Atkins works - and boy am I happy!

Jumpy

Ice. wrote: »

40km. Everyday? How long did it take you? Were there hills etc?

Yes, several. About an hour and a half. It was an unfinished motorway.

--Kaiser--

Ice. wrote: »

40km. Everyday? How long did it take you? Were there hills etc?

Go troll somewhere else, you'll get eaten alive in here

tHE vAGGABOND

Every single thread about atkins always descends into a mess like this tbh

Like every diet or program it works for some people and not others.

For me, I lost a pile of weight with it before a family wedding 5 or so years ago, but as soon as my eye was off the ball and I went onto the long term part I put it all back on [with some interest]. But thats just me, not the diets fault.

With regard to the science of it, many dont realize that the book was first published in the 70's and has been updated a few times and regained popularity a few times url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atkins_diet[/url. If it really was dangerous I think we would have many walking peices of evidance, rather than half baked science report versus another half baked science report.

El_Dangeroso

tHE vAGGABOND wrote: »

Every single thread about atkins always descends into a mess like this tbh

It really does, notice the way that people feel like they can make a totally unqualified opinion on low carb diets when no one would dream doing that to someone who posted about WW or low GI or anything else.

I'm totally with you on whatever you can stick to long term being the best for you.

Ah well, at least it livened up the forum for a bit, was getting very quiet round here

metamorphosis

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

It really does, notice the way that people feel like they can make a totally unqualified opinion on low carb diets when no one would dream doing that to someone who posted about WW or low GI or anything else.

I'm totally with you on whatever you can stick to long term being the best for you.

Ah well, at least it livened up the forum for a bit, was getting very quiet round here

CHANGE BACK TO YOUR OLD USERNAME!!!!

El_Dangeroso

ULstudent wrote: »

CHANGE BACK TO YOUR OLD USERNAME!!!!

LOL!! How long did it take you to recognise me?:cool:

Dudess

I restrict carbs - very little bread, and only brown if I do have any. Ditto rice and pasta. Very little potato too, eggs for breakfast instead of cereal/bread, etc. It suits my constitution a lot better to prioritise protein.

But Jesus, you need fibre and you need fruit and veg. Cutting out every semblance of a carb seems crazy! :eek:

El_Dangeroso

Dudess wrote: »

But Jesus, you need fibre and you need fruit and veg. Cutting out every semblance of a carb seems crazy! :eek:

That's why every single low carb (protein power, idiot proof diet, atkins, south beach, sugarbusters, eat fat get thin, life without bread etc.)plan empasises veggies and low sugar fruit. You should be eating vegetables by volume as the largest portion of your diet.

Ice.

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

Go troll somewhere else, you'll get eaten alive in here

Asking questions is trolling now?

silverharp

in an effort to find out how my body reacts to low carb exercising, I went for this cycle yesterday 50km and an ascents of 500m (see link). In the previous day and that morning I had purely low carb food. Now the last time I did this particular cycle was the end of Aug (pre low carb). In the mean time I had done a 100km cycle and a 75km (over the sally gap) , didnt get to do much in the last 2 weeks. I have lost about 5kg since August so thought the ride would be a doddle purely carrying less weight. It was harder then I thought and was about 10 minutes slower (though I wasnt looking at the clock) . So did it affect my performance? maybe, however feel fine now and just heading out for a 7km jog on an egg muffins and some bacon. I reckon if I was going to go for a 100km cycle I'd make a breakfast smoothie with bananas and other fruit.
So my conculsion for now is that if I'm going out for a 1 hr activity , I've no reason to carb up, for much longer stuff might be worth having complex carbs.


http://www.mapmyride.com/ride/ireland/dublin/977128178256328099

tHE vAGGABOND

I know from a running POV, its only after 1 hour odd that your bodys reserves are starting to run out, and what people call "the wall" becomes a factor [where the wall means you are out of fuel!]

El_Dangeroso

tHE vAGGABOND wrote: »

I know from a running POV, its only after 1 hour odd that your bodys reserves are starting to run out, and what people call "the wall" becomes a factor [where the wall means you are out of fuel!]

I always thought 'the wall' was your body running out of glycogen and switching to fat burning no? If that's the case the wall should be less severe if already in ketosis? I know 'should' and 'is' are two different things though! Or is it something to do with lactic acid build up? I'm fuzzy on the biochem of exercise at the best of times.

I know that even if you carb up for a competition, if you do your training for said competition in a low glycogen state you gain an extra storage capacity for glycogen in your muscles when you do carb up and you burn 35% more fat in the fuel mix, at least according to this paper


So it seems training low carb but competing high carb seems the way to go, kind of like altitude training for your metabolism.

silverharp

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

So it seems training low carb but competing high carb seems the way to go, kind of like altitude training for your metabolism.

I just happened to be reading the following article. it seems intuitive that you could train your body to be more efficient in how your body gets its energy

http://www.pponline.co.uk/encyc/sports-nutrition-the-latest-research-into-low-glycogen-training-42067

Should you train low and compete high?
If you’re new to the ‘train low, race high’ concept, there’s a lot of information to take in here, so let’s begin by summarising what the current research says about the subject:

1.Training with lower levels of glycogen in the muscles appears to elicit greater endurance adaptations in muscles, such as improved aerobic efficiency and increased capacity to burn fat compared to training with high levels of muscle glycogen;

2.This greater metabolic adaptation almost certainly occurs as a result of enhanced activation of so-called ‘thrifty’ genes;

3.There is no such advantage when strength training; indeed, low-glycogen training may actually be disadvantageous for strength and power athletes;

4.High levels of muscle glycogen are always recommended for maximum performance on any given day (eg during competition); while training with low glycogen stores may enhance long-term adaptation, actual performance during this training will not be enhanced and may well be diminished;

5.It’s still unclear as to the exact performance benefits of low-glycogen training. Although there are undoubtedly favourable metabolic changes after low-glycogen training, the results are rather mixed as to whether these changes translate into performance gains.