Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Trying to Eat Better - Getting Fatter

Options
1246

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    Bruno26
    Registered Users Posts: 979 ✭✭✭Bruno26


    Inspector Coptoor wrote: »
    Not necessarily, managing blood sugar levels and ensuring there are no major, repeated spikes will take care of both hormones.

    This is where nutrient timing plays a key role.

    If someone is playing a game of soccer/rugby, they should the on a carb drink like lucozade sport in an effort to prevent sugar levels dropping.

    If someone is a sedentary couch potato, the same drink will cause a spike in blood sugar levels DBs subsequent insulin secretion

    I see. Thanks very informative.
    On the lucozade sport should a top level sportsperson drink it before a match or early in a match or only before the point where fatigue sets in?


  • Options
    #93
    Inspector Coptoor
    Registered Users Posts: 6,818 ✭✭✭Inspector Coptoor


    Bruno26 wrote: »
    I see. Thanks very informative.
    On the lucozade sport should a top level sportsperson drink it before a match or early in a match or only before the point where fatigue sets in?

    Before, during & after.

    If you wait til fatigue sets in, performance will be affected, not something you want in a top sportsperson


  • Options
    #94
    generic2012
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,013 ✭✭✭generic2012


    Bruno26 wrote: »
    What do you make of that generic? Would you like to take your last post back?!

    Not at all! You can't have an opposite of a hormone. You can have hormones which have that effects that are inhibatory or preventative towards another hormone's effects, but no opposite. The 'no opposite' was directed at you, Bruno.

    As inspector coptoor said the body has complex feedback mechanisms, not 'on/off' switches as some people seem to believe. The body is practically always burning glucose and fat just at different rates depending on a host of scenarios, much like muscle anabolism and catabolism also. You have to stop seeing the body as a simple model.

    I wouldn't be as qualified as coptoor but I've done biology and chemistry throughout my undergraduate and biology in my masters but I think he'd agree that 'carbs make you fat' is a bit of a over-simplification.


  • Options
    #95
    generic2012
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,013 ✭✭✭generic2012


    Inspector Coptoor wrote: »
    Before, during & after.

    If you wait til fatigue sets in, performance will be affected, not something you want in a top sportsperson

    As long as there are 149 or less carbs in it of course?


  • Options
    #96
    Inspector Coptoor
    Registered Users Posts: 6,818 ✭✭✭Inspector Coptoor


    Of course ;)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    Bruno26
    Registered Users Posts: 979 ✭✭✭Bruno26


    Alf Veedersane wrote: »
    Shouldn't be long before your questions are ignored .

    That would be the poster who thanked that post.


  • Options
    #98
    Bruno26
    Registered Users Posts: 979 ✭✭✭Bruno26


    generic2012 wrote: »
    As long as there are 149 or less carbs in it of course?

    Backtracking. You were told it made perfect sense.

    Someone eating hflc would not need lucozade sport before a match! May get through without any need for it.


  • Options
    #99
    generic2012
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,013 ✭✭✭generic2012


    Bruno26 wrote: »
    Backtracking. You were told it made perfect sense.

    Someone eating hflc would not need lucozade sport before a match! May get through without any need for it.

    Maybe if they're standing still. Fat is only useful as a fuel in long distance endurance sports and very very easy ones like golf. Any sports with bouts/bursts of high intensity will require glucose for optimum performance.


  • Options
    #100
    kevpants
    Registered Users Posts: 2,863 ✭✭✭kevpants


    Bruno26 wrote: »
    Someone eating hflc would not need lucozade sport before a match! May get through without any need for it.

    Agreed.





    Because they'll be on the bench.


  • Options
    #101
    generic2012
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,013 ✭✭✭generic2012


    kevpants wrote: »
    Agreed.





    Because they'll be on the bench.

    75kM3E.jpg


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    Bruno26
    Registered Users Posts: 979 ✭✭✭Bruno26


    kevpants wrote: »
    Agreed.





    Because they'll be on the bench.

    No not needed.

    http://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/trade-sports-drinks-for-water-201207305079

    http://m.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/07/the-controversial-science-of-sports-drinks/260124/

    Marketing works.


  • Options
    #103
    Mellor
    Registered Users Posts: 39,156 ✭✭✭✭Mellor


    Bruno26 wrote: »
    No not needed.

    http://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/trade-sports-drinks-for-water-201207305079

    http://m.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/07/the-controversial-science-of-sports-drinks/260124/

    Marketing works.

    Oh Bruno, are you joking?
    The European Food Safety Authority upheld the claims that sports drinks hydrate better than water and help maintain performance during endurance exercise -- but added that this did not apply to the ordinary, light exerciser. Says Tim Noakes, Discovery health chair of exercise and sports science at Cape Town University, "They are never going to study a person who trains for two hours per week, who walks most of the marathon -- which form the majority of users of sports drinks," and the majority of people at whom sports drinks marketing is aimed.

    It clearly days it hydrates better, and helps performance in athletes. Even Tim Noakes concedes that.
    Of course it's unnecessary during light exercise, nobody said it was. And that's irrelevant, we are talking about sports performance.


  • Options
    #104
    generic2012
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,013 ✭✭✭generic2012


    Poor lad can't read :-(


  • Options
    #105
    Bruno26
    Registered Users Posts: 979 ✭✭✭Bruno26


    Mellor wrote: »
    Oh Bruno, are you joking?


    It clearly days it hydrates better, and helps performance in athletes. Even Tim Noakes concedes that.
    Of course it's unnecessary during light exercise, nobody said it was. And that's irrelevant, we are talking about sports performance.

    They must be right!

    The average amateur sportsperson does not need it.


  • Options
    #106
    Bruno26
    Registered Users Posts: 979 ✭✭✭Bruno26


    generic2012 wrote: »
    Poor lad can't read :-(

    Who? What? Elaborate.


  • Options
    #107
    Mellor
    Registered Users Posts: 39,156 ✭✭✭✭Mellor


    Bruno26 wrote: »
    They must be right!

    The average amateur sportsperson does not need it.

    The example Noakes used was a two hour a week exerciser who'll walk the marathon. Of course they don't need it.

    But we are talking about sports performance at any sort of meaningfull level. The article says in that case it works. I think you didn't even read it.


    Serious question, and this isn't "do you even..." cheap shot, but do you train/compete in any sport, or are you purely interested in diet/exercise from a weight loss/don't get fat perspective.


  • Options
    #108
    groovyg
    Registered Users Posts: 1,049 ✭✭✭groovyg


    chops018 wrote: »
    I'm only getting a chance to look at it all now!

    I didn't expect a long winded debate to happen....

    Unfortunately this is the way a lot of threads in this forum end up, it reminds of forum on the letsrun website where posters often go off in tangents and end up having massive debates with one another, thus the initial point of the thread gets lost.

    You might be better off making an appointment with a nutritionist/dietitian to have a look at your overall diet and see what you should eat less or more of because you ain't going to find it here. Oh and maybe read this sticky from the nutrition forum.


  • Options
    #109
    Alf Veedersane
    Registered Users Posts: 24,577 ✭✭✭✭Alf Veedersane


    groovyg wrote: »
    You might be better off making an appointment with a nutritionist/dietitian to have a look at your overall diet and see what you should eat less or more of because you ain't going to find it here. Oh and maybe read this sticky from the nutrition forum.

    The nutrition stickies have pretty much anything you might need to know, minus the arguments. No real need to spend the money on a dietician who will largely guide you in the same way.


  • Options
    #110
    Bruno26
    Registered Users Posts: 979 ✭✭✭Bruno26


    Mellor wrote: »
    The example Noakes used was a two hour a week exerciser who'll walk the marathon. Of course they don't need it.

    But we are talking about sports performance at any sort of meaningfull level. The article says in that case it works. I think you didn't even read it.



    Serious question, and this isn't "do you even..." cheap shot, but do you train/compete in any sport, or are you purely interested in diet/exercise from a weight loss/don't get fat perspective.

    Before the former- always struggled with weight inspite of all the training (4-5 days a week). Eat high carb - plenty of pasta and energy drinks. Bodyfat around or over 20%

    Now the latter and don't struggle with weight. Just do weights (adjustable dumbbells at home), chin ups, dips, sprints and a bit of golf. Bodyfat now around 12%.


  • Options
    #111
    Oryx
    Subscribers Posts: 19,425 ✭✭✭✭Oryx


    Bruno26 wrote: »
    Before the former- always struggled with weight inspite of all the training (4-5 days a week). Eat high carb - plenty of pasta and energy drinks. Bodyfat around or over 20%

    Now the latter and don't struggle with weight. Just do weights (adjustable dumbbells at home), chin ups, dips, sprints and a bit of golf. Bodyfat now around 12%.
    Its great that it has worked so well for you. I just feel you need to use a little bit more critical thinking and analysis when promoting it as something everyone should do.

    For instance, you understand what you are doing, in all its intricacies. However, you have quite often condensed the whole theory into the singular statement 'eat what you like, just reduce carbs' on this forum. And that, in my mind, is irresponsible. By all means promote something you believe works, but do so correctly, by linking people to resources where the strategy is laid out in more detail. The ordinary Joe here may just hear the 'eat what you like' part and fail miserably.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    Naos
    Registered Users Posts: 4,730 ✭✭✭Naos


    Bruno26 wrote: »
    Before the former- always struggled with weight inspite of all the training (4-5 days a week). Eat high carb - plenty of pasta and energy drinks. Bodyfat around or over 20%

    Now the latter and don't struggle with weight. Just do weights (adjustable dumbbells at home), chin ups, dips, sprints and a bit of golf. Bodyfat now around 12%.

    Out of curiosity:

    1) When you were eating high carb & training 4/5 times per week, roughly how many calories were you eating?

    2) Currently you eat low carb & train a few times a week, roughly how many calories are you eating per day?


  • Options
    #113
    Alf Veedersane
    Registered Users Posts: 24,577 ✭✭✭✭Alf Veedersane


    Just as an aside, the number of times you go training or the amount of time you spend in a gym doesn't necessarily reflect the level of activity.

    You can easily spend 2 hours in a gym and barely raise your pulse.


  • Options
    #114
    Brian?
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 21,006 Mod ✭✭✭✭Brian?


    groovyg wrote: »
    Unfortunately this is the way a lot of threads in this forum end up, it reminds of forum on the letsrun website where posters often go off in tangents and end up having massive debates with one another, thus the initial point of the thread gets lost.

    You might be better off making an appointment with a nutritionist/dietitian to have a look at your overall diet and see what you should eat less or more of because you ain't going to find it here. Oh and maybe read this sticky from the nutrition forum.

    What would you have us do? It's an open discussion forum. We can only moderate the discussion so much.

    As others have said, all the info the OP needs has been lovingly saved in the stickies.

    they/them/theirs


    And so on, and so on …. - Slavoj Žižek




  • Options
    #115
    jtthom
    Registered Users Posts: 39 ✭jtthom


    To be fair, some of the info in the stickies is debatable and of its time IMO (e.g. the push for everything wholemeal/wholewheat/wholegrain/high fibre/sweet potatoes, not your white potatoes etc).
    40,40,20 - for the majority of people, this is the ideal diet. Your calorific intake each day should be made up of 40% Proteins, 40% Carbs and 20% Healthy Fats. This is a perfect formula for the physically active, as it gives you exactly what you need to support weight training and muscle gains.
    Eat about every 3-4 hours - every 2-3 if you are wishing to gain weight. Prevents you from eating lots in one sitting

    But there's excellent info in there too so I might be a bit harsh here.


  • Options
    #116
    Bruno26
    Registered Users Posts: 979 ✭✭✭Bruno26


    Naos wrote: »
    Out of curiosity:

    1) When you were eating high carb & training 4/5 times per week, roughly how many calories were you eating?

    2) Currently you eat low carb & train a few times a week, roughly how many calories are you eating per day?

    Can't answer one. Never counted.

    Now rarely eat less than 3,500 daily. I know this from using myfitnessapp in the early stages to count carbs.

    I'm sure I'll be told I was eating more than now!


  • Options
    #117
    Brian?
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 21,006 Mod ✭✭✭✭Brian?


    jtthom wrote: »
    To be fair, some of the info in the stickies is debatable and of its time IMO (e.g. the push for everything wholemeal/wholewheat/wholegrain/high fibre/sweet potatoes, not your white potatoes etc).





    But there's excellent info in there too so I might be a bit harsh here.

    The push for wholegrain etc. encourages eating low GI carbs. A good thing IMO.

    they/them/theirs


    And so on, and so on …. - Slavoj Žižek




  • Options
    #118
    Bruno26
    Registered Users Posts: 979 ✭✭✭Bruno26


    Brian? wrote: »
    The push for wholegrain etc. encourages eating low GI carbs. A good thing IMO.

    2 slices wholegrain bread have a higher gi than a snickers bar.


  • Options
    #119
    Oryx
    Subscribers Posts: 19,425 ✭✭✭✭Oryx


    Bruno26 wrote: »
    2 slices wholegrain bread have a higher gi than a snickers bar.

    Which you learned here, right?


  • Options
    #120
    Bruno26
    Registered Users Posts: 979 ✭✭✭Bruno26


    Oryx wrote: »
    Which you learned here, right?


    Here

    http://www.health.harvard.edu/newsweek/Glycemic_index_and_glycemic_load_for_100_foods.htm


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    Oryx
    Subscribers Posts: 19,425 ✭✭✭✭Oryx


    Bruno26 wrote: »
    Here

    http://www.health.harvard.edu/newsweek/Glycemic_index_and_glycemic_load_for_100_foods.htm

    I realise this is another blind alley youre going down, but anyway. From my reading, same GI, snickers has a much higher GL.


Advertisement