Advertise on Bikeforums.net



User Tag List

Page 13 of 18 FirstFirst ... 31112131415 ... LastLast
Results 301 to 325 of 450
  1. #301
    Senior Member eriku16's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    66
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    What is so wrong with striving for a balance of macros in ones diet and eating proper sized portions? Why all the LCHF propaganda BS against carbs?

    Since this is a sub-forum pertaining to "Training and Nutrition", you should be trying to maximize your performance on the bike, not sabotaging it! I'd be a fool to lose my hard earned FTP to drop a few kilos eating CHO >100gms/day. Eating from 2300-4000cals (-300cal defict) a day, I lost 26kgs over months with CHO around 55-70% of total calories.

  2. #302
    Wheelsuck Fat Boy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    6,159
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    For the record, I don't have anything in particular against carbs, but I do think in a reasonable diet they are eaten at about the same rate they are spent. On a big riding day, eat a lot of carbs. On a day where you're not riding or riding recovery, eat fewer.

    If you're doing prep or base training, you can get away with fewer carbs, which balances your body more towards fat burning (one of the main goals of base training). Will this have a detrimental effect on your FTP? Yes. I would argue that in December, few people should care, except for the racing CX'ers among us. However, if you're in a build or race phase of training, you're going to need carbs for high-end performance (sub-threshold and above). Eat them to fuel the work you're doing.

    Is this such a strange notion?
    Austin doesn't have hippies. They have slightly rebellious Methodists. - Racer Ex

  3. #303
    Bicycle Repair Man !!! Sixty Fiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    YEG
    My Bikes
    See my sig...
    Posts
    26,197
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by eriku16 View Post
    What is so wrong with striving for a balance of macros in ones diet and eating proper sized portions? Why all the LCHF propaganda BS against carbs?

    Since this is a sub-forum pertaining to "Training and Nutrition", you should be trying to maximize your performance on the bike, not sabotaging it! I'd be a fool to lose my hard earned FTP to drop a few kilos eating CHO >100gms/day. Eating from 2300-4000cals (-300cal defict) a day, I lost 26kgs over months with CHO around 55-70% of total calories.
    I am looking at the bigger picture, not all of us ride our butts off and it almost seems that being fit puts us in the minority.

  4. #304
    riding since '76
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    PA, USA
    Posts
    154
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I wish everyone would (could?) distinguish between refined carbs and complex carbs, rather than lumping this enormous range of foods all together and treating it as nutritionally identical.
    2011 Cervelo RS
    2007 CAAD9

  5. #305
    Wheelsuck Fat Boy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    6,159
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by springs View Post
    I wish everyone would (could?) distinguish between refined carbs and complex carbs, rather than lumping this enormous range of foods all together and treating it as nutritionally identical.
    I think we've been over that in the last 13 pages...maybe not. It's a bit much to ask for each individual post.
    Austin doesn't have hippies. They have slightly rebellious Methodists. - Racer Ex

  6. #306
    Senior Member GeorgeBMac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    My Bikes
    2012 Trek DS 8.5 all weather hybrid, 2008 LeMond Poprad cyclocross, 1992 Cannondale R500 roadbike
    Posts
    1,809
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by springs View Post
    I wish everyone would (could?) distinguish between refined carbs and complex carbs, rather than lumping this enormous range of foods all together and treating it as nutritionally identical.
    +1
    .... They ain't the same! (But they both get trashed as if they were -- sort of: "guilt by association"!)
    --------------------------------------
    bikes: 1992 Cannondale R500, 2012 Trek DS 8.5, 2008 LeMond Poprad

  7. #307
    Long Distance Cyclist Machka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    I ride where the thylacine roamed!
    My Bikes
    Lots
    Posts
    39,189
    Mentioned
    36 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by springs View Post
    I wish everyone would (could?) distinguish between refined carbs and complex carbs, rather than lumping this enormous range of foods all together and treating it as nutritionally identical.
    +1

    Sugar cubes are quite different from whole grain pasta.

  8. #308
    Long Distance Cyclist Machka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    I ride where the thylacine roamed!
    My Bikes
    Lots
    Posts
    39,189
    Mentioned
    36 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Sixty Fiver View Post
    If you insist that it is merely a matter of carbs in and carbs out then you are well behind the research curves as not all carbs are created equal and even those eating within dietary guidelines are consuming more of them than they should.
    It is NOT a matter of carbs in and carbs out ....... (and Rowan certainly didn't say it was ... he knows better than that!)

    It IS a matter of calories in and calories out.


    You're doing what I've seen many others do ... assuming that carbs and calories are the same thing. Using them as though they were the same word. And they're not.

    Fat, Protein, and Carbohydrates all have calories. Eat fewer calories by reducing the amount you consume of one or more of those three elements, and you'll lose weight. Eat more calories by increasing the amount you consume of one or more of those three elements, and you'll gain weight.

    Fat: 1 gram = 9 calories
    Protein: 1 gram = 4 calories
    Carbohydrates: 1 gram = 4 calories

    http://www.nutristrategy.com/nutrition/calories.htm

  9. #309
    Bicycle Repair Man !!! Sixty Fiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    YEG
    My Bikes
    See my sig...
    Posts
    26,197
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Machka View Post
    It is NOT a matter of carbs in and carbs out ....... (and Rowan certainly didn't say it was ... he knows better than that!)

    It IS a matter of calories in and calories out.

    You're doing what I've seen many others do ... assuming that carbs and calories are the same thing. Using them as though they were the same word. And they're not.

    Fat, Protein, and Carbohydrates all have calories. Eat fewer calories by reducing the amount you consume of one or more of those three elements, and you'll lose weight. Eat more calories by increasing the amount you consume of one or more of those three elements, and you'll gain weight.

    Fat: 1 gram = 9 calories
    Protein: 1 gram = 4 calories
    Carbohydrates: 1 gram = 4 calories

    http://www.nutristrategy.com/nutrition/calories.htm
    Actually... it was a typo.

    I know the difference between carbs and calories.... you know that too.

    I have heard the calories in / calories out from both of you many many times... scientific research refutes this as being far too simple.

    Our bulletproof coffee in the morning contains about 300 calories and no carbohydrates.

    See... I can tell the difference.

    Carry on.

  10. #310
    Bicycle Repair Man !!! Sixty Fiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    YEG
    My Bikes
    See my sig...
    Posts
    26,197
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Machka View Post
    +1

    Sugar cubes are quite different from whole grain pasta.
    A 100 gram serving of whole wheat pasta, with nothing else added contains 78 grams of total carbohydrates.

    That is the equivalent of 20 cubes of sugar with some protein and fibre.

  11. #311
    Long Distance Cyclist Machka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    I ride where the thylacine roamed!
    My Bikes
    Lots
    Posts
    39,189
    Mentioned
    36 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Sixty Fiver View Post
    Actually... it was a typo.

    I know the difference between carbs and calories.... you know that too.

    I have heard the calories in / calories out from both of you many many times... scientific research refutes this as being far too simple.

    Our bulletproof coffee in the morning contains about 300 calories and no carbohydrates.

    See... I can tell the difference.

    Carry on.
    Oh good! I was quite surprised when you posted that.

    But a tip ... drop the 300 calorie drink in the morning, and you'll have the potential of losing approx. 1 lb every 2 weeks. I wish I had an expendable drink like that in my daily consumption.

  12. #312
    Bicycle Repair Man !!! Sixty Fiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    YEG
    My Bikes
    See my sig...
    Posts
    26,197
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Machka View Post
    Oh good! I was quite surprised when you posted that.

    But a tip ... drop the 300 calorie drink in the morning, and you'll have the potential of losing approx. 1 lb every 2 weeks. I wish I had an expendable drink like that in my daily consumption.
    We've met and I am the same size now as I was then and probably even fitter... where exactly do you think I am stashing that extra pound to lose ?

    My wife has been drinking bulletproof coffee every morning since the beginning of August... she has lost 40 pounds since then and does not restrict her calories... just the carbs.

  13. #313
    Long Distance Cyclist Machka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    I ride where the thylacine roamed!
    My Bikes
    Lots
    Posts
    39,189
    Mentioned
    36 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Sixty Fiver View Post
    A 100 gram serving of whole wheat pasta, with nothing else added contains 78 grams of total carbohydrates.

    That is the equivalent of 20 cubes of sugar with some protein and fibre.
    100 grams of sugar = 387 calories ... and pretty much no other nutrients.
    http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/sweets/5592/2

    100 grams of whole wheat pasta = 124 calories ... with 18% dietary fibre and several other nutrients.
    http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/...d-pasta/5784/2

  14. #314
    Senior Member elcruxio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    mordor
    My Bikes
    2011 Specialized crux comp, 2013 Specialized Rockhopper Pro
    Posts
    718
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Fat Boy View Post
    There is some validity to your point, but there are also other things going on. If a person is taking on a big carb load at a meal, then they get the blood sugar rise and the subsequent drop due to the insulin release. When blood sugar drops below a certain level, then that person gets hungry again. This happens in about a 90-120 minute interval if you continue to eat a diet that is high in insulin spiking carbs (sugar or grain based foods are common offenders).

    If you stick to more of a fat/protein schedule, you don't get the big blood sugar variations, so you don't get that gnawing hunger. Do you eventually get hungry? Of course, but it is at longer intervals and lower intensities. At least, that's what I've found.

    http://www.dietdoctor.com/dr-attia-a...about-diabetes
    Or instead of just stuffing carbs you could have a balanced meal of which at least half of the plate is veggies (salad etc.) And has a overall balanced set of carbs, proteins and fats. This is the basic mealtype my country recommends.

    Veggies, fats and proteins all either slow the absobtion of carbs or level out the insulin reaction. Unlike some here seem to think, the insulin reaction is not a bad thing. It's a natural reaction of the body. I don't think insulin would be used as a doping agent by pro athletes if the insulin reaction was inherently bad.

    Of course it needs to be understood that there are good and bad insulin reactions. Candy causes the bad kind where the body panics and uses more insulin that is needed. The last few minutes of that bad reaction are the critical ones causing the low blood sugar when the carbs suddenly run out. The body stops insulin production but for a few minutes there are still high amounts of insuling doing their magic.

    The good reaction is the one where the absorbtion of carbs is slower and the body stops insulin production gradually when needed. The long "tail" of absorbtion is achieved by slower carbs, fat, veggies and protein on the same meal aka balanced diet.

    After a good balabced meal you won't feel hungry fir hours because it will take the body quite some time to get the blood sugar low again when it has gotten to a normal level
    Last edited by elcruxio; 12-13-13 at 02:22 AM.

  15. #315
    Senior Member wolfchild's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Mississauga/Toronto, Ontario canada
    My Bikes
    I have 3 singlespeed/fixed gear bikes
    Posts
    2,356
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Machka View Post
    It is NOT a matter of carbs in and carbs out ....... (and Rowan certainly didn't say it was ... he knows better than that!)

    It IS a matter of calories in and calories out.


    You're doing what I've seen many others do ... assuming that carbs and calories are the same thing. Using them as though they were the same word. And they're not.

    Fat, Protein, and Carbohydrates all have calories. Eat fewer calories by reducing the amount you consume of one or more of those three elements, and you'll lose weight. Eat more calories by increasing the amount you consume of one or more of those three elements, and you'll gain weight.

    Fat: 1 gram = 9 calories
    Protein: 1 gram = 4 calories
    Carbohydrates: 1 gram = 4 calories

    http://www.nutristrategy.com/nutrition/calories.htm
    No. Calorie restriction is NOT a good long term solution for weight loss. Why starve yourself ?? Most people who start low-calorie diets quit after a while and gain back all the weight that they lost.

  16. #316
    Long Distance Cyclist Machka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    I ride where the thylacine roamed!
    My Bikes
    Lots
    Posts
    39,189
    Mentioned
    36 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by wolfchild View Post
    No. Calorie restriction is NOT a good long term solution for weight loss. Why starve yourself ?? Most people who start low-calorie diets quit after a while and gain back all the weight that they lost.
    I'm not talking about starving!!!

    Who on earth said anything about starving???

    Don't tell me I have to explain this to you.

  17. #317
    Senior Member GeorgeBMac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    My Bikes
    2012 Trek DS 8.5 all weather hybrid, 2008 LeMond Poprad cyclocross, 1992 Cannondale R500 roadbike
    Posts
    1,809
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Machka View Post
    100 grams of sugar = 387 calories ... and pretty much no other nutrients.
    http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/sweets/5592/2

    100 grams of whole wheat pasta = 124 calories ... with 18% dietary fibre and several other nutrients.
    http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/...d-pasta/5784/2
    And another difference is the Glycemic Index. Or, more importantly, the glycemic load (which brings quantity into the equation). For example, eating a box of cookies puts more stress on your system than eating one cookie:

    From Harvard Medical: http://www.health.harvard.edu/newswe..._100_foods.htm

    Wonder Bread (30g): Glycemic index= 73, Glycemic Load= 10
    100% Whole Wheat(30g): Glycemic index= 51, Glycemic Load= 7

    Apple (120g): Glycemic Index= 39, Glycemic Load= 6
    Banana (120g): Glycemic Index= 62, Glycemic Load= 16
    Grapes (120g): Glycemic Index= 59, Glycemic Load= 11

    Coke (250ml): Glycemic index=63, Glycemic Load= 16

    Those are very big differences...

    As has been said before, carbs are not, in and of themselves bad -- and neither is insulin and the insulin response...

    But, when you overload your system with a 44 ounce coke, yes, it is bad. But, unless you are diabetic or pre-diabetic, your system is designed to process and use normal, reasonable loads of carbs...

    So, no, you cannot lump together carbs from a 44 oz coke and carbs from a slice of 100% whole wheat bread. They do very different things to your system.
    --------------------------------------
    bikes: 1992 Cannondale R500, 2012 Trek DS 8.5, 2008 LeMond Poprad

  18. #318
    Bicycle Repair Man !!! Sixty Fiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    YEG
    My Bikes
    See my sig...
    Posts
    26,197
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    If a person is diabetic they should avoid carbs of every kind... I think it is bad advice to suggest that those with diabetes continue to eat foods that caused them the problems in the first place.

    My mother was diagnosed with type 2 diabetes in her 60's... she really liked it when my sister and I put her on a low carb diet and her blood sugars were normalized without medications after she went on a diabetic diet which allowed for more carbs.

    You could not keep up with her in her 80's... her functional abilities were so much better than most of the people her age and she continued to volunteer as a nursing aide well into her 70's after she retired.

    I don't think we are actually that good at processing higher carb loads at all... the lowered fat higher carbohydrate experiment we have been subject to seems to have been an utter fail.

  19. #319
    Wheelsuck Fat Boy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    6,159
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Machka View Post
    +1

    Sugar cubes are quite different from whole grain pasta.
    Whole grain bread can cause a larger blood sugar spike than a sugar cube. Pasta less so, but it's still no slouch.

    The problem with wheat is not on the carbohydrate side per say (although I would argue that it's easy to overdo it). The problem with wheat products hinges more on the proteins which can be problematic for a large percentage of people. You don't have to have full-blown celiac for gluten to be an issue, and that's just one of the issues with wheat.
    Austin doesn't have hippies. They have slightly rebellious Methodists. - Racer Ex

  20. #320
    Senior Member GeorgeBMac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    My Bikes
    2012 Trek DS 8.5 all weather hybrid, 2008 LeMond Poprad cyclocross, 1992 Cannondale R500 roadbike
    Posts
    1,809
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Fat Boy View Post
    Whole grain bread can cause a larger blood sugar spike than a sugar cube. .
    Yes, if the sugar cube is small enough - and the "Whole Wheat" is half refined carbs. (Which is why you should always try to buy 100% Whole Wheat.

    And, "pasta" usually means refined, white flour -- which everybody recognizes as bad...

    Again, you can't call all carbs equal -- just as you can't call all fats and animal protein equal...
    ... But that is what the low carb guy try to do...
    --------------------------------------
    bikes: 1992 Cannondale R500, 2012 Trek DS 8.5, 2008 LeMond Poprad

  21. #321
    Senior Member GeorgeBMac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    My Bikes
    2012 Trek DS 8.5 all weather hybrid, 2008 LeMond Poprad cyclocross, 1992 Cannondale R500 roadbike
    Posts
    1,809
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Sixty Fiver View Post
    If a person is diabetic they should avoid carbs of every kind... I think it is bad advice to suggest that those with diabetes continue to eat foods that caused them the problems in the first place.

    My mother was diagnosed with type 2 diabetes in her 60's... she really liked it when my sister and I put her on a low carb diet and her blood sugars were normalized without medications after she went on a diabetic diet which allowed for more carbs.

    You could not keep up with her in her 80's... her functional abilities were so much better than most of the people her age and she continued to volunteer as a nursing aide well into her 70's after she retired.

    I don't think we are actually that good at processing higher carb loads at all... the lowered fat higher carbohydrate experiment we have been subject to seems to have been an utter fail.
    Diabetes is mostly associated with over-weight / obesity, not carbs. At least not "good carbs" like vege's and whole grains.
    --------------------------------------
    bikes: 1992 Cannondale R500, 2012 Trek DS 8.5, 2008 LeMond Poprad

  22. #322
    Wheelsuck Fat Boy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    6,159
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by GeorgeBMac View Post
    And another difference is the Glycemic Index. Or, more importantly, the glycemic load (which brings quantity into the equation). For example, eating a box of cookies puts more stress on your system than eating one cookie:

    From Harvard Medical: http://www.health.harvard.edu/newswe..._100_foods.htm

    Wonder Bread (30g): Glycemic index= 73, Glycemic Load= 10
    100% Whole Wheat(30g): Glycemic index= 51, Glycemic Load= 7

    Apple (120g): Glycemic Index= 39, Glycemic Load= 6
    Banana (120g): Glycemic Index= 62, Glycemic Load= 16
    Grapes (120g): Glycemic Index= 59, Glycemic Load= 11

    Coke (250ml): Glycemic index=63, Glycemic Load= 16

    Those are very big differences...

    As has been said before, carbs are not, in and of themselves bad -- and neither is insulin and the insulin response...

    But, when you overload your system with a 44 ounce coke, yes, it is bad. But, unless you are diabetic or pre-diabetic, your system is designed to process and use normal, reasonable loads of carbs...

    So, no, you cannot lump together carbs from a 44 oz coke and carbs from a slice of 100% whole wheat bread. They do very different things to your system.
    One of the reasons you can't lump the carbs from something like fruit and bread together is that the primary fruit carb is fructose and the primary bread carb is starch. Fructose does not produce near the insulin response that other carbs do. That does not necessarily mean that they are across the board good for you, though. The sugar in the 44 oz coke that you mentioned is primarily fructose (HFCS) as well.

    When you take a fructose load, the liver tends to grab that sugar and store it, similar to the way it does the energy from alcohol. One of the newer health problems is non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. Our population is being stuffed full of so much fructose (HFCS) that we're destroying our livers. If you aren't _very_ careful with what you choose to eat, though, you can consume quite a big chunk of fructose while eating 'healthy' foods (for instance, it's often included in whole wheat bread).

    As far as insulin goes, it's a tool of the body. As you said it's not 'good' or 'bad' inherently, it's just a tool. When Crux mentioned that some athlete's use insulin, he didn't say what for. It's a storage signalling hormone. When a weight lifter/bodybuilder is in the mass-gain phase of their program, they will eat massive amounts of calories (especially protein) post workout and then inject insulin to make sure that those calories gets stuffed into the muscles. Every once in a while you read of a guy that gets a little liberal with his dose and hurts/kills himself by dropping blood sugar to nothing. The reason that these guys are injecting insulin is that they're taking in a massive caloric load and their bodies just will not store that amount of energy on it's own. They have to somehow increase the signalling to store what they're eating. Incidentally, you would never see a bodybuilder using insulin during the cutting phase of their training, because it would be counter-productive.

    If you're trying to gain weight, insulin is your friend. Our ancestors had to have insulin so that during the summer and early fall they could eat as much sugary stuff as possible and gain body fat. When the winter came, they were not going to have easy access to food and those stored calories were going to keep the alive in the hard times. In winter time, vegetation can be difficult or impossible to come by. You have to hunt animals to live. When you kill an animal, you eat every scrap and you end up with a fat/protein diet (some of the fat you consume is coming off of *you*!). This winter diet looks a whole lot like a ketogenic diet. Certainly, Dr. Atkins would approve. This starvation/ketogenic phase causes some positive changes to the body. Because it is so skinny on inducing an insulin response, it conditions your body to be very insulin sensitive when the time comes to eat sugar. It's a matter of yin/yang.

    You might read this and say, "It's all paleo B.S." Well, that may or may not be the case. This year I read the entire Little House on the Prairie series to my 6 year old daughter. In the book, "The Long Winter" she described this exact scenario and the entire town damn near died of starvation. This was not 25,000 years ago, it was in the 1880's. It was less than 150 years ago. You have not significantly evolved from your great, great grandparents.

    One thing we find with the present diet is that we are constantly in 'summer' mode. Even the 'healthy' eaters have fruit all year around (me included). We don't really ever have to deal with anything approaching starvation. Our body never gets to hit the insulin response reset button, so as the years go by we become less and less insulin sensitive. I think if you look at the LCHF crowd, you'll see it's weighted towards the older crowd. The younger crowd just hasn't gotten there, yet. It really doesn't seem to be too much of a stretch to think that as your body changes with age you need to fuel it differently. When I was a teenager I loved to take down an entire box of Hostess doughnuts dunked in milk (Lord only knows why my mother allowed this!). Well, if I did that now, I'd be sick for the rest of the day.

    It's horses for courses. If you're in the situation where you need more carbs, then by all means, eat them. If you're not, then go easy on them. Someone mentioned that a 'balanced' diet is 1/2 the plate full of veggies. That's often what I eat. I'll have 1/2 the plate a salad with all sorts of green fiberous vegetables. I put a bit of balsalmic vinegar and olive oil on it. On the other 1/2 of the plate, I'll have some sort of protein/fat source. At the end of the day, I find this pretty balanced, but if you look at it from a caloric standpoint, I've probably taken in 100 calories of carbs, 150 calories of protein and quite a bit of fat. If I'm post-workout or know that I'm going to need extra 'glycogenic' energy (like for my CX race tomorrow), then I'll include a sweet potato with some butter. That will give me another 200 calories of carbs and 100 calories of fat. So even with a big, 'carby' meal I've taken in 300 carb/ 150 protein / 500 fat calories. My point with this example is that 'balanced' changes depending on how you're measuring it (volume or by calories) and depending on what your activity level is.
    Austin doesn't have hippies. They have slightly rebellious Methodists. - Racer Ex

  23. #323
    Wheelsuck Fat Boy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    6,159
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by GeorgeBMac View Post
    Diabetes is mostly associated with over-weight / obesity, not carbs. At least not "good carbs" like vege's and whole grains.
    Diabetes and obesity absolutely correlates to whole grains.
    Austin doesn't have hippies. They have slightly rebellious Methodists. - Racer Ex

  24. #324
    Wheelsuck Fat Boy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    6,159
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by GeorgeBMac View Post
    Again, you can't call all carbs equal -- just as you can't call all fats and animal protein equal...
    ... But that is what the low carb guy try to do...
    Incorrect. Let's forgo the straw men, shall we?
    Austin doesn't have hippies. They have slightly rebellious Methodists. - Racer Ex

  25. #325
    Senior Member GeorgeBMac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    My Bikes
    2012 Trek DS 8.5 all weather hybrid, 2008 LeMond Poprad cyclocross, 1992 Cannondale R500 roadbike
    Posts
    1,809
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Fat Boy View Post
    Diabetes and obesity absolutely correlates to whole grains.
    ... Not by the evidence that I have seen...

    The low carb guru's have built a very fancy argument that diabetes is caused by carb intake, but their evidence has not, so far, been convincing to me.
    --------------------------------------
    bikes: 1992 Cannondale R500, 2012 Trek DS 8.5, 2008 LeMond Poprad

Page 13 of 18 FirstFirst ... 31112131415 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •