So, your saying there may be good carbs and bad carbs, but why differentiate, dont eat any because they are all bad.

Thats like everyone saying why differentiate between trans fat and monounsaturated fat, there both fats, dont eat either, their both bad.

um, no, that's not what I said, and it's not like that...

you know, if you dont like my posts, why dont you just put me on your ignore list. You've just made mine. Rant all you want, i wont be reading your "contributions"

Finally

ah the science keeps marching on...

it's been claimed in this forum that athletes on low carb diets lose muscle mass. the author of this article disagrees, and has the studies to back up his assertions.

http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.co...3-7075-3-9.pdf

I think you mean to say it has almost as much amylopectin. Or at least, brown long-grain vs. white long-grain are comparable in their starch content (though the former has more fiber and vitamins as well as a slightly lower GI). Basmati and other "dry" varieties are higher in amylose, decreasing their glycemic index (though they are still in the intermediate range and are not really low-GI foods).

(I eat brown Basmati, in meals with lower-GI foods, for a moderate glycemic load.)

HTH!

amylpectin?

Dammit. My browser ate my post.

So. Some guy from Finland sees an article in the quack journal that claims that "DEXA data indicated both the VLCARB and VLF diets resulted in significantly more lean mass loss as a proportion of weight loss (32% and 31%) compared to the HUF diet (21%) (P<0.05)". (Oh, and by the way, HUF or high unsaturated fat is actually a "balanced diet with good fats", 50% carbo/30% fat/20% protein with low sat fat!)

So he up and shoots off a "letter to the editor" -- the SAME DAY as the original publication no less -- in which he claims that he feels that the protein sparing effects of very low carb (<10 g CHO, that's not even applicable to YOUR diet, mrfreddy!) couldn't possibly be overruled in this study of 67 people. His proof? DEXA is inaccurate!

Then he goes on to blab about maybe 3 or 4 studies that were pretty unrelated to the one he's evaluating, that support his personal notions.

How is that science?

Amylopectin and amylose are the two forms of starch in grains. Amylose is less readily digested, so it affects the blood sugar less immediately. I believe this is because amylopectin is more branched, providing more surface area for digestion. Amylopectin is the starch that makes sticky rice sticky and arborio gooey. High-amylose forms of rice, those that are light and fluffy and dry, have only a fraction of the GI of high-amylopectin, low-amylose species.

ah, you're just nitpicking!

"some guy from finland!!" did you really mean to insult the entire country of Finland? :>

you're right, my diet includes more carbs, maybe I should cut some more out, hahaaa.... seriously tho, I dont see how you can discount the study just based on that little fact.

where are the studies supporting the opposite arguement? haven't seen one yet telling me that an athlete who has had time to adapt to a high fat diet suffers from impaired aerobic performance or muscle loss or any of the numerous other claims made here.

at full risk of getting abused again by the j person, let me say this about that: if choosing good carbs over bad is a good idea, because they effect blood sugar more slowly, then it only follows that choosing foods that effect blood sugar even more slowly (meats, fish, low starch veg., low sugar fruit), must be a much better idea. Unless of course you're getting some nutritional value from those "good carb" foods that cannot be found elsewhere, and of course, that ain't the case.

just my opinion, of course.

He listed his affiliation as "Advanced Research Press" and his email at "luukku.com"! (Only by further investigation did I discover that is is or was on the faculty of Physiology at a Finnish university.) Those credentials don't give him any more weight than any other guy from Iowa or Italy. He's just a guy.

We're not even talking athletes or adaptation here! This discussion is about a 12 week trial of giving different people the same number of calories with different macronutrient distributions. They had about the same adherence to the diet, and they lost about the same amount of weight (a calorie is a calorie, which dear Manninen also disagrees with), but the ones on a balanced diet lost less lean mass vs. the ones on low-fat and low-carb diets.

Anyway. About carbo. I eat grain foods because I can use the calorically dense boost. I came home last night after a hard spinning class (avg HR 178!) and was I ever glad for my ~4 oz. of al dente pasta! But you're right, fruits and veggies are a superior way to get carbo, especially if you are watching your intake, because they are jammed full of nutritional benefits and are low in caloric density. Last year I would have said that a diet based on grain (which has a reasonable protein content, some fiber and minerals, and digestible caloric energy) was great. I've moved away from that because of my conviction that phytonutrients and essential fats need to be emphasized more.

hmm, I just re-read it, kinda quickly since I'm at work and supposed to be doing other things, hahaa but it seemed to me that he was raising valid criticisms of the study you mentioned, and then pointing out a few studies that, tho not perfect, have clearly pointed in the other direction. he concedes more need to be learned, but the weight of the evidence does not support the conclusions of the first study mentioned.

and when I'm hungry after a hard workout, I reach for a calorie dense steak! or if I want a snack, some cashews or some cheese. but then again, I dont need to restock carbos...

Not many overweight couch potatoes do

I actually wasn't hungry. I redlined my HR during that workout, and was belchy and all kinds of ick. But I knew from experience that if I don't get glycogen replenishing foods during the post-workout window, my recovery takes days. Today I have only a slight, pleasant DOMS. Mmm. ;)

ok, I'll go out on a limb here... it could be that your recovery takes days because you are relying on glucose to fuel your workouts. glucose turns into lactic acid causing achy muscles. when you burn fatty acids instead, carbon dioxide and water are the by-products, and are very easily excreted (according to Barry Groves anyway...).

In my case, I only started working out seriously four weeks ago, and I can already work out six days a week, seven if I wanted to, without a problem. sometimes my muscles ache a bit but they are always back in form and ready to go by the next day.


DOMS??

Do you really think that at non-ketogenic carbo intake, you're completely bypassing glycolysis for high-intensity work (~90% MHR)?

Here's a fun site about the role of lactate in exercise. http://www.pponline.co.uk/encyc/0175.htm

Delayed Onset Muscle Soreness. Microtears in the muscles. Proof that you worked out. :)

I honestly don't know. I know that I don't eat a lot of carbs, so there can't be much glucose in my system to burn. I did just have half a banana tho!

I do know that I'm not at 90% MHR, except when I did a few sprints the other day in the pool. my best guess is that I'm working out at 77% MHR these days.

How do I put this guy on my "ignore list" so I no longer see his BS posts?

Mike

User Control Panel (top right corner of this page) then Buddy/Ignore lists bottom left... works like a charm.

Adding my two cents...

I was a competitive long distance runner for years and years. As is the norm for endurance sports, I was on a low-fat/high carb eating regimen. I thought I was healthy. Turns out, I was in the worst nutritional shape of my life, I just didn't know it, until I had something else to compare it to. Honestly, out of spite to prove someone wrong, I tried the Zone eating plan for a week. After day one, I felt an immediate and huge difference: Workouts were easier, I recovered faster, I wasn't as sore after tough workouts, I had boundless energy during the day when I wasn't working out... Everything seemed really easy.

Then, I took up mountain biking, and had to literally double my caloric intake. ;)

I don't adhere strictly to the Zone or any other eating plan, but I do know, for me personally, the low-fat/high-carb diet is something I'll *never* go back to. I had no idea just what kind of roadblocks I was putting in front of myself that prevented me from building more muscle, keeping that muscle, and giving my body the fuel it needed to recover. For me, high-carb doesn't work. Now I eat plenty of protein, plenty of fat, and carbs are an afterthought (I just try to eat plenty of fruits & veggies).

I'm adding my two cents in because, really, had I not tried a low-carb plan for that week, I never would have believed it could work. But I guess it all depends on what works for you individually.

Let's get some more concrete measures in here. What's your macronutrient breakdown in percentages? For example, I tend to hit 50/30/20 (CHO/fat/protein) on the nose when I'm "eating clean". The "Zone" diet, at 40/30/30 is not that far from me. I also don't believe that's low-carb per this discussion, but I am open to being corrected. :)

Well, the Zone is low-carb compared with the high-carb way I was eating before. (I was in the bagels/pasta/rice/fat-free yogurt crowd.)

I'm afraid I'm not the measuring, exacting type. I haven't really put any concrete measures to anything for a few years now. The key for me is to just not hold back on stuff I used to hold back on. I go heavy on the mayo now, for example. I don't balk at cheese, or guacamole, or ground beef. I eat a (probably large, compared with some folks) serving of protein (and by that I mean meat, fish or eggs) at every meal. If I don't, I pay for it in the energy department.

EDIT: Adding to my reply... when I first started on the Zone, I was very exacting, and ate 40-30-30.

Interesting. If you get a chance, you might just pop a "typical" day's intake into FitDay.com. I go ape**** if I try to track every morsel, every day, but throwing a single day's worth in every so often keeps me kind of on track and aware of how my changing diet affects my performance. :)

I'm not a huge friend to meat, but I do try to get a "good protein source" (usually legume) at every meal, I eat a moderate amount of cheese, and while I'm not a mayo fan you had better believe I'll have ranch dressing on my buffalo chicken salad tonight. ;)

It's funny, I tried to really pump the animal protein for a few days last year, and ended up without enough appetite to get the calories I needed for my workouts! This eating style works well for me. :)

Yeah! Funny you should mention that. I don't get hungry like I used to on my old high-carb plan. I can tell when my body needs food, but I actually feel satiated after eating, and for a longer time. Which is cool.

FitDay.com... I'll check it out. Does it calculate your macronutrient ratios for you?

yup!