CHO=The ''non-essential macro''

[mattvdh]

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.

wtf are you talking about

[germaine07]

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.

"However, when consumed in combination with a carbohydrate that is absorbed by a different transport mechanism (e.g. fructose, using GLUT5), rates of ingested carbohydrate can exceed 1.5 g · min−1 (Jentjens, Moseley, Waring, Harding, & Jeukendrup, 2004; Jentjens et al., 2006). The various interests of gastrointestinal comfort, opportunity to consume carbohydrate while exercising, and the high rates of exogenous carbohydrate oxidation required to maintain power output when glycogen becomes depleted, converge at a carbohydrate ingestion rate of 80–90 g · h−1, at least when glucose and fructose are co-ingested in a 2:1 ratio (Jeukendrup, 2010)."

Reading over this part as well, I went through the 2 studies referenced for rates of CHO oxidation exceeding 1.5g/min and even in those trials the results showed a rate of 1.26g/min (+-0.07) which actually puts the figure very similar to the 78g/min in the study you provided.

And the 80-90g conversion rate I believe is based on an opinion piece rather than a controlled trial.

[lee__d]

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.

http://www.nsca.com/Videos/Conferenc..._for_Athletes/

[WonderPug]

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.

FYI: In that video, they're addressing the therapeutic application of ketogenic diets for those with specific metabolic dysfunction.

[naturalguy]

Non-essential for survival, yeah. However, carbs can be absolutely essential for optimizing the performance of certain types of training. Not to mention, you would not be optimizing rate of muscle anabolism without sufficient carbs.

I laugh when people use the carbs are not essential......................................... ........lifting weights, being muscular, strong and having low bodyfat is not essential either

[mattvdh]

http://www.nsca.com/Videos/Conferenc..._for_Athletes/

funkin right bro, you rule.

[mattvdh]

http://www.nsca.com/Videos/Conferenc..._for_Athletes/

Very interesting debate! They both presented some very good points, but Aragon seem to have the stronger points because he was referencing real world examples, like the top athletes in the Olympics eating predominantly CHO. I thought one of the more provocative slides/articles was at 37:50, where he compares a LC/HF diet and HC/LF diet and insulin sensitivity/resistance, and the end result was that those who were insulin sensitive lost more bf on HC/LF diet, and those who were insulin resistant did much better on a LC/HF diet.
So this made me wonder what is an accurate method of testing your insulin sensitivity/resistance?

[lee__d]

Very interesting debate! They both presented some very good points, but Aragon seem to have the stronger points because he was referencing real world examples, like the top athletes in the Olympics eating predominantly CHO. I thought one of the more provocative slides/articles was at 37:50, where he compares a LC/HF diet and HC/LF diet and insulin sensitivity/resistance, and the end result was that those who were insulin sensitive did much better on HC/LF diet, and those who were insulin resistant did much better on a LC/HF diet.
So this made me wonder what is an accurate method of testing your insulin sensitivity/resistance?

I guess most practically you would eat a carb heavy meal and see if you feel great or feel sluggish.

[germaine07]

Very interesting debate! They both presented some very good points, but Aragon seem to have the stronger points because he was referencing real world examples, like the top athletes in the Olympics eating predominantly CHO. I thought one of the more provocative slides/articles was at 37:50, where he compares a LC/HF diet and HC/LF diet and insulin sensitivity/resistance, and the end result was that those who were insulin sensitive lost more bf on HC/LF diet, and those who were insulin resistant did much better on a LC/HF diet.
So this made me wonder what is an accurate method of testing your insulin sensitivity/resistance?

People with low BF % and engage in regular, vigorous exercise and activity usually have quite good insulin sensitivity.

People who are overweight, inactive and poor diets tend to lean towards insulin resistance.

[WonderPug]

So this made me wonder what is an accurate method of testing your insulin sensitivity/resistance?

Fasted blood glucose levels are an excellent proxy.

[ted01]

Fasted blood glucose levels are an excellent proxy.

What blood glucose levels would be indicative of sensitivity and resistance?

What can be determined (if anything) by measuring fasting blood glucose levels, then ingesting a significant amount of CHO and measuring how long it takes for blood glucose levels to spike and then measuring how long it takes for levels to return to "normal" (fasting levels?)? I hope the question is phrased well enough to understand what I'm asking. If not, here's what I'm working towards:

A person, Joe, wakes up and tests his glucose levels. Let's say it is 90. Joe drinks a glass of sugar water. Some time later his levels spike up to 180. (Does the length of time it takes for the spike to occur indicate anything wrt sensitivity/resistance?) Joe keeps measuring periodically and finds that his levels never drop back to the fasting levels, rather they level off at 110. (Again, does the length of time it takes for levels to return to "normal", or a steady state, indicate anything?)

This is purely of interest to me from a scientific point of view, not anything to do with exercise and real world living. Just sayin' so I don't get accused of having an ED! (Sorry Pug, cheap shot, I know...)

[WillBrink]

What blood glucose levels would be indicative of sensitivity and resistance?

What can be determined (if anything) by measuring fasting blood glucose levels, then ingesting a significant amount of CHO and measuring how long it takes for blood glucose levels to spike and then measuring how long it takes for levels to return to "normal" (fasting levels?)?

Here ya go brah: http://bit.ly/1cYou18

[ted01]

Here ya go brah: http://bit.ly/1cYou18

Useful answer. Thanks. Will rep (not).

[WonderPug]

Useful answer. Thanks. Will rep (not).

Will provided you with the information, so I'm not sure what your issue is.

[WillBrink]

Useful answer. Thanks. Will rep (not).

Most useful answer you can get on the Q you asked, but even after I Googled for ya, you still expect others to answer the Q. Yup. a miscer all the way.

[WillBrink]

Will provided you with the information, so I'm not sure what your issue is.

He expects you and I to do all the work, and write it up, with cliffs and diagrams. I'd accuse him of being a typical lazy kid, but lists age as 37....

[ted01]

He expects you and I to do all the work, and write it up, with cliffs and diagrams. I'd accuse him of being a typical lazy kid, but lists age as 37....

I owe you an apology. My browser only showed the Google screen, not the rest. I tried a different browser after seeing your and pugs reply and see what you did. For whatever reason, the animation (or whatever it was you did) didn't go with the first browser.

Sorry for being a little sensitive. I've been hanging out here for awhile and there are just too many people here who look for any reason to harsh another member. It is the MAIN reason why I don't post often. I'm quite frankly sick of it. I see that you are NOT one of them and I thank you for the information.

Reps for real.

[WillBrink]

I owe you an apology. My browser only showed the Google screen, not the rest. I tried a different browser after seeing your and pugs reply and see what you did. For whatever reason, the animation (or whatever it was you did) didn't go with the first browser.

Sorry for being a little sensitive. I've been hanging out here for awhile and there are just too many people here who look for any reason to harsh another member. It is the MAIN reason why I don't post often. I'm quite frankly sick of it. I see that you are NOT one of them and I thank you for the information.

Reps for real.

All good. Using that Google trick is way of sending people in the right direction, while indeed busting their chops a bit about the fact some things are easiest found on simple google search.

[mattvdh]

Here ya go brah: http://bit.ly/1cYou18

what a dick :-P

[mattvdh]

People with low BF % and engage in regular, vigorous exercise and activity usually have quite good insulin sensitivity.

People who are overweight, inactive and poor diets tend to lean towards insulin resistance.

Maybe their diets aren't necessarily the problem, but more so how their bodies react to their diets. Meaning, they could be eating foods that are 'healthy' for insulin sensitive folks but for them its kryptonite. What an unfair world, the fat get fatter, the lean (potentially) get leaner on the same types of foods.

[mattvdh]

This thread is turning out to be quite useful. http://www.phlaunt.com/diabetes/14046889.php

"Interpret your result

Normal Blood Sugar

If your blood sugar reading remained under 100 mg/dl (5.6 mmol/L) at the one hour test and all the later tests, you have completely normal blood sugar and can stop worrying about it.
If your blood sugar did not reach 140 mg/dl (7.7 mmol/L) an hour after taking a large dose of carbohydrates and if it was below 120 mg/dl (6.7 mmol/L) two hours after you ate the large dose of carbohydrate, most health authorities would also say that you are normal. These numbers, 140 mg/dl at 1 hour and 120 mg/dl at two hours after a meal are what Joslin Diabetes Clinic of Harvard Medical School defines as upward limit of "normal."

You can see more data about what normal blood sugar levels look like here: What is a Normal Blood Sugar?

If your blood sugar is at the very top of this normal range, near 140 mg/dl (7.7 mmol/L) and near 120 mg/dl at two hours, you may have a very slight amount of either beta cell dysfunction or insulin resistance going on. If you are at the high end of the normal range, especially if you are noticing that you are gaining weight more easily than you used to, it might be a good idea to cut back on the amount of carbohydrate you eat and begin an exercise program.

Impaired Glucose Tolerance

If your blood sugar surged over 140 mg/dl at one hour or stayed above 120 mg/dl at two hours, you may have what doctors will call "impaired glucose tolerance" or IGT. Another name for this condition is "pre-diabetes." Note that the values given here are lower than the values doctors used to diagnose impaired glucose tolerance using a lab glucose tolerance test. That is because blood sugar does not rise as high after you eat a food that needs to be digested as it does when you drink pure glucose so you will not see as high a number with a food test as you will on a glucose tolerance test.

If your blood sugar stays above 140 mg/dl two hours after eating, you are definitely pre-diabetic using the criteria set by the American Diabetes Association.

If you suspect that you have impaired glucose tolerance, don't ignore it. The excess glucose molecules that make up those elevated post-meal blood sugars will bond to your body proteins, deposit themselves in your arteries, damage your kidney filtration units, clog up your retinal capillaries, and cause your nerve function to deteriorate leading to, among other things, impotence and pain. Keep this up, and in another five or ten years you'll be one of those people with "newly diagnosed" diabetes who have serious, established, possibly irreversible long-term complications.

On a more cheerful note, if you catch your blood sugar abnormality at this point, there is a very good chance that by managing your blood sugar through cutting down on how much carbohydrate you eat and adding exercise, you may never see it deteriorate further and may avoid developing any diabetic (or pre-diabetic) complications.

A helpful strategy that uses your blood sugar meter to show you what to eat to get back to normal blood sugars is discussed here:
."


Quick question for Alan: You mostly work with elite athletes, so obviously varying percentages of CHO would work well with their lifestyle, but what about the average joe's who are insulin resistant? How can remain pro carb for those folks?

After watching the debate that was posted, I thought that both sides were arguing such extremes. Why can't the pro carb world and keto world come to a diplomatic middle ground and agree that carbs work well for the insulin sensitive but not so much the resistant?

cheers

[germaine07]

Maybe their diets aren't necessarily the problem, but more so how their bodies react to their diets. Meaning, they could be eating foods that are 'healthy' for insulin sensitive folks but for them its kryptonite. What an unfair world, the fat get fatter, the lean (potentially) get leaner on the same types of foods.

Exercise (preferably intense) can play an important role there and also BF %. *** done a documentary recently, sports science related. An average 40-50 yr old male was the presenter and he underwent some testing. Basically, he improved his insulin sensitivity and blood glucose levels by doing 1min of intense exercise, 3 times a week, over a 4 week period. So a total of 12min of intense exercise improved those markers.

B B C - The Truth About Exercise

[germaine07]

The documentary is good. Just stumbled across this video by Prof. James Timmons. A precursor to the documentary,

[cumminslifter]

Exercise (preferably intense) can play an important role there and also BF %. *** done a documentary recently, sports science related. An average 40-50 yr old male was the presenter and he underwent some testing. Basically, he improved his insulin sensitivity and blood glucose levels by doing 1min of intense exercise, 3 times a week, over a 4 week period. So a total of 12min of intense exercise improved those markers.

B B C - The Truth About Exercise

thats really interesting

[germaine07]

thats really interesting

It's a pretty decent documentary. Prof James Timmons features in it quite a bit. I like B B C documentaries. They done a pretty good one of "The Truth About Sports Drinks" and I haven't seen this one but "The Truth About Vitamins". They take a no BS approach most of the time and just look at the evidence.

[mattvdh]

Exercise (preferably intense) can play an important role there and also BF %. *** done a documentary recently, sports science related. An average 40-50 yr old male was the presenter and he underwent some testing. Basically, he improved his insulin sensitivity and blood glucose levels by doing 1min of intense exercise, 3 times a week, over a 4 week period. So a total of 12min of intense exercise improved those markers.

B B C - The Truth About Exercise

That documentary is both enlightening as it is depressing and annoying lol.... So basically some people are just wasting big ass time on low intensity cardio training. Man, I want to see how my genes look! I already kind of know the answer though, I'm a non-responder. I've played all kinds of sports, biked half-way around the world, and nothing really improved my BF %. I'm going to buy a bike and get to work on HIIT and give this method a try.

[gymjunki3]

dicks&dildo's.jpg

[mattvdh]

The documentary is good. Just stumbled across this video by Prof. James Timmons. A precursor to the documentary,

This was actually made after the documentary, so not a precursor. He basically just backs up his theories with more in depth data. The big question is, if he has the answer to insulin sensitivity and body recomp, then why is he chubby?