Here is a picture of a cat
I hope this helps even things out.
Best
Dillinger
The cat looks quite brainy, maybe it can join the Eggheads team. As team captain.
Sent from the Diabetes Forum App
I think, according to the current dietary guidelines 150g+ is medium, anything less than 150g is "low". And to be honest, I think that 150g is about the upper threshold for some diabetics (although most need much less). There is a good physiological reason for that - a moderately active person burns about 160g a day of glucose,
if you eat much more than that it gets converted to fat via gluconeogenesis.
and only when it is in excess to the amount that can be stored as glycogen via glycogenesis. It's 'expensive' to convert carbohydrates to fat and the 'path' less travelled in humans. http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/74/6/707.full
What happens then if you train your brain to run mostly on ketones instead of mostly on carbs?
Which cells lack mitochondria, and do those cells require only glucose, or can some of them run on ketones or fatty acids or lactate etc?In ketosis the production of ketone bodies only occurs if there isn't sufficient glucose for the nervous system. This includes that from GNG pathways as well as diet.
Even then the brain can use compounds such as lactate and butanoate. The issue is that the molecules in question need to be small enough to traverse the blood/brain barrier rather than mitochondria on neurons being "fussy".
The only cells which actually need sugars are those which lack mitochondria. (Quite a few cell types actually prefer fatty acids over glucose anyway. But they'll "do their bit" for the whole organism if there is a lot of glucose present in the blood.)
I read that in the low carbo paleo diet, if one was to follow it like our ancestor ewe would be eating very lean meats and insects / grubs etc but more important over 100g of fiber a day.
The fibre element is I think very important. Forty years ago a low carb diet was the norm for diabetes
.It was the hypothesis that fibre intake was a major element in preventing/ ameoliorating diabetes that led to many studies pitting low carb (the 'normal' diet ) against higher carb. These diets were high carb but included between 50 and 90g fibre per day. It was these trials that led to present guidelines. ( these diets did not contain large amounts of refined starches, certainly not some of those foods often advised)
I've linked before to Jim Mann's recent Easd lecture where he discusses this. I also found this recently. It's an old paper , I can't find a date (probably 1980s, definitely not politically correct ! ). In it Prof Mann describes the background against why people started to investigate high carb/fibre diets and some of the results. (impossible to follow up references as the papers mostly aren't online ). http://apjcn.nhri.org.tw/server/markwpapers/mark_books/Downloads/RECENT ADVANCES IN CLINICAL NUTRITION/Diabetes mellitus.pdf
That makes sense.
I'm still not sold on this glycerin burning thing. Particularly on a hypocaloric diet, you need that glycerin group to pull the next trigylceride out of adipose tissue, as a transporter. If you burn your transporter, you need to come up with another glucose molecule to build another glycerol transporter to get the fatty acids out of the adipose cell to burn.
Which cells lack mitochondria, and do those cells require only glucose, or can some of them run on ketones or fatty acids or lactate etc?
lol that cat looks miserableHere is a picture of a cat
I hope this helps even things out.
Best
Dillinger
160g of glucose would actually equate to around 144g of amylose or amylopectin.
Just because the human body can use glucose in this kind of quantity dosn't mean it actually needs this much glucose.
Cat is looking sad because of the normally infallible Borofergie's 'glucose to fat by gluconeogenesis' schoolboy error...
If I ate the cat would that fit better into a LCHF diet or a MCHF diet? I'm sure I would end up in Catogenisis