Fruit = Fatt @ss

[Alan Aragon]

Originally Posted by VailChief

Alan

Thanks for the response. I am a long time lurker here and at many other forums, but recently I thought I would start posting. This place seems full of good (and bad) information. I have read your posts for a while now and it seems as if you have a great handle on things and I repect your opinions as an expert. I also respect Jimmy Smith's opinions. Both of you come from different aspects of the fitness world. I learn from many.

thank you both for your insights. Its refreshing to see pro's offer up an opinion without bashing each other.

-Dennis

You're welcome Dennis, & I appreciate the acknowledgemet. I've spoken with Jimmy before, he's not only a very cool guy, but an avid student of the game. Instead of assuming Jimmy has fallen completely for the fruit = inherently bad for fatloss myth, I'll just counter the principle itself.

Let's look at the nuts & bolts of this. Most moderately low carb phases of dieting rarely dip below 100g/d non-fiber carbs. Most very low-carb phases of diets rarely dip below 50g/d non-fiber carbs. Tell me where in those 2 scenarios do 2 fruits (appx 30-35g non-fiber carbs) not fit in?

Like I said, unless you're going for phases of total carb elimination (which is overrated even for peaking for photo shoots & contests), fruit can easily fit in. I'll take things a step further, and reiterate that fruits' ability to support both liver as well as muscle glycogen is actually a BONUS under hypocaloric conditions. This is because glycogen-mediated swelling of the liver cells is one of the most potent anabolic/anticatabolic signals in the body. This is how fruit actually can help preserve LBM in the midst of dieting. In light of this, I would put fruits as one of the absolute last carb sources to cut out as you reduce carbs.

[I. Kay]

Originally Posted by Alan Aragon

You're welcome Dennis, & I appreciate the acknowledgemet. I've spoken with Jimmy before, he's not only a very cool guy, but an avid student of the game. Instead of assuming Jimmy has fallen completely for the fruit = inherently bad for fatloss myth, I'll just counter the principle itself.

Let's look at the nuts & bolts of this. Most moderately low carb phases of dieting rarely dip below 100g/d non-fiber carbs. Most very low-carb phases of diets rarely dip below 50g/d non-fiber carbs. Tell me where in those 2 scenarios does 2 fruits (appx 30-35g non-fiber carbs) not fit in? Like I said, unless you're going for phases of total carb eliination - which is even overrated in peaking for photo shoots or contests - fruit can easily fit in. I'll even take thing a step further, and reiterate that fruits' ability to support both liver as well as muscle glycogen is actually a BONUS under hypocaloric conditions. This is because glycogen-mediated swelling of the liver cells is one of the most potent anabolic/anticatabolic signals in the body. This is how fruit actually can help preserve LBM in the midst of dieting. In light of this, I would put fruits as one of the absolute last carb sources to cut out as you reduce carbs.

What-evaaar. *scoff*

:p

[twinsavsvikingsfan]

I'm going to go buy some bananas to make that frozen banana shake LD wrote about.

[Alan Aragon]

Originally Posted by Ian Kay

What-evaaar. *scoff*

:p

http://youtube.com/watch?v=4JMOh-cul6M

[RobLL]

Originally Posted by Alan Aragon

Let's look at the nuts & bolts of this. Most moderately low carb phases of dieting rarely dip below 100g/d non-fiber carbs. Most very low-carb phases of diets rarely dip below 50g/d non-fiber carbs. Tell me where in those 2 scenarios do 2 fruits (appx 30-35g non-fiber carbs) not fit in?

Ten cups of coffee 5 carbs, one or two tomatoes (actually a fruit) 10 carbs, 5-6 servings of green veggies, upwards of 20, couple handfuls of nuts 15, and if I go low on any of this there is still likely to be upwards of 15-20 carbs in something I eat out, a few crouton, a few beans or corn in the soup or salad.

And there is 50 carbs, maybe even 70

[VailChief]

Originally Posted by Alan Aragon

You're welcome Dennis, & I appreciate the acknowledgemet. I've spoken with Jimmy before, he's not only a very cool guy, but an avid student of the game. Instead of assuming Jimmy has fallen completely for the fruit = inherently bad for fatloss myth, I'll just counter the principle itself.

Let's look at the nuts & bolts of this. Most moderately low carb phases of dieting rarely dip below 100g/d non-fiber carbs. Most very low-carb phases of diets rarely dip below 50g/d non-fiber carbs. Tell me where in those 2 scenarios do 2 fruits (appx 30-35g non-fiber carbs) not fit in?

Like I said, unless you're going for phases of total carb elimination (which is overrated even for peaking for photo shoots & contests), fruit can easily fit in. I'll take things a step further, and reiterate that fruits' ability to support both liver as well as muscle glycogen is actually a BONUS under hypocaloric conditions. This is because glycogen-mediated swelling of the liver cells is one of the most potent anabolic/anticatabolic signals in the body. This is how fruit actually can help preserve LBM in the midst of dieting. In light of this, I would put fruits as one of the absolute last carb sources to cut out as you reduce carbs.

Awesome.

Again, I am glad that a true expert in the field is still left around here to comment. By that, I mean someone that gets paid to get results in one form or the other and has a great rep to back that up.

Alan, great work. Please keep it up. And Jimmy, if you are still around to read any of this, I still have much respect for you as well. You are going to be a great one in the field one day.

[I. Kay]

Originally Posted by RobLL

Ten cups of coffee 5 carbs

Wow. I've never heard that one before.

And you drink 10 cups a day?

[I. Kay]

Originally Posted by Alan Aragon

http://youtube.com/watch?v=4JMOh-cul6M

I'll have to check this out when I get home.

[Alan Aragon]

Originally Posted by RobLL

Ten cups of coffee 5 carbs, one or two tomatoes (actually a fruit) 10 carbs, 5-6 servings of green veggies, upwards of 20, couple handfuls of nuts 15, and if I go low on any of this there is still likely to be upwards of 15-20 carbs in something I eat out, a few crouton, a few beans or corn in the soup or salad.

And there is 50 carbs, maybe even 70

I listed a range of 50-100g carbs as a rough range of what most would call "low carb". So how does your 50-70g not leave room for 2 more fruit servings and fall right in line with the upper range I listed? Further, I already made the point that unless you're shooting for carb elimination (ie only incidental carbs within nonstarchy plant foods), 2 fruits can fit into most low-carb plans. So, it depends on definition, which I laid out pretty clearly.

Also, I bolded the common compensatory move of the chronically undercarbed: a shitload of coffee

[I. Kay]

Originally Posted by Alan Aragon

I listed a range of 60-100g carbs as a rough range of what most would call "low carb". So how does your 50-70g not leave room for 2 more fruit servings and fall right in line with the range I listed? Further, I already made the point that unless you're shooting for carb elimination (ie only incidental carbs within nonstarchy plant foods), 2 fruits can fit into most low-carb plans. So, it depends on definition, which I laid out pretty clearly.

Also, I bolded the common compensatory move of the chronically undercarbed: a shitload of coffee

So you're defining low-carb as something like 100-150, and very low-carb as 50-99? Only extreme carb-eliminationd diets go below 50g. Would that last group include a final stage for a competitor? Or is that considered unnecessary? Obviously, if 0-50g is the protocol, fruit would be difficult. But this would surely be a VERY short phase.

[Frank.S]

I thought that low-carb was reserved more for people trying to loose weight.. once that is done, why would you keep excluding them?

[I. Kay]

Originally Posted by Frank.S

I thought that low-carb was reserved more for people trying to loose weight.. once that is done, why would you keep excluding them?

Well that's what I thought we were talking about too... weight-loss. Did I miss a mention of non-weight-loss goals?

[RobLL]

I have fond hopes with NO cooperation from doctor of achieving something approaching normal blood glucose readings without lots of medications, or with if thats the only way. Half an apple (until last year I ate two a day plus other fruit) bumps me above 140 for most of the day. Coffee, red wine don't affect blood glucose. I decided it was better to drink more coffee than red wine.

Alan - I agree that fruit is generally good, but it is not, nor is any other specific component of our diet, the sacred food. One can get a tremendous variety in an even more tremendous number of ways.

[Alan Aragon]

Originally Posted by Ian Kay

So you're defining low-carb as something like 100-150, and very low-carb as 50-99? Only extreme carb-eliminationd diets go below 50g. Would that last group include a final stage for a competitor? Or is that considered unnecessary? Obviously, if 0-50g is the protocol, fruit would be difficult. But this would surely be a VERY short phase.

Actually, I just listed a pretty generic range of 50-100g, so there would be little dispute that we're talking about universally "low". True, it indeed is difficult to go lower than 50, no matter what you do short of drastically reducing plant foods. In my personal definition of "low", it's anything that would NOT allow for the quickest possible progressive increases or uptrends in strength (without gains in fat). This is gonna vary with the individual, but this number rarely is below the person's target bodyweight (lbs) in carb grams. So, my definition of "low" is relatively high when viewed through the traditional lense.

As for photoshoots & endstage contest dieting, everyone has their own approach, but most rely on an excess of protein, which ends up being in part a substandard glucose source to compensate for what they aren't getting through the diet. I rarely need to put guys below 100-150g, even on low phases.

[I. Kay]

Originally Posted by Alan Aragon

Actually, I just listed a pretty generic range of 50-100g, so there would be little dispute that we're talking about universally "low". True, it indeed is difficult to go lower than 50, no matter what you do short of drastically reducing plant foods. In my personal definition of "low", it's anything that would NOT allow for the quickest possible progressive increases or uptrends in strength (without gains in fat). This is gonna vary with the individual, but this number rarely is below the person's target bodyweight (lbs) in carb grams. So, my definition of "low" is relatively high when viewed through the traditional lense.

As for photoshoots & endstage contest dieting, everyone has their own approach, but most rely on an excess of protein, which ends up being in part a substandard glucose source to compensate for what they aren't getting through the diet. I rarely need to put guys below 100-150g, even on low phases.

Good stuff, Alan. Thanks yet again.

[Alan Aragon]

Originally Posted by RobLL

I have fond hopes with NO cooperation from doctor of achieving something approaching normal blood glucose readings without lots of medications, or with if thats the only way. Half an apple (until last year I ate two a day plus other fruit) bumps me above 140 for most of the day. Coffee, red wine don't affect blood glucose. I decided it was better to drink more coffee than red wine.

Alan - I agree that fruit is generally good, but it is not, nor is any other specific component of our diet, the sacred food. One can get a tremendous variety in an even more tremendous number of ways.

Well, I do agree that no food is sacred.

Except for pizza

[RobLL]

I miss pizza