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

Sugar v Fat

Thommothebear said:
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
Click to expand...

Well said! I totally agree, I'd never return to the high carb diet prescribed by dieticians. My consultant knows I eat 60 carbs a day, he never passes comment on it however is over the moon with my control. I feel great, never tired


Sent from the Diabetes Forum App
 
I am new to this so maybe I am missing something?

People are quoting an amount of glucose required, for good brain function. Am I correct? This in turn seems to now be equated to, people must need a certain amount of carbohydrates, unless I have misinterpreted people (sorry if this is the case).

Given the body converts around 50ish percent of protein into glucose, if someone who eats low carbs has enough protein in their diet, then surely that could supply enough of the required glucose?

After all It is possible to not even be in ketosis whilst on a no carb diet.

I am not going to do no carbs, I'm doing low carb - just saying.
 
Yeoc l am almost with you apart from the maths. I hate numbers in math form l am happy with my low carb, my health is improving the numbers everyone quotes in % of this and % of that quite frankly go over my head. So long as it makes sense to you and other low carbers and you are all happy with it thats good enough for me l am not going to stress out on it. If you all keep doing the maths for me then it is all sorted... l stay a happy low carber. :)
 
AlexMBrennan said:
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.
Click to expand...

You don't need a degree in biochemistry to know the body needs time to adapt to a high fat diet, you may not have heard of low carb flu which can often take a couple of weeks to overcome, to become fully adapted can take a lot longer.

This may be of help with your kindergarten knowledge level of a ketogenic diet.

These results indicate that aerobic endurance exercise by well-trained cyclists was not compromised by four weeks of ketosis. This was accomplished by a dramatic physiologic adaptation that conserved limited carbohydrate stores (both glucose and muscle glycogen) and made fat the predominant muscle substrate at this submaximal power level.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6865776
Click to expand...
 
These results indicate that aerobic endurance exercise by well-trained cyclists was not compromised by four weeks of ketosis. This was accomplished by a dramatic physiologic adaptation that conserved limited carbohydrate stores (both glucose and muscle glycogen) and made fat the predominant muscle substrate at this submaximal power level.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6865776
Click to expand...

I'm sorry for those who hate papers but I can't leave this with just this quote from one.

. It is misleading to say that people use fat or carbs to fuel exercise, they use a mixture. The cyclists had a RQ (respiratory quotient) which dropped from 0.83 to 0.72. ( 1 is the expected value for carbohydrate utilisation and 0.7 for fat )) So pre ketogenic diet they were already using a fair amount of fat in the mix. The small reduction apparently happened in 10 days ie this was the time to 'adapt' '

These are the results of the trial:. After the ketogenic diet.
Cyclist 1 took 48 min less time to exhaustion, Cyclist 2 took 51 min less time to exhaustion,
Cyclist 3 took 3 min more time to exhaustion, Cyclist 4 took 30 min more time to exhaustion
Cyclist 5 took 84 min more time to exhaustion.

The last cyclist , with an 84 min increase. has a huge effect on an average of only 5 people.
You may like to read what another well known exercise scientist/ triathlete says about this 'aberrant increase'
http://www.rice.edu/~jenky/sports/coggan.html

Basically two of the cyclists did badly at 'sub maximal' exercise , one not much difference, one a bit better and one may have done brilliantly (with the caveats above). In this tiny sample we have 5 individuals with 5 very varied responses.

Phinney in a later paper tells us something not mentioned in the original paper.
".The bicyclist subjects of this study noted a modest decline in their energy level while on training rides during the first week of the Inuit diet, after which subjective performance was reasonably restored' except for their sprint capability, which remained constrained during the period of carbohydrate restriction "

So he confirms that they were back to normal after the first week but also adds that their sprint capacity was shot . They wouldn't have been able to raise the energy to overtake and get away from the peleton or for that final burst to the finish (or up Box Hill) for that matter Not much good for an elite cyclist.

Most people aren't elite athletes. Having a glycogen reserve may not matter if you have no need to make a claim on those reserves. Others who enjoy sports might be more competitive and others may have jobs that demand instant energy in their daily lives.
It isn't a question of fat or carbs for everyone, many of us have need of both.
 
My impression of this programme, like others, is that they had reached a conclusion before the experiment even begun.

As a low carber myself who has done a fair amount of layman reading on the topic, 3 things were glaringly obvious that should have been picked up to explain the perceived problems that the high fat twin faced:

1. What has already been referred to as the keto adaptation period. This, depending on the individual, can take between 4-6 weeks before the metabolic switch is made. As Phoenix mentioned, however, there is a need for carbohydrates, and a full glycogen tank, when undertaking high intensity training and exercise. Any form of prolonged relatively explosive exercise requires glycogen to fuel the muscles in order to sustain exercise for any longer than short bursts. Glycogen stores are not full on a low carb diet. However, I'm not convinced that the twins were doing what could be described as high intensity exercise, which would require a keto adapted athlete to tap into glycogen stores. My perception is that neither were very fit. I believe that if they were undertaking lower intensity endurance testing, and the high fat twin was keto adapted, then the results could and probably would have been very different.

2. I doubt that the high fat twin supplemented with sodium. When you go on a low carbohydrate diet, the body excretes sodium, along with water. If you don't supplement with sodium each day, then the body will excrete potassium to balance the loss of sodium. This is not healthy and can lead to poor cognitive function. Also, as a consequence of the sodium loss, potassium leaches from the muscles and causes muscle breakdown and fatigue. Any one suffer from headaches or fatigue on a low carb diet? I know I have. But since I've started taking a hot tea with sea salt a couple of times a day, my energy levels have improved and I no longer suffer from fatigue. I just don't tell my doc that I do this - high fat and high salt. I think he may have a heart attack! But I don't think I'm in danger of one :)

3. Of course the high fat twin failed the glucose tolerance test. When you are on a high fat, no sugar diet, your insulin receptors are downgraded as the body opts to preserve what glucose there is for the brain. Interestingly ketone bodies are also preserved for the brain and other vital organs that can make of them when you are fully adapted. Muscles will instead opt to use fatty acids. What I'm really annoyed about is that they made the connection that the body became efficient at using insulin in the high sugar twin because of the consistency in what he was eating but failed to make the opposite connection with the other twin? What utter tosh! As others have stated, it takes three days for the body to up-regulate insulin receptors again following a low carb diet. Surely they must have known about this??? A test for the amount of insulin produced in each twin as the test progressed would have been more interesting and a much better indicator of diabetes risk in the future. Edit: As would have been a full breakdown of cholesterol numbers - in particular triglycerides, which is a seemingly excellent indicator of visceral fat and of current/future insulin resistance.

Right, rant over :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Beachbag said:
I can't watch it until later in the week. I live in Wales and all our programmes are tested in England first, just to check they're suitable viewing for us! :watching: :bag:
Click to expand...

:D And I'll probably have to wait about 5 years before the American libraries get their latest batches of BBC DVDs (many of which I watch weekly. Some great programmes.)
 
lindisfel said:
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!
Click to expand...
I watched the programmebut did not relate it to diabetes. Surely anyone could see the diets were so extreme and unhealthy and were not meant to be actually followed by anyone least of all diabetics.had the doctors not been very healthy to start with they could not have kept it up for a month Their diet could not even be compared to the LCHF or any other diet that people do on this forum it was purely an experiment to see how there bodies reacted
Picci said:
Well said! I totally agree, I'd never return to the high carb diet prescribed by dieticians. My consultant knows I eat 60 carbs a day, he never passes comment on it however is over the moon with my control. I feel great, never tired


Sent from the Diabetes Forum App
Click to expand...
Yes I agree with you doctors and DN are not really worried how you eat just that what you are doing is working for you and you have good control
 
Last edited:
Mud Island Dweller said:
Craig how much sea salt and hot tea? can you explain please :)
MID
Click to expand...

Hi MID. I try and take 5g of sodium daily. That is the number Volek and Phinney recommend (if I remember correctly), when you consume 50g or less of carbohydrates a day. For some, sea salt in hot water is not particularly yummy, so I put it in my tea together with magnesium drops (it's not very appetising either way tbh). Or you could just opt to pour it liberally over your food, which is the tastier option :)
 
craig81 said:
Hi MID. I try and take 5g of sodium daily. That is the number Volek and Phinney recommend (if I remember correctly), when you consume 50g or less of carbohydrates a day. For some, sea salt in hot water is not particularly yummy, so I put it in my tea together with magnesium drops (it's not very appetising either way tbh). Or you could just opt to pour it liberally over your food, which is the tastier option :)
Click to expand...

I use sea salt liberally on food and the muscle cramps in my calfs that I suffered with for years have all disappeared! Good stuff I reckon!
 
Back
Top