Mixing Simple and Complex Carbs

[Ozisaxon]

First, yes I have trolled the Forums looking for answers, found alot, but not a decent hint as to what I am after.

I am looking to make some Pre-Workout/Game Cookies. So I have been able to get the figures for the Macors easy enough.

My question is: How do I balance up the Carbohydrates between Simple and Complex. Surely I need a decent balance of both fast absorbed Sugars (Such as Fructose) but then I could also need the Glycogen to be relatively high during the workout for as long as possible.

So I maintain that I must be able to work out the ratio.

Can anyone give me advice or point me to a previous thread that I have missed.

Thanks in advance.

And please: No flaming

[Alphagame]

What is the difference between a simple carb and a complex carb? Does it have something to do with the gi of the food?

[sunngodd]

If you make a dish with both high and low GI carbs, you aren't going to have a situation where the carbs "seperate" and some absorb faster and some absorb slower. The low GI carbs (and whatever else is in the dish) and the high GI carbs combine to give the entire meal a GI somewhere in the middle.

And GI isn't going to matter much anyway.

[cyde]

You're thinking into this too much. Just eat some carbs before your game & you'll be fine. If you want to sweeten your cookies; try raisins or chocolate chips, brown sugar or honey. Oatmeal raisin cookies would be optimal if you want a mix of complex & simple carbohydrates.

[Ozisaxon]

Well that comes as a big suprise to me. I expected that the simple sugars would be broken down nice and quick and readily released to spike the Glycogen quickly, while the Complex Carbs would only break down over a longer time and therefore prolong the increased Glycogen level.

Is that simply put wrong? And if it is wrong why?

[cyde]

Originally Posted by Ozisaxon

Well that comes as a big suprise to me. I expected that the simple sugars would be broken down nice and quick and readily released to spike the Glycogen quickly, while the Complex Carbs would only break down over a longer time and therefore prolong the increased Glycogen level.

Is that simply put wrong? And if it is wrong why?

You're holding on to a lot more glycogen than you think. Unless you are depleted, I wouldn't worry about high GI carbs. Think marathon runners & other endurance athletes.

[Emma-Leigh]

Originally Posted by Alphagame

What is the difference between a simple carb and a complex carb? Does it have something to do with the gi of the food?

to cut and paste:

Originally Posted by Emma-Leigh

The terms 'simple' and 'complex' carbohydrate simply relate to the type of carbohydrate found in the food.

If the carbohydrates are SHORT chains of 'simple sugars', or if it is plain glucose molecules in the food, then it is termed a SIMPLE CARB (eg: things with lactose, fructose, sucrose, glucose, as their major carb sources).

If the carb found in the food is composed of LONGER chains of glucose molecules (which can also be branched) then it is termed a COMPLEX carb (eg: things made of starches).

But this terminology is outdated and useless in terms of how the carb is used/ processed and reacts in your body. Some simple carbs are SLOW to digest... and some complex carbs are FAST to digest.

Additionally, these terms relate in no way to the glycaemic index of the food. For example - fruits are SIMPLE carbs - yet most fruits are also LOW glycaemic index...

Unfortunately, in relation to 'usefulness' for your body - the GLYCAEMIC INDEX is not much better! As something that is LOW glycaemic index is not necessarily BETTER/ HEALTHIER for you than things with HIGH GI (eg: a snickers is low GI... Watermelon is HIGH GI).

Glycaemic LOAD is somewhat better in terms of relating the 'hit' of glucose you will be getting at the one time (this is the LOAD of incoming glucose to hit your blood when you eat a particular food at a typical serving size)... But even then it is not hugely significant when you eat an appropriate serving of the food and mix it in a normal meal.

One more step is the Insulin Index (or the insulin response you have to a given food)... But, as with the glycaemic load - even this is not really significant. When you consider individual variability in regards to insulin release, and when someone eats the food in a mixed meal, you basically have no 'real life' applicability of the index at all... Additionally -as PROTEIN can cause a MARKED increase in insulin (eg: whey is a prime example of this), a foods insulin index is not necessarily a marker of it being something 'bad'.

So... ermmm.... what am I trying to say?

Basically - don't base your diet on a 'ranking' of foods - be that with 'simple or complex', 'glycaemic index/load' or even 'insulin index'....

Look at the NATURE of your diet (what foods are you eating IN GENERAL) - and what you WANT from the food...

Are the foods wholesome, and nutritious (are they good choices for your health)?
Are they sustaining your energy and workout needs?
Are they tasty and satisfying to eat?
And are they allowing you to stick to your diet and reach your goals?

These are the things that relate to REAL results - and so they are, ultimately, what is much more important on focusing on.

[Ozisaxon]

This is narrowing it down more for me. I understand more now, thank you very much for your help. But the message I am receiving is simply this:

It doesnt matter what type of Carbohydrate you are eating. As long as you expend the same energy as you are consuming you will be ok.

However, the answer still seems somehow still....well... vague. You see, what I was looking for was some sort of feasible analysis/formula/truth that would allow someone like myself to be able to refine a PreWorkout meal to allow me to keep a sustained Glucose level for time x, hypothetically allowing me to Work in the Gym without loss of Performance over that time x.

I am well aware that there are other factors. I am just focusing on this aspect of my programm at this point.

Please let me expand on the responses so far:

"The low GI carbs (and whatever else is in the dish) and the high GI carbs combine to give the entire meal a GI somewhere in the middle."
While this may be mathematically correct, I dont believe that it will be biologically/chemically true. Even with my limited understanding of what goes on down there, I cant see that a Dextrose tablet and an equal portion of Potatoe will equal out.

"Oatmeal raisin cookies would be optimal"
This is what I am trying to be more accurate on, i.e. the proportion of the length of time that it takes for the glucose to be usefull in the body after consumption of the differing types of carbs.

"Think marathon runners & other endurance athletes."
This I can also understand, though I would be playing a Sprint and Collision sport for around 3 hours, or working with Iron or Cardio for a couple of hours. For explosion, speed and Strength.

"Glycaemic LOAD is somewhat better in terms of relating the 'hit' of glucose you will be getting at the one time (this is the LOAD of incoming glucose to hit your blood when you eat a particular food at a typical serving size)"
This sounds like the direction I wanted to get into. Though the end summary of the pragraph seems dooming

"Are the foods wholesome, and nutritious (are they good choices for your health)? "
Yes

"Are they sustaining your energy and workout needs? "
That is the aim, though I want as little depletion as possible during the workout.

"Are they tasty and satisfying to eat?"
Not sure yet havent started the oven up yet

"And are they allowing you to stick to your diet and reach your goals?"
That will also be a Yes. The calorie and Macros will be kept to such a portion size that meets with my Nutrition Plan.

Perhaps if I relate a little more detail.

I will be going straight form work to the gym. That trip will take around an hour. So that would be approximately 70-90mins before I work out on any given day. Incindently the same time difference exists between Football Practice.

This leaves no time for Dinner. Lunch was 7 hours ago by the time I hit the gym. So I ideally want to place two meals inbetween to keep me up. That means taking food with me to work etc.

No problem. But I dont really want to spend $xx on products I can easily substitute for a fraction of the price. So I want to make and bake at home. I would however be making and baking something decent form the get go rather than bake a Sugarloaf and be starving 30mins later.

Surely theres a refined method out there?

[Emma-Leigh]

First - to quote: [quote] type here[/quote]

Now - Although it doesn't 'make sense' to see that a 'mixed meal' basically 'mixes' in terms of GI - it is true. One such example is mixing white rice with other foods:
http://www.nature.com/ejcn/journal/v.../1601606a.html

The reason being is that they 'mix' in the gut and decrease the rate of gastric emptying/ digestion... Yes, there is an immediate absorption of the faster digesting dextrose and then you do get a more prolonged absorption of the other food (esp if you sip the dextrose/ take the tabs first... then wait a few mins before eating the other foods) but it also depends on loading/ what is also in your gut at the time/ and how the carbs are presented to you (eg: liquid/ in a food) etc.

I wrote some info about the limitations of GI HERE (click me).

I think that if you ARE doing long duration, glycogen depleting work - then your best bet would probably be to read this: http://www.poweringmuscles.com/Sport...nt_Timing.html

It has some good information about preparing athletes for events in regards to carb/ nutrients.

[Ozisaxon]

Sweet as. Thanks Emma-Leigh awesome help.

Plenty of reading to be done. Well thatll be a rest day taken up

[Emma-Leigh]

Originally Posted by Ozisaxon

Sweet as. Thanks Emma-Leigh awesome help.

Plenty of reading to be done. Well thatll be a rest day taken up

Welcome.

Hope it helps.

[Emma-Leigh]

Originally Posted by Emma-Leigh

Welcome.

Hope it helps.

ps -- >>> for recovery another little bit of info you might like...


On the subject of Whey and Milk PWO:

I feel whey is optimal in terms of your protein source PWO, but that using milk in your PWO shake is a personal choice!

My point was that milk has highly anabolic properties that some people like to utilise following a workout, especially when combined with the anabolic potential of a whey powder (which presents the body with those all important BCAAs).

Why??

Milk, especially in combination with the highly insulinogenic amino acids found in whey, will lead to a synergistic increase in insulin output. This is of great benifit to the post-workout goals of rapidly decreasing cortisol and rapidly replenishment of muscle glycogen stores. So, for example, if you were a person that used 'high GI foods for their insulin stimulation property' in the post-workout window, milk would provide a more nutritionally dense (and more anabolically advantagous) alternative to the 'dextrose/malto' thing.

Milk also has a huge capacity to stimulate growth factors - and this is to a much greater degree than whey alone. In fact, this is actually partially because of the casein in milk, which maintains the integrety of IGF-1 in milk, allowing it to make it to the blood un-denatured (allowing it to be absorbed in this state). Casein is also highly anti-catabolic (again, more so than whey), something also of benifit in the post-workout window!

Milk is also a natural 'electrolyte solution' (with protein and carbs as well... and fat droplets if you have whole milk - which I DO NOT suggest you have post-workout due to the fat content )... But these vitamins and minerals are excellent for post-workout recovery - adding once again to the overall benifit of milk post-workout.

Thus - whey + milk can actually work well together in the post-workout window to aid in recovery and to give an anabolic, anti-catabolic hit all at one!

I am not saying people have to use milk, I am just saying it is an option for the post-workout period and that it should not be dismissed so suddenly.

I certainly do not advocate milk alone!

But, if your workouts are intense then maybe consider whey + milk + oats + fruit as a great combination for your post-workout shake - it would give you the BCAAs and anabolic potential of the whey, the anabolic/anti-catabolic and insulinogenic potential of the milk, the nutrient dense carbohydrates of the oats and the blood glucose restoring, anti-oxidant potential, nutrient dense benifits of the fruit...

But (just to finish) in my opinion, any combination of any of the above foods (as long as whey was in the equation) is fine... Different people feel more comfortable with different foods post-workout and will also have different goals - so their choice on post-workout shake ingredients will be made with those things in mind.

On the subject of fast v's slow carb sources:

Originally Posted by Emma-Leigh

Yes, faster digesting carbohydrate sources are the best in terms of 'maximising rapid recovery' in the post-workout period. They not only help to increase insulin secretion (thus blunting cortisol release quickly) but also increase the speed at which glycogen is replenished (via increasing the immediate availability of glucose)... However, if you think about it - what else does dextrose offer you? Zip. It is nutritionally pointless. There are other sources of high GI carbs that can provide you with this function and a lot more - as I feel your post-workout recovery should encompass things such as restoring blood/whole body glucose levels, restoring electrolytes, decreasing the rate of oxidative damage (seen to be much heightened following strenuous exercise) stimulating anabolic/growth factors and decreasing catabolism...

Dex is not really good for doing any of those things.

For the insulin response - Well, you do not really need to do the 'high GI' thing. Insulin, although related somewhat to the GI of the food, is also released to other things. Both milk and whey stimulate an insulin response - a large insulin response. Infact, when used in combination it is actually a synergistic effect and you will increase insulin more so than the individual substances. You can get more than the required response from these things.

For the glucose availability thing - well, both milk and fruits will have natural dextrose/glucose in them (I believe skim milk has about 7g per cup, the average medium banana has about 6g glucose, a cup of blueberries has about 7g glucose and a cup of grapes has about 12g of glucose). These things are also much more nutritionally valuable - having vitamins, minerals, water etc etc and MANY other benefits that pure dextrose does not have.

Oats - well, yes, they don't have a lot of glucose but they are not as 'low GI' as many believe. This is only really some times of oats. Yes, both scotch oats and oatbran are low GI (less than 55) and THICK cut wholegrain rolled oats (esp those in Australia ) are lowish to intermediate (40 to 58) , however, most rolled oats (esp thinly rolled oats and those that have been de-hulled) are actually intermediate to high GI (ranging around the 65-75 and up to 80). You could even go for oat-flour porridge which has a GI of about 75! Sure, not as high GI as dextrose, but still in the range that they will provide energy to the body. So they are highish GI and do offer your body energy... but they also offer you the nutritional benefits of the oats.

If the GI of oats is not 'high enough' for your likings then why not look for something else NATURAL that is - eg:

Dates!: They have a GI of 104! They also have 20-35g of glucose per 100g (depends on the type)... But they also give you magnesium, potassium, vit B6 and lots of other nutritional benefits...

Potato: *shock*.. Yup.. Potato... often shunned for it's high GI why not USE this as an advantage? It is much more nutritious than dextrose as they also give you significant levels of magnesium, Vit B6, folate and potassium.

Millet: High GI (up around 80 and above) and a great source of your B vitamins and magnesium. They are also high in phosphorus, which, if you think about it is essential in things such as DNA formation, bone formation AND ATP formation!

??? Why not think outside the 'dextrose or nothing' square?

And a word on fruits.... Yes, most are lower in GI (even banana's are only intermediate GI) however, they offer vitamins, minerals, water, anti-oxidants and phytochemicals which are all amazingly useful in the post-workout time frame. They will help repair oxidative damage, restore minerals/electrolytes that have been lost during sweating and will also restore BLOOD/WHOLE BODY glucose which is essential in whole-body recovery and in preventing catabolism! Also, you do have higher-glucose options such as bananas, pineapples, grapes etc - these give you the benefit of the fruits and that glucose that you need...


Just some food for thought....

[Ozisaxon]

Brilliant, thanks for your help.

By doing some searching around I also found this:
(No breach of copyright intended)

http://www.montignac.com/en/surces_l...es_rapides.php

I think this explains in simple terms (no pun intended) that the Fast and Slow Carb theory was dissproven.

Also stating that Glycemia Peaks are similar regardless of what density the CHO molecule has. This backs up what you all have been saying.

So "Simple Carbs" and "Complex Carbs" are releasing the glucose at around the same time and the amount of glucose that is being released is also similar. Meaning in Laymans: Theres very little appreciable difference between the "Slow" and "Fast" Carbohydrate sources.

So is the only benefit to the "Complex Carb" that it contains further MicroNutrients, when compared to the "Simple Carb". Meaning that it is simply of actual nutritional value?

Because if thats the case why would I not just be justified in going to the corner store, buying a Glucose Chocolate bar (containing plenty of VitB, Guarana etc) and popping a MultiVit/Mineral tablet? Or more extreme, Dextrose tablets to supply the amount of Carbs I want and a MultiVit/Mineral tablet. Does that not simulate a nutritionaly dense source of carbs?

What is the difference between those, imo, obviously drastic examples and eating wholesome natural foods?

[Emma-Leigh]

You are still confusing things a little -
simple and complex carbs ; are not the same as high GI and low GI carbs ; are not the same as nutrient dense/ nutrient poor foods.

All these things need to be thought of as different properties of a given food.

You can have foods that are simple that are LOW GI (eg: milk, fruit)
You can have foods that are complex that are high GI (eg: white bread)
You can have foods that are nutrient RICH that are high GI (eg: dates)
You can have foods that are nutrient POOR that are low GI (eg: snickers)
You can have foods that are nutrient RICH that are simple carbs (eg: fruit)
You can have foods that are nutrient POOR that are complex carbs (eg: maltodex)

So the only benefit of 'complex' v's 'simple' is that you get starch rather than a 'sugar'.

The GI of a carb is based on a number of things - fiber content, acidity, particle size/surface area, and the presentation of the carb (eg: different starches are easier/ harder to digest)... it is also varied by the protein and fat content in the food (eg: snickers are low GI because you get +++ fats with it - which slows gastric emptying). It also depends on what the carb source is broken into. eg: fruit and milk have low GI's because they are absorbed as sugars OTHER than glucose - that is:
Fruit contain Fructose (which is absorbed as fructose)
Milk contans Lactose (which is cleaved into galactose and glucose and absorbed as these)
Table sugar contains Sucrose (which is cleaved into fructose and glucose and absorbed as these)

So - even IF you get the same amount of 'carb' of fructose v's glucose - your blood glucose will only go UP quickly for the GLUCOSE because the fructose is taken to the liver to be converted before it registers as 'glucose' in the blood (if that makes sense??).

The density of carb in a given food relates to glycaemic LOAD (that is - the amount of carb you recieve in a typical serving size). This is why some low GI foods have HIGH glycaemic loads (eg: wholemeal pasta) and some high GI foods have LOW glycaemic loads (eg: watermelon). It comes back to, essentially, water content and what 'else' is in the food source.
But this is only really significant if you have 'typical serving sizes' --> if you sit down and eat a whole watermelon, you are still going to get lots of carbs (and a massive stomach ache).

The amount of glucose released into your blood will be the same for any given carb type - regardless of if it is 'fast', 'slow', 'complex', 'simple' etc etc. Yes - The SPEED of which it is released will determine the PEAK of 'load' but those released slower will 'stretch out' - and the AMOUNT ultimately recieved will be the same (thus, the area under the curve will remain constant).

The difference in speed CAN be significant if the properties are markedly different. eg: take a sports dextrose drink designed for rapid absorption consumed alone and on an empty stomach - This will hit the blood pretty quickly... On the other hand - if you have a mixed meal ~ 3 hrs after eating your last meal... and it has some legumes (eg: chick peas), meat and fats, then you will have to wait a while before you get the full LOAD of glucose because you'll still be digesting it about 2 hrs later.

The INSULIN index relates to the amount of insulin that is released by a given food. This too is 'constant' for a given carb amount - but the RATE of release is different (that is - once again, the peak will be different).


With regards to the comments on the difference between 'natural' v's 'other' foods --> there have been multiple threads re this in the past - and it IS an option if you so feel you want to do it. In terms of body composition you'll not have any significant differences.

But a multi-V is not ever close to the nutrients provided in 'food'. The combinations of nutrients presented + the 'unknown' phytonutrients as per real food, IMHO >> those in a tablet. And this then, essentially, comes back to your body and your 'health'.

So -- >> If you have a well balanced base diet then the addition of chocolate energy bars to help meet your energy needs is not going to do you any harm. If you LIVE on chocolate energy bars + a multi-V.... then you might run into trouble.

[Ozisaxon]

Firstly, thanks for your patience. As you say there are many threads on this already. But there is also so much information based on personal opinion and heresay it can be hard to differentiate the fact from broscience.

Originally Posted by Emma-Leigh

The amount of glucose released into your blood will be the same for any given carb type - regardless of if it is 'fast', 'slow', 'complex', 'simple' etc etc. Yes - The SPEED of which it is released will determine the PEAK of 'load' but those released slower will 'stretch out' - and the AMOUNT ultimately recieved will be the same (thus, the area under the curve will remain constant).

The INSULIN index relates to the amount of insulin that is released by a given food. This too is 'constant' for a given carb amount - but the RATE of release is different (that is - once again, the peak will be different).

Ok this here, is important to my understanding.

First, the rate of release is directly proportional to the peak of assimiliation. This I understand. I am also assuming that the information in the previous link to the Montignac Article is not incorrect. So the period between the differning Carbs peak is sitting at roughly 20-30mins. OK I get that too. After the initial Peak, Insulin release will be increased to help drive the glucose into the muscle where it is needed. Therefore reducing the Blood Glucose Level back down to around a constant level.

This then means my first question is answerable with a no. I cannot mix Carbs to maintain an appreciably longer Glycaemic Spike or numerable spikes and thereby increasing Insulin release to maintain a steady rate of induced time released Glucose input to the muscles.

Originally Posted by Emma-Leigh

With regards to the comments on the difference between 'natural' v's 'other' foods --> there have been multiple threads re this in the past - and it IS an option if you so feel you want to do it. In terms of body composition you'll not have any significant differences.

This is where I am havnig some serious troubles. Now I try to eat pretty damn clean. I might have a KFC once every couple of months if that. I never eat McD or even a Subway anymore. I eat KFC for the taste, but always used it as a reward/cheat food.

But now I am being told that as long as I balance out the Junk with an equal portion of Good, I should be OK.

I must admit that this comes as a schock to me. Lets say I eat 4 meals a day. Thats 28 meals a week. I could eat fast food for 14 of those meals, and wholesome food for the other 14 and not notice a difference?

That I am finding hard to empathise with. Given that the general "Medical advice" is eat Junk foods max 1 a week or better yet 1 a month.

Now I really want to take that Red pill. But I cant quite see the point. It seems far healthier to stay on the Blue Pill and adjust to what I understand about Carbs atm.

On the side I have started to research myself and try to find answers rather than clutter a board thats already cluttered with the same stuff.

Something that does come to mind is the Calorific defict brought about by digesting different types of CHO. The more dense the CHO particle the more energy would be required to break it down, is that true? Whereas a very simple CHO molecular chain would be eaier to break down.

[Emma-Leigh]

Originally Posted by Ozisaxon

Ok this here, is important to my understanding.

First, the rate of release is directly proportional to the peak of assimiliation. This I understand.

I am glad you understand what you are saying - because I am lost!

But if I interpret correctly you are saying that the rate at which a carb is digested/ absorbed is proportional to the speed at which it is taken up by the cells of the body? Yes?

Because if that is what you are saying then you are incorrect...
The rate of digested and absorption into the blood (from the intestine) relates to the food and your intestines/ what is in your intestines.
The rate of assimilation into your cells depends on things such as insulin release/ insulin sensitivity, first pass metabolism and a few other things.

.... So the period between the differning Carbs peak is sitting at roughly 20-30mins. OK I get that too. After the initial Peak, Insulin release will be increased to help drive the glucose into the muscle where it is needed. Therefore reducing the Blood Glucose Level back down to around a constant level.

Essentially this is a yes - glucose increases --> triggers insulin to increase --> helps to move glucose into cells (not just muscles)

This then means my first question is answerable with a no. I cannot mix Carbs to maintain an appreciably longer Glycaemic Spike or numerable spikes and thereby increasing Insulin release to maintain a steady rate of induced time released Glucose input to the muscles.

You can -->> as I mentioned before: if you take in a dextrose drink that is very fast to absorb, and then followed that about 5-10 mins later with something such as an oatmeal cookie then you would. You would get the immediate 'hit' from the dex drink (esp. if it was osmotically apprpriate) and then you would get a more gradual release from the oatmeal cookie (and this more gradual release would essentially do what you are 'trying' to achieve - that is, it would give you a more steady 'incoming' CHO source after your initial spike).

If you were to add the dextrose to the cookie and bake it - then you would simply get a release that would fit the digestion of that food as a TOTAL...

This is where I am havnig some serious troubles. Now I try to eat pretty damn clean. I might have a KFC once every couple of months if that. I never eat McD or even a Subway anymore. I eat KFC for the taste, but always used it as a reward/cheat food.

But now I am being told that as long as I balance out the Junk with an equal portion of Good, I should be OK.

I must admit that this comes as a schock to me. Lets say I eat 4 meals a day. Thats 28 meals a week. I could eat fast food for 14 of those meals, and wholesome food for the other 14 and not notice a difference?

In terms of what? Composition, or health?
And how MUCH fast food are you going to eat? The same cals/ portions as you would of healthy food? More? Less?

For HEALTH and PERFORMANCE - >> it may well be different (depending on what type of baseline diet you have and how hard you are training).

For BODY FAT/COMPOSITION - >> as long as the end products give you something that fits your needs - it will not be different.

Let me ask you this - For composition/ energy etc - given the rest of your diet is intact.... What is the difference between:
1 oz nutella and 1 tbs PB + 150g strawberries -->


They have roughly the same cals/ carbs/ protein/ fats.... Do you think that one would 'create' energy where the other wouldn't?

You can also see a study here:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17536194
And:

That I am finding hard to empathise with. Given that the general "Medical advice" is eat Junk foods max 1 a week or better yet 1 a month.

See above. Subsisting on nutrient poor, energy dense junk food = recipe for metabolic syndrome + chronic diseases + bowel cancer.
^
You have to remember that 'public health' concerns re obesity/ over consumption/ disease are very different to 'anal retentive bb-er/ sports person' who has some fast food as part of their diet every now and then.

Basically: If you have 'portion appropriate' meals of 'enter fast food type here' as part of a well balanced diet - it is not the 'be all and end all'. Problem is that many people don't - they eat far too much of it, and far too little of the nutrient dense other foods. And therefore - the guidelines are for people to have 'none' (people are not good at moderation).

Now I really want to take that Red pill. But I cant quite see the point. It seems far healthier to stay on the Blue Pill and adjust to what I understand about Carbs atm.

On the side I have started to research myself and try to find answers rather than clutter a board thats already cluttered with the same stuff.

No issue here with you doing this - but look to sources that are 'research' based rather than bro science.

Some places to start are linked: http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showth...hp?t=110624041

Something that does come to mind is the Calorific defict brought about by digesting different types of CHO. The more dense the CHO particle the more energy would be required to break it down, is that true? Whereas a very simple CHO molecular chain would be eaier to break down.

You are sort of confused here too - a lot of digestion is 'passive' in regards to actual energy output:
take food
add enzymes
mix in gut
= digested.

YES there are some differences, but the differences are not marked...

It is mostly - >> The SPEED of digestion that is changed (eg: takes more time to break down something presented in complex chains rather than single saccharides), And also the AMOUNT of digestion that can occur, and therefore the ultimate carb/energy available for the body differs (eg: fibre v's starch v's sugar).

[Ozisaxon]

Ok, firstly I will answer your question regarding the profiles of the two examples above.

Firstly I can see that there is a large difference between the portion sizes. This should highlight some potential comparative issues with the availability of Macro/Micronutrients.

Statistically the foods share similar Macronutrient portions and thus share a very similar Calorific profile.

Though when we look closer at this Calorific profile, differences can be quickly seen:

Regarding Fat content: The nut spread has a high Saturated Fat content. AFAIK, this type of Fat has no place in the diet as the body cannot use it. So these can be seen to be poor providers of calories. In fact if I am correct they wont be used by the body at all. Possibly just stored.

Looking at the Carbohydrates: The nut spread has but 50% the Fibre and ~200% the Sugar content. Meaning there are no Starches to be found.

Examining Proteins: The Nut spread has only 50% the availability of the comparison foods. In that small a portion we have little to no Amino Profile.

So what we can see form these two examples is that though they share a similar Calorific Profile, the exact composition of the Calorie Profile is radically different. And looking further into the foods, we can see that the Nut spread is virtually devoid of further nutrients, opposed to the nutrient rich comparison foods.

I know that bad food is bad food and that it doesn?t take too long a look as to see why the calories are bad from one food compared to the other.

After looking over the thread again and reading around, I think I slowly understand why CHO sources need to be taken at different times to take advantage of the different glucose responses.

When foods are, as per my suggestion, prepared together, the CHO chain would undergo a predetermined change. In my example this would be less so as I am not blending or breaking any product down during the Cooking process.

However, during the chewing we are breaking the solid down into a thick pasty mix and during the digestion we are chemically breaking the product down even further.

So this then means we are changing the Saccharides chain composition. Or fundamentally speaking, creating new CHO chains. This means that differing CHO sources combine together and therefore we result in this mixed Glucose Production Response (Mono-, Di- and Polysaccharides combining to create more Poly- chains).

Regarding the initial quote you couldn?t quite follow, what I meant was:

The Rate of Glucose Presence in the Bloodstream is relative to the Rate at which CHO is digested.

[Emma-Leigh]

Originally Posted by Ozisaxon

Firstly I can see that there is a large difference between the portion sizes. This should highlight some potential comparative issues with the availability of Macro/Micronutrients.

How is portion size related to availability of macro/micronutrients?

Statistically the foods share similar Macronutrient portions and thus share a very similar Calorific profile.

Yes.

Regarding Fat content: The nut spread has a high Saturated Fat content. AFAIK, this type of Fat has no place in the diet as the body cannot use it. So these can be seen to be poor providers of calories. In fact if I am correct they wont be used by the body at all. Possibly just stored.

Actually -- >> You do need some saturated fats and cholesterols in your diet and so you shouldn't try to 'cut them out' completely. They are useful in hormone production...

With regards to being used in the body - >> Both have the same number of fats overall - and both give 72 cals... So what is to stop both being used exactly the same should you be at the same calorie deficit?

Looking at the Carbohydrates: The nut spread has but 50% the Fibre and ~200% the Sugar content. Meaning there are no Starches to be found.

Yes - but once digested starch = glucose.
So they both end up as 'sugars'.
They both have 17g carbs.
And 2g of fiber is not going to be the difference (add 2 fiber tabs and you have the same effect)...

The important thing to note is both supply the same number of calories from carbs.... So I ask - how would they differ in the energy you receive? You still get 4 cals/ gram of each... so both would give you 68 cals from carbs.

Examining Proteins: The Nut spread has only 50% the availability of the comparison foods. In that small a portion we have little to no Amino Profile.

You shouldn't use relative comparisons with statistics - they mislead and can lead to misinterpretation. eg: If talking of a disease/ harm - 'HALF THE RISK' sounds like a lot... but when you consider the absolute risks if the initial is only 1:10000000000 then the difference is not going to be significant.

Same with regards this protein content - 2g v's 4g = yes 'half' but in terms of dietary intake = peeing in the ocean.

Oh - and the amino acid profile is missing simply because it has not been filled in. But as nutella is made with 'whole and skim milk, and hazelnuts' I would imagine that it would actually be pretty good.

So what we can see form these two examples is that though they share a similar Calorific Profile, the exact composition of the Calorie Profile is radically different. And looking further into the foods, we can see that the Nut spread is virtually devoid of further nutrients, opposed to the nutrient rich comparison foods.

I know that bad food is bad food and that it doesn?t take too long a look as to see why the calories are bad from one food compared to the other.

Food is food. Food is not 'good' and 'bad'.
Calories are 'calories'. They are not 'good' nor 'bad'.
Food can be 'nutrient dense' and 'nutrient poor' but that doesn't make them 'bad' nor 'good'. And if 'nutrient poor' food is included as PART of your diet - they are not going to do you HARM in regards to either your health nor your body composition.

Yes. For HEALTH you can argue that the fruit and nuts = better if you... And were you to only eat these two foods (that is - if your diet was soley the above) then I agree. Go with the fruit and nuts.

But 'eating healthy food', although beneficial for other things, is not necessarily 'better' for weight loss. So if you are looking for energy - they both give you exactly the same... And that energy is used exactly the same by the body. And as long as you reach your nutrient requirements with the other foods in your diet then they are not detrimental in regards to your health.

Basically: if you were trying to simply LOSE weight -> what would the difference mean in terms of weight loss?
This is the message I am trying to share.
Cals = cals = weight loss.
Health = nutrients = health.

The two are different.

After looking over the thread again and reading around, I think I slowly understand why CHO sources need to be taken at different times to take advantage of the different glucose responses.

When foods are, as per my suggestion, prepared together, the CHO chain would undergo a predetermined change. In my example this would be less so as I am not blending or breaking any product down during the Cooking process.

However, during the chewing we are breaking the solid down into a thick pasty mix and during the digestion we are chemically breaking the product down even further.

So this then means we are changing the Saccharides chain composition. Or fundamentally speaking, creating new CHO chains. This means that differing CHO sources combine together and therefore we result in this mixed Glucose Production Response (Mono-, Di- and Polysaccharides combining to create more Poly- chains)

I wrote a little bit about digestion here: CLICK ME

But... really.... You are making this far, far more 'complex' than it needs to be.
Essentially:
Mix foods into a 'mixed food' and you get a 'mixed food' response.
Eat seperately and in isolation = a single food response.
Anything in between = anything in between.

If you want a 'fast response' to a carb => have something such as a iso-osmotic glucose drink (6-9% glucose) with sodium. eg: sports drink.
If you want that response over time - sip it over a given time period.
Added benefit of liquid/ water / sodium = you will still get a good uptake even DURING physical activity.

If you want something 'slower' with less of an immediate 'hit' => have a whole food that has to undergo digestion and that has a little fat/ protein in it to slow that digestion even further.
Eating a little bit 'over time' is probably not going to make the difference as it will all be so slow to digest anyway.
Thus: Eating it BEFORE you start your game would be better if you need energy DURING your game... that way it is being absorbed/ already in your blood when needed. Additionally - due to altered blood flow to your intestines during your increased activity the speed of digestion/ absorption is altered and it might just end up sitting in your gut and making you ill.

[Ozisaxon]

Originally Posted by Emma-Leigh

How is portion size related to availability of macro/micronutrients?

If further Nutrients are available then increasing the portion size would also increase availability. But that is making things too complicated. Not seeing the Forest for the Trees, I know I know.

Originally Posted by Emma-Leigh

With regards to being used in the body - >> Both have the same number of fats overall - and both give 72 cals... So what is to stop both being used exactly the same should you be at the same calorie deficit?

Only that I was under the assumption that Saturated Fats can be used by the body at all. My only point of Reference is a copy of the Golds Gym Nutrition Bible, I looked at the release Date yesterday.... around the early to mid eighties was the revision. I bought a reprint. So I can see why I am having to re-learn.

Originally Posted by Emma-Leigh

The important thing to note is both supply the same number of calories from carbs.... So I ask - how would they differ in the energy you receive? You still get 4 cals/ gram of each... so both would give you 68 cals from carbs.

Thats still the crux of my Question. I cant tell why they are different. I dont know why I should be eating Non-Starch Carbs on workout days and Starchy Carbs on Rest days when Carb cycling. I was under the assumption that the Rate of availability was the difference between Starch and Non-Starch carbs. But that is negligible.

Previously I would take a MaxiMuscle Viper Sachet with me for a game. I would mix it with a Powerade around an hour or so before kick off. During the Game I would have another MaxiMuscle with water. On hot days maybe two over the 3 hours. At the end I would drink a Powerade and eat some mixed Carbs (Starch and Non-Starch) and take Ammino Acid Tablets. This worked otu really well. But could get expensive.

Note: I use the term Non-Starch for Sugary Carb sources like fructose etc. Just so I dont get confused when I read back.