Carbo loading before a race?

"Roger Zoul" wrote in message

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.

Steak doesn't necessarily come with a lot of fat. It can but it is not a
given.

[...]

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.

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

[...]

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.

Hydrolyzed. Sheesh., my spelling.

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

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

[...]

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.

That's not what Atkins said. He clearly said that if you were comfortable
with the diet and rate of weight loss associated with Induction then feel
free to stay there (for up to six months). The rate of weight loss slows in
Phase Two.

[...]

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?

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

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.

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.

If they're not getting more protein than the average slob then they're not
doing Atkins right. That's what makes it high protein. You're the only
person I've encountered who denies this that Atkins is a high protein diet.
The Atkins site says its high protein! Are you saying you know more than
they do? Yes, you probably are.

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.

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.

--

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

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.

Oh well, whatever gets you to eat less ane exercise more is a good
thing. Continue as usual.
--
terry morse Palo Alto, CA http://bike.terrymorse.com/

On 12 May 2004 17:49:06 GMT, David Reuteler
wrote:
Rick Onanian wrote:
All this talk about food is making me hungry. Gimme a cheeseburger,
with the bun!

as a vegetarian -- forget the meat, hand me the bun! i could live off
what these yahoos throw away.

It's mine! You can't have it! HEY! GIVE THAT BACK!!!


--
Rick "Hungry" Onanian

On Thu, 13 May 2004 09:53:38 -0400, Badger_South
wrote:
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.

Atkins wouldn't work for me, then. While I can't eat just one slice
of bread (gotta eat the whole loaf), I also can't eat just one
burger (gotta eat the whole cow).
--
Rick Onanian

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.

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.
--
Rick Onanian

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.

-B

"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

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.

-B

On Thu, 13 May 2004 17:53:06 -0400, Badger_South
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,

As I understand, BDK is very difficult. I guess, then, your
priorities would matter; if you're more worried about cycling, eat
carbs. If you're more worried about dieting, ride slower. This is a
guess.

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.

I sometimes get second winds, too -- but not nearly often enough.

Regardless, I seriously doubt they're caused (or made more likely)
by LC diets.

BTW, caffeine can supposedly cause an effect similar to BDK, by
diverting glycogen to the brain and forcing the body to burn fat. I
am, of course, pulling this from vague memories of stuff I've read
online from possibly questionable sources...

I'm certainly no expert on _any_ of this. I can only repeat what
I've learned, and express my experience and opinions.
--
Rick Onanian

DRS wrote:
:: "Roger Zoul" wrote in message
::
::: 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.
::
:: Steak doesn't necessarily come with a lot of fat. It can but it is
:: not a given.
::
:: [...]
::
:::::: 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.
::
:: Removing the hunger associated with insulin spikes is not the same
:: thing as actively suppressing appetite, which high protein diets do.

Nonsense...

::
:: [...]
::
:::::: 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.
::
:: Hydrolyzed. Sheesh., my spelling.
::
::: Provide proof that sat fat in the absence of excessive carbs is bad.
::
:: Sat and hydrolyzed fats are always bad. Carbs do not make any
:: diference.

Nonsense...

::
:: [...]
::
::::: 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.
::
:: That's not what Atkins said. He clearly said that if you were
:: comfortable with the diet and rate of weight loss associated with
:: Induction then feel free to stay there (for up to six months). The
:: rate of weight loss slows in Phase Two.

Not the rate of fat loss. During induction there is a huge water loss...in
fact, most of the weight loss is water loss.

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

Nonsense...

::
::: 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....

::
::: 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.
::
:: If they're not getting more protein than the average slob then
:: they're not doing Atkins right.

That's only because the average slob on low fat is probably eating too
little protein...

:: That's what makes it high protein.

Nonsense...

:: You're the only person I've encountered who denies this that Atkins
:: is a high protein diet.

Go over to asdlc...

:: 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".


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 fitday.com, so I speak from
first-hand experience. I don't eat any more protein that I did before,
really, I eat a lot more veggies and fiber and I just don't eat nearly as
many carbs....and that's where the calorie deficit comes from..

::
::: 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.
::
:: 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.

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.