Carbohydrates - needed or not?

[ianf0ster]

The carb portion also depends on how active or inactive you are. Ie a builder will need more of everything than a person who spends a lot of time at home for instance. The Carbs and Cals book is great for guidance on carb count and portion sizes.

That isn't strictly true because the actual daily requirement for carbs is zero ! The only reason people tend to think otherwise is that the brain need some glucose for fuel, but in the absence of carbs your body makes glucose from either fats or protein both of which are better for Type 2 Diabetics than carbs are because they don't spike the Blood Glucose like carbs do.

Dr Ian Lake a GP with Type 1 diabetes along with 1 other Type 1 diabetic and some health care professionals did 100 miles (or approx 4 marathons) in 5 days without any food at all and tests showed they didn't waste any muscle mass - they did it on stored body fat alone, some of which was turned into glucose for the brain.
So the idea that you need carbs for energy is just a myth, otherwise our ancestors would never have survived the winters in Europe.

 

[Jodee]

Dr Ian Lake a GO with Type 1 diabetes along with 1 other Type 1 diabetic and some health care professionals did 100 miles (or approx 4 marathons) in 5 days without any food at all and tests showed they didn't waste any muscle mass - they did it on stored body fat alone, some of which was turned into glucose for the brain.
So the idea that you need carbs for energy is just a myth, otherwise our ancestors would never have survived the winters in Europe.

That is not healthy for the average person, and could be extremely dangerous. I know I would collapse with no food walking a marathon for 25 miles never mind 100. But then just because 2 type 1 diabetics, injecting insulin and taking water can do it successfully doesnt prove that everyone can.

 

[Drummer]

That is not healthy for the average person, and could be extremely dangerous. I know I would collapse with no food walking a marathon for 25 miles never mind 100. But then just because 2 type 1 diabetics, injecting insulin and taking water can do it successfully doesnt prove that everyone can.

It is probable that everyone can do it, because in times of famine, those who could not, died. Humans have evolved from the ones who survived in time of crisis, so if you had to do it, you would.

 

[Jodee]

It is probable that everyone can do it, because in times of famine, those who could not, died. Humans have evolved from the ones who survived in time of crisis, so if you had to do it, you would.

Or die - with several health issues, I would likely die, especially if it was a cold damp winters day or even an excessively hot summers day. or I could live if I got to hospital in time.

 

[pm133]

That isn't strictly true because the actual daily requirement for carbs is zero !

That's quite a statement of fact there.
Is there peer reviewed scientific literature to back this?

 

[pm133]

It is probable that everyone can do it, because in times of famine, those who could not, died. Humans have evolved from the ones who survived in time of crisis, so if you had to do it, you would.

I would imagine the typical life expectancy and associated quality of life for someone in a famine scenario would be very significantly affected.
It's not unreasonable to assume that humans evolved from those who were able to escape such appalling conditions.

 

[Inka]

While carbs might not an ‘essential element’, ketosis is a back-up system not the body’s preferred source of energy. It’s there as a reserve not an ideal primary source.

Humans evolved from an ape ancestor and our ape cousins eat a good amount of carbs.

 

[ianf0ster]

While carbs might not an ‘essential element’, ketosis is a back-up system not the body’s preferred source of energy. It’s there as a reserve not an ideal primary source.

Humans evolved from an ape ancestor and our ape cousins eat a good amount of carbs.

I would agree if we still had digestive systems similar to our ape relatives, but we don't. Our much higher stomach acid and much smaller large intestine are closer to carnivores than to other apes.

Human ancestors only developed large brains after they started eating fatty meat and marrow from large herbivores. Before agriculture (outside of Africa) there was lots of fibrous foods available, but few sugary or starchy foods except for seasonal fruits. All of which were much lower carb than the modern ones which have been bred for sweetness. For the whole of Homo Sapiens history our gut has been unable to digest (ferment) the fibres which form the bulk of ape diets. Try eating wild carrots!

We can only store a tiny fraction of out daily energy content in the form of glucose and glycogen. Ketosis isn't a backup system for fuel, we wouldn't even last 1 day without it!

Gyazo

gyazo.com

 

[Inka]

Human ancestors only developed large brains after they started eating fatty meat and marrow from large herbivores.

Did they?? Surely that’s just one of many theories that have been mooted as to why humans have a larger brain? It’s not a fact - unless you have recent peer-reviewed evidence proving otherwise?

I understood that our higher stomach acid was, in fact, closer to carrion feeders not carnivores, and evolved to protect us against pathogens.

I’m not playing down the importance of ketosis. I’m objecting to the casual discarding of carbohydrates and the labelling of them as ‘not needed’.

 

[Drummer]

Human ancestors only developed large brains after they started eating fatty meat and marrow from large herbivores.

Did they?? Surely that’s just one of many theories that have been mooted as to why humans have a larger brain? It’s not a fact - unless you have recent peer-reviewed evidence proving otherwise?

I understood that our higher stomach acid was, in fact, closer to carrion feeders not carnivores, and evolved to protect us against pathogens.

I’m not playing down the importance of ketosis. I’m objecting to the casual discarding of carbohydrates and the labelling of them as ‘not needed’.

Unfortunately our human ancestors grew larger brains at the expense of their guts, which are smaller than animals of a similar size and weight to Humans, so to maintain them we need to have high nutrition foods, which carbs are not. It is the explanation which has held true right from the time when hominid fossils started to become commonly known and information and speculation published - back almost 100 years ago now.
We can live without eating carbs, we are adapted for it.

 

[pm133]

Unfortunately our human ancestors grew larger brains at the expense of their guts, which are smaller than animals of a similar size and weight to Humans, so to maintain them we need to have high nutrition foods, which carbs are not. It is the explanation which has held true right from the time when hominid fossils started to become commonly known and information and speculation published - back almost 100 years ago now.
We can live without eating carbs, we are adapted for it.

And if that is true, there will be peer reviewed science to back that up. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for that.

 

[Eddy Edson]

And if that is true, there will be peer reviewed science to back that up. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for that.

Here's Kevin Bass, relentless dietary woo-debunker, debunking the notin that humans have shorter GI tracts than lions: https://thedietwars.com/gi-length-humans-lions/

Anyway, Neanderthals and early humans ate lots of plants/carbs:

Plant foods and the dietary ecology of Neanderthals and early modern humans

One of the most important challenges in anthropology is understanding the disappearance of Neanderthals. Previous research suggests that Neanderthals …

www.sciencedirect.com

Here we present results from the first broad comparison of plant foods in the diets of Neanderthals and early modern humans from several populations in Europe, the Near East, and Africa. Our data comes from the analysis of plant microremains (starch grains and phytoliths) in dental calculus and on stone tools. Our results suggest that both species consumed a similarly wide array of plant foods, including foods that are often considered low-ranked, like underground storage organs and grass seeds. Plants were consumed across the entire range of individuals and sites we examined, and none of the expected predictors of variation (species, geographic region, or associated stone tool technology) had a strong influence on the number of plant species consumed.

 

[Inka]

Unfortunately our human ancestors grew larger brains at the expense of their guts, which are smaller than animals of a similar size and weight to Humans, so to maintain them we need to have high nutrition foods, which carbs are not. It is the explanation which has held true right from the time when hominid fossils started to become commonly known and information and speculation published - back almost 100 years ago now.
We can live without eating carbs, we are adapted for it.

Well, that explanation is a) just one of a number of theories attempting to explain our larger brains; and b) was only hypothesised late C20 so has hardly “held true” for almost 100 years!

I repeat - there are many theories relating to human brain growth and size. I suspect the answer is a combination of a few of them.

Ketosis is a good thing for when we need it. However, it’s not sensible to use it as a way of eating very long-term. As @Eddy Edson says, early humans ate a good amount of carbs. They’re an important part of our diet.

 

[everydayupsanddowns]

I generally get a little uncomfortable with suggestions that carbs are inherently harmful and/or entirely unnecessary, because I always feel there’s a whiff of ‘straw man’ about those arguments, and that they aren’t particularly helpful for people living in 21st Century Northern Europe.

Even examples of human communities who are often cited as ‘no carbers’ like Innuit and Masai aren’t apparently as clear as they seem, because generally Asda doesn't sell frozen raw whole seal carcass (with glycogen in it).

I would gently request that all members steer clear of ‘all or nothing’ arguments which insist that either carbohydrates are entirely unnecessary or that a high carbohydrate intake is essential for everyone.

In truth it is all but impossible to eat ‘no carb‘ - because even leafy veg has carbohydrate in it.

It is also unnecessary to insist on ketosis as the only option. Very low carb diets don’t work for (or simply don’t suit) everyone.

Conversely, it is also clear that the modern Western diet with high levels of processed and simplified carbohydrate sources is not healthy or sustainable for many people.

This forum has always supported a wide variety of approaches to diet in general, and carbohydrate in particular.

What really matters is that people are encouraged to find a way of eating that is nutritionally complete, viable and flexible, which they can enjoy and sustain long-term, and which supports their aspirations about weight and blood glucose levels.

Your Diabetes (and approach to carbohydrate) May Vary. 🙂

 

[Eddy Edson]

This is a wide-ranging and detailed review of what can be said about hunter-gatherer diets and health, plus an extra-detailed look at one group in northern Tanzania: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/obr.12785

Summarising macros and health markers for three hunter-gatherer groups vs standard US:



Significantly higher carb proportion, significantly lower fat, better health markers. Of course, they don't infer higher carbs/lower fat => better health, because you also need to take into account weight, activity levels, micros etc etc - but there's no evidence to support a carbs-are-evil story.

 

[Jodee]

Generally one size does not fit all, and that applies to carbs and carb quantities, not to mention preferences. We each get to know our own body and how we feel and do on different diets.

To reduced blood glucose levels though as a type 2, reducing carbs and exercise is certainly going to help.

 

[Ralph-YK]

Was the initial quote in the Op from this thread https://forum.diabetes.org.uk/boards/threads/how-much.89556/post-1012124?

That isn't strictly true because the actual daily requirement for carbs is zero ! The only reason people tend to think otherwise is that the brain need some glucose for fuel, but in the absence of carbs your body makes glucose form either fats or protein

Jodee said:

The carb portion also depends on how active or inactive you are. Ie a builder will need more of everything than a person who spends a lot of time at home for instance. The Carbs and Cals book is great for guidance on carb count and portion sizes

I've been told by HCP (in group sessions, specifically for diabetics, and in 1-1 sessions) the info that Jodee gave. I've also been told that 130g a day is the minimum.

Having said that, I've met people in RL, as well as those on here, who report going "extra" low carb and it working for them. One of them (a T1) has spoken about it in relation to being a keen biker rider. He used to be the sort of person who'd carb load for serious rides; and now reports doing it low carb.

Personally, I've no idea how much to tell people to have. At the least it needs managing (which HCP don't support, unfortuneatly).

either fats or protein both of which ... they don't spike the Blood Glucose like carbs do.

That showed up when I self tested. I've had a plate full of food, with minimal carbs (roast beef dinner) which barely touched my BG (was a hot day and I was walkling around all afternoon). Where as a normal bowl of ceriel (no sugar) makes BG jump. A sandwich with two slices of bread (which was nothing in terms of amount of food compared to the dinner above) is somewhere in between. (I stopped the ceriel).

 

[ianf0ster]

This is a wide-ranging and detailed review of what can be said about hunter-gatherer diets and health, plus an extra-detailed look at one group in northern Tanzania: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/obr.12785

Summarising macros and health markers for three hunter-gatherer groups vs standard US:

View attachment 15547

Significantly higher carb proportion, significantly lower fat, better health markers. Of course, they don't infer higher carbs/lower fat => better health, because you also need to take into account weight, activity levels, micros etc etc - but there's no evidence to support a carbs-are-evil story.

View attachment 15548

View attachment 15549

View attachment 15550

So Tanzania is now outside of Africa - is it?
How convenient to pick hunter gatherers in the only place where native non-agricultural) carbs can be found all year round.
How about the Artic peoples (before westernisation)? How many carbs are there in seal and whale meat and blubber or in salmon and shellfish? They only had carbs in autumn - just like the local bears.
They also had much better health back then too!

 

[Drummer]

Ah - don't confuse the length and the mass, plus there are some indications that the shape and orientation has some effect - Our gut is stacked vertically and that of quadrupeds is - obviously, not. Part of our arrangement is to assist in holding the various parts apart, as getting your gut folded over itself can be fatal.
I just accepted the thoughts about guts as it did not seem unlikely, had developed over some time rather than been pontificated at one time by one person, and was confirmed during the time I was in further education, when I was paying attention far more.

 

[pm133]

Presumably nobody is going to show any peer reviewed scientific evidence showing that the human body needs zero carbs as an indisputable fact then?

Oh well. Not to worry. It just seems odd to be so evangelical about something without having the evidence to back it up but if the evidence is not there, it's not there.