How many carbs do you need?

[Raw Kyle]

Reads like "The Bear" is a student of HIT training. I tried it for a while but it doesn't give me the good feeling that more traditional workouts do. But in terms of bodybuilding I do believe it's true that working out more than a few times a week is counterproductive because your muscles grow during the recovery process and this should be much more time than the tearing process. But with a sport like cycling your goal is not to build the largest muscles possible but to build balanced muscles in certain areas, improve your heart and lung aerobic capacity, work on proper technique etc. This is why I stopped HIT training, I changed my idea of what I wanted out of my body and although I'd like bigger muscles I don't want to be a bodybuilder or look like one.

[igibike]

What you say is true, Kyle.
But I think the Bear doesn't follow a HIT approach to training, because, as he says, he rarely has DOMS, unless he pushes very hard (I understand that he doesn't push that much everytime...).

Do you practice any sport, or do you train for fitness/wellness/fun ?

[igibike]

I replied the bear:

Hi Bear,

I didn't want to upset you or argue with you in some way, really.
I was only trying to understand whether what I know is wrong and why...
Anyway, do you know of some serious athlete that lives zero carb and gains good sport results ?
I mean an athlete of wich I can have a feedback on his diet/results...

Reading you essay on nutrition, it seems that the only non animal fat is olive oil and macadamia nut oil is it right ?

Thank you very much.


His answer:

You will not sucker me into this sort of useless debate.  I don't give a flying fuck about whether any athlete eats anything.  I know what is right, what works and what does not.  If you don't feel good eating this way, and are not comfortable-- then don't.

Olive is not very good, and mac is only marginal.  Good veg oil is coconut and palm.  Best to stick to animal fats.

 
Quite aggressive.

[boxcarguy07]

holy crap, how mean-sounding can you get??

[igibike]

holy crap, how mean-sounding can you get??

Sorry, I didn't understand what you mean...

[boxcarguy07]

Not "you" as in "YOU you", but a general "you".

Actually that probably just confused you further. I was referring to the Bear when I said that. He sounded angry.

[Kristelle]

Do not judge a book by its cover but by its content. While I agree that The Bear is aggressive and rude, his knowledge seems to almost always be right on the money.

I think part of him really wants to help others but another part is tired of repeating the same things over and over. He has perhaps been attacked very often in the past due to his diet and is the way he is because of that. It is very frustrating to know something for certain and constantly be questioned, doubted, not being able to help others in the process.

Being the devil's advocate...but personally, I've learned alot from him and I'm happy he is alive to share with others his experience and knowledge.

[igibike]

Do not judge a book by its cover but by its content. While I agree that The Bear is aggressive and rude, his knowledge seems to almost always be right on the money.

I think part of him really wants to help others but another part is tired of repeating the same things over and over. He has perhaps been attacked very often in the past due to his diet and is the way he is because of that. It is very frustrating to know something for certain and constantly be questioned, doubted, not being able to help others in the process.

Being the devil's advocate...but personally, I've learned alot from him and I'm happy he is alive to share with others his experience and knowledge.

According to me he is not convincing.
He focused on insulin as absolute evil (while it may help)
He only focuses on a portion on metabolism neglecting all the rest.
He starts from scientific base (ATP-ADP stuff an so on) but then says: forget about science, it's all rubbish...
Not to talk about non animal fats (in his essays he says olives and macadamia are good, then by mail he says they are not good while palm and coconut oil are)...

Not coherent, IMHO

Again, if glucose is useless, why our body derives it from protein if we don't introduce it with food ?

There's a lot of contraddiction and dark spots, up to me, in zero carb theory.
I believe chronical ketosis is not a healthy state.
Nor it can be appllied succesfully for and athlete. At least there are no examples/proofs as low carb has.

[Kristelle]

Luigi,

You have not read fully his essays; otherwise, you would not say most the things you say. He doesn't believe insulin is the devil, just excess. He talks about keto-adaptation, not the same thing as ketosis which he condems. Also, he never EVER says that olives/olive oil are healthy and is consistent in his statements.
He also mentions that some tissues NEED glucose and that this is provided in normal circumstances by the conversion of glycerol.

[igibike]

Maybe I misunderstood the bear's writings.
Anyway I at least follow his advice: if you're not convinced, just stay where you are or feel comfortable with.

I'm not convinced, moreover I can't afford a style that doesn't allow to go off the diet plan on occasions. Think would mean go through keto adatptation times and times agiain (everytimes it happens to eat some carbos, and it happens).

I do believe that a low carb (or very low carb, as I am presently doing) is much better for me.

[Kristelle]

I respect that Luigi. To each their own and in the end, what works best for you is what counts. If you feel good, then that's all that matters.

[wodgina]

I thought there was much more information than the essay...not much to go on

Ok agree or disagree he is one interesting fellow who lives by his own convictions. I admire that. It's sounds like he has always been gruff even pre meat eating diet.

His autobiography would be quite a read!

[Sully]

Ok, Sully, your test will be a great deal for us.

Zero carb is becoming harder and harder. I'm not sure if I'll continue. Its only been about 4 days. I had periods of low energy. i don't know how long it takes to adapt to zero carb, but I can't wait months and train sluggishly.  I can only afford 1 pound of pasture raised meat a day. That is not enough to satisfy me when training. I can get 2 pounds of low quality meat. I don't want to have to survive on low quality meat through the winter. I plan on doing it some time in the distant future when I can afford high quality animal foods.

Sorry Luigi.

Ahhh, this apple is good...

[igibike]

Zero carb is becoming harder and harder. I'm not sure if I'll continue. Its only been about 4 days. I had periods of low energy. i don't know how long it takes to adapt to zero carb, but I can't wait months and train sluggishly.  I can only afford 1 pound of pasture raised meat a day. That is not enough to satisfy me when training. I can get 2 pounds of low quality meat. I don't want to have to survive on low quality meat through the winter. I plan on doing it some time in the distant future when I can afford high quality animal foods.

Sorry Luigi.

Ahhh, this apple is good...

Nevermind Sully,
just do what you feel better 
This is as I expected it to be.
Not affordable by an athletic person. The price to pay (low energy, inability to train, ....) during adaptation, admitting it occurs, is too high. Moreover, this adaptation may last for ever (or appear again and again) because of occasions 

I'm reading Lex journal.

At this moment my thought is: our body need some glucose (undeniable fact), there's no reason to force it to get it from protein (via neoglucogenesis), it's more convenient to get it directly from carbos.
Of course the goal now is to tune the intake to the real need.
Of course the best fuel if fat and I am working toward the maximization of fat metabolism.

[Raw Kyle]

I'm not convinced, moreover I can't afford a style that doesn't allow to go off the diet plan on occasions. Think would mean go through keto adatptation times and times agiain (everytimes it happens to eat some carbos, and it happens).

I do believe that a low carb (or very low carb, as I am presently doing) is much better for me.

Agreed. If I have to go through days weeks or maybe even a month or more of weakness and lethargy to re-adapt to ketogenic metabolism every time I party with my friends and drink a few beers then count me out. Probably one night of carbs wouldn't do it, but then again I wonder how you would digest carbs if you're ketogenically adapted. Lex might know, I imagine it would feel very good to consume a high carb meal after being ketogenically adapted, much like eating only protein and fat would feel before adaptation.

[igibike]

I imagine it would feel very good to consume a high carb meal after being ketogenically adapted, much like eating only protein and fat would feel before adaptation.

I think you meant wouldn't feel...

[Raw Kyle]

Ya that's what I meant to write. Anyone here ever do that?

[JustAnotherExplorer]

At this moment my thought is: our body need some glucose (undeniable fact), there's no reason to force it to get it from protein (via neoglucogenesis), it's more convenient to get it directly from carbos.

One relevant question is if you are forcing the body to make glucose from protein by depriving it of dietary carbohydrates or if it's going to convert the same percentage of protein into glucose anyway, without regard for dietary carbo intake.

[igibike]

One relevant question is if you are forcing the body to make glucose from protein by depriving it of dietary carbohydrates or if it's going to convert the same percentage of protein into glucose anyway, without regard for dietary carbo intake.

This is an interesting matter. I did think about.

I assume the "spend less, gain more" (I don't know if it's called like this in english  ) rule as a universal rule in nature and in our body as well. So, if I take some glucose in, why should my body spend energy to produce it ?

[Raw Kyle]

This is an interesting matter. I did think about.

I assume the "spend less, gain more" (I don't know if it's called like this in english  ) rule as a universal rule in nature and in our body as well. So, if I take some glucose in, why should my body spend energy to produce it ?

It could just be that the enzymes are always there in the system to catch and convert a certain amount of protein to glucose. Or the expression of the genes building those enzymes could be dependent on the amount of glucose in the blood. Or something else entirely, but I don't think it's right to assume the body will "know" that it doesn't have to convert protein as if it has a brain of it's own.

[igibike]

but I don't think it's right to assume the body will "know" that it doesn't have to convert protein as if it has a brain of it's own.

Right Kyle, you explained better what I ment.

The baseline is, in energy sparing terms: why build enzymes to convert protein to glucose is there's still glucose in the blood ?

IMHO

[Raw Kyle]

My answer to that question is that the production of these enzymes is unregulated by blood glucose and is simply constant, which then leads to the idea that the diet humans evolved their current gene expression on was a very low carb one that necessitated the protein to glucose conversion to a point where any regulation on that expression was lost.

[igibike]

Seems to hae sens, Kyle, but for what I know gluconeogenesys is triggered by low glucose blood level.

[Raw Kyle]

That certainly makes more sense that it would be regulated by blood glucose but most of what I've read suggested that it was *fairly* constant.

I have a problem understanding how the body can just completely discard certain enzymes, such as the ones needed to digest ketones, and have to go through such a long adaptation period in order to digest that fuel. Even if you're getting adequate carbs to fuel your body it still would be advantageous to harvest the energy from ketones rather than peeing them out don't you think?

Same thing with glucose. Even if you're not consuming any glucose your body will make some from protein, thus the enzymes to metabolize glucose should be at least partially conserved.

But then again in my microbiology class I learned about the lactose digesting genes in E. coli and the moral of the story there was that the organism will not produce enzymes to digest a certain food molecule if there is an abundance of a more efficiently digesting food molecule around. This would suggest that glucose is more efficient than fat for fuel since if the body is presented with both in abundance it will express glucose digestion and not ketone digestion.

[JustAnotherExplorer]

It could be that the body chooses the more efficient fuel, or it could be that the body wants to rid itself of the more damaging and troublesome fuel first.  For example, if the body is fed large amounts of fat, carbohydrates and alcohol it will process the alcohol for energy first, thus getting it out of the system.  It is conceivable, though not proven, that carbohydrates are processed second in that line because they are less damaging than alcohol but worse for the body than fats.