Low-carbing pros and cons

[Wifezilla]

Freem, was this the page you wanted?
http://www.westonaprice.org/modern-...se/1687-myths-a-truths-about-cholesterol.html
A link to the pdf is on here too.

 

[Henrietta23]

I follow a modified Paleo diet on the advice of my naturopath. When I started I was bordering on prediabetes, my cholesterol was high, I was 30 lbs heavier (I still have more to lose though), my thyroid levels were off, etc. She rechecked everything 2 months after I started following the diet and everything except my good cholesterol numbers were in the normal range. And that's just because I don't exercise enough.

 

[patandchickens]

the brain and CNS in general lives on ATP and uses a *LOT* of blood glucose to generate ATP. (ATP is necessary for maintaining the proper level of Potassium and Sodium on either side of the cellular membrane to provide for our nerves' ability to "fire". ) How is the brain provided the appropriate fuel for generating ATP if one is low-carbing? Most sources I've seen claim that blood glucose from carbs is where the brain gets most of its fuel.

There are a couple of things to remember here.

First, glucose need not come only from carbohydrate foods, the body can do conversions to produce it from other stuff in your body (google "gluconeogenesis"; also there is a good overview of glucose dynamics in the human body in this page http://www.nature.com/scitable/topi...on-of-nutrient-utilization-in-humans-14232807)

Second, there is a big difference between a low carb diet and a ZERO carb diet; also there is a wide range of things even just under the 'low carb' umbrella, from slightly-reduced-compared-to-people-who-eat-doritos-and-pepsi-all-the-time all the way down to stringently reduced, and with all different attitudes as to what food substances to eat more of *instead* of so much carbohydrates.

So, even if there were no such thing as gluconeogenesis in the mammalian body you would STILL not face CNS-starvingly-low blood glucose levels in most 'low carb' philosophies. And of course there IS gluconeogenesis, and use of ketones as a metabolic substitute for glucose in most other functions.

I think, with all due pardons to certain people here , that it is important not to get hung up disagreeing with the most-extreme recommendations to the point of dismissing (or neglecting to look into) the whole concept.



Pat

 

[freemotion]

Freem, was this the page you wanted?
http://www.westonaprice.org/modern-...se/1687-myths-a-truths-about-cholesterol.html
A link to the pdf is on here too.

Nope, but it will do. The pdf was an answer to the 2005 USDA Food Pyramid.

 

[Wifezilla]

Even a "zero carb" diet is not zero carb. There are some carbs in meat. People who do practice zero carb generally consider that to be less than 10g carbohydrates/day. There is an active group of them over at www.lowcarb.ca. If you are getting enough protein and fats in your diet you will always be able to provide enough glucose to the internal organs that require it.

With my plan I am under 50g/day.

With the Atkins plan, what most people associate with low carb, they go 2 weeks at 20g/day and then slowly increase their carb intake depending on their individual reaction. If they start gaining again, dial the carbs back. When you get to ideal weight, add more in until you start gaining again. It's about finding your individual carb tolerance level.

Lots of the over 40 crowd can't eat more than 50g/day without gaining again.

The origin of almost ALL low carb plans is actually William Banting's "Letter on Corpulance" written in the 1800's
http://www.lowcarb.ca/corpulence/
(So much for low carb being a new fad! LOL)

 

[abifae]

I do 20-150 ROFL. It depends on my hormones and seizures. I eat what the body wants. If I don't want carbs, I drop them out. If I go sugar crazed, I'll eat til I'm satiated. My body rarely wants over 100.

I did count at first but my needs fluctuate so much I just decided to trust my body. Nutters, I know.

I really likes Drs Eades, Protein Power. The Revised is even better. I really wish I had it PDF to share

Drs Eades say "it seems", "the evidence points to", "we have noticed"... they use fact only when well proven by science. I approve highly of this. So for people who prefer a more correctly worded read...

I still haven't seen anyone post articles against. I know there's tons out there.