Questions i've always had

[NewMike]

Here's a couple of questions that have always bugged me.

Question 1:
Ok, so most of the health/fitness magazines always recommend eating brown rice, avoiding high caloric things such as potatoes, etc.

Now, I know the Muscle and Fitness mags with all the juicers are a bit off most of the time (especially routines), but why do they constanly tell you to eat PLENTY of "White rice, Rice Cakes, Potatoes, etc". Is there somethign i'm missing here? Its not just used for bulking advice either, its used throughout the mags...

Question 2:
If it is true that higher glycemic foods should be eaten post work out, to "shuttle" the nutrients in better I.e. a musclemilk shake(has a bit more sugar in it than say a ON shake), then what about having some pre-workout, in order for the sugar to give you a quick boost for your workout? i.e. a Musclemilk shake that has a bit higher sugar content than say an ON shake, etc.???

[I. Kay]

All the "white carbs" they tell you to eat will indeed help you get bigger. Thing is, you have to time them correctly. Most muscle mags are a few years behind the times, and almost none are on top of the nutrient timing philosophy. White potatoes and white breads, etc will help you grow if eaten during the day, but will be even more effective if eaten only in the hours after a workout: less of it will be stored as fat. This is true of most high-carbohydrate foods. One of the main problems with the white starches is that they often have less in the way of other nutrients (like fiber, vitamins and minerals) than their more colorful counterparts.

As for sugars and workouts: a pre-, during- and post- workout shake is a common recommendation these days. Having the sugar and protein available at all times for energy and nutrient delivery is a great idea.

However, a prouct like Muscle Milk has quite a bit of fat, and so is not optimal for a post-workout drink. Fat and fiber slow the important delivery time. Having a MM shake about an hour before the workout is a good idea though, because by then the protein will begin dispersing through your system. For during and post-, have something high in carbs and protein, but very low in fat and fiber. ON whey and some sort of carb source (malto, gatorade powder, etc.) is fine.

[ParanoidAndroid]

regarding question 2, I wouldn't have Muscle Milk right after a workout as it has a large amount of fat,which will slow digestion and absorbtion of nutrients. Instead, stick with ON and a high GI carb.

[NewMike]

Originally Posted by RockHard

All the "white carbs" they tell you to eat will indeed help you get bigger. Thing is, you have to time them correctly. Most muscle mags are a few years behind the times, and almost none are on top of the nutrient timing philosophy. White potatoes and white breads, etc will help you grow if eaten during the day, but will be even more effective if eaten only in the hours after a workout: less of it will be stored as fat. This is true of most high-carbohydrate foods. One of the main problems with the white starches is that they often have less in the way of other nutrients (like fiber, vitamins and minerals) than their more colorful counterparts.

So what would be a "bad time" to have all the white rice, rice cakes, potatoes, etc? If right after a workout is ideal?

[I. Kay]

Originally Posted by NewMike

So what would be a "bad time" to have all the white rice, rice cakes, potatoes, etc? If right after a workout is ideal?

Some, like John Berardi, would say any time other than in the 2-3 hours after a workout would be a bad time.

Pretty much everybody would tell you that before bed (unless you do a late workout) is no good.

Personally, I believe Berardi is on target, but many have done well not adhering to his rules. I'd say play it safe and regulate them to a six hour window or so, like 2-3 hours before and 2-3 hours after a workout, and not on off-days.

* I just re-read the original post... are you trying to bulk? I had assumed you were. If not, then I'd say forget them all together.

[Lost Dog]

Body composition, goals, and how much you eat and exercise play a big part of it. Some people eat all those things and stay (or get lean), but the harder you have it, the more you might need to cut those things out of the diet.

What's your history and goals?

[Tony Gentilcore]

Concerning GI:

Here are a few studies I got from Lyle McDonald with his comments. Just some food for thought (pun totally intended):

Schenk S et. al. Different glycemic indexes of breakfast cereals are not due to glucose entry into blood but to glucose removal by tissue. Am J Clin Nutr. (2003) 78(4):742-8.

Different glycemic indexes of breakfast cereals are not due to glucose entry into blood but to glucose removal by tissue.

BACKGROUND: The glycemic index (GI) of a food is thought to directly reflect the rate of digestion and entry of glucose into the systemic circulation. The blood glucose concentration, however, represents a balance of both the entry and the removal of glucose into and from the blood, respectively. Such direct quantification of the postprandial glucose curve with respect to interpreting the GI is lacking in the literature. OBJECTIVE: We compared the plasma glucose kinetics of low- and high-GI breakfast cereals. DESIGN: On 2 occasions, plasma insulin concentrations and plasma glucose kinetics (by constant-rate infusion of [6,6-(2)H(2)]glucose) were measured in 6 healthy males for 180 min after they fasted overnight and then consumed an amount of corn flakes (CF) or bran cereal (BC) containing 50 g available carbohydrate. RESULTS: The GI of CF was more than twice that of BC (131.5 +/- 33.0 compared with 54.5 +/- 7.2; P < 0.05), despite no significant differences in the rate of appearance of glucose into the plasma during the 180-min period. Postprandial hyperinsulinemia occurred earlier with BC than with CF, resulting in a 76% higher plasma insulin concentration at 20 min (20.4 +/- 4.5 compared with 11.6 +/- 2.1 micro U/mL; P < 0.05). This was associated with a 31% higher rate of disappearance of glucose with BC than with CF during the 30-60-min period (28.7 +/- 3.1 compared with 21.9 +/- 3.1 micro mol. kg(-)(1). min(-)(1); P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The lower GI of BC than of CF was not due to a lower rate of appearance of glucose but instead to an earlier postprandial hyperinsulinemia and an earlier increase in the rate of disappearance of glucose, which attenuated the increase in the plasma glucose concentration.

My comments: This is another older paper that I wanted to talk about since it ties in somewhat with the feedback on milk below. In way of introduction, I should probably define glycemic index (GI) for readers who aren't familiar with it.

The GI is used to rate carbohydrates by examining the blood glucose response to 50 grams of digestible carbohydrates. After fasting, subjects are first given some reference food; this used to be glucose but researchers now use white bread. The blood glucose response to white bread is defined as 100. Then, the test food is given and the blood glucose response is measured and compared to that of the test food. A food that shows 60% of the blood glucose response to white bread is given a GI of 60.

It has commonly been assumed that GI and insulin response are related and bodybuilders and athletes commonly use GI to determine which foods are or are not acceptable to eat (especially on a fat loss diet). Low GI foods are usually assumed to digest slowly and it is the slow rate of glucose into the bloodstream which causes the low GI.

A massive number of foods have been tested for GI although there is still much debate as to the validity of GI in meal planning. GI can vary significantly by food and how it is prepared, as well as between individuals. Also, GI is measured for 50 gram quantities of foods (that's 50 grams of digestible carbohydrates). But this can be misleading; for example, carrots are very high on the GI scale but few people would eat 50 grams of digestible carbohydrates worth of carrots in a sitting. To counter this, some researchers have proposed a measure called the glycemic load (GL) which is the total amount of digestible carbohydrate multiplied by the GI. This at least recognizes that, in the real world, carbohydrate intake varies. GL can be lowered by either picking lower GI foods or by eating less total carbohydrate, or some combination of the two.

Additionally, GI tends to be affected by other nutrients (protein, fat and fiber) although not always in the way you'd think (and not all research finds a significant impact of protein and fat). For example, protein tends to lower the GI of carbohydrates but insulin levels often increase when you add protein to carbs.

For reference, the most complete site on the web for information about GI is Rick Mendosa's Site

Which brings us to the above study. As mentioned above, bodybuilders and athletes usually assume that a low GI means a low insulin response but the study above draws that conclusion into question. Rather it found that the low GI food showed a lower blood glucose response because it generated a higher early insulin response (clearing blood glucose out of the bloodstream) at the 30 minute mark (by 60 minutes, both foods showed similar insulin levels). Quoting directly from the paper "BC has a low GI because a more rapid insulin-medited increase in tissue glucose uptake attenuates the increase in blood glucose concentration, despite a similar rate of glucose entry into the blood."

That is to say, both foods released glucose into the bloodstream at similar rates, but the bran cereal showed faster uptake due to a higher initial insulin spike, which lowered the overall GI response.

The researchers also noted that the bran cereal contained more protein than the corn flakes and this is probably what caused the higher insulin response (and lower blood glucose) which ties into my comments above.

Somehow, I don't think bodybuilders would argue that combining low GI carbs with protein is bad for fat loss, yet here we have an (as of yet unreplicated paper) showing that the initial insulin response is higher; essentially, the higher initial insulin response caused the lower GI in this case. Yet most bodybuilders also believe that high insulin is detrimental to fat loss. Here we have a study that I think questions that idea. At the very least, the small initial insulin spike certainly wouldn't appear to be hurting things, it's likely that sustained insulin levels would be more problematic by limiting the ability to mobilize fat for fuel.

Then again, at least one study found that spiking insulin (high GI condition) resulted in a larger rebound in blood fatty acid levels (after blood glucose crashed) compared to keeping insulin low but stable (low GI condition) so maybe there's more to this picture than we yet realize. I'll talk about that study in a later newsletter.

[UpNorth]

Ok. Tony (by way of Lyle McDonald) I think you just blew my mind. I'm having a bit of trouble understanding what you quoted but allow me to simplify it and bullet point it to see if I get it.

- It's generally thought that GI (or GL) and insulin response work in tandem. That is the higher the GI or GL the more pronounced the insulin response and vise versa.

- It's the insulin response we are all concerned about. Rather we are all trying to keep insulin levels level throughout the day except right around the workout. Keeping insulin levels in check doesn't give the body a chance to store fat.

- What the study shows is that GI and GL don't necessarily parallel each other. That is insulin levels can spike desipite low GI and vise versa.

So if my simple brain has that right, what conclusions can you draw? What can you do to assure your diet keeps insulin levels low? Does fiber and fat still help keep insulin levels in check or does it only work on the glucose levels?

Maybe I should just go into ketosis and not worry about this stuff...

[getgot211]

Obes Rev. 2006 May;7(2):219-26.

Glycaemic index effects on fuel partitioning in humans.

Diaz EO, Galgani JE, Aguirre CA.

Laboratory of Energy Metabolism and Stable Isotopes, Institute of Nutrition and Food Technology (INTA), University of Chile, Macul, Santiago, Chile.

The purpose of this review was to examine the role of glycaemic index in fuel partitioning and body composition with emphasis on fat oxidation/storage in humans. This relationship is based on the hypothesis postulating that a higher serum glucose and insulin response induced by high-glycaemic carbohydrates promotes lower fat oxidation and higher fat storage in comparison with low-glycaemic carbohydrates. Thus, high-glycaemic index meals could contribute to the maintenance of excess weight in obese individuals and/or predispose obesity-prone subjects to weight gain. Several studies comparing the effects of meals with contrasting glycaemic carbohydrates for hours, days or weeks have failed to demonstrate any differential effect on fuel partitioning when either substrate oxidation or body composition measurements were performed. Apparently, the glycaemic index-induced serum insulin differences are not sufficient in magnitude and/or duration to modify fuel oxidation

Originally Posted by lylemcd

This sort of sums it up

When calories are controlled, there doesn't appear to be a big difference; that would be the big issue of course, controlling food intake with a lot of sugar (not very filing, in general)

In ad-lib diets, people tend to eat more when they eat a lot of sugar

edit: also worth noting that many ofthe foods that bodybuilders conside OK in terms of getting lean ripped are higher on the GI than sucrose (which is actually quite low due to the fructose component). You have to reach pretty far up your ass to explain why you can get ripped on something like yams (or fucking rice cakes) but table sugar will prevent it.

***
Obes Rev. 2003 May;4(2):91-9. Related Articles, Links

Effects of sugar intake on body weight: a review.

Vermunt SH, Pasman WJ, Schaafsma G, Kardinaal AF.

TNO Nutrition and Food Research, Department of Nutritional Physiology, Zeist, the Netherlands. Vermunt@voeding.tno.nl

Weight reduction programmes are mainly focused on reducing intake of fat and sugar. In this review we have evaluated whether the replacement of dietary (added) sugar by low-energy sweeteners or complex carbohydrates contributes to weight reduction. In two experimental studies, no short-term differences in weight loss were observed after use of aspartame as compared to sugar in obese subjects following a controlled energy-restricted diet. However, consumption of aspartame was associated with improved weight maintenance after a year. In two short-term studies in which energy intake was not restricted, substitution of sucrose by artificial sweeteners, investigated mostly in beverages, resulted in lower energy intake and lower body weight. Similarly, two short-term studies, comparing the effect of sucrose and starch on weight loss in obese subjects did not find differences when the total energy intake was equal and reduced. An ad libitum diet with complex carbohydrates resulted in lower energy intake compared to high-sugar diets. In two out of three studies, this was reflected in lower body weight in subjects consuming the complex carbohydrate diet. In conclusion, a limited number of relatively short-term studies suggest that replacing (added) sugar by low-energy sweeteners or by complex carbohydrates in an ad libitum diet might result in lower energy intake and reduced body weight. In the long term, this might be beneficial for weight maintenance. However, the number of studies is small and overall conclusions, in particular for the long term, cannot be drawn.

[Lost Dog]

You have to reach pretty far up your ass to explain why you can get ripped on something like yams (or fucking rice cakes) but table sugar will prevent it.

Funny

[Tony Gentilcore]

Upnorth. It was just ONE study (albeit a good one).....but I don't think you have to go into panic mode.

Just be cognizant that PWO times are the best times to spike insulin, don't eat like a retard the rest of the time, and you will be fine.....:p

The study that getgot posted (which I was going to post as well, but had a brain fart and forgot) would probably sum everything up nicely. If calories ARE CONTROLLED, then it really doesn't matter where the carbs come from from a fuel partitioning standpoint. While eating nothing but sugar won't be satisfying by any means (hence, why people tend to eat MORE when they eat a lot of sugary food), if you're hypocaloric or even at "maintenance"......you will still burn fat to a degree.

[BFG]

again its minutia what is the quantifiable if any it will achieve

[TITAN]

So, it sounds like the key is really just eating fewer calories. Its easiest to do this by eating low density foods like fruits and vegetables and filling things like protein and fat. The real enemy is hunger and hunger pangs. Its not the high GI that makes you eat a whole bag of Funyuns. Its the lack of bulk that allows you to pack it in. Its the overeating that can happen if you do not consume regular small meals over the course of the day.

[UpNorth]

Originally Posted by Tony G

Upnorth. It was just ONE study (albeit a good one).....but I don't think you have to go into panic mode.

I guess I did seem a bit hysterical -- that's not really the case. It just took me a while to understand what the study was implying. Then when my thick skull finally took it in I realized that it's findings (if I understand them correctly) added a pretty complicated dimension to what I understand as helpful/harmful to my own goals.

I promise not to run around the boards screaming that the GL sky is falling.

Thanks for responding.

[Tony Gentilcore]

Originally Posted by TITAN

So, it sounds like the key is really just eating fewer calories. Its easiest to do this by eating low density foods like fruits and vegetables and filling things like protein and fat. The real enemy is hunger and hunger pangs. Its not the high GI that makes you eat a whole bag of Funyuns. Its the lack of bulk that allows you to pack it in. Its the overeating that can happen if you do not consume regular small meals over the course of the day.

TOTAL caloric expenditure and energy balance trumps EVERYTHING. At the end of the day, if you have provided a caloric deficit.....you will burn fat. To what degree and for how long is a whole nother ball game. But in general, regardless of how many meals you eat, how ever many carbs you eat, etc etc.....it all boils down to energy in vs. energy out.

[Q.]

Questions you've always had??? Gee, I thought I'd find something along the lines of "what's the meaning of life?" or "why'd the chicken cross the road?" :p

[bhindibhagee]

Another reason those muscle mags will be keen on simple carbs is that they help raise testosterone levels more than their complex relatives which, in my experience, is the main concern of the diets of those "juicers" you mentioned.