The Lancet - we need 150g carbs/day

"Bob in CT" wrote

People are different, but there has never been a study anywhere where the
people could not sustain the "normal function of [a] body" under 150 grams
of carbs per day.

They just define the state of ketosis as not being part of "normal function"
I guess, based on the little shippet that was posted. What else is new? The
question is whether or not being in ketosis is a suboptimal way for the body
to function. There's always been a lot of disagreement on this, and no real
long-term studies on large western population groups. I think most of us
here are OK with it, if done in a healthy way.

HG

"Hannah Gruen" wrote in message
...
"Bob in CT" wrote

People are different, but there has never been a study anywhere where
the
people could not sustain the "normal function of [a] body" under 150
grams
of carbs per day.

They just define the state of ketosis as not being part of "normal
function"
I guess, based on the little shippet that was posted. What else is new?
The
question is whether or not being in ketosis is a suboptimal way for the
body
to function. There's always been a lot of disagreement on this, and no
real
long-term studies on large western population groups. I think most of us
here are OK with it, if done in a healthy way.

HG


Ketosis does not magically occur at 150g. For me, I have to eat less than
around 30-40g to achieve externally measurable ketosis. At my usual 70g,
it is obvious that gluconeogenesis is maintaining my blood sugar levels, but
I get no indication of ketosis at that level (using ketostix). Maybe I
should
use my CardioChek to see if ketosis is secretly happening, but I doubt it
since I get none of the other side effects of ketosis.

Alan

"Hannah Gruen" wrote in message
...
"Bob in CT" wrote

People are different, but there has never been a study anywhere where
the
people could not sustain the "normal function of [a] body" under 150
grams
of carbs per day.

They just define the state of ketosis as not being part of "normal
function"
I guess, based on the little shippet that was posted. What else is new?
The
question is whether or not being in ketosis is a suboptimal way for the
body
to function. There's always been a lot of disagreement on this, and no
real
long-term studies on large western population groups. I think most of us
here are OK with it, if done in a healthy way.

HG


Ketosis does not magically occur at 150g. For me, I have to eat less than
around 30-40g to achieve externally measurable ketosis. At my usual 70g,
it is obvious that gluconeogenesis is maintaining my blood sugar levels, but
I get no indication of ketosis at that level (using ketostix). Maybe I
should
use my CardioChek to see if ketosis is secretly happening, but I doubt it
since I get none of the other side effects of ketosis.

Alan

"Hannah Gruen" wrote in message
...
"Bob in CT" wrote

People are different, but there has never been a study anywhere where
the
people could not sustain the "normal function of [a] body" under 150
grams
of carbs per day.

They just define the state of ketosis as not being part of "normal
function"
I guess, based on the little shippet that was posted. What else is new?
The
question is whether or not being in ketosis is a suboptimal way for the
body
to function. There's always been a lot of disagreement on this, and no
real
long-term studies on large western population groups. I think most of us
here are OK with it, if done in a healthy way.

HG


Ketosis does not magically occur at 150g. For me, I have to eat less than
around 30-40g to achieve externally measurable ketosis. At my usual 70g,
it is obvious that gluconeogenesis is maintaining my blood sugar levels, but
I get no indication of ketosis at that level (using ketostix). Maybe I
should
use my CardioChek to see if ketosis is secretly happening, but I doubt it
since I get none of the other side effects of ketosis.

Alan

Gregory Toomey wrote in message ...
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald...ld/9566646.htm


Traditionally eskimos lived on only meat and fish. They didn't seem to
have a problem, after all in the days of old they could just as easily
have moved to Miami.

Gregory Toomey wrote in message ...
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald...ld/9566646.htm


Traditionally eskimos lived on only meat and fish. They didn't seem to
have a problem, after all in the days of old they could just as easily
have moved to Miami.

Gregory Toomey wrote in message ...
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald...ld/9566646.htm


Traditionally eskimos lived on only meat and fish. They didn't seem to
have a problem, after all in the days of old they could just as easily
have moved to Miami.

"Alan Wright" wrote

Ketosis does not magically occur at 150g. For me, I have to eat less than
around 30-40g to achieve externally measurable ketosis. At my usual 70g,
it is obvious that gluconeogenesis is maintaining my blood sugar levels,
but
I get no indication of ketosis at that level (using ketostix). Maybe I
should
use my CardioChek to see if ketosis is secretly happening, but I doubt it
since I get none of the other side effects of ketosis.

Please realize that just because you can't measure ketosis on your ketostick
does NOT mean you're not in ketosis. If you're eating 100 g carbs or less
per day you almost certainly ARE in ketosis. Also, realize that many of the
symptoms people think are signs of ketosis may also be the result of other
factors, including changes in hydration, sparse intake of vegetables, etc.

Many people will adapt to use the ketones they produce for energy, very
efficient. That's why a lot of people won't register on ketosticks.
Sometimes the ketones they produce won't register on the ketostick media,
but will on an electronic instrument - that actually happened to me
(instrument was being used by me for a purpose rather different than
measuring ketones).

HG

"Alan Wright" wrote

Ketosis does not magically occur at 150g. For me, I have to eat less than
around 30-40g to achieve externally measurable ketosis. At my usual 70g,
it is obvious that gluconeogenesis is maintaining my blood sugar levels,
but
I get no indication of ketosis at that level (using ketostix). Maybe I
should
use my CardioChek to see if ketosis is secretly happening, but I doubt it
since I get none of the other side effects of ketosis.

Please realize that just because you can't measure ketosis on your ketostick
does NOT mean you're not in ketosis. If you're eating 100 g carbs or less
per day you almost certainly ARE in ketosis. Also, realize that many of the
symptoms people think are signs of ketosis may also be the result of other
factors, including changes in hydration, sparse intake of vegetables, etc.

Many people will adapt to use the ketones they produce for energy, very
efficient. That's why a lot of people won't register on ketosticks.
Sometimes the ketones they produce won't register on the ketostick media,
but will on an electronic instrument - that actually happened to me
(instrument was being used by me for a purpose rather different than
measuring ketones).

HG

As I understand it the body converts protein(up to 58%), fat(up to
10%), and carbs into glucose. Since people eat all three types of
these energy sources it stands to reason that 150 grams of carbs a day
is excessive. Sounds like this article is missleading people. Seems
the 150 figure is the minimum IF the individual consumes no fat or
protein.

Gregory Toomey wrote in message ...
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald...ld/9566646.htm

"The most frequent complaints with low-carb diets are constipation and
headache, which are readily explained by the lack of fruit, vegetables and
whole grains, Astrup said."

TOTAL NONSENSE. There are numerous low carb vegetables.

"We have known for many years that there is a minimum intake of carbohydrate
necessary to maintain the normal function of your body and that is
approximately 150 grams a day," he said. "But, if on the Atkins diet you go
down to 20 to 30 grams in the induction phase, then maybe go up to 100
grams, still you are far below what your body needs."

Comments?

gtomey