Low-protein high-carb diet shows promise for healthy brain aging
eurekalert.org
eurekalert.org
The article says
> complex carbohydrates derived from starch, and casein protein
"Complex" probably means a pretty low glycemic index.
But what does that mean to me at the grocery store?
It's sad how we don't make glycemic index easier for people via nutrition facts.
For example, eating 100g of cauliflower carbs is a lot better than 100g of refined sugar. But, by looking at the nutrition facts I see "both are 100g of carbs."
Edit: fix high to low as pointed out by child comment.
AFAIK it is the opposite - complex carbs are the best carbs to consume, since they don't release energy all at once but slower. Complex -> Simple -> Absorb instead of just last 2 steps.
Even better is to consume them with plenty of fiber, slows down absorption even more, and spikes in glycemic index are much lower
Now in mice, who primarily eat grains, researchers find that feeding them milk is bad for their brain health. How is this research even funded?! Extrapolating this to humans in any way is entirely foolish.
[1] https://phys.org/news/2017-11-protein-diet-early-life-lifesp...
Most vegetables are carbs, milk and yogourt have tons of carbs (in the form of lactose), lentils are carbs, beans? still carbs, etc. I'm not sure how you can have a cheap low-carb diet (lots of eggs and ham? dissolving multivitamin and whey protein into avocado puree?).
That's the reality of most people's high-carb diets.
I eat less than 20 carbs a day.
With 200 grams of protein and about 150 grams of fat. I feel great. Can go without food cravings all day. My CrossFit has improved and I have set 2 PRs in two weeks on weights.
I believe in low carb diets. And have seen them work for many folks at my CrossFit box.
Ymmv
> "Many carbs are bad due to heavy processing and added sugars/fats, many are good such as fruits and vegetables."
Counter example: adding apple syrup is good? (Hint no to an extend: as it is mostly fructose and glucose, even if some nutrients remain)
In my opinion you fall into the oversimplification trap yourself.
And as with everything food related, moderation is good.
I didn't mean to imply that if it's processed that automatically = bad and if it isn't that automatically = good, although it's a pretty good rule of thumb. I was just using it to illustrate that there are vastly different types of carbs in terms of nutrition.
1. https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2013/08/reduce-type-2...
Put mice in high stress environment, let them choose when and how much they eat. Allow them to choose from large variety of diets. Then find out foods that are both healthy and something that mice choose to eat without becoming fat.
My guess is that oatmeal with trace amounts of cocaine would be close to optimal.
So, given this study is valid for humans... Atkins to lose weight, then dial back to carbs to stay healthy?
Look at fast food restaurant menus and the processed/frozen food section of your supermarket and it is 50% cheaper to feed a family of four that way (and perceived to be faster) than it is to use fresh, healthy ingredients.
Then factor in less-developed countries, where access to food is a major issue (today, it was announced that ~85,000 have died in Yemen due to starvation) and it becomes clear - for a very large portion of the world, diet is not a simple choice.
Should I say next time that I cherish every living being, and wish that everyone could be well and happy, and that I'm grateful for my capacity to make life choices including my diet, and that I wish that everyone would have this capacity, while recognizing that the world is full of suffering and evil, that I strive with my every breath to increase the happiness of others and promote good?
It gets really repetetive, really fast. I don't see how it promotes an interesting discussion.
Tall = high protein generation after generation
At least that's what we find from Native American diet consisting of 65-75% animal protein and they were tallest at the time.
Genetically, they were Asians who moved out of Siberia into North America but Asians were and are still short.
The difference between them was their diet, environment not genes. Genes might have changed later.
Europeans are also taller than South Asians and their diet also contain more protein.
What was their life expectancy and brain health?
Checkout diet of diffent tribes: https://thepaleodiet.com/north-american-plains-indians-tall-...
Native Americans comprise a broad range of cultures that developed in a variety of geographies and climates. Making sweeping generalizations about their traditional lifestyles is both flagrantly poor anthropology and a known practice among peddlers of diet pseudoscience.
Sorry what? Nobody is force feeding you. (FWIW, I've been eating once a day, except on weekends, for at least a year now).
Completely irrelevant when talking about caloric intake. For all we know, you're gorging on deep fried butter once a day.
A relatively inexpensive and broadly available product that makes you feel better and that your body naturally craves? It takes restraint to not consume it in excess.
Reminds me of that Bill Burr joke where he compares "you ever try to get a six pack?" to "you ever try to get fat? of course not!"
My guess is that you don't have a six pack and you know exactly why staying trim is hard. But acting surprised let you plug your irrelevant lifestyle.
But if you're serious, then you must have a very hard time understanding people and the modern world if you live in such a bubble so opaque you can't even understand why people get fat. My first step would be to understand it, not trivialize it.
> Why don't you do 1000 squats and pushups each day? It's not hard, you just do it. As easy as writing this comment.
Come on now.