Yes, I am, "lol". We have plenty of historical/anthropological evidence and anecdotes of people going years and decades without carbohydrates with zero issues. The reason is simple. Your body makes all of its own glucose. It does not require exogenous glucose at all. It is true though that the body makes a lot of things like creatine or cholesterol yet the body also benefits from exogenous intake for these things as has been
shown in the literature with creatine, for example. But this is not seemingly true at all for sugar. In fact, any amount of it in the diet is low-grade toxic to some extent and will low level damage various organs and age you faster:
Humans only truly
need exogenous sugar between the ages of 1-3 when they're supposed to ideally be taking in their mother's breast milk as it helps stimulate growth at this stage of life. Totally unnecessary and arguably detrimental outside of these stages of life as the doctor above who's worked with actual patients for many years illustrates.
Humans only ever consumed things like fruits and tubers as supplementary foods or for the taste in the case of fruits as they're adapted to play on animals' taste buds to spread their seeds. Never as the basis of their diet. But if you insist on exogenous sugar then at least stick to Glucose (milk, white rice, bread etc). That will just stimulate
the randle cycle when mixed with fat and make you just a little more chunky after a good chunk of it goes to your muscle glycogen stores whereas fructose is really just poison your body mostly sends to your viscera (organs) as it can't really store it much elsewhere which is a quick way to age and damage yourself, age your organs and if the sugar is high enough, mixed with enough fat and processed enough; a surefire path to type 2 diabetes:
Studies in animals have documented that, compared with glucose, dietary fructose induces dyslipidemia and insulin resistance. To assess the relative effects of these dietary sugars during sustained consumption in humans, overweight and obese subjects consumed glucose- or fructose-sweetened...
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
It's a cheap and easy energy source but not necessary and does more harm than good long-term. You're better off eating a high protein and high fat diet. Not this "Keto" nonsense, though. No paleolithic ancestor was eating "moderate to low protein and high fat" and being in high-grade ketosis all the time is not healthy for things like thyroid function which is why a lot of these keto guys see some hormones dip over time.
High protein with high fat will keep you at low-grade ketosis and probably push you out of ketosis at times through gluconeogenesis which is basically how our ancient ancestors were. There's a reason the Inuit have a mutation that makes it harder for them to get into ketosis. It is not a good thing to be ketogenic all the time.
Nah, saxiib. Every single vitamin required by the human body is available in animal tissues and animal foods as a whole and is more bioavailable in them to boot. Yes, even vitamin C. High carb diets actually hike up the need for vitamin C though I forgot why this is biochemically. When you're very low-carb your needs become quite low and even a simple steak will contain the few milligrams required hence why none of these carnivore dieters get scurvy. But if you really want to cover your bases then organs like liver carry absurd amounts of vitamin C and are superior to most multivitamins on the market by far.