monitored my blood sugar. It was never low, because I have a functioning pancreas. (That is what it does. If you don't, you are diabetic). I wasn't tired. I didn't get carb flu. I had plenty of energy. I felt a damn sight better than I do now. My unmedicated thyroid wasn't noticeable (bloody is now!). I wasn't anemic. (am now). I lost weight (maybe a stone and a half) until I hit a healthy weight and then I didn't lose any more. Haven't gained it back. I don't have any bloods from the period (which is telling. Because I have bloods so often the surgery phlebotomist knows me by sight and has threatened to put a tap in!) But it actually was the last time I felt well. And that was new.

I know there's no clever citations. I mostly wanted to get the numbers down. I'll look some up tomorrow. If anyone wades through it all.

Admittedly the plain kallo ones aren’t upf but a lot of rice cakes are. That said, they’re not exactly nutritious or filling. I would consider sourdough and peanut butter (assuming this is just peanuts) to be a much healthier and more filling snack.

Because it's wasn't clear from the context if you were using positive meaning 'good' or meaning 'higher'. And those are not the same thing in the case of TSH, where it being raised is not good - as it's trying to push T3 up via T4 (which can't be used, and must be converted to T3). T3 isn't rising, though, or the feedback loop would maintain homeostatic balance and inhibit further TSH secretion. So TSH down and T3 up is the desirable outcome. They need to go in opposite directions. A mixed picture is the ideal, not the 'not straightforward' conclusion you drew. And not the conclusion the authors drew. I have only skimmed the full article though, so I may gave missed some of the nuance. (I'm a bit fed of thyroid at the moment. Mine is a pain in the neck and I'm tired! Hence why I asked for the citation)

🙃🙃 kallo plain rice crackers quite easy to buy...non upf but ok then.

So, this a good place to start. I don't have evidence for any of this. I'm not asking for to be just taken on faith. It's contextual background knowledge, not really citeable evidence. I DO habitually check and critique sources and I don't just believe anything I read, and I DO have a good knowledge base. But this isn't my job and I don't record and remember everything.

Grains come from heavily modified and intensely bred plants that do not grow in nature. They grow in agricultural monocultures and require intense inputs of fertiliser, herbicides and pesticides. These days they are pretty heavily genetically modified as well. They've been bred from natural plants, yes. But they are in no way natural.

They have been eaten for thousands of years. But that isn't really a long time in terms of human bodies and evolution. We are fundamentally stoneage people. And we have stoneage digestion and metabolism. We are not evolved to eat grain. Nothing is, because grains only occur sporadically in small quantities in nature. There is nothing natural about agriculture and it's evolutionarily recent. Ironically, that is one reason humans are so successful - because we can store grain and survive bad years and it's very transportable when dry. And that's what modern food industries exploit to make money from you and I via carbs.

Most of the reason why carbs are so popular and profitable is that they are non-perishable, easily packaged and transported. They are very convenient calories and easy to flavour. You cannot discount profit as a factor here.

Is she? I only see sourdough and brown rice, which is a complex carb with protein.

I have not even mentioned Kit Kats. I did not say that all carbohydrates are equally bad and there is nothing to distinguish between them. And I AM more qualified to weigh evidence. I have a science degree. That's the whole point of a science degree! (I also know that doctors have minimal, if any nutritional training, and that health degrees contain comparatively little science, because I have one of those as well. So I DO have and idea what I'm talking about. Certainly compared to anyone without those qualifications. You can't your mother's qualifications give your claims validity and discount mine). I am not reliant on second hand qualifications. I studied for my own.

And I have done low carb diet and it did make me feel MUCH better. The OP's question was how to have more energy. I had WAY more energy on low carb. this is my ACTUAL FIRSTHAND EXPERIENCE. It won't hurt her to try it for a month or two and see for herself, if she wants to. I do respect people asking for evidence, although they could be a lot more polite about it. (I'M not calling people 'insane') but I also have a life, and I don't have the time or the inclination to write a book from memory about something I studied in my free time five years ago. It's fair to be asked for sources, but not to expect someone to do all the work for you. I've already been told to google it, so I'm not feeling this is very reciprocal. I will come back over the next few days with more information, IF I feel people engage with good faith and time allows. Like I said, it's fair to ask. And I also acknowledge that I was pretty brief and flippant, and that's unhelpful.