Low carb and endurance running -- results of my experiment

"MU" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 13:07:12 GMT, Tony wrote:

The body can also be trained to burn fats better by doing extremely long
distance at low intensity.

Tony, you need to get off this idea that this exercise or that exercise
accelerates fat burning.

Fat is burned in the absence of other energy dependent chemistries being
available.

What? Explain. I am a bit unclear on this "energy dependent chemistries"
term. Are you talking substrates? Pardon me, I might just be a bit "old
school".

I am sitting here pretty well glycogen loaded (rest day and about 8 g of CHO
per kg body weight today) and yet I am willing to bet that my RER is about
0.75 or so which means I am using fatty acid oxidation as a primary energy
source all the while there is plenty of glycogen present.

Endurance training does improve one's fatty acid oxidation during exercise.
Training shifts the use toward more fat being used when compared to
pre-training. See a thread I started on low carb/metabolism for two
references.

"MU" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 13:07:12 GMT, Tony wrote:

The body can also be trained to burn fats better by doing extremely long
distance at low intensity.

Tony, you need to get off this idea that this exercise or that exercise
accelerates fat burning.

Fat is burned in the absence of other energy dependent chemistries being
available.

What? Explain. I am a bit unclear on this "energy dependent chemistries"
term. Are you talking substrates? Pardon me, I might just be a bit "old
school".

I am sitting here pretty well glycogen loaded (rest day and about 8 g of CHO
per kg body weight today) and yet I am willing to bet that my RER is about
0.75 or so which means I am using fatty acid oxidation as a primary energy
source all the while there is plenty of glycogen present.

Endurance training does improve one's fatty acid oxidation during exercise.
Training shifts the use toward more fat being used when compared to
pre-training. See a thread I started on low carb/metabolism for two
references.

"MU" wrote in message
...
What exactly do you find so distasteful and invalid about low carb
dieting?
Be specific.

On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 17:56:09 GMT, Doug Freese wrote:

Frankly it's a fad built on half truths to make money. Yes you lose
weight but you can lose weight with any eating regimen that restricts
calories. LC makes much about GI and GL as it's base which is smoke
mirrors. Exercise, eat balanced, avoid simple carbs like candy etc. use
some caloric control and you will lose weight.

I do believe, firmly, that there are some people, not nearly as many as
report, that have an swing in appetite upwards when certain carbs are
introduced. That swing is higher than an equal amount of protein, for
instance.

As to LC as a generally useful diet regimen, if one is actually
experiencing carb driven appetite swings, then, OK, have at it.

Perhaps a person just needs to eat a meal with a little fat, a little
protein and moderate carbs. Add some fiber and many people will not have
this "swing" any longer.



My real annoyance comes from ignoramus(his name, not mine) trying to do
endurance running on a LC diet. It's like trying to add water to your
gas tank of your car to get more miles per tank of gas. Any eating
regimin that the exercising body rejects for insufficient fuel tells me
it is not healthy.

Problem is that there are quite a few marathoners who do very well
training
and running and LCarbing. Unhealthy? Probably not.

Who? Define "do very well".


If your body rejects a lowered carb approach, by all means, carb up. If it
accepts it, why change?

The physiology, the biochemistry, of the human body is extremely complex
and very personal.

"MU" wrote in message
...
What exactly do you find so distasteful and invalid about low carb
dieting?
Be specific.

On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 17:56:09 GMT, Doug Freese wrote:

Frankly it's a fad built on half truths to make money. Yes you lose
weight but you can lose weight with any eating regimen that restricts
calories. LC makes much about GI and GL as it's base which is smoke
mirrors. Exercise, eat balanced, avoid simple carbs like candy etc. use
some caloric control and you will lose weight.

I do believe, firmly, that there are some people, not nearly as many as
report, that have an swing in appetite upwards when certain carbs are
introduced. That swing is higher than an equal amount of protein, for
instance.

As to LC as a generally useful diet regimen, if one is actually
experiencing carb driven appetite swings, then, OK, have at it.

Perhaps a person just needs to eat a meal with a little fat, a little
protein and moderate carbs. Add some fiber and many people will not have
this "swing" any longer.



My real annoyance comes from ignoramus(his name, not mine) trying to do
endurance running on a LC diet. It's like trying to add water to your
gas tank of your car to get more miles per tank of gas. Any eating
regimin that the exercising body rejects for insufficient fuel tells me
it is not healthy.

Problem is that there are quite a few marathoners who do very well
training
and running and LCarbing. Unhealthy? Probably not.

Who? Define "do very well".


If your body rejects a lowered carb approach, by all means, carb up. If it
accepts it, why change?

The physiology, the biochemistry, of the human body is extremely complex
and very personal.

"Tony" wrote in message
news:rU04d.3092$Ec4.2824@trndny04...
MU wrote in message ...
On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 13:07:12 GMT, Tony wrote:

The body can also be trained to burn fats better by doing extremely
long
distance at low intensity.

Tony, you need to get off this idea that this exercise or that exercise
accelerates fat burning.

Fat is burned in the absence of other energy dependent chemistries being
available.

What are "energy dependent chemistries" that's a mouthful. Muscle
glycogen
is preserved by the body when possible, burning fats first. Doing long
periods of training at low intensity will improve the fat burning system
over time. Or is Lance Armstrong wasting his time riding 5-7 hours/day at
HR 110-120 in the off season? There are reasons he has more glycogen left
than other racers at the end of the racing day when its needed.

- Tony


I am confused. The body does not have an order in which substrates are
"burned". A mix of fuels is utilized. Even at low intensities, some
glycogen is being used in addition to the fat. The intensity determines the
mix of fuel. Yes, the long "easy" rides that Lance does plays a role
through increased mitochondria, increased capillary bed density, oxidative
enzyme production increases, etc.

As for his having more glycogen left, that is speculation and probably not
good. Now, how I would love to get muscle biopsies at the end of a stage or
time trial!

"MU" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 21:18:15 GMT, Tony wrote:

Fat is burned in the absence of other energy dependent chemistries being
available.

What are "energy dependent chemistries" that's a mouthful.

Put simply, and very generally, the body uses either oxygen or an
assortment of other (in)organic chemicals to use for fuel. People call
this
aerobic or anaerobic (better termed oxygen dependent and oxygen
independent).

Oxygen is not used for fuel; carbohydrates, fats and proteins are fuel.
Oxygen does not even enter into the process until the electron transport
chain. ATP, the "currency" of energy, is produced before O2 even enters in
the equation.

http://www.people.virginia.edu/~rjh9u/krebsum.html Note the ATP and yet O2
is no where to be found.

Here is probably a better diagram.
http://ntri.tamuk.edu/cell/mitochondrion/krebpic.html





Muscle glycogen
is preserved by the body when possible, burning fats first.

Rarely. Systemic glycogen (liver, muscle etc) is a primary source of fuel
for human motion. Fats are into the fuel equation (again, very generally)
when these primary sources are (nearly) consumed.
You make it sound as if the body "burns" the glycogen and then shifts
to fat once that is exhausted much like switching to a reserve fuel tank on
a plane or a boat. That is just not true. Not supported at all. At an RER
of 0.85 (which is easy running) the contribution from fats and carbohydrate
is about 50:50.




Doing long
periods of training at low intensity will improve the fat burning system
over time.

Improve it? Maybe. Rely on it? Certainly.


Maybe? Certainly. See Romijn for one.


Or is Lance Armstrong wasting his time riding 5-7 hours/day at
HR 110-120 in the off season?

Champions waste their time, I have seen it consistently. Is he? Probably
not.

There are reasons he has more glycogen left
than other racers at the end of the racing day when its needed.

Switching between oxygen dependency and independency is a very personal,
biomechanical issue. When is LA using non oxygen resources; when only O2
resources?

Since LA rarely sprints (although I saw him win a field sprint in
April!), he rarely uses alactic energy system so he is not a good example
really. In reality, we never stop using oxygen even in an all out sprint.
There is still O2 being used in the body. Of course we do stop at some
point...death.

"MU" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 21:18:15 GMT, Tony wrote:

Fat is burned in the absence of other energy dependent chemistries being
available.

What are "energy dependent chemistries" that's a mouthful.

Put simply, and very generally, the body uses either oxygen or an
assortment of other (in)organic chemicals to use for fuel. People call
this
aerobic or anaerobic (better termed oxygen dependent and oxygen
independent).

Oxygen is not used for fuel; carbohydrates, fats and proteins are fuel.
Oxygen does not even enter into the process until the electron transport
chain. ATP, the "currency" of energy, is produced before O2 even enters in
the equation.

http://www.people.virginia.edu/~rjh9u/krebsum.html Note the ATP and yet O2
is no where to be found.

Here is probably a better diagram.
http://ntri.tamuk.edu/cell/mitochondrion/krebpic.html





Muscle glycogen
is preserved by the body when possible, burning fats first.

Rarely. Systemic glycogen (liver, muscle etc) is a primary source of fuel
for human motion. Fats are into the fuel equation (again, very generally)
when these primary sources are (nearly) consumed.
You make it sound as if the body "burns" the glycogen and then shifts
to fat once that is exhausted much like switching to a reserve fuel tank on
a plane or a boat. That is just not true. Not supported at all. At an RER
of 0.85 (which is easy running) the contribution from fats and carbohydrate
is about 50:50.




Doing long
periods of training at low intensity will improve the fat burning system
over time.

Improve it? Maybe. Rely on it? Certainly.


Maybe? Certainly. See Romijn for one.


Or is Lance Armstrong wasting his time riding 5-7 hours/day at
HR 110-120 in the off season?

Champions waste their time, I have seen it consistently. Is he? Probably
not.

There are reasons he has more glycogen left
than other racers at the end of the racing day when its needed.

Switching between oxygen dependency and independency is a very personal,
biomechanical issue. When is LA using non oxygen resources; when only O2
resources?

Since LA rarely sprints (although I saw him win a field sprint in
April!), he rarely uses alactic energy system so he is not a good example
really. In reality, we never stop using oxygen even in an all out sprint.
There is still O2 being used in the body. Of course we do stop at some
point...death.

"MU" wrote in message
...


"MU" wrote in message
...

Rarely. Systemic glycogen (liver, muscle etc) is a primary source of
fuel
for human motion. Fats are into the fuel equation (again, very
generally)
when these primary sources are (nearly) consumed.

On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 12:48:05 GMT, Doug Freese wrote:

And that is bull **** and I don't care what your credentials are.

Then there is no need for me to answer you, is there. But do me one favor.
next time you call my data "bull****", don't repeat my "bull****"
yourself.
Which is what you did in your own words.

lol

Champions waste their time, I have seen it consistently. Is he?
Probably
not.

On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 12:48:05 GMT, Doug Freese wrote:

You have seen it consistently?

Correct. Happens when you are around champions in over 30 sports for more
than a decade on a daily basis.

And praytell where might that be? I'm
beginning to think you are trolling.

I'm sure you have no clue who I am. You didn't Google my past posts, you
just shot your mouth off without doing your homework.

Now, run along, have fun and when you need accurate information that has
been sourced from leading sports scientists globally, I could give it to
you.


Come on. Educate us.

This "I have the information but am not going to share it" does nothing
to support your stands. It is also against the scientific ideal of sharing
information in an open manner.

Who are these champions you have been around for instance?



Problem is, I won't. I haven't either the time nor inclination to do so
for
you.

"MU" wrote in message
...


"MU" wrote in message
...

Rarely. Systemic glycogen (liver, muscle etc) is a primary source of
fuel
for human motion. Fats are into the fuel equation (again, very
generally)
when these primary sources are (nearly) consumed.

On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 12:48:05 GMT, Doug Freese wrote:

And that is bull **** and I don't care what your credentials are.

Then there is no need for me to answer you, is there. But do me one favor.
next time you call my data "bull****", don't repeat my "bull****"
yourself.
Which is what you did in your own words.

lol

Champions waste their time, I have seen it consistently. Is he?
Probably
not.

On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 12:48:05 GMT, Doug Freese wrote:

You have seen it consistently?

Correct. Happens when you are around champions in over 30 sports for more
than a decade on a daily basis.

And praytell where might that be? I'm
beginning to think you are trolling.

I'm sure you have no clue who I am. You didn't Google my past posts, you
just shot your mouth off without doing your homework.

Now, run along, have fun and when you need accurate information that has
been sourced from leading sports scientists globally, I could give it to
you.


Come on. Educate us.

This "I have the information but am not going to share it" does nothing
to support your stands. It is also against the scientific ideal of sharing
information in an open manner.

Who are these champions you have been around for instance?



Problem is, I won't. I haven't either the time nor inclination to do so
for
you.

In article . net,
"Sam" wrote:


Perhaps a person just needs to eat a meal with a little fat, a little
protein and moderate carbs. Add some fiber and many people will not have
this "swing" any longer.




But what is a moderate amount of carbs to some may be too many for others.
For a long time I ate exactly as you described. A typical dinner for me
would be a serving of meat, a salad, a side veggie like broccoli, and a
side starch like potatoes or rice. Not particularly large portions of any
of it. At least, that's how it would start. I'd still be hungry so I'd
have seconds on the potatoes or rice. And then maybe thirds. And then
maybe an hour or two later, I'd have the leftover rice or potatoes for a
late night snack. Now that I no longer eat the starchy side, I'm satisfied
after even smaller portions of everything else. My sister isn't affected
the same way I am. I was amazed that she never even finished her potatoes!
She said she was "full," whatever that meant. Now I know what it means
too, for the first time in my life.

--
Michelle Levin
http://www.mindspring.com/~lunachick

I have only 3 flaws. My first flaw is thinking that I only have 3 flaws.