A boat full of carbs

AstraMonti

I haven't watched the bbc one yet, but I watched cerealkillers yesterday. I can't understand why his LDL went so much up, even if it was ideal big particles. I can only assume after a lifelong of inflammation your body needs time to adjust to a quadruple amount of fat in your diet. Nevertheless I found it really good and hope it goes viral so many people can benefit from the diet, sugar and wheat is truly the evil here.

ror_74 wrote: »

Still, its a thumbs up for a balanced diet. TBH eating is one of the pleasures of cycling and I'd hate to restrict that unnecessarily.

Careful now with the balanced word, the current food pyramid is a "balanced" diet according to HSE, etc etc

petethedrummer wrote: »

Not surprised by the hill climb. I think glucose is necessary during shorter duration exercise.

Do you mean you need additional glucose or the one in your muscles is enough? For what it's worth in my very intensive gym sessions (1h to 1:30 long) I 've never felt the need to have anything else than water, the same on my intervals on the bike. Anything above 2hours will require me to eat something, but it doesn't have to be glucose, I started eating some pork bits with nuts and seems it's working.

ford2600

I haven't watched the bbc one yet, but I watched cerealkillers yesterday. I can't understand why his LDL went so much up, even if it was ideal big particles. I can only assume after a lifelong of inflammation your body needs time to adjust to a quadruple amount of fat in your diet. Nevertheless I found it really good and hope it goes viral so many people can benefit from the diet, sugar and wheat is truly the evil here.

Mine went up also from 4.0 to 5.4. Phinney and Volek deal with it somewhere in this clip!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFD2q5iqevY

Tec Diver

The article about the doctor twins trying diets was disappointing. The one on low carb only did it for a month. I know when I went LCHF in Feb last year weeks two and three were horrible, like having a headcold and/or hangover for two weeks. After that it kept getting better. Wouldn't go back now.
Have two ultra marathons planned for this year, hoping not to use any sugar/carb food/drink for either.

petethedrummer

AstraMonti wrote: »

Do you mean you need additional glucose or the one in your muscles is enough?

Short answer. I'm not sure. Everything is fine when I am on a lone training spin setting my own pace. If am trying to match someone else's pace things are a bit different.

Sure if you're out on the road this weekend we can discuss things.

Ole Rodrigo

AstraMonti wrote: »

Careful now with the balanced word, the current food pyramid is a "balanced" diet according to HSE, etc etc

Yeah, balanced is often a euphemism for ' I really don't know what advice to give you '

AstraMonti

Just watched the bbc horizon and I am bit annoyed by the first part of it. I think you can't get anything conclusive out of it, mainly because the nutritionist killed the whole concept. Who told her that you can't have vegs in a high fat diet or fruits (berries,etc)? And all the talking about calories based on the normal directions from the HSE? And then what about the rubbish part that you only convert glucose by destroying muscle?

I did like the second part towards the end with donuts as it makes perfect sense to avoid anything that's both high on fat and high on sugar and of course all processed food.

Anyway, the "good" part is that all this is getting publicity so we 're hopefully going to see many more experiments and studies, how many of them will be still inconclusive we have to wait and see!

petethedrummer

AstraMonti wrote: »

I did like the second part towards the end with donuts as it makes perfect sense to avoid anything that's both high on fat and high on sugar and of course all processed food.

Just a thought on the 50:50 Fat/Sugar hypothesis..... Yes, its hard to eat a lot of plain sugar. Yes, its hard to eat a lot of plain fat.

but ...

The food companies have figured out formulas to make people consume sugary drinks excessively that have no added fat.

Have they done the same with Fat? Or is it always necessary to involve sugar to get a person to over indulge on fat.

The sweet spot to create addictive foods may be a 50:50 ratio of the two but that does not directly lead to the conclusion that both are equally to blame for obesity.

petethedrummer

I'm going to go home tonight and mix 1 teaspoon of coconut oil with 1 teaspoon of sugar and see what it tastes like.

According to science, it should be amazing!

Chips Lovell

Hang on, I didn't watch it, but the high fat guy was eating no veg? What was he eating?

DaithiMC

Points I got from the BBC programme

Sugars are beneficial for exertion, as the SKY coach said, if he pushed a diet with a concentration of fat he would not have a job. Granted the guy on the fat diet was not on Paleo type diet, i.e., allowed some sugar from fruit.

Emphasising fat in the diet reduces insulin sensitivity and pushed him towards prediabetes, that was surprising to me. As someone earlier said, you don't want diabetes, many more risk factors come into play for all sorts of chronic conditions. So for those on LCHF, testing glycaemic markers, glucose, Fasted glucose, HbA1c, and if you can find it, fructosamine or glycated albumin may be more important than measuring lipids!

Snacking is where we seem to pick up most of the fat/sugar combined foods so avoid that.

So I'm now thinking is the philosophy of food combining a good idea, i.e. , carbs in the morning, mostly or all from fruit, and through the day become increasingly ketogenic, i.e., when the immediate energy is not needed don't take carbs on.

For weight loss, we still can't beat caloric restriction.

petethedrummer

petethedrummer wrote: »

I'm going to go home tonight and mix 1 teaspoon of coconut oil with 1 teaspoon of sugar and see what it tastes like.

According to science, it should be amazing!

It was terrible but I did eat all of it. Probably would be nice on bread. Don't have any bread though.

ryan_sherlock

DaithiMC wrote: »

So I'm now thinking is the philosophy of food combining a good idea, i.e. , carbs in the morning, mostly or all from fruit, and through the day become increasingly ketogenic, i.e., when the immediate energy is not needed don't take carbs on.

The inverse of that (you won't become ketogenic with that approach) - I have tested my ketones and I do get into ketosis even with 200g of carb in my diet, but the carbs are very much focused around the training (during/directly post) and only when the training load is high (3.5+hrs) - your body, after fasting over night is primed for fat burning, don't kick it out of that with a banana first thing. Have it after (or during) that training.

I didn't find the BBC particularly useful - at least it gets people talking.

Cereal Killers was pretty good.

duffyshuffle

DaithiMC wrote: »

So I'm now thinking is the philosophy of food combining a good idea, i.e. , carbs in the morning, mostly or all from fruit, and through the day become increasingly ketogenic, i.e., when the immediate energy is not needed don't take carbs on.

For weight loss, we still can't beat caloric restriction.

Most of what I've read recently (Kiefer, Bailor...) would be the other way around though, fat and protein or nothing when you wake, then don't have the carbs until you have trained, and try to combine carb and protein or fat and protein. Bulletproof coffee seems to be getting bigger and bigger, I've been drinking it the last few months and love it, high concentrate coconut oil with unsalted butter in coffee for breakfast, then you're not hungry until lunch and then eat veg fat protein, train eat protein and carb. I also get a great mental focus off it! Dave Asprey is the guy behind it!
Bailor's Calorie myth is a great read and I also thought cereal killers was well worth the watch!
I didn't see the bbc doc but have it sky plussed

Also, from bloods my fasting glucose and others were great so it doesn't tally with the prediabetic condition for me at all

duffyshuffle

ryan_sherlock wrote: »

The inverse of that (you won't become ketogenic with that approach) - I have tested my ketones and I do get into ketosis even with 200g of carb in my diet, but the carbs are very much focused around the training (during/directly post) and only when the training load is high (3.5+hrs) - your body, after fasting over night is primed for fat burning, don't kick it out of that with a banana first thing. Have it after (or during) that training.

I didn't find the BBC particularly useful - at least it gets people talking.

Cereal Killers was pretty good.

Have you tried MCT oil in coffee at all?

niceonetom

Seeing as this has become the de facto LCHF thread I hope I'm not stepping on Astra's toes here by asking a question where I feel it's most likely to get answered.

I've been LCHFing for a few months now, getting through winter training on it just fine - I'm able to sustain Z2/Z3 without carbs (or any other on-the-bike food) for 5+ hours. I can do a fairly decent volume of sweetspot too. Short nasty turbo sessions are easily fuelled by muscle glycogen anyway. I use carbs judiciously for recovery but now...

The time is coming now for things to get both nasty and long - threshold stuff. 2x 20mins @LT etc. I'm concerned that trying this with very restricted carbs will lead to excessive pain and diminished returns. I don't want to sacrifice training quality for further fat adaptation.

Have any of you any advice on how to tackle reintroducing carbs in this scenario? I don't know whether to still try to keep carbs low GI (sweet potato maybe) before going out or commit fully to eating sugary stuff, bananas, dates etc. so as to deliberately stimulate an insulin response.

Do you know of any off-the-shelf paleo style energy bars? Something with some carbs but that still allows me to avoid wheat and soy etc.? I know there's the option to make home made stuff but there's always the issue of spoilage/storage there unless you make them very regularly.

ryan_sherlock

duffyshuffle wrote: »

Have you tried MCT oil in coffee at all?

That is so 2012

Yeah - I enjoy the fatty coffee - many a 5hr day in the mountains has been fuelled by it. (and many more work days where I need to concentrate all day)

ryan_sherlock

niceonetom wrote: »

Have any of you any advice on how to tackle reintroducing carbs in this scenario? I don't know whether to still try to keep carbs low GI (sweet potato maybe) before going out or commit fully to eating sugary stuff, bananas, dates etc. so as to deliberately stimulate an insulin response.

Do you know of any off-the-shelf paleo style energy bars? Something with some carbs but that still allows me to avoid wheat and soy etc.? I know there's the option to make home made stuff but there's always the issue of spoilage/storage there unless you make them very regularly.

My approach(depending on what I'm trying to accomplish) is now carbs during by feel (ranging from 0-50g/hr) If the session was long & hard, about 70-120g of carbs directly after (I'm talking 2,500kj+ sessions), maybe a little more fruit a little later and then back to LCHF in the evening. On longer sessions that are hard, I take two bottles on the bike, 1 water, 1 ZipVit extreme (a little protein, mostly carbs, some electrolytes) - I have tested pretty much everything I could try and find this one works very very well - http://www.zipvitsport.co.uk/products/sports-nutrition/during/zv2-energy-drink-extreme-uk.html. Hold off on starting drinking it for the first while.

Bacon and eggs now works for me as well (maybe better) than porridge when I have high intensity work to do.

I make homemade bars and leave them in the freezer. Tesco had a coconut + sugar bar recently - ate quiet a few of them in training

niceonetom

Thanks Ryan. I don't train with power so to some degree I'm working blind here - hard to know whether changes in PE relative to HR indicate an actual decrease in power or just the governor trying to trick/bully me into eating more carb.

Hadn't really considered the bottles - it's a long time since I've used anything but water. You think that high GI sugar is the way to go when you have to have carbs on the bike then? No messing about with complex starches or the like?

ryan_sherlock

niceonetom wrote: »

Hadn't really considered the bottles - it's a long time since I've used anything but water. You think that high GI sugar is the way to go when you have to have carbs on the bike then? No messing about with complex starches or the like?

I would like to play around with things like UCAN but have not yet. As I talked about before, the bottle of ZV is more about fuelling the brain anyway.

Yeah, I use significantly less 'products' than I did a few years ago, BUT, I do think there is still a time and a place for this type of thing in certain situations.

AstraMonti

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Hang on, I didn't watch it, but the high fat guy was eating no veg? What was he eating?

I am not really sure, they didn't go into detail on that, they just said high fat. The nutritionist in the start said that he won't be eating any vegs or fruit, then they showed him with a plate of chicken and broccoli but he didn't touch the vegs, and then with a burger and again he didn't touch the lettuce and tomato. So I am not sure what they were trying to prove.

DaithiMC wrote: »

For weight loss, we still can't beat caloric restriction.

I am not sold on that tbh, it all has with how metabolic for you the calories you are eating are. (this sounds like yoda is talking)

niceonetom wrote: »

Seeing as this has become the de facto LCHF thread I hope I'm not stepping on Astra's toes here by asking a question where I feel it's most likely to get answered.

Please feel free, it's been a great thread because of the contributions!

niceonetom wrote: »

Do you know of any off-the-shelf paleo style energy bars? Something with some carbs but that still allows me to avoid wheat and soy etc.? I know there's the option to make home made stuff but there's always the issue of spoilage/storage there unless you make them very regularly.

Natasha's balls. No, I am not joking lol. I bought them off CSS couple of weeks back. They are essentially cocoa balls, with a bit of vanilla beans, almond butter salt and something else. They taste very earthly so it's not going to be everyones cup of tea.

petethedrummer

ryan_sherlock wrote: »

The inverse of that (you won't become ketogenic with that approach) - I have tested my ketones and I do get into ketosis even with 200g of carb in my diet, but the carbs are very much focused around the training (during/directly post) and only when the training load is high (3.5+hrs) -

Peter Attia posts about this:
http://eatingacademy.com/sports-and-nutrition/ketones-carbohydrates-can-co-exist

And he mentions it during this podcast:
http://vinnietortorich.com/2014/01/angriest-trainer-228-great-dr-peter-attia/

Paul Kiernan

There seems to be a major discrepancy between this conclusion and the glucose levels recorded during the tests (Box Hill climb) with Nigel Mitchell of Sky.

Both subjects were fasted for 12 hours and had done no meaningful exercise during the dieting period. But their glucose levels were almost identical at 4.7 for Chris (Sugar) and 4.8 for Xand (Fat). Certainly not prediabetic levels!

I suspect the final figure of 5.9 is therefore wrong!

I'm more than a bit confused by the other figures from the Box Hill test though. Chris drops to 2.7 in 45 minutes. Can you really bonk from a fully glycogenated state in that time? And the ketone levels are also given, showing that Xand started at 0.4, higher than Chris's 0.1 but nowhere near ketosis (over 1.0, I believe). So it's no wonder he was struggling. Also at the end of the final hard climb (performed near maxHR) Xand's glucose shot back up to 5.1 (from 3.3 earlier). Where did that come from?

AstraMonti

If you are really unfit (which seemed they were) you can bonk in 15mins. I don't think being in a fully glyconegated state means anything if your body doesn't know how to use it. It takes few months to train the body to use the stored energy efficiently.

petethedrummer

Paul Kiernan wrote: »

I suspect the final figure of 5.9 is therefore wrong!

The Reading the sky guy took was after 12 hours fasting + 45 mins exercise. So they should have been about the same. I would have guessed that the sugar twin would be slightly higher.

The Fasted Glucose Tolerance test in the doctors office was after 12 hours fasting and then taking an oral glucose solution. They drank from grey bottles IIRC. It would be expected that the twin who is eating less carbs is going to spike more after taking in some sugar. But to extrapolate long term blood sugar control from 1 isolated reading is wrong headed in my opinion.

In my mid to late 20s I started to have blood sugar problems so I asked my doctor twice or three times to test me for type 2 diabetes. That's the test I got and each time he said everything was fine. Yet I continuously fell asleep after meals with a large carbohydrate content. As they got worse into my 30s I started reduce the carb content and through trial and error was half way to this LCHF diet already by Feb of last year.

My dad has had blood sugar problems for 30 or 40 years but passes that test every time, even now in to his 70's. "slightly raised but ok" was the last comment.

Paul Kiernan

petethedrummer wrote: »

The Reading the sky guy took was after 12 hours fasting + 45 mins exercise.

I don't think so. The readings of 4.7 and 4.8 were at T0, before exercise began. The readings after 45 minutes were 2.7 and 3.3 and were at T1. The chart can be seen at around 35 minutes into the program.

petethedrummer wrote: »

The Fasted Glucose Tolerance test in the doctors office was after 12 hours fasting and then taking an oral glucose solution. They drank from grey bottles IIRC.

I though all the readings given were fasted blood glucose levels. Am I wrong? Any measurements I have ever had were taken fasted and without taking any drinks prior to measurement!

petethedrummer

I actually spend a lot of time programming control or feedback loops. I did 1 this week. And if I took 1 isolated reading in response to a changing input as a signifier of control I would be fired. And these are not complex systems.

petethedrummer

Paul Kiernan wrote: »

I don't think so. The readings of 4.7 and 4.8 were at T0, before exercise began. The readings after 45 minutes were 2.7 and 3.3 and were at T1. The chart can be seen at around 35 minutes into the program.

Fair enough. After 12 hours fasting the sugar guy has effectively been on a low carbohydrate diet for 12 hours. He would be on his way to fat burning mode and burning more keytones. And that probably explains the similar result at that point. after 45 mins of exercise I would have guessed the fat guy would have had the smaller drop. But who knows if they put in the same effort for the 45 mins. Was the power output measured and were both equivalent level cyclists?

Paul Kiernan wrote: »

I though all the readings given were fasted blood glucose levels. Am I wrong? Any measurements I have ever had were taken fasted and without taking any drinks prior to measurement!

The doctor takes a baseline fasted reading. then you take a sugary drink. Then he/she takes a reading approx 5 mins later.

You'll note they give you glucose to measure this. not FAT. because FAT doesn't spike your blood sugar like sugar does.

Paul Kiernan

petethedrummer wrote: »

The doctor takes a baseline fasted reading. then you take a sugary drink. Then he/she takes a reading approx 5 mins later.

I looked at this again and yes, the insulin resistance test is done. However the figure that is quoted as being indicative of prediabetes is a figure of 5.9 (from 5.1 before the diet). This is described as being only 0.2 away from prediabetes. Now the WHO criteria for prediabetes is a fasted glucose level of 6.1 to 6.9 mmol/L so this must be what they're talking about.

So, in conclusion, Xand had a pre-diet level of 5.1 and on the morning of the Box Hill test it was 4.8 so it would appear to have improved in that time!

petethedrummer

Paul Kiernan wrote: »

So, in conclusion, Xand had a pre-diet level of 5.1 and on the morning of the Box Hill test it was 4.8 so it would appear to have improved in that time!

5.1 would have been a FBG test result.
4.8 was just fasted.

Not comparing like with like. No conclusion can be drawn.

AstraMonti

I think they missed other things as well, like their Omega3 to Omega6 ratio. On the high sugar diet that must have been off the charts.