Perhaps its a local phenomenon over there. Nationwide its declined dramatically, which is why Atkins filed for bankruptcy last August. Here's an NPR link about that and the low carb craze decline.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4783324

you're confusing the low carb product phenomena and the low carb media frenzy phenomena with the actual people on low carb eating real food phenomena...

the product bubble definitely burst, the media went bonkers for awhile, a lot of people tried low carb, or at least think they tried it (but never bothered to learn how to do it properly), and failed, but there is stilll a large, solid and growing core of folks who've found it works for them and are sticking to it.

Mr. Colpo strikes again!


this is a very long article about how a low fat diet has a negative effect on absorption of vitamins and minerals, conversion of plant material to omega 3, testosterone levels, heart disease... all based on peer reviewed, published science, and with references

it's too long to post here, but I will quote my favorite part... now I know why so many of you carb abusers seem so darn cranky!

http://www.theomnivore.com/Low_Fat_Diet_Is_Stupid_And_Dangerous.html

Nature's Anti-Depressant: Fat!

Feeling moody? Irritable? Always snapping at your kids for no good reason? Are you known around the office as "Attila the Grump"? If so, eating a low-fat diet isn't going to help the situation. In fact, a low-fat diet may actually be the cause of your mental funk!

In 1998, U.K. researchers reported the results of an important experiment involving twenty healthy male and female volunteers. One group was placed on a 41% fat diet, while the other group consumed a 25% fat diet. After 4 weeks had passed, the groups were swapped around so that those originally on the low-fat diet were now consuming the high-fat diet, and vice-versa. Throughout the study, all meals were prepared by the university conducting the study and supplied to the participants. Both diets were specially designed to be as palatable and similar in taste as possible.

At the beginning and end of each diet period, every subject underwent a battery of psychological assessments, including various mood state questionnaires and an interview by a psychiatrist who was blinded to the participant's dietary status.

The study was tightly-controlled and adherence to the diets appears to have been high. HDL cholesterol levels declined during the low-fat period, a typical response on low-fat, high-carb diets, indicating that subjects ate the foods as supplied.

The researchers found that, while ratings of anger-hostility slightly declined during the high-fat diet period, they significantly increased during the low-fat, high-carb diet period!

Tension-anxiety ratings declined during the high-fat period, but did not change during the four weeks of low-fat, high-carb eating.

Ratings of depression declined slightly during the high-fat period, but increased during the low-fat, high-carb period, mainly due to two of the low-fat subjects reporting significantly greater depression-dejection ratings.

What is particularly alarming about this study is that the low-fat diet produced these symptoms in mentally healthy subjects. As the researchers emphasized, the participants were "a psychologically robust group who had never previously suffered from depression or anxiety, and who were not going through any 'stressful' events during the study." They further stated that "The alterations in mood observed in the present study may have been greater if subjects were feeling more stressed or were more susceptible to mental illness."(77)

Low-fat diets should be approached with extreme caution by those with a history of depression, anxiety, overly aggressive behavior or mental illness. Such individuals may be especially vulnerable to the nutritional inadequacies of low-fat diets.

The UK researchers' observations raise some interesting questions. Could the low-fat, high-carbohydrate diets that have been so heavily promoted over the last thirty years be at least partially responsible for increases in anti-social behavior witnessed during the same period? If studies with our primate cousins are anything to go by, the answer to this question could well be affirmative.

Low-Fat Diet Makes Monkeys Go Ape

For almost 2 years, adult male monkeys were fed a "luxury" diet - (43% calories from fat, 0.34 mg cholesterol/Calorie of diet) or a "prudent" diet (30% calories from fat, 0.05 mg cholesterol/Calorie of diet).

Researchers observed that the low-fat diet monkeys were more irritable and initiated more aggression than the "luxury" diet animals.

The prudent diet resulted in lower total serum cholesterol levels, something that our absent-minded health authorities automatically assume is a good thing. The researchers, however, noted: "These results are consistent with studies linking relatively low serum cholesterol concentrations to violent or antisocial behavior in psychiatric and criminal populations and could be relevant to understanding the significant increase in violence-related mortality observed among people assigned to cholesterol-lowering treatment in clinical trials."(78)

Mr. Colpo strikes again!


this is a very long article about how a low fat diet has a negative effect on absorption of vitamins and minerals, conversion of plant material to omega 3, testosterone levels, heart disease... all based on peer reviewed, published science, and with references

it's too long to post here, but I will quote my favorite part... now I know why so many of you carb abusers seem so darn cranky!

http://www.theomnivore.com/Low_Fat_Diet_Is_Stupid_And_Dangerous.html

Yeah too right. You should try talking to vegans. At least one of the Vegan chat boards has banned ANY reference to Weston A Price. They just go nuts.

Regards, Anthony

If I had to cut weight I would just reduce my saturated fat intake as much as possible and make sure I am expending more calories than I am taking in.

One thing that amuses me about some (many?) vegans is that they continue to tell us that we don't need b12, or other animal products, or that they can get B12 from mushrooms -- etc, etc, -- even though vegan websites condradict some of the vegan doctrine!!


Some vegans still try to tell me that the below info is untrue, even though it's all on vegan and vegy sites!!

"There are no reliable, unfortified plant sources of vitamin B12 "
http://www.veganhealth.org/sh#vitaminb12

Article: Humans are Omnivores
http://www.vrg.org/nutshell/omni.htm

"Plant foods do not contain vitamin B12 except when they are contaminated by microorganisms. Thus, vegans need to look to other sources to get vitamin B12
http://www.vrg.org/nutrition/b12.htm

"The only reliable vegan sources of B12 are foods fortified with B12 and B12 supplements. Vitamin B12, whether in supplements, fortified foods, or animal products, comes from micro-organisms" http://www.vegansociety.com/html/food/nutrition/b12/

"There are no reliable, unfortified plant sources of vitamin B12 "
http://www.veganhealth.org/sh#vitaminb12

Article: Humans are Omnivores
http://www.vrg.org/nutshell/omni.htm

"Plant foods do not contain vitamin B12 except when they are contaminated by microorganisms. Thus, vegans need to look to other sources to get vitamin B12
http://www.vrg.org/nutrition/b12.htm

"The only reliable vegan sources of B12 are foods fortified with B12 and B12 supplements. Vitamin B12, whether in supplements, fortified foods, or animal products, comes from micro-organisms" http://www.vegansociety.com/html/food/nutrition/b12/

The vegans I am acquainted with are aware of the importance of B12. Most take a supplement or eat fortified foods. Many choose instead to grow their own vegetables or, about once a quarter, find a local farmer who will let them pull a carrot from the ground and eat it without washing it. The B12 from microorganisms on such non-grocery-store produce may or may not be enough to meet human needs.

the B12 from a juicy ribeye is definitely enough to meet your human needs!

I feel that low carb dieting is the way to go to loose weight. Many nutritionalists do not like this diet because it goes completely against the formal education that they have received. I know that the school system taught me the same things.... you know, the 5 basic food groups.... what you should have each day....

In my opinion, that old time thinking is what has made our society so overweight. Perhaps Low Carb dieting is not the "perfect" diet, but it works.

You should not just shoot something down just because it is new, or goes against your traditional formal education.


mike

Trust me, carbs are not what makes people fat, this is a misconception. In fact, what most people don't know is that complex carbohydrates are unusable by your body - they require being broken apart (by a chemical reaction) to release the glucose inside the bond (hence why they're complex, not simple carbohydrates). So a carb has ~4 calories per gram, but requires energy to break apart, so it's actually a little bit less than that with regard to your body. Fat, however, is in its simplest form already and has 9 calories per gram.

Whenever someone says they don't eat carbs anymore because they got fat eating them, I ask them when they ever ate just carbs, for example a bagel. They'll say they used to have a bagel for breakfast all the time, to which I reply, "really? Just a plain bagel with nothing on it? They always say, "well, no i had butter/cream cheese and lox/cheese, etc on the bagel." Hmmm, foods that are high in salt and fat content....

Trust me...

I'll trust the science, thanks anyway.

its been argued in this thread that unless you eat a lot of carbs and work out at 80+ % max hr, you are wasting your time. Here's an article by Mark Allen (6 time ironman world champ) that strongly counters that notion:

http://www.duathlon.com/articles/1460?


Mark Allen on Heart Rate Training
from Mark Allen
Website: http://www.markallenonline.com/Default.asp?partner=dua on January 7, 2002



Working Your Heart
The secret of training smart

How hard do I have to workout? How far do I have to go? I workout 2 hours every other day of the week and I still can't lose those last 10 pounds. Why do I keep getting injured when I try to run? These are all questions and comments people make about their training that seems to have no simple solution.

I want to give you that solution. It's called a heart rate monitor. Whether your goal is to win a race or just live a long healthy life, using a heart rate monitor is the single most valuable tool you can have in your training arsenal of equipment. And using one in the way I am going to describe will not only help you shed those last few pounds, but will enable you to do it without either killing yourself in training or starving yourself at the dinner table.

I came from a swimming background, which in the 70's and 80's when I competed was a sport that lived by the No Pain, No Gain motto. My coach would give us workouts that were designed to push us to our limit every single day. I would go home dead, sleep as much as I could, then come back the next day for another round of punishing interval sets.

It was all I knew. So when I entered the sport of triathlons in the early 1980's, my mentality was to go as hard as I could at some point in every single workout. And to gauge how fast that might have to be, I looked at how fast the best triathletes were running at the end of the short distance races. Guys like Dave Scott, Scott Tinley and Scott Molina were able to hold close to 5 minute miles for their 10ks after swimming and biking!

So that's what I did. Every run, even the slow ones, for at least one mile, I would try to get close to 5 minute pace. And it worked...sort of. I had some good races the first year or two, but I also suffered from minor injuries and was always feeling one run away from being too burned out to want to continue with my training.

Then came the heart rate monitor. A man named Phil Maffetone, who had done a lot of research with the monitors, contacted me. Phil said that I was doing too much anaerobic training, too much speed work, too many high end/high heart rate sessions. I was forcing my body into a chemistry that only burns carbohydrates for fuel by elevating my heart rate so high each time I went out and ran.

So he told me to go to the track, strap on the heart rate monitor, and keep my heart rate below 155 beats per minute. Maffetone told me below this number that my body would be able to take in enough oxygen to burn fat as the main source of fuel for my muscle to move. I was going to develop my aerobic/fat burning system. What I discovered was a shock.

To keep my heart rate below 155 beats/minute, I had to slow my pace down to an 8:15 mile. That's three minutes/mile SLOWER than I had been trying to hit in every single workout I did! My body just couldn't utilize fat for fuel.

So for the next four months I did exclusively aerobic training keeping my heart rate at or below my maximum aerobic heart rate, using the monitor every single workout. And at the end of that period, my pace at the same heart rate of 155 beats/minute had improved by over a minute. And after nearly a year of doing mostly aerobic training, which by the way was much more comfortable and less taxing than the anaerobic style that I was used to, my pace at 155 beats/minute had improved to a blistering 5:20 mile.

That means that I was now able to burn fat for fuel efficiently enough to hold a pace that a year before was redlining my effort at a maximum heart rate of about 190. I had become an aerobic machine! On top of the speed benefit at lower heart rates, I was no longer feeling like I was ready for an injury the next run I went on, and I was feeling fresh after my workouts instead of being totally exhausted from them.

So let's figure out what heart rate will give you this kind of benefit and improvement. There is a formula that will determine your Maximum Aerobic Heart Rate, which is the maximum heart rate you can go and still burn fat as the main source of energy in your muscles. It is the heart rate that will enable you to recover day to day from your training. It's the maximum heart rate that will help you burn those last few pounds of fat. It is the heart that will build the size of your internal engine so that you have more power to give when you do want to maximize your heart rate in a race situation.

Here is the formula:

Take 180
Subtract your age
Now we need to adjust this number based on your current level of fitness. Make the following correction as it applies to you:
# If you do no working out subtract another 10 beats
# If you workout 1-2 times a week subtract 5 beats
# If you workout 3-4 times a week leave the number as it is.
# If you workout 5 or more times as week and have done so for a year or more, then add an additional 5 beats to that number.

If you are about 60 years old or older OR if you are about 20 years old or younger, add an additional 5 beats to the corrected number you now have.

You now have your maximum aerobic heart rate, which again is the maximum heart rate that you can workout at and still burn mostly fat for fuel. Now go out and do ALL of your cardiovascular training at or below this heart rate and see how your pace improves. After just a few weeks you should start to see a dramatic improvement in the speed you can go at these lower heart rates.

Over time, however, you will get the maximum benefit possible from doing just aerobic training. At that point, after several months of seeing you pace get faster at your maximum aerobic heart rate, you will begin to slow down. This is the sign that if you want to continue to improve on your speed, it is time to go back to the high end interval anaerobic training one or two days/week. So you will have to go back to the NO Pain, NO Gain credo once again. But this time, your body will be able to handle it. Keep at the intervals and you will see your pace improve once again for a period. But just like the aerobic training, there is a limit to the benefit you will receive from anaerobic/carbohydrate training. At that point, you will see your speed start to slow down again. And that is the signal that it is time to switch back to a strict diet of aerobic/fat burning training.

Keep your interval sessions to around15-30 minutes of hard high heart rate effort total. This means that if you are going to the track to do intervals do about 5k worth of speed during the entire workout. Less than that and the physiological effect is not as great. More than that and you just can't maintain a high enough effort during the workout to maximize our benefit. You want to push your interval making each one a higher level of intensity and effort than the previous one. If you reach a point where you cannot maintain your form any longer, back off the effort or even call it a day. That is all your body has to give.

This is what I did to keep improving for nearly 15 years as a triathlete. It is also the training the Lance Armstrong's coach put him on to recover from his cancer treatment when they saw that he could not handle the high end training anymore. And although it was contrary to what most cyclists do to prepare for the grueling Tour de France, it was what enabled him to capture the title there for the first time in 1999.

Best of luck!

Mark Allen
6 Time Ironman World Champion
Mark Allen coaching services are available at www.markallenonline.com

His max is 190, hes told to exercise at 155. Thats 80% mhr.
Hasnt everyone been saying to train at about 80% till a good base is built up then add in intervals and sprints to increase your performance to the next stage once you plataue?

Which is exactly what he says in the article.

I've gotta admit, I'm not a 'full book' on intricate training techniques.

It's REALLY interesting that his speed dramatically improved on the lower HR.

I wonder if he'd recommend still doing one or two hard seesions a week

I've gotta admit, I'm not a 'full book' on intricate training techniques.

It's REALLY interesting that his speed dramatically improved on the lower HR.

I wonder if he'd recommend still doing one or two hard seesions a week

I would love to hear everyone's comments on this:

Why is it important to have protein first thing in the morning?

A: Think of your body as a computer.

At night with extended darkness in the retina of your eye, the body releases naturally occurring melatonin (a hormone). Think of this as turning off your computer.

In the morning with first extended light in the retina, your body releases naturally occurring DHEA, think of this as turning the computer back on.

Just like your computer, your body is looking for files to start properly. The first thing your body looks for is a new source of protein. If your body doesn't sense new protein within the first 30 minutes of waking (the release of DHEA), it sends a signal that the body is trying to starve itself. The first thing it does in a response is to lower the metabolism to conserve what protein it has in the body. If no new protein has been detected within 2 hours, your metabolism is basically shut off for the day until you reset the computer the next day.

This is important: One of the keys to protein in the morning is approximately a 2 to 1 ratio (eg. 14 grams of protein to 7 grams of carbohydrates). If the carb content is too high, the body will only read the carbs and not the protein.
You should ideally be having protein as soon as you get up in the morning (within the first 10 minutes).
I personally, use a shake with 18 grams of protein and 10 grams of carbohydrates.
One thing to remember is to not add anything else to the shake -- fruit has lots of carbohydrates -- because it will change the ratio needed for best results. You can have some fruit or other carbohydrate items about 30 minutes after your protein.

I've tried this in my practice and it really works!

La Chica, Lets see, you have 9 posts. In 6 of those your trying to sell stuff. Different products too, not even just one. You got bioshealth, Lowoz, quadplex

My guess is your gonna supply your wonder shake to whoever is interested in a 'new' way to lose weight without exercising. Id say your spam with a forum name.

Then again, that might just be the bitter cynic in me :)

La Chica, Lets see, you have 9 posts. In 6 of those your trying to sell stuff. Different products too, not even just one. You got bioshealth, Lowoz, quadplex

My guess is your gonna supply your wonder shake to whoever is interested in a 'new' way to lose weight without exercising. Id say your spam with a forum name.

Then again, that might just be the bitter cynic in me :)


Thanks for your honest reply, Jarery!

FYI:I'm not selling, just sharing information.

I posted because I wanted to know if any one here on this forum ever heard about this explanation as to the reason why having protein 1st thing in the morning may benefit one in their attempt to lose weight, due to the fact that it does affect your metabolism!

And yes, I have to agree that you are a cynic!

Cheers,

Here's my take: eat raw. Bag the cooked diet altogether. Think of three different tiers: fats, fruits, and veges. Highly active people need more from the fat section. Good fats are: olives, raw nut butters, avocados, fresh nuts, young coconuts, and seeds (sunflowers and pinenuts). Greens contain all the proteins that we need and are another important component of this diet. Fresh fruits can help us manage or cravings and give us those sugar lifts although wild fruits(berries) are far better than hybrids (bannanas=sugar imbalance). Fortunately there is so much to chose from! Cooked foods, pastas, dairy, meat creates a sludge in our bodies that bags us down! My favorite example is the gorilla(closet mammal physically related to human) who eats this diet and is extemely muscular and powerful(strongest mammal for its size). I am a kung-fu instructor(practiced for over 20 years) so I need a lot of energy to keep my body active. Last summer, my wife and I rode over two thousand miles in Southern France fully loaded/self contained conquering Mt. Ventoux, Corsica, les Gorges du Verdon, and countless other passes with energy to spare! My cooked food buddies can not understand our diet, but they could never keep up with us either! Check out naturesfirstlaw.com for lots of other great info. Thanks!

Why is it that debates about diet always end up sounding like a religious discussion? Instead of quoting holy scriptures, each side quotes various studies. In both types of dicussions, each side is convinced that their way is "the one true way" and anyone who disagrees is just wrong. Is it possible that both sides are correct? Maybe you can be healthy on either a high carb OR a low carb diet.

the gorilla(closet mammal physically related to human) who eats this diet and is extemely muscular and powerful(strongest mammal for its size). !

I can count the number of times I've been passed on my bicycle by a gorrilla on one hand.....

Thats awesome, we have people promoting diets to imitiate a gorilla now. If i wanted to be a weight lifter that might seem worth looking into, but this is a cycling forum. Long lean fast muscles. One would think that something like a cheetah matches a cyclist much more closely than a gorilla. THey go fast, acclerate fast, chase down and overtake others. Are they vegetatians? Or does it not take much speed to chase down a wounded carrot?

Edit : If you want to be a vegetarian, thats awesome, but the "because it works for gorillas" is the part you should cut :)

Is it possible that both sides are correct? Maybe you can be healthy on either a high carb OR a low carb diet.


no, of course not! ha haa... actually, here's an interesting point, you can be on a low carb diet and remain healthy (good cholestoral, blood glucose, triglycerides, etc.) without even exercising... if you are on a high carb diet, you damn well better be exercising, or you are big trouble son....

They were still cooking their baked goods using lard ).

As opposed to artificially hydrogenated vegetable oil laced with trans-fat. Lard (http://www.thehealthierlife.co.uk/article/3378/trans-fatty-acids.html) may yet make a comeback.

Why is it that debates about diet always end up sounding like a religious discussion? Instead of quoting holy scriptures, each side quotes various studies. In both types of dicussions, each side is convinced that their way is "the one true way" and anyone who disagrees is just wrong. Is it possible that both sides are correct? Maybe you can be healthy on either a high carb OR a low carb diet.Yes, both sides are correct. You have to select a regimen based upon the results you want. A sedentary person with low levels of activity would best to restrict their total calories and be low-carb. This is the weekend-warrior type who rides less than 150-miles a week, never more than 2-hours at a time and might look like a spud. Those who want the highest levels of performance, rides 250-500 miles a week, does 50-races a year and can average 25mph+ on TTs would most likely be on a +4500-calorie/day diet with mostly carbs. Most people would fall somewhere in between...

Yes, both sides are correct. You have to select a regimen based upon the results you want. A sedentary person with low levels of activity would best to restrict their total calories and be low-carb. This is the weekend-warrior type who rides less than 150-miles a week, never more than 2-hours at a time and might look like a spud. Those who want the highest levels of performance, rides 250-500 miles a week, does 50-races a year and can average 25mph+ on TTs would most likely be on a +4500-calorie/day diet with mostly carbs. Most people would fall somewhere in between...

ding ding ding!!! we have a winner. Sum1 should have stopped this fight ages ago. sedentary ppl= low calorie/carbo needs, athlete=high carb/calorie needs. Pretty simple really.

sedentary ppl= low calorie/carbo needs, athlete=high carb/calorie needs. Pretty simple really.


pretty simply not true, really.

just another bit of unproven dogma.

for anyone who still thinks a high fat diet somehow "chokes" your arteries:

Long term effects of ketogenic diet in obese subjects with high cholesterol level.
Mol Cell Biochem. 2006 Jun;286(1-2):1-9. Epub 2006 Apr 21.
Dashti HM, Al-Zaid NS, Mathew TC, Al-Mousawi M, Talib H, Asfar SK, Behbahani AI.

Department of Surgery, Kuwait University, Safat, Kuwait.

Objective: Various studies have convincingly shown the beneficial effect of ketogenic diet (in which the daily consumption of carbohydrate is less than 20 grams, regardless of fat, protein and caloric intake) in reducing weight in obese subjects. However, its long term effect on obese subjects with high total cholesterol (as compared to obese subjects with normal cholesterol level is lacking. It is believed that ketogenic diet may have adverse effect on the lipid profile. Therefore, in this study the effect of ketogenic diet in obese subjects with high cholesterol level above 6 mmol/L is compared to those with normocholesterolemia for a period of 56 weeks. Materials and methods: In this study, 66 healthy obese subjects with body mass index (BMI) greater than 30, having high cholesterol level (Group I; n = 35) and those subjects with normal cholesterol level (Group II; n = 31) were selected. The body weight, body mass index, total cholesterol, LDL-cholesterol, HDL-cholesterol, urea, creatinine, glucose and triglycerides were determined before and after the administration of the ketogenic diet. Changes in these parameters were monitored at 8, 16, 24, 32, 40, 48 and 56 weeks of the treatment. Results: The body weight and body mass index of both groups decreased significantly (P < 0.0001). The level of total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, triglycerides and blood glucose level decreased significantly (P < 0.0001), whereas HDL cholesterol increased significantly (P < 0.0001) after the treatment in both groups. Conclusion: This study shows the beneficial effects of ketogenic diet following its long term administration in obese subjects with a high level of total cholesterol. Moreover, this study demonstrates that low carbohydrate diet is safe to use for a longer period of time in obese subjects with a high total cholesterol level and those with normocholesterolemia.

Uh... this is a low-carb diet on OBESE SUBJECTS. Certainly not your average TDF rider. And it said nothing about how much fat they ate... Cholesterol is not the same as fat, BTW.

Of the two study groups, obese and not, how much did they eat? I bet the obese group ate fewer calories than they burned off each day.

I'd love to see someone can average over 25mph in a 10mile-TT and ride 400-miles+ a week survive on a ketogenic diet. Fine for an obese couch potatoe who doesn't exercise, certainly not something a fit athlete could live on.

I posted the study because

1) OP is a casual cyclist who wanted to lose weight (not a 25 mph time trialist)

2) several posters have responded that a low carb diet is unhealthy, blah blah blah, one even blamed his unfortunate heart disease on meat/cholestoral issues. I just wanted to point out that these views are based more on dogma than actual science. the actual science is steadily disproving these notions.

now, as to whether nor not someone can do your TT at 25 mph on a low carb diet, you could be right, I honesly dont know. at that level, perhaps you do need carbs. but that is irrelevant to OP's concerns. Regarding the 400 miles per week on a low carb diet, that is certainly doable, and I would argue easier to do for an athlete who has adapted to a high fat/low carb diet, as you do not bonk, you do not have the lactic acid issues, etc. etc.

Yeah, so many variables and we can debate this forever. Personally I don't think the diet makes that big of a deal really. If you want to lose weight, you gotta eat fewer calories than you burn off. That's the one constant that's not debatable regardless of the composition of your diet. High-fat/low-carb only works for low-intensity and endurance riding. Even those "adapted" to high-fat/low-carb diet still burn 100% glycogen at LT or above.You can ride long miles, but you can't be doing it very fast. So you're not gonna see a world-class TDF or Olympic athlete doing that.


If you want to cite articles, here's another one:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/content/abstract/80/4/1173

Journal of Applied Physiology, Vol 80, Issue 4 1173-1179, Copyright © 1996 by American Physiological Society

ARTICLES
Body fat and exercise endurance in trained rats adapted to a high-fat and/or high-carbohydrate diet

R. A. Lapachet, W. C. Miller and D. A. Arnall
Department of Kinesiology, Indiana University, Bloomington 47405, USA.

To study how diet composition affects exercise endurance and body composition, 48 male Sprague-Dawley rats were treadmill trained for 8 wk while consuming either a high-fat (F) diet or high-carbohydrate (C) diet. The diets were switched for one-half the number of rats in each group 3 days before the animals were killed, during which feeding time the rats did not exercise. One-half of rats receiving each of the four diet combinations were taken at rest (R) or exhaustion (E), resulting in eight groups: CCR, CFR, FFR, FCR, CCE CFE, FFE, and FCE. An analysis of variance revealed that resting glycogen in the FCR group was enhanced in muscle (19-33%) and liver (23%) compared with controls. Each F group's exercise time to exhaustion [CFE, 322.9 +/- 25.0; FFE, 356.8 +/- 37.8; FCE, 467.0 +/- 32.6 (SE) min] was different (P < 0.05) from control (CCE, 257.5 +/- 29.2 min). Postexercise glycogen was equivalent among all dietary groups, were muscle triglycerides. The FF and FC groups had higher 3-hydroxyacyl-CoA dehydrogenase activity in soleus muscle than either CC or CF animals. After training, body weights were similar between the two dietary groups; however, percent body fat was 17% greater after the F diet, even though F diet animals voluntarily consumed 12% less energy than did C diet animals. These data suggest that exercise endurance time is optimized in trained rats that receive a carbohydrate load after adaptation to a F diet. However, despite intense exercise training, the F diet promotes body fat deposition, and the health consequences of following such a regimen are still unknown.

Here's another article using cyclists:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/82/4/1185#T1

Journal of Applied Physiology Vol. 82, No. 4, pp. 1185-1189, April 1997
METABOLISM - Effects of diet on muscle triglyceride and endurance performance

Raymond D. Starling, Todd A. Trappe, Allen C. Parcell, Chad G. Kerr, William J. Fink, and David L. Costill

Human Performance Laboratory, Ball State University, Muncie, Indianapolis, Indiana 47306

ABSTRACT

Starling, Raymond D., Todd A. Trappe, Allen C. Parcell, Chad G. Kerr, William J. Fink, and David L. Costill. Effects of diet on muscle triglyceride and endurance performance. J. Appl. Physiol. 82(4): 1185-1189, 1997.---The purpose of this investigation was to examine the effects of diet on muscle triglyceride and endurance performance. Seven endurance-trained men completed a 120-min cycling bout at 65% of maximal oxygen uptake. Each subject then ingested an isocaloric high-carbohydrate (Hi-CHO; 83% of energy) or a high-fat (Hi-Fat; 68% of energy) diet for the ensuing 12 h. After a 12-h overnight fast, a 1,600-kJ self-paced cycling bout was completed. Muscle triglyceride measured before (33.0 ± 2.3 vs. 37.0 ± 2.1 mmol/kg dry wt) and after (30.9 ± 2.4 vs. 32.8 ± 1.6 mmol/kg dry wt) the 120-min cycling bout was not different between the Hi-CHO and Hi-Fat trials, respectively. After the 24-h dietary-fasting period, muscle triglyceride was significantly higher for the Hi-Fat (44.7 ± 2.4 mmol/kg dry wt) vs. the Hi-CHO (27.5 ± 2.1 mmol/kg dry wt) trial. Furthermore, self-paced cycling time was significantly greater for the Hi-Fat (139.3 ± 7.1 min) compared with the Hi-CHO (117.1 ± 3.2 min) trial. These data demonstrate that there was not a significant difference in muscle triglyceride concentration before and after a prolonged moderate-intensity cycling bout. Nevertheless, a high-fat diet increased muscle triglyceride concentration and reduced self-paced cycling performance 24 h after the exercise compared with a high-carbohydrate diet.
.....
DISCUSSION
... In summary, muscle triglyceride concentration was not significantly different before and after 120 min of submaximal cycling. Nevertheless, the ingestion of a high-fat diet increased muscle triglyceride concentration by 36%, 24 h after the cycling bout. Furthermore, a high-carbohydrate diet did not increase muscle triglyceride concentration but did increase muscle glycogen storage and improve self-paced cycling performance compared with a high-fat diet.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Basically confirms the previous study I quoted. A high-fat diet packs more triglycerides (fat) into the muscle cells and reduces the amount of glycogen available. You end up with weight-gain and lower energy levels. You're not able to ride as fast and not as far. If you're trying to lose weight and have a fixed amount of time to do it each week, say 5 or 10 or 15-hours, you want to be burning off as many calories/hr as possible for the fastest weight-loss rate.

Here's another article using cyclists:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/82/4/1185#T1

Journal of Applied Physiology Vol. 82, No. 4, pp. 1185-1189, April 1997
METABOLISM - Effects of diet on muscle triglyceride and endurance performance

Raymond D. Starling, Todd A. Trappe, Allen C. Parcell, Chad G. Kerr, William J. Fink, and David L. Costill

Human Performance Laboratory, Ball State University, Muncie, Indianapolis, Indiana 47306

ABSTRACT

Starling, Raymond D., Todd A. Trappe, Allen C. Parcell, Chad G. Kerr, William J. Fink, and David L. Costill. Effects of diet on muscle triglyceride and endurance performance. J. Appl. Physiol. 82(4): 1185-1189, 1997.---The purpose of this investigation was to examine the effects of diet on muscle triglyceride and endurance performance. Seven endurance-trained men completed a 120-min cycling bout at 65% of maximal oxygen uptake. Each subject then ingested an isocaloric high-carbohydrate (Hi-CHO; 83% of energy) or a high-fat (Hi-Fat; 68% of energy) diet for the ensuing 12 h. After a 12-h overnight fast, a 1,600-kJ self-paced cycling bout was completed. Muscle triglyceride measured before (33.0 ± 2.3 vs. 37.0 ± 2.1 mmol/kg dry wt) and after (30.9 ± 2.4 vs. 32.8 ± 1.6 mmol/kg dry wt) the 120-min cycling bout was not different between the Hi-CHO and Hi-Fat trials, respectively. After the 24-h dietary-fasting period, muscle triglyceride was significantly higher for the Hi-Fat (44.7 ± 2.4 mmol/kg dry wt) vs. the Hi-CHO (27.5 ± 2.1 mmol/kg dry wt) trial. Furthermore, self-paced cycling time was significantly greater for the Hi-Fat (139.3 ± 7.1 min) compared with the Hi-CHO (117.1 ± 3.2 min) trial. These data demonstrate that there was not a significant difference in muscle triglyceride concentration before and after a prolonged moderate-intensity cycling bout. Nevertheless, a high-fat diet increased muscle triglyceride concentration and reduced self-paced cycling performance 24 h after the exercise compared with a high-carbohydrate diet.
.....
DISCUSSION
... In summary, muscle triglyceride concentration was not significantly different before and after 120 min of submaximal cycling. Nevertheless, the ingestion of a high-fat diet increased muscle triglyceride concentration by 36%, 24 h after the cycling bout. Furthermore, a high-carbohydrate diet did not increase muscle triglyceride concentration but did increase muscle glycogen storage and improve self-paced cycling performance compared with a high-fat diet.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Basically confirms the previous study I quoted. A high-fat diet packs more triglycerides (fat) into the muscle cells and reduces the amount of glycogen available. You end up with weight-gain and lower energy levels. You're not able to ride as fast and not as far. If you're trying to lose weight and have a fixed amount of time to do it each week, say 5 or 10 or 15-hours, you want to be burning off as many calories/hr as possible for the fastest weight-loss rate.


your first study involved rats, not humans, enuff said there.... at least my study involved human beings, albeit fat ones, ha haa

as for the second one, it's been shown by other studies that an athlete switching over from a high carb to a high fat diet needs to allow for an adjustment period. Your study didn't, so it is pretty much meaningless.

Your study only showed cholestrol levels in the body, it said nothing about performance differences or the longevity of such changes. So what physiological and metabolic attributes change with this "adjustment period"? Specifically in relation to:

- total calories burned per day
- percentage fat vs. carbs burned at 50%, 67, 75, 85, 100% MHR?
- VO2 max
- power-generated at LT and VO2mx (what's the spread between them)
- time-to-fatigue at LT, max-endurance, etc.
- recovery time, can you do it day after day
- fitness improvement rate over years (look at diet of those who get to cat-1 within 2-years of racing)

The one variable that's not controlled and equalized in a lot of these studies is the calories-in vs. calories-out ratio. That's what you want to focus on in weight-loss, just about everyting else is secondary.

These data suggest that exercise endurance time is optimized in trained rats that receive a carbohydrate load after adaptation to a F diet.

Really that study suggested that we should adapt to high fat diet then carb load before races.

Low carb induction followed by a high carb diet (1 week of each during a 2 week taper) has been done for a long time by many endurance athletes as a way of tricking your body into storing extra glycogen. You end up with more glycogen than a continuous high carb diet.

Yup, carbo-loading... age-old performance trick.. :)

Your study only showed cholestrol levels in the body, it said nothing about performance differences or the longevity of such changes. So what physiological and metabolic attributes change with this "adjustment period"? Specifically in relation to:

- total calories burned per day
- percentage fat vs. carbs burned at 50%, 67, 75, 85, 100% MHR?
- VO2 max
- power-generated at LT and VO2mx (what's the spread between them)
- time-to-fatigue at LT, max-endurance, etc.
- recovery time, can you do it day after day
- fitness improvement rate over years (look at diet of those who get to cat-1 within 2-years of racing)

The one variable that's not controlled and equalized in a lot of these studies is the calories-in vs. calories-out ratio. That's what you want to focus on in weight-loss, just about everyting else is secondary.


like I said, my only point was that anyone who says you should avoid a low carb diet because it's bad for your heart does not know what you are talking about.

the performance thing is another story. there are loads of studies that suggest you can do just as well on low carb, given a long enough adaption period. I gather your body gets better at storing and utilizing fat as fuel. also, even for the non athlete, your body has to adjust - different enzymes are required blah blah blah.. anyway, the only exception appears to be efforts at the very highest levels of intensities... some of these studies are referenced and disputed earlier in this thread... I'd dig some up, but it's Friday night in the big city so I am outta here!

like I said, my only point was that anyone who says you should avoid a low carb diet because it's bad for your heart does not know what you are talking about. I'll give you that. I think it's overeating that's the real cause of obesity and health problems. You can pile one fat by eating more than you burn off with any kind of diet, be it low-carb/high-carb/low-fat/high-fat/low-protein/high-protein. Your body will end up storing the excess as blubber regardless. There are however, conversion-to-fat efficiencies that differ.

the performance thing is another story. there are loads of studies that suggest you can do just as well on low carb, given a long enough adaption period. I gather your body gets better at storing and utilizing fat as fuel. also, even for the non athlete, your body has to adjust - different enzymes are required blah blah blah.. anyway, the only exception appears to be efforts at the very highest levels of intensities... some of these studies are referenced and disputed earlier in this thread... I'd dig some up, but it's Friday night in the big city so I am outta here!Sure, the one thing I'd like to see is a comparison of two things in terms of performance:

- power-generated at VO2-max and LT
- time-to-exhaustion at VO2-max or LT

[QUOTE=FatguyRacer]I disagree. (Is'nt the internet great!) A low carb diet for an active cyclist is not the way to go. Maybe for a bodybuilder or powerlifter, but not an endurance athlete.

I recommend a fascinating article by Stephen D. Phinney published in the August, 2004 issue of Nutrition & Metabolism entitled Ketogenic Diets and Physical Performance. Phinney compared performance of a group of cyclists on high carb diet to their performance (same group after a period of adaptation) on a ketogenic diet. Phinney found there was no loss of speed or endurance if attention was given to maintaining potassium and nitrogen balance for the group in the ketogenic mode. He did find that under conditions of short duration (anerobic exercise such as sprinting or weight lifting) a high carb diet yields superior performance.

Full text of the article: http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/1/1/2

Dave Brown

I feel that low carb dieting is the way to go to loose weight. Many nutritionalists do not like this diet because it goes completely against the formal education that they have received. I know that the school system taught me the same things.... you know, the 5 basic food groups.... what you should have each day....

In my opinion, that old time thinking is what has made our society so overweight. Perhaps Low Carb dieting is not the "perfect" diet, but it works.

You should not just shoot something down just because it is new, or goes against your traditional formal education.

mike

Diet should be about a way of eating that will keep you healthy for the rest of your life. There are common-sense ways to do that through eating quality food, lots of fruits and vegatables, and low-glycemic index carbs. If you're an athlete, you need to add in high-glycemic carbs as an energy source.

Though it can help people lose weight, atkins is not a lifetime diet. I know many people who have gone off of it and are now heavier, and there are cardiac risk elements.

South beach, on the other hand, can be a lifetime diet. It has limits on high-glycemic carbs and fats, which seem to be the big problem for most people.

There's no substitute for a healthy diet. You can choose to have whatever opinion you want. I eat healthy, my blood work is great, and I'm 6'2" and 165 pounds. I think I'll keep eating the way I do.

I dont think the Atkin's induction phase would be healthy but he only recommends that for a few weeks and then start adding back "good" carbs rich in fiber and avoiding refined sugar and stuff like corn syrup. Im no endurance athelete but I'm wondering ..............Let's say you eat a healthy balanced diet.... except... no refined sugar or corn syrup..... Would this be bad? I realize u need the carbs for recovery. Is there any way to get them besides refined sugar and corn syrup products? Danno seems real knowledgeable on the nutrition thing so I was wondering.... Are there any good ways to replace your glycogen stores other than refined sugar??

Diet should be about a way of eating that will keep you healthy for the rest of your life. There are common-sense ways to do that through eating quality food, lots of fruits and vegatables, and low-glycemic index carbs. If you're an athlete, you need to add in high-glycemic carbs as an energy source.

Though it can help people lose weight, atkins is not a lifetime diet. I know many people who have gone off of it and are now heavier, and there are cardiac risk elements.

South beach, on the other hand, can be a lifetime diet. It has limits on high-glycemic carbs and fats, which seem to be the big problem for most people.

There's no substitute for a healthy diet. You can choose to have whatever opinion you want. I eat healthy, my blood work is great, and I'm 6'2" and 165 pounds. I think I'll keep eating the way I do.

oh no not this thread again!!!!!!!!!!

why can't Atkins - or any low carb diet, whatever name you give it - be a lifetime diet? I've been eating this way for 4 1/2 years and plan to eat this way for the rest of my life.

South Beach is just a low carb diet for people who actually believe sat. fat is bad for you. Nonsense!

and of course if you go off the diet you gain weight. is this a big suprise?

and the low carb diet has been proven again and again and again to be good for your heart - it improves your cholesterol, not the other way 'round.

ah, these myths just won't die, will they?

Sure, you can do it if you want to lead a fairly sedentary lifestyle with not a lot of activity. Not a problem at all.

If you want lots of speed on the bike and do double-centuries fast and win races, that requires a different kind of training regimen and diet.

There's no one "right" way, just pick the path that leads you to the result you want.

Sure, you can do it if you want to lead a fairly sedentary lifestyle with not a lot of activity. Not a problem at all.

If you want lots of speed on the bike and do double-centuries fast and win races, that requires a different kind of training regimen and diet.

There's no one "right" way, just pick the path that leads you to the result you want.

the truth lies somewhere in between the two extremes you describe.

From all I've read, at some point beyond an hour or two of pushing yourself really hard, carbs can make a difference.

But of course, you can have a very active lifestyle and never indulge in that level of effort. If so, you can skip the carbs and live a long healthy life.

I agree there is no right way, just a hell of a lot of misinformation regarding low carb diets.

any of you low carbers still alive? any of you non low carbers kick a low carbers ass????

LOL sorry, a lot of time has passed, and here i am.... still trying to figure out how to drop some extra pounds...

you know, i am starting to think that some of us were simply ment to eat.... :)

Well, if you're looking to increase muscle mass, the anabolic diet by Mauro DiPasquale is the real king of the "diets."

However, it's not something most cyclists want. Mst cyclist want to be as light as possible, which means skinny and no muscle mass. Makes a big differencein how you eat.

I am a carb cycler when in season and an anabolic dieter off season. Keeps me with lots of sex muscles - I do not want to look like an emaciated cyclist.

any of you low carbers still alive? any of you non low carbers kick a low carbers ass???? :)I can't believe you revived this flaming thread:p

In theory, I guess I'm a Paleo guy, but I have no discipline to reduce carbs :) -- I just try to get them from low glycaemic sources.

I have since bought Colpo's book -- it's fantastic. It's now available on ebook for $10

http://www.thegreatcholesterolcon.com/

.............
Keeps me with lots of sex muscles
..........

What is a sex muscle?

What is a sex muscle?

Ummm, can someone get this person an anatomy class, stat? :D

(actually I meant to add a y on the end of that)

you know, i am starting to think that some of us were simply ment to eat.... :)

Starting to see it my way? ;)

Okay here's a question for you Nutritionalists, maybe a little off subject but here goes.

First of all I'm 37 y/o, I started road cycling almost 3 years ago & I guess you could call me a Roadie Junky, cuz I'm really into this, you name it: bikes, nutrition, equipment, clothing, accessories, the whole nine yards. I'm healthier & stonger than when I was in my 20's. My lifestyle basically revolves around cycling. I should also mention that on days I don't ride I do boxing training (jumprope, heavybag, speedbag, etc.). I'm not too concerned about this, but here's my question: I used to be quite the avid drinker, I mean I was able to down a bottle of "good" tequila on my own in one night and be OK, or have my share of rum, brandy cognac, whiskey, etc. I could go on for hours and sleep like a baby. Lately, I'll have a drink or two and I get these piercing headaches and my face becomes pale, & I have to throw up, etc. In other words: I can't hold my liquor. With beer I'm OK, I'm just wondering if my new lifestyle has to do with this new reaction to alcohol? Is it all the protein? or what?

No, it has nothing to do with exercise, diet, or protein. Unless you're understating how much you're drinking, or are taking medications with side effects, then you need to get to a doctor.

No, it has nothing to do with exercise, diet, or protein. Unless you're understating how much you're drinking, or are taking medications with side effects, then you need to get to a doctor.

I'm drinking much much less than I used to at parties. It's like I'm intolerant to alcohol now. This past saturday I was at a birthday party, I had 2 beers and after that I had two rum n cokes after which I started getting a raging headache and my face became very pale. I started drinking glass after glass of club soda and that seemed to help, but the headache lingered until sunday. This is the second time I've had an episode like this. Have I become alcohol Intolerant? does that even exist?