New Trial: LCHF vs "Medium Carb Low Fat". Who Wins?

[andcol]

I am a little shocked. I do not see 150g+ of carbs as medium...
To me I would say the 90g carb I did was medium. If I was eating 150g+ I would still be a fat blob. That is what I am eating now to slow my weight loss down to a "manageable" rate (1 to 2 lb per week when exercising).

I wonder how many of those on there "portion" control cheated. The low caarb group didnt have to because they could eat whatever they wanted to as log as it was no carb so would have been much fuller.

 

[Bluetit1802]

I thought the rules for the "medium carb" group were a bit odd. 45%-50% carbs plus low fat means an awful lot of protein.

 

[Spiker]

And I believe the medium carb group voluntarily ate a lower amount of carbs than their limit?

Sent from the Diabetes Forum App

 

[borofergie]

I am a little shocked. I do not see 150g+ of carbs as medium...
To me I would say the 90g carb I did was medium. If I was eating 150g+ I would still be a fat blob. That is what I am eating now to slow my weight loss down to a "manageable" rate (1 to 2 lb per week when exercising).

I wonder how many of those on there "portion" control cheated. The low caarb group didnt have to because they could eat whatever they wanted to as log as it was no carb so would have been much fuller.

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.

 

[Dillinger]

if you eat much more than that it gets converted to fat via gluconeogenesis.

See me after class.

 

[Bluetit1802]

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.

I believe the carb guidelines are:

130g - 225g Moderate
under 130g Low
under 30g Very low

 

[mo1905]

I believe the carb guidelines are:

130g - 225g Moderate
under 130g Low
under 30g Very low

I never knew there were actual guidelines. This makes things a little easier to explain now. Where did you get these numbers from ? Thanks, Mo

 

[Bluetit1802]

I never knew there were actual guidelines. This makes things a little easier to explain now. Where did you get these numbers from ? Thanks, Mo

It is from the Diabetes UK website, http://www.diabetes.org.uk/About_us...ydrate-diets-for-people-with-Type-2-diabetes/

 

[borofergie]

I thought the rules for the "medium carb" group were a bit odd. 45%-50% carbs plus low fat means an awful lot of protein.

Not really - the MCCR group ate less protein and less fat: mainly because they ate 300kcal less per day.

It's difficult to eat too much of anything on 1400kcal per day (that's why macro ratios are sometimes misleading).

 

[Kat100]

Rules....noooooo I don't follow rules x

 

[CollieBoy]

Ia moderately active person burns about 160g a day of glucose, if you eat much more than that it gets converted to fat via gluconeogenesis.

Yes, It can be converted to fat, but it is alredy a glyceride, so not gluconeogenesis,but lipogenesis

 

[borofergie]

Yes, It can be converted to fat, but it is alredy a glyceride, so not gluconeogenesis,but lipogenesis

Yes. I meant denovolipogenesis. Doh!

 

[phoenix]

Yes, It can be converted to fat, but it is alredy a glyceride, so not gluconeogenesis,but lipogenesis

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

 

[borofergie]

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

Yup. That's what I said - when your liver is full the excess gets turned into to fat. Which is the basis of Roy Taylors argument in the video in this thread:
http://www.diabetes.co.uk/forum/threads/reversing-diabetes-online-summit.55275/
http://www.fend-lectures.org/index.php?menu=view&id=94

According to Prof Taylor this is the principal root cause of T2D. I don't think that he would agree that it is "less travelled" (although it depends of less travelled than what).

Your liver is like a bucket, if you consistently eat more glycogen than you burn, eventually it will overflow. I like to keep my bucket empty.

 

[borofergie]

Here are the exact words that Roy Taylor uses in the video:

If the body takes in more glucose (or carbohydrate) than it can handle in 24 hours, there is only so much that can be stored for glycogen, only so much that can be used as energy, and there is only one thing that the body can do with the excess: only in the liver can the body deal with that excess, and there is only one pathway, and that is the glucose is turned, by the process of lipogenesis, into fat. It's just a fact of biochemistry that fat made through this pathway is more likely to end up staying in the liver.

He then goes on to show how this is the fundamental cause of insulin insensitivity.

If anyone wants to see the calculations for why this happens above 160g of carb a day (for non athletes) I can dig them out.

 

[CollieBoy]

If anyone wants to see the calculations for why this happens above 160g of carb a day (for non athletes) I can dig them out.

Yes Please!

p.s. can we have a smiley with a brown nose?

 

[Spiker]

If anyone wants to see the calculations for why this happens above 160g of carb a day (for non athletes) I can dig them out.[/QUOTE
/
Surely that 160gch/day has got to be normalised for body weight? It's going to be pretty much linear with body weight, surely?

 

[borofergie]

Surely that 160gch/day has got to be normalised for body weight? It's going to be pretty much linear with body weight, surely?

No, because most of it (125g) goes directly to your brain, which is more constant for everyone.

 

[Spiker]

No, because most of it (125g) goes directly to your brain, which is more constant for everyone.

Oh ok, cool.

What happens then if you train your brain to run mostly on ketones instead of mostly on carbs?

 

[runner2009]

I am a little shocked. I do not see 150g+ of carbs as medium...
To me I would say the 90g carb I did was medium. If I was eating 150g+ I would still be a fat blob. That is what I am eating now to slow my weight loss down to a "manageable" rate (1 to 2 lb per week when exercising).

I wonder how many of those on there "portion" control cheated. The low caarb group didnt have to because they could eat whatever they wanted to as log as it was no carb so would have been much fuller.

I am wondering about the term(s) low carbohydrate and medium carbohydrate diet. I think there is one more component to track and that is the amount of fiber. I am not talking about the net carbohydrate calculation, but correlating the total carbs with total fiber.

In experimenting with my food intake if I chart that I want to eat >50g of fiber a day my carbohydrate intake is dramatically different than say even <25g. My nutritional values also go through the roof - not taking any fiber supplements.

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.

Just a thought




Sent from Runner2009 Burt