Low carb

I have a question. In the Low Carb course, you mentioned that a low-carbohydrate diet has undeniable benefits for supporting physical exertion in certain sports. Could you please elaborate on and substantiate this claim? Thank you.

The concept of low carb in practice shows that it tends to be more advantageous mostly for endurance activities performed at lower heart rates. This makes sense, as the body uses a higher proportion of energy from fats during this type of physical activity, and a high carbohydrate intake thus demonstrates the ability to suppress the utilization of full metabolic potential during athletic performance. For this reason, a significant number of endurance athletes are moving in this dietary direction.

However, considering the aim for an individual approach, this does not necessarily mean that this generalization will suit everyone; we are discussing a general model here. It is always important to consider the type of activity, the level of an individual's training, the athlete's metabolic profile, and last but not least, their willingness to experiment with training metabolic flexibility, which in the vast majority of cases is a long-term effort.

Conversely, it also applies that in typically anaerobic sports, an individual will require more carbohydrates due to the need for a quick energy source necessary for performance and to support the formation of glycogen stores in the post-exertion phase.

Hello,

I have a question regarding fats: why is a higher ratio in the diet considered a health risk? I have noticed that many people feel better on a paleo or low-carb diet, where the fat ratio is somewhat higher. Additionally, I wanted to ask how to keep the glycemic load low on a high-carbohydrate diet. Despite using wholegrain foods, my meal plans often result in a higher glycemic load, especially with a higher energy intake. I usually compensated by increasing the fat content in the diet, which was then between 30-40%. I'm also curious if it would be appropriate for individuals with higher fasting glucose levels (possible pre-diabetes) to increase fats to 30-40% and limit carbohydrates to 40-50% with a low GI and GL?

Thank you.

A higher proportion of fats in the diet in itself may not be risky; this is only general information. It always depends on a number of factors, the most important being the individual's health status, the total amount of fats used, their quality, and the ratios between groups of fatty acids (saturated vs. unsaturated, monounsaturated vs. polyunsaturated, etc.). Essentially, it is valid to say that even a properly structured low-carb system is healthy considering the higher proportion of fats.

The glycemic load (GL) is an "artificial" parameter that should always be perceived with some reservation and simultaneously in relation to other nutritional characteristics. For example, if side dishes (as the main source of carbohydrates) are based on whole grain products (ideally in the form of whole unpeeled grains), and the fiber and fat content in the given meal (or daily diet) align with common standards, the metabolism will react to higher GL values with relatively slow sugar release into the bloodstream, so essentially such a situation will be completely fine (in terms of balanced energy balance). Always remember that in our studies, we aim to translate generally defined nutrition rules into practice, so theoretically presented numbers may not be translatable into reality down to the last detail.

For individuals with pre-diabetes, reducing the excess carbohydrates in the diet is always beneficial. In the context of monitoring the energy balance, you should compensate by increasing the proportion of fats, just make sure to be strict in adhering to all the related rules regarding fats.

Hello,

I still can't find any sources for the mentioned carbohydrate intake of 120-150g. I am a nutrition advisor, and in school, we were taught that the brain requires approximately 120-130g, naturally, this amount is average and indicative. However, if we are to base our meal plans on some figures, then the mentioned amount of 120-150g does not fall into the low-carb zone but merely represents a reduction in daily carbohydrate intake in favor of another macronutrient, without necessarily leading to a shift from energy usage from carbohydrates to fats. Conversely, I have read that the body "switches" to using fats as the main energy source at about 100g. This issue is not elaborated on in the study materials, only the number is mentioned.

Thank you very much for your response, and have a nice day.

All the figures presented regarding the ratios of macronutrients in any diet are always indicative and primarily averaged, never reflecting the true needs of individuality, which need to be determined through practical testing. This also applies to the attempt to define general carbohydrate intake limits for a low-carb regime, where there are several perspectives and approaches derived from them:

1. It is possible to present a general range of values (i.e., 120 - 150 g, sometimes up to 180 g) - this carries a significant disadvantage in that it does not take into account the individual's body weight and level of physical activity, where these mentioned factors most influence carbohydrate needs.

2. We can calculate carbohydrate amounts relative to body weight - here, the most commonly presented range is 1.5-2.5 g/1 kg of body weight.

3. It is based on figures indicating the actual consumption of carbohydrates required to support brain function - here, the range of 120 - 150 g per day is presented, although this too does not account for the intensity of brain activity, which ultimately can result in differences in needs of up to double.

4. To determine specific carbohydrate intake values, a model can be used where foods that are reportedly not part of the diet of hunters and gatherers, such as grains, legumes, and some fruits, are excluded from the diet. Based on such a model, similar figures again emerge, although this approach is as inaccurate as the ones mentioned above (archaeological research proves that a certain proportion of grains and legumes appeared in the diet of our ancestors before the advent of agriculture...).

When reducing carbohydrate intake in this way, it is necessary to increase the proportion of fats as an energy source to the level required by the individual (weight reduction vs. balanced energy balance vs. weight gain), always maintaining a reasonable range of protein amounts. Metabolism, within adaptive processes, will have no choice but to adapt to this change, and due to differences in the metabolic profile of each person, the result will always be different. The carbohydrate intake threshold necessary for "switching" to the keto mode is not and cannot be fixed, as ketone bodies are produced in the body under many circumstances, and carbohydrate intake is not the only determining criterion, as is often stated. Moreover, it is necessary to distinguish between a classic keto diet and a low-carb way of eating, where in keto mode, the carbohydrate intake is much more stringent.

Hello,
In the tasks for low carb, legumes are included. Do legumes really belong to LC? I thought that grains and legumes are precisely excluded.
Thank you.

The rules of LC (low carbohydrate) are not precisely and strictly defined. The foundation is limiting the intake of carbohydrates, where their richest sources (excluding technologically processed foods) are cereal grains and products made from them, as well as selected types of fruits and some legumes. In this context, it is not an issue to include legumes, but of course in moderate amounts. They are a rich source of proteins, fiber, minerals, and in some cases, fats, while their carbohydrate content is relatively low, making them suitable for the concept of a low carbohydrate approach.