Biochemical Individuality

[scoobydoo]

This term is used a lot from folks like Ben Greenfield and Paul Saladino as ways to explain why they think some do better on low carb vs high carb and vice versa. For example, my practitioner just recently saw my blood work (high insulin, high blood sugar) since starting higher carbs and explained that this could be due to my FUT2 gene expression being down regulated. There do seem to be some studies that certain genes can be medically relevant and alter ones ability to process certain macros better than others. Anyone have experience with this? My practitioner seems to think that based on my genes and blood work, I should go back to low carb. I may just do so...

 

[Otterbutt]

No professional experience but maybe some guiding thoughts?
Found your question as I was going to start a thread on 23 and me/DNA fit tests, but I'm trying to do my best here to keep information together...I hope we can get more contributions for sure!

I do think for some reason certain people do better with more carbs, but I don't understand whether it is an absolute tolerance or flexible tolerance (time of year, sun exposure, stress, uptake of vitamins/stimulants), and what exactly "low carb" is. I'd love to be a zippy carb monster if all it meant was taking some B vitamins and caffeine with my caramel topped chocolate gelato

I have not taken a genetic test, but I know that at least with DNA fit there is some measure of "carbohydrate tolerance" and "saturated fat" tolerance (plus "enhanced need" for Omega 3s, B vitamins, Folate, and other things, plus response to stress and certain types of exercise). I don't know if anyone here understands what genes they are measuring and if these genes are inflexible (should be eating fatty meats and some roots/fruits always), or if results are "very low carb tolerance" that it is workable to some degree with other cofactors: for example if I don't get enough of X or have too much of Y, then I have a tendency to do poorly (or better) with carbohydrate.
And if it only measures the starch gene (below), then maybe it is missing the fact that the body actually does really well with fruit?

(Here is their article which I don't believe answers specifically anything I've asked... Understanding carbohydrates, a low carb diet and the ketogenic diet plan) I do not know what the lowest end of carb tolerance spectrum looks like in terms of macros, but I assume if your carb tolerance came back as zero/low, then your ancestry would have genes which allow you to avoid ketosis in the absence of carbs anyway (the Inuit gene) and that's going to be rare. I don't think keto is ever the long term answer, simply because it's difficult for some populations to even produce.


In the same vein...
What does anyone think of this 'self made' amylase test being a general marker for carb tolerance? It pops up in many places on the internet, but this was the link I chose. I think this might be at least one of the genes DNA fit uses:
This 30-Second Cracker Test Will Tell You How Many Carbs You Should Be Eating For Your DNA
Also, I believe this is only the starch gene, again, so I don't know if it means that those who have starch digestibility should necessarily be low carb, because "fruit tolerance"/digestibility is not measured.

I'm wondering if you find it difficult to get into ketosis or stay there as measured by those keto-meter thingies, if your body really is better adapted to low carb because the body has the "low carb gene" staving off ketosis even in an absence of carbs? I know some people find it frustrating that they have a really hard time getting into that range, and some people have a very easy time. Just a thought with no evidence.