'47

Refuting such traditional notions about weight control is one of the "revelations" in Gary Taubes' book, "Why We Get Fat". Anyone have any experience with the "damn the calories and go full speed ahead eating fats & proteins but little carbs" ideas in this book. Gotta say it seems counter-intuitive.

Nikephoros

For starters, that book isn't written with endurance athletes in mind, if you're riding 10+ hours a week good luck not eating any carbs. Second, the laws of physics are adequate to explain why calories in vs calories out is the truth.

Hammonjj

What do the Japanese diet and the Atkins diet have in common?

Atkins is all protein/fat and no carbs.

Japanese is all protein/carbs and no fat.

Guess what? They both work and they both reduce the intake of REFINED SUGARS.

Sugar: The Bitter Truth

Pat

One of the problems in the USA is that we live in the land of the Big Mac. Fast food, prepared foods, convenience foods and restaurant food often have runaway calories. So it is very easy to get overweight. There was a time when 300 lb people were almost unheard of in the USA. Now, one sees people of that size all over the place.

In my experience, if you are putting in very many miles, you have to have carbohydrates. They are what replenishes your glycogen stores.

Now for sedantary people, high fat and high protein can sort of work. I think that calories in, calories out is still true. High fat foods can be pretty filling and they "stay" with you (hard to digest). Another thing about "fad" diets, is that they are very restrictive and the restrictions tend to limit uptake.

A better way to limit uptake is to keep a food log and measure everything you eat. If you feel a bit like a snack, measuring the dang thing and logging it might seem like too much trouble so you don't do it. Also, measuring and logging would tend to prevent one from eating a whole large bag of potato chips which is easy to do if you are watching a movie or a football game.

Personally, I have problems with eating fats unless unsaturated because of cholesterol issues. As I recall one of the gurus of that kind of diet ended up perishing from the effects of his diet. I also know a guy who followed a rigorous high fat/high protein diet which he expounded on at length during rides. He had a stroke climbing a local hill.

A better way to eat is to eat few processed or refined foods. Eat lots a green vegetables, eat fruits, eat lean meats, be moderate on carbohydrates and very low on saturated fats and keep portion control.

Scientific American had an article on the obesity epidemic recently. There basic conclusion was that there was no easy fix and no magic diet.

vision646

That's because its wrong. To your body calories are calories, I lost 35lbs in 4 months by simply reducing the amount of calories I ate in a day. I didn't change what I was eating (which included plenty of carbs) just how much, the one exception is that I added a few more fruits and vegetables. As Nikephoros said physics explains it all.

8Lives

The data/science say that type of calories matters - a lot. A calorie is not a calorie, and source & type fuel matter. Joe Friel, way back in the late '90's said that a 50 year old, 150 pound cyclist needs 120-135 grams of protein a day. You simply can not get that much without making a conscious effort. In our society getting process carbs is all too easy.

gregf83 

Care to share that science? As far as weight gain/loss goes calories are all the same.

mymojo

Adkins works very well in the short term. Ketosis will burn the fat. However, from what I've seen, no one I've ever known has been able to stick with it long term (how long can YOU go without bread, pasta, rice or potatoes?).

So if you need to lose a lot of weight really fast, then yes, the no carbs way is viable. But in my experience there really is not substitute for a balanced diet & regular, goal oriented exercise for long term success.

Carbonfiberboy 

Well, there's calories in the pie-hole and there's usable calories at the muscle head. The science behind these fad diets is that they screw up the body's normal energy pathways and make the calorie in to calorie at the muscle head conversion process more inefficient. Lots of gluconeogenesis:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluconeogenesis
among other curve balls. Thus one would burn more calories to accomplish the same activity because of decreased metabolic efficiency. I don't see this much discussed by low-carb diet enthusiasts, but I believe it to be the case.

vision646

When you're discussing training and serious physical activity where your calories come from is important because as Carbonfiberboy stated it comes down to metabolic efficiency. However we're not getting fat because of the sources of the calories we're consuming, its because of the quantity of calories we're consuming.

badbradclark

For me, calories-in-calories-out is a rule of thumb, not a formula. If I reduce the number of calories in a week by exactly 3500, I will not lose one pound per week. Likewise, if I exercise more to burn 3500 more calories per week, I will still not lose exactly one pound per week. There are too many variables to accurately predict that I will lose X amount of weight if I change may calorie intake to Y. What I do know is that once spring is in full swing and I'm getting in 3-4 rides a week, by the end of the summer, I will lose 10 pounds without any change in my dietary habits. However, if I buckled down and monitor my calorie intake to ensure that it is below a certain threshold, then over time, I will lose weight.

I have discovered most "diet plans" are not for the high endurance athlete. They generally do not allow for enough complex carbs that are necessary for sustaining high-level outputs.

Chaco

If you really want to see all the research papers documenting the overly simplistic notions of calories in = calories out, then I would highly recommend you review the 130 pages of footnotes in Gary Taubes's first book on this subject, Good Calories, Bad Calories. There is lots and lots of research showing human metabolism is considerably more complicated than that.

As for high endurance cycling, you don't have to eliminate carbs from your diet; just cut out the easily digestible ones: sugar, white flour, polished rice, non-whole-wheat bread, etc. Taubes's primary argument is not for eliminating all carbs; he mainly points to easily digestible carbs as the villain in our diets.

The last big NIH study comparing low fat/high carb vs. low carb diets was a very flawed one. The people doing low fat / high carb were also limited in calorie intake; the people doing the low carb diets were not. The study found that both diets were equally effective. But this raises a huge question -- did the low fat diet "work" because of being low fat, or did it work because the calorie restriction also lowered the overall carb intake. It's a basic premise of scientific experimentation that you test the same variables, but this study didn't do that, making it difficult or impossible to tell which variable caused the result.

I routinely do 50 mile rides with quite a bit of climbing on a low carb diet, where the carbs come almost exclusively from vegetables, fruit, and a small amount of whole grain bread or brown rice. I've found that with electrolyte replacement during the ride, along with some nuts for a snack, I don't come close to bonking, or even suffer from cramping during the ride.

It might be different if you're riding 100 miles a day but that's a level of athleticism that's out of my league.

carbondale

Read up on the Glycemic Index too. What happens after you consume X calories is greatly affected by what constitutes those calories. 200 calories of sucrose has a much different effect than 200 calories of soy protein.

Carbonfiberboy 

I can ride almost 50 miles without eating or drinking anything. The best on-bike foods are those with the highest glycemic index, because what you want are easily digestible carbs. The idea of putting stuff in your stomach, while riding, that is not easily digestible is a little on the incredible side. Many people get away with it because they ride slowly or only short rides. A century is not a high "level of athleticism." It's not hard, you just have to know what to eat and drink and how to pace yourself. I can ride a century pretty much any day of the week, 52 weeks/year. I prefer not to do it in the rain, though. My on-bike food is a mix of maltodextrin (glycemic index 120) and whey protein. On long rides, about every 200k I'll eat some real food: a sandwich, industrial fruit pie, or similar.

Off the bike is another story. Chaco is exactly right about off-bike food. Veggies, low-glycemic foods, never a soda, etc.

The homemade stuff I use on the bike is available in similar forms commercially as Spiz, Hammer Sustained Energy, and Accelerade.

BarracksSi

I lost a bundle of weight last year by logging calories and keeping my intake within budget.

Now, I didn't strictly pay attention to what I ate, just how many calories it was. But, after a while, I wanted to eat more substantial meals while staying within my calorie budget, so I started getting away from processed foods and into generally healthy stuff.

For me, less calories = lost weight; better nutrition = better performance.

vision646

+1

Same here.

telebianchi

I didn't follow the link to read on the rest of the article, but what you have written doesn't change "calories in vs. calories out". It's just altering the calories burned side of the equation.

Carbonfiberboy 

I would think it quite plain that the "calories burned" side of the equation is the same as the "calories out" side of the equation. Burned = out, right? A more interesting argument would involve a look at whether or not I am correct in my assertion. That requires curiosity, however.

BarracksSi

Did you guys already see the bit last fall about the KU professor who lost nearly 30 pounds by eating snacky cakes?
https://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08...sor/index.html

He tried it to see if running a successful calorie deficit depended on the quality of food or if it was strictly based on calories. 1800 calories per day of junk like Twinkies, Ho-Hos, and chips, supplemented with a multivitamin and a protein shake, let him cut weight and improve cholesterol levels.

Strictly speaking, calories in vs. calories out is not BS. You can eat 1800 calories of Little Debbie snacks and lose weight or gobble down 3000 calories of salads and gain weight (even though that would be a LOT of salad). Whether you'll gain or lose performance is a separate issue.

gregf83 

You'd need to back up your assertion with some data or an actual study. For example, something showing that a group eating more calories of a particular type had the same weight loss/gain as a control group eating a normal balanced diet. Studies I've seen of low carb diets like Atkins generally allow unrestricted protein and fat consumption but don't actually track the total calories consumed.

Even basic data like the gross efficiency of converting fats or proteins to energy via gluconeogenesis would be helpful.

It sounds like you're saying that if one eats a particular diet they could maintain a lower caloric deficit, for example 250 Cals/day, but lose weight as if they were maintaining a 500 Cal/day deficit. I'd be curious if there were any studies along these lines. I'll believe in 'weight loss = calories out - calories in' until shown otherwise.

Carbonfiberboy 

Here ya go:
https://www.nutritionj.com/content/3/1/9
They say that 'weight loss = calories out - calories in' actually violates the principles of thermodynamics.

Understand: I'm not saying that these diets are a good idea and I don't eat that way myself. I'm only interested in the science of it.

anthrider

I completely agree. I haven't read the entire book but I've skimmed through it and read reviews. It's pretty clear that Taubes has an agenda, which is to try and argue that obesity is not just the obese person's own doing but a result of a complicated response the body has to simple carbohydrates. I'm sorry but there are some HUGE people out there and it's pretty clear why they're so large: they're eating too much. I don't think most obese people have even reached the point where they're trying but failing to eat the recommended amount of calories for someone their height or have even reached the point where they're only eating when they're hungry. The real issue is that for many Americans, and now the rest of the world, eating has become a recreational activity and a source of pleasure. If you locked an obese person in a room full of easily digestible carbohydrates that tasted disgusting and said "I'll be back in a week, eat as much as you can," he or she would probably lose weight by the time you returned.

gregf83 

Well apparently RD Feinman's thoughts on this matter are not widely held. I couldn't find any of his ideas published in peer-reviewed journals. I did find An update on low-carbohydrate, high-protein diets which concluded:

"The use of low carbohydrate diets for weight loss has been an area of controversy for many years. Recently these diets have been scientifically evaluated and a significant body of data has accumulated. Although they can be effective in helping people to lose weight over the short-term, there appears to be no metabolic advantage of low carbohydrate diets. Weight loss results from decreased caloric consumption, likely due to the greater satiation effects of higher protein intake."

So I think I will remain a metabolic advantage agnostic. In any case it's tough to do heavy training on these low-carb diets.

paulclaude

I think it's definately a case of finding what diet best suits you. I tried low carb once for a couple of weeks and I had a problems functioning normally let alone training along with it! I guess my metabolism is just more suited to carbohydrate burning. Interestingly, I never lost that much weight either. It came right back on once I switched back. I've only been able to get nice and lean (and stay that way) on a high carb/low fat/minimal animal protein diet.

slide23

I am a long distance rider (randonneur) and use a low-carb diet. My on-bike food is sunflower seeds, homemade pepperoni, and homemade no-sugar beef jerky. I have not needed to take in carbs in order to maintain my endurance. When I switched to low-carb, my sprint performance initially took a nosedive. But with just a little focused interval training this winter, my sprint performance is now better it has ever been, even when I was 14 and racing. I never bonk and I never get b!tch-hungry (my term for that cranky, "AAGH, gotta eat everything in sight" feeling). That's my personal experience with it, but I am far from alone.

Thermodynamics with regards to weight loss is bunk. Drs Eades are bariatric doctors; I'm inclined to put a little stock in what they say. Yes, in order to lose weight, some manner of caloric deficiency must be attained. But just because you ate 400 calories of carbs doesn't mean you can go burn off 400 calories of carbs.

A couple weeks? If you're on a high carb diet, you're most likely running some degree of metabolic syndrome (6-Week Cure, p.29, Eades)(not their best book, but the only one I have at hand for a reference). Without some manner of shock to your system, which will be unpleasant at first, you will never overcome that metabolic syndrome. All carbohydrate becomes sugar in the mouth or gut. Sugar is straight-up poisonous to the body and liver (see the "Sugar" link someone else provided above).

See "Fat Head." It's available on instant watch on Netflix.

Every cell in the human body can make its own glucose. Glucose is used to replenish glycogen.

Lipid Hypothesis is also BS. Ancel Keys authored the "Seven Countries Study" which was actually 15 countries, but he threw out the eight countries that didn't fit the regression analysis he wanted to demonstrate Vegetarian Myth, p 163 Keith; Cholesterol Myths, Ravnskov). Bariatric doctors, when dealing with a patient with NAFLD and poor LDL/triglyceride ratios will use a high saturated-fat, high cholesterol, low-carb diet in order to bring stats into line (Eades). Carbohydrates and alcohol are proven to push these stats into unhealthy territory whereas study after study shows no correlation between high fat intake and high serum cholesterol. Rather, the correlation is there, but it is in favor of greater fat intake (ibid, ibid).

If you're talking about Dr Atkins, that is a myth. Robert Atkins died from head trauma by falling on ice. And Jim Fixx, avid runner, died of massive heart attack due to atherosclerosis. Is anyone going to stand up and say that aerobic activity results in atherosclerosis? No, that's been proven otherwise. Coincidence is not correlation is not causality. Fixx was genetically predisposed, BTW.

We can find all manner of outliers. I was hit by a car last year. Obviously, eating a low-carb diet causes cyclists to be hit by cars!

Now we're getting to some sense. Except for the low saturated fats part. Our diet evolved with saturated fats. Diseases of civilization such as cancer, stroke, and heart disease, are unheard of cultures with high-fat, high-protein, low-carb diets (ibid). Bone density among these cultures is far greater than in agrarian societies.

We've been fed a pack of nutritional lies by people with only their financial interests in mind. I used to believe in the whole-grain, low-fat diet until I actually started reading about it. It's an eye-opener.