I took the Rate Your Carbohydrates Intake from the Health Central site and it told me that I should be eating 327 grams of carbs a day. That's amount that they think is best for me. That's equivalent to over a cup and a half of sugar.

I doubt that I eat that meany carbs in a week.

It's no wonder that the diabetes rate is increasing rapidly.

Yeah, I keep hearing that the brain needs 100 grams minimum to function properly. So...all low carbers are retarded? Oh science...or rather lack thereof.

oh come on... its the refined carbs that are the problem! If people were eating 327g of complex carbs a day, then there wouldnt be much of a diabetes problem.

here's a quote directly from the site this thread talks about

There is very little difference between complex carbs adn simple carbs. Carbs are broken down in the digestive system into sugars, so when they reach the blood stream, they all look alike.

It is hard to eat this amount of carbs daily if you eat mostly whole unprocessed food: whole grains, vegetables, beans, and fruit. Whole food in general is very filling, so eating 300g carbs is equivalent to a ton of food, I just logged everything I could imagfine eating in one day, and barely came up with 200 and 60 g fiber. If you stick to fruits and vegetables mostly, even 150 g is hard to meet.But it is not problem to double this number if you few cans of regular soda, a donut, few cookies, bag of chips, some candies for afternoon sugar crush, icecream and may be a milkshakes with big mac.

Not according to my glucose meter, I check aftwer every meal. I can certaily tell when there is a processed sugar added, and when I have real fruit and even small sweet potatoe. It takes time to break complex carbs into the simple sugars and fiber content makes a difference too. Of course, if you don't combine concetrated few concetrated carb sources in one meal, the total # of carbs per meal matters too. Even the simple sugar molecules look alike, the whole unprocessed carbs are digected slowly, compare to fruit juice, soda, and even full fat icecream.

Dina,

I agree. I put my info into that site and my recommended carb intake was 246. Dodger is a male and probably much taller than I (and maybe you) so his food intake would be quite a bit higher. I know that when I do a high fibre controlled carb plan I come in around 200 grm carb a day with about 50 -60 fibre and after a couple of days of eating that way, really have a hard time getting three meals in. Of course when I eat that way it's all whole foods. I don't have diabetes or blood sugar issues though so can't really comment on that.

Having diabetes makes it harder, too much carb at one meal will still raise blood sugar, even if it is whole food, but staying away from grains and starches, and eating lots of veggies and and some fruit, is doable. I wish I could eat more carbs and less fat, whole grains like barley and buckwheat keep me full for hours.

Dina and KoKo!!

Thanks for being a voice of reason. While I don't have diabetes, I do believe in whole unprocessed carbs. I do not think that all carbs are created equal as the GI, that my plan follows, indicates that they are not.

There is no such thing as a "complex carbohydrate" or "good carb" -- they all can kill us susceptible people, just not as quickly.

The only difference I can think of, is how fast each carb source is broken down and at what rate they enter the bloodstream, as in the GI rating.....

Right?

Didn't Atkins state there isa difference? Especiallly in how fast they can or cannot spike an insulin response? I seem to remember that Atkins stated that eating 10 grams of carb from sugar was worse than 10 grams from vegetable sources...or something to that effect....

Sounds great but means nothing, really. A carbohydrate is a classification and, basically, a carb is a carb is a carb. The nutritional value of 1 gram of carb is the same whether it comes from sugar or whole wheat. What changes the nutritional value of a food is the vitamins, minerals and other nutrients found in that particular food, not the amount of carbs it does or doesn't contain.

GI can be a useful tool if you don't happen to have metabolic issues since it was tested on individuals who didn't have metabolic issues. For those that are insulin resistant or diabetic, it's a lot less useful since they tend to react to carbs differently than a normal individual. Glycemic load is probably more useful overall; at least that takes into account the total amount of glucose you're putting in your body on a daily basis.
Whether it be fast or slow, all carbs eventually become glucose in the bloodstream. 200-300 grams of carbs, even complex ones, is a pretty hefty glycemic load for the body to handle and way beyond anything that a low carb or even controlled carb plan would recommend.

Whoa, that sounds like a lot. If it was all low-glycemic it would take all day just to chew it. If it wasn't...it's about a pound of M&Ms. Or two pounds of my favorite dark chocolate....mmmmm...on the other hand, I would have one heck of a headache if I ate that much.

Some people could tolerate it fine, like say an athlete. I don't see why anyone needs that much, though.

Carb sensitivity does seem to be pretty individual. I think a lot of carb-sensitive people would do well to test their blood sugar after eating, and see what they, personally, are especially sensitive to.