The community largely maintains that carbohydrates are not essential nutrients for humans, arguing that the body can produce the necessary glucose from other sources, rendering a minimum dietary intake theoretically zero.

noli's read

The current scientific consensus, as defined by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (DRI reports), confirms that there is no strict minimum requirement for carbohydrates for survival, unlike essential fatty and amino acids, because the body practices gluconeogenesis. However, this lack of biological essentiality does not mean that a total absence of carbohydrates is optimal for all physiological functions. Evidence from observational studies and some randomized controlled trials (RCTs) indicates that while the body adapts well to ketosis (fat utilization), moderate consumption of complex carbohydrates is often associated with better anaerobic athletic performance and metabolic flexibility in highly active individuals. The debate on the forum is polarized between those who view the elimination of carbohydrates as a superior metabolic strategy and those who recognize that, although not essential, they remain an efficient fuel for certain cellular functions. The idea that a zero-gram intake is a universal recommendation is an exaggeration of the concept of nutritional essentiality, as it neglects the potential benefits of fiber (non-digestible carbohydrates) for digestive health and the microbiota, which are often absent from carbohydrate-free diets. The community is strongly aligned with the perspective that carbohydrates are not indispensable, reflecting a marked distrust of standard nutritional recommendations.

the sources

1. 1Gardner CD et al. (DIETFITS) 2018
2. 2Seidelmann SB et al. 2018
3. 3Hu T et al. 2012
4. 4r/ScientificNutrition