The Randle cycle - should we eat any sugars?

[trophy33]

The Randle cycle is a new thing for me, but it seems important for our dietary decisions. So I am sharing it here, with other health enthusiasts.

 

[timewerx]

Here is study on Randle cycle. According to the study, sugar, including carbs is only bad if taken in excess and energy demand (through physical activity or exercise) isn't high enough.

Otherwise, if you exercise A LOT, it would nullify the negative effects of high carb diet. Carbs would even be of benefit to quickly replenish the glycogen used during exercise but only if your exercise load is high enough.

The study also suggested that it might be bad to eat glucose/carbs right before exercise, causing symptoms similar to Type 2 Diabetes. I exercise in a fasted state which eliminates the problems and causes metabolic adaptations that improve your whole day energy, mood, and sleep.

On account of this information. Commercial sports drinks loaded to the brim with sugar and caffeine might actually be unhealthy to consume during exercise unless you literally train hard like professional athletes.

High consumption of sugar and carbs and little exercise or sedentary would cause damage to mitochondria.

The Randle cycle revisited: a new head for an old hat

In 1963, Lancet published a paper by Randle et al. that proposed a “glucose-fatty acid cycle” to describe fuel flux between and fuel selection by tissues. The original biochemical mechanism explained the inhibition of glucose oxidation ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[trophy33]

According to the study, sugar, including carbs is only bad if taken in excess and energy demand (through physical activity or exercise) isn't high enough.

Otherwise, if you exercise A LOT, it would nullify the negative effects of high carb diet. Carbs would even be of benefit to quickly replenish the glycogen used during exercise but only if your exercise load is high enough.

Though exercising a lot (like on the elite level) can mitigate some negative impacts of sugar in our blood stream and in our cells, I am not sure if your statement that, if you exercise at lot, then its not bad and the negative effects are nullified, is completely true.

It seems that carbohydrates act like a toxicity in our body. Using it quickly for energy may lower its negative impact, but the question is to what level, in what situation, after which meals, and in which individual person. I guess it will be pretty much all over the place because the possible life combinations, like age, gender, individual health, type and timing of exercise, the season of the year, genetics/ancestry, various possible carbohydrate forms and meal combinations, are almost unlimited.

Therefore, the safest way for the general, more sedentary population (like me), seems to be to simply not eat carbohydrates or in a very limited amount.

 

[trophy33]

If I understand it correctly:
a) when cells are full of glucose, they lock themselves from receiving more glucose or fats
b) when cells are full of fats, they lock themselves from receiving more glucose or fats

--> if there are carbohydrates in a diet, cells try to take as much as possible from the blood as a priority (because glucose/fructose is toxic in the blood), but after locking themselves from receiving any more (too much glucose will kill the cell), glucose/fructose stay in blood and bind to various proteins, causing various cardiovascular and other diseases.

--> on the other hand, fat is not toxic in blood, therefore its safer to simply not eat carbohydrates or at least not a "balanced" diet composed of high intake of both and overeating with them

 

[timewerx]

Though exercising a lot (like on the elite level) can mitigate some negative impacts of sugar in our blood stream and in our cells, I am not sure if your statement that, if you exercise at lot, then its not bad and the negative effects are nullified, is completely true.

It seems that carbohydrates act like a toxicity in our body. Using it quickly for energy may lower its negative impact, but the question is to what level, in what situation, after which meals, and in which individual person. I guess it will be pretty much all over the place because the possible life combinations, like age, gender, individual health, type and timing of exercise, the season of the year, genetics/ancestry, various possible carbohydrate forms and meal combinations, are almost unlimited.

Therefore, the safest way for the general, more sedentary population (like me), seems to be to simply not eat carbohydrates or in a very limited amount.

It also depends on the quantity of the high carb, high fat diet you're eating. The link mentions the energy supply greatly exceeding energy demand is what causes damage to mitochondria.

Many people indulge on food or lack discipline in eating and eating constantly the whole day so I have play it safe and advice exercising a lot.

But if you don't indulge in eating, have good eating habits, then you don't have to exercise a lot.

Therefore, the safest way for the general, more sedentary population (like me), seems to be to simply not eat carbohydrates or in a very limited amount.

In your case, you don't have to exercise a lot. Most doctors will recommend at least 150 minutes of exercise per week or 30 minutes per day for 5 days in a week. That's the minimum, meaning, you can do more without causing problem, in fact, they recommend more if you can.

Cardio would be most of it and at least one day / week session of strength training for bone and muscle strength. Taking calcium, Vitamin D, and phosphorus alone won't give strong bones. The bones also need to be stressed to fully absorb these nutrients and build strength. Strong bones and muscles is necessary for "age-proofing" ourselves to maintain good quality of life and good mobility to old age.

 

[FireDragon76]

Sugar is only harmful if constitutes a large part of total calories. In small amounts, it can be part of a healthy diet. High carb diets are also consumed by alot of relatively healthy groups, including hunter-gatherers.

The Hadza of Tanzania are one of the few remaining hunter-gatherer groups. 15 percent of their calories come from sugar, in the form of honey. They like honey so much, they will let bees sting them to get into a beehive full of honey. Most of their calories come from tubers they dig out of the ground, and their diets are relatively low in fat and quite high in fiber. Despite the fact they walk a great deal, they actually don't burn that much more calories than modern western populations eating a diet of processed food.

 

[trophy33]

Sugar is only harmful if constitutes a large part of total calories. In small amounts, it can be part of a healthy diet.

What is the amount of dietary carbs that is not harmful in any way? The amount that causes basically no insulin response?

 

[RDKirk]

Sugar is only harmful if constitutes a large part of total calories. In small amounts, it can be part of a healthy diet. High carb diets are also consumed by alot of relatively healthy groups, including hunter-gatherers.

Let's not ignore the effect of sugar on the liver and on the teeth. Sugar is always harmful in nearly exactly the same way as alcohol. It's just that in small amounts and with enough exercise, its effects can be ameliorated...like alcohol.

The Hadza of Tanzania are one of the few remaining hunter-gatherer groups. 15 percent of their calories come from sugar, in the form of honey. They like honey so much, they will let bees sting them to get into a beehive full of honey.

That's called an addiction, which is a common effect of sugar, like alcohol. That's harm.

 

[RDKirk]

What is the amount of dietary carbs that is not harmful in any way? The amount that causes basically no insulin response?

Well, a small, relatively short insulin response is not indicative of harm. That's supposed to happen. Protein will also cause an insulin response, as will a large enough quantity of fat.

 

[trophy33]

Protein will also cause an insulin response, as will a large enough quantity of fat.

With the same effect on body as with sugar?

 

[RDKirk]

With the same effect on body as with sugar?

I mentioned other effects of sugar in the other post.

 

[trophy33]

I mentioned other effects of sugar in the other post.

I meant whether the impact of insulin on body chemistry is the same when caused by proteins as when caused by blood sugar.

 

[FireDragon76]

I meant whether the impact of insulin on body chemistry is the same when caused by proteins as when caused by blood sugar.

Amino acids like leucine elevate insulin: they tend to do so less acutely, but for longer duration.

 

[RDKirk]

I meant whether the impact of insulin on body chemistry is the same when caused by proteins as when caused by blood sugar.

I haven't seen anything to suggest that insulin is not always insulin. The difference lies in the level and duration. A tiny bit of sugar won't spike as high or as long as a large amount of protein, but in equal amounts (by weight), sugar will spike higher and longer.

 

[FireDragon76]

Let's not ignore the effect of sugar on the liver and on the teeth. Sugar is always harmful in nearly exactly the same way as alcohol. It's just that in small amounts and with enough exercise, its effects can be ameliorated...like alcohol.

Alcohol is relatively harmless in the small quantities early primates routinely consumed as part of a diet high in fruit. It's only in higher amounts, such as in alcoholic drinks, that most human beings have trouble detoxifying alcohol.

Fruits also contain quite a bit of sugars. In fact this is why human beings and other primates have color vision, so that we can distinguish ripe from unripe fruit. Most predatory carnivores, on the other hand, only see in black and white, their vision is optimized for hunting in low-light conditions.

That's called an addiction, which is a common effect of sugar, like alcohol. That's harm.

It's debatable how applicable the concept of addiction is to food. The Hadza are consuming whole honeycombs with some amounts of insects larvae. Contrary to the usual perceptions, many African tribes also have decent oral hygene, brushing their teeth with branches pulled off trees.

 

[RDKirk]

Alcohol is relatively harmless in the small quantities early primates routinely consumed as part of a diet high in fruit. It's only in higher amounts, such as in alcoholic drinks, that most human beings have trouble detoxifying alcohol.

Fruits also contain quite a bit of sugars. In fact this is why human beings and other primates have color vision, so that we can distinguish ripe from unripe fruit. Most predatory carnivores, on the other hand, only see in black and white, their vision is optimized for hunting in low-light conditions.

In nature, fruit is quite rare. I used to teach jungle survival, and fruit just isn't found very easily. Natural fruits are also quite lower in sugar than the hybrids you find today in a supermarket, and if they are sweet, they've very small (such as berries, which are still less sweet than the store-bought hybrids). Bottom line: Early man didn't get much sugar from the fruit found in nature.

It's debatable how applicable the concept of addiction is to food. The Hadza are consuming whole honeycombs with some amounts of insects larvae. Contrary to the usual perceptions, many African tribes also have decent oral hygene, brushing their teeth with branches pulled off trees.

Sugar is physically addictive. There is no real controversy about that.

And there is far less need for oral care when sugar and starchy carbohydrates are removed from the diet. Dental caries were practically unknown to the Inuit of North America, whose native diets had been nearly wholly carnivore, until they began eating bread provided by the white population.

 

[timewerx]

In nature, fruit is quite rare. I used to teach jungle survival, and fruit just isn't found very easily. Natural fruits are also quite lower in sugar than the hybrids you find today in a supermarket, and if they are sweet, they've very small (such as berries, which are still less sweet than the store-bought hybrids). Bottom line: Early man didn't get much sugar from the fruit found in nature.

Sugar is physically addictive. There is no real controversy about that.

And there is far less need for oral care when sugar and starchy carbohydrates are removed from the diet. Dental caries were practically unknown to the Inuit of North America, whose native diets had been nearly wholly carnivore, until they began eating bread provided by the white population.

I rarely get the chance to eat fruits anymore.

I used to have the opportunity to eat natural fruits from decades ago. My grandparents grew mangoes and other fruits at their large backyard in their semi-rural residence. I remember them being sweet when ripe and getting even sweeter as they became over-ripe.

 

[RDKirk]

I rarely get the chance to eat fruits anymore.

I used to have the opportunity to eat natural fruits from decades ago. My grandparents grew mangoes and other fruits at their large backyard in their semi-rural residence. I remember them being sweet when ripe and getting even sweeter as they became over-ripe.

And even then, those were fruits cultured over years, not real natural mangos. We've been culturing fruit for three or four thousand years. It was in the Philippines that I did jungle survival training.