# RDA for carbs



## Carina1962 (Aug 15, 2012)

This question has probably been posted on here before but what is the RDA for carbs?  there is a certain amount i think which is essential for brain function but i can't remember what it is and i'm sure someone on DUK will know


----------



## jalapino (Aug 16, 2012)

carina62 said:


> This question has probably been posted on here before but what is the RDA for carbs?  there is a certain amount i think which is essential for brain function but i can't remember what it is and i'm sure someone on DUK will know



Hello carina found this link....might be what you are looking for 

http://glucomenu.com/new_research/minimum_carbohydrate_recommendations.asp


----------



## DeusXM (Aug 16, 2012)

There is NO recommended daily amount for carbohydrates.

Carbohydrates are not an essential part of diet. Your body can quite happily metabolise fat (either dietary or visceral) for energy, while protein is converted to glucose to provide an additional energy source.

Carbohydrates are what raise your blood sugar levels. Therefore many people simply don't see the sense in eating an arbitrary amount of carbs because they don't need them and they actually make managing diabetes a lot harder. Charities such as Diabetes UK and the American Diabetes Association have persisted in making ridiculous recommendations that people with diabetes should eat at least 50% of their diet from carbs to 'maintain stable blood sugars'. Anyone with diabetes knows that eating pasta or bread does not keep your BG stable - it causes a huge spike shortly after eating which may also continue for many hours. The dietary advice given out by most authorities is based entirely on avoiding hypos and hasn't been revised since the development of synthetic insulins.

The RDA for carbs is 'whatever you can eat without disrupting your blood sugar'. For some, that's a lot. For some, it's a little. There's no real reason to cut down on carbs if you can process them and get A1Cs below 6.5%. But there's also no reason why you have to eat them if you don't want to. But it's all down to YOU - not what some clueless nutritionist or a charity sponsored by cereal manufacturers says.


----------



## MaryPlain (Aug 16, 2012)

Interesting posts.  On another thread I was reading about someone (type 1, allegedly) who had found that by cutting carbs almost completely, they found they didn't appear to need any insulin. The general consensus on that post was that insulin has other functions, apart from metabolising carbs, so therefore a person should logically eat enough carbs so that they can take insulin!

What do you think about that, DeusXM?


----------



## DeusXM (Aug 16, 2012)

You don't need to eat carbs to need insulin. The entire principle behind modern insulin therapy is to have a steady, small stream of insulin to cover the output from your liver, which continuously releases glucose throughout the day (noteably as a result of gluconeogenesis). Therefore a T1 will always need to take some form of insulin regardless of how may carbs they eat. It's worth noting that the standard procedure for basal testing (no carbs for an entire day) is designed to work out the insulin need to meet an individual's basal requirements.

If someone is able to cut down their carbs to the point that they don't need insulin, they are either a)not actually a T1, b)a T1 but with some residual insulin production (which raises a lot of questions over whether we actually regenerate beta cells and if so, opens up an opportunity for a cure) or c)not actually controlling their diabetes. Furthermore, I suspect even in this situation, the need for insulin would come back. Insulin prevents fat metabolism by preventing the release of glucagon. No insulin means more glucagon, which releases glycogen from the liver, which becomes blood glucose - which will require insulin for metabolism. I can't quite recall whether ketones can be metabolised by the brain but you'll note that if the liver is still releasing glucose, in any case, there is glucose available to fuel the brain.

So the point still stands - you don't actually need dietary carbohydrate. Again, this isn't to say you should never eat bread or pasta and live entirely on eggs and avocados - just that you don't need to base all your meals around a starch. In fact, if you're overweight, it's better NOT to base meals on starch. Again, insulin prevents fat metabolism and encourages the conversion of blood glucose to fat. If you're looking to lose weight, you probably need to reduce your insulin intake, and that'll mean modifying your diet to ensure you retain blood sugar control. The entire 'wisdom' behind the supposed inevitability that T1s always get a bit fat is entirely because the medical authorities work on the principle that your adjustments should always be on medication rather than diet.


----------



## Northerner (Aug 16, 2012)

I've often wondered what would happen with me if I had a carb-free day, as I now fall into your 'B' category. When diagnosed I was on 20 units lantus, now 4 years on and have had about 10 units of lantus in the past 4 months! My levels do rise a lot in the mornings though if I don't eat/inject, so I wouldn't be able to keep good control. Have my beta cells recovered/regenerated? I did wonder if I was perhaps a 'thin T2' but I don't have insulin resistance as am on quite small bolus ratios. You'd think someone would be interested, but the last consultant I saw just said it wouldn't last...


----------



## DeusXM (Aug 16, 2012)

> You'd think someone would be interested, but the last consultant I saw just said it wouldn't last...



It's this regeneration capability that forms the gist of approaches to diabetes cures at the moment. There's the Exendin-4/Lisofylline approach which blocks the autoimmune reaction and stimulates beta cell growth, while the GABA theory also worked on beta cell regrowth. 

Fundamentally, I guess it all depends on whether beta cells are like fingernails or like fingers - if you lose a fingernail, it does still grow back, whereas if you lose a finger, you don't. If they're like fingernails, logically anything that ensures they grow back quicker than they are destroyed would cure T1.

And it's such a shame that your consultant doesn't seem able to see that. Anyone able to massively reduce their insulin intake for no particularly obvious reason should be studied!


----------



## Northerner (Aug 16, 2012)

DeusXM said:


> It's this regeneration capability that forms the gist of approaches to diabetes cures at the moment. There's the Exendin-4/Lisofylline approach which blocks the autoimmune reaction and stimulates beta cell growth, while the GABA theory also worked on beta cell regrowth.
> 
> Fundamentally, I guess it all depends on whether beta cells are like fingernails or like fingers - if you lose a fingernail, it does still grow back, whereas if you lose a finger, you don't. If they're like fingernails, logically anything that ensures they grow back quicker than they are destroyed would cure T1.
> 
> And it's such a shame that your consultant doesn't seem able to see that. Anyone able to massively reduce their insulin intake for no particularly obvious reason should be studied!



Nice analogy  He wasn't my usual consultant - my usual one is quite interested, although he says the PCT would not pay for any tests as they wouldn't improve my treatment options.


----------

