Carbo loading before a race?

Badger_South wrote:
:: On Thu, 13 May 2004 17:11:32 -0600, "\"El Paisano\""
:: wrote:
::
:::
::: "Badger_South" wrote in message
::: news :::: On Thu, 13 May 2004 09:32:37 -0400, "Roger Zoul"
:::: wrote:
::::
:::: I'm of the opinion that I/most ppl eat about twice as much food as
:::: they really need. When I'm really in the zone, I have salmon twice
:::: a day, and
:::
::: I'm not familiar with the Atkin's diet. Is there any mention of the
::: dangerous levels of mercury found in most salmon today? Once a week
::: is probably OK, but twice a day could be problematic. What is the
::: serving size you are eating?
:::
::: Matthew
:::
::
:: I believe that's farm-raised salmon, but I'm not too worried about
:: the mercury. I probably have about 6 per week on average, about 1.5
:: inches by 4 inches.

Also, canned salmon is supposed to not have the problems with mercury, since
those salmon supposedly come from waters thought to have less mercury.

Terry Morse wrote:
:: Roger Zoul wrote:
::
::: Finally, your free advice about "eat less and exercise more" has
::: been around for as long as diets books have. Yet, Americans are
::: getting fatter.
::
:: Americans are getting fatter because they eat more and exercise less
:: than their parents and grandparents. Does this generation have less
:: will power or greater appetites? I doubt it. The promise of a magic
:: bullet from the diet industry doesn't help, either.

No. I think the difference lies in the fact what we rely on convenience
foods to a much greater degree, and so much of what we find the supermarkets
and places is just loaded with refined flour and sugar!

::
:: Oh well, whatever gets you to eat less ane exercise more is a good
:: thing. Continue as usual.

True.

:: --
:: terry morse Palo Alto, CA http://bike.terrymorse.com/

BTW, nice website. I enjoyed checking out your pics from various rides
you've done.

Badger_South wrote:
:: On Thu, 13 May 2004 17:15:44 -0400, Rick Onanian
:: wrote:
::
::: On Thu, 13 May 2004 09:57:32 -0400, Badger_South
::: wrote:
:::: On LC, I have no sensation of 'glycogens running out' whatsoever.
:::: Of course
:::
::: Badger, your experience with combining LC and bicycling is good for
::: as far as it goes, but it doesn't go very far yet -- you've stated
::: (maybe even in this thread) the length of your rides. They are short
::: enough to do without any additional fuel for all but the most
::: starved, strictly-dieting people.
::
:: Oh, I agree. Although my rides are short, and they are -very- short
:: distance-wise, once I get beyond say 2 hours, I would not be
:: surprised to find I needed glucose during or just before the ride,
:: regardless of the distance.
::
:: Today I rode 20-22 miles and it took me over 90 minutes, which is
:: not a
:: very fast pace. I'm still being constrained by aspects of
:: conditioning such as getting used to being in the saddle that long
:: (for me), and my arms tiring, neck tiring. The legs and lungs did
:: very well.
::
::: Last year I was finding that 40 miles was my limit and it seemed to
::: be caused by running out of fuel. That may be changing this year; I
::: did 34 miles the other night and felt absolutely wonderful
::: afterwards, having finished my last meal 4 hours before the ride and
::: eaten only a pack of peanut butter crackers during the ride.
::
:: I wonder if being on a LC diet and presumably being in BDK during
:: induction, and burning fat for fuel (?) would allow one to more
:: easily access fat for fuel during the ride? I found that during my
:: jogging days, after the 60 minute mark (at 7min/mile pace), I seemed
:: to find an alternate fuel, second wind or something and my energy
:: would soar. Has this found to be a myth, or is there some truth to
:: it in your opinion? If not a myth, it might be that the LC diet
:: could be an advantage.

Pat in TX who posts here does LC and has done centuries! I do LC but so far
my longest ride is only 42 miles. I did 41 miles on Wednesday after fasting
most of Sunday, all of Monday, and eating LC on Wednesday. I did, however,
have 40g of carbs (8 packs of Smarties) before my ride and I took additional
carbs with me on the ride.

I'm not ready to say that carbs aren't needed, btw. On my rides I'm not
working on speed, so I think that plays a big part. If one is interested in
setting a personal best, or racing, then one may definitely find the wall in
terms of performance while on LC.

On Thu, 13 May 2004 23:03:09 -0400, "Roger Zoul"
wrote:

:
:: I wonder if being on a LC diet and presumably being in BDK during
:: induction, and burning fat for fuel (?) would allow one to more
:: easily access fat for fuel during the ride? I found that during my
:: jogging days, after the 60 minute mark (at 7min/mile pace), I seemed
:: to find an alternate fuel, second wind or something and my energy
:: would soar. Has this found to be a myth, or is there some truth to
:: it in your opinion? If not a myth, it might be that the LC diet
:: could be an advantage.

Pat in TX who posts here does LC and has done centuries! I do LC but so far
my longest ride is only 42 miles. I did 41 miles on Wednesday after fasting
most of Sunday, all of Monday, and eating LC on Wednesday. I did, however,
have 40g of carbs (8 packs of Smarties) before my ride and I took additional
carbs with me on the ride.

I'm not ready to say that carbs aren't needed, btw. On my rides I'm not
working on speed, so I think that plays a big part. If one is interested in
setting a personal best, or racing, then one may definitely find the wall in
terms of performance while on LC.

What is a Smarties? Cupcake?

There are times on the LC diet that I purposely eat carbs, and as I go
longer on the bike, I'll probably pack some. Although my mileage is going
up dramatically, I'd be surprised if I get much over 30 at a time. I
usually ride twice or three times a day, so my total mileage may get near
50 or 60, so I'll report back what I discover.

I started upping the mileage at the end of March, from 50 a week to 70,
then 100, and am on my fourth straight week, hoping to get 120. Hah, I
remember when I started back last August and my first ride was 3 miles and
that I barely finished that. I never conceived I'd be talking about riding
20 miles in a day, but here I am, doing it day after day. The body's a
remarkable instrument. ;-)

-B

Badger_South wrote:
:: On Thu, 13 May 2004 23:03:09 -0400, "Roger Zoul"
:: wrote:
::
::::
::::: I wonder if being on a LC diet and presumably being in BDK during
::::: induction, and burning fat for fuel (?) would allow one to more
::::: easily access fat for fuel during the ride? I found that during my
::::: jogging days, after the 60 minute mark (at 7min/mile pace), I
::::: seemed
::::: to find an alternate fuel, second wind or something and my energy
::::: would soar. Has this found to be a myth, or is there some truth to
::::: it in your opinion? If not a myth, it might be that the LC diet
::::: could be an advantage.
:::
::: Pat in TX who posts here does LC and has done centuries! I do LC
::: but so far my longest ride is only 42 miles. I did 41 miles on
::: Wednesday after fasting most of Sunday, all of Monday, and eating
::: LC on Wednesday. I did, however, have 40g of carbs (8 packs of
::: Smarties) before my ride and I took additional carbs with me on the
::: ride.
:::
::: I'm not ready to say that carbs aren't needed, btw. On my rides
::: I'm not working on speed, so I think that plays a big part. If one
::: is interested in setting a personal best, or racing, then one may
::: definitely find the wall in terms of performance while on LC.
::
:: What is a Smarties? Cupcake?

They are those halloween candies that come in the rolls -- different colors,
very tart & sweet.

::
:: There are times on the LC diet that I purposely eat carbs, and as I
:: go longer on the bike, I'll probably pack some. Although my mileage
:: is going
:: up dramatically, I'd be surprised if I get much over 30 at a time. I
:: usually ride twice or three times a day, so my total mileage may get
:: near 50 or 60, so I'll report back what I discover.

Well, 60 miles in a day might leave you drained....personally, I'd need some
extra carbs, but i'm a type 2 diabetic, so that might play a factor for me.
I have problems with my BG going too low if I LC and riding a lot, and don't
take some extra carbs...

::
:: I started upping the mileage at the end of March, from 50 a week to
:: 70,
:: then 100, and am on my fourth straight week, hoping to get 120.

Good work, man. I'm right at 100, but dipping below a bit. Of course, I
started on April 17.

Hah,
:: I remember when I started back last August and my first ride was 3
:: miles and that I barely finished that. I never conceived I'd be
:: talking about riding 20 miles in a day, but here I am, doing it day
:: after day. The body's a remarkable instrument. ;-)

Very true. I got my bike last September...at 46 years old.

"Roger Zoul" wrote in message

DRS wrote:

[...]

Removing the hunger associated with insulin spikes is not the same
thing as actively suppressing appetite, which high protein diets do.

Nonsense...

What part of "clinically demonstrated" is giving you problems?

[...]

Sat and hydrolyzed fats are always bad. Carbs do not make any
diference.

Nonsense...

Er, no. It's called LDL. Look it up.

[...]

Because it's saturated. Atkins' claim that sat fats are OK was and
is complete bull****.

Nonsense...

Er, no. And don't try to pretend there isn't a **** load of contemporary
studies showing saturated fats are bad for your cholesterol.


what about oils and dressings, cream and
cheese? The diet is not about eating lean meat -- and on Atkins
it's not recommended to eat lean meat.

It's not recommended to eat *cured* meats. Lean meats are just fine
on Atkins.

I didn't say there weren't fine...I eat lean meat all the
time...however, Atkins doesn't say "Eat lean meat". Atkins says
don't worry about sat fat...so you can eat whatever meat you want,
and most people on Atkins eat plenty of sat fat....

Which is bad for them.

[...]

That's what makes it high protein.

Nonsense...

Not according to everyone but you - including the Atkins people themselves.

[...]

The Atkins site says its high protein!

Where? People on Atkins don't run from fat, so they can typicaly get
sufficient protein without extra work. That doesn't make it "high
protein".

Sure they don't run from fat. But they still refer to Atkins as high
protein. Try reading the studies they cite. They're all about high protein
versus high carb. Try reading what Atkins actually wrote insterad of
relying on second-hand misinformation you've gleaned from the net.

Are
you saying you know more than they do? Yes, you probably are.

Where does it say Atkins is a high protein diet? ...I've been doing
LC for a long time and the greatest percentage of calories
consistantly come from fat, not protein. I track food intake with

That happens in lots of balanced diets. I'm *not* on LC and yet my
calculated fats target (26.2%) exceeds my protein target (23.5%). Big deal.
It doesn't make my diet high fat. It is high protein. For a man my size
and weight 140 grams of protein is a high protein diet. 87 grams of fat is
not a high fat diet even though the calorific intake (624) exceed that from
protein (560).

[...]

We know that fat is more energy dense. You don't have to keep
repeating it. In and of itself it's not enough to disqualify Atkins
as a high protein diet.

What garbage. Again, you don't know what you're talking about, only
what you've read. The medical establishment has been referring to
Atkins as "high protein" only because they wanted to create FUD since
it is thought by some that high protein diets are harmful. Atkins
addresses they point that there is no evidence that diets high in
protein promotes kidney diease, but that's not the same as saying
Atkins is a high-protein diet.

It's true that there is no evidence that high protein diets cause kidney
disease (although they are contraindicated for people with existing kidney
conditions). Atkins was defending his high protein diet against that very
charge precisely because it is a high protein diet.

What do the terms low-fat, low-carb, and high-protein imply? On
Aktins, the emphasis is on controlling carb intake, not on upping
protein intake.

Say something we don't know. Relevant would be good, too.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

"Badger_South" wrote in message


[...]

What is a Smarties? Cupcake?

They're very similar to M&Ms.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

DRS wrote:
:: "Roger Zoul" wrote in message
::
::: DRS wrote:
::
:: [...]
::
::::: Removing the hunger associated with insulin spikes is not the same
::::: thing as actively suppressing appetite, which high protein diets
::::: do.
:::
::: Nonsense...
::
:: What part of "clinically demonstrated" is giving you problems?

No part...however, the results of a couple of studies don't prove
anything...time and time again, flawed studies get done. I've had appetite
suppression without having ot eat extra protein.

::
:: [...]
::
::::: Sat and hydrolyzed fats are always bad. Carbs do not make any
::::: diference.
:::
::: Nonsense...
::
:: Er, no. It's called LDL. Look it up.

I've already looked it up. I have good LDL and excellent HDL.


::
:: [...]
::
::::: Because it's saturated. Atkins' claim that sat fats are OK was
::::: and
::::: is complete bull****.
:::
::: Nonsense...
::
:: Er, no. And don't try to pretend there isn't a **** load of
:: contemporary studies showing saturated fats are bad for your
:: cholesterol.

Bull****. You simply need to open your mind, DRS. Those studies are flawed
and many of the conclusions regarding cholesterol are wrong.

::
:::::
:::::: what about oils and dressings, cream and
:::::: cheese? The diet is not about eating lean meat -- and on Atkins
:::::: it's not recommended to eat lean meat.
:::::
::::: It's not recommended to eat *cured* meats. Lean meats are just
::::: fine
::::: on Atkins.
:::
::: I didn't say there weren't fine...I eat lean meat all the
::: time...however, Atkins doesn't say "Eat lean meat". Atkins says
::: don't worry about sat fat...so you can eat whatever meat you want,
::: and most people on Atkins eat plenty of sat fat....
::
:: Which is bad for them.

Again, in the absence of carbs, not so...

::
:: [...]
::
::::: That's what makes it high protein.
:::
::: Nonsense...
::
:: Not according to everyone but you - including the Atkins people
:: themselves.

Please provide some links showing me where Atkins claims their diet is high
protein....I'll concede this point if you do.

::
:: [...]
::
::::: The Atkins site says its high protein!
:::
::: Where? People on Atkins don't run from fat, so they can typicaly
::: get sufficient protein without extra work. That doesn't make it
::: "high protein".
::
:: Sure they don't run from fat. But they still refer to Atkins as high
:: protein. Try reading the studies they cite. They're all about high
:: protein versus high carb. Try reading what Atkins actually wrote
:: insterad of relying on second-hand misinformation you've gleaned
:: from the net.

Listen, if the aktins people are referring to studies done by others, then
that doesn't mean that atkins refers to their diet as high protein. Others
do, and it's quite common in the medical community to do so. If you ask me,
it is YOU who are spreading mis-information.

::
::: Are
::::: you saying you know more than they do? Yes, you probably are.
:::
::: Where does it say Atkins is a high protein diet? ...I've been doing
::: LC for a long time and the greatest percentage of calories
::: consistantly come from fat, not protein. I track food intake with
::
:: That happens in lots of balanced diets. I'm *not* on LC and yet my
:: calculated fats target (26.2%) exceeds my protein target (23.5%).
:: Big deal. It doesn't make my diet high fat. It is high protein.
:: For a man my size and weight 140 grams of protein is a high protein
:: diet. 87 grams of fat is not a high fat diet even though the
:: calorific intake (624) exceed that from protein (560).

What do you weigh and where do you get this definition of high protein? It
seems to be you're just making stuff up here.

::
:: [...]
::
::::: We know that fat is more energy dense. You don't have to keep
::::: repeating it. In and of itself it's not enough to disqualify
::::: Atkins
::::: as a high protein diet.
:::
::: What garbage. Again, you don't know what you're talking about,
::: only what you've read. The medical establishment has been
::: referring to
::: Atkins as "high protein" only because they wanted to create FUD
::: since
::: it is thought by some that high protein diets are harmful. Atkins
::: addresses they point that there is no evidence that diets high in
::: protein promotes kidney diease, but that's not the same as saying
::: Atkins is a high-protein diet.
::
:: It's true that there is no evidence that high protein diets cause
:: kidney disease (although they are contraindicated for people with
:: existing kidney conditions). Atkins was defending his high protein
:: diet against that very charge precisely because it is a high protein
:: diet.

He was defending against that charge because the charge was made....that
doesn't meay any of it was true. And one can certainly choose to eat
nothing but meat -- or protein powder, but until you define what is meant my
"high protein", this is pointless.

::
::: What do the terms low-fat, low-carb, and high-protein imply? On
::: Aktins, the emphasis is on controlling carb intake, not on upping
::: protein intake.
::
:: Say something we don't know. Relevant would be good, too.

Okay, since you don't define your terms, you can keep thinking what you
want. I'm out.

::
:: --
::
:: A: Top-posters.
:: Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

DRS wrote:
:: "Badger_South" wrote in message
::
::
:: [...]
::
::: What is a Smarties? Cupcake?
::
:: They're very similar to M&Ms.

How so? Mine aren't anything like M&M, which are high fat, I think.

http://www.candyfavorites.com/shop/shopexd.asp?id=1646

http://www.oldtimecandy.com/smarties.htm

http://www.candydirect.com/html/eng/2294-AA.html

http://www.candywarehouse.com/smar10cas.html

::
:: --
::
:: A: Top-posters.
:: Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

"Roger Zoul" wrote in message

DRS wrote:

[...]

What part of "clinically demonstrated" is giving you problems?

No part...however, the results of a couple of studies don't prove
anything...time and time again, flawed studies get done. I've had
appetite suppression without having ot eat extra protein.

Eliminating insulin swings is not the same as appetite *suppression*.

[sat fats]

Again, in the absence of carbs, not so...

Cites.

[...]

Listen, if the aktins people are referring to studies done by others,
then that doesn't mean that atkins refers to their diet as high
protein. Others do, and it's quite common in the medical community
to do so. If you ask me, it is YOU who are spreading mis-information.

The reason their site is chock full of cites and abstracts from papers about
high protein versus high carb diets is because Atkins is a high protein
diet. Doing a search on "high protein" gets 916 hits on their web site,
most in the "Science behind Atkins" section, and some of their newsletters.
Of course, most of the time they refer to Atkins as low-carb, since that's
its emphasis, implying both protein and fats increase relatively, but they
don't run screaming everytime anyone says something bad about high protein,
"Oh, that's not us! Roger Zoul says we're not a high protein diet!" Nope,
they're in there every time, "Yes, that's us all right, except your
criticism of high protein low carb diets is wrong because of..."

[...]

That happens in lots of balanced diets. I'm *not* on LC and yet my
calculated fats target (26.2%) exceeds my protein target (23.5%).
Big deal. It doesn't make my diet high fat. It is high protein.
For a man my size and weight 140 grams of protein is a high protein
diet. 87 grams of fat is not a high fat diet even though the
calorific intake (624) exceed that from protein (560).

What do you weigh and where do you get this definition of high
protein?

If you paid attention you should know from MFW what I weigh. You could even
derive a reasonable estimate solely from the figures I gave because I've
posted the formulae I use often enough. As for protein, I use 2g per kg
bodyweight, which whilst it overestimates a tad for most people is
nevertheless recommended by Will Brink for lean, active people like myself.
It's so far above the official RDA it's a joke. Of course it's high
protein. No-one but yourself could even consider asking the question.

It seems to be you're just making stuff up here.

Pot, meet kettle.

[...]

Okay, since you don't define your terms, you can keep thinking what
you want. I'm out.

Good riddance to bad rubbish. You post the same ignorant **** here you do
in MFW.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?