Carbs Needed for Brain Power?

foxyforce

Let me preface this by saying that I've cut down on my carbs a great deal, since coming to this site. However I came across this article that has convinced me not to go below 130 grams of carbs a day. My job is based on my 'brain power' and if I can't think straight, I won't have an income. :-)

To paraphrase: The article speaks of a study done by Tufts university where there were two groups of people - the control group on a low calorie diet, and one on a 'low' carb plan (they say low carb but they did tell the women to eliminate carbs, which means none). The women on low carbs did worse on tests of 'working memory' (Or why did I walk into this room?)

They state that 'the brains primary fuel is glucose'. I did not know that and always thought it was protein!

The conclusion is that the brain needs about 130 grams of carbs a day for optimal operation. While I have not yet found the text of the study itself online and do not know how significantly 'worse' the low carb women did, the article itself is worth a read. And 'moderation in everything' seems to again win the day.

http://caloriecount.about.com/blog/partners/dieting-brain-drain-b329659?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_20090819&utm_term=continue1

i bet you i can find it, i have access to a lot of psych portals online because of my university! let me give it a shot...i love your definition, or the definition that you got for working memory, it is super laymans lol, but thats ok for those that don't know what it is!

gonna try right now!

foxyforce

It just goes to show... following Canada's food guide...or the Food Pyramid in The US is the best way to go. Eat things in moderation, drink water and exercise regularly.

I have been doing this since January ...no cutting out carbs or sugar or fat and I have lost 72 lbs.

It works for me

Completely agree!!!!
I'm not saying cutting out carbs can't work, I'm no expert. But I would rather go with a method that has really stood the test of time (and yes I know there will be people who will take exception to that statement). Also, I don't see the point of completely cutting out anything if it is not necessary. :happy: To me living life to the fullest includes fruit and a plate of pasta every once in a while!:flowerforyou:

But it hasn't stood the test of time. When grain became introduced into the world eating plan, diseases and obesity came about. Humans are not meant to eat grains, that is the reason for so many diseases and ailments in the world now days.......

Obesity
Diabetes
Autism
ADD
all types of auto immune disorders
Bi-polar disorder
PCOS

Just to name a few.............I could go on and on with the research I have been reading.

that is probably just a theory..which is totally different than a credible study...which is why im looking for it RIGHT now!

July24Lioness

Your body produces its own glucose at the expense of amino acids (dietary protein and muscle) and the glycerol backbone of fats (from the diet or circulating fatty acids), so you are never without it. Otherwise, you would indeed die. The brain uses both glucose (carbohydrates) and ketones (from amino acids and fatty acids) during times of low dietary-carbohydrate intake. It takes a few days or weeks to adjust to the change. There are certain energy systems that suffer in terms of efficiency due to a carb-restricted diet, so it's certainly not for an athlete, but can be just as effective as plain old caloric restriction when it comes to fat loss.

I agree with this and was going to post something very similar.

I can personally attest that since I have made my carb % low to only 5-10% of my daily intake, I NO longer have brain fog.

Humans do not need grains, sugar and the like to provide mental clarity. I can find and post several articles that will refute every bit of what the original article states.

I know people that consume 0 (zero) carbs and they perform very well in every aspect of life. Mentally, physically and athletically..............One of the people I know, eats hamburgers for breakfast and steaks for supper, weighs about 120 pounds at 5'4" and is rock solid muscle and does triathalons.

I'm not saying ketosis is healthy. There are plenty of actual research articles available on PubMed that illustrate that ketones increase the expression of potentially harmful genes and increase oxidation of LDL cholesterol which is what promotes the immune response that causes plaque buildup in arterial walls. I'm just saying that you don't need carbohydrates to survive. Without a doubt your triathlon-running friend would perform better if they were to utilize carbohydrates.

I am healthier myself since switching to a ketogenic plan. My blood work is better than it has been in years........

I will slowly bring myself out of ketosis once I get the weight off, but not until then. Also, I have to learn not to indulge in so much fruits as that automatically drives my triglycerides up and throws off my A1C too.

My triathalon running friend does quite well, she has plenty of medals and awards to show for her progress.

If I can get my diabetes reversed within the next 6 months, I will be re-enlisting into the Army to finish out my years so I can retire a veteran, instead of just being a veteran.

foxyforce

this is the acctualy abstract

To examine how a low-carbohydrate diet affects cognitive performance, women participated in one of two weight-loss diet regimens. Participants self-selected a low-carbohydrate (n = 9) or a reduced-calorie balanced diet similar to that recommended by the American Dietetic Association (ADA diet) (n = 10). Seventy-two hours before beginning their diets and then 48 h, 1, 2, and 3 weeks after starting, participants completed a battery of cognitive tasks assessing visuospatial memory, vigilance attention, memory span, a food-related paired-associates a food Stroop, and the Profile of Moods Scale (POMS) to assess subjective mood. Results showed that during complete withdrawal of dietary carbohydrate, low-carbohydrate dieters performed worse on memory-based tasks than ADA dieters. These impairments were ameliorated after reintroduction of carbohydrates. Low-carbohydrate dieters reported less confusion (POMS) and responded faster during an attention vigilance task (CPT) than ADA dieters. Hunger ratings did not differ between the two diet conditions. The present data show memory impairments during low-carbohydrate diets at a point when available glycogen stores would be at their lowest. A commonly held explanation based on preoccupation with food would not account for these findings. The results also suggest better vigilance attention and reduced self-reported confusion while on the low-carbohydrate diet, although not tied to a specific time point during the diet. Taken together the results suggest that weight-loss diet regimens differentially impact cognitive behavior. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2009 APA, all rights reserved) (journal abstract)


and im lookin for the article if you guys are still interested

just reading the abstract shows how much the calorie count website wrongfully inferred from the results. the study isn't entirely reliable if you ask me, because it has such a low number of participants, and an unequal amount between treatment groups....but it seems to be more in favor of the low carb diet

foxyforce

i am only copying interesting parts... cause it is too long.

"Digit span (forward and reverse)

The baseline analysis showed no diet group differences for digits recalled in either order. Analyses showed no significant effects on forward recall. Reverse recall performance showed interaction between diet and test session (F(3, 51)=2.87, p<.05) (see Fig. 3 ). Follow-up two-tailed, independent sample t-tests showed that diet group differences occurred only for the 1-week session, i.e. at the point of greatest glycogen store depletion (t(17)=2.12, p<.05). ADA dieters recalled more digits than LC dieters. No other main effects or interactions reached significance.

POMS

Mood states addressed in the POMS questionnaire included vigor, anger, fatigue, depression, tension, and confusion factors. Only one factor showed any effects: confusion. Confusion scores showed an interaction between diet and session (F(3, 51)=3.664, p<.05). This interaction suggests that the two diet groups reported similar confusion rates for the 48-h and 3-week test sessions, but that ADA dieters reported higher confusion for the 1-week and 2-week sessions (see Fig. 7 ).

In research comparing the effects of a high-fat, low-carbohydrate diet and a high-carbohydrate, low-fat diet, Halyburton et al. (2007) found that working memory, as measured by the reverse digit span, was not affected by diet. In contrast, performance on a speed of processing task showed less improvement over time in the low- relative to the high-carbohydrate condition. In the present study, participants consuming very little to no carbohydrates showed spatial memory and reverse-digit span decrements that were reversed when carbohydrate intake was resumed. There are a number of differences between the Halyburton study and the present research which could account for the different results in cognition and mood. The most relevant factors would be that in the former study, participants were fed planned diets for 8 weeks, whereas in our study participants chose their daily diets and followed particular diet guidelines for only 3 weeks, with carbohydrate intake increasing over the 3-week period. It was our goal in the present study to approximate what individuals following weight-loss diets would do during real-world conditions, and as such, our specific hypothesis and design focused on the early stages of following a restricted carbohydrate diet.

Diets high in protein are reported as being more satiating than other macronutrient components (Bertenshaw, Lluch, & Yeomans, 2008 ; Poppitt, McCormack, & Buffenstein, 1998 ), and the promise of many low-carbohydrate diets is “slimming without hunger.” However, in this study, subjective hunger ratings were the same for both dietary conditions. Further, perception of hunger is also related to increased distracting thoughts about food. The present study provided no indication that differential pre-occupation with food contributed to the cognitive decrements. Performance on two tasks designed to address cognitive interference brought about by food pre-occupation (food-Stroop and food paired associates tasks) showed no effects of diet condition. While dieters tend to display pre-occupation with food relative to non-dieters (Kemps & Tiggemann, 2005 ; Kemps et al., 2005 ), all participants in our study were dieters. The present study provided no indication that the macronutrient composition of the diet produced differences in preoccupation with food. Taken together, these results suggest that changes in cognitive performance related to these two different weight reduction diets cannot be explained by either mental preoccupation with food or distraction by physiological signs of hunger."

SOURCE: Low-carbohydrate weight-loss diets. Effects on cognition and mood
Appetite (February 2009), 52 (1), pg. 96-103

Kristen E. D’Anci; Kara L. Watts; Robin B. Kanarek; Holly A. Taylor

July24Lioness

Hey Loathsome..........

What about paraphrasing the article................LOL isn't that what you told us in the other thread?

:laugh: :laugh:

KatWood

Is my faith in the Canadian Food Guide misplaced? :noway:
Although there will always be exceptions, it seems to be the most agreed apon dietary guide in existence.

havingitall

Is my faith in the Canadian Food Guide misplaced? :noway:
Although there will always be exceptions, it seems to be the most agreed apon dietary guide in existence.

Does it work for you Kat? As I said in my previous post. I have lost 72 lbs since mid January....that works for me.

foxyforce

Hey Loathsome..........

What about paraphrasing the article................LOL isn't that what you told us in the other thread?

:laugh: :laugh:

you can't paraphrase research!

but what it says, is that there are 19 participants, split up unequally

and they were tested on SEVERAL different components, and caloriecount.com's article totally skewed that to their perception

and while they used a critical region of a=.05 (that is like...5%...i don't know if anyone knows alpha levels,in laymans terms, it is the allowance of error), i feel if they used a smaller alpha level, the study wouldn't have produced the results that maybe they were looking for...it was a small number of participants so i feel right in inferring this

no preoccupation of food between lowcarbers or the american diet'ers

high carbers showed less improvement in reaction time for recall

low carbers had decrements in working memory (spatial and reverse digit span)

so low carbers recalled less items----but this is not a reliable amount of damned people!

Wecandothis

this is the acctualy abstract

(For Abstract see above)

and im lookin for the article if you guys are still interested

just reading the abstract shows how much the calorie count website wrongfully inferred from the results. the study isn't entirely reliable if you ask me, because it has such a low number of participants, and an unequal amount between treatment groups....but it seems to be more in favor of the low carb diet

wow thank you Loathesome (still say that's a misnomer). YES the abstract is quite a bit different from the inferences of the article!

It seems as if the Low Carbers just did worse on the memory - but with only 9/10 of them....

Inconclusive. Thank you for finding that!

Wecandothis

This study is not very reliable for the reasons Loathesome stated. Also they were allowing participants to choose their own food - and I'm assuming that there is no way that they can guarantee that they weren't cheating.

I'd throw this one right out.

Thank you all! and Loathesome, you are a researcher extraordinaire! What are you studying?

sibetsimo

Whether or not this is indeed a reliable study, it is a fact that the brain uses glucose to function. PET scans, for example, provide a visual display of brain activity by detecting the consumption of a radioactive form of glucose in different areas of the brain.

So I have no clue how much carbohydrates we should be consuming for proper brain function, but it definately is not zero. Just my bit of input!

foxyforce

Whether or not this is indeed a reliable study, it is a fact that the brain uses glucose to function. PET scans, for example, provide a visual display of brain activity by detecting the consumption of a radioactive form of glucose in different areas of the brain.

So I have no clue how much carbohydrates we should be consuming for proper brain function, but it definately is not zero. Just my bit of input!

yeah, it definitly discussed that in the research findings, but it was too detailed for my knowledge, so i didn't bother to post it, if you are interested i will for you, let me know

foxyforce

This study is not very reliable for the reasons Loathesome stated. Also they were allowing participants to choose their own food - and I'm assuming that there is no way that they can guarantee that they weren't cheating.

I'd throw this one right out.

Thank you all! and Loathesome, you are a researcher extraordinaire! What are you studying?

psychology!

KatWood

Is my faith in the Canadian Food Guide misplaced? :noway:
Although there will always be exceptions, it seems to be the most agreed apon dietary guide in existence.

Does it work for you Kat? As I said in my previous post. I have lost 72 lbs since mid January....that works for me.

I think so. Not quite as impressive as 72lbs in 8 months! That's awesome! I have lost a total of approx 75lbs over the span of about 2 yrs. Most of it was in the first year. The first year I hired a trainer who developed a nutrition plan for me as well as a workout schedule. I still have a bit left to lose but I am concentrating on toning and just enjoying my new lifestyle. Since this is a lifestyle I want to be sure it is something I can sustain, for me that means a balanced diet.

But maybe I'm just being stubborn because I think life without pasta isn't worth living :laugh:

stormieweather

I think that you can find a study and/or theory to support just about anything. I think the bottom line is, if it works for you, then go for it.

foxyforce

I think that you can find a study and/or theory to support just about anything. I think the bottom line is, if it works for you, then go for it.

theories you can find for anything

however, studies are tangible results, and they can't be produced for every theory. studies result in facts and new information, where theories can produce research but never be true

even though this study doesn't seem like it would produce the same results with different populations or even an increased sample, it still builds on information, and adds to the research field, because now people know what areas to focus in on more, it puts the word out

havingitall

Is my faith in the Canadian Food Guide misplaced? :noway:
Although there will always be exceptions, it seems to be the most agreed apon dietary guide in existence.

Does it work for you Kat? As I said in my previous post. I have lost 72 lbs since mid January....that works for me.

I think so. Not quite as impressive as 72lbs in 8 months! That's awesome! I have lost a total of approx 75lbs over the span of about 2 yrs. Most of it was in the first year. The first year I hired a trainer who developed a nutrition plan for me as well as a workout schedule. I still have a bit left to lose but I am concentrating on toning and just enjoying my new lifestyle. Since this is a lifestyle I want to be sure it is something I can sustain, for me that means a balanced diet.

But maybe I'm just being stubborn because I think life without pasta isn't worth living :laugh:

I have to agree. If I am eating like this for the rest of my life...which I plan on...there better be room for all kinds of foods.

stormieweather

I think that you can find a study and/or theory to support just about anything. I think the bottom line is, if it works for you, then go for it.

theories you can find for anything

however, studies are tangible results, and they can't be produced for every theory. studies result in facts and new information, where theories can produce research but never be true

even though this study doesn't seem like it would produce the same results with different populations or even an increased sample, it still builds on information, and adds to the research field, because now people know what areas to focus in on more, it puts the word out

But studies can flawed, biased, misrepresented, and even faked. Some examples:

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Manipulating+medical+study+data:+studies+on+new+drugs+and+medical...-a0135888139

http://www.injuryboard.com/national-news/pfizer-accused-of-manipulating-neurontin-studies.aspx?googleid=249088

http://janneinosaka.blogspot.com/2009/05/elsevier-and-merck-fakes-medical.html

foxyforce

I think that you can find a study and/or theory to support just about anything. I think the bottom line is, if it works for you, then go for it.

theories you can find for anything

however, studies are tangible results, and they can't be produced for every theory. studies result in facts and new information, where theories can produce research but never be true

even though this study doesn't seem like it would produce the same results with different populations or even an increased sample, it still builds on information, and adds to the research field, because now people know what areas to focus in on more, it puts the word out

But studies can flawed, biased, misrepresented, and even faked. Some examples:

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Manipulating+medical+study+data:+studies+on+new+drugs+and+medical...-a0135888139

http://www.injuryboard.com/national-news/pfizer-accused-of-manipulating-neurontin-studies.aspx?googleid=249088

http://janneinosaka.blogspot.com/2009/05/elsevier-and-merck-fakes-medical.html

i understand that entirely, but even those studies which produce either type I or type II errors in science contribute...because other scientists have to correct their errors coming out with information or look in other areas in which case they come out with more information

research is always good, even the bad ones sadly enough