🖨️ Print post
One of the lessons that comes across most clearly from the studies that Weston Price documented in Nutrition and Physical Degeneration is that, although traditional diets all emphasized nutrient-dense foods, the specific mix of animal and plant foods was widely variable. Since it is primarily plant foods that provide carbohydrate, the carbohydrate content of traditional diets was also widely variable. In groups that lived in the Arctic, it was very low; in groups that lived close to the equator or that relied on grains, it was much higher.
This observation implies that humans can thrive on a wide range of carbohydrate intakes, but it does not imply that anyone in any circumstance can live on a diet that is virtually free of carbohydrate, and it does not imply that carbohydrate is not important. In fact, carbohydrate is essential to our physiology. In this article, I will discuss the essential roles of carbohydrate in the body,1 and then derive some practical conclusions about how we can manage our own carbohydrate intake.
STRUCTURAL ROLES OF CARBOHYDRATE
Carbohydrates play a variety of essential structural roles in our cells. Each repeating unit of DNA and RNA contains the sugars deoxyribose or ribose, which we make from glucose. These sugars are also essential structural components of the energy carriers we derive from niacin (vitamin B3), riboflavin (vitamin B2), and pantothenic acid (vitamin B5), which we use throughout every aspect of energy metabolism. They are also an essential structural component of ATP, the main energy currency of the cell.
Our tissues are composed of cells that reside within an infrastructure known as the extracellular matrix. All extracellular matrices are built largely from proteoglycans, which consist of a core protein that binds to glycosaminoglycans. In less technical terms, these are combinations of carbohydrate and protein that heavily favor carbohydrate. They are typically 95 percent carbohydrate and 5 percent protein. Popular supplements to support joint health typically contain the predominant glycosaminoglycans in joint fluid, chondroitin sulfate and glucosamine sulfate.
Glycoproteins are another way in which carbohydrates and proteins can be combined. Compared to proteoglycans, they tend to have less carbohydrate and more protein. Nevertheless, the carbohydrate content is widely variable. Antibodies such as IgG are glycoproteins, and contain as little as 4 percent carbohydrate, whereas mucin, the main constituent of mucus, is a glycoprotein that contains 80 percent carbohydrate. Cells are often coated in a glycoprotein structure known as the glycocalyx that allows cells to recognize one another, and to communicate and interact with one another.
The health value of these roles is obviously vast: without them, energy metabolism would fail, and with it, the vast array of energy-dependent processes within the body; without them, our ability to read our own genetic information or to pass it on to our offspring would fail; without them, immunity and digestion would suffer. We could expand the list of such negative health consequences endlessly. Most of the carbohydrate we take in each day is used for energy, and the role of carbohydrate in energy metabolism is a more productive area of focus if we are trying to understand the potential consequences of consuming too little of it.
CARBOHYDRATE AND ENERGY METABOLISM
Like proteins and fats, we break carbohydrates down into two-carbon units known as acetyl groups that then enter the pathways we use to break them down fully into the carbon dioxide that we exhale and the hydrogen ions and high-energy electrons that we use to synthesize ATP.
Since carbohydrate is richer in oxygen than fat, its metabolism requires 25 percent less water and generates 50 percent more carbon dioxide. Protein is intermediate. The more carbon dioxide we make, the more we need to breathe. A low-carbohydrate, high-fat diet is a useful way to decrease the stress on the lungs in patients requiring artificial ventilation. Outside of that context, however, carbon dioxide plays valuable roles. For example, it facilitates the delivery of oxygen to our tissues, and it activates vitamin K-dependent proteins. It is possible, then, that dietary carbohydrate could assist oxygenation of tissues for such purposes as healing from injury or enhancement of athletic performance, and it is possible that dietary carbohydrate could be an important synergist with vitamin K.
In the presence of oxygen, there is little difference between fully breaking down carbohydrate for energy and fully breaking down fat for energy. They each have an advantage over protein in that their breakdown does not require us to manage the disposal of leftover nitrogen, but this is just as true of fat as it is of carbohydrate.
Carbohydrates, however, have a unique advantage over the other macronutrients in that we can break them down for energy even in the absence of oxygen. We do this by splitting glucose in half and converting it to two molecules of lactate, which is known as anaerobic glycolysis.
Anaerobic glycolysis only generates a small amount of energy compared to fully oxidizing glucose to carbon dioxide. However, tissues that use anaerobic glycolysis can utilize the Cori cycle to greatly amplify the energy produced. In the Cori cycle, a lactate-producing tissue sends the lactate to the liver; the liver uses energy to convert the lactate back to glucose, and sends the glucose back to the lactate-producing tissue. The net result is that energy is transferred from the liver to the lactate-producing tissue and that the lactate-producing tissue meets its energy needs even in a relative absence of oxygen.
There are a few cases where anaerobic glycolysis is especially useful. Red blood cells lack mitochondria and are thus completely unable to fully break down macronutrients for energy using oxygen. This requires them to rely exclusively on anaerobic glycolysis. A small collection of other tissues rely substantially on anaerobic glycolysis simply because they do not take up enough oxygen from the blood, and these include the lens and cornea of the eye, the kidney medulla and the testes. In acute stress and high-intensity exercise our demand for energy temporarily exceeds the oxygen supply, and the deficit is made up with anaerobic glycolysis.
The brain uses oxygen to produce about 90 percent of its ATP and uses anaerobic glycolysis for the other 10 percent.2 Cells known as astrocytes perform most of the anaerobic glycolysis. Rather than delivering the lactate to the liver, however, they deliver it to neurons. Neurons burn the lactate for energy and that helps them conserve glucose for antioxidant defense.
ANTIOXIDANT DEFENSE AND NUTRIENT RECYCLING
In addition to anaerobic glycolysis, there is a second pathway that has an absolute demand for glucose known as the pentose phosphate pathway. In this pathway, instead of using the energy from glucose to make ATP, we use it for the synthesis of larger molecules, for antioxidant defense, and for nutrient recycling.
With the help of thiamin (vitamin B1), niacin (vitamin B3), and riboflavin (vitamin B2), this pathway takes energy from glucose and uses it for the following processes: the synthesis of fatty acids, cholesterol, neurotransmitters and nucleotides; the recycling of glutathione, the master antioxidant and detoxifier of the cell; and the recycling of vitamin K and folate.
GLUCONEOGENESIS, CORTISOL AND THYROID
Since we have an absolute need for glucose to support anaerobic glycolysis and the pentose phosphate pathway, we have a very robust system for ensuring we always have enough glucose even under conditions of dietary carbohydrate deprivation: gluconeogenesis. This is the production of glucose from non-carbohydrate precursors. Gluconeogenesis is primarily supported by protein but is also supported to a minor degree by fat.
While it is conceivable that someone on an extremely low-carbohydrate intake could suffer from a deficiency of total glucose, particularly if subsisting on a diet that is also very low in protein and deficient in nutrients needed for gluconeogenesis, this is likely to be very rare. When we chronically restrict carbohydrate, our bodies will naturally do everything in their power to conserve glucose, and in most cases gluconeogenesis will be sufficient to meet these lower needs.
The potential downside to chronic carbohydrate restriction is in the set of compensations we make to prevent a deficiency of glucose. Gluconeogenesis is primarily stimulated by the adrenal hormone cortisol. Cortisol antagonizes thyroid hormone and, when chronically elevated, impairs immunity. As we move away from burning glucose and toward greater reliance on fat, free fatty acids elevate. Cortisol augments this rise even further by causing us to release free fatty acids from adipose tissue. High levels of free fatty acids can impair thyroid hormone’s ability to carry out its physiological functions within our cells even if blood levels of thyroid hormones remain normal.
Interpreting blood, saliva, and urinary hormone testing is complicated and should be done under the supervision of a qualified practitioner. Nevertheless, we can note a few useful guidelines here.
Elevated cortisol could be a sign of inadequate carbohydrate intake. However, prolonged chronic elevation of cortisol can ultimately lead to long-term changes that bring cortisol to normal or low levels. Additionally, the rise in cortisol may occur at times that are difficult to detect. For example, if carbohydrate stores are inadequate to maintain stable blood sugar through the night, cortisol could spike in the early morning hours to stimulate gluconeogenesis. Cortisol normally spikes once you wake up and are exposed to light, and you cannot measure your cortisol when you are asleep, so it would be difficult to detect an early pre-waking rise in cortisol in this context.
If blood levels of thyroid hormone are affected, low T3 is the most likely result.3 However, T3 can be normal and elevated free fatty acids could still be impairing its cellular function.
If thyroid hormone activity is low, whether from low T3 or from interference with its activity by elevated cortisol and free fatty acids, one of the likely consequences is high LDL-cholesterol with low sex hormones. I consider the combined pattern of total cholesterol in substantial excess of 220 mg/dL, a high total-to-HDL-cholesterol ratio in substantial excess of 3.0, and total or free sex hormones toward the lower ends of the reference ranges to be a potential sign of low thyroid activity regardless of blood levels of thyroid hormones.3
HOW MUCH CARBOHYDRATE SHOULD WE EAT?
Carbohydrate demand is going to vary from person to person and is going to depend on physical activity level, but we can derive some general guidelines. The liver stores about 90 grams of carbohydrate, skeletal muscle stores 300 grams, and bodily fluids contain 30 grams.5 A completely sedentary person will primarily be tapping into the liver’s glycogen stores in order to stabilize blood sugar between meals. In the absence of physical activity, then, it makes sense to use about 100 grams per day as an initial target.
Someone whose physical activity is no more intense than walking is unlikely to begin tapping into their muscular glycogen supply. Greater intensities, however, such as running or weight lifting, will do so. It is almost impossible for someone to more than guestimate how much muscular glycogen they would burn through with any particular physical activity pattern, but it is reasonable to say that a very active person could add another 300 grams of carbohydrate on top of the initial 100 grams. In fact, the primary metabolic consequence of consuming 500 grams of carbohydrate in an otherwise healthy person, regardless of physical activity, is to shift that person’s metabolism almost entirely toward burning carbohydrate for energy.
These numbers should not provide more than an initial guideline. If someone wishes to restrict carbohydrates to less than 100 grams per day for a specific purpose, a prudent approach to safety would be to monitor stress, thyroid, and sex hormones, to ensure they all remain in optimal range. Physically active people should be aware that they may need considerably more than 100 grams to prevent these hormones from going out of range.
TRADITIONAL DIETS
We may be left wondering, but what about the Inuit? Didn’t they eat far less than 100 grams of carbohydrate per day?
When we look at traditional diets, we have to be careful of emulating the tails of the distribution. Most traditional diets contained plenty of carbohydrate. Diets traditional to the Arctic are the exception, and they are adaptations to that specific environment. The inhabitants of the Arctic most likely adapted to that environment with a suite of genetic and cultural adaptations that may have to work in concert to produce optimal health.
Consider what Price himself wrote of the reproductive diets in the Arctic:
For the Indians of the far North [reinforcement of fertility] was accomplished by supplying special feedings of organs of animals. Among the Indians in the moose country near the Arctic circle, a larger percentage of the children were born in June than in any other month. This was accomplished, I was told, by both parents eating liberally of the thyroid glands of the male moose as they came down from the high mountain areas for the mating season, at which time the large protuberances carrying the thyroids under the throat were greatly enlarged.
It could well have been that consumption of moose thyroid was an important means of maintaining fertility in the face of the level of carbohydrate restriction that the Arctic environment forced on its inhabitants.
We know that there are genetic variations in fat metabolism common to Arctic populations that likely lead their fat metabolism to be different than other populations,6,7 but it is too early to fit these into a coherent explanation of how these populations adapted to the specific demands of the Arctic environment.
It is safer ground to emulate the preponderance of traditional diets that contained plenty of carbohydrate than to emulate the lower tail of the carbohydrate distribution found in the Arctic because we don’t fully understand how the particular suite of genetic and cultural adaptations allowed Arctic populations to thrive on such a low carbohydrate intake.
Nevertheless, we do as humans contain a remarkable degree of metabolic flexibility. It makes the most sense to emphasize nutrient density above macronutrient composition, but to also be conscious of the need for carbohydrate to minimize hormonal dysregulation and support athletic performance. This will allow us to gravitate intuitively toward the amount of carbohydrate that works best for us, and to modify our carbohydrate intake as needed to best support our health.
ATHLETIC PERFORMANCE
For athletes,4 the potential downside of chronic excessive carbohydrate restriction is impaired performance or impaired performance gains for activities that require anaerobic glycolysis.
There are three energy systems that fuel activity during exercise: creatine phosphate, anaerobic glycolysis and oxidative phosphorylation. Oxidative phosphorylation refers to the complete oxidation of carbohydrates, fats or proteins.
During a bout of continuous high-intensity physical activity, we fuel the first fifteen to thirty seconds with energy from creatine phosphate. The period from thirty to ninety seconds is dominated by anaerobic glycolysis. Anaerobic glycolysis remains significant through the first thirty minutes, but diminishes in importance after ninety seconds when oxidative phosphorylation begins to take over. Oxidative phosphorylation becomes the overwhelming factor after thirty minutes.
Chronically restricting carbohydrate will shift the body toward using fatty acids and ketones (small, water-soluble derivatives of fatty acids) for fuel. This can shift the post-ninety-second demand for fuel from the oxidation of carbohydrate to the oxidation of fat, but it cannot reduce the demand for glucose in the thirty to ninety-second mark. We rely on anaerobic glycolysis during this period because our demand for energy temporarily exceeds the delivery of oxygen to our tissues, and eating a high-fat diet is not going to increase the speed at which we can suddenly drive oxygen to our muscles during the acute onset of intense activity.
Athletic training itself could reduce the demand for glucose in the thirty-to-ninety-second mark by making us more effective at oxygenating our tissues and more efficient in our use of energy. But all athletes train, so no athlete can rely on this alone for a competitive edge. Even after ninety seconds, glucose will be the limiting factor for maximum intensity simply because any intensity above and beyond what the supply of oxygen can accommodate can only be met through anaerobic glycolysis.
Many athletes supplement with creatine in order to boost the amount of energy available in the first thirty seconds or extend the creatine supply somewhat beyond thirty seconds. This is especially valuable for weight training, where a set often lasts thirty to sixty seconds. Consuming a large amount of creatine from meat or supplements might reduce the demand for anaerobic glycolysis by extending the use of creatine beyond the thirty-second mark. Nevertheless, it is not going to extend the dominance of the creatine phosphate system through ninety seconds or provide the edge needed for maximal intensity thereafter.
Sprinting, track-and-field events, gymnastics and most team sports rely on short bursts of energy that depend on anaerobic glycolysis. There is currently a paucity of controlled studies investigating the degree to which these sports can maximally adapt to fat-burning on carbohydrate-restricted diets.
It is important to realize, however, that the primary variables at risk are maximal performance and stress hormone adaptation. Maximal performance is primarily important in a competitive context, where a marginal increase in speed in a particular instant could make the difference of winning or losing. Stress hormone adaptation is relevant to everyone regardless of athletic status, but since athletes have a greater need for carbohydrate, they would be more likely to experience negative adaptations than someone enduring a similar level of carbohydrate restriction but living a sedentary lifestyle.
REFERENCES
1. Unless otherwise cited, information in this article comes from Ferrier, DA. Lippincott’s Illustrated Reviews: Biochemistry. 6th Edition. Lippincott Williams and Wilkins (Philadelphia) 2014.
2. Schoenfeld P, Reiser G. Why does brain metabolism not favor burning of fatty acids to provide energy? Reflections on disadvantages of the use of free fatty acids as fuel for brain. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab. 2013;33(10):1493-9.
3. Masterjohn C. The Daily Lipid Podcast Episode 11: Paleof(x) Grab Bag: Carbs Sex Hormones, Diabetes, and More.http://chrismasterjohnphd.com/2016/06/02/the-daily-lipid-podcastepisode-11_2/ Published June 2, 2016. Accessed September 7, 2016.
4. Hunter, GR. “Physical Activity, Fitness, and Health.” In Ross AC, et al., Eds. Modern Nutrition in Health and Disease: Eleventh Edition. Lippincott Williams and Wilkins (Philadelphia) 2014.
5. Keim NL, et al. “Carbohydrates.” In Ross AC, et al., Eds. Modern Nutrition in Health and Disease: Eleventh Edition. Lippincott Williams and Wilkins (Philadelphia) 2014.
6. Greenberg CR. The paradox of the carnitine palmitoyltransferase type Ia P479L variant in Canadian Aboriginal populations. Mol Genet Metab. 2009;96(4):201-7.
7. Zhang, JY. Desaturase and elongase-limiting endogenous long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acid biosynthesis. Curt Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care. 2016; 19(2):103-10.
This article appeared in Wise Traditions in Food, Farming and the Healing Arts, the quarterly journal of the Weston A. Price Foundation,Fall 2016
🖨️ Print post
This is a one sided view containing too many caveats of “possible” or “could”. With over 400 million people atleast pre diabetic in this world, this article should more responsibly address a 360 viewpoint which would provide credibility to this article. I’m not sensing an objective review in this article and reject most of its points as contextually it lacks real substance actionable by people needing dietary guidance.
If I ate 100g plus of carbs on a daily basis I’d rapidly regain weight I lost on a managed carbs eating plan, where it varies from 40 – 70 g on a daily basis. My blood tests tell me I’m healthier than I’ve ever been and I’m no longer knocking on the door of diabetes.
Well said!!!
Same here! Best blood glucose and A1Cs in 10 years after reducing carbs and eliminating wheat, corn, and sugar. I measure twice daily, and if I eat any one of those, I see a difference. Getting rid of non-veggie carbs kept me from tipping the scale to full blown type 2 diabetic. My issue was never weight, though I did lose some.
Both of the prior comments are very accurate and point out very legitimate issues with this article. But it is clear to me that Chris Masterjohn PhD is either unaware or has not considered how many in our population have insulation intolerance or are close to developing it. 100 g of carbohydrates a day is a poor recommendation for such a population. Dr. Wolfgang Lutz, a physician who spent over five decades developing a low carbohydrate diets for himself and patients and wrote of it in “Life Without Bread: How a Low-Carbohydrate Diet Can Save Your Life” recommended 70 grams for a healthy individual. Lower levels serve to provide weight loss and control blood sugar in diabetic individuals.
In individuals who have extreme issues such as epileptics may need to reduce intake to 10 grams a day for years.
While I am sure Dr. Chris Masterjohn is a well-educated and well-meaning individual he should expand his research and knowledge base before writing with such authority on these issues.
Two things , it seems to me that the above is based on a metabolism that is carbohydrate adapted as it’s primary fuel source , but a metabolism that has become fat adapted as it’s primary fuel source is now going to operate differently as research is now beginning to show and comparing the two metabolisms is like comparing apples to oranges , also carbohydrates seem best used for anaerobic types of activities and we really don’t need a lot of carbohydrate for this but for all daily activities , non anaerobic activities just daily life , fat appears to me to be the preferred fuel source of the body , especially in a population where most people’s activity level is walking and use a touch screen , so it seems to me anything from 10g to 100g of carbohydrate is plenty
“The brain uses oxygen to produce about 90 percent of its ATP and uses anaerobic glycolysis for the other 10 percent.2 Cells known as astrocytes perform most of the anaerobic glycolysis. Rather than delivering the lactate to the liver, however, they deliver it to neurons. Neurons burn the lactate for energy and that helps them conserve glucose for antioxidant defense.” So, if the brain does not use the liver to replenish its ATP, where does it get its ATP from?
Precisamos sim melhorar nosso conhecimento nesta matéria que somos aqui neste mundo servir e ser servido guerreiro fico muito feliz por ter pessoas que semeia o bem au próximo vou sempre estar por aqui.
Passar minha família e amigos está corrente do bem .
When a statement is made, such as, “mucin, the main constituent of mucus, is a glycoprotein that contains 80 percent carbohydrate.” Is that 80% by weight, or what?
I found this article interesting and helpful. It’s really hard, in my experience, to maintain a very active lifestyle and to eat exclusively a high fat diet. Also, as a farmer, I can offer the opinion that it’s difficult to produce sufficient quantities of high-fat foods, enough to eat largely fats day after day. I quite agree that this article is unlikely to be helpful for diabetics and pre-diabetics, and think that, nevertheless, it is a valuable document.
I really agree with this article. 100g of carbs per day leaves a ton of room for a large variety of vegetables and some fruits. Very low carb diets often lack fiber and, more importantly, prebiotics. I have known too many people who have had major gut issues after going keto for too long, possibly I part for this reason. In addition, this is 100g/day that is split among meals and snacks and included as part of mixed meals, so even that target could be plenty suitable for a diabetic or someone with insulin resistance, especially if they are eating more complex carbs, eating them with lots of quality fats, and making other lifestyle changes (increasing activity). In my opinion some carbs, around 100g, is just more realistic, sustainable, and provides greater nutrient variety. Love the article!!
The article is entitled, “Why we need carbs” … and after reading it, I don’t see why anyone needs to purposely ingest carbohydrates – even 100g/day. If anyone eats a nutritious diet they will get some carbohydrates whether they like it or not – plenty to take care of whatever function could possibly require them – more like 20g/day would be sufficient for an average male who is getting dense non-carbohydrate nutrition.
Most of the negative comments on this article are by people who have issues with keeping weight off. I’m the exact opposite. At 66 I’ve never had a weight problem. I’m the same weight I’ve been since high school (6′ 160lbs). While the “keto” diet is fine (I’ve experimented with it and intermittent fasting). A more paleo/price approach seems to work for me in the “feeling (not hungry) good” department, however, I’d like to put on 5 to 10 lbs of muscle or weight in general just to look less skinny. Everyone’s gene and metabolic profile is going to respond differently to whatever variables are present in any “diet”. To each his own. Experiment.
Another excellent article, thank you! I agree wholeheartedly with Ned (above). Keep up the great work and, keep the articles coming!
I agree with the article. It is not a one size fits all. I went to low carb and threw my hormones and thyroid in the tank. Trying to recover from the experience is hard. I am dealing with low pulse and blood sugar issues. I wish I knew this all before.
Same happened to me! Low carb with fasting tanked my thyroid and caused worse symptoms of menopause. Adding in more carbs and stopping fasting brought my hormones back to the normal range and less menopause symptoms.
I find it interesting that many of the comments are not supported with credible factual or empirical evidence, but rather by opinion. That is the first order or debate or rhetoric is to support your opinion, either through your own evidenced expertise, or those of others who have significant expertise to bolster your point.
100g per day is a significant reduction vs the standard american, or western diet and would be a huge step in the right direction. That is a postiveily low carbohydrate diet in comparison. However the parts aboutt he body actually needing carbohydrates are unconvicing. There are many case studies, including and espcially in athletes where ketogenic diets are enabling massive performance gains, as are relatively low carb diets e.g 100-150g over the standard 250+g diets. one gap in the article to me is that not all carbs are equal. You cannot compare spinach or cabage to bread or cane sugar. It could be argued that grains and sugars are the least nutitious carbs since they only provide calories in the form of glucose (when digested). A case could be made for never eating either of these.
The above comments are not taking into account size of person and activity levels. I am small and would rapidly gain weight if I neared 100 gr. I aim for 40 from vegetable sources with very occasional bursts of higher take. Food intake and genetic predispositions are also important. One size never fits all, sometimes nobody at all.
Thank you, I found this a really interesting and informative article; there are so many promotions at the moment for not eating carbohydrates – I have T1 diabetes and find that if I eat a really low carb diet, it creates a problem with brain function and risks more hypos.
A friend sent me a link to this diabetes site which says, “Limiting carbohydrates versus protein makes sense because protein is necessary and there is currently no empirical proof that we require carbohydrates to thrive.” https://www.diabetesdaily.com/learn-about-diabetes/diabetes-diet/protein-the-missing-piece-to-the-diabetes-puzzle/ No empirical proof!! There’s masses of it!
It seems irresponsible that this is stated on a diabetes treatment site. Without glucose, the brain just doesn’t work and empirically eating a variety of complex carbohydrates works much better, in my experience, than eliminating them.
Actually, there’s evidence that the brain prefers ketones over glucose.
There was a study done to test the brain when the body was not allowed carbohydrates. It indicated that the brain performed very well on ketones and what little glucose it needed was produced by the gluconeogenesis process the author mentioned. There were fewer waste products, as well, which seems to indicate more efficient utilization.
Ketogenic diets are widely used to treat all kinds of brain/neurological issues.
I’d rather burn fat than to burn glucose and make fat. I’ll stick with my low (< 50 ) carb diet of meat and veggies. You can keep your industry raised wheat, corn, sugar, and all of the derivatives.
I am also a Type 1 diabetic and have used the ketogenic diet and intermittent fasting very successfully to manage my blood sugars. Low blood sugars are now uncommon for me because it is the carbs, not the protein or fat that require large doses of insulin. As Dr. Richard Bernstein would say, small doses (of insulin) make for small errors, and large doses make for large errors. I stepped off the blood sugar/insulin roller coaster when I went low carb, and the freedom it provides is wonderful.
Nevertheless, I also agree with the author that a lower carb lifestyle can increase cortisol levels, especially for women, which creates some negative side effects like insomnia and hormone disregulation. As a female, I have experienced these effects and had to increase my carb intake a bit to compensate. With that adjustment, the keto lifestyle with intermittent fasting has been a great solution for my T1 diabetes.
Of course we need carbs: spinach, cauliflower, brussels spouts, cabbage, kale, radishes, lettuces…they all have carbs in them. 20 grams a day of carbs is more than enough…
They also have goitrogens, nitriles, and oxalates.
Good article.
Carb intake is highly variable based on activity level. All the people negatively commenting likely don’t do much physical activity or sport, therefore something like 100 grams a day is probably fine for them. As a highly active guy training for obstacle course races I can’t get away with less than 350-400 grams a day.
People saying keto gives one a sports advantage… umm no that’s why no one who is paid millions of dollars to perform as a high level athlete does keto. They’ve investigated it so many times and it always fails to outperform a carb rich diet for athletics. People act like keto was kept a secret (because a hucksters health guru trying to make millions said so) but no, it just sucks unless you’re diabetic or epileptic.
Not to mention that carbs themselves don’t cause disease. Sweet potato and rice didn’t give you diabetes and insulin resistance, a combination of highly refined food, vegetable oils and too many calories did.
Can we stop beating this dead horse already?
What do you suggest for women 60 & over who are trying to lose 50+ lbs? Are carbs a good investment that the body can’t do without? I always heard the good carbs, vs bad carbs and the good carbs are what the body needs. However since God made potatoes and grains for us to eat they should be healthy for us in moderation. Now, how much is moderation on a daily basis without the body storing too much glucose and interrupting insulin levels?
God may have made potatoes and grains but that doesn’t mean he made them for us to eat. Both are high in carbs (which always spike blood sugar and insulin levels when you eat them) and high in lectins which damage the gut.
Eating these things “in moderation” may be OK if they are properly prepared (to reduce lectin content) and timed (so more of the glucose they generate goes into replenishing glycogen stores rather than into fat storage) but daily consumption in any amount is not moderation. If you are trying to lose weight, focus on eating more of the good fats, carbs in the range of 20-30 gm a day (from lower glycemic veges ), and eliminating high carb, high lectin foods from your diet. (grains, potatoes and other nightshade veges, etc)
Enjoy reading comments. I am going on 83 and enjoy an active grain and sugar free life style (with modest use of monk tree sweetener and honey). I walk, swim, do aerobics and enjoy dancing. I eat healthy fats freely and carbs from crucificious veggies and a fruit smoothy at least once a day. I use home made yogurt from whole milk (with soaked chia seeds for breakfast), eat 1 – 3 eggs daily with occasional meat and proteins from a variety of sources and fresh green salads that include avocados and home made dressing. Processed foods are off my list with very few exceptions. I enjoy all I am eating!!! As a former RN I began my nutritional research 30 years ago and continue to learn. We all make mistakes (have bought in to now outdated views) and I did my share! Some must have gone right how ever. My late husband had still wide open bypass vessels 27 years after an emergency tripple bypass heart operation. It shocked eminent Cardilologists – (and that without use of medications)!
I think the common mistake of this article is the same common mistake most who tout “the dangers” is the fact that the TYPE of carbohydrates are not addressed and to what degree of intake. Combine that with the title the author carries and you have the general public crying foul on the confusion of the information given.
God didn’t make any mistakes—-so take that into consideration when suggesting new science theories. Moderation, and physical activity was part of his plan for our life. Scripture warns us about drugs and processed foods. Follow those basic principles, eat only natural food he made for us and everything else will take care of itself.
If you have health issues, cleanse the body on a regular basis and follow the eating and activity plan he had for you, and let him direct you with his eyes—-assuming you believe and are listening.
I totally agree with the first few comments on this subject “This is a one sided view containing too many caveats of “possible” or “could”” from Get Real.
and “If I ate 100g plus of carbs on a daily basis I’d rapidly regain weight I lost on a managed carbs eating plan, where it varies from 40 – 70 g on a daily basis.” from RC. I am confident that the answers are unknown and unproven at this point and instead of being dogmatic about the opinion, the author uses the necessary caveats when the evidence is inconclusive. The author is in general terms a believer that carbohydrates in the diet are very important. I am not sure. Is dietary glucose preferred over, or more healthy than gluconeogenesis? I don’t think that is known. Lisa B mentions that the brain seems to do very well on ketones. I have read that in numerous sources and I have been on a keto diet now for several months and I feel my mental acuity is improved. Obviously I don’t know what I will be thinking about this years from now, but it is working really well for now. I think some people are relatively immune to negative effects of carbohydrates, but others are genetically very sensitive. I cut carbs from “enormous” to approximately 60 g per day 6 years ago and lost 18 lbs over about 8 months. That held for 2 years then unfortunately, I gained just over half of the weight back over the next 4.5 years still eating about 60 carbs per day. I need to go well below 60 g per day to feel good and be at a good weight for me. On the keto diet I lost all the regained weight plus 4 pounds and feel I am finally at a good weight.
I am 62. I have been on a low to zero carb diet for the last 5 years. Yes I said ZERO CARB as in NO PLANTS. Today at 62 I now look, feel, and perform better athletically (triathlon), better than I did in my late 30’s early 40’s while on a high carb diet.
The author most likely repeated what he learned in his Rockefeller controlled School or what he read in his research for the article. I on the other hand have lived it. And so have millions of others. And we all know first hand that life is way better in the long term without carbs.
FACT: There are essential fats & proteins. THERE ARE NO essential Carbohydrates for humans beings. PERIOD. END OF STORY!
Maybe the author can research that and update his article.
No people have thrived on a carbohydrate, plant based diet. Survive yes, thrive no. The Plains Indians were among the fittest and healthiest humans to exist.Their diet was animal based, including offal, they spent most of their time outside and were active. Weston Price made this clear in his studies of the primitives. Reversing disease, reducing body fat, increasing energy, sleeping better, improving sexual function, improving concentration and etc are all benefits I have experienced on a low carb, less than 50 usually. HbA1c was 10.1 and 6 months later 5.3 doctor was stunned. I take no messential, feel great, visible abs, age 60. Going on 2 years weight down 23lbs, 170 at 5-11 not even trying just eating 1-3 meals, eat when hungry stop.when full. 100 pushups 2-4 times weekly, can do over 40 in a row and a few one arms. Walk dog daily .8 miles 2 times. Eliminating sugar, white flour and vegetable oils is first order. Local small farms for pastured eggs and grass fed beef is primary, then pork and chicken, sardines 2-3 cans weekly and salmon, chicken and beef liver, cheese, cream and plain greek yogurt. Small amounts of leafy greens and cruciferous (Dr. Eric Westman guidelines) mainly berries for fruit. Blood work is excellent. Virtually eliminate carbs then slowly increase to find your tolerance level if you choose.You don’t need a dietician. You don’t need to count calories or carbs. Eat whole real natural food. Do your own research and use your common sense. Learn about how the body works, hormones etc. then get in tune with your body.
I see in this comments section that some other perspectives are lacking. For example, some of us like to eat carbohydrate foods. We enjoy making a sourdough bread or potato gratin. We enjoy cooking for families. I eat a moderate amount of carbs, I am at a healthy weight, I exercise and have no health problems. I eat carbs because I want to. And I don’t feel I need to justify that to anyone.