Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Eating 50-100g Carbs

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    All-

    I truly appreciate the time taken to respond to my post. Here's my plan:

    Slightly increase my carb intake to 100-125g per day, with an IF 1-2 times per week.
    Add Magnesium (glycinate)
    Add some RS, most likely in the form of potato starch
    Move slow a lot more, and sometimes fast. I've been doing the body weight exercises 2x per week already.

    Anyhow, that's my plan, and I'm pretty religious about tracking my food and testing my BG.

    Thanks again,
    Bill

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
      The key is a slow increase in carbohydrate intake. For an insulin resistant person to go from 50g of fibrous carbohydrate a day to 150-200g of starchy or sugar carbs a day would probably result in tremendous feelings of sluggishness and sky high peak postprandial blood glucose readings. However, adding an extra 10-20g of carbs a day each week for 6-10 weeks would be a very good idea IMO.

      Other good ideas for carbohydrate are cooked, cooled beans such as black beans, pinto beans, navy beans and chick peas if you're willing to soak them overnight a day in advance. I'd avoid kidney beans and soybeans, of course.
      I can go with this - gradually adding back in the right carbs after BG stabilizes. Absolutely. The OP is not stable yet however.
      What have you done today to make you feel Proud?

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by jmsmall View Post
        But I've never heard of insulin resistance being IMPROVED by increasing carbohydrates (I'm always ready to be educated though.)
        What would probably be helpful is to understand what the body should be doing versus what it actually is doing.

        In a normal, healthy person, when you eat carbohydrate, the following happens: carbohydrate is digested and broken down into glucose, glucose enters the bloodstream, insulin is secreated by the pancreas to remove insulin from the blood and glucose is assimilated into glycogen storage.

        In an unhealthy person, when you eat carbohydrate, only half the story happens according to plan. Carbohydrate is digested and broken down into glucose, glucose enters the bloodstream, but due to the physiological insulin resistance, the body has trouble getting sugar out of the bloodstream. The result is prolonged high blood sugar in abnormal ranges.

        Insulin sensitivity is a lot like exercise. The more carbohydrate you eat in general, the more insulin sensitive you are in general. The more carbohydrate that is in your diet, the more efficient your body must be to get glucose out of your bloodstream. Conversely, the opposite is also true. The less carbohydrate you consume, the less efficient your body is at getting glucose out of your bloodstream. Healthy people on low carbohydrate diets are much MORE insulin resistant than healthy people on high carbohydrate diets.

        So what is happening in unhealthy people that eat significant carbohydrate and are still insulin resistant? Well, these people are preferential fatty acid burners. Even when you give them substantial glucose, they continue to burn fat. They just can't get glucose out of their bloodstream. It is very important to understand this - when you take an unhealthy person and remove carbohydrate from their diet, they appear to get healthier. However, all you are doing is removing the trigger, which is glucose. You are not CURING anything. It is akin to having a severe allergy to cats caused by an unhealthy lifestyle. You're removing the cat from the room, but the allergy still persists. In fact, low carbohydrate dieting may make you feel better in the short term since you're eliminating the trigger, but you actually become even more insulin resistant as a result.

        This forum tells this story over and over again. People feel they find success eating low carbohydrate diets, but when they do "cheat" on their diet and eat carbs, they have an even worse reaction than when they were eating carbs on SAD. In their mind, this reinforces their beliefs - carbs are bad! But in the reality, they are even MORE insulin resistant eating a low carbohydrate diet with metabolic syndrome than they were eating a higher carbohydrate diet with metabolic syndrome. They just temporarily feel better when they remove the trigger.

        In order to actually cure metabolic syndrome, you're going to have to find the underlying cause. Hint: it is NOT carbohydrate consumption. My opinion is the overall driver of metabolic syndrome is an improper (i.e. INHUMAN) distribution of fatty acids in our tissues. Primarily, this is caused by too much polyunsaturated fat. Human tissue SHOULD be about 45% saturated fat, 50% monounsaturated fat and 5% polyunsaturated fat. Since carbohydrate is almost never turned into fat upon ingestion, the only way to modify human fatty acid composition is through meticulious monitoring of the fats you ingest. Fatty acid turnover is VERY SLOW - it takes around 4-10 years for your body to "turn over" all its fatty tissue, meaning you may have to adhere to a high saturated fat/very low polyunsaturated fat for nearly a decade to health your tissues.

        My prescription:

        1.) Avoid foods that contain polyunsaturated fat in general. Even whole foods. I would stick to eating strictly beef, lamb, shrimp, crab, lobster and fat free whitefish for sources of protein. I would avoid nuts, seeds and fatty chicken and pork. I would use only coconut oil, butter/ghee, cocoa butter or red palm oil to cook in (unless you have a good source of beef or lamb tallow). Chocolate, coconut and dairy are also excellent sources of calories.

        2.) I would make it a special point to lose body fat. The faster you lose fat, the more rapid the turnover. This could make you feel awful in the shortterm as all the polyunsaturated fats are lost from your tissues and oxidized. I STRONGLY recommend taking Vitamin E daily - BE VERY CAREFUL WHAT OIL THE VITAMIN E IS PACKED IN! I have only been successful at finding one softgel packed in olive oil. All the rest were toxic seed oil sourced. A good plan is heavy weight training, sprinting and a high protein diet.

        3.) Gradually increase carbohydrate intake. A low carbohydrate diet initially to help stabilize your poor glucose reaction would be a great idea. But as your fatty acid tissues slowly turn over as you get healthier, you will have to increase carbs to gain insulin sensitivity. The less PUFA in your tissues, the better you will probably tolerate glucose. Slow and steady is the game, here.

        Hope this helps.
        Last edited by ChocoTaco369; 03-28-2014, 06:45 AM.
        Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

        Comment


        • #19
          ^^^

          Thanks for this very informative post Chocotaco369, it is much appreciated.

          Comment


          • #20
            lol....this is great. I needed a good laugh.

            Pretty sure when a pathologist with both an MD and PhD after his name asks to be educated they aren't looking for a bit of Biology 101 with some personal theories thrown in . Then again maybe he is! I'm not him, but I know this level of explanation never satisfies me and tends to be the main point of friction when I read CT posts.

            If jmsmall is interested I did read a very good blog post at gnolls.org in this regard.

            What Is Metabolic Flexibility, and Why Is It Important? J. Stanton’s AHS 2013 Presentation, Including Slides - GNOLLS.ORG

            At least this post has some credible citations to follow up on .

            BTW good post doc Jim...and you are right it is an emotional issue on these boards. Don't let it stop you from contributing though!
            Last edited by Neckhammer; 03-28-2014, 11:21 AM.

            Comment


            • #21
              Now, now, let's play nice. Choco's comments about PUFA and the inability for MS sufferers to burn glucose efficiently are straight out of Ray Peat's theories - plenty of studies cited there if you want to read it.

              Also, no disrespect intended to Doc Jim but we have had plenty of discussions around here about the lack of nutritional education in the modern medical education system. Just because he's an MD and PhD doesn't mean he's an expert in glucose metabolism or nutrition.

              (Maybe he is an expert in those things, I'm not saying he's not. I'm just saying his credentials don't automatically mean he is - they just mean he's a smart dude with a very expensive and rigorous specialized education.)

              Can't we all just get along?
              __________________________________________________ _____________________________
              Eureka5280: M / 38 / 235lbs / Goal: 180lbs

              Diet: Currently experimenting with higher carb (Peat-esque) primal with emphasis on beef, dairy, seafood, sugar and a bit of starch on lifting days.

              Activities: Started Stronglifts 5x5 on 3/1/14. Adding sprints and hikes soon.
              End of Year Working Set Goals: Squats-250, Bench-200, DL-315

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Go Tribe View Post
                Going have to agree with gdot on this - also a "Cured" Type 2 diabetic. It was my experience to cut the carbs down to below 50 (preferably below 35).
                Type 2 Diabetes, and how doctors test for Type 2 Diabetes, are two totally different things.

                You can lower your A1C to <6 and fasting blood glucose to <100 by simply sticking to a ketogenic diet. You'll remove the dietary glucose, so your tests will show you're no longer a Type 2 Diabetic.

                But you still will be. Go eat a couple potatoes. Your BG will probably skyrocket to 200 since you'd be so insulin resistant from the lack of carbs.

                So which did you do? Did you actually cure Type 2 Diabetes? Or did you fudge your lab results to mask the issue? Most on MDA fudge their numbers.
                Last edited by ChocoTaco369; 03-28-2014, 12:11 PM.
                Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Thank you Neckhammer! Excellent reading there.
                  What have you done today to make you feel Proud?

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    But what I think you are missing Choco. At least in my case. Is that no body is saying that type two diabetes is 'cured' with a super carb restricted diet. Merely that this an effective step in the reregulation process. Type II Diabetes, Heart Disease, Metobolic Syndrome represent an array of possible responses to specific aspects of the modern 'Western' way of life in general and to presume that there is one single cause (PUFA) is to grossly oversimplify.

                    In addition, you seem to implying that there is no hope for improvement with diet and exercise. And that is simply not true.

                    Am I missing something?
                    What have you done today to make you feel Proud?

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Eureka5280 View Post
                      Now, now, let's play nice. Choco's comments about PUFA and the inability for MS sufferers to burn glucose efficiently are straight out of Ray Peat's theories - plenty of studies cited there if you want to read it.

                      Also, no disrespect intended to Doc Jim but we have had plenty of discussions around here about the lack of nutritional education in the modern medical education system. Just because he's an MD and PhD doesn't mean he's an expert in glucose metabolism or nutrition.

                      (Maybe he is an expert in those things, I'm not saying he's not. I'm just saying his credentials don't automatically mean he is - they just mean he's a smart dude with a very expensive and rigorous specialized education.)

                      Can't we all just get along?
                      Fair enough. I can keep it civil. I disagree with the assertion that metabolic syndrome and subsequent disease processes boil down to a fatty acid distribution of greater than 5% PUFA. This is flat out what was stated as his theory. It is wrong. There are hoards of societies that flat out disprove such an assertion. This does not mean that carbohydrates are the cause in and of themselves...in fact the current consensus is that it is oxidative stress associated with both too much refined calories and too little nutrition provided by those calories. This isn't a slam dunk either though as many theories abound. What is pointedly factual though is that when an overweight person begins losing weight their metabolic markers improve. So HOWEVER they can do this you will see positive results in terms of blood markers. Low carb just so happens to improve these markers the fastest while also removing the perils of excessive blood sugar which very well can cause long term if not permanent damage. Exercise also plays a vital role for much of the reasons the link I provided indicate in regards to improving your metabolic flexibility. Once you are on that path to healing and things normalize a bit, then yes you tend to have a bit of leeway in your eating choices so long as they are of natural whole food varieties of a paleo nature.

                      Originally posted by gdot View Post
                      Thank you Neckhammer! Excellent reading there.
                      No Problem!
                      Last edited by Neckhammer; 03-28-2014, 12:35 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Go Tribe View Post
                        Going have to agree with gdot on this - also a "Cured" Type 2 diabetic. It was my experience to cut the carbs down to below 50 (preferably below 35). I was at 500 BG and 1100 triglycerides when I was diagnosed. Went VLC, after I adapted to that, started IT two days a week. Lost 70 pounds. Started exercising 3 - 5 days a week - followed the PB method. Long walks and circuit trained until I could start sprints (bike is my favorite way to do HIIT). A1c is 5.4 now - it used to be 11... Just remember that it took you a long time to get where you are and its going to take a while to get back from it. Use the forum to get ideas. I do agree with Tacos idea of taking RS. Maybe every other day take 20 g to build up your gut biome. I would order some of the Primal Flora to start as well.
                        Great job BTW!

                        That should be truly inspirational for anyone with such a diagnosis.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Neckhammer View Post
                          I disagree with the assertion that metabolic syndrome and subsequent disease processes boil down to a fatty acid distribution of greater than 5% PUFA. This is flat out what was stated as his theory. It is wrong. There are hoards of societies that flat out disprove such an assertion.
                          That's fair, I think PUFA is implicated but not 100% responsible for causation. I also think the type and source of PUFA matters a great deal. (Rancid seed oils stripped of any natural vitamin E or other protective compounds have got to be far worse than naturally occuring PUFA that comes packaged with antioxidants.)

                          What societies disprove the PUFA asertion? (I'm assuming there are tribes that eat a high PUFA vegetable source such as a type of tree nut or something? I'm also assuming that their diet probably comes with a lot of natural vitamin E at the same time.)

                          This does not mean that carbohydrates are the cause in and of themselves...in fact the current consensus is that it is oxidative stress associated with both too much refined calories and too little nutrition provided by those calories. This isn't a slam dunk either though as many theories abound.
                          Without knowing the full details of what you're referring to, I would suspect this consensus actually dovetails nicely with the natural PUFA vs. industrial PUFA theory I've posed above.

                          What is pointedly factual though is that when an overweight person begins losing weight their metabolic markers improve. So HOWEVER they can do this you will see positive results in terms of blood markers. Low carb just so happens to improve these markers the fastest while also removing the perils of excessive blood sugar which very well can cause long term if not permanent damage.
                          Agreed, getting blood sugar out of the danger zone is very important to protect from nerve damage, but I think Choco's point is that lowering the markers, while positive, are not a permanent indication that the syndrome has been cured.
                          __________________________________________________ _____________________________
                          Eureka5280: M / 38 / 235lbs / Goal: 180lbs

                          Diet: Currently experimenting with higher carb (Peat-esque) primal with emphasis on beef, dairy, seafood, sugar and a bit of starch on lifting days.

                          Activities: Started Stronglifts 5x5 on 3/1/14. Adding sprints and hikes soon.
                          End of Year Working Set Goals: Squats-250, Bench-200, DL-315

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            ex-type II here. After VLC/Keto for a while(2 years (A1c from 9.9 to 5.4)) adding back carbohydrate to the tune of nearly 250/day, sank my A1c to 5.0. Back in august I took a post-prandial (2 hours) glucose reading after a huge sweet potato, a banana and about 100g of protein (tuna) and had a 68. More carbs helped me, thats for sure.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Eureka5280 View Post
                              That's fair, I think PUFA is implicated but not 100% responsible for causation. I also think the type and source of PUFA matters a great deal. (Rancid seed oils stripped of any natural vitamin E or other protective compounds have got to be far worse than naturally occuring PUFA that comes packaged with antioxidants.)

                              What societies disprove the PUFA asertion? (I'm assuming there are tribes that eat a high PUFA vegetable source such as a type of tree nut or something? I'm also assuming that their diet probably comes with a lot of natural vitamin E at the same time.)
                              Yup, its a distinction between refined PUFA and that found in nuts, seeds, pork, boar, chicken and fish. There are lots of societies for whom these items make up the majority of their caloric intake. Yes these are the traditional and HG groups that we can cite. Even Mark's recent post that says this about our ancestral diet from 200,000 years ago:

                              Regarding fats, SFA was 11.4-12%, MUFA 5.6-18.5%, and PUFA 8.6-15.2% of total calories. Pretty balanced overall.
                              PUFA was far more varied and diverse than the kind of PUFA typically eaten in modern diets, with very little linoleic acid (just 2.3-3.6% of calories) and far more arachidonic acid (2.54-8.84%) and long-chain omega-3s (2.26-17%).

                              Read more: What Did Our Ancient Ancestors Actually Eat? | Mark's Daily Apple

                              Obviously "PUFA" is too broad a term for my liking. If you rectify that to say "linoleic acid" specifically and especially in refined states then I might be able to get on board with this being problematic.

                              Originally posted by Eureka5280 View Post
                              Without knowing the full details of what you're referring to, I would suspect this consensus actually dovetails nicely with the natural PUFA vs. industrial PUFA theory I've posed above.
                              Correct!

                              But just to throw a total curve ball have a look here at a hypothesis put forth by one of the codiscoverers of the double helix structure of DNA: Nobelist proposes unconventional view of type 2 diabetes causation -- ScienceDaily

                              Ain't science fun

                              In the end though I'm much more interested in real life clinical results. For that a lower carb primal type diet (not necessarily always ketogenic) with a smart exercise plan is the best starting point for the majority of the population. Then, once some weight has been lost and some semblance of homeostasis regained you can play at adding back in those "slow carbs" in a deliberate and careful manner, monitoring things the whole way. It would be folly to not recognize the initial low carb phases ability to help reach the end stage result though IMO.
                              Last edited by Neckhammer; 03-28-2014, 01:26 PM.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
                                What would probably be helpful is to understand what the body should be doing versus what it actually is doing.

                                In a normal, healthy person, when you eat carbohydrate, the following happens: carbohydrate is digested and broken down into glucose, glucose enters the bloodstream, insulin is secreated by the pancreas to remove insulin from the blood and glucose is assimilated into glycogen storage.

                                In an unhealthy person, when you eat carbohydrate, only half the story happens according to plan. Carbohydrate is digested and broken down into glucose, glucose enters the bloodstream, but due to the physiological insulin resistance, the body has trouble getting sugar out of the bloodstream. The result is prolonged high blood sugar in abnormal ranges.

                                Insulin sensitivity is a lot like exercise. The more carbohydrate you eat in general, the more insulin sensitive you are in general. The more carbohydrate that is in your diet, the more efficient your body must be to get glucose out of your bloodstream. Conversely, the opposite is also true. The less carbohydrate you consume, the less efficient your body is at getting glucose out of your bloodstream. Healthy people on low carbohydrate diets are much MORE insulin resistant than healthy people on high carbohydrate diets.

                                So what is happening in unhealthy people that eat significant carbohydrate and are still insulin resistant? Well, these people are preferential fatty acid burners. Even when you give them substantial glucose, they continue to burn fat. They just can't get glucose out of their bloodstream. It is very important to understand this - when you take an unhealthy person and remove carbohydrate from their diet, they appear to get healthier. However, all you are doing is removing the trigger, which is glucose. You are not CURING anything. It is akin to having a severe allergy to cats caused by an unhealthy lifestyle. You're removing the cat from the room, but the allergy still persists. In fact, low carbohydrate dieting may make you feel better in the short term since you're eliminating the trigger, but you actually become even more insulin resistant as a result.

                                This forum tells this story over and over again. People feel they find success eating low carbohydrate diets, but when they do "cheat" on their diet and eat carbs, they have an even worse reaction than when they were eating carbs on SAD. In their mind, this reinforces their beliefs - carbs are bad! But in the reality, they are even MORE insulin resistant eating a low carbohydrate diet with metabolic syndrome than they were eating a higher carbohydrate diet with metabolic syndrome. They just temporarily feel better when they remove the trigger.

                                In order to actually cure metabolic syndrome, you're going to have to find the underlying cause. Hint: it is NOT carbohydrate consumption. My opinion is the overall driver of metabolic syndrome is an improper (i.e. INHUMAN) distribution of fatty acids in our tissues. Primarily, this is caused by too much polyunsaturated fat. Human tissue SHOULD be about 45% saturated fat, 50% monounsaturated fat and 5% polyunsaturated fat. Since carbohydrate is almost never turned into fat upon ingestion, the only way to modify human fatty acid composition is through meticulious monitoring of the fats you ingest. Fatty acid turnover is VERY SLOW - it takes around 4-10 years for your body to "turn over" all its fatty tissue, meaning you may have to adhere to a high saturated fat/very low polyunsaturated fat for nearly a decade to health your tissues.

                                My prescription:

                                1.) Avoid foods that contain polyunsaturated fat in general. Even whole foods. I would stick to eating strictly beef, lamb, shrimp, crab, lobster and fat free whitefish for sources of protein. I would avoid nuts, seeds and fatty chicken and pork. I would use only coconut oil, butter/ghee, cocoa butter or red palm oil to cook in (unless you have a good source of beef or lamb tallow). Chocolate, coconut and dairy are also excellent sources of calories.

                                2.) I would make it a special point to lose body fat. The faster you lose fat, the more rapid the turnover. This could make you feel awful in the shortterm as all the polyunsaturated fats are lost from your tissues and oxidized. I STRONGLY recommend taking Vitamin E daily - BE VERY CAREFUL WHAT OIL THE VITAMIN E IS PACKED IN! I have only been successful at finding one softgel packed in olive oil. All the rest were toxic seed oil sourced. A good plan is heavy weight training, sprinting and a high protein diet.

                                3.) Gradually increase carbohydrate intake. A low carbohydrate diet initially to help stabilize your poor glucose reaction would be a great idea. But as your fatty acid tissues slowly turn over as you get healthier, you will have to increase carbs to gain insulin sensitivity. The less PUFA in your tissues, the better you will probably tolerate glucose. Slow and steady is the game, here.

                                Hope this helps.
                                Great post mate! Up until you recommended avoiding whole food source polyunsaturated fats. There's no evidence behind that unless you were specifically recommending avoiding AA and refined oils.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X