If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Old Horse Story "Brain Needs 100g of Carbohydrates for Health"
Following Taubes, I looked for the document "Dietary Reference Intakes"
compiled by the Institute of Medicine (2002) edition. In this government report are said to be statements that the brain will run just fine without anycarbohydrates (provided adequate proteins and fats are supplied), What I was able to find without very much searching was the following: ================================================== ================ Begin On Page 275 of Dietary Reference Intakes for Energy, Carbohydrate, Fiber, Fat, Fatty Acids, Cholesterol, Protein, and Amino Acids (Macronutrients) (2005) Food and Nutrition Board (FNB) http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?reco...10490&page=275 Clinical Effects of Inadequate Intake [of Carbohydrates] The lower limit of dietary carbohydrate compatible with life apparently is zero, provided that adequate amounts of protein and fat are consumed. However, the amount of dietary carbohydrate that provides for optimal health in humans is unknown. There are traditional populations that ingested a high fat, high protein diet containing only a minimal amount of carbohydrate for extended periods of time (Masai), and in some cases for a lifetime after infancy (Alaska and Greenland Natives, Inuits, and Pampas indigenous people) (Du Bois, 1928; Heinbecker, 1928). There was no apparent effect on health or longevity. Caucasians eating an essentially carbohydrate-free diet, resembling that of Greenland natives, for a year tolerated the diet quite well (Du Bois, 1928). However, a detailed modern comparison with populations ingesting the majority of food energy as carbohydrate has never been done. ================================================== ====== This document contains the same information that Taubes referenced in his book "Good Carbs, Bad Carbs" on page 456. This document goes on with a rather extensive discussion on ketones and stuff of that nature which explicitly describe how these alternative energy sources provide needed brain energy. Some people interested in the details may find thes interesting. But, evidently, when someone tells you this old horse story about the brain needing 100 grams of carbohydrates, you can be assured that this is bodily excretion from the posterior of a horse. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Old Horse Story "Brain Needs 100g of Carbohydrates for Health"
What about vitamin C and all that other stuff? What I lernt in the 60's, in
grade school, was that if you didn't get vitamin C, you would get scurvy. I've really been wondering about what I get from my diet vs. what I really need to have. Now that I've added melons to my diet, and plan to up the berries a little bit, in addition to the veggies, I'm not so sure I need supplements. I hate taking those things because (for one thing) the way the ingredients are balanced. Taking a thousand percent of the RDA of most things, and 3% of other things, just doesn't make sense. Why can't they just make a pill with 100% of everything?? Oh, another question: are melons fruits or another class of foods? I've never thought of watermelon as a fruit, for example, but it has seeds, no? Mike "Jim" wrote in message ... Following Taubes, I looked for the document "Dietary Reference Intakes" compiled by the Institute of Medicine (2002) edition. In this government report are said to be statements that the brain will run just fine without anycarbohydrates (provided adequate proteins and fats are supplied), What I was able to find without very much searching was the following: ================================================== ================ Begin On Page 275 of Dietary Reference Intakes for Energy, Carbohydrate, Fiber, Fat, Fatty Acids, Cholesterol, Protein, and Amino Acids (Macronutrients) (2005) Food and Nutrition Board (FNB) http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?reco...10490&page=275 Clinical Effects of Inadequate Intake [of Carbohydrates] The lower limit of dietary carbohydrate compatible with life apparently is zero, provided that adequate amounts of protein and fat are consumed. However, the amount of dietary carbohydrate that provides for optimal health in humans is unknown. There are traditional populations that ingested a high fat, high protein diet containing only a minimal amount of carbohydrate for extended periods of time (Masai), and in some cases for a lifetime after infancy (Alaska and Greenland Natives, Inuits, and Pampas indigenous people) (Du Bois, 1928; Heinbecker, 1928). There was no apparent effect on health or longevity. Caucasians eating an essentially carbohydrate-free diet, resembling that of Greenland natives, for a year tolerated the diet quite well (Du Bois, 1928). However, a detailed modern comparison with populations ingesting the majority of food energy as carbohydrate has never been done. ================================================== ====== This document contains the same information that Taubes referenced in his book "Good Carbs, Bad Carbs" on page 456. This document goes on with a rather extensive discussion on ketones and stuff of that nature which explicitly describe how these alternative energy sources provide needed brain energy. Some people interested in the details may find thes interesting. But, evidently, when someone tells you this old horse story about the brain needing 100 grams of carbohydrates, you can be assured that this is bodily excretion from the posterior of a horse. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Old Horse Story "Brain Needs 100g of Carbohydrates for Health"
"em" writes: Why can't they just make a pill with 100% of everything?? For somethings, too much is worse than just enough. If your diet already has plenty of it, getting more from a pill is bad. Plus, eventually you run out of room in that little pill. That being said, different pills have different ratios. I use GNC's Mega-Men, which has 100% of most things, extra of some things, and less of a few things (like calcium, which is easy to get elsewhere). Oh, another question: are melons fruits or another class of foods? Botanically, it's a fruit. "Fruits" are the ovaries of the plants. Botanically, cucumbers are fruits too, but I don't want one for dessert. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Old Horse Story "Brain Needs 100g of Carbohydrates for Health"
"em" wrote:
What about vitamin C and all that other stuff? What I lernt in the 60's, in grade school, was that if you didn't get vitamin C, you would get scurvy. Yet folks who eat fresh raw or undercooked meat don't get scurvy. That means meat has C in it until cooked. If you wanna eat raw seal eyeballs, you won't get scurvy either. I've really been wondering about what I get from my diet vs. what I really need to have. Now that I've added melons to my diet, and plan to up the berries a little bit, in addition to the veggies, I'm not so sure I need supplements. Agreed. But I take them anyways. I have a different reason for doing it - Belt and suspenders. Modern argiculture only puts the minerals into the soil that are needed to grow the crops, so the foods I eat might or might not have the expected minerals. Selective breeding is for yield and transportability, so the foods I eat might or might not have the expected vitamins. So I take supplements to be sure. I also take specific supplements based on my age and family medical history. I hate taking those things because (for one thing) the way the ingredients are balanced. Taking a thousand percent of the RDA of most things, and 3% of other things, just doesn't make sense. Good for you for noticing and thinking it over. Why can't they just make a pill with 100% of everything?? 1) That's Centrum's claim to fame. They keep retuning their formula based on the latest science. But they assume 100% is the right amount. It's actually what it takes to be sure you won't get a deficiency - Great for my case of belt and suspenders but not for someone likely to have a deficiency. 2) Certain nutrients like iron and vitamin D have overdose levels within ten times their theraputic dose levels, so tablets are sold without them. 3) Certain nutrients like C and calcium have such large theraputic doses that a pill with them all would be huge. So I take a regular multi, plus C, plus cal/mag. 4) Certain nutrients are liquid while others are powder. So I take fish oil separately. 5) No one actually knows what "everything" really is. There hasn't been an essential nutrient discovered in a while but the list might not be complete yet. But there's more to nutrition than essential. Oh, another question: are melons fruits or another class of foods? I've never thought of watermelon as a fruit, for example, but it has seeds, no? The class of melons is a subset of the class of fruits. Same as - The class of berries is a subset of the class of fruits. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Old Horse Story "Brain Needs 100g of Carbohydrates for Health"
em wrote:
What about vitamin C and all that other stuff? What I lernt in the 60's, in grade school, was that if you didn't get vitamin C, you would get scurvy. I've really been wondering about what I get from my diet vs. what I really need to have. Now that I've added melons to my diet, and plan to up the berries a little bit, in addition to the veggies, I'm not so sure I need supplements. I hate taking those things because (for one thing) the way the ingredients are balanced. Taking a thousand percent of the RDA of most things, and 3% of other things, just doesn't make sense. Why can't they just make a pill with 100% of everything?? We don't know what we need. I've jumped back into nutritional research after a couple decades of not paying much attention to discover there's all sorts of micronutrients being discussed that weren't even on being discussed back then. If we knew exactly what we needed nutritionally, we could make a pill. But I doubt if we'll know that any time in the near future, so we have to eat real food. And then there's also issues with differing biochemistries. If you're damaged for one reason or another, you're likely not to heal without specific supplements on top of food. This is why I take fish oil, vitamin D and pantothenic acid now - I had a heart attack and need more of this stuff to heal than I can get in food. Oh, another question: are melons fruits or another class of foods? I've never thought of watermelon as a fruit, for example, but it has seeds, no? Melons are fruits; I think everyone has always considered melons to be fruits. So are their relative, the cucumbers, though few think of cucumbers as fruits. -- http://www.ornery-geeks.org/consulting/ |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Old Horse Story "Brain Needs 100g of Carbohydrates for Health"
On Oct 19, 8:18 am, Jim wrote:
But, evidently, when someone tells you this old horse story about the brain needing 100 grams of carbohydrates, you can be assured that this is bodily excretion from the posterior of a horse. In general, whatever glucose the brain needs, the brain will get, even if it's not from the diet. Inessential is not the same thing as unnecessary. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Old Horse Story "Brain Needs 100g of Carbohydrates for Health"
On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 09:51:21 -0700, "em" wrote:
What about vitamin C and all that other stuff? What I lernt in the 60's, in grade school, was that if you didn't get vitamin C, you would get scurvy. Organ meats (kidney, liver, etc.) have Vitamin C - but cooking destroys it. So if you are living on seals and such near the Arctic Circle (where the diet does NOT contain fresh fruit or rose hips or other abundant plant sources) you can still get along just fine. The traditional cultures up there ate all the edible parts of their catches and didn't have fuels for cooking it. They had no shortage of Vitamin C. Typical Americans only eat muscle meat most of the time. Even those who eat organ meat usually cook it. We therefore need to get our Vitamin C from some other source. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Old Horse Story "Brain Needs 100g of Carbohydrates for Health"
Kaz Kylheku wrote:
On Oct 19, 8:18 am, Jim wrote: But, evidently, when someone tells you this old horse story about the brain needing 100 grams of carbohydrates, you can be assured that this is bodily excretion from the posterior of a horse. In general, whatever glucose the brain needs, the brain will get, even if it's not from the diet. Inessential is not the same thing as unnecessary. Yes, the long form of what you said above is below. Particularly in the section on the human ability to starve for weeks. ================================================== =========== http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?reco...10490&page=275 Clinical Effects of Inadequate Intake [of Carbohydrate] The lower limit of dietary carbohydrate compatible with life apparently is zero, provided that adequate amounts of protein and fat are consumed. However, the amount of dietary carbohydrate that provides for optimal health in humans is unknown. There are traditional populations that ingested a high fat, high protein diet containing only a minimal amount of carbohydrate for extended periods of time (Masai), and in some cases for a lifetime after infancy (Alaska and Greenland Natives, Inuits, and Pampas indigenous people) (Du Bois, 1928; Heinbecker, 1928). There was no apparent effect on health or longevity. Caucasians eating an essentially carbohydrate-free diet, resembling that of Greenland natives, for a year tolerated the diet quite well (Du Bois, 1928). However, a detailed modern comparison with populations ingesting the majority of food energy as carbohydrate has never been done. It has been shown that rats and chickens grow and mature successfully on a carbohydrate-free diet (Brito et al., 1992; Renner and Elcombe, 1964), but only if adequate protein and glycerol from triacylglycerols are provided in the diet as substrates for gluconeogenesis. It has also been shown that rats grow and thrive on a 70 percent protein, carbohydrate-free diet (Gannon et al., 1985). Azar and Bloom (1963) also reported that nitrogen balance in adults ingesting a carbohydrate-free diet required the ingestion of 100 to 150 g of protein daily. This, plus the glycerol obtained from triacylglycerol in the diet, presumably supplied adequate substratefor gluconeogenesis and thus provided at least a minimal amount of completely oxidizable glucose. The ability of humans to starve for weeks after endogenous glycogen supplies are essentially exhausted is also indicative of the ability of humans to survive without an exogenous supply of glucose or monosaccharides convertible to glucose in the liver (fructose and galactose). However, adaptation to a fat and protein fuel requires considerable metabolic adjustments. The only cells that have an absolute requirement for glucose as an oxidizable fuel are those in the central nervous system (i.e., brain) and those cells that depend upon anaerobic glycolysis (i.e., the partial oxidation of glucose to produce lactate and alanine as a source of energy), such as red blood cells, white blood cells, and medulla of the kidney. The central nervous system can adapt to a dietary fat-derived fuel, at least in part (Cahill, 1970; Sokoloff, 1973). Also, the glycolyzing cells can obtain their complete energy needs from the indirect oxidation of fatty acids through the lactate and alanine-glucose cycles. In the absence of dietary carbohydrate, de novo synthesis of glucose requires amino acids derived from the hydrolysis of endogenous or dietary protein or glycerol derived from fat. Therefore, the marginal amount of carbohydrate required in the diet in an energy-balanced state is conditional and dependent upon the remaining composition of the diet. Nevertheless, there may be subtle and unrecognized, untoward effects of a very low carbohydrate diet that may only be apparent when populations not genetically or traditionally adapted to this diet adopt it. This remains to be determined but is a reasonable expectation. .... |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
"This is Your Brain on Food" Scientific American Article - LINK | Jim | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 6 | September 12th, 2007 06:49 PM |
The Biochemistry of Cellular Energy: Glucose is exclusively the "fuel" for the brain. | Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 7 | July 28th, 2007 05:33 PM |
"Friends are born, not made." !!!! By: "Henry Brooks Adams" | [email protected] | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 0 | February 1st, 2007 05:27 PM |
Mark Twain's "Smoking is Good for You" , and "Being Fat Can SaveYour Life" | Jbuch | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 0 | January 20th, 2007 04:20 PM |
Thoughts on low-carb, nibbling, "gratuitious carbohydrates", and portions | LizardQueen | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 32 | May 7th, 2006 02:15 PM |