Explore the vast range of titles available.

Living with diabetes doesn't have to mean giving up all of your favorite foods. Carbs from healthy foods boost nutrition and supply essential fuel for your brain and body. Counting carbs is integral to managing diabetes because your carb choices, portion sizes, and meal timing directly impact blood glucose levels. Diabetes & Carb Counting For Dummies provides essential information on how to strike a balance between carb intake, exercise, and diabetes medications while making healthy food choices.

Abstract Context Meal timing affects metabolic homeostasis and body weight, but how composition and timing of meals affect plasma lipidomics in humans is not well studied. Objective We used high throughput shotgun plasma lipidomics to investigate effects of timing of carbohydrate and fat intake on lipid metabolism and its relation to glycemic control. Design 29 nondiabetic men consumed (1) a high-carb test meal (MTT-HC) at 09.00 and a high-fat meal (MTT-HF) at 15.40; or (2) MTT-HF at 09.00 and MTT-HC at 15.40. Blood was sampled before and 180 minutes after completion of each MTT. Subcutaneous adipose tissue (SAT) was collected after overnight fast and both MTTs. Prior to each investigation day, participants consumed a 4-week isocaloric diet of the same composition: (1) high-carb meals until 13.30 and high-fat meals between 16.30 and 22:00 or (2) the inverse order. Results 12 hour daily lipid patterns showed a complex regulation by both the time of day (67.8%) and meal composition (55.4%). A third of lipids showed a diurnal variation in postprandial responses to the same meal with mostly higher responses in the morning than in the afternoon. Triacylglycerols containing shorter and more saturated fatty acids were enriched in the morning. SAT transcripts involved in fatty acid synthesis and desaturation showed no diurnal variation. Diurnal changes of 7 lipid classes were negatively associated with insulin sensitivity, but not with glucose and insulin response or insulin secretion. Conclusions This study identified postprandial plasma lipid profiles as being strongly affected by meal timing and associated with insulin sensitivity.

Dr. David Perlmutter's groundbreaking bestseller Grain Brain revolutionized the way we think about our health, exposing the devastating effects of wheat, sugar, and carbs on the brain and empowering us with new knowledge: by eating the right foods, you can profoundly affect how your brain will be working next year, in five years, and for the rest of your life. The Grain Brain Cookbook equips you to do just that, presenting more than 150 delectable recipes to keep your brain vibrant and your body fit, all while dramatically reducing your risk for, and treating Alzheimer's, depression, ADHD, and epilepsy, as well as relieving more common, everyday conditions like chronic headaches, insomnia, anxiety, and \"senior moments\" of forgetfulness. The meals in this book are wholesome, easy to prepare, and best of all, delicious to eat, making your transition to a gluten free life seamless, satisfying, and stress free in the kitchen.

There is an error in the caption for Fig 2, “Binding of His6-EF-Tu to sulfated glycolipids assessed by SPR analysis.” The KD value is described in the text. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0174257.g001 1.

The carbohydrate–insulin model of obesity posits that high-carbohydrate diets lead to excess insulin secretion, thereby promoting fat accumulation and increasing energy intake. Thus, low-carbohydrate diets are predicted to reduce ad libitum energy intake as compared to low-fat, high-carbohydrate diets. To test this hypothesis, 20 adults aged 29.9 ± 1.4 (mean ± s.e.m.) years with body mass index of 27.8 ± 1.3 kg m −2 were admitted as inpatients to the National Institutes of Health Clinical Center and randomized to consume ad libitum either a minimally processed, plant-based, low-fat diet (10.3% fat, 75.2% carbohydrate) with high glycemic load (85 g 1,000 kcal −1 ) or a minimally processed, animal-based, ketogenic, low-carbohydrate diet (75.8% fat, 10.0% carbohydrate) with low glycemic load (6 g 1,000 kcal −1 ) for 2 weeks followed immediately by the alternate diet for 2 weeks. One participant withdrew due to hypoglycemia during the low-carbohydrate diet. The primary outcomes compared mean daily ad libitum energy intake between each 2-week diet period as well as between the final week of each diet. We found that the low-fat diet led to 689 ± 73 kcal d −1 less energy intake than the low-carbohydrate diet over 2 weeks ( P  < 0.0001) and 544 ± 68 kcal d −1 less over the final week ( P  < 0.0001). Therefore, the predictions of the carbohydrate–insulin model were inconsistent with our observations. This study was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT03878108 . In an inpatient, randomized controlled crossover trial, participants consumed 550–700 kcal day −1 fewer calories when following a plant-based, low-fat diet with a high glycemic load compared with an animal-based, low-carbohydrate diet with a low glycemic load; weight loss was comparable between the two diets and there were no significant differences in hunger or enjoyment of the meals.

In the past, different types of diet with a generally low-carbohydrate content (< 50–< 20 g/day) have been promoted, for weight loss and diabetes, and the effectiveness of a very low dietary carbohydrate content has always been a matter of debate. A significant reduction in the amount of carbohydrates in the diet is usually accompanied by an increase in the amount of fat and to a lesser extent, also protein. Accordingly, using the term “low carb–high fat” (LCHF) diet is most appropriate. Low/very low intakes of carbohydrate food sources may impact on overall diet quality and long-term effects of such drastic diet changes remain at present unknown. This narrative review highlights recent metabolic and clinical outcomes of studies as well as practical feasibility of low LCHF diets. A few relevant observations are as follows: (1) any diet type resulting in reduced energy intake will result in weight loss and related favorable metabolic and functional changes; (2) short-term LCHF studies show both favorable and less desirable effects; (3) sustained adherence to a ketogenic LCHF diet appears to be difficult. A non-ketogenic diet supplying 100–150 g carbohydrate/day, under good control, may be more practical. (4) There is lack of data supporting long-term efficacy, safety and health benefits of LCHF diets. Any recommendation should be judged in this light. (5) Lifestyle intervention in people at high risk of developing type 2 diabetes, while maintaining a relative carbohydrate-rich diet, results in long-term prevention of progression to type 2 diabetes and is generally seen as safe.

AbstractObjectiveTo determine the efficacy and safety of low carbohydrate diets (LCDs) and very low carbohydrate diets (VLCDs) for people with type 2 diabetes.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesSearches of CENTRAL, Medline, Embase, CINAHL, CAB, and grey literature sources from inception to 25 August 2020.Study selectionRandomized clinical trials evaluating LCDs (<130 g/day or <26% of a 2000 kcal/day diet) and VLCDs (<10% calories from carbohydrates) for at least 12 weeks in adults with type 2 diabetes were eligible.Data extractionPrimary outcomes were remission of diabetes (HbA1c <6.5% or fasting glucose <7.0 mmol/L, with or without the use of diabetes medication), weight loss, HbA1c, fasting glucose, and adverse events. Secondary outcomes included health related quality of life and biochemical laboratory data. All articles and outcomes were independently screened, extracted, and assessed for risk of bias and GRADE certainty of evidence at six and 12 month follow-up. Risk estimates and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using random effects meta-analysis. Outcomes were assessed according to a priori determined minimal important differences to determine clinical importance, and heterogeneity was investigated on the basis of risk of bias and seven a priori subgroups. Any subgroup effects with a statistically significant test of interaction were subjected to a five point credibility checklist.ResultsSearches identified 14 759 citations yielding 23 trials (1357 participants), and 40.6% of outcomes were judged to be at low risk of bias. At six months, compared with control diets, LCDs achieved higher rates of diabetes remission (defined as HbA1c <6.5%) (76/133 (57%) v 41/131 (31%); risk difference 0.32, 95% confidence interval 0.17 to 0.47; 8 studies, n=264, I2=58%). Conversely, smaller, non-significant effect sizes occurred when a remission definition of HbA1c <6.5% without medication was used. Subgroup assessments determined as meeting credibility criteria indicated that remission with LCDs markedly decreased in studies that included patients using insulin. At 12 months, data on remission were sparse, ranging from a small effect to a trivial increased risk of diabetes. Large clinically important improvements were seen in weight loss, triglycerides, and insulin sensitivity at six months, which diminished at 12 months. On the basis of subgroup assessments deemed credible, VLCDs were less effective than less restrictive LCDs for weight loss at six months. However, this effect was explained by diet adherence. That is, among highly adherent patients on VLCDs, a clinically important reduction in weight was seen compared with studies with less adherent patients on VLCDs. Participants experienced no significant difference in quality of life at six months but did experience clinically important, but not statistically significant, worsening of quality of life and low density lipoprotein cholesterol at 12 months. Otherwise, no significant or clinically important between group differences were found in terms of adverse events or blood lipids at six and 12 months.ConclusionsOn the basis of moderate to low certainty evidence, patients adhering to an LCD for six months may experience remission of diabetes without adverse consequences. Limitations include continued debate around what constitutes remission of diabetes, as well as the efficacy, safety, and dietary satisfaction of longer term LCDs.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42020161795.

The inability of current recommendations to control the epidemic of diabetes, the specific failure of the prevailing low-fat diets to improve obesity, cardiovascular risk, or general health and the persistent reports of some serious side effects of commonly prescribed diabetic medications, in combination with the continued success of low-carbohydrate diets in the treatment of diabetes and metabolic syndrome without significant side effects, point to the need for a reappraisal of dietary guidelines. The benefits of carbohydrate restriction in diabetes are immediate and well documented. Concerns about the efficacy and safety are long term and conjectural rather than data driven. Dietary carbohydrate restriction reliably reduces high blood glucose, does not require weight loss (although is still best for weight loss), and leads to the reduction or elimination of medication. It has never shown side effects comparable with those seen in many drugs. Here we present 12 points of evidence supporting the use of low-carbohydrate diets as the first approach to treating type 2 diabetes and as the most effective adjunct to pharmacology in type 1. They represent the best-documented, least controversial results. The insistence on long-term randomized controlled trials as the only kind of data that will be accepted is without precedent in science. The seriousness of diabetes requires that we evaluate all of the evidence that is available. The 12 points are sufficiently compelling that we feel that the burden of proof rests with those who are opposed. •We present major evidence for low-carbohydrate diets as first approach for diabetes.•Such diets reliably reduce high blood glucose, the most salient feature of diabetes.•Benefits do not require weight loss although nothing is better for weight reduction.•Carbohydrate-restricted diets reduce or eliminate need for medication.•There are no side effects comparable with those seen in intensive pharmacologic treatment. [Display omitted]

Background and Objectives: To determine the effect of a low carbohydrate diet and standard carbohydrate counting on glycaemic control, glucose excursions and daily insulin use compared with standard carbohydrate counting in participants with type 1 diabetes. Methods and Study Design: Participants (n=10) with type 1 diabetes using a basal; bolus insulin regimen, who attended a secondary care clinic, were randomly allocated (1:1) to either a standard carbohydrate counting course or the same course with added information on following a carbohydrate restricted diet (75 g per day). Participants attended visits at baseline and 12 weeks for measurements of weight, height, blood pressure, HbA1c, lipid profile and creatinine. They also completed a 3-day food diary and had 3 days of continuous subcutaneous glucose monitoring. Results: The carbohydrate restricted group had significant reductions in HbA1c (63 to 55 mmol/mol (8.9-8.2%), p<0.05) and daily insulin use (64.4 to 44.2 units/day, p<0.05) and non-significant reductions in body weight (83.2 to 78.0 kg). There were no changes in blood pressure, creatinine or lipid profile and all outcomes in the carbohydrate counting group were unchanged. There was no change in glycaemic variability as measured by the mean amplitude of glycaemic excursion in either group. Conclusions: A low carbohydrate diet is a feasible option for people with type 1 diabetes, and may be of benefit in reducing insulin doses and improving glycaemic control, particularly for those wishing to lose weight.