CHO=The ''non-essential macro''

[mattvdh]

Anyway, the OP was actually rhetorical and not to be answered directly--more of a conversation starter.

[germaine07]

Then I phrased it poorly, because that's not what I meant. I meant 'live a lifestyle that requires carbs, and simultaneously consume them." I apologize for phrasing it poorly, but I'm glad I gave you something to nitpick and get your jimmies rustled about, as you clearly enjoy that.

I think that was fairly obvious from your original post. I believe he's just being pedantic.

[WonderPug]

I generally hate to feed trolls, but just for the heck of it, I'll offer the following for Matt.

Please watch in it's entirety:

I have a theory that respawn and you are the same person. I refuse to believe that two idiots like you two can continue to post in these forums

It's entirely possible, though respawn put more effort into the diatribes (measured by word count), where this OP seems to put forth less effort (again, measured by word count).

[WillBrink]

I find it strange that carbs are considered a non-essential macro considering how many uses and functions it provides for the body. Fiber is a crucial aspect of any diet, as well as glucose--the body needs some glucose to burn fat efficiently and glucose is your go-to fuel source. When no CHO is available, the liver cannot break down fat completely.

Why are CHOs considered non-essential when they are clearly highly beneficial?

Look up the def of "essential nutrients"

Beneficial has nothing do with it being essential per se.

[Lvisaa2]

It's entirely possible, though respawn put more effort into the diatribes (measured by word count), where this OP seems to put forth less effort (again, measured by word count).

I agree, but he's making eerily similar arguments to respawn.

[WonderPug]

I agree, but he's making eerily similar arguments to respawn.

The thought process does seem remarkably similar.



P.S. You're on spread, as usual. Hope you had a great Thanksgiving!!!

[Lvisaa2]

The thought process does seem remarkably similar.



P.S. You're on spread, as usual. Hope you had a great Thanksgiving!!!

Quite wonderful. Got to see my family and my little Michelin man of a nephew. He was a little over a month when I moved to Philly so it was great to see him and how much he has changed/grown. Hope yours treated you well also.

[WonderPug]

^^^ One of the best things about moving away from your hometown is going back to visit!!!

How's life in Philly? Are you enjoying the city?

[alan aragon]

I generally hate to feed trolls, but just for the heck of it, I'll offer the following for Matt.

Please watch in it's entirety:

When I debated with Volek at the NSCA conference last year, he admitted that LC/keto diets were best for therapeutic use in type 2 diabetics, not healthy athletes. I also made him admit to the audience that protein wasn't matched in a single one of the comparative research examples he gave.

PS - hope you're having a great Thanksgiving holiday (Pug & All).

[WonderPug]

When I debated with Volek at the NSCA conference last year, he admitted that LC/keto diets were best for therapeutic use in type 2 diabetics, not healthy athletes.

That's basically what he indicates in most of his talks, including this one.

He talks about the therapeutic use of ketogenic diets and the efficiency for those with diabetes and metabolic syndrome. He even discusses diagnostic tests to determine if there's reason to moderate CHO intake.

[alan aragon]

That's basically what he indicates in most of his talks, including this one.

He talks about the therapeutic use of ketogenic diets and the efficiency for those with diabetes and metabolic syndrome. He even discusses diagnostic tests to determine if there's reason to moderate CHO intake.

Okay, cool.

[WonderPug]

Okay, cool.

His position seems well-grounded.

If blood panels demonstrate poor response to dietary CHO, titate CHO intake to remediate. At least that's the takeaway that I get from him.

Of course, he also focuses on how to optimize performance for those on a CHO restricted diet, but that's far from advocating the restriction broadly.

[asmcriminal]

Proteins have glucogenic amino acids. 48% of protein gets converted to glucose. All macros increase insulin. So as mentioned, they're not really needed. I do agree they help performance. Now the question is, do they really help performance? Or do they only help when people aren't adjusted to a lower carb diet?

For me, i was struggling a bit hitting my calories not to long ago. I cut down on carbs and increased protein. I think this is due to insulin related issues. It crossed my mind that maybe some people are just more sensitive to carbs. I think people with higher ratio of LBM to fat don't have this issue so much.

I want to address the "CHO" thing people have been mentioning around. CHO is not correct for carbs. In chemistry, you can cut down a chemical formula for some molecules in to an empirical formula. An empirical formula is minimum amount of atoms in the molecule while keeping the same ratio. Here is an exampel

Molecular formula: C6H12O6(glucose)
Empirical Formula: CH2O (multiply everything by 6 and you go back to glucose's molecular formula)

[alan aragon]

Proteins have glucogenic amino acids. 48% of protein gets converted to glucose.

So we've assumed. However, this idea has been challenged in recent research:

"Despite this, the contribution of dietary AAs to glucose was 8%, depending mainly on the availability of gluconeogenic AAs, [...] We provided the first direct evidence that under optimal gluconeogenic conditions and in a realistic nutritional situation, dietary proteins only make a relatively modest contribution to the maintenance of blood glucose levels. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23274906

[cumminslifter]

So we've assumed. However, this idea has been challenged in recent research:

"Despite this, the contribution of dietary AAs to glucose was 8%, depending mainly on the availability of gluconeogenic AAs, [...] We provided the first direct evidence that under optimal gluconeogenic conditions and in a realistic nutritional situation, dietary proteins only make a relatively modest contribution to the maintenance of blood glucose levels. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23274906

i wonder if this would change at all given the type of protein consumed? probably not

[asmcriminal]

So we've assumed. However, this idea has been challenged in recent research:

"Despite this, the contribution of dietary AAs to glucose was 8%, depending mainly on the availability of gluconeogenic AAs, [...] We provided the first direct evidence that under optimal gluconeogenic conditions and in a realistic nutritional situation, dietary proteins only make a relatively modest contribution to the maintenance of blood glucose levels.

To late for lyle to edit his ketogenic diet book. I believe there are references in his book. I would like to know more about their(test subjects) condition under the test. Also exactly how they determined the % of glucose produced from the glucogenic AAs. If it was based off the isotopes. I am not sure if that's a valid test(assuming that's how it was done). An isotope has more neutrons than the original element. A bigger nucleus can have an effect on molecular geometry. It would change the bond angles. If the molecular geometry changes then the receptors may not be able to recognize the molecule(glucose) which would result in a lower glucose output % as shown in the study. To draw any valid conclusion, I feel more research needs to be done on the subject.

[alan aragon]

i wonder if this would change at all given the type of protein consumed? probably not

I think it would. That study was also pretty limited in terms of design. Most of what I've come across shows a higher gluconeogenic yield than 8%, and the latter data involves more than one protein source over a longer test period. I just thought it was interesting (& contrary to what I assumed).

[germaine07]

That's basically what he indicates in most of his talks, including this one.

He talks about the therapeutic use of ketogenic diets and the efficiency for those with diabetes and metabolic syndrome. He even discusses diagnostic tests to determine if there's reason to moderate CHO intake.

A ketogenic diet would presumably be more favourable than just a High Fat/High Protein/Low CHO diet wouldn't it? Due to the insulinogenic nature of protein?

It's just I see a lot of people advocate Low CHO/High Fat diets for people who are obese, T2 DM, MS, with no mention of protein, and I would have presumed following a ketogenic diet with at most ~0.6g/lb protein would be more favourable.

[WonderPug]

A ketogenic diet would presumably be more favourable than just a High Fat/High Protein/Low CHO diet wouldn't it? Due to the insulinogenic nature of protein?

It's just I see a lot of people advocate Low CHO/High Fat diets for people who are obese, T2 DM, MS, with no mention of protein, and I would have presumed following a ketogenic diet with at most ~0.6g/lb protein would be more favourable.

I'd agree.

Better glucose control (and lower insulin levels) are likely with lower total protein intake and lower protein intake per meal in those with significant metabolic dysfunction.

[Lvisaa2]

^^^ One of the best things about moving away from your hometown is going back to visit!!!

How's life in Philly? Are you enjoying the city?

Philly has been great to me. I'm not sure whether it is actually Philly or whether I just was ready to be somewhere new, but it feels like things have fallen into place since I've moved here. Finishing up my first semester and I've enjoyed my program in both an intellectual and growth perspective.

[WonderPug]

^^^ Probably a combination of both.

it sounds like you're really hitting your stride.

[germaine07]

When I debated with Volek at the NSCA conference last year, he admitted that LC/keto diets were best for therapeutic use in type 2 diabetics, not healthy athletes. I also made him admit to the audience that protein wasn't matched in a single one of the comparative research examples he gave.

PS - hope you're having a great Thanksgiving holiday (Pug & All).

Alan and co. Off topic for a moment.

A friend of mine, and fellow student, is an endurance athlete and today asked me would I help devise a nutrition plan in preparation for an Ironman next September. I deferred him to one of my lecturers but never-the-less shared the following opinion.

I recommended periodizing his nutrition almost in the same sense as his training. I'm not a fan of the all-out Train Low/Compete High model but I think aspects of it could benefit. Periodize in a sense that in lower intensity training sessions try training in a fasted or glycogen depleted state, and in high intensity training sessions train High CHO and with filled glycogen stores. This way you can maximise "metabolic flexibility" (Mike T. Nelson), achieving muscular adaptations from low CHO and performance adaptations from High CHO. Can do a typical CHO load a couple days out, tapering training/increasing CHO. Race day, consume ~90g/hr CHO with a ratio of 2:1 of Glucose:Fructose, drink water to thirst (0.4-0.8L/hr) with ~30mmol/L (1.7g/L) NaCl.

What's your opinion on this? Right track? He's still going to confer with a lecturer but he is going to keep me in the loop too.

[WillBrink]

I think it would. That study was also pretty limited in terms of design. Most of what I've come across shows a higher gluconeogenic yield than 8%, and the latter data involves more than one protein source over a longer test period. I just thought it was interesting (& contrary to what I assumed).

Seems the rub this is, the human body being a highly dynamic system and very sensitive to dietary variables, the actual contribution of protein to glucose is likely a wide ranging, and dependent on protein type, amount, total cals, macros, etc, etc. It's also energetically costly it seems (what's the latest on that Alan?) when one looks at the process. I recall the "cost" of gluconeogenesis is 30%+ of the energy content just to produce glucose.

Me, I consider this one in the mental masturbation category, but I'm a jaded SOB.

[Gxp23]

Time for chicken wings and beer, a Scottish Thanks giving lol.

[alan aragon]

Seems the rub this is, the human body being a highly dynamic system and very sensitive to dietary variables, the actual contribution of protein to glucose is likely a wide ranging, and dependent on protein type, amount, total cals, macros, etc, etc. It's also energetically costly it seems (what's the latest on that Alan?) when one looks at the process. I recall the "cost" of gluconeogenesis is 30%+ of the energy content just to produce glucose.

Me, I consider this one in the mental masturbation category, but I'm a jaded SOB.

That's about right, Will. See: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19640952

Alan and co. Off topic for a moment.

A friend of mine, and fellow student, is an endurance athlete and today asked me would I help devise a nutrition plan in preparation for an Ironman next September. I deferred him to one of my lecturers but never-the-less shared the following opinion.

I recommended periodizing his nutrition almost in the same sense as his training. I'm not a fan of the all-out Train Low/Compete High model but I think aspects of it could benefit. Periodize in a sense that in lower intensity training sessions try training in a fasted or glycogen depleted state, and in high intensity training sessions train High CHO and with filled glycogen stores. This way you can maximise "metabolic flexibility" (Mike T. Nelson), achieving muscular adaptations from low CHO and performance adaptations from High CHO. Can do a typical CHO load a couple days out, tapering training/increasing CHO. Race day, consume ~90g/hr CHO with a ratio of 2:1 of Glucose:Fructose, drink water to thirst (0.4-0.8L/hr) with ~30mmol/L (1.7g/L) NaCl.

What's your opinion on this? Right track? He's still going to confer with a lecturer but he is going to keep me in the loop too.

Your modified version of "train low, compete high" is fine on paper, but just like the more traditional model, it hasn't been consistently demonstrated as advantageous in research with actual performance outcomes. I still don't see anything glaringly wrong with your approach though. At worst, it could simply be unnecessarily complicating things. As for the actual numbers you presented, carb ingestion at 90 g/hr is pushing it on the high side (unless we're feeding a giant here), considering recent research that found diminishing returns after 78 g/hr: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22968309

[germaine07]

Your modified version of "train low, compete high" is fine on paper, but just like the more traditional model, it hasn't been consistently demonstrated as advantageous in research with actual performance outcomes. I still don't see anything glaringly wrong with your approach though. At worst, it could simply be unnecessarily complicating things. As for the actual numbers you presented, carb ingestion at 90 g/hr is pushing it on the high side (unless we're feeding a giant here), considering recent research that found diminishing returns after 78 g/hr: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22968309

Yeah I got the 90g/hr figure from Asker Jeukendrup's recent presentation at the SDA conference in Australia, in which he recommends it in events lasting >2.5 hours. That trial sheds interesting light. The difference may be however, that trial was 2 hours long, whereas something like an Ironman can be considerably longer in duration.



Jeukendrup explains more here:

http://www.gssiweb.org/Article/sse-1...their-benefits
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/...3#.UpzDFNLwmyg
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/...8#.UpzD09Lwmyg

[alan aragon]

Yeah I got the 90g/hr figure from Asker Jeukendrup's recent presentation at the SDA conference in Australia, in which he recommends it in events lasting >2.5 hours. That trial sheds interesting light. The difference may be however, that trial was 2 hours long, whereas something like an Ironman can be considerably longer in duration.

[img]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BW5Lgm-CQAAIP2H.jpg:large[/im]

Jeukendrup explains more here:

http://www.gssiweb.org/Article/sse-1...their-benefits
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/...3#.UpzDFNLwmyg
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/...8#.UpzD09Lwmyg

The 90 g/hr figure was derived from self-reported surveys of athletes in 2002 (p. S22, top left column here). The 2013 curvilinear dose-response study I posted provides objective, systematically derived data under controlled conditions. It's not a matter of differences in trial duration, it's a matter of *critical* differences in methodology.

[mattvdh]

I generally hate to feed trolls, but just for the heck of it, I'll offer the following for Matt.

Please watch in it's entirety:



It's entirely possible, though respawn put more effort into the diatribes (measured by word count), where this OP seems to put forth less effort (again, measured by word count).

Well I thought they were on par in recognizing that each individual responds differently to CHO, however they lost me with the same sort of Paleo argument of 'eating what our ancestors ate' or 'what we were intended to eat' etc. That's such an illogical point, humans have adapted to many environments and foods. They go from recognizing that the human body and genetics can dramatically vary to person to person, but then they go on to state that our diets stem from the same source.

Also the interviewer asked (reiteration in my own words) 'if controlling diabetes and obesity is as simple as cutting out carbs, why isn't the keto diet more frequently prescribed?" Answer: Because it would be considered heresy. Carbs are staple in the Euro/American diet. To cut out pasta would be considered un-Italian, to cut out potatos is un-Germanic or un-Irish, or un-American etc...What a comedy of an answer. So the these same cultures have no problems admitting that saturated fats can be associated with heart disease and obesity, but they refuse to admit that carbs are the problem? If you can convince a culture to cut out the most delicious macro of them all, then carbs shouldn't be a problem. The reason it isn't fully accepted yet is because this diet isn't fully proven, or the evidence isn't solid enough to spread this information across the board.

[mattvdh]

When I debated with Volek at the NSCA conference last year, he admitted that LC/keto diets were best for therapeutic use in type 2 diabetics, not healthy athletes. I also made him admit to the audience that protein wasn't matched in a single one of the comparative research examples he gave.

PS - hope you're having a great Thanksgiving holiday (Pug & All).

I'd love to see a video of this showdown, sounds interesting. What did he say about non-athletes, meaning just regular folks who work out a few times a week? In the video pug posted they were going on about how the athletes that were tested on the LC diets and didn't lose any strength and some even improved performance.

[fullback52]

Yes, carbs are non-essential for survival of humans. But its essential for many types of training such as sprints. Besides, fats are a so much better resource, and coincide with the ketogenic diet.