Carbo loading before a race?

"Badger_South" wrote in message

On Fri, 14 May 2004 00:33:07 +1000, "DRS"
wrote:

I do hope you realise you have just shot your credibility to bits.
"What is a simple carb?" indeed! It's a sugar with one
(monosaccharide) or two (disaccharide) polymerised glucose
molecules. For the record, complex carbs are either
oligosaccharides (3-20 monosaccharide links) and polysaccharides (10

Correction: oligosaccharides have 3-9 monosaccharide links.

to thousands of monosaccharide links). Complex carbs do not cause
blood sugar swings.

[...]

I think we should be talking insulin here, and not blood sugar. Simple
carbs can cause a large output of insulin, complex carbs a more
modulated output.

That is true, and it is a crucial distinction Roger failed to make.

This can be a problem for people who have insulin
resistance, and may result in the nutrients being stored as fat,
according to my reading.

The issue here is hunger. When you intake simple sugars they get quickly
into the blood steam with a corresponding insulin increase. Because the
glucose is quickly delivered to the recipient cells the insulin levels fall
away quickly. This is the so-called insulin spike and it's why you feel
hungry so soon after eating foods high in sugars. Complex carbs do not
generate this sort of response so you tend to feel sated longer. Since
Atkins and similar diets reduce intake of simple sugars to zero or close
enough they eliminate this form of appetite creation. That they are high
protein diets means they are appetite suppressing as well. This has been
clinically demonstrated. (It's been known for a long time that Atkins works
but more recently independent testing has shown that much of his theorising
was not even close - it works fundamentally because people on it simply eat
less, albeit without their realising it).

--

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

Badger_South wrote:
:: On Thu, 13 May 2004 09:32:37 -0400, "Roger Zoul"
:: wrote:
::
::: Atkins is not a high protein diet. That is just plain wrong.
::: Clearly you have no experience with it and are just talking.
:::
::: And what exactly are simple carbs? If you consume enough grams of
::: any digestable carb, you'll get BG swings.
::
:: Clearly you have experience with Atkins, or your interpretation of
:: it. But I don't understand what you mean when you say it's not a
:: high protein diet? I think the dogma is it's a low carb, higher
:: protein, plus moderate good fat and oils.

It's not a high protein diet simply bacause the greatest percentage of
calories on Atkins comes from fat. The diet may seem higher percentage wise
in protein, but those who follow it correctly end up eating the same total
amount of protein but a reduced amount of carbs. A calorie deficit has to
come from some place, and it doesn't typically come from not eating fat.

I've been on a LC diet from October 2001, and I track my food intake in
fitday.com, so I know where my calories come from. Also, since I weight
train and carb up, I also know first hand what causes appetite suppression
and what simulates my appetite. I've played around with protein levels, fat
levels, and carb levels. It is definitely the lack of carbs that results in
the appetite suppression, and the notion that fat simulates appetite is just
garbage, ime.

BTW, I've lost 130 lbs on low carb.

::
:: OTOH, there are lots of interpretations of it, and some ppl use it
:: as an excuse to eat lots of fatty food.
::

Well, once you remove teh carbs, eating fatty foods is not harmful, provided
one isn't eating excess calories.


:: It's my impression that most ppl who make it through the induction
:: phase tend to stay in 'induction', i.e. eating less than 20 gm of
:: carbs (simple, or complex), partly b/c it reduces one's desire to
:: eat carbs.

Many do that, however, it is not wise....one is much more likely to be
successful on Atkins if you move to phase two, rather than staying on
induction. There is no good reason to stay below 20 gms of carbs for longer
than the two weeks recommended to break carb addition and to root out other
food problems.

Those who do that are not really doing Atkins -- they're doing their own
thing.

::
:: Those who discover they'd been 'carb addicts' are glad to discover
:: the loss of desire to eat carbs, b/c for them, it causes them to
:: overeat; they can't just eat one cookie, they have to eat 10 or the
:: whole bag, etc. To be freed of this compulsion is wonderful, IMO.

Agreed...

::
:: I try and limit the overt fat by trimming meat and keeping the bacon
:: eating low. Most of the fat I get is from salmon and other types of
:: fish, or from hamburger, which I try to get very lean.

I eat a lot of fish...and don't eat bacon...and don't go out of my way to
eat fatty meats. however, I also don't go out of my way to avoid sat fat
now and again. I do eat nuts from time to time, but find that I have to
limit them as I have a strong tendency to overeat them. It is easy to
consume too many calories very quickly with nuts.


::
:: Anyway, I think you have to take into account that even though a
:: person says they are on Atkins, I bet few ppl follow it rigorously,
:: and just end up cutting the obvious carbs and eating cheese, meat,
:: eggs and soforth.

I would not disagree with that....but those foods are very high in fat,
which result in the diet getting most of its calories from fat, not protein.

::
:: 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 cooked whole turkey which I slice up and portion out. In
:: addition I'll eat eggs, cheese, snack on nuts, and have a portion of
:: green beans with supper. But some days, when the appetite is down,
:: I'll survive easily on a hamburger patty or two. I supplement with
:: vits and oils, of course. I still drink 2% milk, but often drop
:: dairy for a while if I'm making a push to lose the next 10lbs.
::

Track your intake on fitday for a week. You'll see.

:: The other interesting thing WRT to weight loss is I tend to lose in
:: 10lb surges. I'll hang out at about 230-240 for a couple weeks, then
:: have a whoosh and get down into the 220s, and then hang out at
:: 220-230 for a few weeks, and continue like that. If I look at my
:: graph, occasionally I'll have about a 5 lb gain just preceeding a
:: dramatic loss of about 10 lbs.

That is very common...it is reported often over in asdlc.

DRS wrote:
:: "Roger Zoul" wrote in message
::
::: DRS wrote:
::
:: [...]
::
::::: It's restricting *simple* carbs that reduces the blood sugar
::::: swings hence insulin levels swings hence hunger and cutting
::::: simple sugars
::::: down or even out of your diet entirely will certainly help. But
::::: that's not what you said (I left in what you said above). Atkins
::::: is primarily a high protein diet and that's why it works.
:::
::: Atkins is not a high protein diet. That is just plain wrong.
::: Clearly you have no experience with it and are just talking.
::
:: Unlike you I actually read the books.

But you have little understanding.

::
::: And what exactly are simple carbs? If you consume enough grams of
::: any digestable carb, you'll get BG swings.
::
:: I do hope you realise you have just shot your credibility to bits.
:: "What is a simple carb?" indeed! It's a sugar with one
:: (monosaccharide) or two (disaccharide) polymerised glucose
:: molecules. For the record, complex carbs are either
:: oligosaccharides (3-20 monosaccharide links) and polysaccharides (10
:: to thousands of monosaccharide links). Complex carbs do not cause
:: blood sugar swings.

Give some examples of these complex carbs...actual food items.....again, if
you eat enough, you'll get swings.

::
:: [...]
::
::::: If you've done your macronutrient calculations properly you only
::::: change your protein intake in proportion to changing LBM. Ditto
::::: for fats. That means it's your complex carbs targets which
::::: change most between cutting and bulking.
:::
::: Who's talking about cutting and bulking right now? I was talkng
::: about weight loss and how one eases off that phase on Atkins..We
::: can go
::: over to MWF to talk about cutting and bulking
::
:: Cutting is cutting whether you're a cyclist or a weight-lifter.

No, cutting has a specific meaning to those interested in bodybuilding.
Beyond that, the term is seldom used.

On Fri, 14 May 2004 01:28:26 +1000, "DRS"
wrote:

(It's been known for a long time that Atkins works
but more recently independent testing has shown that much of his theorising
was not even close - it works fundamentally because people on it simply eat
less, albeit without their realising it).

Most ppl I know on this diet realize it cuts hunger. That's why I use it.

In addition, I like eating protein.

Of course I 'like' eating carbs, but would rather not. After you go through
'induction', the desire to eat carbs (for me) disappears.

This is a crucial point, IMO. Eating carbs can act like a drug, possibly
getting you hooked on the 'high' which is probably an endorphin-like
reaction. So in addition to the hunger, you keep eating to try and modulate
your mood. Comfort food, etc.

-B

Badger_South wrote:
:: On Thu, 13 May 2004 09:03:30 -0400, Alexander Gilchrist
:: wrote:
::
::: A solid breakfast of ham and eggs would get me about 30 miles
::: before the glycogens ran out and the caffeine would cause an
::: adrenaline surge that would bring on arrhythmia that would put me
::: down in the middle of the road (I am on a caffeine-free diet due to
::: this.)

Are you assuming you've been eating a non-low-carb diet prior to this
breakfast? If so, I find that highly unlikely that you'rd deplete both
muscle and liver glycogen unless you were trying to break some record. I
regularly LC and weight train and I can do 30 miles on NO breakfast and no
carbs. So if a ham and eggs meal in an otherwise non-low-carb diet affects
you this way, I'd say there are other issues at play.

:::
::: Alexander Gilchrist
::
:: I think that's atypical for those eating low carb, although it's
:: good to know your own predilections.
::
:: On LC, I have no sensation of 'glycogens running out' whatsoever. Of
:: course it might take a while to get used to being on a BDK type diet
:: like Atkins - some ppl get headaches. I might consume some dilute
:: fruit juice or eat a couple M&Ms prior to a long fast ride, but
:: that's by design, not really by need.

You and I differ here. If I really push hard -- that is, workout really
hard in the gym while strictly control carb intake over a good period of
time, and then add in riding a lot and riding hard, I'll eventually start
having low blood sugar events. I'll start getting all run down....at some
point -- one will need to replenish glycogen stores to keep working out. It
is, to a large degree, a YMMV kind of thing, but I do believe everyone can
reach this point.

A program that states "don't eat so damn much, eat a balanced diet, and
exercise more" would not be a ruse/gimmick/invention. But it
wouldn't grab much market share of that juicy $40 billion, now would it?

Ay, there's the rub. Not only does it not make money for anyone, but to the
extent people follow these guidelines they won't even need the diet books, diet
pills, weight-loss centers and gurus, etc.

One more rub: The rules are easy to state -- and they are as solid as any
scientific principles -- but they are not easy to follow. What's the old saw
-- "the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak" -- ?

We are all creatures of habit, so we'd best be slaves to good habits rather
than bad ones. Kids must get used to exercise as fun, and get used to eating
well as the norm. To let them grow up otherwise may doom them to great
difficulty in this arena later in life.

"Roger Zoul" wrote in message


[...]

It's not a high protein diet simply bacause the greatest percentage of
calories on Atkins comes from fat.

For the most part the fats are incidental to the protein, which is why
medical professionals refer to Atkins as a high protein diet.

The diet may seem higher
percentage wise in protein, but those who follow it correctly end up
eating the same total amount of protein but a reduced amount of
carbs. A calorie deficit has to come from some place, and it doesn't
typically come from not eating fat.

Actually, as you move through the four phases of Atkins you slowly increase
your carb intake from it sinitially highly restricted starting point.

I've been on a LC diet from October 2001, and I track my food intake
in fitday.com, so I know where my calories come from. Also, since I
weight train and carb up, I also know first hand what causes appetite
suppression and what simulates my appetite. I've played around with
protein levels, fat levels, and carb levels. It is definitely the
lack of carbs that results in the appetite suppression, and the
notion that fat simulates appetite is just garbage, ime.

"The reliable observation that [High Fat] promoted larger bout size and
greater total kilocalorie intake than [High Carbohydrate] provides
additional evidence that fat sends weaker feedback signals relevant to
controls of both satiation (suppression of ongoing eating, behaviorally
manifest in meal size) and satiety (suppression of subsequent intake,
reflected in total daily intake)."[1]

[1]Physiol Behav. 2003 Nov;80(2-3):253-8.
Independent effects of diet palatability and fat content on bout size and
daily intake in rats.
Warwick ZS, Synowski SJ, Rice KD, Smart AB.
Department of Psychology, University of Maryland Baltimore County, 1000
Hilltop Circle, Baltimore, MD 21250, USA.

[2]Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol. 2003 May;284(5):G798-807. Epub
2003 Jan 10.Related Articles, Links
Effects of fat digestion on appetite, APD motility, and gut hormones in
response to duodenal fat infusion in humans.
Feinle C, O'Donovan D, Doran S, Andrews JM, Wishart J, Chapman I, Horowitz
M.
University of Adelaide Department of Medicine, Royal Adelaide Hospital,
Adelaide, SA 5000, Australia.

[...]

Well, once you remove teh carbs, eating fatty foods is not harmful,
provided one isn't eating excess calories.

Eating EFAs isn't harmful. Eating saturated and hydronised fats is.

It's my impression that most ppl who make it through the induction
phase tend to stay in 'induction', i.e. eating less than 20 gm of
carbs (simple, or complex), partly b/c it reduces one's desire to
eat carbs.

Many do that, however, it is not wise....one is much more likely to be
successful on Atkins if you move to phase two, rather than staying on
induction. There is no good reason to stay below 20 gms of carbs for
longer than the two weeks recommended to break carb addition and to
root out other food problems.

Atkins himself actually said that whilst most people will move to phase two
after the minimum two weeks many stay their longer. He recommended six
months as the maximum period for Induction.

[...]

Anyway, I think you have to take into account that even though a
person says they are on Atkins, I bet few ppl follow it rigorously,
and just end up cutting the obvious carbs and eating cheese, meat,
eggs and soforth.

I would not disagree with that....but those foods are very high in
fat, which result in the diet getting most of its calories from fat,
not protein.

Lean meat has a lot of protein and little fat. Ditto for fish and poultry.
Eggs contain more protein than fat.

--

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

Terry Morse wrote:
:: Roger Zoul wrote:
::
::: Terry Morse wrote:
:::: Roger Zoul wrote:
::::
:::: Terry Morse wrote:
:::::
::::: Any weight loss diet is essentially a gimmick to get you to eat
::::: fewer calories.
::::
:::: Not a gimmick....also, the diets aren't no-carb...
::::
:::: Yes, a gimmick. All diets are ruses to get people to reduce their
:::: calorie intake. It doesn't matter what the diet is called: no-carb,
:::: low-carb, low-fat, asparagus, Pritiken, Atkins, South Beach. Nor
:::: does it matter what types of food you eat. If you reduce your
:::: calorie intake, you lose weight. Plain and simple, even if the $40
:::: billion diet industry wants you to think otherwise.
:::
::: How is eating to normalize blood sugar swings a ruse or a gimmick?
::
:: How is erecting a strawman going to help you with your argument?

Where is the strawman? My disagreement with you concerns your use of the
word "ruse" and "gimmick" in this particular thread, not with the statement
that reducing calorie intake will result in weight loss.

Your statements show a distinct snobbery, however. Some people , many
actually, will find it very hard to eat less following a diet that is low in
fat but high in carbs. Plain and simple. But your comments suggest that
just eating less is all that is required. Not so, since for many the
ability to eat less is a function of what they eat.

::
:: I stated how diets produce *weight loss*, not how they alter your
:: blood chemistry.

No, you stated more than that.

I'll try again to state this as simply as possible:
:: You can follow a diet designed to regulate blood sugar, or one that
:: restricts you to whale blubber and olives. None of the details
:: matter when it comes to weight loss! They are all inventions that
:: trick you into eating fewer calories.

So you're telling me that if I follow a low fat diet, which results in fewer
calories because calorie dense foods are removed, but I'm constantly hungry
and having to use will power to follow said diet, that I'm being tricked?
If I lose weight, I did it because I forced myself to eat less even while I
was hungry.

Do you think people are so stupid?

::
::: Do you know what these words mean?
::
:: Yes, thank you for asking. Can you follow a simple argument?
::
::: www.dictionary.com is your friend...
::
:: Two can play the smartass game, here are some definitions:

You're the smartass since you think everyone is a moron that has to be
fooled into eating less.

::
:: Ruse: A crafty stratagem; a subterfuge.
:: Gimmick: An innovative stratagem or scheme employed especially to
:: promote a project.
:: Invention: A mental fabrication
::
:: A program that states "don't eat so damn much, eat a balanced diet,
:: and exercise more" would not be a ruse/gimmick/invention. But it
:: wouldn't grab much market share of that juicy $40 billion, now would
:: it?

This is simply wrong. Some people, in fact, the very obese for example, are
insulin resistant. Put them on a low-fat diet and they simply won't be able
to follow it for weight loss because they won't be able to eat less. Put
them on a low-carb diet and they'll lose weight readily since appetite will
disappear and they will naturally eat less. Since all one is doing is
controlling intake of certain types of food, there is no trick involved.

There is no subterfuge in following a plan designed to control blood sugars.
There is no gimmick. And where does the notion of a "balanced" diet
originate? What is the basis for it? Has it occured to you that the
American diet is replete with excessive carb intake and too little physical
activity to balance it?

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.

"Roger Zoul" wrote in message

DRS wrote:
"Roger Zoul" wrote in message

DRS wrote:

[...]

It's restricting *simple* carbs that reduces the blood sugar
swings hence insulin levels swings hence hunger and cutting
simple sugars
down or even out of your diet entirely will certainly help. But
that's not what you said (I left in what you said above). Atkins
is primarily a high protein diet and that's why it works.

Atkins is not a high protein diet. That is just plain wrong.
Clearly you have no experience with it and are just talking.

Unlike you I actually read the books.

But you have little understanding.

I'm demonstrating my superior understanding to you right here.

And what exactly are simple carbs? If you consume enough grams of
any digestable carb, you'll get BG swings.

I do hope you realise you have just shot your credibility to bits.
"What is a simple carb?" indeed! It's a sugar with one
(monosaccharide) or two (disaccharide) polymerised glucose
molecules. For the record, complex carbs are either
oligosaccharides (3-20 monosaccharide links) and polysaccharides (10
to thousands of monosaccharide links). Complex carbs do not cause
blood sugar swings.

Give some examples of these complex carbs...actual food
items.....again, if you eat enough, you'll get swings.

No, that is not how it works. There three forms of complex carbs, starches,
glycogen and cellulose. Cellulose we can obviously ignore. Starches are
common in many vegetables and other plant foods.

You're playing games, Roger. You know damn well what simple and complex
carbs are.

--

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

DRS wrote:
:: "Roger Zoul" wrote in message
::
::
:: [...]
::
::: It's not a high protein diet simply bacause the greatest percentage
::: of calories on Atkins comes from fat.
::
:: For the most part the fats are incidental to the protein, which is
:: why medical professionals refer to Atkins as a high protein diet.

How so? Eat steak it comes with fat as well as protein. Saying fats are
incidental is only putting a bias on things, as is typical in a society
where the mantra has been "fat is bad" for decades.

::
::: The diet may seem higher
::: percentage wise in protein, but those who follow it correctly end up
::: eating the same total amount of protein but a reduced amount of
::: carbs. A calorie deficit has to come from some place, and it
::: doesn't typically come from not eating fat.
::
:: Actually, as you move through the four phases of Atkins you slowly
:: increase your carb intake from it sinitially highly restricted
:: starting point.

Yes, I mentioned this earlier.

::
::: I've been on a LC diet from October 2001, and I track my food intake
::: in fitday.com, so I know where my calories come from. Also, since I
::: weight train and carb up, I also know first hand what causes
::: appetite suppression and what simulates my appetite. I've played
::: around with protein levels, fat levels, and carb levels. It is
::: definitely the
::: lack of carbs that results in the appetite suppression, and the
::: notion that fat simulates appetite is just garbage, ime.
::
:: "The reliable observation that [High Fat] promoted larger bout size
:: and greater total kilocalorie intake than [High Carbohydrate]
:: provides additional evidence that fat sends weaker feedback signals
:: relevant to controls of both satiation (suppression of ongoing
:: eating, behaviorally manifest in meal size) and satiety (suppression
:: of subsequent intake, reflected in total daily intake)."[1]

I don't think this provides proof. Especially from the POV that removing
excess carbs from the diet results in reduced appetite due to elimination of
BG swings.

::
:: [1]Physiol Behav. 2003 Nov;80(2-3):253-8.
:: Independent effects of diet palatability and fat content on bout
:: size and daily intake in rats.
:: Warwick ZS, Synowski SJ, Rice KD, Smart AB.
:: Department of Psychology, University of Maryland Baltimore County,
:: 1000 Hilltop Circle, Baltimore, MD 21250, USA.
::
:: [2]Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol. 2003
:: May;284(5):G798-807. Epub 2003 Jan 10.Related Articles, Links
:: Effects of fat digestion on appetite, APD motility, and gut hormones
:: in response to duodenal fat infusion in humans.
:: Feinle C, O'Donovan D, Doran S, Andrews JM, Wishart J, Chapman I,
:: Horowitz M.
:: University of Adelaide Department of Medicine, Royal Adelaide
:: Hospital, Adelaide, SA 5000, Australia.
::
::
:: [...]
::
::: Well, once you remove teh carbs, eating fatty foods is not harmful,
::: provided one isn't eating excess calories.
::
:: Eating EFAs isn't harmful. Eating saturated and hydronised fats is.

Provide proof that sat fat in the absence of excessive carbs is bad.

::
::::: It's my impression that most ppl who make it through the induction
::::: phase tend to stay in 'induction', i.e. eating less than 20 gm of
::::: carbs (simple, or complex), partly b/c it reduces one's desire to
::::: eat carbs.
:::
::: Many do that, however, it is not wise....one is much more likely to
::: be successful on Atkins if you move to phase two, rather than
::: staying on induction. There is no good reason to stay below 20 gms
::: of carbs for longer than the two weeks recommended to break carb
::: addition and to
::: root out other food problems.
::
:: Atkins himself actually said that whilst most people will move to
:: phase two after the minimum two weeks many stay their longer. He
:: recommended six months as the maximum period for Induction.

But he also suggested people spend time finding the CCLL and the reason for
it is because many can actually lose faster if they do so. And he even gave
a time limit for induction, which is something HE invented. Other than
shaking the addiction to carbs and identifying food intolerances and such,
there aren't other benefits to induction. In fact, the purpose of induction
is not even weight loss.

::
:: [...]
::
::::: Anyway, I think you have to take into account that even though a
::::: person says they are on Atkins, I bet few ppl follow it
::::: rigorously, and just end up cutting the obvious carbs and eating
::::: cheese, meat, eggs and soforth.
:::
::: I would not disagree with that....but those foods are very high in
::: fat, which result in the diet getting most of its calories from fat,
::: not protein.
::
:: Lean meat has a lot of protein and little fat. Ditto for fish and
:: poultry. Eggs contain more protein than fat.

But why trim fat from meat? 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.

But you can argue as you please...the bottom line is that most people who do
Atkins get the greatest percentage of calories from fat, not protein. They
get about the same about of protein as before, but the greater precentage of
calories in the diet come from fat.

Just check out a typical LC ites

..a hardee's low carb burger...42 gs of fat and 25 g of protein, with 3 g of
carbs.

Take an egg, 24g fat, 30 g of protein...

Take cheedar cheese (1 cup), 43 g fat, 32 g protein....

Given that fat is about twice as energy dense as protein, it is clear where
the calories come from.