Training & Nutrition - Certified Nutritionalist

DannoXYZ (or anyone else for that matter) I would agree with you that using body fat as your primary energy source is not a very good idea during vigorous exercise (you're going to use at least 30% of your total no matter how many carbs you consume during the workout). I am still waiting for the studies that show that you can only process about 900 - 1000 calories worth of body fat in a 24-hour period. All that I can find are still ongoing.

I eat no meat, whole grains, lots of fruits and vegetables, moderate fat intake, no eggs, no milk and I've lost weight, feel better and ride hard.

Meat eating is not necesary to be strong. In fact, I think it is unhealthy and a waste of the earth's resources to grow meat. So many more people could be fed on a plant based diet.

When I ate meat, I had more allergy (sinus) problems, my digestion was not good and I was not as healthy as I am now. I worry about the long-term effects of a high-protien diet on the individual and on the planet.

The whole notion that a heavy meat type diet is more evolutionarily sound is not science but conjecture. Just because hunter gatherer groups go to pot when they absorb all of the practices of the encroaching 'modern' society does not warrant an abondonment of whole foods, minimally processed, clean and fresh to our tables.

Meat eating doesn't have to be the part of any person's life. You will lose weight, feel healthier, have a clearer mind, have a clearer conscience and do your part for the betterment of the earth and show a kindness to all living animals.

'Low Carb' is a glutton's way out of a problem created by a lack of control in the first place. I would say that the hungry of the world should rise up in anger and kick us down for our wastefulness and greed to eat meat!

mr. freddy, you continue to make many statements not supported by any studies you can provide even though I've asked for them repeatedly. Your latest "study is really just an article written by some guy, who has mnaged to come up with just one study that supports his/your point of view and that study was 20 years ago and full of flaws that even I can see.

Why don't you tell us why your latest diet (I'm sure there have been others that excited you before you actually spent 6 months on them) would work better than simply eliminating junk foods. I'd also like to hear from you just how long you've been on your low carb diet, how much weight you've lost since you started it, and what your previous or current bodyfat percentage is. Afterall, you have provided more evidence against your opinions so all we have to go on is your personal testimonial. So let's learn something more about your personal results.

DannoXYZ (or anyone else for that matter) I would agree with you that using body fat as your primary energy source is not a very good idea during vigorous exercise (you're going to use at least 30% of your total no matter how many carbs you consume during the workout). I am still waiting for the studies that show that you can only process about 900 - 1000 calories worth of body fat in a 24-hour period. All that I can find are still ongoing.Sorry, I'm basing that on personal experience of having to lose the 10-20lbs I gain every year over the holiday season. The maximum weight-loss I can achieve without losing muscle is about 2-2.5 lbs/week or about 1000 calories/day. This scenario's been extended for an entire year as I've gone from 245 lbs to around 180 lbs today; there are no miracles diets out there. The low-carb diet ends up causing a lot of bonks and loss of lean muscle-mass when I try to lose the fat and I'm limited to burning off even less than 1000 fat-calories/day.

I'm also basing that on the fat vs. carb. oxidation rate where 45-49% of VO2-max exertion burns the highest ratio of fat. This translates roughly into an exercise-rate of about 400-450 calories/hour resulting in about 180-200 calories of fat being burned per hour. So I'd have to ride for 5-5.5 hours at this pace to burn off 1000 calories of fat. This would end up consuming most of the stored glycogen as well. While this may appear to be an ideal depletion rate, the post-ride recovery will end up taking apart muscle-tissue. The required carb-intake to arrest the muscle-catabolism would also end up slowing lipid-conversion to glycogen as well. So to reduce muscle destruction, I'd have to stop the fat metabolism as well.

'Low Carb' is a glutton's way out of a problem created by a lack of control in the first place. I would say that the hungry of the world should rise up in anger and kick us down for our wastefulness and greed to eat meat!

You've kind of put your finger on it here.

This is the ENTIRE justification for the low fat / low meat diet. There is nothing more to it than this.

Regards, Anthony

You've kind of put your finger on it here.

This is the ENTIRE justification for the low fat / low meat diet. There is nothing more to it than this.

Regards, Anthony


http://www.ou.edu/class/art4910/1998/leroux/html/eight.htm

A good enough reason in itself!

However, I disagree that it is the only issue. The raising of animals for food and their slaughter is often done in a very cruel fashion. Secondly, BSE may become a health issue for more people as it shows up in the US and other areas. Thirdly, poor sanitation practices in US slaughterhouses have lead to labeling of meats r/t foodborne illnesses. Fourth, vegetarian populations have shown a longer life expectancy. Fifth, the vegetarian diet is lower in calories, higher in vitamins and nutrients than the calorie dense fat, meat based diet.

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/78/3/526S

I have gotten a real kick out of the Inuit portion of this debate. Sign me up for a truckload of blubber, sea lion offal and the like! I can hardly wait to dig in! YUK! :eek: I'm sure that is a great point of view to have. We could translate that to pork rinds, beef intestines, organ meats, road kill, dumpster diving and the like. You might as well go to the landfill in Manilla in the Phillipines for a comparative group!

A good enough reason in itself!

However, I disagree that it is the only issue.

A good enough reason?

Well its not right to start with. See this article, http://www.westonaprice.org/knowyourfats/lowfatcapitalism.html

Unfortunately it seems that this puritan low fat diet has more to do with a desire to be seen to be exercising personal restraint in the consumption of resources rather than doing anything about the really obscene over consumption of resources in other area's.

Did you know that its now SOY bean production that's causing deforestation in the Amazon, not beef!

See it wasn't really about beef at all. It was about the obscene desire to make commodities cheaper at any cost. So are you happy that cheap soy from the amazon be used to feed the poor?

OH and I better apologise for waving red rag at a bull but the self righteousness was too much for me to pass by.

Regards, Anthony

A good enough reason?

Well its not right to start with. See this article, http://www.westonaprice.org/knowyourfats/lowfatcapitalism.html

Unfortunately it seems that this puritan low fat diet has more to do with a desire to be seen to be exercising personal restraint in the consumption of resources rather than doing anything about the really obscene over consumption of resources in other area's.

Did you know that its now SOY bean production that's causing deforestation in the Amazon, not beef!

See it wasn't really about beef at all. It was about the obscene desire to make commodities cheaper at any cost. So are you happy that cheap soy from the amazon be used to feed the poor?

OH and I better apologise for waving red rag at a bull but the self righteousness was too much for me to pass by.


Regards, Anthony


I see you're a WAP person. Hello. Here in the US, soybean production is primarily for livestock feed.

"Soybean meal is the main product from soybean processing, and is the primary
protein source in livestock feed. U.S. domestic soybean meal consumption
reached a record high of 28 million metric tons in 1997 (the latest data available),
an increase of 4 percent over 1996 and 32 percent over 1986. In the past decade,
annual consumption growth of soybean meal averaged 3.2 percent a year,
compared to an annual production growth of soybeans of 4.5 percent.
Total domestic soybean meal consumption accounts for about 80 percent of the
domestic soybean meal production, and this percentage has remained fairly
constant in the past decade. The USDA projects the annual consumption growth
will slow down to 2 percent in the coming decade, quite a drop from the above-
mentioned 3.2 percent for the past decade."

www.mda.state.mn.us/ams/soydieselreport.pdf

So, yes it is about meat. I know you think soy is the devil. I agree when it come to its use as animal feed. As a source of protien, I prefer legumes such as beans, chickpeas, dried peas and the like. Soy growers have a large war chest of money and are working very hard to find niches in the human food market. Soy is a good substitute for animal protien, it has been used for years in the orient and may be a good alternative to meat to some degree. Instead we are growing protien to feed to livestock to make more protien. It is a red flag if you're the one going hungry!

What about the rest of my post? No comment?

In my opinion the best most scientifically proven "diet" is the Glycemic Index diet. I put diet in quotations because it is not really a diet but an index for analyzing the merits of different carbohydrate foods. Carbs are the primary fuel for your body and the only fuel for your brain. They are also the most efficient fuel for your body because your body must preform inefficient chemical reactions on fat and protien to turn them into glycogen the source of energy for muscles, organs, and your brain.
Low carb diets do cause weight loss in the first few weeks because you use up glycogen stores in your muscles. Glycogen in the body is bound to 4 times its wieght in water. Therefore if you use up 1 gram of glycogen from your muscles you also loose 4 grams of water.
A high carbohydrate (high percentage of caloric intake mind you) is the best diet for you. But it is not enough to eat lots of carbs you have to eat good carbs, and this is where the index comes in. The glycemic index is a measure of the blood glycogen response after eating different foods. Foods with a high GI value elict a large but short spike in blood sugar soon leaving you hungry and out of fuel (glycogen being your bodies fuel as we remember). But eating low GI carbs ellicits a more gradual and prolonged rise in blood sugar. This keeps you well feeling great and makes it take a longer time to get hungry again. Rather than eating a low carb diet the researchers of the GI diet suggest eating a high carb diet but eatin low GI foods.

As far as fat goes ones your body breaks down a carb into glycogen they are all the same. Once it has been broken into glycogen sugar is pasta is potatoes is cookies. It makes no difference as far as the actually structure of the glycogen is concerned. But heres the important part if you body doesn't use up the glycogen it will be stored as fat andipose triphosphate. So by eating low GI foods that slowly release glycogen into your system not only are you getting a steadier and longer lasting fuel supply but because the release is slow you are much more likely to use up the glycogen as it comes than being flooded with it and it becoming fat.
Imagine a garden if you slowly sprinkle water over it it will absorbed and used by the plants but if you dump a swimming pool on it it will mostly run off. The same thing happens in your body except that instead of running off the extra water (food energy) becomes fat.
I highly recomend the GI "diet" to anyone. I am fairly athletic and I do the diet, it gives me more fuel and I don't run out of steam. Also understanding the Glycemic Index can give you and edge in any physical challanges by eating certain foods at certain times. It can help you last longer and recover faster. It is a scientific diet developed by university profs (actually to my surprise one of the main researchers is my childhood best friend's dad).
Don't subject your body to atikins or any of those silly fad diets the GI diet won't make you loose weight over-night but it will make you feel great and sustain your weight loss for the rest of your life.

http://www.ou.edu/class/art4910/1998/leroux/html/eight.htm

A good enough reason in itself!

However, I disagree that it is the only issue. The raising of animals for food and their slaughter is often done in a very cruel fashion. Secondly, BSE may become a health issue for more people as it shows up in the US and other areas. Thirdly, poor sanitation practices in US slaughterhouses have lead to labeling of meats r/t foodborne illnesses. Fourth, vegetarian populations have shown a longer life expectancy. Fifth, the vegetarian diet is lower in calories, higher in vitamins and nutrients than the calorie dense fat, meat based diet.

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/78/3/526S

I have gotten a real kick out of the Inuit portion of this debate. Sign me up for a truckload of blubber, sea lion offal and the like! I can hardly wait to dig in! YUK! :eek: I'm sure that is a great point of view to have. We could translate that to pork rinds, beef intestines, organ meats, road kill, dumpster diving and the like. You might as well go to the landfill in Manilla in the Phillipines for a comparative group!


You make a lot of good points in your statement. However I do have to disagree with a couple of them. First, the vegetarian diet is not necessarily lower in calories. It depends on what kind of vegetables you are consuming. If you are eating primarily leaves and greens then yes you are correct. However if you are consuming beans, potatoes, and corn, it can be just as high as the average American's diet and it is still considered to be vegetarian. Oils from plant sources can also raise your total in a hurry. You have to be consuming something with some calories or you would soon wither away to nothing but a toothpick.

Next, to be on a low-carb diet you don't have to be consuming a wheelbarrow load of animal fat on a daily basis. You don't have to focus your diet on red meat or any other type of large production farm-raised animals. Have you ever heard of fish? I mean the ocean-caught type, not the trout raised in fish farms. I don't believe that fishermen are out there shoveling fish food and fish growth hormone into the ocean to increase the rate of tuna production.

Sure you have to worry about consuming a little mercury, but look at all of the herbicides and insecticides that are added to vegetables in order to produce more and more of them. I'm still worried about what long-term effects that these may have on my body. You can buy veggies that are supposedly organically grown, and pay three times the price for them but how do you know that they are truly organic? Is there some veggie police out there on all of these farms making sure that the "organic" farmers are not adding a little something in the middle of the night? This has always been in the back of my mind ever since they came out with these. You just have to "pick your poison". If you are raising your own vegetables, you can control this but very few people do anymore. You can also use olive oil, peanut oil, and canola oil as your primary fat sources, it doesn't have to be beef tallow and lard. Just a few points for you to consider. :)

You make a lot of good points in your statement. However I do have to disagree with a few of them. First, the vegetarian diet is not necessarily lower in calories. It depends on what kind of vegetables you are consuming. If you are eating primarily leaves and greens then yes you are correct. However if you are consuming beans, potatoes, and corn, it can be just as high as the average American's diet and it is still considered to be vegetarian. Oils from plant sources can also raise your total in a hurry.

Next, to be on a low-carb diet you don't have to be consuming a wheelbarrow load of animal fat on a daily basis. Neither do you have to focus your diet on red meat or any other type of large production farm-raised animals. Have you ever heard of fish? I mean the ocean-caught type, not the trout raised in fish farms. I don't believe that fishermen are out there shoveling fish food and fish growth hormone into the ocean to increase the rate of tuna production. Sure you have to worry about consuming a little mercury, but look at all of the herbicides and insecticides that are added to vegetables in order to produce more and more of them. I'm still worried about what long-term effects that these may have on my body. You just have to "pick your poison". If you are raising your own vegetables, you can control this but very few people do anymore. You can also use olive oil, peanut oil, and canola oil as your primary fat sources, it doesn't have to be beef tallow and lard. Just a few points for you to consider. :)

Whoa, Check out the state of our worlds fisheries before thinking that eating fish is the answer to waist problems and will have no bearing on nature..Here on the east coast.. flounder, fluke,whiting,bergalls, sea bass,cod, pollock,sheepshead,porgy, weakfish are all inshore fish that are either heavy regulated or are beyond help, recreational striped bass fishermen are allowed 2 fish per day, and offshore species such as swordfish and tuna are also in dire trouble..

I enjoy eating fish now and then, but hate to see it hyped as a diet staple when eating it is not part of ones natural diet, there just aint enough to go around.

mr. freddy, you continue to make many statements not supported by any studies you can provide even though I've asked for them repeatedly. Your latest "study is really just an article written by some guy, who has mnaged to come up with just one study that supports his/your point of view and that study was 20 years ago and full of flaws that even I can see.

Why don't you tell us why your latest diet (I'm sure there have been others that excited you before you actually spent 6 months on them) would work better than simply eliminating junk foods. I'd also like to hear from you just how long you've been on your low carb diet, how much weight you've lost since you started it, and what your previous or current bodyfat percentage is. Afterall, you have provided more evidence against your opinions so all we have to go on is your personal testimonial. So let's learn something more about your personal results.


I havent seen much support for your statements either, other than comments along the lines of "this is what everyone has been doing for the past 25 years..." and "all the studies support me"...

so, please, tell us all about the flaws you found in that study from 20 years ago. the authors claim their findings have never been contradicted, and that the studies used to support the opposite view ignored the need for an athlete to acclimate to the low carb diet and to supplement with sodium and potassium.

I'd also like to see the studies that support the claims you and others have made, such as 1) your recover y time is worse on low carb diet, 2) you can only obtain 900 to 1000 calories per day on low carb 3) your aerobic performance is weakend on low carb. 4) you lose muscle mass, or whats the term? lean body mass?, when exercising on low carb.

did you gogole "Stu Middleman?" I'd love for you to explain why he can run 100 miles day after day after day if what you are saying is true. granted, he is running very slow, but still, how could points 1, 2, and 4 above still be true. not to mention the hundreds of thousands of years of human development in a world where very little sugar was available, how did our ancestors survive without your dietary advice?

and please, specific studies, not " Because I say so..."

and finally, whew..., why are you trying to make this personal? my personal experience has little to do with the validity of your position or mine...

that said, here goes:

I am 49 years old, 6' tall, I started low carbing about 4 years ago, at the time I was a whopping 230 pounds, I dropped down to 189 via low carbing and moderate exercise. Right now I am back up to 201, due to lack of exercise and too much booze and carb loading over the holidays (I always take a break when I go on vacation). As of 3 weeks ago, I decided to commit to exercising 6 days a week, without fail. So far, I've kept it up, doing 60 - 90 minutes of cardio per day, at about 60% of max, made up of a mix of stairmaster, bike machine, elliptical, and swimming. I'll also throw in some weight lifting a couple of days per week.

Yesterday, I had an off day, I ate three eggs with sausage and cheese for breakfast, salmon and asparagus for lunch, met some friends in the evening where I had 3 scotches, Macallan 12 year old, along with some chicken wings, which ended up being my dinner. Oh yeah, I had some bacon just before I went to bed.

This morning I had the same breakfast - eggs, bacon, cheese, and now I plan to do 90 minutes land cardio and 30 minutes in the pool, and some upper body weight lifting. I'll probably have some swordfish for lunch, beef for dinner, along with a salad or some other low starch vegetable smothered in butter. I'll have a couple of strawberries too, my gf bought some big juicy ones.

and I'll repeat some variation of the same for the following five days (usually without the booze, tho..). I've been doing this for a three weeks now, and see no reason why I cant do it for the rest of my life.

let me just add the most of the beef I eat, and I eat a lot, comes from grass fed beef, that I order from uswellnessmeats.com. its a good source of omega 3s, CLA, etc., the animals are well treated (well, until they meet their demise, that is..) antibiotic free, and to top it off, once you get used to it, it tastes damned good!

I'm just starting out, so the intensity level is low, but after I get a good solid base, I'll add in some higher level workouts, maybe some intervals, with a goal of eventually being able to sustan 85% effort for an hour or two. But I'm in no hurry, I'm just doing this for my health, not to win races.

btw, if I did enter a race, and i might at some point, perhaps a triathlon, I would indeed carb up for the race. a carb load on top of a body trained on a low fat regimen is a powerful thing.

anyway, now that you know my personal story, can you convince me that I would really be better off dumping giant load of sugar into my body every day?

Whoa, Check out the state of our worlds fisheries before thinking that eating fish is the answer to waist problems and will have no bearing on nature..Here on the east coast.. flounder, fluke,whiting,bergalls, sea bass,cod, pollock,sheepshead,porgy, weakfish are all inshore fish that are either heavy regulated or are beyond help, recreational striped bass fishermen are allowed 2 fish per day, and offshore species such as swordfish and tuna are also in dire trouble..

I enjoy eating fish now and then, but hate to see it hyped as a diet staple when eating it is not part of ones natural diet, there just aint enough to go around.

Eating fish is not a part of one's natural diet? It has been for an awfully long time. Ever since the caveman invented the "fishing pole" or even before then if he was quick enough with his hands.

I would never consume inshore fish, not even if you made it my last possible food source before death. That stuff is so pumped full of sewage and waste water that has been flushed and filtered at least a dozen times before they finally pump it into the ocean near the coast that it is probably dirtier than the mass-produced beef that everyone now worries so much about.

So many people nowadays think that "organically grown" must mean something like when their grandparents owned a 7 acre farm, grew their veggies without anything other than natural organic fertilizer, then put it all in the pick-up truck and took it to the state fair to sell it. It just ain't that way anymore. Even organically grown vegetables are mass produced on huge farms with CEOs looking to make as many $$$ as they possibly can. That is simply human nature with these kind of people. Line your pockets with as much green as possible (and I don't mean lettuce) and then "get out while the gettin' is good" as the saying goes. You just never know what is going on behind the scenes with anything that you do not grow in your own backyard.

Science is in favour of high-carbohydrate (as in percentage) diets specifically ones composed of whole foods with low Glycemic Index values. It seems you say at the end of your post that you train on a low fat regime. But earlier in your post you describe eating food smothered in butter and eating bacon, chicken wings, and anything else that walks for breakfast, lunch, and dinner.
The bulk of scientific knowledge points in favor of high carb diets. High carb does not mean dumping tonnes of sugar into your body. A carbohydrate can be simple or complex. But more natural unrefined carbohydrate sources are great. Refined carbs are digested and absorbed quickly creating a blood glucose spike but less refined low GI foods are absorbed slowly giving you a more gradual energy release. Starving yourself of essentail fuels while training will not help you. By eating lots of carbohydrates you are fueling yourself so you can train harder. That boost you get when you carbo load before an even is because you are used to preforming without enough fuel. If you ate well all the time you would have more energy and be able to train harder. I eat a highcarb low GI diet, I bike to and from school (9.5Km) every day rain, snow, or shine, I lift weights, run, and am starting to rock climb. I don't run out of steam during the day and when I work out I recover really quickly if I didn't eat as many Carbs I would not be able to maintain the activity level that I do without feeling tired and worn out. The reason I started eating high carb is because I was feeling low on energy and I learned about the Glycemic index so I gave it a shot.

Mr Freddy- You have in fact had very limited success losing weight on your diet. 29 pounds down to 201 pounds for 6' tall after four years? Given the amount of bodyfat you had and still have, you could be losing bodyfat just as well by exercising and eating a reasonably good diet of many types.

The support for what I've said about physiology is easily available by looking at PUBMED and there are literally dozens of studies supporting what I've said. So far I haven't received even one from you that supports reasonable exercise with the diet you preach.

The other thing is that you exercise at very low intensity, as does the Stu guy. Perhaps if you also exercise at a similar low intensity for 6 hours each day you can have results similar to his. However, if you only have 5-10 hours a week, for example, then you can improve your fitness and weight loss far more with higher intensity than what Stu is doing, and what you are currently doing.

You mentioned that you exercise at 60% of MHR (if you actually know what your MHR is). That is a veeeery low intensity. 60% of MHR is below what a real athlete would do during an easy recovery day. ~70% of MHR is fairly common.

The "study" from 20 years ago that you mentioned yesterday was conducted using similarly low intensities (62-64% of VO2max). It's worth noting that the cyclists did not get any fitter during the 4 weeks of training during the study. Their ability at this very low intensity stayed the same-something that would be possible with practically any diet over such a short term when training continues. The goal is to improve is it not? For a trained cyclist the exercise intensity in the test is at, or below a level of intensity that would lead to improvements-so not a reasonable way to evaluate a diet for trained athletes.

It sounds like you have bought into the misleading idea of the "fat burning zone." It is true that you can burn a higher percentage of fat relative to carbs at low intensities, but at higher intensities up to near 80-85% of MHR you can burn more total fat calories than while exercising in the "fat burning zone". The higher intensities will also encourage an elevation of your BMR. 60% intensity would have a minimal training effect and would be far below what is possible from higher intensity.

I invite you to do some research on your own about the many benefits of exercising more in the range of 70-85% of MHR (even though MHR is a fairly poor measure of actual exercise intensity). For starters, have a look at the two tables on this webpage that shows the various adaptations at various exercise intensities. http://www.cyclingpeakssoftware.com/levels.html

Since you mentioned the want for a "solid base", a few days a week of about 2 hours at the intensity range near 70-75% of MHR is the most effective way for most people to develop the physiological adaptations commonly associated with "base" training. Exercising below that intensity will not cause nearly as much training stimulus as you could be achieving at the higher intensity. In addition to this training you could do another 2+ days a week of weights if you like but you'll burn more fat off and improve your aerobic fitness more by doing some fairly easy intervals near 75-80% of your MHR.

Lilypad..By natural I mean eskimoes and certain Norwegian and areas of other countries that rely on certain kinds of fish for a good portion of their diet.. Here in the continental US youd be hard put to find people as reliant on fish for as they are..I recognize that in certain areas there are some but by and large fish doesnt make up a major portion of the average Americans diet..
What type of offshore fish are you eating ? As far as I know tuna, swordfish,Atlantic salmon and cod stocks are all in big trouble.. And once demand switches to another newly found fish they are put in trouble too.Id like to know what fish it is that you think is safe to eat and like to eat whose stocks are not in trouble??

Lilypad..By natural I mean eskimoes and certain Norwegian and areas of other countries that rely on certain kinds of fish for a good portion of their diet.. Here in the continental US youd be hard put to find people as reliant on fish for as they are..I recognize that in certain areas there are some but by and large fish doesnt make up a major portion of the average Americans diet..
What type of offshore fish are you eating ? As far as I know tuna, swordfish,Atlantic salmon and cod stocks are all in big trouble.. And once demand switches to another newly found fish they are put in trouble too.Id like to know what fish it is that you think is safe to eat and like to eat whose stocks are not in trouble??

My only question is: How do you know that these fish populations are constantly decreasing? Have you counted them yourself? (I don't mean that in a bad way) Do you remember back in the 1970's when everyone thought that the world's petroleum stores were about to run out? What ever happened to that controversy? It turned out that the world's oil producers were just trying to jack up the price. Nowadays people are still driving back and forth to work in their huge SUVs that get about 12 miles per gallon and still paying about as much for a gallon of gas as they were in the 70's when you compare what a dollar is worth today to what it was worth back then.

Water covers seventy percent of the earth's surface more or less. Is 30% actually consuming more than 70% can provide? I doubt it. I consume deep sea fish - primarily tuna and salmon in different forms. Sure StarKist is now trying to stick tuna in a bag to make it look more fancy and charge triple the price for it but look in the canned food aisle and you can still get it for about 50 cents a can, cheaper than that if you go to a Sam's club or similar discount club store and buy it in large quantities. I figure that if the tuna and salmon populations were really about to run out then it would be closer to $3 a can rather than 50 cents.

I am sure that there are as yet undiscovered areas where commercial fishing has not been considered just as we are continually finding new oil reserves. Until they come out with the hydrogen-powered vehicle that the average person can afford, I will still drive my car when I have to make long-distance trips and until deep-sea fish comes to a point where I can no longer afford it, I will consume it as part of my omnivorous diet. :)

My only question is: How do you know that these fish populations are constantly decreasing? Have you counted them yourself? (I don't mean that in a bad way) Do you remember back in the 1970's when everyone thought that the world's petroleum stocks were about to run out? What ever happened to that controversy? It just turned out that the world's oil producers were just trying to jack up the price. Nowadays people are still driving back and forth to work in their huge SUVs that get about 12 miles per gallon and still paying about as much for a gallon of gas as they were in the 70's when you compare what a dollar is worth today as to what it was worth back then.

Water covers seventy percent of the earth's surface more or less. Is 30% actually consuming more than 70% can provide? I doubt it. I consume deep sea fish - primarily tuna and salmon in different forms. Sure StarKist is now trying to stick tuna in a bag to make it look more fancy and charge triple the price for it but look in the canned food aisle and you can still get it for about 50 cents a can, cheaper than that if you go to a Sam's club or similar discount club store and buy it in large quantities. I figure that if the tuna and salmon populations were really about to run out then it would be closer to $3 a can rather than 50 cents.

I am sure that there are as yet undiscovered areas where commercial fishing has not been considered just as we are continually finding new oil reserves. Until they come out with the hydrogen-powered vehicle that the average person can afford, I will still drive my car when I have to make long-distance trips and until deep-sea fish comes to a point where I can no longer afford it, I will consume it as part of my omnivorous diet. :)

As concerned as you are about the processing done to various foods I'm surprised you'd eat canned tuna. Wouldn't you rather have some nice nigiri maguro or sake?
:)

As concerned as you are about the processing done to various foods I'm surprised you'd eat canned tuna. Wouldn't you rather have some nice nigiri maguro or sake?
:)

I would love some but the problem is that there aren't too many sushi bars near where I live.

I would love some but the problem is that there aren't too many sushi bars near where I live.


:( No sushi? No good.


Freshest sushi I ever had was 15 minutes after I'd caught a 60 pound tuna in the Sea Of Cortez. It was a bit too fresh.

You make a lot of good points in your statement. However I do have to disagree with a couple of them. First, the vegetarian diet is not necessarily lower in calories. It depends on what kind of vegetables you are consuming. If you are eating primarily leaves and greens then yes you are correct. However if you are consuming beans, potatoes, and corn, it can be just as high as the average American's diet and it is still considered to be vegetarian. Oils from plant sources can also raise your total in a hurry. You have to be consuming something with some calories or you would soon wither away to nothing but a toothpick.

Next, to be on a low-carb diet you don't have to be consuming a wheelbarrow load of animal fat on a daily basis. You don't have to focus your diet on red meat or any other type of large production farm-raised animals.

A vegan diet without any animal products will be lower in calories due to the bulk needed to consume equal amounts of calories and the water content of the foods. Calories of carbohydrates are 4/gram and fat is 9/gram. Protient (in the US) is primarily tied to fat. Most proponents of low carb diets push a high fat diet to induce ketosis and the studies cited here show that the levels of fat in these ketogenic diets are very high. One site, The Omnivore, advocates a very high saturated fat diet as more to what the human species evolved to eat. Low fat, low carbs will also mean low protien unless you want to eat your fish. If there were a major shift in American eating patterns of protien tomorrow the oceans would be depopulated wastelands with no life. Just look at the situation on the Grand Banks and the Atlantic Cod.

A vegan diet without any animal products will be lower in calories due to the bulk needed to consume equal amounts of calories and the water content of the foods. Calories of carbohydrates are 4/gram and fat is 9/gram. Protient (in the US) is primarily tied to fat. Most proponents of low carb diets push a high fat diet to induce ketosis and the studies cited here show that the levels of fat in these ketogenic diets are very high. One site, The Omnivore, advocates a very high saturated fat diet as more to what the human species evolved to eat. Low fat, low carbs will also mean low protien unless you want to eat your fish. If there were a major shift in American eating patterns of protien tomorrow the oceans would be depopulated wastelands with no life. Just look at the situation on the Grand Banks and the Atlantic Cod.

Even though true vegans usually consume a lot of fiber, they must be getting enough calories somehow. Perhaps it is just easier to not eat too much when you are consuming so much fiber.

Protein in the U.S. is primarily tied to fat. I will give you that one. The only thing is that it doesn't have to be. Just because people have become addicted to the taste of animal fat, doesn't mean that it has to be that way.

Everybody always wants to automatically tie the lo-carb diet to the Atkins version of it. Atkins was an idiot or, at least, ignorant. He promoted the idea that you could eat as much fat, any type of fat, that you wanted and continue this type of lifestyle for the rest of your life. He apparently did this and look what happened to him. He just would never give in to the idea that some types of fat are a lot worse for your body than other types. Maybe he had no clue about trans fats, I don't know.

You don't have to consume a lot of fat to induce ketosis, just not a lot of carbohydrates. If you want to prove this to yourself, get some of those Ketostix that diabetics have to use and test your urine after about a 20 mile ride without ingesting any carbos during this time frame. It will come out positive for the presence of ketones at some level. Ketones are produced when your body breaks down non-carbohydrate sources for energy. This occurs with both proteins and fats but when you are exercising your body shoots for fat before it does protein. During a normal workout when you have not completely depleted your glycogen stores, you will consume approximately 60% carbos, 30% fat, and 10% protein.

Once you have ingested some carbos to replenish your glycogen stores, the ketones will disappear and your test will be negative.

Don't worry about the fact that you used 10% protein. You won't lose an entire calf muscle during a twenty mile ride. This protein is easily replaced when you consume a small amount along with your replacement carbos after the ride.

As you say, eat your protein. And as I have said your fat sources do not have to be animal fats. These can come from plant sources. So many people automatically think that if you are going lo-carb then you obviously can't eat any vegetables. No, there are plenty of lo-carb veggies out there too.

There are also sources of lo-fat protein on land. It is just that so many people out there now reject the idea. Have you ever tried deer meat? Ummmmm good, and virtually no fat if you prepare it correctly. You don't see a lot of overweight deer out there running around in the woods. I usually get two each year, have it prepared and wrapped locally, stick it in my chest freezer, and use it gradually over about a six-month period. There are so many white tail deer in my state that they are trying to entice hunters to take more than they do and to take more does to keep the population under control. Hunters that like to hunt deer but not eat it can donate it at nearly any check-in site in the state and it will be used to feed people that do not have enough to eat. It looks like they are getting a better diet than the people that live on filet mignon and T-bone steaks. Imagine that.

If they wanted to, they could raise deer on open range land in the west (there is still a lot of it out there) let them eat grass and corn rather than ground-up cow and dog meat like they do on high production beef farms and sell it for a fortune. I guess that no one with any money to invest in a project like this has ever thought of the idea yet.

I am not an advocate of staying on a lo-carb diet for your entire life either. I just do it off-and-on myself. I primarily use it just as a means of keeping my weight under control during the off-season when I am not out pushing the pedals as much as I might like to be. It is just hard to get any real mileage during the winter season here. :)

I see you're a WAP person. Hello. Here in the US, soybean production is primarily for livestock feed.

"Soybean meal is the main product from soybean processing, and is the primary
protein source in livestock feed. U.S. domestic soybean meal consumption
reached a record high of 28 million metric tons in 1997 (the latest data available),
an increase of 4 percent over 1996 and 32 percent over 1986. In the past decade,
annual consumption growth of soybean meal averaged 3.2 percent a year,
compared to an annual production growth of soybeans of 4.5 percent.
Total domestic soybean meal consumption accounts for about 80 percent of the
domestic soybean meal production, and this percentage has remained fairly
constant in the past decade. The USDA projects the annual consumption growth
will slow down to 2 percent in the coming decade, quite a drop from the above-
mentioned 3.2 percent for the past decade."

www.mda.state.mn.us/ams/soydieselreport.pdf

So, yes it is about meat. I know you think soy is the devil. I agree when it come to its use as animal feed. As a source of protien, I prefer legumes such as beans, chickpeas, dried peas and the like. Soy growers have a large war chest of money and are working very hard to find niches in the human food market. Soy is a good substitute for animal protien, it has been used for years in the orient and may be a good alternative to meat to some degree. Instead we are growing protien to feed to livestock to make more protien. It is a red flag if you're the one going hungry!

What about the rest of my post? No comment?

Yes Hello. What do I say about it. Well its just plain wrong and infact that first excert claiming that soy meal is the main product of soy production isn't even supported by your hyperlink so you should read your own refferences first.

Soy OIL is the primary product of soy production. Soy meal is whats left over from the production of oil and its a waste product actually. Rather than dumping it they sell it cheaply as animal feed so it has NOTHING to do with beef. Cattle are just being used as waste disposal units but they would much prefer to be eating good ol grass.

Soy oil is EVERYWHERE in proccessed food. If something has "vegetable oil" on the ingredient list but doesn't say what sort of vegetable oil it is then odds on its mostly soy oil with maybe small amounts of some other vegetable oil mixed in. So next time you go to buy some TVP realize that its a waste by product your eating that has been cleverly marketed as a health food. See, http://www.westonaprice.org/soy/promotion.html

So back to where I started. This anti meat, anti fat propoganda has nothing to do with the scientific facts which is why its still around despite the lack of scientific evidence. Its about a perception thats been spread that its a sin to consume animal foods and fats so the facts don't usualy have a chance to get in anywhere. Yes, don't feed cattle grains or soy beans. They should be eating grass anyway and you know the neat thing here is that grass grows quite well on pasture land that's not rich enough to support crops. Kind of neat realy so if you want to know what Gods way is then you had better STUDY what Gods way is first before making it up.

Regards, Anthony

I'm just starting out, so the intensity level is low, but after I get a good solid base, I'll add in some higher level workouts, maybe some intervals, with a goal of eventually being able to sustan 85% effort for an hour or two. But I'm in no hurry, I'm just doing this for my health, not to win races.

btw, if I did enter a race, and i might at some point, perhaps a triathlon, I would indeed carb up for the race. a carb load on top of a body trained on a low fat regimen is a powerful thing.
?

I dont get it. If your way is so much better, and the way humans are 'meant to be' according to you, WHY do you have to resort to the 'evil' carb way in order to do anything that requires actual energy expenditure ? You ride at a 60% heart rate ? I think my hrm shuts off at that low of a rate.

I doubt that our ancestors the caveman you keep talking about told his wife there would be no meat for 3 days cause he neded to 'carb up' before he chased one down. I use a balanced diet. You told me that is evil since people cant stay on it, and your way is better casue they feel less hungry. But you talk about how you fall off the wagon over holidays etc.

Except my balanced diet is not somethign that I fall off of. Becasue i can eat everything. There is no extremes in my way of living. The only extreme is I dont eat anythign in excess. I dont force my body in certain states by cutting off whole food chains. I eat from all of them.

And the reason why people ask you how your doing personally instead of just reading your favorite hyperlinked website. Because otherwise its just a web site. I can scour the net and find web sites promoting both sides of every argument in history dang near. We landed on the moon, we didnt land on the moon, the holocost happened, it didnt happen, carbs are good, carbs are bad......

Untill you yourself show it works 100% your just someone whos bought into one web sites theory and are now pushing it like a bible thumper, and it hasnt even worked for you yet.
I base my eating philosohy on common sense. And guess what, im not 'working at it' like you are. I dont fall off the wagon over holidays, and I am at my so called bmi target weight.

Guess i win cause mine actually works instead of just pointing to a website that claims it works. Cause you know, everythign you read on the internet is true.

Yes Hello. What do I say about it. Well its just plain wrong and infact that first excert claiming that soy meal is the main product of soy production isn't even supported by your hyperlink so you should read your own refferences first.

Soy OIL is the primary product of soy production. Soy meal is whats left over from the production of oil and its a waste product actually. Rather than dumping it they sell it cheaply as animal feed so it has NOTHING to do with beef. Cattle are just being used as waste disposal units but they would much prefer to be eating good ol grass.

Soy oil is EVERYWHERE in proccessed food. If something has "vegetable oil" on the ingredient list but doesn't say what sort of vegetable oil it is then odds on its mostly soy oil with maybe small amounts of some other vegetable oil mixed in. So next time you go to buy some TVP realize that its a waste by product your eating that has been cleverly marketed as a health food. See, http://www.westonaprice.org/soy/promotion.html

So back to where I started. This anti meat, anti fat propoganda has nothing to do with the scientific facts which is why its still around despite the lack of scientific evidence. Its about a perception thats been spread that its a sin to consume animal foods and fats so the facts don't usualy have a chance to get in anywhere. Yes, don't feed cattle grains or soy beans. They should be eating grass anyway and you know the neat thing here is that grass grows quite well on pasture land that's not rich enough to support crops. Kind of neat realy so if you want to know what Gods way is then you had better STUDY what Gods way is first before making it up.

Regards, Anthony

I went back a reread the article. I'm not sure how you think I misunderstand it. It further states:

"Soybean meal is the main product from soybean processing, and is the primary
protein source in livestock feed. U.S. domestic soybean meal consumption
reached a record high of 28 million metric tons in 1997 (the latest data available),
an increase of 4 percent over 1996 and 32 percent over 1986. In the past decade,
annual consumption growth of soybean meal averaged 3.2 percent a year,
compared to an annual production growth of soybeans of 4.5 percent.
Total domestic soybean meal consumption accounts for about 80 percent of the
domestic soybean meal production, and this percentage has remained fairly
constant in the past decade. The USDA projects the annual consumption growth
will slow down to 2 percent in the coming decade, quite a drop from the above-
mentioned 3.2 percent for the past decade."


"Soybean oil is the second major product from soybean processing, and has been
used mostly as edible oil. It is the largest source of edible fats and oils in the
world. Soybean oil accounts for 82 percent of all edible oils produced in the U.S.
About 96 percent of the domestically consumed soybean oil is used for cooking
and salad oil, shortening, margarines, and other food uses."

Soy meal is number 1, soy oil is number 2; according to the article. Go back and reread it yourself and see if it is you or me with the problem interpreting the results.

Using land to grass feed cattle in the US is a primarily a cow-calf operation. Cattle are then taken to feed lots for fattening. The hog operations are confinement. They use soy to supplement protien and to speed hogs to market. Dairy operation will really change a crop mix in an area. I've seen whole areas switch from one type of crop to another in order to supply very large dairies. There are dairies that have as many as 5000 cattle on each one. Dairy cattle fed on free-range (at least in the western US) is not practicable. The reasons dairy are locating here is that the climate is better for year round production. There is no way that dairy cattle can be sustained on the dry western ranges.

Lillypad~

Have you ever seen the west? Free range deer live and die by the climate, predators and such. The west is a vast open area where the deer population directly competes with cattle and sheep for space and water. Ranchers do sell permits to hunt the animals here where I live. The drought in the west has been very hard on them. The policies of the Game and Fish agencies also contributes to the pressures on the deer population. Mountain lions (in my area) are now hunted with a license and their population has risen dramatically. They kill a deer a week. If all the lean meat eaters decided to eat deer, elk, antelope, bighorn sheep and all they would be extinct.

The taste difference between grass-fed and lot-fed beef is another issue that pushes the industry to lot-feed them. Milk production rises dramatically when rations are adjusted and so each farmer, wanting to make a profit does what he sees makes him the most money.

Until the consumer demands a different product economics change, I don't see a big change in the industry. Our 'protien driven' agricultural economy is the primary contributer to these problems here in the US.

What does "balance" mean?

Were all for balance, everyone of us but what balance means is at the heart of our differing arguments.

Here's a good article on the subject of macronutrient levels/balance, http://www.westonaprice.org/basicnutrition/macronutrientland.html

When I say that I have a high fat diet I haven't tallied anything up so that I can say what my macronutrient ratio's are. I'm just being honest because you only have to have a little fat in your diet to blow away the supposedly desirable level of 30%.

Volume wise fats have a lot of calories at 9 calories per gram while protein and carbohydrates are only 4 calories per gram. Now it gets better. Fats don't have much in the way of water or fibre in them so a gram of fat is pretty much a gram of fat. Carbohydrates and protein on the other hand have water and fibre in them so a gram isn't a gram when your counting calories.

So a protein/fat/carbohydrate ratio of say 30/30/40 while seeming to be perfectly reasonable and balanced isn't what it seems. To have as little as 30% fat in your diet is to eat like a sparrow and isn't as balanced as it seems.

If your someone who beleives that they eat a balanced diet that includes plenty of carbohydrates and a healthy but not excessive amount of fats whether it be butter or olive oil then you may be supprised to learn that your consuming way more than 30% of your calories from fat.

Regards, Anthony

some more 'soy' reading:

http://www.theomnivore.com/Whole_Soy_Story_BR.html
http://www.soyonlineservice.co.nz/
http://www.mothering.com/articles/growing_child/food/soy_story.html
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/foodmonthly/story/0%2C9950%2C1342291%2C00.html
http://www.westonaprice.org/soy/isoflavones.html

I went back a reread the article. I'm not sure how you think I misunderstand it. It further states:

"Soybean meal is the main product from soybean processing, and is the primary
protein source in livestock feed. U.S. domestic soybean meal consumption
reached a record high of 28 million metric tons in 1997 (the latest data available),
an increase of 4 percent over 1996 and 32 percent over 1986. In the past decade,
annual consumption growth of soybean meal averaged 3.2 percent a year,
compared to an annual production growth of soybeans of 4.5 percent.
Total domestic soybean meal consumption accounts for about 80 percent of the
domestic soybean meal production, and this percentage has remained fairly
constant in the past decade. The USDA projects the annual consumption growth
will slow down to 2 percent in the coming decade, quite a drop from the above-
mentioned 3.2 percent for the past decade."


"Soybean oil is the second major product from soybean processing, and has been
used mostly as edible oil. It is the largest source of edible fats and oils in the
world. Soybean oil accounts for 82 percent of all edible oils produced in the U.S.
About 96 percent of the domestically consumed soybean oil is used for cooking
and salad oil, shortening, margarines, and other food uses."

Soy meal is number 1, soy oil is number 2; according to the article. Go back and reread it yourself and see if it is you or me with the problem interpreting the results.

Using land to grass feed cattle in the US is a primarily a cow-calf operation. Cattle are then taken to feed lots for fattening. The hog operations are confinement. They use soy to supplement protien and to speed hogs to market. Dairy operation will really change a crop mix in an area. I've seen whole areas switch from one type of crop to another in order to supply very large dairies. There are dairies that have as many as 5000 cattle on each one. Dairy cattle fed on free-range (at least in the western US) is not practicable. The reasons dairy are locating here is that the climate is better for year round production. There is no way that dairy cattle can be sustained on the dry western ranges.


Here's another quote from the article.

II. Domestic consumption of soybeans and soybean products

More than two-thirds of U.S. soybean production is consumed domestically,
primarily in crushing and feed use. Since the early 1980’s, domestic consumption
of soybeans has increased by 43 percent, reaching 1.8 billion bushels in 1997.
Domestic soybean utilization includes crushing, feed, seed, food, and industrial or
non-food uses. The annual rate of increase of aggregated consumption averaged
3 percent in the past two decades. However, in the next 10 years, the annual rate
of increase will slow down to about 1.5 percent, based on the forecast by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture.

"Crushing" means oil production. The article is a bit of propoganda anyway so you need some background knowledge. Oil is what they make there money out of. Animal feed is all well and good and maybe VOLUME wise the soy meal is larger. This would make sense but the most econimicaly important aspect is oil. Remember these are public documents and there in the business of selling there product. They want to boost sales of soy meal so there not going to say anything bad about it are they?

The Weston A Price Foundation is against big feedlot operations on many grounds and is in support of more local farmers. There are numerous issues to be dealt with but its primarily about going back to the way God/Mother Nature intended.

Regards, Anthony

Here's another quote from the article.

II. Domestic consumption of soybeans and soybean products

More than two-thirds of U.S. soybean production is consumed domestically,
primarily in crushing and feed use. Since the early 1980’s, domestic consumption
of soybeans has increased by 43 percent, reaching 1.8 billion bushels in 1997.
Domestic soybean utilization includes crushing, feed, seed, food, and industrial or
non-food uses. The annual rate of increase of aggregated consumption averaged
3 percent in the past two decades. However, in the next 10 years, the annual rate
of increase will slow down to about 1.5 percent, based on the forecast by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture.

"Crushing" means oil production. The article is a bit of propoganda anyway so you need some background knowledge. Oil is what they make there money out of. Animal feed is all well and good and maybe VOLUME wise the soy meal is larger. This would make sense but the most econimicaly important aspect is oil. Remember these are public documents and there in the business of selling there product. They want to boost sales of soy meal so there not going to say anything bad about it are they?

The Weston A Price Foundation is against big feedlot operations on many grounds and is in support of more local farmers. There are numerous issues to be dealt with but its primarily about going back to the way God/Mother Nature intended.

Regards, Anthony

I disagree:

"The numbers are amazing when looking at the percentages of growth in demand for soybeans, corn, wheat and cotton since 1990. Globally, soybean demand has grown almost 80 percent over that period. Corn demand has grown by 30 percent. Wheat and cotton demand has grown less than 10 percent.

“The reason for this is that incomes are rising around the world. That means more consuming of beef, poultry, pork and fish. Consequently, more soybean meal is needed to produce those things. This is also the driving force behind soybean acres going into South America at such a rapid pace. Poultry and pork consumption are growing the fastest and by 2015, global poultry consumption will pass pork. That will be important to growers because chickens eat a whole lot of soybeans,” says Baize.

“Even with the extra acres that have been planted, we're still going to see a carryout this year that will be at rock bottom. In my opinion, I don't think carryout will be more than 100 million bushels.”

Soybean meal consumption is up 86 percent in the last 12 years. Consumption of meal shows an average of around 5 million tons of growth in demand annually. In that period, there wasn't one year that global demand didn't grow.

Soybean oil consumption is also interesting, says Baize. For the most part, soybean oil is a by-product of soybean meal production. When meal is produced, the oil is left over. Soybean oil normally finds its way into the market by pricing it's way there. Very seldom do you see soybeans being crushed for the oil content although there are some rare exceptions like in India and China."

http://southeastfarmpress.com/mag/farming_world_soybean_consumption/index.html

Soy meal is the primary product and it is being used to increase animal protien production. Small production family farms cannot compete with the tastes of consumers. Consumers want to eat their protien with lots of fat, they want to be able to eat it and get skinny. They want it at a low price and until the 'prophets' of the low carb craze cannot sell their message to the masses this trend will continue and we will get fatter and fatter and follow whoever is telling us we can eat all we want of the fat we want and be skinny.

Whether or not there is a conspiracy is not for me to decide. What I see is all arouond us. Image makers selling beauty and skinny, big food industry making over processed food to 'add value' to primary products and creating a 'need'. Over-busy consumers with too much stress, debt, worry and no time buying these products and wondering why they are fat. A perfect set-up for the pied pipers of easy getting skinny who want to sell us their ideas (they want their share of this big pie) and it is hard to tell who is driving what or if there are just a bunch of smart guys all finding a way to make their own money in the process by preying on human nature.

Low-carb is not "new", it is just that it fell by the wayside for a long time and people have recently caught onto it again. It was around more than 30 years ago. It was just then people didn't have a clue as to the fact that some fats are better than others. (They were still cooking their baked goods using lard ).

Your brain is the only part of your body that truly needs glucose in order to function. The rest of the body can use ketones (the product of fat breakdown) as its source of energy and very quickly starts using them as soon as you go on this type of diet. There are plenty of low-carbo veggies out there that you can use as a fiber source.

If these concepts were not true, then everyone that has tried lo-carb dieting would be dead by now, having had no energy source in order to survive.


Wow. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Your brain is not the only organ that needs glucose (how about your liver?) Also, let me help clarify how a person eating low carb, doesn't die. Our bodies are wonderful dynamic things, so much so that we can produce glucose from various sources (think fat and protein) via processes such as gluconeogenisis and glycolysis. However, both of these safety nets occur "on demand", ketones are the byproduct of this. To the dismay of many a low carb dieter, our bodies don't "make some and store it for later" ensuring that a low carb dieter won't break any land speed records. To make matters worse, the constant state of dehydration and inability of load your muscle with glycogen, essential for cycling, spells bad news (I won't get into the increase prevelence of diagnosis such as kindey stones, gall stones, bowel obstructions,etc..). The diet is a fad for a reason and is waayy more difficult to follow that the USDA guidlines. The truth was spoken earlier in this thread. People eat way too much fast food, exercise too little and don't follow the already established recommendations.

Well regarding the question of where most of the soy goes I will have to admit that I'm getting conflicting information from the WAPF site. One article say's this and another article say's something different. I will try e-mailing someone at some stage.

However WAPF is against feeding soy to livestock so the question is a bit academic. You may think that soy is essential or the whole thing will fall down and here I will disagree. I live in Australia and while some cattle is feedlot fed there's still a LOT of cattle around here on grass. I live near the city edge so I've got cattle grazing only a few Km's from me. All the chicken around is unfortunately fed grain, even the supposedly free range organic ones so I don't eat chicken 99% of the time.

Humans raised animals before soy and they will raise animals after soy. Soy is a tempory exploration down a wrong turn. If we want to learn how to do things right we need to study the master. Mother Nature/God and not beleive that we know better.

Same with the diet question. We should have studied the master before we started thinking that we knew better because we don't.

Regards, Anthony

I disagree:


Soy meal is the primary product and it is being used to increase animal protien production. Small production family farms cannot compete with the tastes of consumers. Consumers want to eat their protien with lots of fat, they want to be able to eat it and get skinny. They want it at a low price and until the 'prophets' of the low carb craze cannot sell their message to the masses this trend will continue and we will get fatter and fatter and follow whoever is telling us we can eat all we want of the fat we want and be skinny.

Whether or not there is a conspiracy is not for me to decide. What I see is all arouond us. Image makers selling beauty and skinny, big food industry making over processed food to 'add value' to primary products and creating a 'need'. Over-busy consumers with too much stress, debt, worry and no time buying these products and wondering why they are fat. A perfect set-up for the pied pipers of easy getting skinny who want to sell us their ideas (they want their share of this big pie) and it is hard to tell who is driving what or if there are just a bunch of smart guys all finding a way to make their own money in the process by preying on human nature.

Now this would be just funny if you weren't putting it over in such a serious way. The low fat dominating dogma has crashed into failure with skyrocketing obesity and all the followers of this way can do is shout that the failure is with peoples non compliance with the correct food laws. Any alternative view is the devil wishing to steal souls.

It's too much. We need science but science is embarrased by the fact that its been siting on its hands all this time. It let the genie out of the bottle (low fat dogma) but was also too embarassed to tell us when the the evidence didn't materialise.

Regards, Anthony

(I won't get into the increase prevelence of diagnosis such as kindey stones, gall stones, bowel obstructions,etc..).


please dont, because it isnt true, there's not a bit of science behind these notions, nor most of the rest of your post...

Mr Freddy- You have in fact had very limited success losing weight on your diet. 29 pounds down to 201 pounds for 6' tall after four years? Given the amount of bodyfat you had and still have, you could be losing bodyfat just as well by exercising and eating a reasonably good diet of many types.

I lost all of that in the first 6 months or so, my weight stabilized from that point on. of course i could lose more and need to, but until now, I wasnt willing to eat less or cut back on the booze or exercise more.




The support for what I've said about physiology is easily available by looking at PUBMED and there are literally dozens of studies supporting what I've said. So far I haven't received even one from you that supports reasonable exercise with the diet you preach.

The other thing is that you exercise at very low intensity, as does the Stu guy. Perhaps if you also exercise at a similar low intensity for 6 hours each day you can have results similar to his. However, if you only have 5-10 hours a week, for example, then you can improve your fitness and weight loss far more with higher intensity than what Stu is doing, and what you are currently doing.

You mentioned that you exercise at 60% of MHR (if you actually know what your MHR is). That is a veeeery low intensity. 60% of MHR is below what a real athlete would do during an easy recovery day. ~70% of MHR is fairly common.

The "study" from 20 years ago that you mentioned yesterday was conducted using similarly low intensities (62-64% of VO2max). It's worth noting that the cyclists did not get any fitter during the 4 weeks of training during the study. Their ability at this very low intensity stayed the same-something that would be possible with practically any diet over such a short term when training continues. The goal is to improve is it not? For a trained cyclist the exercise intensity in the test is at, or below a level of intensity that would lead to improvements-so not a reasonable way to evaluate a diet for trained athletes.

It sounds like you have bought into the misleading idea of the "fat burning zone." It is true that you can burn a higher percentage of fat relative to carbs at low intensities, but at higher intensities up to near 80-85% of MHR you can burn more total fat calories than while exercising in the "fat burning zone". The higher intensities will also encourage an elevation of your BMR. 60% intensity would have a minimal training effect and would be far below what is possible from higher intensity.

I invite you to do some research on your own about the many benefits of exercising more in the range of 70-85% of MHR (even though MHR is a fairly poor measure of actual exercise intensity). For starters, have a look at the two tables on this webpage that shows the various adaptations at various exercise intensities. http://www.cyclingpeakssoftware.com/levels.html

Since you mentioned the want for a "solid base", a few days a week of about 2 hours at the intensity range near 70-75% of MHR is the most effective way for most people to develop the physiological adaptations commonly associated with "base" training. Exercising below that intensity will not cause nearly as much training stimulus as you could be achieving at the higher intensity. In addition to this training you could do another 2+ days a week of weights if you like but you'll burn more fat off and improve your aerobic fitness more by doing some fairly easy intervals near 75-80% of your MHR.


so you are recommending that a sedentary person at age 49 who is at least 20 pounds overweight hit the gym and start pounding it out at 70 - 75% intensity, right from the get-go. reallly? if you were my trainer, I'd fire you on the spot, ha haaa....

anyway, I realize the benefits of exercising at higher intensity levels, for one thing, I simply like to do it, it feels great. but not till I prep my (slightly) old bones with several weeks of lower intensity work.

I have no opinion on the "fat buring zone" issue, but I'll let you know if low intensity work for a couple hours per day has any effect on my weight, in a few months from now.

I dont get it. If your way is so much better, and the way humans are 'meant to be' according to you, WHY do you have to resort to the 'evil' carb way in order to do anything that requires actual energy expenditure ? You ride at a 60% heart rate ? I think my hrm shuts off at that low of a rate.

ah, I do get tired of repeating this, but until 10000 years ago, very little sugar was available to humans and our prehuman ancestors. You body is designed for to function on fats and proteins and small amounts of very low sugar carbs. Now we've added starchy vegetables and grains and way way worse, refined carbs. sigh... yes, yes, yes, you can poison yourself with sugar to get a slight performance advantage, but considering the rise in cancer, diabetes, heart disease, alzhiemers, etc. that are closely associated with the increased consumption in carbs, is it worth it to you?



I doubt that our ancestors the caveman you keep talking about told his wife there would be no meat for 3 days cause he neded to 'carb up' before he chased one down. I use a balanced diet. You told me that is evil since people cant stay on it, and your way is better casue they feel less hungry. But you talk about how you fall off the wagon over holidays etc.

Except my balanced diet is not somethign that I fall off of. Becasue i can eat everything. There is no extremes in my way of living. The only extreme is I dont eat anythign in excess. I dont force my body in certain states by cutting off whole food chains. I eat from all of them.

but you DO force your body into releasing way more insulin than you need, due to your overconsumption of carbs. from my point of view, and from a historical point of view, yours is the exteme diet.




And the reason why people ask you how your doing personally instead of just reading your favorite hyperlinked website. Because otherwise its just a web site. I can scour the net and find web sites promoting both sides of every argument in history dang near. We landed on the moon, we didnt land on the moon, the holocost happened, it didnt happen, carbs are good, carbs are bad......

you got a point about the net, but still, indulge me, why not google the following athletes, whose experiencs disprove just about everything you vehement anti low carbers claim: stuart middleman, stuart trager, anthony colpo.




Untill you yourself show it works 100% your just someone whos bought into one web sites theory and are now pushing it like a bible thumper, and it hasnt even worked for you yet.
I base my eating philosohy on common sense. And guess what, im not 'working at it' like you are. I dont fall off the wagon over holidays, and I am at my so called bmi target weight.

I know a few alcoholics, and I am sure they would agree that drinking everyday is better than falling off the wagon a couple of time a year...



Guess i win cause mine actually works instead of just pointing to a website that claims it works. Cause you know, everythign you read on the internet is true.

yeah, yeah, you win, sure, if you say so...

you got a point about the net, but still, indulge me, why not google the following athletes, whose experiencs disprove just about everything you vehement anti low carbers claim: stuart middleman, stuart trager, anthony colpo...http://www.theomnivore.com/home.html ...and don't forget that Colpo's stuff is ALL carefully referenced, which probably sets him aside from most websites. He said he was going to write something soon about the conundrums faced by endurance athletes.

you got a point about the net, but still, indulge me, why not google the following athletes, whose experiencs disprove just about everything you vehement anti low carbers claim: stuart middleman, stuart trager, anthony colpo.
..

First, im not an anti-low carber. Im anti extreme-anything. All the diets that force people to follow strict percentages and eliminate whole categories of healthy foods. Low car, no carb, no fat, green only, etc. I dont vehemently claim you cant do anything. Your the one who said you couldnt do a race without dropping your own touted diet for a high carb one for 3 days. I mearly state a balanced diet of healthy choices is better than any diet that is more narrow focused one.

Secondly. Wow, you can name 3 atheletes who perform with low carb diets. So if i google the millions of atheletes who perform with high carb diets im to ignore those ?

No one is going to convince the other their wrong. I say we meet back here in 350 years and see who was right.

First, im not an anti-low carber. Im anti extreme-anything. All the diets that force people to follow strict percentages and eliminate whole categories of healthy foods. Low car, no carb, no fat, green only, etc. I dont vehemently claim you cant do anything. Your the one who said you couldnt do a race without dropping your own touted diet for a high carb one for 3 days. I mearly state a balanced diet of healthy choices is better than any diet that is more narrow focused one.

Secondly. Wow, you can name 3 atheletes who perform with low carb diets. So if i google the millions of atheletes who perform with high carb diets im to ignore those ?

No one is going to convince the other their wrong. I say we meet back here in 350 years and see who was right.

I was just checking out trager's ironman results, in the 300s out of about 1500 finishers, and 35th in his class, not too shabby... also came across an article where he seems to agree that athletes need more carbs, he advocates eating things like peanut butter on toast, but only after workouts and watching your carbs the rest of the 24 hours... and no powerbars!

From the research thats been done and the facts presented by both sides I see it as this. Low carb or low fat is a healthy way to go if your body is on good shape. The problem seems to be, and the evidence supports this: is if one is overwieght because they eat too much carbs or fat that they are putting themselves at risk for all sorts of diseases related to obesity. We can all find studies that support our point of view that one is better than the other. I have read of professional body builders that will only consume plant materials, and I have heard of ultra marathoners that eat primairly lean meats. I think that this goes to show that both ways can be used to support a healthy life style; the main problem is being over weight.

I have lost weight moderating my fat intake and increasing good carbs, such as fruits and vegtables. Yet other people have had success decreasing carbs. And others will eat no meat.

At the beginning of this thread I thought that low carbing was bad. But this seems not to be the case. I do not agree with it because it does not work for me. What I do agree with is losing weight so that the effects of obesity are not going to cause me ill. I think when it comes to health as related to this subject that obesity or lack of is the major health determinant.

If you choose to look at the subject of low fat and low carbs whithout the tint of your personal bias you may see that there are scientific claims that support and refute both sides. But what the science seems to confirm in all cases is that is better to be healthy then obese. And that obesity is the cause of IHD, diabetes melitus, PVD and all other sorts of things that seem to be related to being obese.

Thank you

so you are recommending that a sedentary person at age 49 who is at least 20 pounds overweight hit the gym and start pounding it out at 70 - 75% intensity, right from the get-go. reallly? if you were my trainer, I'd fire you on the spot, ha haaa....

I didn't realize you were in such bad physical condition and still very much a beginner, which is what you are if you can't even handle 70% of MHR. It's more obvious now whay you'd cling to a diet that is far from optimal for a person who exercises regularly. You are a sedentary person so you can survive with a diet that could be appropriate for such a person.

If a trainer told me to use an antiquated measure of exertion like % of MHR I'd fire them on the spot. I'd tell you all the reasons but they would be lost on you. Let us know if you're still exercising 7 hours a week 2 months from now, with at least 2 hours of that time at an intensity above 75% of your MHR.

Expert beginner. An oxymoron.

so you are recommending that a sedentary person at age 49 who is at least 20 pounds overweight hit the gym and start pounding it out at 70 - 75% intensity, .

Id recomend that a sedentary person at age 49 who is at least 20 pounds overweight and is unable to exercise at 70-75% intensity NOT go to a forum filled with thousands of people who race and train daily, and have for years, and tell them they are eating wrong.

I didn't realize you were in such bad physical condition and still very much a beginner, which is what you are if you can't even handle 70% of MHR. It's more obvious now whay you'd cling to a diet that is far from optimal for a person who exercises regularly. You are a sedentary person so you can survive with a diet that could be appropriate for such a person.

If a trainer told me to use an antiquated measure of exertion like % of MHR I'd fire them on the spot. I'd tell you all the reasons but they would be lost on you. Let us know if you're still exercising 7 hours a week 2 months from now, with at least 2 hours of that time at an intensity above 75% of your MHR.

Expert beginner. An oxymoron.


there you go with the insulting tone again.... you really are a cranky s.o.b., arent you?

I'm not in THAT bad of shape... just erring on the side of caution. for one thing I'm getting myself into the habit of working out 6 days a week, without fail. I used to try for 5, maybe get 4, or 3..., and let it slip for a week or two or three... and I'm hitting closer to 15 hours a week, not 7.

I'll survive just fine with my diet, I dont know when I'll be at 75%, dont really care... in fact, I'm not completely sure of my MHR, I'd have to hit it all out for a few minutes to find out, and I think it's wise to wait to try that till I'm in better shape. for now I'll use that age based forumla, plus my own gut feel.

and again, my specific case has nothing whatsoever to do with the validity of the low carb approach for athletes.

I didn't realize you were in such bad physical condition and still very much a beginner, which is what you are if you can't even handle 70% of MHR. .


btw, I am pretty sure I could handle 70% easily, but possibly not for two hours a day... as it is, I'm in week 3 and already feeling the urge to bump it up a bit...

Id recomend that a sedentary person at age 49 who is at least 20 pounds overweight and is unable to exercise at 70-75% intensity NOT go to a forum filled with thousands of people who race and train daily, and have for years, and tell them they are eating wrong.

you got a point there, ha haaa..... you sugar eaters sure are hostile, tho..

although I was just backing up the original poster in this thread, who announced he intended to low carb and cycle, and who was promptly jumped on by loads of people who race and train daily and have for years... people who so far have only provided easily debunkable myths and legends to support their arguments.

although I was just backing up the original poster in this thread, who announced he intended to low carb and cycle, and who was promptly jumped on by loads of people who race and train daily and have for years... people who so far have only provided easily debunkable myths and legends to support their arguments.

Lawdy. You make no sense. Is personal anectdotal evidence all you value? How about the guy who was 5'10", 240 lbs. in his late teens. He decided to make a change so he studied biochemistry, learned fat metabolism, and chose a low-fat, high-fiber, low-calorie diet. He simultaneously started to exercise. When he started, he ran one block and puked. The next day he ran two blocks before puking.

In six months of low calorie dieting he lost nearly 80 lbs. He then eased back into a more balanced approach to eating. He continued to improve his fitness, and as soon as he had lost enough weight to be comfortable on a bike he started cycling. Within the next year he did the annual Seattle to Portland ride (200+ miles in a day) as stoker on a tandem.

Fast forward about 10 years. He's a category 2 racing cyclist, and on this fine day in January he is drawing quickly near to his race weight of 153 lbs. He rode over 12,000 miles in 2005. He placed well in several races last season, and might upgrade this year.

If the OP wants a proven method to lose weight and get really, really fit, voilá. The path has been set. It's a path that requires willpower and discipline (unlike "eat anything you want" fad diets) and intrinsic motivation (unlike "get praise for success and shame for failure" post-on-the-internet schemes). But it works, and it's grounded in the best understanding of our finest scientists and doctors. What else do you want?

Lawdy. You make no sense. Is personal anectdotal evidence all you value? How about the guy who was 5'10", 240 lbs. in his late teens. He decided to make a change so he studied biochemistry, learned fat metabolism, and chose a low-fat, high-fiber, low-calorie diet. He simultaneously started to exercise. When he started, he ran one block and puked. The next day he ran two blocks before puking.

In six months of low calorie dieting he lost nearly 80 lbs. He then eased back into a more balanced approach to eating. He continued to improve his fitness, and as soon as he had lost enough weight to be comfortable on a bike he started cycling. Within the next year he did the annual Seattle to Portland ride (200+ miles in a day) as stoker on a tandem.

Fast forward about 10 years. He's a category 2 racing cyclist, and on this fine day in January he is drawing quickly near to his race weight of 153 lbs. He rode over 12,000 miles in 2005. He placed well in several races last season, and might upgrade this year.

If the OP wants a proven method to lose weight and get really, really fit, voilá. The path has been set. It's a path that requires willpower and discipline (unlike "eat anything you want" fad diets) and intrinsic motivation (unlike "get praise for success and shame for failure" post-on-the-internet schemes). But it works, and it's grounded in the best understanding of our finest scientists and doctors. What else do you want?


Sounds way too hard. Please pass the bacon. I gotta fuel up for my "workout".

Sounds way too hard. Please pass the bacon. I gotta fuel up for my "workout".


ah, we have the "low carb is bad because it's easy" argument. yes, low carbing is easier, because you are giving you body what it wants, nutritious animal fats and protein, along with some healthy low carb vegetables, and even some fruit. Your body rewards you by turning off the hunger switch. in fact, every low carber I know reports that he/she feels pretty damn good. almost all the time. and this is somehow a bad thing?

Lawdy. You make no sense. Is personal anectdotal evidence all you value? How about the guy who was 5'10", 240 lbs. in his late teens. He decided to make a change so he studied biochemistry, learned fat metabolism, and chose a low-fat, high-fiber, low-calorie diet. He simultaneously started to exercise. When he started, he ran one block and puked. The next day he ran two blocks before puking.

In six months of low calorie dieting he lost nearly 80 lbs. He then eased back into a more balanced approach to eating. He continued to improve his fitness, and as soon as he had lost enough weight to be comfortable on a bike he started cycling. Within the next year he did the annual Seattle to Portland ride (200+ miles in a day) as stoker on a tandem.

Fast forward about 10 years. He's a category 2 racing cyclist, and on this fine day in January he is drawing quickly near to his race weight of 153 lbs. He rode over 12,000 miles in 2005. He placed well in several races last season, and might upgrade this year.

If the OP wants a proven method to lose weight and get really, really fit, voilá. The path has been set. It's a path that requires willpower and discipline (unlike "eat anything you want" fad diets) and intrinsic motivation (unlike "get praise for success and shame for failure" post-on-the-internet schemes). But it works, and it's grounded in the best understanding of our finest scientists and doctors. What else do you want?


this takes us back to OP's original scenario. he is 80 pounds overweight and decides to follow low carb plan and cycle to drop the weight and to get fit.

yes, he could follow a low fat plan, and achieve the exact same results, weight wise, as he would with a low carb plan. although I'm not sure the exercise would be enough to counter the problems associated with a high carb diet - bonking, low HDL, high triglycerides, blood sugar spikes and subsequent drops that lead to increased hunger, insulin spikes that cause you to store any dietary fat you dont manage to burn off, not to mention that a high carb diet is associated with diabetes, heart disease, cancer, alzheimers..etc. etc...

or he could choose a low carb diet. the only real drawback is a slight drop in power during sprints. that's it. none of the other knocks on low carbing you find in this thread actually hold up under scrutiny.

for OP, it seems a simple choice. he really just wants to lose wt. and get fit. he's not out to win races. therefore, everyone telling him he is making a mistake chosing low carb is simply wrong. case closed.

mr freddy wrote:
"...or he could choose a low carb diet. the only real drawback is a slight drop in power during sprints. that's it. "



Not that you'll ever get it, but I already explained in previous posts in great detail how your body requires glycogen/glucose to perform at least reasonably well at intensities far below a "sprint".


BTW, if your "trainer" has you doing 11+ hours a week at 60% like you claim, you're wasting a LOT of time. I guess you and your trainer belong together. Get back to us when you've done a few months of actual training and not that 60% of MHR that you think is actual aerobic training.

mr freddy, an expert beginner. The oxy-moron.

mr freddy wrote:
"...or he could choose a low carb diet. the only real drawback is a slight drop in power during sprints. that's it. "



Not that you'll ever get it, but I already explained in previous posts in great detail how your body requires glycogen/glucose to perform at least reasonably well at intensities far below a "sprint".


BTW, if your "trainer" has you doing 11+ hours a week at 60% like you claim, you're wasting a LOT of time. I guess you and your trainer belong together. Get back to us when you've done a few months of actual training and not that 60% of MHR that you think is actual aerobic training.

mr freddy, an expert beginner. The oxy-moron.


you know what warren? go f*** yourself. can't you make your argument without insults? doesnt say much for the points you want to express.

you explained in great erroneous detail. lets see the studies. and no "it's all on pubmed" nonsense. post actual honest to god studies, and make sure the study involves athletes who have been given adequate time to adjust to a high fat diet.

there have been several studies posted that contradict your claims, than any reasonable objective reader would have to admit suggest the possibility that an athlete can do just fine on a low carb diet. you prefer to nitpick and dismiss them for petty reasons.

as for my own training, irrelevant as it is, I figured out yesterday that I've been training just above the 70% level, using the age based estimate anyway.

I dont use a trainer, I know from personal experience that if I start out cold and try to exert myself above that level I would be risking injury. To advise anyone differently would be irresponsible.