Originally Posted by Rowan

You've branded Evans as a cheat? Because Zabriskie and Contador are confirmed cheats?

Originally Posted by Sixty Fiver

The article speaks to a "paleo approach" to nutrition by reducing carbs and increasing fat intake... the average North American consumes about 400 grams of carbs a day and over the past 30 - 35 years North Americans have ballooned in size and this correlates with changes in nutritional guidelines that saw people decreasing their fat intake and increasing their carbohydrate intake by a corresponding amount.

Originally Posted by squirtdad

The writer had to stop the Okinawa diet as it drove his cholesterol dangerously high, but many people have no problems with the same diet

https://www.outsideonline.com/fitness...-vs--Food.html

Originally Posted by Sixty Fiver

Originally Posted by DoninIN

I don't really want to jump in here and start arguing against all things Primal/Paleo/Ketogenic, whatever, I'm not at all certain what I believe about all the various claims made on different sides of this argument. (OTHER than that reduction in processed foods and sodium is almost certainly a good thing virtually without exception.)

HOWEVER: This bit up here, about how the recommendations for the American diet have changed, and lead to this weight gain. This is not really credible. the diet that has made people fat, along with the lifestyle isn't really recommended by anyone other McDonalds'[1], is it? Take a look at this, link, https://www.usda.gov/factbook/chapter2.pdf or take my word for it, that what irritates me when experts in any kind of low carb diet make these claims against the increase in modern carb consumption that they seem to be willfully ignoring that most of this increase is in the form of corn syrup and sugars. The so called advocates of the "low fat diets" are not in fact advocating that people chow down on tons of simple sugars and fat.

I'm not accusing Sixty Fiver of being disingenuous or misleading, I don't think that's what you had in mind at all, I'm just suggesting people make this point differently as I think it sharpens the discussions.

Also I think as a personal guideline, and recommendations for others paying particular attention to sodium intake can greatly help, both overall health, and it's virtually impossible to eat a low sodium diet with a lot of processed junk in it, since many such foods will get you to 2,400 mg long before you get to 2,000 calories.

1: https://www.quickanddirtytips.com/edu...rophe-part-two

Originally Posted by Sixty Fiver

A few slices of healthy whole wheat bread will jack your blood sugar levels up more than many candy bars... the glycemic index of whole wheat bread is higher than white bread and higher than sugar.

This is not to say that whole grains are bad for you as they have many health benefits but if you are looking to reduce sugar intake bread is a good place to start.

Originally Posted by Sixty Fiver

A few slices of healthy whole wheat bread will jack your blood sugar levels up more than many candy bars... the glycemic index of whole wheat bread is higher than white bread and higher than sugar.

This is not to say that whole grains are bad for you as they have many health benefits but if you are looking to reduce sugar intake bread is a good place to start.

2 slices of bread contains 51 grams of carbohydrates and this is before you put jam on your toast.

A bottle of coke contains 27 grams of carbs.

Originally Posted by Sixty Fiver

Looking at healthy fats... the human body is very efficient at converting this to energy.

Originally Posted by springs

Lets not confuse whole wheat flour and whole grains. Big difference.

Originally Posted by jeff@work

This unfortunately is a common fallacy, the glycemic index is not a good representation of how something affects your blood sugar levels, glycemic load is more accurate. The glycemic load of a slice of whole wheat bread varies from 7-9 while a snickers bar is 23.

Not to mention the carbs in a can of coke is 35 g all of which is sugar, a 20oz bottle is 65g. 2 slices of whole wheat bread (natures own) is 40 g with 6 of that being from sugar.

With that said I do personally avoid sugar sweetened foods such as cereals, candy bars, cookies, etc. I used to have a huge sweet tooth but once i started avoiding foods like that it completely went away... it's almost scary how addictive sugar is.

Originally Posted by gregf83

The body is far more efficient at converting carbs to energy which is why eating carbs while riding is more useful than eating fats. If you're riding a lot at any intensity you'll need significantly more than 150g/day of carbs. It's hard to tell how many carbs are being burned while riding but I suspect on a long ride 3-4 hrs I go through at least 1000 Cals of carbs that need to be replenished. I believe the general guidelines while training are to eat approx 5-6g/kg of carbs per day.

While riding you want high glycemic foods. There also isn't much of an insulin response if you ingest high glycemic carbs while exercising.

Originally Posted by hamster

Bread (whole wheat or otherwise) is starch (therefore, glucose), sugar is 50% glucose / 50% fructose. Naturally, sugar raises your blood glucose to a lower extent than bread.

Originally Posted by Sixty Fiver

When it comes to caloric intake, the 2000 calories a day you were eating 40 years ago probably looks different than what those 2000 calories a day look like now.

When fat became our enemy that was replaced with sugar as prepared foods need a hook to keep us buying them... sugar is a powerful stimulant and the quantities of sugar / carbs most people eat is far too high and causes insulin resistance and can lead to diabetes.

Looking at healthy fats... the human body is very efficient at converting this to energy.

And it isn't just junk food and processed foods.

A few slices of healthy whole wheat bread will jack your blood sugar levels up more than many candy bars... the glycemic index of whole wheat bread is higher than white bread and higher than sugar.

This is not to say that whole grains are bad for you as they have many health benefits but if you are looking to reduce sugar intake bread is a good place to start.

2 slices of bread contains 51 grams of carbohydrates and this is before you put jam on your toast.

A bottle of coke contains 27 grams of carbs.

I watch my carbs and look to stay under 150 grams a day... fruit and vegetables can provide all of that although I also get some of those carbs from nuts. If I eat more carbs on a given day I might feel fine (I can't tolerate much wheat) or I might wake up with nasty cravings whereas if I stay the course I usually wake up and don't even feel hungry.

If I drink alcohol it is usually without any mix (which usually adds carbs)... I like my whiskey neat.

If I ramping it up on the bike as I have been, I notice I crave more carb rich food... I make homemade power bars with honey, nut butters, and oatmeal which still lean more heavily toward fat and protein than they do sugars.

I feel that this is a much healthier lifestyle as I am fuelling my body in an efficient manner and not subjecting it to repeated stress from an excessive intake of carbs... I feel that the recommended 300 grams a day is too much and that most folks go way beyond this.

Originally Posted by chasm54

There's been a lot of debate here recently about various versions of the low carb diet.

As far as the Paleo diet is concerned, I have no trouble with the plausibility of one of its basic assumptions, namely that the more processed food we eat, the more likely we are to run into trouble. And there's no doubt that refined carbs ar now consumed in ridiculously high volumes by very many people. So I guess I am fundamentally sympathetic to The low-carb movement.

And it probably works fine, athletically, for the pure endurance athlete. The ironman or ultramarathoner doesn't want to go anaerobic, it just burns matches they want to stay unlit. What they want to do is become as fast as possible in their endurance zone, and just tick over, conserving as much glycogen as possible and burning just enough of it to fire their fat-burning. And that is probably true of most cyclists who just want to ride around, get fitter, have a good time etc. and are rarely or never going to make threshold and supra-threshold efforts.

But if we're talking about competition, bike racing simply isn't like that. Yes, one needs a high level of endurance. But it is the nature of most races that one is alternately sprinting, recovering at speed, sprinting again and so on. In a typical race, even at my pitiful level, my HR is averaging something very close to my threshold and oscillating between max HR and, say, 90% of threshold. I'm anaerobic repeatedly and the ability to tolerate that is key to simply being able to stay with the pack.

When I dabbled with low-carb I simply couldn't do it. I couldn't train for it effectively, because I found that I couldn't complete my interval sessions and I was tired all the time. When I reverted to a "normal" carb intake of maybe 200g - 300g per day the difference was immediate, and beneficial.

So my view would be that most people would probably benefit from significantly reducing their intake of refined carbs, and that doing so is not going to compromise their performance at most recreational or endurance-based sports. But if they want to train for bike-racing, then based on my experience they are going to have to get enough carbs to fuel their efforts. That may not be a huge quantity, but it won't be negligible, either.

Originally Posted by Fat Boy

Just curious, are you still eating the same way? I've been playing around low carb lately (not necessarily Paleo, but they share a lot of commonalities). I've also read Wheat Belly, which is pretty damning to wheat and grains in general.

Something that I get a kick out of. All of these 'debunkers' bring up the question of fiber if you limit your whole grains. Hey guys, it's called a salad, and it has all the fiber you'll ever need. While there may be reasonable criticisms, this one is a complete non-starter.