Running group news letter: "carbs are good"

On Fri, 14 May 2004 15:33:45 -0400, Roger Zoul
wrote:

Bob in CT wrote:
:: On 14 May 2004 11:18:31 -0700, billydee
:: wrote:
::
::: "Patti" wrote in message
::: news:1fVoc.446847$Pk3.144432@pd7tw1no...
:::: Ok, I thought these people (traditional nutritionists) said that a
:::: calorie
:::: is a calorie? If a calorie is a calorie, then why does it matter
:::: if we don't eat carbohydrate calories?
::::
::::
::: Because when it comes to quick energy sources a calorie is not a
::: calorie. For weight loss ONLY a calorie is pretty much a calorie.
::
:: Except that I think that's wrong, too. Calories from carbs cause
:: people (those people susceptible to this) to have blood sugar
:: spikes, which can lead to all kinds of problems.

I'm thinking the first statement might be correct, but perhaps the second
one is where the complexities kick in.

I think the first part might be correct, too, but I wonder. I've moved
and my new bike ride isn't as hard as my old bike ride -- for most of my
ride. However, right near the end of the ride, there's a hill called
"Hogsback". This is the hardest hill I've ever ridden. It's very steep
for a long, long time, and there's only one respite, which is still
steep. Right now, I'm taking in very few carbs, as I've ran out of
dextrose. I've been able to ride this hill, where my heart rate hits
175+ (max HR is 180) for many minutes on end. Also, I've been lifting
weights hard.


For example, if I over eat fat on a LC diet (meaning over maintenance)
then
I find it harder to gain weight if I keep carbs under control. But if I
over eat both, I gain fat quickly. If I overeat carbs, while keeping fat
low, then I gain mostly water weight. So surely a calorie is not just a
calorie as far as weight gain is concerned, at least in the short term. I
say that because if I overeat for a day or two I then undereat to
compensate, in effect averaging the calories over several days to
avoiding
laying down new fat. It seems to work if I follow those rules.


Well, I just think that a calorie isn't a calorie from the standpoint of
the effect of the calorie on the body. When I eat 500 calories of sugar,
for instance, I want more sugar. When I eat 500 calories of fat/protein,
I don't want 500 more calories of fat/protein. While I'm unsure that
there's a metabolic advantage to low carb, I wouldn't be surprised if
there is a difference in the ways carbs/fats/and proteins are utilized by
the body so that there really is a metabolic advantage.


--
Bob in CT
Remove ".x" to reply

Bob in CT wrote:
:: On Fri, 14 May 2004 15:33:45 -0400, Roger Zoul
:: wrote:
::
::: Bob in CT wrote:
::::: On 14 May 2004 11:18:31 -0700, billydee
::::: wrote:
:::::
:::::: "Patti" wrote in message
:::::: news:1fVoc.446847$Pk3.144432@pd7tw1no...
::::::: Ok, I thought these people (traditional nutritionists) said
::::::: that a calorie
::::::: is a calorie? If a calorie is a calorie, then why does it
::::::: matter if we don't eat carbohydrate calories?
:::::::
:::::::
:::::: Because when it comes to quick energy sources a calorie is not a
:::::: calorie. For weight loss ONLY a calorie is pretty much a calorie.
:::::
::::: Except that I think that's wrong, too. Calories from carbs cause
::::: people (those people susceptible to this) to have blood sugar
::::: spikes, which can lead to all kinds of problems.
:::
::: I'm thinking the first statement might be correct, but perhaps the
::: second one is where the complexities kick in.
::
:: I think the first part might be correct, too, but I wonder. I've
:: moved and my new bike ride isn't as hard as my old bike ride -- for
:: most of my ride. However, right near the end of the ride, there's a
:: hill called "Hogsback". This is the hardest hill I've ever ridden.
:: It's very steep for a long, long time, and there's only one respite,
:: which is still
:: steep. Right now, I'm taking in very few carbs, as I've ran out of
:: dextrose. I've been able to ride this hill, where my heart rate hits
:: 175+ (max HR is 180) for many minutes on end. Also, I've been
:: lifting weights hard.
::

Try this: ride that hill over and over until you bonk. Do that on LC and do
that on HC and see if you can *measure* a difference in performance ability.

Yeah, the idea of it ain't fun.....

Why these medical traditionalists can't just admit that calories from
different sources affect the body differently is beyond me. And if calorie
sources don't matter in terms of losing weight, then why do so many low
carbers lose weight when ingesting 2000 or more calories of protein, fat,
etc. instead of carbs? Yes, anyone who takes in less calories than their
body burns up will lose weight, duh, but it seems to me that the weight loss
is more effective and long-term when one follows a low carb diet rather than
a calorie restricted, low fat, high carbohydrate diet. Studies are starting
to prove this now that they are actually doing studies on this. People who
lose weight on a calorie restricted, high carbohydrate diet are probably
losing muscle as well as body fat anyway. I doubt that any of you fellow
low carbers can say that your weight loss has been due to loss of muscle.
We've probably been gaining muscle and strength.


"Bob in CT" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 14 May 2004 15:33:45 -0400, Roger Zoul
wrote:

Bob in CT wrote:
:: On 14 May 2004 11:18:31 -0700, billydee
:: wrote:
::
::: "Patti" wrote in message
::: news:1fVoc.446847$Pk3.144432@pd7tw1no...
:::: Ok, I thought these people (traditional nutritionists) said that a
:::: calorie
:::: is a calorie? If a calorie is a calorie, then why does it matter
:::: if we don't eat carbohydrate calories?
::::
::::
::: Because when it comes to quick energy sources a calorie is not a
::: calorie. For weight loss ONLY a calorie is pretty much a calorie.
::
:: Except that I think that's wrong, too. Calories from carbs cause
:: people (those people susceptible to this) to have blood sugar
:: spikes, which can lead to all kinds of problems.

I'm thinking the first statement might be correct, but perhaps the
second
one is where the complexities kick in.

I think the first part might be correct, too, but I wonder. I've moved
and my new bike ride isn't as hard as my old bike ride -- for most of my
ride. However, right near the end of the ride, there's a hill called
"Hogsback". This is the hardest hill I've ever ridden. It's very steep
for a long, long time, and there's only one respite, which is still
steep. Right now, I'm taking in very few carbs, as I've ran out of
dextrose. I've been able to ride this hill, where my heart rate hits
175+ (max HR is 180) for many minutes on end. Also, I've been lifting
weights hard.


For example, if I over eat fat on a LC diet (meaning over maintenance)
then
I find it harder to gain weight if I keep carbs under control. But if I
over eat both, I gain fat quickly. If I overeat carbs, while keeping
fat
low, then I gain mostly water weight. So surely a calorie is not just a
calorie as far as weight gain is concerned, at least in the short term.
I
say that because if I overeat for a day or two I then undereat to
compensate, in effect averaging the calories over several days to
avoiding
laying down new fat. It seems to work if I follow those rules.


Well, I just think that a calorie isn't a calorie from the standpoint of
the effect of the calorie on the body. When I eat 500 calories of sugar,
for instance, I want more sugar. When I eat 500 calories of fat/protein,
I don't want 500 more calories of fat/protein. While I'm unsure that
there's a metabolic advantage to low carb, I wouldn't be surprised if
there is a difference in the ways carbs/fats/and proteins are utilized by
the body so that there really is a metabolic advantage.


--
Bob in CT
Remove ".x" to reply

On Fri, 14 May 2004 16:02:06 -0400, Roger Zoul
wrote:

[cut]
::

Try this: ride that hill over and over until you bonk. Do that on LC
and do
that on HC and see if you can *measure* a difference in performance
ability.

Yeah, the idea of it ain't fun.....



You've definitely hit the nail on the head! But there's so much
variability even in day-to-day difference in performance (regardless of
low carb/high carb) that you'd really have to do this many times. And
then, every time I go over the hill, my aerobics will be better, so that
after several trips (given enough rest), I'll be going over it better,
regardless of what diet I'm on. So, this is where it gets complex. You
have to have a test that's short (so that improved performance doesn't
come into play) but where you have low carb and high carb. You also would
have to have the same amount of rest and multiple tests. Personally, even
if I could complete the hill faster on high carb, I can't eat high carb
again. What's hard is trying to figure out how many carbs to eat to
maintain a suitable amount of "athletic" performance, yet not eat too many
to hinder weight loss or increase insulin resistance.

I've seen studies that say that high fat diets are similar to high carb
(see www.lowcarbresearch.org), but these are only like a week long and the
athletes ate high carb during the ride. What about us, who are primarily
low carb with splurges of high carb every once in a while?

--
Bob in CT
Remove ".x" to reply

"Patti" wrote in message
news:bC9pc.477713$Ig.266782@pd7tw2no...
Why these medical traditionalists can't just admit that calories from
different sources affect the body differently is beyond me. And if
calorie
sources don't matter in terms of losing weight, then why do so many low
carbers lose weight when ingesting 2000 or more calories of protein, fat,
etc. instead of carbs?

I think that there is a lot of miscommunication going on, and also failure
to look at changes in metabolic rates etc. that may occur when somebody
makes a significant change in macronutrient proportions in their diet. It is
always true that you will only lose weight when the number of calories you
expend exceeds the number you take in. However, stupid people insist on
interpreting that to mean that this equation is not affected in any way by
the proportion of carbs vs. protein vx. fat you eat, and that it in fact
doesn't matter whether you eat high fat or low fat, high carb or low carb,
so long as you just cut your calories.

In practice, however, as you and I and most of the others here realize,
changing what we eat to higher fat and much lower carb, causes a lot of
changes to take place that seem to make it easier for us to tip that
equation into a hypocaloric position so that we lose weight. Not all of this
is understood, but we've mostly all experienced. Suppression of appetite is
a biggie, so that we tend to take in fewer calories. Increased energy
levels, so that we are more active and burn more calories is another. And
there may be endocrine system effects that actually allow you to eat a
little more and still be hypocaloric, as some studies have suggested,
although mechanism is unclear. If you're in ketosis you may even lose a few
calories via excretion of ketones. There definitely seems to be a big
advantage in low-carb dieting, in terms of effectiveness, so long as the
dieter can stick with the program. And that is often easier said than done
given our cultural surroundings, which supply strong inducements to indulge
in sugary and high carb 'treats'.

HG

Bob in CT wrote:
:: On Fri, 14 May 2004 16:02:06 -0400, Roger Zoul
:: wrote:
::
:: [cut]
:::::
:::
::: Try this: ride that hill over and over until you bonk. Do that on
::: LC and do
::: that on HC and see if you can *measure* a difference in performance
::: ability.
:::
::: Yeah, the idea of it ain't fun.....
:::
:::
::
:: You've definitely hit the nail on the head! But there's so much
:: variability even in day-to-day difference in performance (regardless
:: of low carb/high carb) that you'd really have to do this many times.
:: And then, every time I go over the hill, my aerobics will be better,
:: so that after several trips (given enough rest), I'll be going over
:: it better, regardless of what diet I'm on. So, this is where it
:: gets complex. You have to have a test that's short (so that
:: improved performance doesn't come into play) but where you have low
:: carb and high carb. You also would have to have the same amount of
:: rest and multiple tests. Personally, even if I could complete the
:: hill faster on high carb, I can't eat high carb again. What's hard
:: is trying to figure out how many carbs to eat to maintain a suitable
:: amount of "athletic" performance, yet not eat too many to hinder
:: weight loss or increase insulin resistance.

Very good points, Bob. In fact, just thinking about it basically means it
ain't gonna happen, not if it has to be me doing it. I don't want to
sacrifice that much time to make the experiement valid. I guess this is one
reason we don't have good info on the topic.

::
:: I've seen studies that say that high fat diets are similar to high
:: carb (see www.lowcarbresearch.org), but these are only like a week
:: long and the athletes ate high carb during the ride. What about us,
:: who are primarily low carb with splurges of high carb every once in
:: a while?

Who knows. All I know is I'm pooped this week. I managed to get in 124.56
miles this week, and I'm just 7 miles short of 400 miles for the last month
(starting at 4/17 -- when I started riding seriously for this year). If I
could just squeeze out those last 7 miles.....

Hannah Gruen wrote:
:: "Patti" wrote in message
:: news:bC9pc.477713$Ig.266782@pd7tw2no...
::: Why these medical traditionalists can't just admit that calories
::: from different sources affect the body differently is beyond me.
::: And if calorie sources don't matter in terms of losing weight, then
::: why do so many low carbers lose weight when ingesting 2000 or more
::: calories of protein, fat, etc. instead of carbs?
::
:: I think that there is a lot of miscommunication going on, and also
:: failure to look at changes in metabolic rates etc. that may occur
:: when somebody makes a significant change in macronutrient
:: proportions in their diet. It is always true that you will only lose
:: weight when the number of calories you expend exceeds the number you
:: take in. However, stupid people insist on interpreting that to mean
:: that this equation is not affected in any way by the proportion of
:: carbs vs. protein vx. fat you eat, and that it in fact doesn't
:: matter whether you eat high fat or low fat, high carb or low carb,
:: so long as you just cut your calories.
::
:: In practice, however, as you and I and most of the others here
:: realize, changing what we eat to higher fat and much lower carb,
:: causes a lot of changes to take place that seem to make it easier
:: for us to tip that equation into a hypocaloric position so that we
:: lose weight. Not all of this is understood, but we've mostly all
:: experienced. Suppression of appetite is a biggie, so that we tend to
:: take in fewer calories. Increased energy levels, so that we are more
:: active and burn more calories is another. And there may be endocrine
:: system effects that actually allow you to eat a little more and
:: still be hypocaloric, as some studies have suggested, although
:: mechanism is unclear. If you're in ketosis you may even lose a few
:: calories via excretion of ketones. There definitely seems to be a
:: big advantage in low-carb dieting, in terms of effectiveness, so
:: long as the dieter can stick with the program. And that is often
:: easier said than done given our cultural surroundings, which supply
:: strong inducements to indulge in sugary and high carb 'treats'.

Very nice, Hannah.