Log in
Diabetes India
60,181 members11,149 posts

The ‘Right’ amount of Carbs May help you Live Longer...

A new research provides the most comprehensive study of carbohydrate intake that has been done to date, and helps us better understand the relationship between the specific components of diet and long-term health," said senior study author Dr. Scott Solomon, of Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston.

The researchers analyzed data from more than 432,000 people in more than 20 countries and found that those with high and low carbohydrate intake had shorter life expectancy than those with moderate carbohydrate intake.

The results of the study were published Aug. 16 in The Lancet Public Health journal.

See the link...

medicinenet.com/script/main...

40 Replies
oldestnewest

the article does not specify effect on diabetics whose blood sugar control is stated to better achieved with low carb diet. It would appear that article contradicts what LCHF protogonists advocate at least for diabetics.

Does it mean diabetics have a shorter life by adopting LCHF diet inspite of better glycemic control?

It is interesting to debate on this

2 likes
Reply

rvmasalvad...you are right when you say,whether LCHF adopters are at risk. It's true that LCHF is the way forward for better blood sugar control, and to avoid complications which would have caused by high blood sugar. As proposed by you, this issue needs a debate.

1 like
Reply

The best healthy diet is one which consists of 55% carbs , 20% fats and 25 % proteins from all sources put together where Proteins are counted from pulses ,nuts , seeds , curds and milk , carbs from grains , vegetables , pulses , greens and fats from nuts , seeds and oils This diet has all the nutrients in right proportions .

1 like
Reply

What about for diabetics.?

1 like
Reply

That holds good even in case of diabetics . Diabetes is a malady of over eating . We do not need all the mounds and mounds of food . Any excess food beyond the needs of the body turns in to stored sugar and fat . It is a myth that we need all the food which we take . A vehicle does not need extra fuel to run , a house does not need extra cement for the strength of construction . In fact extra cement makes the structure weak .Apot can't hold extra water and the same way a body can't handle extra food .A diabetic , if he slowly reduces the extra food and brings it to the optimum level understands this truth . In the initial stages of this ritual he may be needed to take the medicines prescribed by the doctor , but later he can slowly get weaned off from them. Diabetes is a life style disorder and not a disease created by any external agent except the excess food .

1 like
Reply

in case of congenital metabolic abnormalcy which is caused by abnormal enzymes medicines and certain diets are needed . In case of type 2 diabetes the contributing factors are overweight , obesity , lack of physical activity coupled with excess eating which if over ruled do not cause insulin resistance . The discipline should start at an young age it self where the growth is over .

1 like
Reply

The issue raised is effect of low carb on diabetic longevity.can you comment on this?

1 like
Reply

This Research paper is about effect of low carb diet on longevity irrespective of diabetic or nondiabetic body..Affects same way on everyone.. I have full copy of research paper..you may download it from The Lancet .or I may upload it here.

1 like
Reply

DOES IT MEAN THEN lchf IS A MISNOMER?

Reply

I am firmly of the opinion that low carb diet is not advisable . When low carb diet is taken for long , body's energy levels and reserves are affected . To get rid of the problem some thing else has to be taken . Whether it is diet of excess proteins or excess fats some other complications may have to be faced . So the balanced diet of 55% carbs , 25% proteins and 20% fats is good and does not tilt the scale of balance . It is , I mean this ratio , does not have either low carb content nor high carb content . Even as recent as 30 years back people followed those ratios with out going in to exact calculations and had a good health and good longevity Excess food intake with lesser physical activity has contributed to diabetes .

Reply

55% carbs are too high to tame BS..( without large amount medicines)..I personally take about 3O%carbs ( @1500-1600 Kcal diet),plenty of nuts like almonds,pecans,peanuts,walnuts, seeds like pumpkins, fresh coconut meat etc.. These provide protein apart from good fat..Also homemade substantial ghee..

1 like
Reply

55% carbs includes carbs hidden in greens , vegetables , fruits nuts and pulses also . It is not exclusive carbs from cereals and grains . carbs from cereals have very minute quantities of proteins or fats . But proteins and fats have some carbs also .

1 like
Reply

The Perfect Health Diet defines how to determine the optimal amount of carbohydrate.

If your body has to attempt to make up the deficit, you are eating too little. If your body is converting the excess to fat, you are having too much. For most people, the body uses between 480 kcal and 640 kcal in the form of carbohydrate per day.

Since the RI for protein is only 56g per day, that means the body uses majority fat for fuel every day. If you are eating 55% carbohydrate on a maintenance diet, a significant amount is being converted to the fat you fear, contributing to visceral fat and dyslipidaemia. Eating natural fat is a healthier option because of the fat soluble vitamins and minerals it provides. Natural fat is distributed through the lymph system.

1 like
Reply

We’ll said @ concerned ...higher amount of carbs will not be useful to tame BS and residual will get converted into visceral fats..Hence Optimum carbs needs to be defined so that BS remains controlled and so the Longevity !

1 like
Reply

The Recommended Daily Amount for the west was set artificially high, as a supposedly 'safe' alternative to eating saturated fat, based largely on Ancel Key's flawed Seven Countries study.

Halving the RDA would have tremendous health benefits for the vast majority of people.

Unfortunately, most of the developed world base their guidelines on guidance from the USDA, who aren't going to change that guidance significantly any time soon because A. They have crops to sell, and B. It would mean admitting that people have been suffering as a result of their advice.

Reply

This is very interesting information, DRH-sangli. Thank you for sharing it with the rest of the group.

1 like
Reply

I am now 67, and have been T2 since 1992 for 26 years. I am a LCHF follower for over 5 years with my a1c level at 5.6, on minimal diabetic medications, and so far free of any diabetic complications. Quite active in life and working Engineer..LCHF is my way of lifestyle.

We need to study in depth this new piece of information.

2 likes
Reply

I congrat Mr snangli for maintaining HbA1c 5.6 evening after 26 years of D2.His way of proportion of food appears to be better.Thanks

1 like
Reply

I agree that LCHF is the way to go at least for T2 diabetics. As we've discussed several times in the past, not more than 100-120gms of carbs should be taken in a day. It can be made up by taking more of healthy fats. Which means 50% of total calories should come from fats and 25%each from proteins and carbohydrates. Proteins are essential to us and so are fats. Carbs are not.

2 likes
Reply

You are talking about the pure carbs obtained from the cereals and grains . By that count 100 or 120 gms is ok . 50% OF TOTAL CALORIES from fats is of recent recommendations . But we don't know what is going to be the biological and physiological effect of 50 % fats in the long run . The effects are not universal in all cases . It takes some time in some cases to give the effect , long time in cases of some others and may not take at all in some cases .Each case or cases of different races are different . uniform policies are not valid .

Reply

That's total net carbs. All carbohydrate is sugar to our body; vegetables are better for us than other sources phcuk.org/sugar

1 like
Reply

Back in the 1980s we didn't know the long-term consequences of getting most of our calories from carbohydrate, but it didn't stop them introducing guideline recommendations, and look where our societies are now!

Reply

Blame should be given to processed foods, bakery products and artificial sugar.

1 like
Reply

Quite true. We have also learned that some things in nature are not good for us, such as hemlock, cyanide, and an excess of warfarin.

Knowing that hyperinsulinaemia causes insulin resistance, we should avoid foods that cause abnormally high insulin levels, such as most grains and potatoes insulinandmore.com/2018/01/... You can see from this that removing the fat from milk for example, in the misguided pursuit of eliminating saturated fats from people's diet, has increased their risk of chronic ill-health by raising their insulin levels.

Reply

Almost all grains are hybrid. Countless varieties of GM crops,vegetables and fruits have been developed and are under development. Potato is human made. There is now pomato also, so we can imagine the future. Dairy and meat products are not excluded from these.

Adaptation is the first step in evolution but how far?

Humans are interfering the natural cycle. Therefore, nature is compensating through diseases.

bodyecology.com/articles/mu...

Reply

The thought of controling diabetes should it not be for better longevity? if long term effect of very low carb shortens our longetivity, should it not be our concern as advocated in this paper?

2 likes
Reply

Absolutely rvmasalvad. Unfortunately however, this study is an attempt to promote an agenda rather than establish the facts.

As David Getoff says, the longest running observational study is the history of the human race, and anything that seems to contradict that is plainly wrong.

1 like
Reply

I agree observational studies can mislead and confuse.more research is needed.

1 like
Reply

rvmasalvad .. we must address this issue of longevity as very low carbs might affect it.. we need to find out optimum amount of carbs to keep balance .. Normaly we increase fats to reduce carbs.. However animal fats should be minimal and be replaced with plant fats ( like good fats received from VCO,deshi ghee,Nuts and seeds etc). This will calm down effect of low carb on longevity..In nuts,PECAN has largest amount of goof fat, compared to other Nuts.

This issue needs good deliberations.

Reply

You're quite entitled to your opinion.

I believe that my body is not trying to kill me, and after millions of years of evolution the fat reserves I draw on are what is best for me, as well as a truly balanced diet that replaces what the body needs. Those fat reserves are about 1.5:1 monounsaturated to saturated, with only 3% polyunsaturates. Not surprisingly, other animal fats are pretty close to that ratio, especially lard from free-range animals.

I'm not disputing that vegetarians including vegans can be healthy, but it is another misconception that eating animal fat from animals fed on a natural diet (as opposed to intensive farming) is unhealthy.

I agree with Dr. Kraft that the underlying cause of most chronic heart disease (and indeed other chronic ill-health conditions) is diabetes in situ - insulin resistance to you and I.

Reply

Low carb diet affects not only longevity , it affects the level of IQ AND EQ ALSO .

1 like
Reply

I suppose being told you must be unintelligent and emotional because you eat low-carb doesn't help though?

Reply

Yes too much of fat makes the brain less active and dull . To get this point proved it takes a period of 20 years . In the civilisations much of intellectual acheivement was associated with optimum carb food only . I once again reiterate the fact that carbs 55% mean not the carbs of grains and cereals alone . The quantum of Carbs includes those of the main sources along with the hidden carbs obtained from ------- fruits , proteins , and other products also.

Reply

@ coffeeday ..But then how to control BS in a effective way... if carbs are not limited...

Reply

Modern life style does not require as many calories as was needed where manual labour was more in the past . so by restricting the intake , resorting to yogasanas and pranayama , by going for more of vegetables and fruits , by using the modern medicines ,sedatives , painkillers as minimum as possible , by spending much time in the green surroundings we can control BS effectively . It sounds unreal but one can try that life style for a minimum period of 6 months to see the effect . All public places and offices including indoors should be filled with green plants and trees .It looks a tall order in the initial stages but it is not impossible .Modern technology is inevitable but it should be supplemented with greenery as far as possible to counter balance the ill effects of radiation . If all of us take care of our house holds and offices ,with in no time the change takes place . Instead of lawns and ornamental flowering plants we have to go for big trees which give shade and oxygen . Trees like Mango , Banyan , Ficus religiosa , Neem , Aglefolia, palasha are very good for environmental health . It should be a collective effort executed individually . when so much time is spent in finding the methods and medicines to cure diseases one tenth of that effort gives a long lasting , cost effective and user friendly solution . That's why vedas venerated trees as gods and goddesses .Any thing associated with religion and God gets immediate attention and so planting trees and praying them was included in religious rituals

1 like
Reply

DRHSANGLI

What is the final conclusion? The 55:20:25 pattern for apportioning the total calorie intake of diet appears to be more or less similar to ADA dietary pattern of balanced diet.

55% carbohydrate is considered high and has not helped diabetics in controlling blood sugar. You yourself appear to agree that lchf diet is better than balanced diet as advocated by coffee day.Concerned has said the article posted is motivated and an observational analusis is unreliable and probably motivated to further the interests of industry lobby.

It would appear that in the absence of randomized research the contents of the article is misleading and confusing to diabetics .

Can we conclude and reject the contents of the article as such.?

Reply

We are no one to reject.. from every information we can benefit something.. I am LCHF follower because it has shown results to me...but still the long term effects of LCHF are confusing, unless someone shows the light.. Dr Bernstein has been an example in itself for prolonged use of low carbs... I only feel it should not remain an exception.. and should become a rule of nature...Let LCHF WIN!

Reply

A diabetic should limit the carb to a level that keeps his blood sugar in the target range. Anything above that level, would be detrimental. There is no fixed percentage, it depends on the metabolic conditions of the person. One has to experiment and find the optimum level. Maximum amount of carb should be derived from green vegetable sources. That is how I do it to keep my BS in non-diabetic range.

1 like
Reply

@praveen55...I agree that every body would have different metabolism and would need different level of carbohydrates, and one could find his own carb levels which would limit his BS.THE question still remains whether prolonged use of low carb intake would be detrimental to longevity or otherwise.Experience of those who are on low carbs over a long time will be of immense importance.

Reply

By that time all the harm would take place if that theory is wrong . In the past we had many experiences of theories getting back fired after some time . The best thing is to find out what suits to individual needs .

Reply

You may also like...