How Many Carbs A Day?

[EIRE24]

@EIRE24 1oz raw weight beef.

Ah, ok. And when cooked what would this equal?

 

[tca300]

@EIRE24 I don't know, I've never weighed it after it was cooked. Presumably less though.

 

[DaveFoster]

@Luna As OJ from frozen concentrate, but this is giving me bowel trouble, so I'll have to find another source.

Too much white sugar gave me blood sugar/mood issues.

 

[Fenrir67]

600-800 g sugar/day for me. Sometimes up to a kilo.

thank for this joke ,you made my day...

 

[Luna]

From a food composition table:
0.471 | 81 g (1 slice yield from 112 g raw liver) | Beef liver, pan fried [page A-A4]

Citation/Source of Data: Thompson J., Manore M., Sheeshka J. (2007). Nutrition: a functional approach Cdn Edition. "Appendix A Nutrient Values of Foods" on page: A-A4 to A-A82. ISBN0-321-25294-2

@EIRE24 I don't know, I've never weighed it after it was cooked. Presumably less though.

~39.2 grams.

 

[Luna]

@Luna As OJ from frozen concentrate, but this is giving me bowel trouble, so I'll have to find another source.

Too much white sugar gave me blood sugar/mood issues.

What kind of bowel troubles did "OJ from Frozen concentrate" cause you?
How many grams on average, is it "too much white sugar" for you?

 

[DaveFoster]

What kind of bowel troubles did "OJ from Frozen concentrate" cause you?
How many grams on average, is it "too much white sugar" for you?

Diarrhea, gurgling in the lower abdomen, and GERD symptoms.

I don't see a problem with getting some calories from white sugar, so as long you get enough of the other nutrients. Maybe 100 grams/day or so would be fine. It depends on your diet.

 

[Luna]

From a food composition table:
0.471 | 81 g (1 slice yield from 112 g raw liver) | Beef liver, pan fried [page A-A4]

Citation/Source of Data: Thompson J., Manore M., Sheeshka J. (2007). Nutrition: a functional approach Cdn Edition. "Appendix A Nutrient Values of Foods" on page: A-A4 to A-A82. ISBN0-321-25294-2


~39.2 grams.

Ooops sorry about that calculation, I meant ~20.503125 grams cooked beef liver, not 39.2 g (lol it could not have gained mass from cooking).

 

[paymanz]

i think in theory you need enough carbs just to refill your glycogen storage.

 

[Derek]

There is no simple calculation to determine macro needs. It changes daily and is multifactoral.

 

[tara]

I'm beginning to think that high sugar/fructose low/no starch diets may not be workable on 3 meals a day schedules.
On the assumption that even a healthy liver can typically only store about 100g or so of carbs as glycogen, and muscles tend to use glucose rather than fructose for glycogen storage.
Maybe you'll be in a position to choose between/experiment with eating more frequent sugar-based fuelling, or stick with 3 meals a day but add in a pile of starch?

I'm not motivated to measure my calories/quantities much, but my rough approximation is that I usually eat between 300-400 g carbs/day, comprising both sugary and starchy foods. Recently I've upped the ratio of starch, and seem to be benefiting in terms of energy levels through the day.

 

[Stryker]

when u wanna eat them and eat as much as u feel like , just dont go overboard on pure sugar or sugar products with no nutritional value

another thing is some people feel "tired" after eating too many carbs at once and this is either due to the different ratios of amino acids entering the brain or youve been running on adrenaline/cortisol

if the former just consume 20-30g of protein with your carbs and you should feel better

 

[Ron J]

I'm thinking about upping sugar from nearly 500g to 600g. Not sure if safe since I'll have to up sugar to two cups a day for that. I'm concerned with weight gain as well, unless it's possible to maintain, or lower body fat while using niacinamide(1.5g daily) and aspirin(about 1.3g daily). I'm also on the low side of fat, most of it coming from coconut oil; it adds up to 16% of calories.

 

[OJ15]

I'm aware this is an old thread but I just came across this video - wondered if any of you could break it apart. Cheers ()

 

[stargazer1111]

I'm aware this is an old thread but I just came across this video - wondered if any of you could break it apart. Cheers ()

Comparing fructose to alcohol is a false equivalence. Yes, it is true that both are metabolized mostly by the liver. But, that's about where the similarities end. Also, this is a perilous argument because medium-chain triglycerides found in coconut oil are also mostly processed by the liver, but you don't hear people arguing that coconut oil is as bad as alcohol or that it damages the liver. In fact, coconut oil has been demonstrated in animal studies to protect the liver from alcohol toxicity and also to reverse liver damage.

At around 2:24 in the video, the narrator claims that fructose cannot be metabolized in the brain. However, this has been shown to be false in the literature. For example, Specific regions of the brain are capable of fructose metabolism. - PubMed - NCBI

Also, I forget the group who showed it now, but a recent study that I believe was published in 2018 showed that the brain will actually convert excess glucose into fructose in the context of a fructose-deficient diet. This makes me wonder if the brain utilizes fructose for specific purposes. My n=1 experience is that my brain does not function correctly without enough fructose.

At around 2:29, the narrator claims that fructose leads to hypertension, heart disease, high triglycerides, pancreatitis, obesity, fatty liver disease, fetal alcohol syndrome, and addiction. The science is very split on most of these issues. In fact, the majority of the evidence I have seen indicates that fructose intakes up to 100 grams per day do NOT cause any of those conditions and, in fact, are quite beneficial for HbA1c and insulin sensitivity. The narrator is ignoring the evidence in the literature demonstrating that, in the context of a lower fat diet, sugar has been eaten in large quantities along with starch to reverse type 2 diabetes. Type 2 diabetes is associated with a number of those conditions, so really sugar may actually help to reverse some of those conditions for some people (although everybody is different so no blanket approach is good for all people).

The Randle Effect/Randle Cycle is the more likely culprit in the development of insulin resistance and type 2 diabetes as fatty acids and glucose compete for utilization by the cells. The higher the fat intake, the less the cells are able to respond to insulin, creating the need for even more insulin production by the pancreas.

At 2:43, the narrator claims that fructose is not needed for any biochemical reaction in the body. This is demonstrably false. For instance, sperm cells specifically metabolize only fructose for energy.

Of course, he brings Dr. Lustig into it at 3:12. Lustig was exposed very nicely by Alan Aragon as peddling pseudoscience when they debated on his blog.

At 3:50, he is appealing to an authority here which, in some contexts, is not necessarily a bad thing to do. But, he is hanging his entire argument on this one person and ignoring the plethora of scientific literature vindicating both fructose and sugar. He is cherry picking.

At 3:57, he gets into the "biochemistry" of how sugar is processed in the body. The biochemical pathways are only tangentially similar and the similarities end after the molecules get into the liver. Ethanol is oxidized into acetaldehyde (which is the molecule primarily responsible for ethanol's toxicity because it builds up when the enzymes responsible for the conversion are saturated by overconsumption) and eventually into acetic acid which is harmless. Fructose undergoes no such processing. A fair amount is actually converted into glucose, some is directly oxidized for energy, and only a very tiny percentage is converted into triglycerides. The de novo lipogenesis from sugar is so small as to be insignificant according to the literature on it.

At 8:20 or so, the narrator is only revealing part of the biochemical pathway when the amount of acetate builds up in the mitochondria. What he fails to acknowledge is that this also stimulates the production of ketones (which are also produced from medium-chain triglycerides), amino acids, and steroids. Not all of the acetate leads to the production of fatty acids.

9:55, another baseless claim that fructose is not necessary to the body. I have already addressed that this is incorrect.

10:16, I have already addressed this point. However, I will reiterate that a significant portion of the consumed fructose is converted into glucose and only a tiny percentage is actually converted into fat. The narrator is pushing Lustig's half-truths as he is assuming that all of the fructose remains as fructose rather than being converted to other molecules before being metabolized by the cells. This is NOT the same as ethanol because ethanol cannot be converted into glucose so all of it ends up as acetate in the liver.

11:09, citing a documentary of this nature is stupid. All documentaries are biased and will cherry pick results to push a narrative. Just look at Super Size Me or any standard Michael Moore film. It is also merely an n=1 anecdote. My anecdote directly refutes his. I have been eating a high sugar diet (200-250 grams per day) for exactly one year. I recently did a health checkup with my employer and my numbers all improved. HDL is up, total cholesterol is down, lost 12 pounds in the year. This is the problem with anecdotes. They tell you nothing about what is generally true.

12:04, again invoking de novo lipogenesis. This is demonstrably false if you look at the literature on this process. It is generally considered to be biologically insignificant in humans, only converting a few percentage points of the fructose consumed into fat.

12:16, the uric acid issue is legitimate. However, humans generally evolved consuming sugar along with vitamin C in fruit. Vitamin C increases the clearance of uric acid and my guess is that adequate vitamin C intakes will prevent hyperuricemia in the context of a high sugar diet.

 

[Rafael Lao Wai]

Comparing fructose to alcohol is a false equivalence. Yes, it is true that both are metabolized mostly by the liver. But, that's about where the similarities end. Also, this is a perilous argument because medium-chain triglycerides found in coconut oil are also mostly processed by the liver, but you don't hear people arguing that coconut oil is as bad as alcohol or that it damages the liver. In fact, coconut oil has been demonstrated in animal studies to protect the liver from alcohol toxicity and also to reverse liver damage.

At around 2:24 in the video, the narrator claims that fructose cannot be metabolized in the brain. However, this has been shown to be false in the literature. For example, Specific regions of the brain are capable of fructose metabolism. - PubMed - NCBI

Also, I forget the group who showed it now, but a recent study that I believe was published in 2018 showed that the brain will actually convert excess glucose into fructose in the context of a fructose-deficient diet. This makes me wonder if the brain utilizes fructose for specific purposes. My n=1 experience is that my brain does not function correctly without enough fructose.

At around 2:29, the narrator claims that fructose leads to hypertension, heart disease, high triglycerides, pancreatitis, obesity, fatty liver disease, fetal alcohol syndrome, and addiction. The science is very split on most of these issues. In fact, the majority of the evidence I have seen indicates that fructose intakes up to 100 grams per day do NOT cause any of those conditions and, in fact, are quite beneficial for HbA1c and insulin sensitivity. The narrator is ignoring the evidence in the literature demonstrating that, in the context of a lower fat diet, sugar has been eaten in large quantities along with starch to reverse type 2 diabetes. Type 2 diabetes is associated with a number of those conditions, so really sugar may actually help to reverse some of those conditions for some people (although everybody is different so no blanket approach is good for all people).

The Randle Effect/Randle Cycle is the more likely culprit in the development of insulin resistance and type 2 diabetes as fatty acids and glucose compete for utilization by the cells. The higher the fat intake, the less the cells are able to respond to insulin, creating the need for even more insulin production by the pancreas.

At 2:43, the narrator claims that fructose is not needed for any biochemical reaction in the body. This is demonstrably false. For instance, sperm cells specifically metabolize only fructose for energy.

Of course, he brings Dr. Lustig into it at 3:12. Lustig was exposed very nicely by Alan Aragon as peddling pseudoscience when they debated on his blog.

At 3:50, he is appealing to an authority here which, in some contexts, is not necessarily a bad thing to do. But, he is hanging his entire argument on this one person and ignoring the plethora of scientific literature vindicating both fructose and sugar. He is cherry picking.

At 3:57, he gets into the "biochemistry" of how sugar is processed in the body. The biochemical pathways are only tangentially similar and the similarities end after the molecules get into the liver. Ethanol is oxidized into acetaldehyde (which is the molecule primarily responsible for ethanol's toxicity because it builds up when the enzymes responsible for the conversion are saturated by overconsumption) and eventually into acetic acid which is harmless. Fructose undergoes no such processing. A fair amount is actually converted into glucose, some is directly oxidized for energy, and only a very tiny percentage is converted into triglycerides. The de novo lipogenesis from sugar is so small as to be insignificant according to the literature on it.

At 8:20 or so, the narrator is only revealing part of the biochemical pathway when the amount of acetate builds up in the mitochondria. What he fails to acknowledge is that this also stimulates the production of ketones (which are also produced from medium-chain triglycerides). amino acids, and steroids. Not all of the acetate leads to the production of fatty acids.

9:55, another baseless claim that fructose is not necessary to the body. I have already addressed that this is incorrect.

10:16, I have already addressed this point. However, I will reiterate that a significant portion of the consumed fructose is converted into glucose and only a tiny percentage is actually converted into fat. The narrator is pushing Lustig's half-truths as he is assuming that all of the fructose remains as fructose rather than being converted to other molecules before being metabolized by the cells. This is NOT the same as ethanol because ethanol cannot be converted into glucose so all of it ends up as acetate in the liver.

11:09, citing a documentary of this nature is stupid. All documentaries are biased and will cherry pick results to push a narrative. Just look at Super Size Me or any standard Michael Moore film. It is also merely an n=1 anecdote. My anecdote directly refutes his. I have been eating a high sugar diet (200-250 grams per day) for exactly one year. I recently did a health checkup with my employer and my numbers all improved. HDL is up, total cholesterol is down, lost 12 pounds in the year. This is the problem with anecdotes. They tell you nothing about what is generally true.

12:04, again invoking de novo lipogenesis. This is demonstrably false if you look at the literature on this process. It is generally considered to be biologically insignificant in humans, only converting a few percentage points of the fructose consumed into fat.

12:16, the uric acid issue is legitimate. However, humans generally evolved consuming sugar along with vitamin C in fruit. Vitamin C increases the clearance of uric acid and my guess is that adequate vitamin C intakes will prevent hyperuricemia in the context of a high sugar diet.

Great answer!

 

[GreekDemiGod]

400g+ of carbs / day club, out of which 250+ g of sugar. I suspect I need more. Just gulped down 1 quart of OJ in one sitting like it was nothing, felt so good.