Why I think a diet of 55-65 % carbohydrate doesn't make sense - What do you all think?
I know it is me again. But I have a serious problem that to me is blatently obvious and yet it seems to be the opposite of how most people eat and also diametrically opposed to what is recommended by gov't health officials and most medical professionals. Here is a quote from my last post on http://www.three2treat.com
I asked a brand new, wet behind the ears Resident or Family Doc in Training how much education he received in the area of nutrition during his medical degree. His response was, "Hardly Any"
Hmmmmm. So I decided to pull a Medical Physiology Textbook written by Guyton from the shelf to have a look at what these doctors review in terms of Insulin Metabolism, and the storage of Macronutriants, like Carbohydrate, Protein, and fat. Thinking, there must be a profound reason we are offering the general public a guideline to consume a diet that contains 65% carbohydrate. So I flip it to the pertinent section. And read the following:
"In time, the insulin plays an important role in storing the excess energy substances. In the case of excess carbohydrate, it causes these to be stored as glycogen mainly in the liver and muscles. It causes fat storage in the adipose tissue. Also, all the excess carbohydrate that cannot be stored as glycogen are converted under the stimulus of insulin into fats also stored in the adipose tissue"
Okay, so they are taught in medical physiology that insulin is the main stimulus for fat storage. So I ask myself, what causes increased levels of insulin in the human body?
Source:
Textbook of Medical Physiology, Guyton, Arthur C.8th Edition, WB Saunders Company, 1991. pp. 858-859.
I asked a brand new, wet behind the ears Resident or Family Doc in Training how much education he received in the area of nutrition during his medical degree. His response was, "Hardly Any"
Hmmmmm. So I decided to pull a Medical Physiology Textbook written by Guyton from the shelf to have a look at what these doctors review in terms of Insulin Metabolism, and the storage of Macronutriants, like Carbohydrate, Protein, and fat. Thinking, there must be a profound reason we are offering the general public a guideline to consume a diet that contains 65% carbohydrate. So I flip it to the pertinent section. And read the following:
"In time, the insulin plays an important role in storing the excess energy substances. In the case of excess carbohydrate, it causes these to be stored as glycogen mainly in the liver and muscles. It causes fat storage in the adipose tissue. Also, all the excess carbohydrate that cannot be stored as glycogen are converted under the stimulus of insulin into fats also stored in the adipose tissue"
Okay, so they are taught in medical physiology that insulin is the main stimulus for fat storage. So I ask myself, what causes increased levels of insulin in the human body?
Source:
Textbook of Medical Physiology, Guyton, Arthur C.8th Edition, WB Saunders Company, 1991. pp. 858-859.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by acidrock23 on -
The BG is what I have noticed too, in fact the "whole grainier" stuff seems to be somewhat more challenging as it seems to deploy more slowly, etc. Both for the purposes of that study and our own purposes, I have to wonder if there are other filters @ work which, since "food scientists" don't work w/ medical doctors, or perhaps vice versa, we are unlikely to learn about?
-
Permalink Reply by Brian (bsc) on -
I find all this argument really bizarre. After all, if we go right to the sources of the carb recommendations, the basic foundation of the ADA and USDA recommendations references the Dietary Reference Intakes (DRIs) as assessed by the Institute of Medicine. You can get the report, it is free. The basic finding? An average carb requirements to get 100 grams of carbs and the recommended "allowance" (you don't need more than this) of carbs is 130 grams. There is no listing of adequate intake, the IOM recognizes that carbs are not a necessary nutritient. This is the science that the USDA recommendations are based on, from there the process goes downhill into confusion and corruption and then end result, a recommendation that we should eat 45-65% of calories from carbs. For convenience, I've included the table or DRI recommendations below.
-
Permalink Reply by Jason Sandeman on -
Exactly. Follow the money. The ADA has some good recommendations here and there, but then you start to see conflicting evidence once you actually look things up. As for why the NYT would suggest an ADA diet over a LC one? Who knows what pseudo-science is being touted there.
-
Permalink Reply by Trev on -
This is interesting, just one example, that perhaps looking at what prevents over eating, and blood glucose control is a wise thing to do, as this study on paleolithic nutrition suggests.Study
-
Permalink Reply by Brian (bsc) on
-
Well, you do realize that these are all published in the Nutrition and Metabolism journal. This society is certainly low-carb friendly and one must realize some of the authors may have have accepted some funding by the Atkins Foundation mega corporation. Since it's founding, there has been a stready stream of very positive studies in this journal. However, you won't historically find such a warm reception in mainstream journals, Lancet, JAMA, Annals of Inter Med. Hmmmm, I wonder why.
-
Permalink Reply by Trev on
-
Yup, I am aware, just bored at work. Mainstream isn't receptive at all to Low CHO diets. The shear number of papers proving the smae thing must count for something.
-
Permalink Reply by Jan on
-
Well, when she walks a mile or more a day with friends, she ends up having to reduce basals, eat carbs during the walk and we end up reducing basals and still pouring carbs into her during the night.. So carb consumption is very definitely tied to exercise. In general, she has a lower carb breakfast, 35 grams, 50 gram lunch and 60 to 70 gram dinner, is very thin and can have a snack of 20 to 30 grams, easy, as well as all the carbs she has to eat to cover exercise. That is not low carb by low carb diet standards, She is 14 now. I would say as an adult, limiting carbs if you don't get a lot of exercise might be a good idea. But I am unclear as to how much you can/should limit carbs. 150 a day? 120 a day? 60 a day? I would be inclined to get more exercise so I can eat. Exercise can and does stabilize the blood sugars for the day, at least for our Type 1
-
Permalink Reply by Natalie ._c- on -
There is also the fact that she is a growing young woman, and their nutrition and energy needs are different from us adults who have started to go down the other side of the hill. Everything I have read about low-carb ONLY talks about adults, so I would be extremely hesitant to try it with a child. It's just not worth taking the risk. When she is fully mature, she can think about what makes sense to her, and what she wants to do (and I agree, exercise DOES decrease insulin needs, and CAN cause hypos without glucose being immediately available!). But right now, I think you're doing the right thing. The most important thing is BG control, which is REALLY hard in adolescents!
So even though we adults are really interested in low-carb, or at least limited-carb, what we're saying really doesn't apply to your dear one.
-
Permalink Reply by acidrock23 on
-
I'm still not sure where the 'tipping point" is, in that the "sources" seem to vary on how many carbs exactly "qualify" for low carb. 100 is like 3x what a lot of people are eating but, at the same time, it's not a vast amount of food compared to the "typical" "food pyramid buffet" type of eating either. I eat more than 100 but usually don't go too much over 150, even when I feel like I'm going bonkers pigging out and it seems to do ok, both in terms of energy and in terms of weight. The A1C is doing ok, although I suspect it will go up due to the "sturm und drang" of pump #1 blowing up and being replaced within the magic window.
When I eat less carbs (breakfast and lunch), the big advantage for me is that it's much easier and requires less work to keep things flowing smoothly. I would think that would be *very* appealing to just about anyone with diabetes and may even have some marketing potential with a teenager. Slack is very useful.
Advertisement
REsources
Groups
From the Diabetes Hands Foundation blog...
Congratulations Diabetes Advocates Scholarship Recipients!
The Diabetes Hands Foundation and Diabetes Advocates Program is proud to announce and congratulate the members of DA who were granted scholarships to attend diabetes conferences in 2013! Thanks to a generous grant from Novo Nordisk, in 2013 we were …Continue Reading
La Familia de EsTuDiabetes Sigue Creciendo
El Centro Nacional de Prevención de Enfermedades Crónicas y Promoción de la Salud en el Estados Unidos encontró que a partir de 2002-2009, el 11,8% de los hispanos mayores de 20 años, que viven en los EU, viven con diabetes …Continue Reading
TuDiabetes Team
DHF STAFF
 Manny Hernandez(Co-Founder, Editor, has LADA)
|
DHF VOLUNTEERS
Lead Administrator
 Bradford (has type 1) |
Administrators
 Lorraine (mother of type 1) |
 Marie B (has type 1) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
LIKE us on Facebook
Spread the word
This site complies with the HONcode standard for trustworthy health information: verify here.
© 2013 A community of people touched by diabetes, run by the Diabetes Hands Foundation.
