An on the side : 4 out of 5 PWD 's lives are claimed due to heart attacks ...I prefer to be on this side of the equation ...so far so good !
With 3 categories of food, carbs, protein and fat, if one goes down, the other two will go up. What these types of studies leave out is exploring how carbs convert to fat, particularly if they aren't burnt off rapidly. I found Gary Taubes' science history books particularly compelling in their review of the scientific literature on the subject, from which he concludes that eating carbs is the problem, not the solution and that the danger of fat is overstated by pro-carb advocates.
The problem for "us", PWD, is that the medical industry seems disinclined to consider cutting out carbs as a valid perspective, despite their own evidence (studies from the 1930s...cited by Taubes...no, I'm not going to look them up...) that eating less carbs can be effective. I suspect that a significant reason that low carb approaches are challenging is because the culture, both social and medical, is not supportive because of the myth that we need carbs. I like carbs too but I don't need a lot of them. I just need enough. Which seems to be less than professionals, doctors, CDE, dietitians have recommended (180-270G/ day...) for a 180 lb 44 year old.
AC a difference between 180-270 g daily is huge ! ...not what my CDE dietitian recommends ( and I am female )...and what type of carbs is another question ??
...( off for my eve. walk next )
That's what the dietitian recommended when I'd seen her, in 2008, right before I got my pump. I was about 275 lbs when I started and had gotten down to 225-230, in there by the time I got my pump, told her what I was eating (I'm not sure, as I wasn't counting, I was guessing...) and she rx'ed 45-60G of carbs at breakfast/ lunch/ dinner and then 15-30G of carb snacks 3x/ day. Maybe she was off but it's sort of eerily similar to what other members have reported from dietitians. I just ignored her and kept at it.
In 2009, I'd entered one of these fracases on the pro-carb sign but listened to BadMoon and Lizmari and other people and, conviently enough, had a week off, tried running (the first time I ran 30 miles in a week...including 7 miles in 7 degree weather!) all week on like 30G of carbs and felt fine. I've run more since then and sometimes eat more but I don't think I eat a lot and I sort of question the notion that you "have to" eat tons of carbs. As long as you time the carbs correctly, it's possible to stay relatively flat and active. Enjoy your walk!
I haven't seen a huge amount of "science" on the subject as I'm way too lazy to read studies most of the time but I've tried it and it works fine for my amateur exploits. I've seen Hana around. I'm not nearly as strict as her I think?
I don't think it is true that if you cut out carbs, you must eat more protein and fat. I have always had a fast metabolism. When I was younger I could eat huge amounts, but was always skinny.
Now, I eat ~35g carb / day. I have not replaced carbohydrates with anything. I just eat much less. I began at a healthy weight, and have lost very little, but look skinnier. I believe my body has become more efficient. Exercise and all other factors are the same as before. Perhaps this also explains why people usually gain a lot of weight once they quit a diet.
That's if you have a certain number of calories I think? If I'm eating 2000 calories/ day and adjust the carb percentage down, I'd have to make them up out of either protein or fat? There's probably not a lot of "straight" people counting all that precisely but if you have diabetes, you should be counting carbs? I didn't find it tremendously difficult to look at what I was eating and say "ok, I can cut _____" out or back to lower the carbs? I still have a few (dinner, evenings...argh!) that are lingering but am not wildly interested in going a lot lower these days.
I've been counting carbs and protein is ~80g / day. I have increased my fat by no more than 10%. I haven't been counting calories, but comparing what I ate then to now, my total caloric intake is 40-60% less. ~1000 / day
I don't think that calories paint a very accurate picture. Coal, for example, has a lot of calories, but you wouldn't get fat from eating it.
I also wonder about competitive eaters that are thin. For example, to maintain stomach elasticity, Takeru Kobayashi says he eats 6,000 calories / day. In competition, he can eat 20,000 calories in a single sitting. He began competing at 110 lbs and is 5'8. Today, he walks around at 165, but still is still slim.
Most low carb diets stress moderate protein, high fat & low carb. Dr. Atkins did also, but this got misinterpreted to eat all the protein you want.
Gerri, sorry, but this just isn't right. Atkins diet is universally known as a high protein diet. Where did you get the impression that it is "moderate protein"?
Prominently stated on the book jacket of his "Diet Revolution" book:
"The story of how Dr Atkins personally discovered the incredible effects of a high-protein/low-carbohydrate diet and how it came to revolutionize his thinking"
And here are some sample quotes from his "Diet Revolution" book:
"Every time you're upset I want you to go straight to the refrigerator and eat some protein food"
"The diet in this book. It allows for protein and fat pick-me-ups as often as you like"
"The menus and meal plans in this book are all based on protein and packed with nutrients"
"Start stoking yourself with protein and fat exclusively"
The whole purpose of the BMJ paper was to test an Atkins-like diet.
I'm with you. It is known that having diabetes greatly increases your risk of heart disease (link). And if this study is correct that eating low-carb/high-protein increases your risk of heart disease even more, then that seems to me to be a pretty good reason to think hard before embracing the Atkins ultra-low-carb lifestyle. Strangely, it seems that most of Tu thinks otherwise. Oh well, as my Mom used to say, everyone gets to picks their own poison.
I agree that anyone should think hard, and there many factors to consider before starting a LC diet, but your logic is faulty.
This study suggests that a LC/HP diet increases risk for coronary incidents in non-D women.
PWD suffer an elevated rate of coronary incidents (~2-4x avg.)
This does not suggest that LC diet further increases the risk of coronary incidents in PWD.
The study does "not suggest that LC diet further increases the risk of coronary incidents in PWD" because it was done with healthy individuals. However it can be argued that LC diets could have the potential to further increase the risk of coronary incidents in PWD. For PWD the risk might not get lower the more carbs. Still there might be a minimum at a certain amount X of carbohydrates. If you are below this X the risk might further increase due to low carbohydrate intake - why not when it even increases the stress for healthy individuals? If you are above this X the risk might increase due to negative impacts of high carbohydrate loads on glucose control leading to more coronary incidents. The question is where this X might be located. I personally suspect that this X is around 60 to 100g per day. Thus (in my opinion) all people with less than 50g of carbs per day should consider the results of this study.
I think 60-100G/ day is a very good figure myself. I have done a few days in the 30-45G range, just for fun and to see what would happen but I am not sure there's a huge advantage to that level vs. the slightly higher level in terms of me and my goals, which I've sort of 'met'. I have found that when I eat more veggies, I run better and get less achy so I've been pretty strict to toss down enough veggies on a daily basis.
The other thing that I find a bit questionable about the study is where it says the LCHP diets are "used on a regular basis and without consideration of the nature of carbohydrates or the source of proteins" since, as mentioned in the study Gareth cites, I've encountered quite a few people (mostly co-workers...) who have done the "bacon/eggs for breakfast, pork rinds all day, bowl of ground beef for lunch" type of diet that doesn't strike me as a healthy long-term solution. I would be more interested in the study if the researchers had explored that in some sort of follow up as I think there are different approaches to LCHP diets?
My question /observation ...not many folks , who are living with D for 30 years or more are part of the discussion ???...just asking /observing ???
I only have 27 years... ;-)
This is certainly an interesting study, but it is done on non-D women. One point that no one has mentioned so far is that the risk of cardiovascular disease goes down significantly in the group that exercises more. Exercise is always the magic pill! Jag1, I don't think that LCers represent the majority of TuD members at all, but they certainly are the most vocal! I know for myself that it has been helpful for me to go lower carb, but true low carb is just horrible for me personally--I get terrible headaches, I feel hungry constantly, and my cholesterol in my trial period of LC was the highest it has even been in my life. But overall, the study says to me, "be diligent with your exercise, eat your veggies, and choose your carbs wisely." Or was that Mom talking?!
RE Holger: This is all speculation. For sake of argument, maybe X = 0? By what mechanism does lack of carbohydrates increase stress or risk of heart disease? The study scored the women on a relative Carb to Protein ratio. Perhaps these findings indicate the dangers of increased protein? Not to mention, difference in the typical protein sources in the Swedish vs (for example) US diets.
Re AR: I wish there were more specific studies on LC diet, too. This one has a huge test group, and a long duration, so results are conclusive, but unfortunately not very specific. A smaller, more focused study would be more specific, but results would not be as credible.
Oh , ha, ha ...you are close ac ( I picked a number ) ..bottom line, I believe what friends Melita /Jag /You are referring too : capital E...Exercise/Movement ...it starts in Kindergarten /or earlier , goes on till one goes to Heaven !!
I am a teenager, 17+ years for me. Ten years behind you, AR! And Nel, you are leaving me in the dust, but your dust is good to follow.