Terminalxylem
Footballguy
The pun was not implying one should guzzle 250g of sugar, as processed foods + added sugar are not included in any healthy diet.Maybe I missed it but as someone who is a proponent of the Mediterranean diet, shouldn't carbs from whole grains/fruit be distinguished from refined flour carbs?Sounds reasonable.I'm reading your article Term and am stuck on the carb calcs. I'm 92 kilos, and walk about an hour a night. Maybe just under. So, per the chart, that's 5g/kg of carbs needed to keep glycogen stores at normal levels (it says 5-7, so I'm taking the low end). But 92*5 is 460g of carbs. Which would require 1840 carb calories a day. i.e. 92% of my total diet. Even 4g/kg would require 75% of daily calories to be carbs.
So what I think may be happening is that the combination of ~moderate exercise with the daily carb deficit depletes glycogen levels in long-term dieters. Maybe I (and other excercise + calorie deficit folks) really are in a deficit and our bodies hyperdrive glycogen when we inadvertently carb load? Is that plausible?
The sweet spot for carbohydrates (pun intended), mortality wise, is somewhere between 45-55% caloric intake (derived from the ARIC and PURE studies). For a 2K kcal diet, that's like more like 250g daily. So 460 seems like a lot, even if you are exercising regularly.
This is one reason I'm really interested to see the longterm fallout from current fad diets.
When I say carbohydrates, I mean fruits, veggies, legumes, and whole grains. Obviously, those contain other macronutrients as well, but the evidence suggests “good” carbohydrates should comprise most caloric intake.
A lot of junk nutrition advice is predicated on conflating carbohydrates with ultraprocessed foods, and simultaneously promoting unrestricted protein/fat. While only time will tell, I suspect we’ll see adverse health consequences from this trend, just as we saw bad stuff happen from low fat dogma decades ago.
Last edited: