On Mon, 26 Mar 2001 10:33:28 -0500, Todd Moody <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

> This, incidentally, is why Allan and Lutz recommend no more
>than 72g of carbs/day.  That is, they argue for using the 9-hour
>insulin "window" (@ 8g/hour) for dealing with dietary glucose.

Somehow Lutz describes a diet of limiting carbs to about the essential
needs. Which he claims to have very good results on "strange" gut diseases
like Crohns or Colitis. While obviously many people don't have any problem
with a diet based on cereals only (the ordinary farmer of 1800)
now it appears that restricting carbs down to the essential limit has
great benefits on this diseases.
As if some bodies can't take proper use of the variable area (the 2000 kcal
which are choosable from carb to fat).

I am again reminded to my postulates of unability to metabolize glucose
properly. By a thiamin deficit (that would be obvious) but some toxins are
similarly capable to disable vitamins b1-b3. clostridia in the gut!
And "wrong" malate-acid from yeasts.
(I had an interesting website on such toxin topics, I'll post it if I have
it at hand)

>> Even if this is only used by tissues for which it's essential  (the
>> 180g/day) it should be able to signinicantly lower the short term stores.
>> For the given example 2/3 of it =120g carb per day.
>
>Right, it would just take a bit longer that way.

Yes, a bit longer, but only if all the rest energy was supplied by fat.
In a scenario with low fat, a much bigger part of the 1500 kcal reserve
would be used for ordinary muscle movement and so on...
Fasting a whole day would easily empty the whole glycogen reserves.
Fasting overnight (8 hours?) would alone take a good part (e.g. 800kcal of
2400).


>>.. carbohydrate..
>> The signal for it's release is glucagon. Does it fail?
>
>Yes, I think it does if (a) the diet is low in protein and (b)
>insulin levels *remain* high, because elevated insulin cancels
>the effect of the glucagon.  This is exactly the phenomenon of
>insulin resistance.  Those of us who have this condition know it
>very well.  We experience carbohydrate cravings even though we
>have plenty of glycogen.  Clearly what's not working is the
>glucagon.

That's clear. A vivious circle from insulin resistance, which
amplifies itself.

> To get it working we have to eat more protein and less
>carbohydrate.

And vitamin b6 is involved with 1. protein metabolism and 2. with glycogen
stores.

>>..
>Yes, and that is why some people find that they have "more
>energy" when they take a B-complex vitamin.  I never experienced
>it myself.

The answer "just thiamin" could be a solution to many, but the whole answer
can't be so easy for all. Those toxins may be a further path to explanation.

>> ...implies that the difference goes to fat and is burnt if form of fat.
>> Isn't it so?
>> Isn't it so even, that long insulin time is *required* to allow
>> (intermediate) fat formation to take place?
>
>I think so.  This suggests that 25% of energy should be regarded
>as a "ceiling" value for carbohydrates.  For anyone with signs of
>insulin resistance, less is better, since glycogen is supplied in
>a more gradual manner than dietary glucose.  Obviously, total
>calories have to be considered as well.

I think you're right for humans with such intermediate everyday fat.
Of course the numbers from Walsh are from western test persons (I suppose).
So if most western people are in a more or less thiamin deficit, in all such
persons the intermediate fat stage should be there.

Of course "normally" glucose can be fuelled very efficiently in muscles and
other organs. If you took a healthy grain eater (Tibetan farmer or Hunza)
who derives 80% energy from carbs, I think they directly burn the glucose.

Limiting carbohydrate in favour of fat would avoid additional metabolic
steps, before energy can be used.
The process of fat synthesis out of glucose is efficient and easy (not a
big burden). But a brain hungry for more fuel (glucose) will soon demand
more glucose.. So there won't be much time when the "intermediate stored"
fat can actually be used again - except the night.

>> Including enough protein with the meal seems to cause that glucagon
>> production doesn't stop after it -
>> but insulin .. is actually stimulated by leucin and arginin --protein..
>
>But these amino acids also stimulate glucagon, so it should
>balance out.

Walsh wrote that glucagon production doesn't stop as long as carbs are eaten
"with protein". Ok, but that doesn't stop insulin beeing produced.

>> Sears' main goal I understood as good eicosanoid production.
>> Which is blocked by insulin, he sais....
>
>Right.

So glucagon wouldn't help eicosanoids beeing stopped from the insulin,
or would it?
At last that's Sears paradigma, protein with every meal.

BTW I'm nor shure how you could eat carbs without protein.
Not in nature, and not as simple grain farmer
(Wheat is 12% protein lentils 28%).

Amadeus Schmidt-Philipp