Thu, Jul-05-18, 07:22
|
|
Senior Member
Posts: 1,596
|
|
Plan: Carb reduction in general
Stats: 230/185/180
BF:
Progress: 90%
Location: Texas
|
|
From the above abstract:
Quote:
|
Macronutrient contents of the CRHP/CD diets consisted of 31/54 % energy from carbohydrate, 29/16 % energy from protein and 40/30 % energy from fat, respectively.
|
Looks like a number reporting mistake in the summarizing article. Also:
Quote:
|
They also found that levels of two other hormones involved in metabolism - glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide and glucagon-like peptide 1 - increased by 35% and 17% respectively.
|
(Article) versus abstract:
Quote:
|
Compared with the CD diet, the CRHP diet reduced postprandial AUC of glucose by 14 %, insulin by 22 % and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide by 17 % (all P<0·001), respectively.
|
Not my intent to be critical of the report author, just to clarify a couple of things he missed that would make a bigger difference for those of us here who understand more about those things. 54% protein would be too uncomfortably high for me but 29%, yeah, I could easily do that. And bringing fat up to 40%, that sounds more like a level people a few decades back ate on average before the low-fat thing (and accompanying obesity/diabetes epidemic) got going. Carbohydrate percentage in their reduced carb diet would still be way too high for me personally to control my glucose numbers, but for the average diabetic currently on one of those ADA-style high carb diets plus drugs to drag their glucose back down, this diet would be a real improvement and probably fairly easy to sustain for those not ready or interested in giving up so much carbs.
|