Thanks for your insight. Of course it’s also about bio individuality and people being their own health care advocates. But we’ve definitely been brainwashed to believe what puts money in the food industries pocket. And I use the term “food” loosely.
I am intrigued by your defining a low-carb diet as consuming less than 50 grams per day. Surely for someone who is physically active, muscular, having a relatively fast metabolism, and large frame will find a diet limited to 50 gm of carbs a very different experience than a less active, slimmer, more petite person. Because these two people will have different basal calorie needs. In contrast, I have seen low-carb diets defined as 25% of daily calories from carbs, which accommodates for those two different body types.
For example, someone who consumes 1500 calories per day would find themselves eating 13% of their calories in carbs at the 50 gm level, whereas someone eating 2500 calories per day would be limited to 8% from their carbs with the same 50 restriction.
I am not saying either definition is better than the other --I guess that's your job! But I would appreciate your take on this quandary...
'Low carb' has never been properly defined, but 50g is probably the maximum level to fit the category. And yes, because of our individuality, the meaning of low carb can also vary. But it's worth bearing in mind that carbohdyrates are non-essential macronutrients, unlike fat and protein. That's because the body can make all the glucose it needs from fat and protein, in a process called gluconeogenesis. So you can eat as little as you like.
But then I get advice from a longevity service (mainly blood tests plus a clinician report) and they say: 'you need more fiber to improve LDL fractions! Beans, berries, broccoli...". And with a 50 mg ceiling,it gets tough!
Thanks for your insight. Of course it’s also about bio individuality and people being their own health care advocates. But we’ve definitely been brainwashed to believe what puts money in the food industries pocket. And I use the term “food” loosely.
I am intrigued by your defining a low-carb diet as consuming less than 50 grams per day. Surely for someone who is physically active, muscular, having a relatively fast metabolism, and large frame will find a diet limited to 50 gm of carbs a very different experience than a less active, slimmer, more petite person. Because these two people will have different basal calorie needs. In contrast, I have seen low-carb diets defined as 25% of daily calories from carbs, which accommodates for those two different body types.
For example, someone who consumes 1500 calories per day would find themselves eating 13% of their calories in carbs at the 50 gm level, whereas someone eating 2500 calories per day would be limited to 8% from their carbs with the same 50 restriction.
I am not saying either definition is better than the other --I guess that's your job! But I would appreciate your take on this quandary...
'Low carb' has never been properly defined, but 50g is probably the maximum level to fit the category. And yes, because of our individuality, the meaning of low carb can also vary. But it's worth bearing in mind that carbohdyrates are non-essential macronutrients, unlike fat and protein. That's because the body can make all the glucose it needs from fat and protein, in a process called gluconeogenesis. So you can eat as little as you like.
Thanks, Maria. I know you are right.
But then I get advice from a longevity service (mainly blood tests plus a clinician report) and they say: 'you need more fiber to improve LDL fractions! Beans, berries, broccoli...". And with a 50 mg ceiling,it gets tough!
For future articles: All carbs are not equal, e.g. broccoli versus bread. What exactly are "net carbs"? And is a bacon sarnie all that bad?
Thanks - some good ideas