Trying to Eat Better - Getting Fatter

Bruno26

Brian? wrote: »

Not to be unkind, but this is nonsense. You've built a towering straw man so big it can be seen from space.

Carbohydrate based foods did not only become popular after the 20s. They were always popular. In fact most poor people could not afford much protein, they subsisted on carbs; rice in Asia, wheat in most of Europe, corn in S America, corn and wheat in N America.

I have no doubt the high % of processed carbs people eat in the "west" has a lot to do with obseity. But to blame calorie counting is nonsense of the highest order. Obseity has increased because people can afford more calories.

Be whatever you want! I'm talking about processed carbohydrate foods. That includes all grains by the way, I'm also talking about insulin resistant people who always struggle with weight. A lot of people are IR to different degrees. I didn't blame calorie counting. It doesn't work as a sustainable method for weight loss for insulin resistant people. Stop counting and the weight goes back on.

Bruno26

Brian? wrote: »

No, it's not how people have eaten for thousands of years. It's how some people ate and in fact some people still eat.

Your confusing yourself here. You've disagreed but then agreed!

Brian?

Bruno26 wrote: »

Your confusing yourself here. You've disagreed but then agreed!

No, I did not. You stated people ate a certain way for thousands of years, I took this to mean all people. Am I incorrect, that wasn't your meaning?

Brian?

Bruno26 wrote: »

Be whatever you want! I'm talking about processed carbohydrate foods. That includes all grains by the way, I'm also talking about insulin resistant people who always struggle with weight. A lot of people are IR to different degrees. I didn't blame calorie counting. It doesn't work as a sustainable method for weight loss for insulin resistant people. Stop counting and the weight goes back on.

So you agree calorie counting is a good way to lose weight and once discipline is maintained its a good way to keep the weight off?

Bruno26

Brian? wrote: »

So you agree calorie counting is a good way to lose weight and once discipline is maintained its a good way to keep the weight off?

No. I believe its the wrong way to do it. Choose the right foods in the first place instead of having to count calories.

Bruno26

There is a very real connection between counting calories and processed food. For example Google images weight watchers ice cream.

Processed food
Calories on box
Low fat.
Made by a company that makes its money from overweight people counting calories.
Eaten by overweight people trying to lose weight.
There is a link between counting calories and processed food.

generic2012

@Bruno26 You eventually gave a loose definition of 'real food', as 'unprocessed food' (itself a misnomer that warrants definition to be usable in any real sense in conversation), would you care to define insulin resistant? As in 'people who have an x level of y or over/under are insulin resistant and how many people are IR in the general population.

Words with loose subjective means, such as the ones you choose to hide behind, can ruin conversations like these. I'm sure if yu gave some real definitions we would all realise how correct you actually are.

Of course you could use the reliable sarcastic response that just avoids answering the question.

Bruno26

generic2012 wrote: »

@Bruno26 You eventually gave a loose definition of 'real food', as 'unprocessed food' (itself a misnomer that warrants definition to be usable in any real sense in conversation), would you care to define insulin resistant? As in 'people who have an x level of y or over/under are insulin resistant and how many people are IR in the general population.

Words with loose subjective means, such as the ones you choose to hide behind, can ruin conversations like these. I'm sure if yu gave some real definitions we would all realise how correct you actually are.

Of course you could use the reliable sarcastic response that just avoids answering the question.

I explained it before. I'm surprised you aren't familiar with it. Check my history or a quick google search.

http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/insulin-sensitivity-blast-fat-for-good.htm

generic2012

Bruno26 wrote: »

I explained it before. I'm surprised you aren't familiar with it. Check my history or a quick google search.

http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/insulin-sensitivity-blast-fat-for-good.htm

You never explained it, you mentioned it, there's a big difference. I am familiar with insulin resistance, that's why I want you to give your definition of it, the way you talk about it doesn't logically follow from its true definition.

Perhaps if you answered my question, just to show that you know what some of the words you are dropping mean rather than continuing to avoid it. Links to websites that sell things aren't regarded as reliable sources of information.

Oryx

Bruno26 wrote: »

I explained it before. I'm surprised you aren't familiar with it. Check my history or a quick google search.

http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/insulin-sensitivity-blast-fat-for-good.htm

You've given this response a few times when challenged, and it is a lazy response. I'm actually going to pull rank here and insist as a mod, that if you explained something before, YOU find it in your post history and link back to it rather than telling others to.

Bruno26

Under the action of insulin, eaten glucose is either used immediately as an energy fuel or stored in the liver and muscles. Any carb that cannot be so removed must be converted immediately into fat, first in the liver before being transported the the fat tissues for storage as fat. In order to maximise this use of carbs, insulin also prevents fat from being used as fuel. Hence insulin is the hormone of both fat building and fat storage.

The degree of insulin resistance differs in different humans and different populations. Those who eat too many carbohydrates and with severe IR will develop severe obesity; those with mild IR may struggle to control their weight. IR may be the hidden metabolic abnormality underlying many of the chronic diseases currently reaching epidemic proportions in modern humans including obesity.

It is possible the reason these diseases are occurring in all populations eating highly-processed carb rich foods is because those are the exact food that those with IR are least able to metabolise safely.

Some problems of IR include: reduced capacity to store and use carbs as a fuel, increased blood glucose and insulin responses to ingested carbs, increased conversion of excess ingested carbs into fat in the liver and into blood triglycerides for storage as fat in adipose tissue, increased rates of glucose production in the liver, reduced production of good HDL cholesterol.

Modern fruit and some veg have a higher usable carb content that is rapidly assimilated with the human body causing a steep rise in blood glucose concentrations, setting off a steep increase in blood insulin concentrations especially in those with more marked levels of IR.

The cereal and grains eaten today have undergone substantial genetic modification not to improve health but to increase profitability. As a result, a slice of modern bread raises the blood glucose and insulin concentrations as quickly as the same weight of glucose.

Bruno26

Oryx and generic did you read the above yet?

Oryx

Bruno26 wrote: »

Oryx and generic did you read the above yet?

Yip. Now can you back it up, please?

generic2012

Bruno26 wrote: »

Oryx and generic did you read the above yet?

Yes, and responding will be another fruitless exercise too.

Bruno26 wrote: »

Under the action of insulin, eaten glucose is either used immediately as an energy fuel or stored in the liver and muscles. Any carb that cannot be so removed must be converted immediately into fat, first in the liver before being transported the the fat tissues for storage as fat. In order to maximise this use of carbs, insulin also prevents fat from being used as fuel. Hence insulin is the hormone of both fat building and fat storage.

When fats are eaten they go to the small intenstine to be digested - emulsified by bile salts and hydrolysed by pancreatic lipase - into fatty acids. These lipids then go the blood. Lipids are then absorbed by the liver for various bodily/cellular functions and any excess lipids are converted to adipose tissue (body fat). If blood lipid levels are low then the body will break down ('burn') body fat to provide lipids for the blood, as would be the case in a low fat diet. Due to the fact that lipids in the blood are insoluble, lipids that are not used may end up on artery walls.

This is a fun exercise you can try, Bruno. Read the following.

When you eat X, X is broken down by the body into its constituent parts. These parts go into the bloodstream for energy. If there is too much of X in the blood and it can't be used for energy, X is stored as fat until it can be used for energy.

Now read it once with carbohydrates for X, and once with fats for X, you will realise that they are both correct.

And my the way insulin is a very beneficial hormone with multiple functions. You that think you understand evolution should know that we wouldn't have lasted with it too long otherwise.

Bruno26 wrote: »

The degree of insulin resistance differs in different humans and different populations. Those who eat too many carbohydrates and with severe IR will develop severe obesity; those with mild IR may struggle to control their weight. IR may be the hidden metabolic abnormality underlying many of the chronic diseases currently reaching epidemic proportions in modern humans including obesity.

It is possible the reason these diseases are occurring in all populations eating highly-processed carb rich foods is because those are the exact food that those with IR are least able to metabolise safely.

Some problems of IR include: reduced capacity to store and use carbs as a fuel, increased blood glucose and insulin responses to ingested carbs, increased conversion of excess ingested carbs into fat in the liver and into blood triglycerides for storage as fat in adipose tissue, increased rates of glucose production in the liver, reduced production of good HDL cholesterol.

Modern fruit and some veg have a higher usable carb content that is rapidly assimilated with the human body causing a steep rise in blood glucose concentrations, setting off a steep increase in blood insulin concentrations especially in those with more marked levels of IR.

The cereal and grains eaten today have undergone substantial genetic modification not to improve health but to increase profitability. As a result, a slice of modern bread raises the blood glucose and insulin concentrations as quickly as the same weight of glucose.

I'll re-quote what I asked you and you should see that the previous bore no relevance.

would you care to define insulin resistant? As in 'people who have an x level of y or over/under are insulin resistant and how many people are IR in the general population.

I want a number, a hard piece of data, not waffle.

Bruno26

You give your reasoning you want evidence. You give evidence you want reasoning.

Provide a link / don't provide a link / this is a discussion forum.

generic2012

Bruno26 wrote: »

You give your reasoning you want evidence. You give evidence you want reasoning.

Provide a link / don't provide a link / this is a discussion forum.

I don't know what you're trying to say but I hope you don't think you've supplied evidence? How is carb storage any different to fat storage now that you've seen the two compared? How can you say one is better than the other?

Define Insulin Resistance and how many people have it.

ford2600

generic2012 wrote: »

. If blood lipid levels are low then the body will break down ('burn') body fat to provide lipids for the blood, as would be the case in a low fat diet. Due to the fact that lipids in the blood are insoluble, lipids that are not used may end up on artery walls.



Not disagreeing with any of your post, but are you sure about what you posted above.

Fats are transported as triglycerides by lipoprotein around blood as they are insoluble, why may they be deposited on artety walls?

When eating low fat my triglycerides levels were 1.6 They are now 0.8 or so.

Genuine question

Bruno26

generic2012 wrote: »

I don't know what you're trying to say but I hope you don't think you've supplied evidence? How is carb storage any different to fat storage now that you've seen the two compared? How can you say one is better than the other?

Define Insulin Resistance and how many people have it.

I defined it.

Last time I counted 1,000,000,000 had it! What a ridiculous question.

generic2012

ford2600 wrote: »

generic2012 wrote: »

. If blood lipid levels are low then the body will break down ('burn') body fat to provide lipids for the blood, as would be the case in a low fat diet. Due to the fact that lipids in the blood are insoluble, lipids that are not used may end up on artery walls.



Not disagreeing with any of your post, but are you sure about what you posted above.

Fats are transported as triglycerides by lipoprotein around blood as they are insoluble, why may they be deposited on artety walls?

When eating low fat my triglycerides levels were 1.6 They are now 0.8 or so.

Genuine question

If I'm being honest that was bait, but not for you!! If they are too many lipids in the blood and there aren't enough transporters around, much like glucose with insulin being the transporter. It is very unlikely in even moderately healthy individuals, just like bruno's insulin resistance.

'Lipids' is like 'carbs', it's a coverall term, covering many types of fat. Trans fat would be the main fat of concern in terms of clogged arteries. Much like the carb debate, it matters fug all if exercise is brought into the equation. That's why most studies are on obese and sedentary individuals, the downside of this is that unscrupulous characters can use the data from these studies to further their interests.

Still waiting on this thread on your endurance cycling on HF!!?

generic2012

Bruno26 wrote: »

I defined it.

If some asked me another person's height and I replied 'tall', that person would think I was silly, unless I said something like 'well, my definition of tall is anyone over 6 foot'.

If I did not give my definition, and they asked me for one, to which I replied 'I defined it' they would correctly label me as a lunatic.

I asked you for a definition already, you never gave a solid definition. Give me a number, blood characteristics or the like.

I'll give you this again, for the 3rd time:

As in 'people who have an x level of y or over/under are insulin resistant and how many people are IR in the general population.

Bruno26 wrote: »

Last time I counted 1,000,000,000 had it! What a ridiculous question.

As a proportion of the population you braniac. A rough percentage, if it's a big deal or of relevance to every thread you post in, it should be a large percentage. Of course include where you got the info.

Bruno26

generic2012 wrote: »

If some asked me another person's height and I replied 'tall', that person would think I was silly, unless I said something like 'well, my definition of tall is anyone over 6 foot'.

If I did not give my definition, and they asked me for one, to which I replied 'I defined it' they would correctly label me as a lunatic.

I asked you for a definition already, you never gave a solid definition. Give me a number, blood characteristics or the like.



As a proportion of the population you braniac. A rough percentage, if it's a big deal or of relevance to every thread you post in, you should be a large percentage. Of course include where you got the info.

I provided my answer on IR. Nothing satisfies you.

Impossible to say. Most overweight people to varying degrees.

generic2012

Bruno26 wrote: »

I provided my answer on IR. Nothing satisfies you.

No you didn't, I'll give you a run-down of your answer;



You give a basic run down of de novo lipogenisis followed by a false conclusion:

Bruno26 wrote: »

Under the action of insulin, eaten glucose is either used immediately as an energy fuel or stored in the liver and muscles. Any carb that cannot be so removed must be converted immediately into fat, first in the liver before being transported the the fat tissues for storage as fat. In order to maximise this use of carbs, insulin also prevents fat from being used as fuel. Hence insulin is the hormone of both fat building and fat storage.

Who allegedly has IR:

Bruno26 wrote: »

The degree of insulin resistance differs in different humans and different populations. Those who eat too many carbohydrates and with severe IR will develop severe obesity; those with mild IR may struggle to control their weight. IR may be the hidden metabolic abnormality underlying many of the chronic diseases currently reaching epidemic proportions in modern humans including obesity.

Unfounded claims for scaremonging:

Bruno26 wrote: »

It is possible the reason these diseases are occurring in all populations eating highly-processed carb rich foods is because those are the exact food that those with IR are least able to metabolise safely.

Effects of IR:

Bruno26 wrote: »

Some problems of IR include: reduced capacity to store and use carbs as a fuel, increased blood glucose and insulin responses to ingested carbs, increased conversion of excess ingested carbs into fat in the liver and into blood triglycerides for storage as fat in adipose tissue, increased rates of glucose production in the liver, reduced production of good HDL cholesterol.

Paranoid ramblings:

Bruno26 wrote: »

Modern fruit and some veg have a higher usable carb content that is rapidly assimilated with the human body causing a steep rise in blood glucose concentrations, setting off a steep increase in blood insulin concentrations especially in those with more marked levels of IR.

The cereal and grains eaten today have undergone substantial genetic modification not to improve health but to increase profitability. As a result, a slice of modern bread raises the blood glucose and insulin concentrations as quickly as the same weight of glucose.

Defintion of Insulin Resistance:
....Not even once.

Bruno26 wrote: »

Impossible to say. Most overweight people to varying degrees.

Why impossible? It's not hard to find the percentage of overweight people in the country. Find the percentage of non-overweight people with IR and the percentage of overweight people with IR and give the average for the population.

Mellor

Bruno26 wrote: »

Under the action of insulin, eaten glucose is either used immediately as an energy fuel or stored in the liver and muscles. Any carb that cannot be so removed must be converted immediately into fat, first in the liver before being transported the the fat tissues for storage as fat. In order to maximise this use of carbs, insulin also prevents fat from being used as fuel. Hence insulin is the hormone of both fat building and fat storage.

The first part is correct, say glucose is either (A) used as fuel or (B) stored in the muscles and liver (as glycogen). And you suggest the excess is stored as fat (DNL), but you don't say how much is needed for this to happen. Either because you don't know, or because it doesn't help your argument.
You also mention that this situation prevents fat being used for storage. But again, either through a lack of understand, or simply concealing the facts, you don't say when this happens.

What you've basically described is carbs are oxidised first, and then fats. We can agree on that.
But with any realistic intake, there will be no excess carbs after a days activity to convert to fat, it will all be burned, and probably some of the fat too. The surplus energy is left over fat stored as fat.

In order for DNL to occur. You would need to be consuming enough carbs to supply all you daily energy needs, plus extra for a period of time to saturate glycogen, before finally DNL.
In real terms, for a typical guy, this means ingesting maybe 750g of carbs per day for a week. That’s a massive amount. It’s really utterly pointless discussing the metabolic processes involved with storing fat with a diet like that. I think we all agree that a 8000cal diet you see on supersize vrs superskinny makes anyone fat, the processes are irrelevant.

In normal conditions, what you suggest won’t happen.

*DNL can also occur when dietry fat intake is very low.

ixus

The poor OP hasn't been back since.

SteelyDanJalapeno

Bruno26 wrote: »

Under the action of insulin, eaten glucose is either used immediately as an energy fuel or stored in the liver and muscles. Any carb that cannot be so removed must be converted immediately into fat, first in the liver before being transported the the fat tissues for storage as fat. In order to maximise this use of carbs, insulin also prevents fat from being used as fuel. Hence insulin is the hormone of both fat building and fat storage.

The degree of insulin resistance differs in different humans and different populations. Those who eat too many carbohydrates and with severe IR will develop severe obesity; those with mild IR may struggle to control their weight. IR may be the hidden metabolic abnormality underlying many of the chronic diseases currently reaching epidemic proportions in modern humans including obesity.

It is possible the reason these diseases are occurring in all populations eating highly-processed carb rich foods is because those are the exact food that those with IR are least able to metabolise safely.

Some problems of IR include: reduced capacity to store and use carbs as a fuel, increased blood glucose and insulin responses to ingested carbs, increased conversion of excess ingested carbs into fat in the liver and into blood triglycerides for storage as fat in adipose tissue, increased rates of glucose production in the liver, reduced production of good HDL cholesterol.

Modern fruit and some veg have a higher usable carb content that is rapidly assimilated with the human body causing a steep rise in blood glucose concentrations, setting off a steep increase in blood insulin concentrations especially in those with more marked levels of IR.

The cereal and grains eaten today have undergone substantial genetic modification not to improve health but to increase profitability. As a result, a slice of modern bread raises the blood glucose and insulin concentrations as quickly as the same weight of glucose.

Some important words highlighted...

generic2012

TiltedBrain wrote: »

Some important words highlighted...

I think it should also be put into context that his post was in response to a request for a definition of IR, and he thinks the post you quoted answers it.

kevpants

Bruno26 wrote: »

It does.

When carbs eaten blood glucose levels rise. Insulin is secreted by the pancreas in response to glucose entering the bloodstream from the gut. The body must be protected against sustained high blood glucose levels so the insulin causes the glucose which is not immediately used for energy to be stored by the liver and muscles as glycogen. Once the glycogen reserves are filled the excess glucose is stored as fat. If carbs cannot be immediately removed by the body it gets converted by the liver and sent to our fat tissues for storage. The result of this cycle is you get fat.

At no point do you ever mention that exercise burns this fuel and depletes glycogen. You make it sound like carbs are viewed as pre-fat by the body. You neglect to mention the associated drop in energy levels associated with cutting carbs, the cravings etc.

The amount of fat, listless people out there on lo carbdiets is amazing.

Can you please also explain the process by which genetic modification or processing of carbs increases fat gain in those who eat them please?

Alf Veedersane

kevpants wrote: »

At no point do you ever mention that exercise burns this fuel and depletes glycogen. You make it sound like carbs are viewed as pre-fat by the body. You neglect to mention the associated drop in energy levels associated with cutting carbs, the cravings etc.

The amount of fat, listless people out there on lo carbdiets is amazing.

Can you please also explain the process by which genetic modification or processing of carbs increases fat gain in those who eat them please?

Because Tim Noakes.

kevpants

Awww Jesus I just saw the "carb intolerance" reference. WTF?

Are you trying to say humans can be intolerant of their primary fuel source? Intolerant?

What you're describing is called "having enough". This is not intolerant. If someone eats more carbs than they burn or store as glycogen it becomes fat. Let me reiterate. That is not intolerant.

I overfilled my car at the pump last week and splashed my shoes. My car is not intolerant of petrol.

chops018

ixus wrote: »

The poor OP hasn't been back since.

I'm only getting a chance to look at it all now!

I didn't expect a long winded debate to happen....

Bruno26

kevpants wrote: »

Awww Jesus I just saw the "carb intolerance" reference. WTF?

Are you trying to say humans can be intolerant of their primary fuel source? .

Fat is the primary fuel source.

Inspector Coptoor

Bruno26 wrote: »

Fat is the primary fuel source.

Incorrect.

Fat is the primary form of fuel storage.

Glucose and it's polysaccharide form of glycogen and amylopectin are the body's primary source of fuel for respiration, and, all conditions being equal, the brain will choose glucose.

Yes. The body will use fatty acids during ketosis, but this does not make it the primary source.

Bruno, you are so misinformed it's actually painful

Bruno26

Inspector Coptoor wrote: »

Incorrect.

Fat is the primary form of fuel storage.

Glucose and it's polysaccharide form of glycogen and amylopectin are the body's primary source of fuel for respiration, and, all conditions being equal, the brain will choose glucose.

Yes. The body will use fatty acids during ketosis, but this does not make it the primary source.

Bruno, you are so misinformed it's actually painful

Don't get confused with what I'm talking about.

For 190,000 years humans got their fuel from fat. About 12,000 years ago that began to change. See gluconeogenesis.

Inspector Coptoor

As a biochemist graduate I know about gluconeogenesis.

You keep referencing insulin, but do you know much about glucagon? And it's role? During say, hypoglycemia?

Alf Veedersane

Inspector Coptoor wrote: »

As a biochemist graduate I know about gluconeogenesis.

You keep referencing insulin, but do you know much about glucagon? And it's role? During say, hypoglycemia?

Shouldn't be long before your questions are ignored and you're asked if you're saying you know more than Tim Noakes.

Bruno26

Inspector Coptoor wrote: »

As a biochemist graduate I know about gluconeogenesis.

You keep referencing insulin, but do you know much about glucagon? And it's role? During say, hypoglycemia?

Yes The opposite of insulin. Is it correct to say managing insulin takes care of glucagon? No to the second part.

generic2012

Bruno26 wrote: »

Yes The opposite of insulin. Is it correct to say managing insulin takes care of glucagon? No to the second part.

How can there be an opposite to a hormone? That makes no sense.

Inspector Coptoor

generic2012 wrote: »

How can there be an opposite to a hormone? That makes no sense.

On the contrary, it makes perfect sense.

It allows the body to manage fluctuations in blood sugar levels.

Too much sugar in the blood and insulin is released to either funnel it into muscle or liver glycogen. Failing that, the glucose will be funneled into fat to be stored.

Too little sugar in the blood, glucagon is released to breakdown glycogen to release glucose, if glycogen stores sre empty, glucagon starts the process of lipolysis or turning fat into glucose.

The body has a load of these feedback & negative feedback mechanisms to ensure homeostasis is maintauned

Inspector Coptoor

Bruno26 wrote: »

Yes The opposite of insulin. Is it correct to say managing insulin takes care of glucagon? No to the second part.

Not necessarily, managing blood sugar levels and ensuring there are no major, repeated spikes will take care of both hormones.

This is where nutrient timing plays a key role.

If someone is playing a game of soccer/rugby, they should the on a carb drink like lucozade sport in an effort to prevent sugar levels dropping.

If someone is a sedentary couch potato, the same drink will cause a spike in blood sugar levels and subsequent insulin secretion

Bruno26

Inspector Coptoor wrote: »

On the contrary, it makes perfect sense.

It allows the body to manage fluctuations in blood sugar levels.

Too much sugar in the blood and insulin is released to either funnel it into muscle or liver glycogen. Failing that, the glucose will be funneled into fat to be stored.

Too little sugar in the blood, glucagon is released to breakdown glycogen to release glucose, if glycogen stores sre empty, glucagon starts the process of lipolysis or turning fat into glucose.

The body has a load of these feedback & negative feedback mechanisms to ensure homeostasis is maintauned

What do you make of that generic? Would you like to take your last post back?!

Bruno26

Inspector Coptoor wrote: »

Not necessarily, managing blood sugar levels and ensuring there are no major, repeated spikes will take care of both hormones.

This is where nutrient timing plays a key role.

If someone is playing a game of soccer/rugby, they should the on a carb drink like lucozade sport in an effort to prevent sugar levels dropping.

If someone is a sedentary couch potato, the same drink will cause a spike in blood sugar levels DBs subsequent insulin secretion

I see. Thanks very informative.
On the lucozade sport should a top level sportsperson drink it before a match or early in a match or only before the point where fatigue sets in?

Inspector Coptoor

Bruno26 wrote: »

I see. Thanks very informative.
On the lucozade sport should a top level sportsperson drink it before a match or early in a match or only before the point where fatigue sets in?

Before, during & after.

If you wait til fatigue sets in, performance will be affected, not something you want in a top sportsperson

generic2012

Bruno26 wrote: »

What do you make of that generic? Would you like to take your last post back?!

Not at all! You can't have an opposite of a hormone. You can have hormones which have that effects that are inhibatory or preventative towards another hormone's effects, but no opposite. The 'no opposite' was directed at you, Bruno.

As inspector coptoor said the body has complex feedback mechanisms, not 'on/off' switches as some people seem to believe. The body is practically always burning glucose and fat just at different rates depending on a host of scenarios, much like muscle anabolism and catabolism also. You have to stop seeing the body as a simple model.

I wouldn't be as qualified as coptoor but I've done biology and chemistry throughout my undergraduate and biology in my masters but I think he'd agree that 'carbs make you fat' is a bit of a over-simplification.

generic2012

Inspector Coptoor wrote: »

Before, during & after.

If you wait til fatigue sets in, performance will be affected, not something you want in a top sportsperson

As long as there are 149 or less carbs in it of course?

Inspector Coptoor

Of course

Bruno26

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

Shouldn't be long before your questions are ignored .

That would be the poster who thanked that post.

Bruno26

generic2012 wrote: »

As long as there are 149 or less carbs in it of course?

Backtracking. You were told it made perfect sense.

Someone eating hflc would not need lucozade sport before a match! May get through without any need for it.

generic2012

Bruno26 wrote: »

Backtracking. You were told it made perfect sense.

Someone eating hflc would not need lucozade sport before a match! May get through without any need for it.

Maybe if they're standing still. Fat is only useful as a fuel in long distance endurance sports and very very easy ones like golf. Any sports with bouts/bursts of high intensity will require glucose for optimum performance.

kevpants

Bruno26 wrote: »

Someone eating hflc would not need lucozade sport before a match! May get through without any need for it.

Agreed.





Because they'll be on the bench.

generic2012

kevpants wrote: »

Agreed.





Because they'll be on the bench.