Forum menu
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.
What have you read Woody?
Nearly all descriptions of diets (at least every one I've come across that has a name associated with it) have 4 elements
a) solid proven science
b) some good theoretical scientific ideas which are not (yet) proven
c) quasi evangalism
d) utter mumbo jumbo
I try to ignore c) and d) if I can.
Colin
Gowrie - haven't the time or inclination to list [i]everything[/i] I've read on dieting/physiology.
Here is [url= http://www.bodytrim.com.au/ ]PREVIOUS LINK[/url] . Ignore the marketing guff - the book/DVD's explain it in greater detail. All seems to be based around sound principals/theories from well qualified people with a good track record.
Anyone who starts: "Dear friend" has already lost me 🙁
Well, - just looking at the first page of the link - there's a lot of evangelism there.
The reality of the science is that there is only one major way to loose weight - consume fewer calories. I accept some diets are better at appetite control than other - hence my enthusiasm for high protein diets - and that some systems are easier to stick to over the long term (and its the long term that counts - we don't get 3 stone heavier in a year, but we expect to EASILY LOOSE 3 stone in that time) but I don't know of any proven science that says significant weight loss is anything other than consuming fewer calories (or expending more).
Colin
Dear friends, I did warn you to ignore 'the guff'/marketing bullshit/sales patter, or whatever you want to call it!
I read the book before actually seeing/hearing the guy. You have made a judgement and jumped to a conclusion without having the facts and 'science' behind the idea.
It is NOT just about calorie input/output, that is the point and why it appears to work. As for proving it, there are a large number of people who will confirm it works who have lost a significant amount of weight and kept it off, which is good enough for me.
Well explain the science. Even just describe it briefly. Let's see if he knows something the rest of the medical community doesn't.
I'm not denying the diet works. It may very well do so. I remain to be convinced it works by anything other than consuming less calories.
Colin
[url=
explains it all perfectly...
What if you want to maintain your current weight but tone up? Or even maintain current weight and tone up and then add a half a stone to a stone of lean muscle?
Maintaining weight but toning up (by default adding some muscle mass and losing some fat) is not easy but is doable.
Gaining muscle bulk is a little easier:- intensive weight training and maintaining a positive calorie balance. Unfortunately this leads to some gains in fat which will need to be lost after you've added the muscle by creating a negative calorie balance.
Unfortunately this will lead to some loss of the muscle bulk you've worked hard to achieve.
ie. gain 3 stone in weight of which 14lbs is muscle, lose the 2st of fat but also lose 4lbs of muscle - net result a 10lb gain in muscle bulk with identical fat levels.
Bodybuilders are the extreme end of the continuum, there are lots of websites claiming that it is possible to add muscle and lose fat but the percieved wisdom (and path) that most bodybuilders follow is to gain the fat then lose it in cycles, adding muscle each time. They also tend to diet by eating lots of protein and reduce refined carbs a la iDave's method but much more extreme.
Oh, and steroids help a lot.
Here's my argument again, at which I'll leave it.
The reality of the science is that there is only one major way to loose weight - consume fewer calories
This is true, but how you actually manage to eat fewer calories whilst managing the exercise you want to do can be more complex. There are many ways to approach it, and you need to understand the issues at the heart of it.
There is no one quick-fix diet, so don't bother looking for one.
and you need to understand the issues at the heart of it.
you may like to but I don't think it's a [b]need[/b], guessing or relying on instinct might work just as well (or better)
particularly if protracted study leads you to believe that maltodextrin isn't a glucose polymer...
molgrips, do you need to understand engineering to sit on a chair and know it won't collapse?
The reality of the science is that there is only one major way to loose weight - consume fewer calories
so there are 'minor' ways to lose weight then? that aren't related to calorie counting....
all calories are not created equal are they? or fat would be fine for energy drinks? in fact they'd be better... 9kcal per gram as opposed to 4 for carbs....
your info seems to come from marketing copy
molgrips, do you need to understand engineering to sit on a chair and know it won't collapse?
No, but you do to build a chair.
I dunno what you are getting at here. I said that it IS true that the way to lose weight is consume fewer calories. But my point is this can be extremely difficult to manage, so there are many ways of managing it successfully depending on your lifestyle and physiology.
all calories are not created equal are they?
That is what I am saying.
EDIT: I think you misunderstood my post - that sentence about calories was a quote from someone else, that I was addressing, and qualifying.
But please trust me I do not reading marketing copy.
particularly if protracted study leads you to believe that maltodextrin isn't a glucose polymer...
FFS Barnes, I said it wasn't a sugar, I didn't say it wasn't a glucose polymer! Learn to read!
so you are convinced that you lose weight by consuming less calories,
then you pour calories down your neck everytime your body requests more water.....
and you wonder why you spend so much time thinking about 'nutrition'
then you pour calories down your neck everytime your body requests more water...
Where d'you get that idea from?
The amount of calories I take with me is calculated based on how much I think I'm gonna need during the exercise I'm about to do, without getting my stores too low.
I know the difference between being thirsty and having low carb stores.
FFS Barnes, I said it wasn't a sugar, I didn't say it wasn't a glucose polymer! Learn to read!
OK, I mixed up sugar and glucose, but of course normal sugar is 50% glucose and glucose is a sugar and maltodextin is made of glucose, so the distinction, particularly to the metabolism, is minor
molgrips:
Sports drinks are maltodextrin, not sugar. Quite different. And a different effect on the brain too.
Barnes, a polymer made up of a molecule is COMPLETELY different to the molecule on its own!
im intrigued as to the signs that your "carb stores" are getting low and the difference between that, thirst and hunger
im not an elite athlete and never expect to have this problem, but im interested.
you can finish a marathon and still have 60% of your carb stores intact.
funny that....
im intrigued as to the signs that your "carb stores" are getting low and the difference between that, thirst and hunger
My legs feel different if they're actually tired (after a 5 hour ride say) or my carb stores are low (after say one hour's hammering with no energy drink. I pay attention to how I feel.
Of course, I may be incorrectly attributing these sensations but that's the way I have interpreted it so far. The feeling I call 'low energy' goes away if I have a gel or a bar, the feeling I call 'tiredness' does not.
im not an elite athlete and never expect to have this problem
You don't need to be an elite athlete.
you can finish a marathon and still have 60% of your carb stores intact.
I'm sure. I can also tear around for 90 mins and bonk!
why do you solely attribute the bonk to low glycogen stores? bonk is sudden fatigue, or the sensation of fatigue...
Well what I call bonk is when your blood sugar goes low. I suppose others (possibly the entire coaching community 🙂 ) may use it differently...
I've been riding with a few mates who've done the whole white faced confused shakey bit - one gel and some water and they make it home. I assumed that having low glycogen stores was a precursor to this stage.
do you measure your blood sugar levels when exercising?
OK, I mixed up sugar and glucose, but of course normal sugar is 50% glucose and glucose is a sugar and maltodextin is made of glucose, so the distinction, particularly to the metabolism, is minor
That is the king amongst princes of tosh posted on this thread 😆
The whole basis of carb metabolism dynamics is that monosaccharides, disaccharides and polysaccharides are all absorbed, transported and metabolised in different ways.
Glucose utilisation by muscles is still not fully understood, but involves a little bit of physiology (absorption of sugars across gut wall and vascular haemodynamics), quite a bit of endocrinology (production/modulation of glycogenic hormones) and an awful lot of biochemistry (carbohydrate phosphorylation, membrane transporters, kinase activity and cofactor mobilisation).
You can pump all the 'sugar' you want into your body but if your cells don't have the materials to transport and metabolise it you'll get no energy produced, that is why all these 'blood sugar' and 'insulin spike' diatribes are just bullshine.....
.....those with a 'little understanding' of physiology are way out of their depth, and those with 'no apparent understanding' need a lifeboat 🙄
do you measure your blood sugar levels when exercising?
Obviously not, but it'd be interesting. Maybe I could get a diabetic's blood sugar meter for this purpose 🙂
That is the king amongst princes of tosh posted on this thread
Someone's wronger than me? Yess!!
You can pump all the 'sugar' you want into your body but if your cells don't have the materials to transport and metabolise it you'll get no energy produced, that is why all these 'blood sugar' and 'insulin spike' diatribes are just bullshine.....
Interesting. But there is a point when your blood sugar gets low, impairing your ability to ride, and a gel or equivalent fixes it.. surely? But this is opening interesting lines of enquiry for me at least. Must do more reading...
known as 'internet armchair bullsh**e theory'™
(commenting on hilldodgers post)
Well, the [i]debate[/i] still, err.....goes on then ?.
But while it does, I've actually made a start. I don't actually need to lose much weight, but I find this an opportunity to try new things.
Screw arguing, I'm getting busy in the kitchen 😀
Homemade soup for lunch today, stir-fried vegs and fish for dinner. Yum ! 😉
S
known as 'internet armchair bullsh**e theory'™
Aww that's not fair.. all I'm trying to do is answer questions based on what I know/thought I knew and my experience as a rider/trainee.
All the above theory pales into insignificance when you hit 3kms to go with a big Belgian lad who has been suggesting that sex with a chicken is your favourite hobby for the last 10 kms, and who's Mum, Dad, Sister, Aunty and girlfriend are at the finish line expecting their beautiful lad to demonstrate his potential to become the next Eddy Merckx.
Bollocks to glucose metabolism; are you gonna go for a long one?
are you gonna go for a long one?
Fnarr!
Interesting. But there is a point when your blood sugar gets low, impairing your ability to ride, and a gel or equivalent fixes it.. surely?
Yes, but if your muscle cells are not adequately 'equipped' to absorb this sugar it will have less effect than you imagine - it doesn't matter how much coal you shovel on a fire if the kindling is wet or you've got no matches (sorry for dodgy analogy but it's all I can think of)
If 'energy production' by muscles was a simply dependent on blood 'sugar' levels the whole area would have been fully understood a long time back, but as I said earlier, it's way more complex whole body physiology and down to the cellular level.
It's the problem with reductionist science, it doesn't consider the 'organism' as a set of interacting dynamic processes but simply as a set of linear mechanisms.
Biology is still largely 'Newtonian' rather than 'Einsteinian' - simple (and useful) answers to many everyday issues but once you look for a deeper understanding it's just not there (yet)
Along vaugely similar lines to what hilldoger posted, I was sent this link earlier in the week
[url] http://www.pponline.co.uk/encyc/0394.htm [/url]
monosaccharides, disaccharides and polysaccharides are all absorbed, transported and metabolised in different ways.
is there any evidence for this ? I was under the impression they were all broken down into glucose and fructose in the stomach (or mouth - if you suck a piece of bread a little it will become sweet)
Yes, but if your muscle cells are not adequately 'equipped' to absorb this sugar it will have less effect than you imagine
Of course.. in simple terms we are taught that you can only absorb so much carbs whilst riding. And there's also the debate over carbo-loading.. It would be ridiculously simplistic to suggest that energy production was purely down to blood sugar levels, but you need enough to keep you going obviously. And running out is a major concern when training or racing.
Your point is an interesting one - it would suggest that a holistic approach to training and even weight loss is far better than doing/eating X will have Y effect. That's what I try to achieve by experimenting and listening to my body. I'm sure I'm wrong about my assumptions but overall the idea is to find what works.
I've found that if I manage my diet carefully I can lose weight and get fitter; and that it's far more difficult for me to lose weight and gain power than it is for me to lose weight and gain base fitness and endurance.
Barnes - cellulose is a glucose polymer. It's indigestible by humans and requires feats of gastric engineering for other animals to eat it.
So no, polysacchiarides are not all broken down into glucose 🙂
Barnes - cellulose is a glucose polymer
now you're being silly, we don't use it as food
My point is that polymers can have very different properties to their base molecules. So why assume that they all get broken down and used the same way?
IanMunro - very interesting article. Suggests that if you ride for 4 hours more gently and bonk, it's a different bonk than if you hammer for an hour and bonk.. Hmm..
can we bring ectomorph, endomorph and mesomorph into this 'discussion'
[i]can we bring ectomorph, endomorph and mesomorph into this 'discussion'
[/i]
Never seen them posting on here before, are they related to [i]the[/i] Morph, from take hart ?.
😉
S
So why assume that they all get broken down and used the same way?
because that's what I had read - in exactly the same way all proteins are broken down into amino acids
is there any evidence for this ? I was under the impression they were all broken down into glucose and fructose in the stomach (or mouth - if you suck a piece of bread a little it will become sweet)
Saliva does contain an enzyme specific for starch hydrolysis (amylase), but as little food these days is sucked it plays a minor role.
Most monosaccahrides are produced by the action of pancreatic enzymes in the duodenum, the stomach plays little or no role as it's low pH is not compatible with the action of the enzymes required.
FFS solo,
I just logged in to post that gag and now you've ****ing ruined it.
can we bring ectomorph, endomorph and mesomorph into this 'discussion'
Well that's partly what I was getting at when I said find out what works for you. Cos you'll be one of those three, although I don't think all people in a particular category are the same at all...
All i know is I ride for a bit drink and bit of water, I feel great.
If I ride a lot and stop to enjoy the view, a few jelly babies and some water I also feel great
I always feel better if the sun is shining.
Some energy drinks make we want to vomit, coke rots my teeth.
I also enjoy a jammy dodger on the sofa watching telly after a long ride and sweating a little covered in mud.
I've come last in every event I've ever entered. I have no interest in getting 1.7% more power output due to wearing pink lycra.
But riding my bike makes me feel great...
Stufield, are you implying I'm wrong to be interested in performance?