When is a carb NOT a good carb....

[kfisherx]

...for a specific use. Let me be more specific.

Since starting my cut (I am doing bbing right now) I am restricted to 120g which is not low but also not great. This especially since many of the carbs are consumed pre and post workout. For the most part I find myself gravitating towards vegetables and fruits for carb sources. I just tend to like them better than most other sources.

My bbing "bros" are trying to tell me that fruit is not a good carb source for fueling me. The bro-logic is this. An apple and a .5 cup of oats have the same macros. Which one fuels the workout more? On some level I want to say the oats, but that is because I add milk and maybe some sugar to it. LOL! Seriously.... Is there any one source of carb that is better than another as I start to fine tune and diet down.

I know for a fact that there are research articles written on this topic at a broad level but does that research also apply to someone really looking to maximize every single calorie?

[Aoife]

You could argue the complexity of the oats is bad for a good surge (punny) of energy around workout time just as much as you could argue the fruit is consumed too quickly… I guess.

I think if you're talking about maximizing calories and food for best nutrients and bang-for-buck on low cals… I'd still prolly argue in some form the fruit. It ain't all about the MACROs… sometimes it's the micronutrients that matter. Grains, by and large, aren't gonna have the nice antioxidant potential of some good berries.

If you're talking about filling per calorie, I think it depends on the individual's response to various foods and the rest of their diet. I mean, low fat means fewer calories, but potentially less satiation for many people… so a low-fat diet isn't necessarily a good choice. Same could likely be said for different kinds of carbs.


But what do I know? *shrug*

[LisaS]

I'm sure Alan would have a field day with this question - but the facts are that the breakdown of the sugars & starches in the foods are different. Whether it makes any difference at all for your purposes that fruits have fructose and grains have starches I'll leave to mr. Aragon.
But here's an example:
Sugar breakdown for 1 med apple:

Carbohydrate, by difference	g	25.13
Fiber, total dietary	g	4.4
Sugars, total	g	18.91
Sucrose	g	3.77
Glucose (dextrose)	g	4.42
Fructose	g	10.74
Lactose	g	0.00
Maltose	g	0.00
Galactose	g	0.00
Starch	g	0.09

Sugar breakdown for 1/2C oatmeal

Carbohydrate, by difference	g	27.42
Fiber, total dietary	g	4.1
Sugars, total	g	0.40
Sucrose	g	0.40
Glucose (dextrose)	g	0.00
Fructose	g	0.00
Lactose	g	0.00
Maltose	g	0.00
Galactose	g	0.00
Starch	g	23.46

[kfisherx]

Thanks Lisa and Aoife! I sort of get the breakdown at the levels you are talking about Lisa, but the question beyond that (as you said) is does it really matter? Alan will say that it does not because we have already had this conversation in email about my own diet. He says I can eat whatever, but I cannot help but wonder why does it not matter? I mean the breakdown is clearly different so the effect must also be clearly different at least at some micro level.

I am struggling tremendously lately with the "science" of nutrition. This is one of the least "scientific" fields I can imagine given the impossibility of controling the variables. There is so misinformation even in the published studies. One of the things I really like about the AARR is that it is increasing my "critical thinking" skills so much. It never fails that I pick up an article and dive into it. I start to draw all these conclusions as the story unfolds. And I feel pretty damn good about my conclusions given that I am reading a study and all. Then Alan will come along at the end of the article and explain why the study fails and how the conclusion that I have just drawn is not really all the founded. Now whenever I read anything to do with nutrition I am so much more critically aware. It is driving me insane and that requires me to have to dig deeper and deeper. LOL!

[Alan Aragon]

Originally Posted by kfisherx

...for a specific use. Let me be more specific.

Since starting my cut (I am doing bbing right now) I am restricted to 120g which is not low but also not great. This especially since many of the carbs are consumed pre and post workout. For the most part I find myself gravitating towards vegetables and fruits for carb sources. I just tend to like them better than most other sources.

My bbing "bros" are trying to tell me that fruit is not a good carb source for fueling me. The bro-logic is this. An apple and a .5 cup of oats have the same macros. Which one fuels the workout more? On some level I want to say the oats, but that is because I add milk and maybe some sugar to it. LOL! Seriously.... Is there any one source of carb that is better than another as I start to fine tune and diet down.

I know for a fact that there are research articles written on this topic at a broad level but does that research also apply to someone really looking to maximize every single calorie?

Bros get where they are physiquewise through a mind-numbing consistency of high effort in completing the basic requirements day in & day out. All the cute little tricks they think are the "keys" actually don't make a gnat's assworth of a difference.

You know why BBing bros are afraid of fruit? Neither do they . These are the same guys who would pass up 2-3 fruit servings for a serving of empty-calorie dextrose or waxy maize. Go figure.

One day a looong time ago, a bro got leaner after cutting out his fruit intake. Little did he know he could have cut out any number of non-protein calorie sources (actually even protein if it was in excess of growth or maintenance reqs) and achieved the same result.

The most knowledgable/intelligent BBers I know make sure that fruit is one of the "last carbs standing" in a cut after everything is eliminated as necessary. Fruit is ideal for dieting from the perspective of nutrient density/energy scarcity. There are also some boring esoteric reasons that fruit is an ideal carb during dieting because of their effect on hepatocellular swelling and subsequent anabolic signaling in the face of a generally catabolic milieu, but this would confuse the bros.

[kfisherx]

I know that bros are succesful in spite of their knowledge through sheer will BUT that doesn't address the question. Is a carb really a carb? Or are all carbs really created equal? If someone is on a very low carb diet (like most of them are say at less than 70g a day) and they have to go in the gym and keep up their strength in there will 27g of carbs from sugar really be as effective as 27g of oats or other more complex source? Will they be able to throw the same volume on either source of food?

When you are just dieting to lose weight or at a higher bf%, I think it matters less than if you are getting ript. So when I am at 11% or less bodyfat am I going to be not worried at all where my carbs come from still? Is it really all the same ballgame?

If it is, where's the fucking glory in that? LOL!


BTW: They say they are afraid of fruit because it is a fast acting carb and spikes insulin... yada, yada, yada.... they actually have answers to these questions. Just nothing with any meat behind it that I can tell.

[Aoife]

Originally Posted by kfisherx

I know that bros are succesful in spite of their knowledge through sheer will BUT that doesn't address the question. Is a carb really a carb? Or are all carbs really created equal? If someone is on a very low carb diet (like most of them are say at less than 70g a day) and they have to go in the gym and keep up their strength in there will 27g of carbs from sugar really be as effective as 27g of oats or other more complex source? Will they be able to throw the same volume on either source of food?

When you are just dieting to lose weight or at a higher bf%, I think it matters less than if you are getting ript. So when I am at 11% or less bodyfat am I going to be not worried at all where my carbs come from still? Is it really all the same ballgame?

If it is, where's the fucking glory in that? LOL!

Isn't that a matter of this: ?

Originally Posted by Alan Aragon

The most knowledgable/intelligent BBers I know make sure that fruit is one of the "last carbs standing" in a cut after everything is eliminated as necessary. Fruit is ideal for dieting from the perspective of nutrient density/energy scarcity. There are also some boring esoteric reasons that fruit is an ideal carb during dieting because of their effect on hepatocellular swelling and subsequent anabolic signaling in the face of a generally catabolic milieu, but this would confuse the bros.

[Alan Aragon]

Originally Posted by kfisherx

I know that bros are succesful in spite of their knowledge through sheer will BUT that doesn't address the question. Is a carb really a carb? Or are all carbs really created equal? If someone is on a very low carb diet (like most of them are say at less than 70g a day) and they have to go in the gym and keep up their strength in there will 27g of carbs from sugar really be as effective as 27g of oats or other more complex source? Will they be able to throw the same volume on either source of food?

When you are just dieting to lose weight or at a higher bf%, I think it matters less than if you are getting ript. So when I am at 11% or less bodyfat am I going to be not worried at all where my carbs come from still? Is it really all the same ballgame?

If it is, where's the fucking glory in that? LOL!


BTW: They say they are afraid of fruit because it is a fast acting carb and spikes insulin... yada, yada, yada.... they actually have answers to these questions. Just nothing with any meat behind it that I can tell.

It really is the same ballgame. Even the liver cell swelling I mentioned for anabolic/anticatabolic purposes can be accomplished w/any carb, but fructose-containing carbs happen to be more efficient at this. Meaning, table sugar will do the trick just as well as fruit. However, fruit is more nutrient-dense and better for longterm health. And it's ISN'T a fast-acting carb source that "spikes" insulin compared to most other carb sources that are popular with BBers. Whoever told you that needs to adjust their spectacles

[Alcoholiday]

let me preface this saying i really like Alan's response. i'm also not an expert on nutrition at all, but from what i've read on lyle's board, and heard aaron (cyco) talk about, carbs are carbs. Obviously some have more vitamins and minerals than others, and are differences in their breakdowns of these factors, but when it comes to body composition, it's not going to make a huge difference if you consume 27g of sugar, or 27g of oats.

Where it comes in different is when someone consumes 27g of sugar and overeats on other carb sources. 27g of carbs is much more satisfying and sustainable than a half scoop of dextrose.

http://www.thinkmuscle.com/articles/...ne-diet-02.htm

There is much debate over the importance of the GI concept for bodybuilders. On the one hand, excessively high insulin levels (caused by eating very high GI foods) tend to promote fat storage and cause problems. On the other hand, when high GI foods are combined with other nutrients (such as protein, fat and fiber), GI is always lowered, making the impact on blood glucose and insulin lower. And while current research is suggesting that consuming lower GI foods has much benefit for individuals with diabetics, it's still debatable as to whether this has any relevance to healthy, non-diabetic individuals.

Additionally, GI interacts with total carbohydrate intake as well. That is, GI is measured after consumption of 100 grams of a given food (some studies use 25 or 50 grams). A small amount (10-20 grams) of a high GI food may actually have a smaller impact on blood glucose and insulin than a large amount (50+ grams) of a low GI food.

About the best guideline I can give at this point is to experiment with different sources of carbohydrate in the diet to see if results (in terms of muscle or fat gain) are significantly different (as well, ensuring a mix of both starchy and fibrous carbs will help to ensure optimal vitamin and mineral intake).

About the only time that we can conclusively say that high or low GI foods are ideal is immediately after a workout, where high blood insulin levels are of benefit. Consuming a high GI carbohydrate (typical amount is 1-1.5 g/kg) with some protein (about 1/3rd as much protein as carbs) right after workout helps with recovery and may promote better growth.

http://forums.lylemcdonald.com/showthread.php?t=3377

While there has been a lot of talk about fructose causing insulin resistance, most of hte studies use absurd amounts (things like feeding rats a 60% fructose diet for 6 months straight). At fructose intakes of 30-60 grams per day (which is a LOT of fruit since each piece usually only has like 5-7 grams or so), there is no issue.

Let's face it, fruits and vegetables are not the problem in the modern diet.

[Alcoholiday]

also this...

http://forums.lylemcdonald.com/showt...t=carb+sources

[karky]

Originally Posted by Alan Aragon

Bros get where they are physiquewise through a mind-numbing consistency of high effort in completing the basic requirements day in & day out. All the cute little tricks they think are the "keys" actually don't make a gnat's assworth of a difference.

You know why BBing bros are afraid of fruit? Neither do they . These are the same guys who would pass up 2-3 fruit servings for a serving of empty-calorie dextrose or waxy maize. Go figure.

One day a looong time ago, a bro got leaner after cutting out his fruit intake. Little did he know he could have cut out any number of non-protein calorie sources (actually even protein if it was in excess of growth or maintenance reqs) and achieved the same result.

The most knowledgable/intelligent BBers I know make sure that fruit is one of the "last carbs standing" in a cut after everything is eliminated as necessary. Fruit is ideal for dieting from the perspective of nutrient density/energy scarcity. There are also some boring esoteric reasons that fruit is an ideal carb during dieting because of their effect on hepatocellular swelling and subsequent anabolic signaling in the face of a generally catabolic milieu, but this would confuse the bros.

hepatocellular swelling results in anabolic signaling? That's interesting.
This bro would like to know! (Hey that rhymed, maybe I'll make it into a broem)
Where can I read up on this?

[kfisherx]

Thanks for all the links Alcoholiday. Lots of good information for sure. What I don't see on Lyle's site or refrenced by Alan is that any of the resources or studies are done with siq lean people. I've yet to run across an actual real study done on bbers in a contest state. Furthermore people on Lyles board giving their personal experience are typically young males who have never been super lean OR who happen to be at the state in their lives where it is almost impossible to not get super lean and gain strength following ANY sort of diet. Do you guys know if these studies exist anywhere on really sick lean versus not people? Somehow I think things change the game slightly but perhaps significantly. I am interested in digging a bit more on this just for grins.

[OldGuy]

So, Alan gave you the answer but you came here for THE answer.

NACHO, you're needed here.

[Aoife]

ok, seriously. WHY would you think the game would change? I mean, seriously. Fatloss is fatloss. It may get tougher because the body has an interest in keeping a certain amount of fat around, but it's still JUST fatloss. That's all it is.

[Alan Aragon]

Originally Posted by kfisherx

Thanks for all the links Alcoholiday. Lots of good information for sure. What I don't see on Lyle's site or refrenced by Alan is that any of the resources or studies are done with siq lean people. I've yet to run across an actual real study done on bbers in a contest state. Furthermore people on Lyles board giving their personal experience are typically young males who have never been super lean OR who happen to be at the state in their lives where it is almost impossible to not get super lean and gain strength following ANY sort of diet. Do you guys know if these studies exist anywhere on really sick lean versus not people? Somehow I think things change the game slightly but perhaps significantly. I am interested in digging a bit more on this just for grins.

On the contrary, bro of mine named Borge Fagerli (head coach at myorevolution.com, you can look him up), uses not only fruit, but fruit juice as the predominant carb source for his BBing clients on a cut. Borge is among the top 3 most rational/intelligent/educated BBers I know of on this planet. And he he's huge & shredded to the gills, if that matters to you.

And by the way, you're not gonna find any scientific studies on the effects of different carb sources in super-lean subjects, mainly because no scientific or commercial entity has any interest in this topic. But then the question becomes -- why would it make a difference? Ingested carbs get broken down by the body and oxidized or stored according to the current physiological demand. The body doesn't know nor care what food the carbs were derived from. The speed of breakdown differs from carb to carb, but this difference is of negligible consequence on body composition.

[soonermark99]

Originally Posted by OldGuy

So, Alan gave you the answer but you came here for THE answer.

NACHO, you're needed here.

I'm sorry, but this was a coffee spitting LOL post.

Karla, thanks for creating this thread. Anything that gets Alan Aragon to post always turns out to be educational.

[galya]

Bow to fruit. Years ago when I was PSMFing it was Lyle's recommendation to eat fruit preworkout before your glycogen depletion workouts that preceded refeeds. I did this after years of extreme low carbing and fruit avoidance that I was kicking myself in the ass for later. A good argument can be made on optimizing your sources of fruit according to their phytochemical/fiber/vitamin density, for example blueberries vs watermelon Maybe you can give the bros the task to nitpick on what fruit is best

[kfisherx]

Originally Posted by OldGuy

So, Alan gave you the answer but you came here for THE answer.

NACHO, you're needed here.

Alan gave me a high level answer in email a long time ago when I asked him if it mattered for me specifically. I am looking for something with more depth and reaching to a more specific demographic in this question. If Alan tires of my line of questioning he knows me pretty well and he can fire me, or email me or call or just stop responding. Anyway, I will respect it. For now, I am positive that he is not offended by my questioning actually and I hope you (and others) can put yourself in that same mindset. I am just trying to learn and am not happy with my understanding of this subject now.... In part my dissatisfaction with my own knowledge is because of the stuff he teaches me. (so essentially this is all his fault anyway... )

Originally Posted by Alan Aragon

But then the question becomes -- why would it make a difference? Ingested carbs get broken down by the body and oxidized or stored according to the current physiological demand. The body doesn't know nor care what food the carbs were derived from. The speed of breakdown differs from carb to carb, but this difference is of negligible consequence on body composition.

First of all thank you a million for introducing me to ONE person that is into BBing that is not a bro-tard about nutrition. LOL! I have not run into any really yet except maybe for Layne Norton. The more I can study those who really are knowledgable and also in the sport the more my confidence will happen in what I am doing and know.

Now to specifically address the reason why I think it may make a difference even though I have only suspicions and am not sure how to articulate my hunch (still more questions than answers)... Please bear with me as I try to scratch through this...

My understading is that body recomp and diet in general makes a difference with different bf%. For example I believe that almost any diet (caloric deficit) will work for fat loss on an obese person but that is not true AT ALL for the same person who is sick lean. So the same obese person who diets down into sick lean territory now has completely different rules to follow with respect to diet. And those rules can be quite different from the obese diet or it can be not so different. From my undestanding this has to do with a bunch of factors but mostly has to do with (a term I hate but will use to keep this short) "genetics". Even with awesome genetics though the body thinks it is starving to death at really lean levels and begins to shut down systems in order to survive. If at one end of the spectrum the diet for the obese person is x and at the other end of the spectrum the diet for the lean person is y, then how could the types of foods that person at y NOT also be important in this variable to some level?

At y, my assumption is that the food itself and as a whole becomes more important to the body so the need to optimize it becomes also more important to the same degree that x is variant from y. The lower the bf% gets the greater the importance to optimize all things.

Since I am sort of Mathy I have to scratch it out in algorithm form to make it more clear to my head. The types of food "t" is equal to x-y and multiplied somehow by bf%. Perhaps t=(x-y)bf%... So for someone with shitty genetic where x is greatly varied from y, the t variable could have a significant increase. This makes sense to me but I don't know if it will to anyone else.

So that is the leap I was taking I guess... Right or wrong it is where my head currently is. I wish I could just grok it all easier but alas I am somehwhat a slow learner.

My understanding from your writing is that this leap is incorrect. Just to further clarify, are you saying that bottomed out Test, IGF-1 levels, increased cortosol, leptin, etc all make no difference to how that same person processes carbs from a person who is in more normal bf%?

[kfisherx]

Originally Posted by galya

Bow to fruit. Years ago when I was PSMFing it was Lyle's recommendation to eat fruit preworkout before your glycogen depletion workouts that preceded refeeds. I did this after years of extreme low carbing and fruit avoidance that I was kicking myself in the ass for later. A good argument can be made on optimizing your sources of fruit according to their phytochemical/fiber/vitamin density, for example blueberries vs watermelon Maybe you can give the bros the task to nitpick on what fruit is best

Gayla.... NON of the bros (actual bbers) I know eat fruit at all. They avoid it like the plague! To them it is a binary. Milk too....

Don't worry 'bout me though. I eat almost all my carbs from fuits and veges. They are yummier.

[OldGuy]

I'm not knocking your quest for knowledge. I just thought it was amusing that Alan, who I would venture has more nutrition knowledge than anyone who frequents this board, gave you the answer and then you asked the regular members.

The body doesn't know nor care what food the carbs were derived from.

If only the body could tell the brain to stop over-thinking.

[kfisherx]

Originally Posted by OldGuy

I'm not knocking your quest for knowledge. I just thought it was amusing that Alan, who I would venture has more nutrition knowledge than anyone who frequents this board, gave you the answer and then you asked the regular members.

Ahhhh... I see. No. Actually I take these sorts of questions here as opposed to email FOR the very reason that regular members can see the exchange. When ya got something special, share it. Okay more seriously, I am a BIG fan of sharing knowledge and open communication when it is appropriate. Also keep in mind I am not asking the same exact question but trying to go deeper in my own knowledge. For some reason, several folks on this board (you one of them) often do not tolerate this well. I am not sure how to change my way of asking questions to please everyone so please know that my intentions are really to just learn.

Besides this, I can also learn by reading other people's take on what Alan (or other experts even) has to say. Alcoholiday (for example) pointed me to a lot of good resources that I was previously not aware of. Win/win situation in my book.

[soonermark99]

Originally Posted by kfisherx

Alan gave me a high level answer in email a long time ago when I asked him if it mattered for me specifically. I am looking for something with more depth and reaching to a more specific demographic in this question. If Alan tires of my line of questioning he knows me pretty well and he can fire me, or email me or call or just stop responding. Anyway, I will respect it. For now, I am positive that he is not offended by my questioning actually and I hope you (and others) can put yourself in that same mindset. I am just trying to learn and am not happy with my understanding of this subject now.... In part my dissatisfaction with my own knowledge is because of the stuff he teaches me. (so essentially this is all his fault anyway... )

Karla, I wasn't laughing at your line of questioning; I've enjoyed this thread. I should have been more clear about the part of the statement that made me laugh.

[kfisherx]

Originally Posted by soonermark99

Karla, I wasn't laughing at your line of questioning; I've enjoyed this thread. I should have been more clear about the part of the statement that made me laugh.

No probs man. I took no offense, really...


Yo Alan! Not to be picky or anything but your bro's website.... I have one complaint....

Not in English! LOL!

Damn....

[Aoife]

and gewgal can't translate for you? (I mean, maybe not… donno…)

[kfisherx]

howz that work?

[Aoife]

http://translate.google.com/translate_t?hl=en#

[Leigh P.]

[quote]

Originally Posted by kfisherx

Now to specifically address the reason why I think it may make a difference even though I have only suspicions and am not sure how to articulate my hunch (still more questions than answers)... Please bear with me as I try to scratch through this...

My understading is that body recomp and diet in general makes a difference with different bf%. For example I believe that almost any diet (caloric deficit) will work for fat loss on an obese person but that is not true AT ALL for the same person who is sick lean. So the same obese person who diets down into sick lean territory now has completely different rules to follow with respect to diet. And those rules can be quite different from the obese diet or it can be not so different. From my undestanding this has to do with a bunch of factors but mostly has to do with (a term I hate but will use to keep this short) "genetics".

No, it has to do with fuel source. Yes genetics can play a role to some degree but the ratio of fuel sources being pulled is going to depend what you got to work with.

If you have a massive amount of fat, fat it will take. As you start to even towards the ratio of fat/muscle then the more it will start to go to the muscle side depending upon diet, training, etc.

Even with awesome genetics though the body thinks it is starving to death at really lean levels and begins to shut down systems in order to survive.

No, not exactly. It doesn't 'shutdown' it just moves differently.

If at one end of the spectrum the diet for the obese person is x and at the other end of the spectrum the diet for the lean person is y, then how could the types of foods that person at y NOT also be important in this variable to some level?

It isn't a matter of difference for obese vs lean more so as goal vs goal. Fat loss is fat loss. However what level you want to be anal about loss of LBM is where the difference comes in.

Energy for obese or lean is going to be better on a higher carb diet and you could likely lose more fat on that. However, satiety is going to be better on a high protein diet and you could lose more fat on that. You will also spare LBM loss as well.

You have to weigh the pros and cons of each macro choice and then that choice with your personal response. I know people who stall quicker on Low Carb diets because their energy tanks. It becomes a recomp program almost because their activity rate slows to where what used to be a pretty aggressive deficit now is a moderate or small deficit.

In short, it isn't that fat and lean process carbs different (excusing issues). It is that they have a different store ratio to pull from.

Since I am sort of Mathy I have to scratch it out in algorithm form to make it more clear to my head. The types of food "t" is equal to x-y and multiplied somehow by bf%. Perhaps t=(x-y)bf%... So for someone with shitty genetic where x is greatly varied from y, the t variable could have a significant increase. This makes sense to me but I don't know if it will to anyone else.

Again you are not understanding the differences that being lean makes.

My understanding from your writing is that this leap is incorrect. Just to further clarify, are you saying that bottomed out Test, IGF-1 levels, increased cortosol, leptin, etc all make no difference to how that same person processes carbs from a person who is in more normal bf%?

It has nothing to do with processing carbs. You don't magically process carbs different because you are leaner.

Empty stomach/severe deficit? Yeah, going to change the game a little in how fast they act.

Carb cycling/refeeds? Yep, going to react differently, but not like how you are talking.

Restrict carbs for a long time then re-introduce? Yeah takes awhile for enzymes to pick back up, etc.

Lean/fat? Unless you have an issue (resistant, diabetes, etc) it isn't going to change anything.

[Alcoholiday]

Originally Posted by kfisherx

What I don't see on Lyle's site or refrenced by Alan is that any of the resources or studies are done with siq lean people. I've yet to run across an actual real study done on bbers in a contest state.

Why do there need to be studies? Not to pull a bro-science thing, but you can look at the huge number of people who have had success with Lyle's diet, and realize that it works. Whether or not there are studies done on it (yet), is moot. There's a reason why so many people jack Lyle's ideas and why so many use his diet strategies and have respect for him, and it's not his kind hearted internet manner.

I'm sure if you posted this question on bodyrecomp, he could produce some studies though.

Furthermore people on Lyles board giving their personal experience are typically young males who have never been super lean OR who happen to be at the state in their lives where it is almost impossible to not get super lean and gain strength following ANY sort of diet. Do you guys know if these studies exist anywhere on really sick lean versus not people? Somehow I think things change the game slightly but perhaps significantly. I am interested in digging a bit more on this just for grins.

the age and leanness thing is overrated. If any young person could stay lean eating whatever diet, and gain appreciable strength, then we would see lots of jacked teenagers and college kids, rather than a rising obesity level.

First of all thank you a million for introducing me to ONE person that is into BBing that is not a bro-tard about nutrition. LOL! I have not run into any really yet except maybe for Layne Norton. The more I can study those who really are knowledgable and also in the sport the more my confidence will happen in what I am doing and know.

you need to do some more research then. Check out Shelby's diet strategies over at elitefts or intensemuscle. He has a HUGE client base with people working for him, because his diet strategies work in getting people in good contest shape.

Justin Harris is also a good one who is knowledgeable without being a bro.

Both follow slightly different ideas, but focus around the same ideology..

here's a q&a from elite:

1/6/2009 8:32:03 AM - Thomas Lower
I have a question concerning pre-workout carbohydrate intake. I have read many studies concerning high-glycemic carbs immediately before workout for instant energy and transport for creatine, other studies say you want low glycemic carbs before your workout to maintain blood sugar levels. I am just confused with the research I train at 5 am, and some research states up to 80 g dextrose pre-workout, and on off days with creatine. Wouldn't that make you gain bodyfat quickly?

----

Insulin is actually a CNS depressant. It also acts as a diuretic by increasing GFR, but it sort of evens out because it increases aldosterone production.


Because it's a CNS depressant, sugary carbs will actually make you feel sleepy. You may feel energized when the sugar initially reaches your blood stream, but once the insulin is produced you'll start to feel sluggish.

The truth is neither way of doing things is going to provide any major advantage or disadvantage over the other way. Magazines want you to worry about the little things like what carb source to have with your creatine, but it doesn't really make a physiological difference.
Eating consistently throughout the day from good sources and not missing training sessions is what makes the difference. The little things are quickly overshadowed in importance by missing one meal, one workout, or having a few lackluster performances in the gym.

Eat whatever carb source you feel comfortable with in the mornings. As long as it is a good source without a ton of added fat, you'll be fine.

Justin Harris

6/30/2008 10:24:05 PM - wolfgang what are your thoughts on using all high GI/low fat sources on a highcarbday/refeed, ie cereal (mainly from rice/oats), maltodextrin, mashed potatoes, pasta, waffles, pancakes, syrup, wms, etc

from your past post, your highdays in the offseason are 1000-1500g cho from oats, rice and wms. ever tried the high GI version on yourself?

thanks for your input

best regards
wolfgang

---

When carb levels reach the area of 1,500g, you're essentially setting the situation where blood sugar and insulin levels are elevated all day.

Insulin is really an all-or-nothing receptor binding protein. It binds to the receptor on a cell and activates it, telling the cell to shuttle proteins around and let nutrients in.

The only benefit to more insulin is more cells being activated.

But, high GI or low GI, with that amount of carbs, insulin is elevated all day. With a low GI carb, the insulin release is spread out over the longer release of sugar into the bloodstream, but the total insulin release is pretty similar and based on the amount of carbohydrates ingested.

I'm not a fan of the GI index for the most part. It is often used improperly in all areas.

A potato is a higher GI than table sugar. That can be misleading. I don't think you'll find many people that would recommend pouring sugar into your mouth on a diet, but you'll find many people recommend potatoes as a good complex carb source.

WMS is also a lower GI food. The only GI rating I found for it showed a pretty low GI.
It enters the bloodstream much sooner after ingestion than a high GI carb would though.

I try to avoid using the term GI anymore than necessary and try to get people to focus on good complex carb sources.

When taking in upwards of 1,500g of carbs in a single day, you're going to have to use some calorie dense foods. To get that many carbs from oats would be pretty difficult.

I like to recommend at least 1/2 of the total carb amount come from complex carb sources (polysacharides) and the rest from "fun" sources.

Some of the complex carb sources may be high GI and some of the "fun" (sugary) sources may actually be lower GI than the complex sources.

and this is a good one...

12/14/2007 5:46:09 PM - john Justin Harris, thanks for all the great info you give out. I’m sub 10%bf at 175lb. I want to get to about 4%. Beside the carb cycling; is there an amount of calories I should try to stay under per day. Thanks.
---

Yes.
Stay under the amount of calories you burn on most days....

It's really too tough to just give a number.

I'm not a calorie guy at all. I'll give grams of protein, fat, and carbs per meal.

From that, I'll alter it each week as your body changes.

You could plan on around 40g of protein per meal for 6 meals.

Carbs as high as 400-450g on high days
about 200-250 on medium days, and 100g or so on low days.

Fat would go up as the carbs go down. The fat would replace about 1/2 of the calories that are dropped in the carbs.

So, if you're at 250g on med days, and drop to 100g, you'll replace about 30g of fat in place of that 150g of carbs lost.

very simple diet strategy that a lot of people seem to forget. Just burn more than you take in, keep protein high, and manipulate carbs. There's a bunch of different ways, but it's all ultimately the same.

[kfisherx]

[quote=Leigh P.;717675]

Lean/fat? Unless you have an issue (resistant, diabetes, etc) it isn't going to change anything.

Leigh, I cannot thank you enough for jumping in on this and making things more clear for me and addressing my misunderstandings in such a clear way. I continually struggle with separating bro-science but I am determined to come out learning this real stuff one day. Anyway, you really helped me with this post.

[kfisherx]

Thank you as well for taking the time to respond to this and answer with so many thoughts. My thoughts are below....

Originally Posted by Alcoholiday

Why do there need to be studies? Not to pull a bro-science thing, but you can look at the huge number of people who have had success with Lyle's diet, and realize that it works. Whether or not there are studies done on it (yet), is moot. There's a reason why so many people jack Lyle's ideas and why so many use his diet strategies and have respect for him, and it's not his kind hearted internet manner.

I'm sure if you posted this question on bodyrecomp, he could produce some studies though..

I don't think so... Alan has said multiple times that these studies are not really existent due to the fact there is no funding for them (business case) And the only diet that is pertainent to this conversation on Lyle's board would be UD2. I have not seen testimonials on that diet that are very convincing to me from people in my demographic. It is almost exclusively young men doing that and posting these results and claims. Don't get me wrong, I think Lyle is great and I LOVE, LOVE, LOVE his writing. I just don't know that UD2 is the end all be all diet for getting ript.

Originally Posted by Alcoholiday

you need to do some more research then. Check out Shelby's diet strategies over at elitefts or intensemuscle. He has a HUGE client base with people working for him, because his diet strategies work in getting people in good contest shape.

Justin Harris is also a good one who is knowledgeable without being a bro.

Thanks for these links. I'll spend a lot more time investigating both of these in depth over the next days. But first.... I had the chance to check out Justin for a few minutes. First thing is your "non-bro" is a juicer so that always make me worry just a tiny bit when going to listen to advice. The nutritional advice for somebody who is juicing is so vastly different than for a natural. 2nd thing that worries me about him is all his funding and sponsorships by suppliment companies. I mean check out his gigantic plug for crap suppliments here.... http://www.precisionnutrition.com/me...ad.php?t=10144
Also note in this interview how he suggests to his male clients to avoid fat. I am pretty sure that is a hard core "bro" tactic for hitting the stage. I am not quite sure (after my 5 min look) that Mr Harris qualifies as a non-bro science sort of guy.

Originally Posted by Alcoholiday

...very simple diet strategy that a lot of people seem to forget. Just burn more than you take in, keep protein high, and manipulate carbs. There's a bunch of different ways, but it's all ultimately the same.

I agree that this is the strategy deployed by most pre-contest people. But that isn't the subject matter her per say. The subject really is about food avoidance within this strategy. Should a pre-contest bber avoid fruit? We all know it works if they do but should they?