Low Carb Stupidity Vs. Low Carb Intelligence
#11
Today, we live in a society of lazy people. I think we can all agree that the number of overweight/obese people has grown over the years.
20 years ago kids use to go out and play, now they sit inside and play video games (consuming more calories than they burn). Same thing can be said for adults.
So I think it's safe to say that as a whole, we (society in general) consume a bigger surplus of calories than we did 20 years ago, which is a DIRECT reason for there being more overweight/obese people than ever.
#12
What % of carbs do you take in, HC? Like I said, 55-60% seems to work for me with my cardio workouts. Do you get the same? Have you noticed if you don't get enough carbs that it effects your endurance?
#13
FitDay Member
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 137
I agree with you, Michael. It's a basic law and it stands as such.
To argue against a basic law such as this is like arguing that the sun might not rise tomorrow morning. It's an impossible case to make so why bother. Explain that argument to all the starving people in third world countries who are definitely taking in less calories than they burn; all lose weight.
To argue against a basic law such as this is like arguing that the sun might not rise tomorrow morning. It's an impossible case to make so why bother. Explain that argument to all the starving people in third world countries who are definitely taking in less calories than they burn; all lose weight.
#14
FitDay Member
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 137
PS: One of the things I read was a 30 page compilation of about 150 studies done over the last 30 years. It included studies on starvation (such as refugee camps), anorexia, and other eating disorders--where, at some point, the weight loss stopped, but the shutdown of vital organs continued. It was very interesting...
#15
PS: One of the things I read was a 30 page compilation of about 150 studies done over the last 30 years. It included studies on starvation (such as refugee camps), anorexia, and other eating disorders--where, at some point, the weight loss stopped, but the shutdown of vital organs continued. It was very interesting...
At the point where the weight loss stopped even though they burned more calories than they ate in the situations you are referencing the people were starving. There is a huge difference between starvation and trying to lose weight. And their organs continued to shutdown. They probably couldn't weigh any less because that was the weight of their skeleton, skin & organs.
#16
Protein runs around 10%, fat 20%
Edited to add: Yes, my performance suffers without enough carbs.
Last edited by handcycle2005; 01-05-2012 at 08:27 AM.
#17
As I've been told, most average atheletes only store about 30 minutes of glycogen in muscles and a bit more in the liver (HC you can probably chime in on this). After 30 minutes of continued aerobic work, the body starts switching over to the fat reserves, but the conversion of tri-glycerides to glucose is not as efficient as burning the glycogen stores, thus you eventually tire. In any event, if you don't eat much after your run, your body will continue to work off the fat reserves to restore glycogen. Training does many things, among them is improving that efficiency at extracing glucose from fat. No doubt, some people are physiologically better at adapting to low carb diets than others. That's the basis behind "eating according to blood type". An interesting concept, but LOTS more research needs to be done.
I spent about 20 years participating in competitive volleyball, basketball, and softball on 11-15% carbs (all from vegetables and dairy products). It worked for me. My body was leaner, less fat, than many of my competitors, though I was not thin. My endurance we better than those who tanked up on carbs and then crashed. The protein gave me a longer 'burn.' FYI:
I do low carb because it helped stave off diabetes (originally diagnosed with hypoglycemia) for 32 years. Now, when I measure blood glucose (fasting and after meals), I can see an immediate impact whenever I add carbs back in my diet. My body cannot handle wheat or corn--it used to make me fat, now it makes me sick. After the last hospital stay (of 5) last Spring, I don't even try small portions of wheat and corn any more.
One of the things that researchers are beginning to say is that our concept of weight loss--eat fewer calories than you use to lose weight--is not valid (by itself) because there are other things that impact weight loss, such as heredity and vitamin deficiency. Also, the researchers say that if 'eat fewer calories than you use' worked, fewer people would be overweight and all diets would work for any person. They don't.
I do low carb because it helped stave off diabetes (originally diagnosed with hypoglycemia) for 32 years. Now, when I measure blood glucose (fasting and after meals), I can see an immediate impact whenever I add carbs back in my diet. My body cannot handle wheat or corn--it used to make me fat, now it makes me sick. After the last hospital stay (of 5) last Spring, I don't even try small portions of wheat and corn any more.
One of the things that researchers are beginning to say is that our concept of weight loss--eat fewer calories than you use to lose weight--is not valid (by itself) because there are other things that impact weight loss, such as heredity and vitamin deficiency. Also, the researchers say that if 'eat fewer calories than you use' worked, fewer people would be overweight and all diets would work for any person. They don't.
Volleyball, it would appear that you have a gluten intolerance, which is a complicating factor in the carb vs no carb debate. I would agree that some diets work better for one person than it does for another. Part of that is that "the best diet is the one you can stick to". If you are not much of a carnivore doing paleo just won't work for you. But I also think that there is a hereditary component to food tolerences and metabolism. And as a number of us post menapausal-types can tell you metabolic rates definitely change with time and age.
PS: One of the things I read was a 30 page compilation of about 150 studies done over the last 30 years. It included studies on starvation (such as refugee camps), anorexia, and other eating disorders--where, at some point, the weight loss stopped, but the shutdown of vital organs continued. It was very interesting...
The whole starvation below 1200 calories is a protective guideline that the AMA has adopted - according to my diet doc. As with all medical guidelines its goal is to be as protective of the "average" person as possible. Unfortunetly the "average" person doesn't really exist, so for me his recommendation was closer to 1000 cals which worked just fine - as long as I could maintain it . 1000 cal ain't much food.
#18
Glycogen stores are generally enough for 2-3 hours of running depending on training volume, running speed, running efficiency and a number of other factors. Hence "hitting the wall" at around twenty miles in a marathon.
The average athlete store between 300-450 grams with highly trained endurance athletes having levels as high as 750 grams.
With training, the % of fat to carbs burned can improve some(along with in-race feeding of carbs) thus enabling runners to complete a marathon without depleting.
Only a tiny percentage of fat can be converted to glucose(<10%) which accounts for the abrupt slowdown that accompanies hitting the wall. Fuel cannot be burned fast enough to go faster.
Protein can be converted to glucose more easily but not as well as carbs so a high protein diet could provide enough though it can be hard on the kidneys for some.
RbS, vegetarian sources of protein are generally high in carbs as well. Has your friend really totaled up what she's getting? It's not a bad thing as she would be getting complex carbs rather than simple carbs or refined sugar.
The average athlete store between 300-450 grams with highly trained endurance athletes having levels as high as 750 grams.
With training, the % of fat to carbs burned can improve some(along with in-race feeding of carbs) thus enabling runners to complete a marathon without depleting.
Only a tiny percentage of fat can be converted to glucose(<10%) which accounts for the abrupt slowdown that accompanies hitting the wall. Fuel cannot be burned fast enough to go faster.
Protein can be converted to glucose more easily but not as well as carbs so a high protein diet could provide enough though it can be hard on the kidneys for some.
RbS, vegetarian sources of protein are generally high in carbs as well. Has your friend really totaled up what she's getting? It's not a bad thing as she would be getting complex carbs rather than simple carbs or refined sugar.
#19
HC, yeah, I know what you mean. But, she is very small, so over all intake is pretty low to begin with and she leans towards a lot of eggs and whey powder shakes (too many IMO - but I'm not her). I've seen her equivalent to FD and I don't really know how she does it... but she does.
#20
HC, yeah, I know what you mean. But, she is very small, so over all intake is pretty low to begin with and she leans towards a lot of eggs and whey powder shakes (too many IMO - but I'm not her). I've seen her equivalent to FD and I don't really know how she does it... but she does.
Someone that small will burn fewer calories per mile.
Also effort level is a factor-running at 65% of MHR will use a higher percentage of fat for energy that running tempo at 85% so fewer carbs are needed to fuel endurance training.