Phinney says he can ride his cycle long distances without ever hitting the wall. Somewhere in one of those videos or his book he computes how much energy is stored in his liver and muscles and can be converted to glucose, and compares it to the energy stored on his lean frame as fat, it's not even close fat wins. Burning fat also uses less oxygen than glucose per unit of energy. He also says cheating say one day a week and consuming more carbs is counterproductive as it switches you metabolism back to carb burning mode and it takes a while get back. Keeping ketoadapted also is the best way to loose weight since what you want to do is burn your own fat.
I'm beginning to feel schizo, in addition to being in the Bernstein cult I'm fast becoming a member of the Phinney cult:)
Honestly Badmoon, as a carb-eater, I was taken aback by the often vehement arguments that not only are carbs the problem, but that carbs are some kind of extraneous substance that should be avoided at all costs. Honestly, since that epic thread, I've told myself that there is a lot I needed to learn and I've certainly softened my stance in defense of my own high carb diet.
Clearly, however, carbs whether they be in the form of circulating glucose, or stored glycogen in the liver and muscle, are needed for proper blood sugar balance. The whole concept of keto-adaptation is based on the liver's need to switch over from dependence on dietary sources of carbs to help regulate BG, to dietary sources of protein for gluconeogenesis to help regulate BG. That, combined with a need to up-regulate fat metabolism to produce the huge amount of energy needed to run gluconeogeneiss is what turns low-carbers into fat burning machines.
What's helped me is the availability of a lot of new ideas and research from people like Phinney, and for me, Noakes who have really come around to the idea of low-carb for athletic performance.
It's not a matter of whether or not your body needs carbs. It does. It's more a matter of how low can you take your carb consumption, while raising your protein and fat consumption, to allow gluconeogenesis to make up the difference.
As we are seeing from threads like these, there are still a lot of ideas out there about what that level is for different people.
I avoid high carb foods, but I'm not anal about it. After 60 years of shooting insulin, I have become fairly effecient at "guessing" the correct amount to shoot before meals. I doubt if it's possible to be right-on more than 2 out of 3 meals. I'm not nearly this proficient.
Let us not forget the obvious problem with loads of carbs. You will be fat!
Well put, BadMoon! I agree that the culture at TuD has become one of respect. I'm continually impressed with how people respond to questions of all sorts and even challenges in a tactful and modulated manner. Low carb a la Bernstein is one of the hot button items because people who have found something that works well for them are passionate about it and want to share. But even then people usually just say, like you described, "here's what works for me".
To respond to the question, though of what is "low carb" I consider classic Bernstein, or 30 grams, to be "low carb". I eat somewhere under 100 a day and consider that "moderate-low". But whenever we discuss that we see that everyone views that differently as well.
You're right, but he makes an important assertion to support why he feels like he never hits the wall.
Muscle glycogen, carbs, is the limiting factor for muscle activity. Hitting the wall happens when your muscles deplete their glycogen reserves. Low carbing results in lower glycogen reserves. Phinney asserts that he never hits the wall, not because he has bigger fat reserve, but because his glycogen usage is much more efficient. and he credits low carbing for making his glycogen usage more efficient.
Completely burning one molecule of glucose down to carbon dioxide to produce energy requires 6 molecules of oxygen. I'm not actually sure how many molecules of oxygen is required to burn one fatty acid but the process absolutely requires oxygen. The only way to produce energy without oxygen, anaerobically, is using some type of sugar during glycolysis. So, you can actually produce energy from glucose without using any oxygen at all.
That's important when if comes to maximal effort anaerobic activities like sprinting. Phinney also says he can sprint on a bike without huffing and puffing and uses that as anecdotal evidence to support his assertion that low carbing leads to more efficient glycogen usage. Here's where I'm skeptical. The only way to know that for sure is to:
1) Put him on a respirometer to make sure he's actually anaerobic and burning glycogen/glucose, while he's "sprinting."
2) While you're doing that, measure his power output and show that it's either increased or, at the very least, hasn't dropped off relative to where it was when he wasn't keto-adapted.
Sheesh,so the couple of times a month I eat high carb stuff doesn't just influence that day and the next huh? Thanks BadMoon, I'll have to take another (closer) look at Phinney.
When I was on my cruise last December, I ate around 90 carbs a day - huge for me. I ate bread, sushi, yada yada (though in moderation). It felt like an enormous splurge... well, it was LOL. I actually didn't gain weight, and kept my BG pretty well controlled with a couple of journeys into he 150s.
All that to say... I don't feel cultish, I don't consider eating more carbs cheating or being bad, I just choose the LC WOE because I feel good and it's an easy way for me to keep my BG where I want it.
Then again I wouldn't mind being in a cult with YOU :)
I am not a low carber ; about 20 u insulin daily , approx 160 grams of carbs daily ...a bit less food , aim for balanced meals ( more mindful eating as I am moving towards age 72 in a couple of months , less active ) than a few years ago , steady weight for many years ...love my daily steel cut oats ...took a package with us on vacation to Waikiki ( condo ) just incase we could not purchase ...good news , same brand was available !
I do want to maintain weight, and lose the 10 lbs that seems to love me so much it won't go away. However, I'll still enjoy myself with more carbs occasionally. At my age it's only me I have to please ;)
I agree that the flavor is great. I make a great bread using almond flour. I also have a recipe for a nut bread using only almond/or peanut butter and some vinegar...no flours at all...hard to imagine but true!!!
Ok, so I looked on my Ping, jrtpup and I got the total ranges for 90 days. For "before meals" it gave a range of 75-121 and I had 47% above, 33% "in range" and 20% below. For after meals it gave a range of 100-130 (not sure if I can change that myself): above 47%, in range 25%, and below 27%. That doesn't look so good!!
I think this is mostly only true when you are over consuming total calories. If you are ONLY eating what is required then the glucose will go in to the cell and be used for normal body function.
The one thing Atkins or Bernstein like diets hang their hats on (as far as weight loss) is that insulin is a hormone that tells your body you are fed. When you are fed then you have energy to store- our main source of storage is fat. The idea being if you are injecting a bunch of insulin you will always be telling your body it is fed and thus be more apt to store energy as fat. What I noticed for myself is that Bernstein type diets tend to drop my total caloric consumption which in turn leads to weight loss. It was JUST as effective (for me!) to cut back my total calories and still consume carbs.
All that being said that doesn't take away from the fact that the less insulin you are injecting the less chance of making a mistake and theoretically the less wild swings in blood glucose. I spent three months trying to get Bernstein diet to work but I could never consistently expect my liver to convert x amount of protein and fat into x amount of glucose. When I limit carbs I CAN count more easily and expect ALL that carb to turn to glucose. Long way of saying lowering my carb intake was more effective for me than Bernstein.
Hmmm...that formula doesn't look too unwieldy, but using individual numbers does...I mean how MANY numbers. Maybe Jrt or someone else will tell me how they derive it from their Ping.
(I don't even use the software to my Ping, but log the old fashioned way, but that $5,000 piece of machinery ought to be good for this!) Thanks, though. Just out of curiosity what is yours?
I think some of the guilt may stem from the 'not being a 'perfect' diabetic, which I think is silly. Every one has good and bad days, if you eat like crap one day, just don't do it every day, or you will start to see poor results.
For me, I used to be able to get away with 2 Mrs Macs chilli beef and cheese pies and a cookie time (about 150g carbs) for lunch, and still be losing weight and have good numbers. I was however working as a farm hand, and doing a lot of manual labour. If I tried to eat that much now I'd feel really, really ill!!
I too have really bad insulin resistance in the mornings, so keep breakfast to about 10-15g, I also feel really nauseaous in the early morning if I eat too much, so it's not hard to have a light breakfast. I do however find that if I only have protein, my bg goes up, more than it does with a small amount of CHO. With other meals I find that if I have a large amount of carb, and I haven't been 'working' it off, I just feel blah, the same as I'd feel if it was a massive feed of protein too. I don't "low carb' as such as I don't have a high fat/high protein diet in the classic sense either. I just find that there is an amount of carbs, that under normal daily 'use' of my body, works best. I do find that I have to up that rate if I'm doing something like skiing or tramping (hiking)for multi days as even with a lowered basal rate I was struggling.
When I look at what I eat now, as a person working in a sedentary job, compared to a friend of a similar height that works as a glacier guide, (the girl can eat an entire chocolate cake for morning tea and says if she ever stops walking for a living, she will have to learn to make what she eats for 'second breakfast' last all day!), I think with the sedentary lives/jobs that most of us now have, we just don't need the carbs/energy.
As diabetics we have to pay more attention to what our food does to us than 'joe public' so I think most are more aware. I can't get the really low carb (30g/day) to work, but I'm normally around 15/20-40/20-40 for each meal max.
With isnulin resistance, for me it only becomes a problem when I get fat... hence why I'm trying to get back to my old weight.
Honestly, I have found that going full fat, full flavour and having a smaller size and having it less often is the best option with things like chocolate and icecream. I'm luckly that Whittakers Chocolate is nice and close to me - good, dark mass produced choc, hopefully their peanut butter choc that has just been released is great. Reeses is hard to get here, and I love it! I find a lot of the low fat/low sugar options have other stuff that screws me over, so instead of getting a large I get a small, and enjoy it.
Back in the 80's I got fructosamines done regularly - then it became 'old fahioned' and the A1c took over.... I was too young (10yrs) and the internet wasn't on anyones radar so I have no idea of what the reasoning was!
Zoe, once you've downloaded your ping data, go to the 'compilation' tab. The SD is in the left hand box. If you need more help, please ask! Mine as of the last couple of weeks is 25. Gerri is right, finding the real sd is a long pita, but I'm only interested in my deviation from the mean.
