Forum menu
Its GI is usually higher than glucose. But that is a good thing because it is a sports drink. You only drink it when you are exercising.
If I am exercising and my calorie expenditure is say 65% fat and 35% carbs, then in a few hours I'll deplete my carb stores. This will then stimulate my appetite, so I'll eat to replenish them. If I take carbs whilst riding to cover that 35%, then I'll have burned the fat but not depleted by carb stores as much, so I won't be so hungry when I get home. I'll also be able to ride for longer since I'm taking more carbs along with me both in my muscles/liver and my camelbak. So I can ride harder for say 5 hours than I would be able to without and burn more fat.
If I didn't supplement with carbs, depleted my carb stores and then forced myself not to eat to refil them, despite the hunger, then I'll a) feel rubbish and b) be in crap shape for my next ride in the following day or two.
It's worth noting that you can only absorb so much carbs per hour. So this is the maximum I will take with me - I don't always take that max tho. This is one reason recovery drink can be useful - you can get those extra carbs to replenish your supplies.
Of course there are other ways of getting carbs. You can replace recovery drink with something else fairly easily, but it has been shown that the insulin spike from something high GI post-ride helps restore muscle glycogen quickly. You can also eat normal food when riding if you like - this works, but the harder something is to digest the more blood is required by your guts so the less is available for your muscles. So you want something as easy as possible to digest ie high GI. Which is one reason why maltodextrin is popular.
You could drink glucose whilst riding, but it can irritate the stomach and the sweetness would probably make you gag. Maltodextrin doesn't taste sweet (or of anything much). This means that it doesn't press any of the sweetness buttons in your brain which could be the root of the sweetness addictions/cravings that people've mentioned on here.
Another advantage of carb supplementation is that it's pure carbs. If you say sandwiches on your ride you get some carbs but also some fat and other stuff, which you don't need. So for the same amount of carbs, which your body will be wanting, you'll get more calories.
Over the years I've become quite sensitive to the way my body feels when carb stores are high or low, and I manage this. I aim to run at a slight carb deficit, but not too much otherwise I'll get into trouble.
So you see, I'm aiming to find what works for me, my body, my brain and my riding patterns.
Molgrips - there is so much utter tripe in that I don't know where to begin. I'll just point out
😯 I have no idea what you are trying to say - your energy expenditure will be in calories or kilojules. and your metablism simply does not work like you seem to think it doesIf I am exercising and my calorie expenditure is say 65% fat and 35% carbs
If I didn't supplement with carbs, depleted my carb stores and then forced myself not to eat to refil them, despite the hunger, then I'll a) feel rubbish and b) be in crap shape for my next ride in the following day or two.
You could always just eat some normal food giving you a nice mix of low medium and high gi stuff before and during
You really are fooling yourself adn you are storing up serious health problems for yourself in the future.
What % of your daily calorie intake are you having in sugers / maltodextrin?
Anyway - you clearly thing you know best and that your somewhat odd ideas and incorrect basic science are right so I will leave you too it.
[i] I have no idea what you are trying to say - your energy expenditure will be in calories or kilojules. and your metablism simply does not work like you seem to think it does[/i]
Honestly do you really have no idea what he's trying to say?
It's pretty clear to me, and I'd suggest that if you have no idea what he's trying to say, you're not a position to comment on the correctness of it 🙂
If I am exercising and my calorie expenditure is say 65% fat and 35% carbs
Its gobbledegook. Basic physiology.
I have no idea what you are trying to say - your energy expenditure will be in calories or kilojules. and your metablism simply does not work like you seem to think it does
Right, well you burn energy in one of three ways (whilst riding I think.. there maybe more than three someone please fill me in)
PC cycle - for short sprints
Carb burning - for higher intensity
Fat burning - for lower intensity.
You can burn a certain amount of fat to produce a certain amount of energy - if you need more than this then you start burning carbs on top of the fat. So a certain percentage of your energy expenditure is being met by fat burning, and a certain percentage by carb burning. The harder you exercise the greater percentage of your energy needs are being met by carbs.
This really is very basic phisiology (and I'm sure my understanding is greatly simplified). You really don't know much, TJ, honestly. Every coach out there knows this stuff.
You could always just eat some normal food giving you a nice mix of low medium and high gi stuff before and during
I explained in my post why this wasn't ideal.
So tell me, why do you think maltodextrin is bad?
Its GI is usually higher than glucose
since all other starches and sugars are broken down into glucose and fructose I don't believe a GI above 100 (=glucose) is possible...
It can be measured but you need to know what is in your suppliers batch
you won't catch me eating that crap when I can have yummy hot cross buns or chocolate muffins with the same effect 🙂
You are right Barnes, there seems to be two scales - one on which sugar is 100 and one which useses glucose as the 100. So maltodextrin has a higher index than sugar which explains why I'd read the number 140.. but similar to glucose yes.
but similar to glucose yes.
well it would be as that's what it turns into 🙂
I'll turn YOU into glucose you smug git.
Oh wait.. I wasn't supposed to hand out threats was I? 🙂
Mars bars is the answer to all these points - loaded with maltodextrin so great for providing energy when riding.
And if you eat 6 per day and nothing else you will lose weight.
HTH 😀
I'll turn YOU into glucose you smug git.
I also contain protein :o)
Like a protein bubble?
🙂
Oh wait.. I wasn't supposed to hand out threats was I?
that's OK, it was cathartic and I didn't believe you 🙂
Oh shit - I said on the other thread I wouldn't debate this further but before I read the post.
I think maltodextrin has its place - but in the quantities you take it in and using it instead of other sources of carbs will give you insulin spikes and sugar crashes. It is linked with diabetes and obesity. I simnplyu think you are taking far too much of it and getting far too large a % of your calories.
As for metabolism. I don't recognise what you say at all.
You can burn a certain amount of fat to produce a certain amount of energy - if you need more than this then you start burning carbs on top of the fat. So a certain percentage of your energy expenditure is being met by fat burning, and a certain percentage by carb burning. The harder you exercise the greater percentage of your energy needs are being met by carbs.
Is very disputed ( at best - I believe it is utter bunkum). Often spouted but with no real evidence. Length of time of the exercise, blood sugar levels, oxygen uptake and a multitude of other factors effect this as well.
Have a look at Krebs cycle and related areas. I have ( years ago) studied this stuff to a reasonably high level from the point of view of Human physiology and biology if not from the sports point of view,
using it instead of other sources of carbs will give you insulin spikes and sugar crashes
That stuff doesn't apply [b]when riding[/b]. The drink is sipped gradually and the stuff is consumed by your muscles, so no spikes.
Is very disputed ( at best - I believe it is utter bunkum)
I'm all ears - seriously. If I'm wrong about this I want to know! As I am sure does my coach and a lot of other people..
Of course, I was being extremely general above, but I believe the basics are correct and they seem to be borne out as I ride.
Also let me point out that I lost a lot of weight successfully in my first year of training WHILST I was taking the carbs. Nowadays my problem is consistency of training.
Molgrips - the only thing I can suggest is you learn some basic human physiology so you have the knowledge to debunk myths yourself. There is a huge amount of mythology around diet and exercise.
a quick google for fat burning zone myth gave me this amongst others
http://health.usnews.com/health-news/blogs/on-fitness/2009/03/03/the-fat-burning-zone-a-fitness-myth-debunked
And on that I really am not going to get involved further
I don't read the myths.
My interest in this started when I signed up to train with Matt Hart, the chap who writes in the mag.
First PARAGRAPH of that explanation:
While it is true that a higher proportion of calories burned during low-intensity exercise come from fat (about 60 percent as opposed to approximately 35 percent from high-intensity programs)
That's what I said. I wasn't proclaming any magic weight loss plan.
😆
TJ, out of interest, what qualification in Human Physiology do you have?
The fat burning zone is a myth based on a a basic misunderstanding of the physiology.
You can consider I have run away if you like - I really can't be bothered anymore with this.
I never said anything about a fat burning zone!
I said that the more intensely you exercise the more carbs you burn proportionally.
LHS
I completed a course in human physiology that is virtually identical to that which doctors do, I have a diploma and a degree in nursing which includes basic human physiology to around 2nd year university level.
I would claim a decent understanding of the basics altho my knowledge is rusty.
So then:
I said that the more intensely you exercise the more carbs you burn proportionally.
Is true, is it not?
huge response to the offer of some emailed guidelines - sorry couldn't go into lots of details in my replies.
there should be a lot of skinny people appearing on trails over the next 4-6 weeks
would be nice to get feedback on results - but only if you actually follow it. none of this 'i only lost 2 pounds but i ate pasta 5 times a week' bollocks.
Well, teeth or no, some people think they'd like to weigh a little less
I think I'd rather be tubby but with teeth than toothless but skinny 🙁
Cheers iDave. Just got your email mate...salad (apart from tomato) is OK?
Just had to google Matt Hart cos I didn't know who is was.
Is it the same one who owns TORQ?
Ignore iDave
Mars bar has 280 calories in, eat one every 2-3 hours and only drink water, you'll lose loads of weight 😀
Please don't really.
[i]I think I'd rather be tubby but with teeth than toothless but skinny [/i]
Well, good luck to you, whatever makes you happy mate 😉
Fat, thin, whatever, just be happy with yourself 🙂
I haven't eaten fruit for ages now, and the teeth are still with me
in the jar by the bed
😆
iDave, thanks for your posts and advice.
😉
S.
I have emailed you iDave, can you put me on your list of recipients.
iDave - Memberwould be nice to get feedback on results - but only if you actually follow it. none of this 'i only lost 2 pounds but i ate pasta 5 times a week' bollocks.
In the interests of avoiding the bollocks feedback, it would be nice if feedback contained a summary of estimated calorie-intake/expenditure. Losing half a stone in 3 weeks wouldn't prove much if you're a chunky lumberjack eating 1500 cal of lentils per day.
fair point shirly, but steak, chorizo and eggs aren't exactly low calorie
the last thing i want is to lose weight.
im gonna do the iDave in reverse and see if i can be beefcake for my holidays.
And surely the point of these diets is that you DON'T have to count calories. That's a great attraction. But if you did count the calories, I'm pretty sure in those people who loose most weight would have the biggest calorie deficit. An American study showed that even the Atkins diet worked because people overall ate less calories - there's only so much cheese and bacon a man can stomach.
not looking to argue the point - but a lean steak and scrambled eggs wouldn't bust my diet in terms of calories.
I'd like to see this work, but I'd really like to see the calorie totals to be convinced. Looking at your guidelines, I'm fairly convinced that I'd lose weight if I could stick to them, but I'm also pretty sure that you've already ruled out most of the calorie-dense foods that do the damage round my way. butter, cheese, cream, biscuits, chocolate, bread, potatoes, rice.
I'll be needing that wine then
I'd like to see this work, but I'd really like to see the calorie totals to be convinced.
I haven't seen iDave's recommendations but based on what I have read (and what seems to be working for me) calories appear to have very little significance. It is the type of food, combination and timing of eating rather than calorific value which is the key.
calories appear to have very little significance. It is the type of food, combination and timing of eating rather than calorific value which is the key.
I [b]said[/b] it was the pixies!
I thought it was fairy dust SFB?
I tried that but it did funny things to me........or was that angel dust? 😐
I might be a bit late to this one but,
to lose weight : "[b]eat less move more[/b]" seems to work
nutrition : "[b]don't eat crap food[/b]" 😀
I thought it was fairy dust SFB?
well, some creature not constrained by conservation of energy or other rules of physics...
I can't be bothered reading all that, can somebody do a summary?
Big johns post - the second on the thread is probably a decent summary
Ta 🙂