I think I'll throw in my own anecdote here, since a relationship with HDL, triglycerides and heart disease was mentioned.

3 years ago I was pushing nearly 300 pounds. What I didn't know was that I was a ticking time bomb because throughout my life I was completely unaware of just how low my HDL was. For those who don't understand how this works, your HDL (also known as the "good cholesterol") effectively clears the presence of LDL in your blood that is responsible for the plaque that collects on the artery walls. Minimum HDL is considered about 40 MG/DL. Most people are around 50 or more. Mine was measured at 18.

I didn't know this until I began to experience chest pain while riding a bike on Super Bowl Sunday, 2003. A trip to the hospital revealed a 99% blocked coronary artery. I was on borrowed time. Fortunately I already had a mindset to improve my health. Since that time I significantly reduced the amount of saturated fat in my diet, and focused primarily on complex carbohydrates, plant protein and monounsaturated fats with some polyunsaturated fats. I've been eating meat sparingly dining primarily on fish and some chicken (no skin!). I'm down to 190 pounds and I've been there for about a year now (still want to drop another 10 -15). 3 years ago my LDL was 155, HDL was 18, and triglycerides over 200. January of last year my LDL was 100, HDL was 27, and triglycerides was 131. My diet has remained the same for the past three years. The only change I made was to markedly increase my exercise regimen last January. Now my LDL is 76 and my HDL is 36 (without any cholesterol lowering drugs). In addition to that, my at rest heart rate is now 45 bpm. Exercise plays a significant role on your cholesterol.

Finally, every year I undergo a treadmill stress test to my MHR (170 bpm last August) and to image my coronary arteries. The last imaging showed an increase volume of blood and a reduction in my blood pressure. It's expected that I'll be off blood pressure medication by next August. Currently I ride between 100 and 150 miles/week, and workout 60 minutes 6 days a week in the gym (mostly elliptical trainer). My goal this year is to complete the Tour of the California Alps in July (129 miles and 15000+ climbing in one day). I never thought I'd say this but I really like climbing! :)

Oh, yeah, I'm 50 years young.

It must feel great to have not only saved your own life, but then to turn it around so well. Super Bowl Sunday will always have a special meaning for you. Kind of ironic that 3 years ago you were literally on a death ride, and now your goal is to do a ride that is so hard it's known as "The Death Ride".

Warren G, you cranky dogmatic blowhard (hey, this childish insult thing is kinda fun, who knew?)



What I've said is widely available by reading ANY good exercise pyhsiology text, looking at countless scientific studies, etc. What I've said sounds foreign to you, but it's actually pretty basic physiology that you could easily read about yourself.




if they are so widely available, let's see them. back up your stand. remember, they must involve athletes that have had time to acclimate. you demanded studies from me, but seem rather reluctant to produce your own.

meanwhile, this article references some studies you might find of interest: http://www.lowcarbportal.com/archives/categories/low_carb_exercise/index.php




You have only shown us studies where the subjects were exercising at intensities of 60-64% of VO2max, and below that. These are very low intensities-as I said earlier, these are the intensity a recreational cyclist would use for their recovery or off days on the bike and a decent bike racer would use something near 70% of MHR for their recovery days. This intensity is BELOW the threshold of what would improve aerobic or anaerobic fitness in a person with at least a minimum of training. You can look it up.

Also, some of the studies said they had to feed the subjects large amounts of carbs right before the testing and during the te

sting, or they did carbo loading for three days prior to the testing. What does this tell you about the need for carbs? You said you would use carbs on the day of a race if you ever did a triathlon. Well, if you think the carbs would help you during that event it shouldn't be too hard to understand they'd also help you perform better in training too. If you train better you'll race better too.


I'll refer you back to the studies posted regarding increased mitochondriia and triglycerides in the muscle after just a few weeks training on a high fat diet...

I think we already agreed on the role carbs can play for a competive athlete. OP's situation doesn't have much in common with the Lance Armstrongs of the world.




So you rely on the age estimate for MHR? I suggest you do some reading about the way that number was calculated. Generally speaking you are almost as likely to be off by 10bpm plus or minus as you would be to find your actual MHR at the age estimate. Furthermore, MHR is a very poor estimator for intensity (that's why real studies don't use it to estimate intensity) because there is a fairly wide range of HR% associated with a person's actual VO2max intensity, or LT intensity, or OBLA intensity, etc. So if you use %of your estimated MHR for your intensities you are using a broad estimate, and then compounding the problem by using another estimate on top of the first estimate.

um, once again, what does my situation have to do with anything? that said, I'll be sure to give you an update in six months... btw, dont want to defend the age based guestimater for MHR, but it's interesting how it did accurately predict the MHR for the poster above. in my case, I suspect it's at least 10 beats low, but I wont know till I get into good enough shape to figure it out myself.



11+ hours a week of exercise and all of it at MAYBE 70% or lower of your estimated MHR... you need to learn a LOT more about training and nutrition before you try to tell other people what they should be doing.


imo, so do you. You've offered no valid reason why OP should change his diet. also, I really dont care about your opinion of my training methods, so shut the f*** up already.



mr freddy: beginner expert, an oxymoron.

once again, go f*** yourself. yawn.

NO! What has made our society so overweight is a major change for the worse in diet. It has nothing to do with old thinking. In fact if we all still thought that way we wouldnt have car companies putting bigger seats in their cars for the growing american bottom.

In 1950 the most popular beverage for the US teenager was milk. Beleive it or not. At the emerging fastfood restaurants the "large" soda was 8 us ounces. Now the "Kiddie" soda is 10 us ounces! :eek: A Coke and Fries are among the worst things you can eat, yet many of us do it daily, and in far greater quantities than we should. THAT IS WHY WE ARE FAT!

OK I've just got back from a 80 km (50 mile) ride in 3 hours and 18 minutes so it wasn't super fast but not that bad for my beater bike. Breakfast was my usual dandelion tea followed by sour milk and cream and a little chicken liver pate. Heaps of fat! I took some dates and cashews with me just in case but I intended to go for as long as I could without eating to see how far I got.

2 hours into the ride I started feeling a little tired and unhappy. Heck, 2 hours isn't bad for a fat fuelled ride and I was going at a reasonable pace. Not super fast but as usual faster than I intended to go. So I started with a couple of dates to see what happened. 10 minutes later I started to feel a little more energy so I gradually ate on the way home and by the time I got home I wasn't feeling that bad and I was pulling along nicely.

So a little carbs helped but I wasn't carbo-loading. Starting the day in my usual high fat way worked for me and ONLY consuming the carbs while I was working was a good stratergy for me too. Natural foods only for me as well. No proccessed sugars. If I'm racing it would be a good idea to start eating carbs a little earlier.

So anyway. How many of you carbo-loaders could have got past 2 hours anyway before needing to eat and how well would you have recovered if you let it get to that point.

Regards, Anthony

So anyway. How many of you carbo-loaders could have got past 2 hours anyway before needing to eat and how well would you have recovered if you let it get to that point.

Regards, Anthony

I start my rides fasting. I've found that if I eat too much blood is diverted from my system to my gut to deal with the meal. I routinely ride 2-3 hours with just water and come home and eat oatmeal or shredded wheat for breakfast. I'll then wait an hour or two and then eat a regular meal and then wait until supper. I keep my heart rate in the 75% zone for the time that I ride. I've never bonked. I've felt fine after my rides. Sometimes, I'll lie down for a little nap in the afternoon.

You know, bottom line is this, calories in have to be less than calories out to lose weight. This is the modern dilema. We have never had this much food to eat in our history as a species.

I've been eating vegetarian with a high carbohydrate diet. I've lost weight. My wife is getting frustrated with having me prepare my own food while the family eats her good cooking. This is the reason I was overweight. She says I have a problem with portion control. This is true. If you ate her cooking you'd be looking for ways to take a little off too! She is a very good cook.

So, we've reached a little deal, I am going to eat her cooking and not make her upset and she'll prepare less and help me with portion control. I am going to try this for six months and still ride as hard as I have been and see if I can keep the weight off. If I can then good for me and where I get to sleep! If not, I'll just have to get my jaw wired shut!

OK I've just got back from a 80 km (50 mile) ride in 3 hours and 18 minutes so it wasn't super fast but not that bad for my beater bike. Breakfast was my usual dandelion tea followed by sour milk and cream and a little chicken liver pate.

Don't y'all have any real food down there?!


2 hours into the ride I started feeling a little tired and unhappy. Heck, 2 hours isn't bad for a fat fuelled ride and I was going at a reasonable pace. Not super fast but as usual faster than I intended to go. So I started with a couple of dates to see what happened. 10 minutes later I started to feel a little more energy so I gradually ate on the way home and by the time I got home I wasn't feeling that bad and I was pulling along nicely.

So a little carbs helped but I wasn't carbo-loading. Starting the day in my usual high fat way worked for me and ONLY consuming the carbs while I was working was a good stratergy for me too. Natural foods only for me as well. No proccessed sugars. If I'm racing it would be a good idea to start eating carbs a little earlier.

So anyway. How many of you carbo-loaders could have got past 2 hours anyway before needing to eat and how well would you have recovered if you let it get to that point.

Regards, Anthony

2 hours in you noticed a problem. Perhaps you might have ridden even faster or stronger up to that point if you'd given yourself some carbs earlier. General rule of thumb is to drink before you're thirsty and eat before you're hungry, because by then you've already waited too long and you're going to have to wait 10+ minutes to get back up to speed after eating something.

Dates are good though. Still used by some pros. When I ride less than 3+ hours I don't need to eat- and those rides will always include some climbs and other hard periods. My two hour rides are on one bottle of Gatorade and include LOTS of intervals, 3-4 days each week. The other days will be a little shorter or longer. For rides of 3-4 hours I drink about 20 ounces of Gatorade each of the first two hours or so. If I find myself feeling like I need to eat then some bread with jam is good, or honey, and I'm not sure why but chocolate brownies work well for me for the rides that go past 3 hours.

I should have said that I didn't have gatorade or anything like that. Just water with a little celtic sea salt so it was no calories at all for 2 hours. It was a bit of an experiment anyway so on future long rides I will start eating earlier as I have no intention of using sugary drinks. There too hard on my digestion apart from anything else.

This ride wasn't a bad effort as I was riding a 24" wheeled mountain bike with slicks and a few nice parts.

Regards, Anthony

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0887/is_8_19/ai_64714683



High-Carbohydrate Vs. High-Fat Diets In Trained Cyclists - Brief Article - Statistical Data Included
R. Brown

Previous studies have examined weight and body composition changes in obese individuals when the proportions of dietary fat and carbohydrate have been altered. Very few studies have examined the effects of macronutrient composition of the diet on body composition in lean subjects engaged in high volumes of physical exercise. A method to determine body fat composition, more accurate then skin-fold measurements and anthropometry, is dual X-ray absorptiometry (DXA). This technique measures both bone mineral and soft tissue composition, and can distinguish fat located in the hips and thighs from that deposited in the trunk. A New Zealand study recently examined the effect of high-fat or high-carbohydrate diets on body composition in athletes using DXA.

DXA was used to examine body composition in cyclists after a 12-week period of either a high-fat or high-carbohydrate dietary regimen to determine whether fat mass and distribution differed between the two diet groups. Thirty male and two female cyclists volunteered to participate; all had participated in competitive cycling for at least two years. Subjects (mean age 26 [+ or -] 9 years), were randomly assigned to receive either high-carbohydrate (HC) or high-fat (HF) dietary advice for a period of 12 weeks. In HF, approximately 45-50% of total energy was derived from fat and 35-40% from carbohydrate. In HC, the proportions were 14% from fat and 65-70% from carbohydrate. Protein intakes were similar for both groups. Each group received a weekly food ration appropriate to their dietary instruction. Each participant received individualized nutritional instruction throughout the study. Five-day food intake was recorded at baseline and every fourth week during the study.

Body weight and total body fat did not change significantly from baseline to week 12 both within and between each diet group. Regional fat distribution changed significantly within each diet group from baseline to week 12. Body fat in the legs decreased significantly in HC and truncal fat increased significantly in HF and HC groups. On examination of individual data, it was clear that the results from two individuals who were siblings skewed the results. This indicates that there may be a genetic predisposition for regional fat distribution with high-fat dietary change. Studies with larger samples are needed to verify this observation.

There were no significant differences in lean tissue mass during the study period. Total bone mineral density (BMD) increased significantly within HF from baseline to week 12. There were significant changes in regional bone density within both groups from baseline to week 12. In HC, BMD increased significantly in the trunk and lumbar regions; in HF, BMD increased in the legs and pelvis. Researchers attributed this to bone mineral accrual of young athletes. Calcium intake tended to be higher in the HF group. Training volume during the study ranged from 115 to 826 km per week (6-25 hours), plus a 40-120 km weekly road race. After 12 weeks of training, maximal oxygen uptake remained at the same high levels as the start of the study.

The results of the study have considerable relevance to the endurance of young athletes. During periods of endurance training, when energy requirements are high, it seems reasonable to suggest that athletes might choose to increase dietary fat intake, even when consuming a significant proportion of fat calories as saturated fats (46%), without the risk of weight gain and/or increased adiposity. It appears that endurance athletes can adapt to high-fat diets without any detrimental effect on physical capacity.

R. Brown, C. Cox, A. Goulding, High-carbohydrate versus high-fat diets: effect on body composition in trained cyclists, Med Sci Sports Exerc 32(3): 690-694 (2000) [Correspondence: Rachel Brown, Dept. of Human Nutrition, University of Otago, PO Box 56, Dunedin, New Zealand. E-mail: rachel.brown@stonebow.otago.ac.nz.]

COPYRIGHT 2000 Technical Insights, a divison of John Wiley & Sons.
COPYRIGHT 2000 Gale Group

http://www.buffalo.edu/reporter/vol27/vol27n26/n3.html


Study shows a low-fat diet may hinder, not help, athletes

By LOIS BAKER

News Services Staff

RESEARCHERS AT UB have shown that, contrary to prevailing recommendations, trained athletes who consume a very low-fat diet may be hindering their performance rather than enhancing it.

Results of a study of 25 long-distance runners from Western New York who consumed diets consisting of low, medium and high percentages of fat-15, 30 and 45 percent, respectively-showed that endurance time increased and that there was more muscle strength after an exhausting run when the percentage of dietary fat was increased.

In addition, levels of lactic acid, a measure of oxygen delivery, decreased after four weeks on the high-fat diet, indicating an increase in energy reserve.

Study results were presented April 14 at the annual meeting of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology.

The athletes couldn't consume enough calories to meet the energy needs of their training on the low-fat diet. In addition, HDL cholesterol levels were lower on the 15-percent-fat regimen, indicating implications for cardiovascular risk factors.

This study is a follow-up to research reported in 1994 that showed similar results.

"Our conclusion is, for trained distance runners, a very low-fat diet may not be the best practice for their performance," said Peter J. Horvath, UB associate professor of nutrition and physiology and a lead researcher. "If you want the calories necessary to do high-intensity training, you need to liberate yourself from a low-fat diet. We found also that in terms of cardiovascular risk factors, runners on a high-fat diet did not increase their cardiovascular risk factors, while on a low-fat diet, some of the cardiovascular risk factors were increased, similar to those of sedentary individuals."

Participants in the study were male and female runners between the ages of 18 and 53 who ran an average of 40 miles per week. Some were top-ranked regional competitors. Before beginning the study, the researchers established the fat level of each participant's current diet, which averaged about 20 percent. Blood pressure, heart rate, percentage of body fat, body weight, total cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, apoprotein levels-a more definitive measure of LDL and HDL-and serum triglycerides were measured. Subjects also were put through a series of endurance and VO2 max-oxygen consumption-tests.

All subjects then spent four weeks on the low-and medium-fat diets, with original assessments and testing repeated between diets. Only 12 subjects were able to raise their dietary fat close to the 45-percent level. This group spent an additional four weeks at that level and all initial tests were repeated at the end of the study.

Results of the performance tests on the medium-fat diet compared to the low-fat diet showed that endurance time increased 14 percent while the decrease in force after the endurance run was significantly less-11 percent. While endurance time did not increase on the high-fat diet, lactate levels were lower, indicating more efficient energy metabolism.

"The dietary intake of vitamin E, calcium, magnesium and zinc were at or below the recommended levels on the low-fat diet. As individuals increased their total calories and dietary fat, levels of zinc, magnesium, calcium and vitamin E also increased," Horvath said. The distance runners in this study did not have any negative effects on performance, nutrition or health on the high-fat diet," Horvath said. "Endurance athletes require a lot of calories. A very-low-fat diet for these athletes may not provide the required nutrition. A higher-fat diet may result in more energy availability and other metabolic, nutritional and performance advantages."

Other researchers in the study were Colleen K. Eagen and Jill Rowland, master's degree candidates in UB's nutrition program; John J. Leddy, UB clinical assistant professor of orthopaedics, medicine and family medicine, and David R. Pendergast, UB professor of physiology. The study was funded in part by an educational grant from Mars, Inc.

Exibit A
Tour De France
Carbs carbs and more carbs

Thanks for playing, please drive thru

Edit: Going thru your sudies i see 2 things. Low fat may have faults. Which is what ive always said. Its also why the 'recomended' fat is 30%. In the studies, 30% seems to be the best. With problems in both extremes of HC and HF.

Observation 2. When an athelete is trainign hard he can survive on damn near anything.

I stilll say the recomended balanced diet is best, and thats what I get from your studies also :D

Exibit A
Tour De France
Carbs carbs and more carbs

Thanks for playing, please drive thru

Edit: Going thru your sudies i see 2 things. Low fat may have faults. Which is what ive always said. Its also why the 'recomended' fat is 30%. In the studies, 30% seems to be the best. With problems in both extremes of HC and HC.

Observation 2. When an athelete is trainign hard he can survive on damn near anything.

I stilll say the recomended balanced diet is best, and thats what I get from your studies also :D

Well I didn't read any downside from "high" fat diets in those studies.

As I've said before i don't disagree with balance and in my view 45% fat is perfectly balanced and due to the calorie dense nature of fats its not realy a lot. OK I don't count anything but I would expect my fat intake to be around 60% of calories and I could hit 80% of calories on some days but not every day!

EDIT: OK the TDF example. I'm always reading here that the TDF riders cant eat enough to keep the weight on so maybe that's the answer. More fat! It takes someone to break away from the orthodoxy before you can see the difference in athletes performance and with companies who make high sugar sports foods sponsoring teams there probably a disincentive for any team to try something different.

Regards, Anthony

EDIT: OK the TDF example. I'm always reading here that the TDF riders cant eat enough to keep the weight on so maybe that's the answer. More fat! It takes someone to break away from the orthodoxy before you can see the difference in athletes performance and with companies who make high sugar sports foods sponsoring teams there probably a disincentive for any team to try something different.

Regards, Anthony

Maybe the companies that make Slim Jims and Mazola can sponser a team.

High-Carbohydrate Vs. High-Fat Diets In Trained Cyclists - Brief Article - Statistical Data Included...

Even the "high fat" people ate 30-40% carbs. Number of training hours per week of only 6 hours at the low end indicates a person who isn't really much of a bike racer. Eat only 30-40% carbs on that amount of hours and it wouldn't matter much.

Measured performance by measuring VO2max. This is really poor because even with NO training VO2max does not drop very much. Measuring race performances would be much more appropriate, or at least measuring performance at a variety of intensities.

Study shows a low-fat diet may hinder, not help, athletes

By LOIS BAKER

The athletes couldn't consume enough calories to meet the energy needs of their training on the low-fat diet.

<This is really poor methodology. Some of the athletes were simply not given enough to eat. Of course this would result in lower performances compared to a group that was given enough to eat.>


Results of the performance tests on the medium-fat diet compared to the low-fat diet showed that endurance time increased 14 percent while the decrease in force after the endurance run was significantly less-11 percent. While endurance time did not increase on the high-fat diet, lactate levels were lower, indicating more efficient energy metabolism.


<Increasing endurance time... is that a goal? Go slower, but longer? Lower lactate levels do not mean more efficient energy levels. It's very possible it means you went SLOWER. If you're not producing lactate then you will have a very hard time going reasonably fast.>

"The dietary intake of vitamin E, calcium, magnesium and zinc were at or below the recommended levels on the low-fat diet. As individuals increased their total calories and dietary fat, levels of zinc, magnesium, calcium and vitamin E also increased,"

<This is stupid methodology. Simply have them take some vitamins like so many athletes do. >

The study was funded in part by an educational grant from Mars, Inc.

<NO surprise they got what they wanted.>

Next...

I'm always reading here that the TDF riders cant eat enough to keep the weight on so maybe that's the answer. More fat! It takes someone to break away from the orthodoxy before you can see the difference in athletes performance and with companies who make high sugar sports foods sponsoring teams there probably a disincentive for any team to try something different.[/B]

Regards, Anthony

Do you really think with millions of dollars at stake the athletes won't be eating the best they possibly can? It doesn't matter who sponsors them because they'll eat whatever they want and need and the public will never know.

Riddle me this Anthony, how long do you think it would take a partially dehydrated racer in the Tour to digest 4000 calories of fat each night? During the races they stop eating fat with about 2-3 hours to go because the fatty foods don't mix well with the intensities they have to deal with during those periods. Before then, they'll get maybe 30-40% of their calories from fat.

Enhanced endurance in trained cyclists during moderate intensity exercise following 2 weeks adaptation to a high fat diet

Estelle V. Lambert1 Contact Information, David P. Speechly1, Steven C. Dennis1 and Timothy D. Noakes1
(1) Liberty Life Chair of Exercise and Sports Science, MRC/UCT Bioenergetics of Exercise Research Unit, Department of Physiology, University of Cape Town Medical School, Observatory 7925, Cape Town, South Africa

Accepted: 25 April 1994
Abstract These studies investigated the effects of 2 weeks of either a high-fat (HIGH-FAT: 70% fat, 7% CHO) or a high-carbohydrate (HIGH-CHO: 74% CHO, 12% fat) diet on exercise performance in trained cyclists (n = 5) during consecutive periods of cycle exercise including a Wingate test of muscle power, cycle exercise to exhaustion at 85% of peak power output [90% maximal oxygen uptake ( $$\dot V$$ O2max), high-intensity exercise (HIE)] and 50% of peak power output [60% $$\dot V$$ O2max, moderate intensity exercise (MIE)]. Exercise time to exhaustion during HIE was not significantly different between trials: nor were the rates of muscle glycogen utilization during HIE different between trials, although starting muscle glycogen content was lower [68.1 (SEM 3.9) vs 120.6 (SEM 3.8) mmol · kg –1 wet mass, P < 0.01] after the HIGH-FAT diet. Despite a lower muscle glycogen content at the onset of MIE [32 (SEM 7) vs 73 (SEM 6) mmol · kg –1 wet[/B] mass, HIGH-FAT vs HIGH-CHO, P < 0.01], exercise time to exhaustion during subsequent MIE was significantly longer after the HIGH-FAT diet [79.7 (SEM 7.6) vs 42.5 (SEM 6.8) min, HIGH-FAT vs HIGH-CHO, P<0.01]. Enhanced endurance during MIE after the HIGH-FAT diet was associated with a lower respiratory exchange ratio [0.87 (SEM 0.03) vs 0.92 (SEM 0.02), P<0.05], and a decreased rate of carbohydrate oxidation [1.41 (SEM 0.70) vs 2.23 (SEM 0.40) g CHO · min–1, P<0.05]. These results would suggest that 2 weeks of adaptation to a high-fat diet would result in an enhanced resistance to fatigue and a significant sparing of endogenous carbohydrate during low to moderate intensity exercise in a relatively glycogen-depleted state and unimpaired performance during high intensity exercise.


still waiting for one, just one, study proving sub anaerobic exercise (let's say anywhere between 80 - 85% effort level) performance is impaired by a trained athlete who has been given time to adapt to a high fat diet. just one reliable, well controlled study.

still waiting for one, just one, study proving sub anaerobic exercise (let's say anywhere between 80 - 85% effort level) performance is impaired by a trained athlete who has been given time to adapt to a high fat diet. just one reliable, well controlled study.




"Physical exercise as a modulator of adaptation to low and high carbohydrate and low and high fat intakes.

Miller SL, Wolfe RR.

Department of Surgery, University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston, USA.

Quantification of the metabolic response aids in ascertaining the nature and extent of the energy requirements imposed by exercise. During high intensity exercise, virtually all of the energy is supplied by the net oxidation of glycogen while fat oxidation plays a more prominent role during lower intensity exercise. Therefore, the lower limit of carbohydrate required above resting needs is equal to the portion of the total energy cost derived from carbohydrate sources. There is no upper limit of additional carbohydrate intake that could be eaten to satisfy the extra caloric requirement since carbohydrate intake will restore any endogenous energy stores that were used during exercise, regardless of the intensity of exercise. The recommendation of a high carbohydrate intake to provide caloric balance in exercising individuals is supported by the observation that exercise performance at high intensity is improved by a high carbohydrate diet, and exercise performance at low intensity is relatively insensitive to the source of the caloric intake. Limited dietary studies are consistent with predictions based on the metabolic response. At exercise intensities below 65% VO2 max, the percent fat and carbohydrate in the diet makes little difference on exercise performance, provided adequate time is allowed to adapt to a high-fat diet. On the other hand, exercise ability during high-intensity exercise is significantly limited by a high-fat diet.

A consideration of importance beyond the aspect of energy balance is the anabolic effect of insulin on muscle protein synthesis after exercise. Provision of carbohydrate after exercise is likely to stimulate muscle protein synthesis to a greater extent than a corresponding amount of fat. Dietary fats may offer practical advantages to the athlete but if fats are consumed at the expense of carbohydrate intake, many established benefits of high carbohydrate intake in terms of performance may be sacrified."


Go back and read my posts where I've said exactly what the bold sections say, and that you could find it on PUBMED just like I did this morning.

here's the omnivore's take on this,

23 March 2004 | Filed under Low Carb : Exercise
Do Athletes Really Need High-Carbohydrate Diets?

By Anthony Colpo.

March 22, 2004

Brian Maxwell, founder of the multimillion-dollar PowerBar empire and a former world-class marathon runner, died of a heart attack on Friday, March 19. Maxwell and his nutritionist wife Jennifer, co-founded the popular energy bar company in 1986, which they eventually sold to Nestle SA for a reported $375 million in 2000.

For those not familiar with PowerBars, they are a sugar-rich, low-fat bar that have been heavily promoted to recreational and competitive athletes alike. That a glorified candy bar could achieve such monumental success when marketed as an athletic aid is due in no small part to the widely-held misconception that "athletes need lots of carbohydrates for energy".

As this author found out the hard way during the nineties, regular vigorous physical activity does not guarantee protection against the deleterious effects of a high carbohydrate diet. Despite daily workouts, my "healthy" low-fat, high-complex carbohydrate diet raised my blood pressure and seriously disrupted my blood glucose metabolism. These effects vanished after commencing a low-carbohydrate diet.

Brian Maxwell joins the late Jim Fixx as yet another high-carb consuming runner whose athletic background did little to counter the health-destroying effects of excessive carbohydrate ingestion.

Athletic Nutrition: More Carbs or More Fat?

One of the problems with many athletes is that they simply do not eat enough to meet the energy needs of their training activities. A recent review by researchers from the University at Buffalo, New York, highlighted several studies in which subjects with reduced energy intakes (500 to 800 kcal/day below estimated expenditure) showed reduced endurance exercise times. Increasing the subjects' caloric intake to match expenditure by increasing carbohydrates significantly increased their time to exhaustion by approximately 20% at exercise intensities of 70% and 80% of Vo2max. However, increasing the total caloric intake to meet expenditure by using fat brought about further significant increases in endurance time - an extra 40% over and above that produced by consuming extra carbohydrates! In these studies, the percentage of fat was raised from 15% to between 30% and 42% of total calories, while carbohydrates were limited to 35-40% of calories.(1)

These studies not only show that low-fat, high-carbohydrate diets are in no way essential for optimal athletic performance, but are in fact inferior to higher fat diets.

Whether Maxwell's death attracts anywhere near the media attention that was awarded to the widely-misconstrued contents of the late Dr. Atkins' leaked death report remains to be seen, but athletes should know that the chronic consumption of high-carbohydrate diets may indeed have potentially adverse health consequences, which regular exercise may not necessarily ameliorate. Chronic consumption of a high-glycemic load diet has been linked to increased risk of heart disease,(2) breast cancer,(3) diabetes,(4,5) and pancreatic cancer.(6)

Related articles:

Popular Energy Bars Raise Blood Sugar and Insulin Levels

References

1) Pendergast DR, et al. A Perspective on Fat Intake in Athletes. Journal of the American College of Nutrition, 2000 19 (3): 345-350.

2) Liu S, et al. A prospective study of dietary glycemic load, carbohydrate intake, and risk of coronary heart disease in US women. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 2000; 71: 1455-1461.

3) Higginbotham S, et al. Dietary glycemic load and breast cancer risk in the Women's Health Study. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2004 Jan; 13 (1): 65-70.

4) Salmeron J, et al. Dietary fiber, glycemic load, and risk of NIDDM in men. Diabetes Care, 1997; 20 (4): 545-550.

5) Salmeron J, et al. Dietary fiber, glycemic load, and risk of non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus in women. Journal of the American Medical Association, Feb 12, 1997; 277 (6): 472-477.

6) Michaud DS, et al. Dietary Sugar, Glycemic Load, and Pancreatic Cancer Risk in a Prospective Study. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2002; 94: 1293-1300.

7) Shaw GM, et al. Neural tube defects associated with maternal periconceptional dietary intake of simple sugars and glycemic index. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 2003; 78 (5): 972-978.

Source: theomnivore.com

here's a couple of quickies...

American College of Sports Medicine looks at keto diets

A group of people following a ketogenic diet (10% carbs, high fat) were asked to maintain their normal activity level and to eat sufficient calories equal to maintenance. At the end of the study, subjects lost 2.8 kilograms of bodyweight (6.6 lbs), and 4% of bodyfat (peformed by DEXA analysis). Additionally, they gained 1.4 kilograms of lean mass (3.08 lbs).

(Med Sci Sport Exercise , 33(5): S336, 2001)


Low Carb Diet Alters Hormones

Dr. Jozel Langfort and colleagues from the Polish Academy of Sciences in Warsaw found that during exercise in people following low carb diet, adrenaline and growth hormone levels increase more than when people are on normal diet. Lactic acid levels were also lower.

(International Journal of Sports Nuritition and Exercise , 11: 248-257, 2001)

ok, I'll take a break now, but I really would like to see actual studies that support the various knocks on a low carb diet, specifically for someone in OP's situation, just wants to lose wt. and get reasonably fit.

btw, there are LOADS more studies suggesting at the very least that the low carb avenue ought to be considered and investigated further.

as to why pro athletes prefer to carb up, it could be sort of along the lines of why does the American Diabetes Association, with lives literally in the balance, refuse to consider the low carb approach? even though it is clearly superior to their own politically correct guidelines that are sadly less effective. for more on that, read this http://weightoftheevidence.blogspot.com/

"One of the problems with many athletes is that they simply do not eat enough to meet the energy needs of their training activities. A recent review by researchers from the University at Buffalo, New York, highlighted several studies in which subjects with reduced energy intakes (500 to 800 kcal/day below estimated expenditure) showed reduced endurance exercise times. Increasing the subjects' caloric intake to match expenditure by increasing carbohydrates significantly increased their time to exhaustion by approximately 20% at exercise intensities of 70% and 80% of Vo2max. However, increasing the total caloric intake to meet expenditure by using fat brought about further significant increases in endurance time - an extra 40% over and above that produced by consuming extra carbohydrates! In these studies, the percentage of fat was raised from 15% to between 30% and 42% of total calories, while carbohydrates were limited to 35-40% of calories.(1)


Yes, so they went to a diet that included 30 and 42% fat and did better than when they weren't given enough calories to eat. WOW! And then they exercised longer and slower on the diet with 30 and 42% fat. Great! Sounds like the way to go for your 4+ hour bike rides.

as to why pro athletes prefer to carb up, it could be sort of along the lines of why does the American Diabetes Association, with lives literally in the balance, refuse to consider the low carb approach? even though it is clearly superior to their own politically correct guidelines that are sadly less effective. for more on that, read this http://weightoftheevidence.blogspot.com/

More bull from the oxy-moron called mr. freddy. Athletes can have millions of dollars at stake trying to achieve the best performances possible. Some even cheat to do that yet they still won't use a high fat diet. And you think they stick what they know works best because of political correctness? That's pretty funny! and sad for you.

Next.

More bull from the oxy-moron called mr. freddy. Athletes can have millions of dollars at stake trying to achieve the best performances possible. Some even cheat to do that yet they still won't use a high fat diet. And you think they stick what they know works best because of political correctness? That's pretty funny! and sad for you.

Next.


a perfect example of a the mindset involved here. dogmatic. childish insults. attacking the messenger. making unsupported claims.

still waiting for actual studies supporting your p.o.v. "it's all on pubmed" is sounding increasingly hollow..

High-Carbohydrate Vs. High-Fat Diets In Trained Cyclists - Brief Article - Statistical Data Included...

Even the "high fat" people ate 30-40% carbs. Number of training hours per week of only 6 hours at the low end indicates a person who isn't really much of a bike racer. Eat only 30-40% carbs on that amount of hours and it wouldn't matter much.

Measured performance by measuring VO2max. This is really poor because even with NO training VO2max does not drop very much. Measuring race performances would be much more appropriate, or at least measuring performance at a variety of intensities.


To explain further...
VO2max is a specific intensity but it does not say anything about how much power or speed a person is able to produce at a given intensity. In most ways it's like saying x% of MHR. What is much more important (in terms of evaluating performance at VO2max) is how fast a person can ride/run/swim, etc. _at_ their VO2max, or at some given percentage of their VO2max.

So a study that says, "after we fed the athletes x for 6 weeks their VO2max didn't change" isn't really saying much about their performance at the intensity referred to as VO2max.

If a person says, "My VO2max is 65mg/kg", the question to ask is, "Oh, and how fast can you go at your VO2max?" Training is used to improve how fast you can go at your VO2max.

holy cow... I must chime in here...

WarrenG, WTF are you talking about? I want to loose 83 pounds. I am a fat ass! I believe that a healthy, low carb diet is the way to go for me to loose weight.

So far so good! I am eating well and regularly. I am riding every chance I get. As far as endourance goes... I rode the longest solo ride of my life the other day... 63 miles. I averaged a hair over 17mph. (now this may not sound that impressive to some of you out there... but imagine doing it with 80lbs of weight strapped to your back.) I could have easily gone a good bit further, but I ran out of riding time. The weight is coming off and I feel like a million bucks! My energy level is through the ruff!

So, Warren, what are you talking about? You are saying that I can't be Lance Armstrong on my low carb diet? No s___ shirlock! I am trying to loose weight here! Not win the tour de france... or even a cat 4 race for that matter.

You seem to be such an expert on low carb diets... tell me, what does my normal diet consist of? provide me with a list of actual meals... I think part of the problem here is that the "LOW CARB HATERS" don't even have any idea what I am actually eating each day when on this diet. I will be happy to list some of my normal meals, but first I want to hear from the "expert"

Why is it that everyone can sit there and shoot down mr freddy's points, and discredit all of the studies he brings to light... but NOBODY can produce any recent studies that dispute any of his points? All of you guilty of doing this are exactly what I was talking about in the origional post.

Mike

Why is it that everyone can sit there and shoot down mr freddy's points, and discredit all of the studies he brings to light... but NOBODY can produce any recent studies that dispute any of his points? All of you guilty of doing this are exactly what I was talking about in the origional post.

Mike

Then I guess you either didn't read the ones I posted or you are unable to go to PUBMED and find them there.

There is good reason for the small number of studies where a high fat diet was used in conjunction with exercise above low intensity. The reason is that it's a very simple thing to test and evaluate because an elementary understanding of exercise physiology leads us to the answers and it doesn't take 20 studies to prove something so simple. Studies cost money and it's tough to get funding to study something the vast majority of interested parties already knows and agrees on. It's kind of like trying to get money to study whether a sports car would run better with low octane gas or high octane gas.

This is what's so ridiculous about the junk from mr freddy-basic exercise physiology describes the energy production activities during exercise above low intensity and the body must have carbs to do this. And, if you don't re-supply sufficient carbs immediately after exercise and for the subsequent hours then recovery (which is supposed to be a rebuilding to a stronger and/or more efficient body) is lessened and/or compromised. If he, and you choose to ignore this basic level of understanding about ex phys then it can be your loss.

Most of the studies you CAN find deal with the borderline region of low intensity because that's where there may still be some questions about the usefulness of a high fat diet in conjunction with exercise. As we have seen in these low intensity exercise studies, significant amounts of carbs (35+% of calories) are often used in conjunction with fat.

I think it would help you to learn more about exercise physiology including how the three basic energy systems work, and how muscles work, at the two links below...

http://health.howstuffworks.com/sports-physiology.htm

http://health.howstuffworks.com/muscle.htm

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. :)
Lilly Pad, Been away for a couple of days, Yes I know from personal experience that fish populations have dropped drastically over the past number of 5 decades.. Ive fished and biked about the same amount of time, since I was 4, so I started each about 1950.. The fish populations around here in the northeast US have shrunk BADLY since then!!! Flounder populations have declined so badly that local bait and tackle shops cant even rent their row boats due to lack of interest.. 30 years ago there was a whole fleet of whiting boats that went out during the winter, fares took home 30 to 40 fish or more each, earlier this month there was an article that one party boat went out in search of whiting and 30 fares took home 12 whiting in total..30 years ago winter party boats also went offshore weather permiting for cod and pollock on a regular basis... No more.. 30 years ago there was a run of giant tuna every fall.. No more.. I love to catch weakfish in the spring and Im still foolish enough to try.. Last spring despite 7 trips targeting weakfish I didnt catch one.. Seals now populate off of the coast of Cape Cod and have stretched down to NJ because there natural forage, herring, has been decimated by commercial fishing and they must find other bait to feed on....years ago you could go down to the dock during the summer and bank on seeing large fish such as tuna, marlin and swordfish be brought to dock, no more.. I could go on but I dont think that I would connect with you..
Heres a site, if youre interested in what you might call the chicken little mentality..www.earth policy.org/updates/updates25. I have seen what has happened to the fisheries with my own eyes so these studies dont surprise me.. Yet for those interested the studies do show that 90 per cent of large predatory fish stocks such as tuna, swordfish, cod and halibut have been overfished, that there are fewer and fewer large fish left of any of those species and that increased demand combined with high technology is putting drastic demands on those fish populations..Yes big deal you say the ocean is a big place and other fisheries will be found that can be targeted..Not really, the ocean is not so big as fish populations tend to ball up in certain areas.Fish stock are now much more easily followed with the advent of gps so they cant readily disappear after storms..Studies naturally show that as demand for fish has drastically increased over the past 50 years the fish populations have declined and 75% of them are at a breaking point..
I really dont take all that kindly to the glib views of those who believe that fish stocks can be over harvested to the extent that they are and believe that there will be no repercussions for the same.. I have lived near the sea all my life and have seen the effects of overfishing on the stocks that I have loved to fish for and read about that has taken place over the last 50 years and it breaks my heart.. I buried my Uncle over the last couple of days who started me fishing long ago..Hes been sick and last week at one of my visits with him we laughed at the fish we used to catch years ago in the local rivers.. Flounder, seabass and bergalls, fluke and then flounder again..as the season progressed.. We caught them when the fishing was right by the orangebag full.Youd be hard put to catch in a season now as many fish as we did then in a weekend.Times have changed and carb counters recommending more and more fish for diet and commercial fishermen with their bottom draggers and bottom rollers and increased technology have seen to that....

" it's tough to get funding to study something the vast majority of interested parties already knows and agrees on"

reminds me of the very early days of low carbing when Dr. Atkins was accused of publishing dangerous informtion, even hauled before congress... jump ahead 30 years, and low an behold, it turns out the good dr. atkins wa right about a lot of things, in addition to working, a low carb diet actually improve your lipid profiles (raises hdl, lowers triglycerides, etc. etc.) and reduces your risk of heart disease and diabetes and quite possibly alzheimers and some cancers... for 3 entire decades, no one would even bother to study the issue, everyone knew better. Now we finally get around to doing some serious studies and we find there really is no reliable scientific evidence that fat and protein and moderate carbs are dangerous... of course this is still controversial in some quarters, but to anyone objective enough to read the science, it's crystal clear.

now I just have a couple of points to make:

1) show me a study. just one. I looked myself, and couldnt find one.

2) I found a lot of contradictory evidence.... one study suggests a low fat training diet combined with a high carb refeed leads to improved performance, another one shows the opposite. there are a lot of studies showing a high fat diet has promise, to a point, but none that support effort in the 80+%MHR that warren thinks is the only way to exercise, at least none that I have found so far.

3) But given that OP is motivated to lose wt. via low carb and exercise, and is in fact doing so, whats the problem? whats the rub? why the hostility? why the anger? in short, what's your f***ing problem, bub?

I am starting to get a general impression that somewhere along the borderline between aerobic and anaerobic activity, somewhere between 80 to 90% mhr for a trained individual, you do need carbs. what I havent found is any conclusive evidence of how much. and not even when you should consume the carbs. some say during exercise, some after. i think this is one of those arenas where nobdy really knows anything.


back to OP, if I were him, I would keep up my low carb diet and training, and when the pounds come off, or when the weight loss stops for more than 3 months or so, then I would experiment. Add some more complex carbs, carefully, and see if that really helps him improve his training efforts and weight losss. If it does, great, if not, step back.

"

3) But given that OP is motivated to lose wt. via low carb and exercise, and is in fact doing so, whats the problem? whats the rub? why the hostility? why the anger? in short, what's your f***ing problem, bub?

I have no anger. It's not my body that's fat and unable to exercise above 70% of MHR. Bottom line is this, you have made some bad choices and gone about some things in a poor manner WRT your health and eating habits. You seem to think that you must do the exact opposite of what got you into trouble in the first place in order to reverse your situation.

Some basic understanding of some exercise physiology can teach you that you do not need to make an extreme change to get you where you want to be. A sensible diet, with sufficient, and appropriate fueling for the exercise you should be doing is what it takes. A good example was the guy who posted last night who lost more than 100 pounds on a sensible diet and is now preparing to ride his bike up 6 mountain passes in the Sierras over 140 miles, all in one day!

I have provided you with MANY opportunities to learn some things you don't know already and if you would just take the time to read the exercise physiology stuff I've linked for you you would have a much better understanding of the relevant factors that will best help you lose fat and improve your fitness via cycling or related means. Once you are informed better about how YOUR physiology actually works along with exercise you can make better-informed choices WRT your diet and exercise.

I am starting to get a general impression that somewhere along the borderline between aerobic and anaerobic activity, somewhere between 80 to 90% mhr for a trained individual, you do need carbs. what I havent found is any conclusive evidence of how much. and not even when you should consume the carbs. some say during exercise, some after. i think this is one of those arenas where nobdy really knows anything.


These studies are easy to find. Performance during exercise above ~70% of MHR lasting longer than about 60 minutes will be improved with some carbs during the exercise. As for how much, figure about 16 ounces of sports drink per hour. If you want to get your carbs in another source then shoot for about 30 grams of carbs per hour, along with about 16-20 ounces of water. Technically speaking, the drink should be about 5-7% carbs. Gatorade for example is made at this %. Hogher % carbs than this may not be well-absorbed during exercise and/or may cause stomach upset. Hi carbs just rior to exercise or during exercise might also encourage more lactic acid production, although by itself this is not as bad as most people think it is since your body can absorb large quantities of lactic acid and re-use some of it for good fuel.

IF you exercise above 70% it's pretty much impossible to consume (during that exercise) as many carb calories as you're using up.

There is 100% agreement that carbs should be eaten starting about 15 minutes after exercise to enhance recovery and begin replenishing glycogen stores. Eating a mixture of carbs in a ratio of 4:1 to 8:1 carbs to protein is best according to many studies. Fat is a poor choice during this time of increased insulin activity because the fat is more likely to be stored than it would be if eaten at other time.

There are various opinions about how much carbs should be eaten before exercise. It depends on the person's muscle fiber makeup and fitness status, the intended intensity, and the duration of the exercise.

As for how many carbs per day, there are many online tools for estimating your total caloric expenditure per day including various types and intensities of exercise, and then you can just take a percentage of that to guide you to the number of grams or calories per day.


You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

I'd like to clarify a couple of points for the viewers who have just tuned in.:D

there's kinda 2 topics going on here:

1) Whether or not a moderate/high fat, moderate/high protein, low carb diet is healthy and practical for Joe Average who exercises a bit

2) Whether or not the above mentioned diet is practical for endurance athletes.

the 2nd topic seems to be the more contentious, mainly, probably, because there's less available research :)

For the most part I eat low carb. It because a matter of need not choice.
I had been getting weaker for years but it was slow enough I did not really notice it. When I started commuting I found I did not have a lot of energy and I played with foods to find energy. Well l could eat 6 pieces of fruit a day and only get a little extra energy. Through food elimination I found I had these allergic reactions to anything that had carbs and some other oddball things.
I thin kit was all the antibiotics I had for my stomach problems and then upper lung infections I would get once or twice a year.
At the peak of the worst of it I was eating 4000 to 5000 carbs all in proteins and fats and a few veggies. I was loosing 2 pounds a week and I could somewhat ride the 20 mile round trip commute.
Some days I was so slow it was pathetic. The reactions caused sore tired muscles asthma problems and it would make me weak. My doc had no clue and no help.
A doc friend I had been emailing thought I was in starvation mode. It made since. Once I stopped eating carbs (well I could handle onions and a bit of tomato) it took a year or so to see real improvement I had slow little improvements. I could ride a bit faster my muscles did not hurt as much. Imagine feeling like you ran the words longest race every time you got on the bike. My butt hurt my legs and arms hurt even my feet hurt.
But at the peak of feeling well I had the fastest rides since I had started riding almost three years ago. I had lost a lot of muscle tone over the years for the fist time my calves looked good.
Well silly me I found corn and sometimes rice and sugar did not seem to bother me much so I ate it. Well after a couple of months I lost some of that muscle again and I was riding slow and feeling like crap.
Plus when I eat carbs (even if I eat fewer calories) I gain weight. I can only loose weight if I don’t eat carbs.
But eating very few carbs I got faster and gained muscle. Yes I only rode 20 miles a day 5 days a week but still. People on low carb have done well with some increase in the carb intake for hard workouts.

Do you really think with millions of dollars at stake the athletes won't be eating the best they possibly can? It doesn't matter who sponsors them because they'll eat whatever they want and need and the public will never know.

Riddle me this Anthony, how long do you think it would take a partially dehydrated racer in the Tour to digest 4000 calories of fat each night? During the races they stop eating fat with about 2-3 hours to go because the fatty foods don't mix well with the intensities they have to deal with during those periods. Before then, they'll get maybe 30-40% of their calories from fat.


Do I think that athletes aren't eating the best possible food even with big money at stake?

Absolutely! People are killed everyday by doctors advising patients to go onto low fat / low cholesterol diets. Athletes just don't rate in the scheme of things.

About the diets of TDF riders, where did you get the information on what they eat? I thought you and others were telling us they were on low fat diets.

Anyway fat is EASY to digest if its the traditional animal fats or cold pressed oils. Refined oils on the other hand are undigestable and since refined oils are all that most of you have experience with maybe this is why you have this misunderstanding. Nothing makes my stomach more prepared for a hard ride than soured, unpasturized milk and cream. I like my homemade sauerkraut too which is good for my stomach. The last thing you need on a hard ride is refined crap and unfortunately that's what gels and bars are.

Regards, Anthony

I have no anger. It's not my body that's fat and unable to exercise above 70% of MHR. Bottom line is this, you have made some bad choices and gone about some things in a poor manner WRT your health and eating habits. You seem to think that you must do the exact opposite of what got you into trouble in the first place in order to reverse your situation.


who is unable to exercise? OP and I are both overweight, yes, but we are exercising just fine... I work out at 70ish% because I CHOOSE to, because I'm not insane, I work out six days a week, and I have no interest in injuring myself. I'll be gradually stepping up the pace, I'll be sure to let you know my progress, Coach. a

Some basic understanding of some exercise physiology can teach you that you do not need to make an extreme change to get you where you want to be. A sensible diet, with sufficient, and appropriate fueling for the exercise you should be doing is what it takes. A good example was the guy who posted last night who lost more than 100 pounds on a sensible diet and is now preparing to ride his bike up 6 mountain passes in the Sierras over 140 miles, all in one day!

I actually dont find that guy's diet all that sensible, he's avoiding sat. fat for no good reason. Some even argue sat. fat is necessary component of your diet. anyway, that's a nice story, but so what? I can point you do hundreds of folks who've lost over 100 pounds low carbing and exercising moderately. and I already pointed you to Stu Middleman who runs 100 miles per day, day after day after day after day... on a fat fueled diet.




I have provided you with MANY opportunities to learn some things you don't know already and if you would just take the time to read the exercise physiology stuff I've linked for you you would have a much better understanding of the relevant factors that will best help you lose fat and improve your fitness via cycling or related means. Once you are informed better about how YOUR physiology actually works along with exercise you can make better-informed choices WRT your diet and exercise.

I like my choices, thank you anyway!


These studies are easy to find.

then find one. as you can see, nobody is just taking your word for it.



Performance during exercise above ~70% of MHR lasting longer than about 60 minutes will be improved with some carbs during the exercise. As for how much, figure about 16 ounces of sports drink per hour. If you want to get your carbs in another source then shoot for about 30 grams of carbs per hour, along with about 16-20 ounces of water. Technically speaking, the drink should be about 5-7% carbs. Gatorade for example is made at this %. Hogher % carbs than this may not be well-absorbed during exercise and/or may cause stomach upset. Hi carbs just rior to exercise or during exercise might also encourage more lactic acid production, although by itself this is not as bad as most people think it is since your body can absorb large quantities of lactic acid and re-use some of it for good fuel.

you could actually be right about that. the question is, how much improvement? and is it worth it? you can improve your performance with blood doping, drugs, etc. but is it worth it? I choose to controll my carbs for reasons that go way beyond weight and a slight performance edge.





There is 100% agreement that carbs should be eaten starting about 15 minutes after exercise to enhance recovery and begin replenishing glycogen stores. Eating a mixture of carbs in a ratio of 4:1 to 8:1 carbs to protein is best according to many studies. Fat is a poor choice during this time of increased insulin activity because the fat is more likely to be stored than it would be if eaten at other time.

no, there isnt (100% agreement), only a pervasive and dogmatic mindset amoungst the hard core.

There are various opinions about how much carbs should be eaten before exercise. It depends on the person's muscle fiber makeup and fitness status, the intended intensity, and the duration of the exercise.

As for how many carbs per day, there are many online tools for estimating your total caloric expenditure per day including various types and intensities of exercise, and then you can just take a percentage of that to guide you to the number of grams or calories per day.

online calculators and advisors too steeped in the carbo loading dogma to be of much use, to me anyway.


You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

at least horses dont suffer from dogmatic mindsets, not as far as we know anyway....

I'd like to clarify a couple of points for the viewers who have just tuned in.:D

there's kinda 2 topics going on here:

1) Whether or not a moderate/high fat, moderate/high protein, low carb diet is healthy and practical for Joe Average who exercises a bit

2) Whether or not the above mentioned diet is practical for endurance athletes.

the 2nd topic seems to be the more contentious, mainly, probably, because there's less available research :)

I can't believe this thread is still going - might as well be a helmet, VC or steel/carbon debate.

I see another point of contention here between those who wish to depend upon ivory tower studies and those who depend upon time proven results. Personally, I prefer to go with what is proven to work over my lifetime, rather than every new tom, dick and study that comes out.

I do have one question - isn't eating fat to lose fat kind of like fighting for peace or f_ing for virginity?

It's not always about what you leave OUT of a diet, it's what you put IN.

It seems like every day there's a new miracle food or component of food. Every day the benefits of antioxidants are proven against another debilitating, chronic disease; phytonutrients are shown to promote longevity; fiber has benefits for your heart and your colon; one vitamin after another has far-reaching benefits beyond the ones that they were originally identified for.

If you eat to maximize the presence of all of these health-promoting elements in your diet, you will find yourself eating lots of dark leafy greens, colorful vegetables, legumes, perhaps some fatty fish, plenty of fruit (especially berries), nuts, and other fresh and minimally processed foods. You might have a few calories left over to spend on vitamin- and fiber-rich whole minimally processed grains and on lean meats raised on pasture without artificial hormones or antibiotics. You'll choose teas over pops, and foods prepared with love over industrially mass-produced slop.

And then there's exercise. We are still the species that evolved in response to a very active lifestyle. We weren't meant to be sedentary. The more we exercise, the healthier we are. This is common sense that is proven time and again. Sure, working out a few hours a week at a low to moderate intensity is better than nothing. But ATHLETES with low resting heart rates, low blood pressures, low body fat and low body weight are maximizing their heart health as well as enjoying a strong immune system and a balanced emotional state. They are fulfilling their evolutionary promise in a contemporary way.

So you put two and two together. Eating mostly "good for you" foods gives you a diet that's about 60% carbo. Eating to maximize your training performance gives you a diet that's about 60% carbo.

Where do you fit a "low carb" scheme in here, anywhere?

I do have one question - isn't eating fat to lose fat kind of like fighting for peace or f_ing for virginity?


No.

You seem to be such an expert on low carb diets... tell me, what does my normal diet consist of? provide me with a list of actual meals... I think part of the problem here is that the "LOW CARB HATERS" don't even have any idea what I am actually eating each day when on this diet. I will be happy to list some of my normal meals, but first I want to hear from the "expert"

Mike

Warren,

This is SOOOO important.... why are you avoiding this question??? Do you even have a clue?

Mike

I can't believe this thread is still going - might as well be a helmet, VC or steel/carbon debate.

I see another point of contention here between those who wish to depend upon ivory tower studies and those who depend upon time proven results. Personally, I prefer to go with what is proven to work over my lifetime, rather than every new tom, dick and study that comes out.

I do have one question - isn't eating fat to lose fat kind of like fighting for peace or f_ing for virginity?


I'm all for the f_ing for virginity thing, ha haa!

but you raise good point, the proof is in the pudding. If OP reaches his goal in,oh, lets say, 9 months via low carb and riding, what exactly is the problem?

I can't believe this thread is still going - might as well be a helmet, VC or steel/carbon debate.


You can't ride a carbon frame on a low carb diet.

Steel requires iron, which is plentiful in meat.

If you wear a helmet, you'll lose weight faster, but not if you ride in a bike lane.

And eventually, it all comes back to beer.

Az

Warren,

This is SOOOO important.... why are you avoiding this question??? Do you even have a clue?

Mike

yeah, I'm curious about warren's diet, training schedule, and most imptantly, his bloodwork - LDL, HDL, triglycerides, blood sugar, etc.

also, still waiting for just one study proving that a trained athlete who has been given time to adapt to a high fat diet suffers in any department other than all out sprinting, lifting, etc.

I think that is really the only area of contention here, and I dont see how it applies to OP. Anyway, I suspect it's probably a sort of continium, the closer you get to anaerobic effort, the more you need the glucose, but how close? and do the documented physical changes that take place after sufficient training on a high fat diet make up the difference?

Yes, and speaking of bloodwork, those that are embracing a diet that incorporates a relatively high level of saturated fat, have you checked YOUR bloodwork lately? Saturated fat will increase your LDL and, at the same time, decrease your LDL. While saturated fat may be fine for those with a high HDL level, those with a normal or below normal HDL may be setting themselves up.

Warren,

This is SOOOO important.... why are you avoiding this question??? Do you even have a clue?

Mike

Not avoiding, it's just not important for the discussion. Low carb=<30% carbs (calories) for an active person in good health. For a person who is exercising it should be above 45%.

Yes, and speaking of bloodwork, those that are embracing a diet that incorporates a relatively high level of saturated fat, have you checked YOUR bloodwork lately? Saturated fat will increase your LDL and, at the same time, decrease your LDL. While saturated fat may be fine for those with a high HDL level, those with a normal or below normal HDL may be setting themselves up.

you couldnt be more wrong. when carbs are controlled, a high fat diet, including sat. fats, leads directly and quite quickly to higher HDL, about the same LDL, dramatically lower triglycerides, and blood sugars in the correct rage.

As for HDL and LDL, there is a lot of controversy over whether these mean anything anyway, except that you will have problems if they are too low. but that's another subject for another thread on anothe forum somewhere.

Not avoiding, it's just not important for the discussion. Low carb=<30% carbs (calories) for an active person in good health. For a person who is exercising it should be above 45%.

so, if OP reaches his goal on <30% carbs, what is the problem?

yeah, I'm curious about warren's diet, training schedule, and most imptantly, his bloodwork - LDL, HDL, triglycerides, blood sugar, etc.


Fats are kept relatively low on days of heavy training or racing. Normally, saturated fat is usually less than 15 grams a day, good fat is usually around 15-25 grams a day, protein is about 1.1 to 1.4 grams per kg of bodyweight per day (depending on type of training), carbs as needed. Total daily calories is around 2600-3500 depending on training and racing needs.

Training schedule is appropriate for a guy who was a Masters National Champion in 2004 and 2005, and wants to do that again in 2006.

Blood work for cholesterol factors is always excellent and rarely checked because it's been that way for at least 20 years. Blood sugar is not problem if I pay attention to low glycemic carbs when that's appropriate and have high glycemic carbs when that's appropriate.

Main Entry: dog·ma
Pronunciation: 'dog-m&, 'däg-
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural dogmas also dog·ma·ta /-m&-t&/
Etymology: Latin dogmat-, dogma, from Greek, from dokein to seem -- more at DECENT
1 a : something held as an established opinion; especially : a definite authoritative tenet b : a code

of such tenets <pedagogical dogma> c : a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds

as in making claims that studies are easy to find on pubmed, but never producing a single one.

Fats are kept relatively low on days of heavy training or racing. Normally, saturated fat is usually less than 15 grams a day, good fat is usually around 15-25 grams a day, protein is about 1.1 to 1.4 grams per kg of bodyweight per day (depending on type of training), carbs as needed. Total daily calories is around 2600-3500 depending on training and racing needs.

Training schedule is appropriate for a guy who was a Masters National Champion in 2004 and 2005, and wants to do that again in 2006.

Blood work for cholesterol factors is always excellent and rarely checked because it's been that way for at least 20 years. Blood sugar is not problem if I pay attention to low glycemic carbs when that's appropriate and have high glycemic carbs when that's appropriate.

so, you buy into the good fat/bad fat mythology (regarding sat. fats - I hope you have the good sense to avoid trans fats), you consume high glycemic carbs? better get that blood sugar checked.

so, if OP reaches his goal on <30% carbs, what is the problem?

The problem for some people is not whether they can get to a goal, it's how well they get there. There are many ways to lose weight. Some are better than others. More carbs (greater than 30%) would allow for better performance during exercise/training. The weight would likely come off quicker in the long run, he might enjoy his exercise more because of being able to perfom better along the way, and be generally more fit. Would you rather exercise at low intensity for 10 hours a week or exercise with some higher intensities for about 3-4 hours of that total time? This is even more important if time available for exercise is under 10 hours per week.

so, you buy into the good fat/bad fat mythology (regarding sat. fats - I hope you have the good sense to avoid trans fats), you consume high glycemic carbs? better get that blood sugar checked.

I only get trans fats by accident or not paying attention. High glycemic carbs are pretty much a requirement right before, during, and after exercise. _I_ control and manipulate my blood sugar, not the other way around.