• Guest - w'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the 2025 Survey »

Sugar v Fat

IanD l am stuffed there as well.. ectopic beats and odd tachy going on (under investigation but looks like nothing wrong just me being me-weird) see told you l am weird :p
I live in my own little weird world!!!
 
douglas99 said:
You need glucose as energy for your brain.
Estimates are up to 120g a day.
It's ok to have a ketogenic diet, and feed the brain that way, but even then you still need some glucose, your body will convert amino acids from your bodies protein in the absence of anything else. About 25% of the energy for your brain should be/needs to be glucose.
I'd never go below the full 120g personally, without a very good reason.
Click to expand...

The absolute minimal physiological need for the brain is actually 30 g glucose and most of you do need to consume, the body (liver can produce this and ketones are actually better brain food) . Get your science right.
In addition I think there some comments about the program I fully agree with
http://healthinsightuk.org/2014/01/30/how-the-tv-bout-sugar-vs-fat-was-rigged/
http://www.drbriffa.com/2014/01/30/my-take-on-the-horizon-documentary-sugar-v-fat/
 
Hi,
In my opinion the program was rubbish, worst of all, any new diabetics will finish up with a higher hBa1c if they follow it implicitly.

The broadcasters are sadly searching for a sensational story line. I see Michael Mosely has been swallowing tape worms and put on weight as a result for his new program!
 
modesty007 said:
The absolute minimal physiological need for the brain is actually 30 g glucose and most of you do need to consume, the body (liver can produce this and ketones are actually better brain food) . Get your science right.
In addition I think there some comments about the program I fully agree with
http://healthinsightuk.org/2014/01/30/how-the-tv-bout-sugar-vs-fat-was-rigged/
http://www.drbriffa.com/2014/01/30/my-take-on-the-horizon-documentary-sugar-v-fat/
Click to expand...

I think possibly my science is better than yours maths.
As you so kindly quoted me.

"Estimates are up to 120g a day."
"About 25% of the energy for your brain should be/needs to be glucose."

that's 30g.
 
It' amazing that you can spin any experiment that doesn't agree with your ideas into a success (e.g. increase in OGTT result was because they didn't low carb long enough). But no, if reality disagrees with your kindergarten level understanding of biochemistry then obviously reality must be wrong.
 
modesty007 said:
The absolute minimal physiological need for the brain is actually 30 g glucose and most of you do need to consume, the body (liver can produce this and ketones are actually better brain food) . Get your science right.
Click to expand...

Although I am not an advocate of very low carb diets I do try to understand the basic physiology behind them. And I am confused when you say that "The absolute minimal physiological need for the brain is actually 30 g glucose and most of you do need to consume"


I always thought that the actual minimum glucose the brain requires is 120g/130g and that even if you are in a constant state of ketosis you’d still need around 30g of glucose while running on max ketones. Is it possible to convert 30g of glucose for brain food/energy from eating 30g of carbs?

Perhaps you can put my science right for me?
 
robert72 said:
I eat around 30g carbs a day, I'm not losing weight and (I believe) my brain still works quite well ;)
Click to expand...

I've been on the same amount as you for around 18 months and I'm still doing well and my thought processes feel sharper than ever without the brain fog I used to suffer with higher BG numbers:)
 
Well caught up with the Horizon programme last night.

I too was surprised with the OGTT and I think that the Dr twin on the LC diet got quite a shock too, the physical & mental tests were a cert and it was interesting what the Sky sport chap was saying about porridge..................being a porridge lover myself;)

I think what the Prof of nutrition was trying to say in the end was spot-on, eat healthy and avoid highly processed food high in both sugar & fat, can't remember her exact words but I think she was trying to say too much of one and not enough of another is damaging to health in the long-term.... which I'm sure the participating Dr's would agree with and one which I couldn't possibly disagree with..
 
douglas99 said:
I think possibly my science is better than yours maths.
As you so kindly quoted me.

"Estimates are up to 120g a day."
"About 25% of the energy for your brain should be/needs to be glucose."

that's 30g.
Click to expand...

Maybe your maths are good but your knowledge in physiology might not be. If your intake is less than 100 g glucose per 24 h, then the body start producing ketones which is excellent brain food (some agree it's actually better), for the essential level glucose the liver can produce by gluconeogensis the glucose is made from protein and fat (amino-acids & glycerol). So the essential carbohydrate intake is zero. Keeping the carbs really low brings you into nutritional ketosis (in most people ketosis happens over night) while some of us is constantly in optimal ketosis (and fat burning).
 
modesty007 said:
Maybe your maths are good but your knowledge in physiology might not be. If your intake is less than 100 g glucose per 24 h, then the body start producing ketones which is excellent brain food (some agree it's actually better), for the essential level glucose the liver can produce by gluconeogensis the glucose is made from protein and fat (amino-acids & glycerol). So the essential carbohydrate intake is zero. Keeping the carbs really low brings you into nutritional ketosis (in most people ketosis happens over night) while some of us is constantly in optimal ketosis (and fat burning).
Click to expand...

Mmm, tha'll be your reading skills then I'm afraid.
That's about exactly what I posted, so I can't really see why you're re-writing it.


"You need glucose as energy for your brain.
Estimates are up to 120g a day.
It's ok to have a ketogenic diet, and feed the brain that way, but even then you still need some glucose, your body will convert amino acids from your bodies protein in the absence of anything else. About 25% of the energy for your brain should be/needs to be glucose.
I'd never go below the full 120g personally, without a very good reason."
 
douglas99 said:
Mmm, tha'll be your reading skills then I'm afraid.
That's about exactly what I posted, so I can't really see why you're re-writing it.


"You need glucose as energy for your brain.
Estimates are up to 120g a day.
It's ok to have a ketogenic diet, and feed the brain that way, but even then you still need some glucose, your body will convert amino acids from your bodies protein in the absence of anything else. About 25% of the energy for your brain should be/needs to be glucose.
I'd never go below the full 120g personally, without a very good reason."
Click to expand...

Sorry to say but it looks like you didn't read or are a bit illogical, since the body can use the amino acids you consume. There's still no physiological reason to consume carbohydrates. Would be interested in knowing why besides getting some micro nutrients or vitamin C.
 
modesty007 said:
Sorry to say but it looks like you didn't read or are a bit illogical, since the body can use the amino acids you consume. There's still no physiological reason to consume carbohydrates. Would be interested in knowing why besides getting some micro nutrients or vitamin C.
Click to expand...

"It's ok to have a ketogenic diet, and feed the brain that way, but even then you still need some glucose, your body will convert amino acids from your bodies protein in the absence of anything else"
Seems you have re-written this sentence again?
I've giving up now. :)
 
douglas99 said:
"You need glucose as energy for your brain.
Estimates are up to 120g a day.
It's ok to have a ketogenic diet, and feed the brain that way, but even then you still need some glucose, your body will convert amino acids from your bodies protein in the absence of anything else. About 25% of the energy for your brain should be/needs to be glucose.
I'd never go below the full 120g personally, without a very good reason."
Click to expand...

How does glucose get to the brain? How, except throughthe blood? If our blood glucose is above about 4.5, surely that is enough to serve the brain, regardless of diet?
 
IanD said:
How does glucose get to the brain? How, except throughthe blood? If our blood glucose is above about 4.5, surely that is enough to serve the brain, regardless of diet?
Click to expand...

So you reckon below 4.5 is bad for the brain?
 
The machine that supposedly measured muscle mass, the "bodpod" apparently doesn't do so. It measures fat free mass, a total of muscle, water and bone. Quite possible then that the hifat twin didn't lose as much muscle as they said. Didn't they know that? Hard to believe.

People on low carb diets usually eat carbs for 3 days before doing a glucose tolerance test. Otherwise they get a false result. So did the hifat twin carb load? I doubt it, since he would have invalidated other measures taken at the end of the 30 day trial.

The hifat twin's brain fog test was done 2 weeks into the trial. It's hardly a surprising symptom to experience at this stage of adaptation to the diet. A proper test of the diet would have lasted longer than 30 days, until the twin was properly adapted. His brain fog would no doubt have lifted by then, and thousands, millions? of viewers would not have been misled .
Even towards the end of the trial, when cycling, the hifat twin was not in nutritional ketosis. Did they not know that? Hard to believe, since they were measuring it.

It's almost as if they set out to deceive, to make the diet look as bad as possible.
 
IanD said:
How does glucose get to the brain? How, except throughthe blood? If our blood glucose is above about 4.5, surely that is enough to serve the brain, regardless of diet?
Click to expand...

Very good point, my average BG is in a near normal range despite my lowish carb diet - haven't had more than 80g of carbs a day other than in a special occasion in the best part of 6 months now and it's usually much, much lower, and I frequently show a small level of Ketones with no issues. Apart from at the very beginning when I did the 20g a day induction, my memory and stamina are both fine, even now on the occassions I go very low I don't get the negative effects some people seem to see as inevitable.

i am seriously wondering what it is the antis see as so threatening about low carb? The nonsense being touted is frankly ridiculous, it works. You don't like it, fine, but please stop trying to tell us it doesn't work for at least some of us because it clearly does.


Sent from the Diabetes Forum App
 
Back
Top