Web Site Busts The Myths About Low-Carb
One of my blogging friends--Carol Bardelli from the "Kudos For Low-Carb" blog--sent me a link to a web site the other day that is a wealth of information about livin' la vida low-carb that goes through what the author Kent R. Rieske describes as the "Nutritional Myths, Distortions and Lies That Will Destroy Your Health."
"This web site will prove that eating red meat and natural animal fats while restricting carbohydrates is not only healthy but will prevent and cure many diseases," Rieske boasts on his web site.
WOW! What a way to start! Just reading that statement alone made me excited about reading on. Let me warn you--it's a VERY long web site, but chock full of scientific studies, statistics, and other evidence supporting the thesis that a low-carb diet is "healthy." If you can't handle the truth, then come back when you can.
Check out this comment made on the site about the Food Pyramid.
"Warning! This diet will cause many diseases when eaten for 20 years," referring to the 60% carbohyrate, 30% fat, and 10% protein diet recommended by government health leaders.
But it's not just Rieske's opinions--you get links to the studies that back up everything he's saying and it is written in a very compelling format and style. I LOVE this guy and he did an excellent job presenting all the information in one place.
There's so much to absorb from this site that you'll spend hours scouring through all the information. Much of it centers around busting the following health myths in an intelligent and thorough manner:
Myth No. 1 - Saturated Animal Fats Cause Heart Disease and Cancer.
Myth No. 2 - Carbohydrates are Healthy and Needed for Energy.
Myth No. 3 - Fiber is Healthy and Required in the Diet.
Myth No. 4 - Red Meat Like Beef, Lamb and Pork is Unhealthy.
Myth No. 5 - Organic Fruits, Vegetables, Eggs & Meat More Healthy.
Myth No. 6 - Cholesterol Causes Heart Disease.
Myth No. 7 - Dietary Protein Requirement is 10% on a Calorie Basis.
Myth No. 8 - Dietary Fat Should Be No More Than 30% of Calories.
Myth No. 9 - Soy Products are Healthy Foods.
Myth No. 10 - Omega-6 Vegetable, Seed and Nut Oils are Healthy.
Bonus Myth No. 11 - People Are All Different.
We all owe our sincerest gratitude to Kent Rieske for putting together this impressive low-carb information site. Send Kent your thanks by e-mailing him at RieskeKR@aol.com.
Don't miss the following eye-opening links towards the end of the page: "Drugs and Doctors May be the Third Leading Cause of Death in U.S.," "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False," and "Pharmaceutical firms are inventing diseases to sell more drugs." Like I said, HOURS upon HOURS of low-carb lovin' facts that'll arm you for ANYTHING the low-fatties will ever throw at you!
"This web site will prove that eating red meat and natural animal fats while restricting carbohydrates is not only healthy but will prevent and cure many diseases," Rieske boasts on his web site.
WOW! What a way to start! Just reading that statement alone made me excited about reading on. Let me warn you--it's a VERY long web site, but chock full of scientific studies, statistics, and other evidence supporting the thesis that a low-carb diet is "healthy." If you can't handle the truth, then come back when you can.
Check out this comment made on the site about the Food Pyramid.
"Warning! This diet will cause many diseases when eaten for 20 years," referring to the 60% carbohyrate, 30% fat, and 10% protein diet recommended by government health leaders.
But it's not just Rieske's opinions--you get links to the studies that back up everything he's saying and it is written in a very compelling format and style. I LOVE this guy and he did an excellent job presenting all the information in one place.
There's so much to absorb from this site that you'll spend hours scouring through all the information. Much of it centers around busting the following health myths in an intelligent and thorough manner:
Myth No. 1 - Saturated Animal Fats Cause Heart Disease and Cancer.
Myth No. 2 - Carbohydrates are Healthy and Needed for Energy.
Myth No. 3 - Fiber is Healthy and Required in the Diet.
Myth No. 4 - Red Meat Like Beef, Lamb and Pork is Unhealthy.
Myth No. 5 - Organic Fruits, Vegetables, Eggs & Meat More Healthy.
Myth No. 6 - Cholesterol Causes Heart Disease.
Myth No. 7 - Dietary Protein Requirement is 10% on a Calorie Basis.
Myth No. 8 - Dietary Fat Should Be No More Than 30% of Calories.
Myth No. 9 - Soy Products are Healthy Foods.
Myth No. 10 - Omega-6 Vegetable, Seed and Nut Oils are Healthy.
Bonus Myth No. 11 - People Are All Different.
We all owe our sincerest gratitude to Kent Rieske for putting together this impressive low-carb information site. Send Kent your thanks by e-mailing him at RieskeKR@aol.com.
Don't miss the following eye-opening links towards the end of the page: "Drugs and Doctors May be the Third Leading Cause of Death in U.S.," "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False," and "Pharmaceutical firms are inventing diseases to sell more drugs." Like I said, HOURS upon HOURS of low-carb lovin' facts that'll arm you for ANYTHING the low-fatties will ever throw at you!
Labels: diet, Kent Rieske, low-carb, myths, research, weight loss
posted by Jimmy Moore at
5/29/2007 06:38:00 PM
15 Comments:
I absolutely loved this statement of his: "Many people think the Atkins' low-carbohydrate diet is lacking essential nutrients because it doesn't match the results of the Food Guide Pyramid. Their reference is the US Food & Drug Administration (USFDA) Nutritional Guide for Daily Values (DV) as shown on all nutrition labels. The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) Food Guide Pyramid was developed by vegetarians with an agenda. Nathan Pritikin and Senator George McGovern were the perpetrators. There is no science behind the Food Guide Pyramid. It was a scam from the beginning - a make believe nutritional plan to limit the consumption of animal products. The results has been rampant heart disease, cancer, diabetes, osteoporosis, intestinal diseases and a medical handbook full of other ailments."
Emphasis mine. This guy has it right on! Clearly has done his research and knows what he's talking about!
Are we witnessing the birth of a new "The Omnivore"? I, for one, will keep a close eye on this site! Excellent news, Jimmy!
Wonderful site! I'm so glad you shared it!
And here I thought I was the one who first sent you the link, LOL
Yep, you did, too, Robin! THANK YOU and I hope everyone goes to visit your . :D
I don't disagree with what the website has to say, since I am pro-lowcarb myself. It helped me lose over 100 lbs. (however, not all that weight loss was fat, but I assume, half or even possibly more muscle). (This is undoubtedly true, because of the extra skin all of us low-carbers end up with. Carb-cycling is something we all fail to do and we accept Dr. Atkin's word like we accept our Holy Books.
This site is funny, because it is a site all about the validity of the bible, yet clearly gives suggestion to go against the Bible.
For example, Ezekiel 4:9 (also a brand name of real whole grain bread) says: "Take thou also unto thee wheat, and barley, and beans, and lentiles, and millet, and fitches, and put them in one vessel, and make thee bread thereof, according to the number of the days that thou shalt lie upon thy side, three hundred and ninety days shalt thou eat thereof."
So although I don't disagree with the author's claims about low-carb, (it's healthy (Cardiovascularwise), yet we all fail to realize how much muscle loss actually happens on our low-carb diets), he needs to realize what he's actually trying to prove on the site. The Bible, or low-carbing?
Maybe the author shouldn't be so hypocritical as to push the bible on his readers on one part of the website, then push a diet condemning the biblical diet right above it. Makes no sense.
I'd be a die-hard low-carb supporter, but since I've realized that after 100 pounds of weight loss, (I used to be 280, 5'9) I still have 19% body fat. Something went wrong, and that was the muscle lost. Guess what happens when you only leave protein and fat to be used as energy, without any anabolic insulin releases? That's right. Muscle loss. No body can argue the muscle-sparring characteristics of carbohydrates. If low-carbing has taught me anything, it's the danger of PROCESSED carbs. A bowl of oatmeal will not give me diabetes, and will not make me fat, when I eat it at the right times (in the morning, and after working out). God put insulin in our bodies for a reason, and made carbs the most abundant food source on earth for a reason. We're meant to use them.
We're meant to use them.. Yes, in moderation. And select them wisely. The breads in the Bible were not made of overly processed, nutritionally empty white flour. They were nutritionally far superior to our "modern" breads (or what is sold for bread). That's one.
Secondly, there's plenty of evidence in the Bible (and other scriptures, like the Koran) that animal proteins and especially animal fats were the most valued and highest praised parts. In fact there's abundant evidence that offerings to God were always done with the fattest meats, because everything else -including vegetables- were considered inferior by far.
Third, a low-carb diet does NOT cause muscle loss. There's abundant scientific evidence documenting the exact opposite. In fact I lost almost 240 pounds (you read that right!) well over a decade ago and kept it off. Easily, I might add. And there was no muscle loss but instead muscle gain. Heart muscle, to be precise, and biceps. And I have the stats to prove it.
If you lost lean muscle mass, something was wrong. Maybe your carb intake was still to high and the fat/protein ratio too low. Yo-yo dieting and carb-cycling also causes muscle loss, as do many medications.
From what I know, there hasn't really been any extensive studies on body fat loss vs. weight loss on low-carb diets, so any evidence which shows that low-carbing preserves muscle loss without carb-refeedings, needs to be questioned, heavily. Secondly, try sprinting on a low-carb diet. You might be able to have the energy to get through it, but obviously if glycogen is the best fuel source for high intensity excercise, then I wonder what will be used? Hmmm...maybe lean muscle???? What I find ironic about low-carbing (and don't mistake me for hating low-carbing, it's still my way of life, but I need to reevaluate my approach to it), is that the more sedentary you are, the better of a chance you have to preserve muscle. If you're trying to make a lifetime change in terms of health AND fitness, chronic low-carbing is NOT the way to go. Try playing a game of pickup basketball, or sprinting. It's quite difficult, ketosis or not. Try lifting some weights, and even ask diabetic bodybuilders. They'd love to be able to build muscle with more carbs, because they are so much more effective for anabolism. Carb-cycling replenish glycogen and creates an anabolic surge in the body, how can you say it causes muscle loss, compared to long-term low-carbing? If anything, it is more healthier and faster at FAT loss, than low-carbing. Don't take my word for it. Ask people such as Chris Aceto and John Berardi, sports nutritionists, who know extensively about the low-carb effects on ACTIVE people. As humans, Jimmy would agree with me, we're meant to be active, active, and active. A sedentary person doesn't need carbs, but then again, no human is meant to be sedentary. Carbs, just as everything else, needs to come in moderation, not eliminated, and by carbs, I mean healthy carbs. The only carbs I include in my diet nowadays oatmeal, fruits, vegetables, whole WHOLE grain bread, and legumes. God made them. God gave them to us. The forbidden fruit might be in the garden of Eden, but God surely has not forbidden it for us here on earth. We should enjoy them, moderately of course.
@kamran: with all due respect, I have to disagree with you on some points you made for carb-cycling. Most of us are familiar with the carb-loading and carb-cycling advise given to athletes. In fact if one closely examines the sports advise given by major universities, such as Illinois, it's always the "load on carbs" message and 11 servings (or more, "as required") as per the National Geometric Nutritional Abberation: the Food Pyramid. The advice above was taken from the prestigious University of Illinois' Sports and Nutrition website. Note however that there is nowhere mention of the best fuel for the body: fat. In fact it always says that "Carbohydrates are the most efficient fuel for your body during strenuous exercise". This is simply untrue. There's not even a mention of the essential fatty acids that are necessary to sustain life, neither does the advice recommend that the fruit and vegetables be cooked. As we know any minerals and vitamins these may contain (and there are actually precious few to begin with) are not released from uncooked fruit and vegetables.
The advice given by, for example, the University of Illinois is nothing but unsubstantiated dogma. It is the way to failure not only for an athlete but for anyone who needs energy to work. In view of the vast amount of dogma, such as that above, which surrounds nutrition for athletic performance, you may be surprised to learn that there is little or no evidence that carbohydrates are an energy food and "essential" for glycogen replenishing.
The idea of the advice given above is based on what is known as "carb-loading". As you may have gathered, this practice involves eating high carbohydrate meals of such things as bread, pasta and cereals for a few days immediately prior to a tournament - in quantities greater than they can use during those days - so the their bodies have a reserve on tournament day. Hence the term 'carb-loading'. Carb-loading and carb-cycling is the "standard advise" given to most athletes.
The facts are that many athletes have given up on carb-loading and carb-cycling and, instead, adopted a controlled-carb dietary regimen because they perform and feel so much better on it. Examples are several famous triathletes, Britain's best tennis players, several martial arts winners, and I know of a number of 7-fold gold medalists and world record holders in various disciplines.
So what's "wrong" with it? Well, for starters, the body can't store carbohydrates in large quantities and most people already get more than enough carbohydrates to fuel their bodies' daily activities. All carbohydrates, whether they are bread, pasta, sugar or jam when you put them in your mouth, enter the bloodstream as glucose. And the bloodstream can only hold so much. The body, being a well-run power plant, puts the leftovers in storage to use in the future if it's needed. Some is stored as a type of starch called glycogen, but as it can't store much of this, the body turns most of the excess into fat and keeps it on deposit in the body's fat cells. And we see it walking around the streets wherever we go, hanging off bodies in a most unattractive way. Put simply, carbo-loading cannot work simply because excess carbs are not stored in a readily usable way.
The second problem lies in how the body uses its various options for fuel. Each of our body's cells contains lots of very small power plants called mitochondria . It is they that produce the energy we need from the food that we consume. Glucose is usually called the body's "preferred fuel" because, if it is available, our bodies have been conditioned from birth to use it first. But it is NOT the best fuel. That distinction belongs to fats - or fatty acids, to give them their scientific name. Before the mitochondria can use either glucose or fatty acid as a fuel, it has to be transported into the mitochondria.
Fatty acids are transported into the mitochondria as completely intact molecules. Glucose, on the other hand, can be transported only after it has been broken down first into pyruvate by the process of glycolysis. This is then used anaerobically to produce energy with lactate as a by-product.
The by-products of the energy-production process when fatty acids are used are carbon dioxide and water, both of which are easily excreted. But when glucose is used, the lactic acid produced in the conversion process can build up in muscle cells and make them ache. It is this that is the cause of the aching muscles or pain involved in strenuous exercise - 'the wall' as athletes call it. This 'wall' severely limits an athlete's performance. But it is not necessary ever to 'hit the wall'. If you do, your diet is wrong.
Let's look at some history. During the 1968 Olypics a unknown athlete called Mamo Wolde stunned the world with his performance and endurance. He won the marathon. Not only was the thirty-six-year-old runner the oldest man ever to win this prestigious event, he did it in a time that has not been bettered to this day. So what was Wolde's secret? Wolde grew up in an Ethiopian village. His life consisted of running after and hunting wild game on foot. His diet was one high in animal meat and fat, with practically no carbohydrate. Subsequent tests showed that Wolde's body, under conditions of physical load, readily burned fat as its main energy source. Wolde had no concept of 'hitting the wall'. It had never happened to him.
While there is little or no scientific evidence that carbohydrates are a particularly good energy food, there is a great deal that fats are.
What may not be immediately obvious is that, with the correct diet, constant exercise and practice to maintain muscle suppleness, strength and stamina doesn't seem to be needed either. It is well known that carnivorous animals - lions and tigers - if fed their natural diet of fat meat, even when confined in cages or small pens in zoos for long periods of time, without the opportunity to exercise, do not lose their vigour, strength and endurance. Such animals in circuses are even more confined but they are still able to make prodigious leaps when called upon to do so.
Eskimo sled dogs are normally kept on leashes or in small kennels during the summer months and fed fat meat and fish. When, after some months of such inactivity, the winter arrives and they are required to pull sleds again, they have no need of a period of training or conditioning before they go about their arduous task. And they still manage to pull heavy sleds for up to twelve hours a day. The same applies to English hunting dogs. They do not lose their ability to run hard for long distances when correctly fed.
The same is true of Man. The Eskimo spends most of the year in practical inactivity during the winter months. Confined to his snow-covered hut or igloo, eating nothing else than meat, fish and fat, he rarely ventures outside for months at a time.
But when spring arrives, he immediately begins a very strenuous life, travelling many miles to hunting grounds. He, too needs no period of conditioning after his long winter of inactivity. He also requires less sleep and is much more resistant to fatigue.
A little more history is interesting here. In 1895 two Norwegians, Fridtjof Nansen and Frederik Johansen, landed on an island of the Franz Joseph group. They had "conventional" provisions to last for several weeks but, as there was abundant game in the form of walrus and polar bear, they decided to live off the land and save their provisions until the following summer. From the end of August 1895 until the spring break up of the arctic ice they got no exercise, did not wash themselves or change their clothes, yet they remained in perfect health and were able to do a full day's sledging on their first day of travel.
Rear Admiral Robert Peary also noted the ability of Arctic explorers to subsist for more than a year with no food other than pemmican twice a day. Men doing heavy work required two pounds of pemmican, which was the equivalent of six pounds of meat and a pound of fat per day. This ability to do fantastic feats of strength and endurance was not confined to the Arctic. Native porters in Australia, eating only kangaroo meat, carried heavy loads for up to twelve hours without rest or refreshment; and Aborigines in the desert, would lope for distances of up to twenty miles, with occasional bursts of speed to catch game, on a handful of worms, bugs and insects, and kangaroo meat.
What all these people (and animals) have in common is their practically carbohydrate free diet. Fat is the best fuel for an athlete, carbohydrates are the worst. It really is as simple as that. Still not convinced?
Athletes are told to eat a diet high in carbohydrates and low in fats. This, they are told, will increase their performance. Science, however, tells a different story. I will, for reasons of brevity, limit it to just one study, although there are many more. This study was published in 1994. Using three diets: normal, high-fat and high-carbohydrate, the study showed that the high-carbohydrate diet increased performance by an average ten percent over a normal mixed diet. Not bad, you might think, but the high-fat diet increased performance by a massive thirty-three percent. That's much better. The authors conclude that restriction of dietary fat may be detrimental to endurance performance.
Experience from around the world confirms it.
There is just one caveat. It takes time for the body to change from burning inefficient carbs to burning fats efficiently. You should notice a marked increase in performance in as little as 2 to 6 weeks on a low-carb, high-fat diet, but maximum performance may not be reached for several months.
A few references that are relevant:
Stefansson V. Cancer: Disease of Civilisation. Hill & Wang, New York, 1960
Military Surgeon, August 1944, Quoted in Walter L Voegtlin. The Stone Age Diet
The Epic of Man. Time Inc. New York, 1961
Muoio D M, et al. Effect of dietary fat on metabolic adjustments to maximal VO-2 and endurance in runners. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise. 1994; 26 (1): 81-88
Awesome site, Reiske pulls no punches and takes no prisoners. He lost me on the organic foods being less healthy than pesticides, I have to say, but the rest is great. Even geniuses can be over-enthusiastic at times. He based that on his personal experience of being doused by pesticides as a young man on his farm and developing no heatlh problems in later life - yet. Also he misses the interesting link which came out during the US spinach scare that cattle being fed mostly grain develop e-coli that is highly acid resistant. Acid in the gut usually destroys ecoli, but grain-fed digestion is so acidy that the bacteria mutate to handle it. It may be this mutant bacteria which is surviving the manure process to poison our food supply.
I don't entirely know how to answer kamran's issues, so i won't try, but s/he makes an important point that highly active people have different low-carb issues. Most of us benefit greatly from extreme LC because we are so sedentary. Extremely active people may need to handle it differently, and low blood sugar can still be a dangerous issue in some cases. Low carb is very powerful, and we need to learn how to handle its power not just when sedentary, but also when under extreme physical stress.
"The only carbs I include in my diet nowadays oatmeal, fruits, vegetables, whole WHOLE grain bread, and legumes. God made them. God gave them to us. The forbidden fruit might be in the garden of Eden, but God surely has not forbidden it for us here on earth. We should enjoy them, moderately of course"
What an utterly flawed statement! God made tree bark and deadly nightshade, are we supposed to eat that too?
The FACT of the matter is that you CANNOT eat most starchy food raw, try eating a big bowl of raw wheat or rice if you don't believe me. These foods have to be cooked to be digested. And since we only began to cook as a species roughly 12,000 (a millisecond evolutionarily speaking) years ago then we are not 'designed' to eat these foods, we can due to our bodies amazing ability to keep us alive when nothing more nutritional is available.
Sorry if I come accross as dogmatic, but I feel strongly about the whole 'wholegrain swindle'. Enjoy your fruits and LC veggies (in moderation of course) but steer clear of the oats and wheat.
With all due respect to the other commnents left by Science4u and smaddy, I don't disagree, persay. Fat is a better fuel than carbs, yes this is true, when fat-burning adaptation has happened. However, Muscular hypertrophy while following a low-carb regimen, is outright difficult and near-impossible. No one can deny that one could gain muscle mass much quicker using Post-workout carbs combined with protein, than someone who avoids one or both.
As for Science4u, using an ethiopian endurance runner, isn't the best example of low-carb affects on LBM. Endurance runners have extremely low levels of muscle mass, especially in the upper body. I never said that low-carbing (once fat-adapted) reduced endurance or performance, (even though there is numerous studies which show that they do actually perform endurance, whether in ketosis or not). Muscles flatten out when glycogen is depleted in the muscles. Honestly, who wants this? Carb-cycling is not necessarily the same thing as carb-loading. Carb-cycling for muscle gains, is a practice used by NUMEROUS bodybuilders, and since our common goal between all of us low-carbers is to achieve better health and bodies, why not look at the people with the best bodies. Sure, the major body builders are mesomorphs, unlike us who are mostly endomorphs, but, I think there is validity in their practices. For maximum muscle gain in the quickest amount of time, carbs are needed (especially post-workout). Amino acids needs to get into the cells, and insulin does that. Unless anybody can prove hypertrophy and RESISTANCE training can be achieved and done better and more efficiently on a high-fat, low-carb diet, I suggest we stop the carb-bashing when it comes to fitness. No decent looking star athlete (underweight ethiopian distance runners aren't my ideal athlete aesthetically), goes by chronic low-carbing.
Hi kamran,
Here's an example of a recent study showing clear benefits. I think it provides you with most if not all of the data you were discussing. Danish researchers recently compared the anabolic and ergogenic effects of ingesting protein versus carbohydrate supplements before and after weight training.
They recruited young healthy men to participate in a 14-week, double-blind study. Elite athletes, those who engaged in resistance training in the past 6 months, vegetarians, and those who regularly used nutritional supplements (eg, creatine, protein drinks, ribose) in the past 3 months were excluded. Twenty-two subjects, most of whom were physically active on a recreational basis, entered the study.
Training was performed 3 times a week for the 14 weeks. The weight training program consisted of 3 to 4 sets of various leg exercises: inclined leg press, knee extension, and hamstring curls. Training was conducted in a periodized fashion, with maximum repetitions ranging between 4 and 15. Training loads were progressively increased throughout the study.
Along with good old-fashioned hard work, strategically-timed protein ingestion can boost muscle growth. On training days, the subjects received two sachets of either carbohydrate or protein supplements dissolved in 500 ml of water--one to be drunk immediately before training and another immediately after the last set of the training session. Each sachet of protein powder contained 25 g of protein (16.6 g of whey protein; 2.8 g of casein; 2.8 g of egg white protein; and 2.8 g of L-glutamine). Each sachet of carbohydrate powder contained 25 g of maltodextrin which supplied the same amount of calories as the protein supplement. Both supplements were stored in identical sachets and heavily flavored with vanilla to mask the identity of the respective supplements.
Pre and post-Workout protein boosts muscle growth: at the start of the study, no statistical difference between the groups was observed with regard to muscle fiber cross sectional area, vertical jump height, and isokinetic peak torque.
After 14 weeks of resistance training, only the protein group showed muscle fiber hypertrophy of the trained leg muscles. Type I and type II muscle fiber cross sectional area of the vastus lateralis increased by 18% and 26%, respectively, in the protein group, whereas no significant change occurred in the carbohydrate group.
The protein group gained 9% in squat jump height, whereas no significant change occurred in the carbohydrate group. The protein and carbohydrate groups increased in standing jump height by 10% and 7%, respectively.
Isometric and isokinetic eccentric and concentric peak torque at the slow velocities increased 11% to 20%, with no significant difference between the 2 groups. Peak torque during fast eccentric and fast concentric contractions remained unchanged in both groups.
There is a mind-boggling array of expensive and esoteric supplements available nowadays that are purported to enhance muscle growth and performance. Most of these have absolutely no supportive research behind them. Protein drinks are one of the oldest and most basic forms of supplementation, having been used by bodybuilders for several decades.
This study joins others in showing that, when taken before and after weight training, protein supplements can indeed enhance one's efforts in the gym.
For those who cannot tolerate any form of dairy protein, or for those who follow strict low-carb or Paleo-style diets, 1-2 teaspoons of Branched Chain Amino Acid (BCAA) powder before and after training is an excellent alternative to whey.
References:
Andersen LL, et al. The effect of resistance training combined with timed ingestion of protein on muscle fiber size and muscle strength. Metabolism, Feb, 2005; 54 (2): 151-156.
Hey Science4u
I'm well aware of that study.
I believe there should have been a 3rd group in the study; a group who consumed BOTH carbs and protein after resistance training. This group, without a single doubt, would have had greater hypertrophy than the protein only group. Of course, the protein only group would have more hypertrophy than the carb only group. Simply put, for muscular hypertrophy, you can't beat the combination of carbs AND protein as a post-workout meal. Protein works well after working out, but with carbs, you just amplify your muscle gains.
After intensive weight training, the body will use most of the protein ingested to replenish its glycogen stores (preferentially to hypertrophy). This is why you won't get that great of a muscle gain with protein only. Try it for yourself. I guarantee you better muscle gains when you ingest protein with some carbs. It's worked better for me than just plain protein, and I will stick by that no matter what. (Although I only add in the carbs during the weekend since I'm still doing the Anabolic Diet) Insulin sensitivity blows through the roof after weight lifting, and its the optimal time to get some carbs in, namely for two reasons: To shuttle the amino acids into the muscle via insulin, and secondly, to replenish the glycogen so the amino acids do not convert to glucose then to glycogen via gluconeogenesis.
There is no doubt that hypertrophy can happen on a low-carb regimen. But the added carbs, especially post-workout can boost hypertrophy gain and speed so much more.
Check this out in the British Journal of Sports Medicine, written by a very pro-lowcarber, Ansi Manninen.
http://bjsm.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/40/11/900?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&author1=manninen&andorexactfulltext=and&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&resourcetype=HWCIT
You might also want to visit the forums at
lowcarbmuscle.com
The problem with all these comments about carbs is we are talking about tests on those who are not Keto-adapted.
Personnaly I really stuggled with weight training recovery and progress when I started on low carb, but after a while my body adapted and I have made great progress eating close to zero carbs a day for around 2 years.
I have had a few hickups along the way. One was where I added to much protein to my diet and dropped the fat levels. I immeditely suffered problems with fatigue during training. I subsequently corrected this by bumping the fat back up to around 80% of calories and away I went.
All these comments about not being able to sprint when eating no carbs and such simply do not ring true.
I do intense weight training involving exercises like squats and deadlifts several times a week and I eat nothing but meat, cream, cheese and butter.
If you look back at past research it becomes obvious that people can and do function very well on ketogenic diets. Read up on steffanson, the inuit etc etc.
Some of you will probably also have heard of the "The Bear" who was a dancer for the band gratefull dead. He has been on a strictly carniverous diet for 47 years and clearly states then when dancing for several hours a day he had no problems with regard to fatigue.
I have heard so many quotes and studies related to low carb diets and descreased performace but if those quoting them actually switched to a ketogenic level diet and allowed adaption to occur they would see that their performance is just as good if not better than when on a "normal" diet. When I say ketogenic it must be very high fat - typically around 80% - or they will suffer problems such as rabbit starvation.
You cannot cut out all carbs and then try to eat live off of lean protein...
This is the kind of comment page I can get into!!! I have been wrestling with this issue ever since I started running seriously, and discovered that I felt "off" when I ran above my aerobic effort level -- I started experimenting with "normal" sports nutrition during running, and low carb otherwise, and found that it resulted in reliably improved performance. I am very intruiged by those who say you do not need "any" carbs during exercise, but I have not yet found it to be true for myself. I cannot "carb load" even if I wanted to, as all carbs, and grains in particular, are very aggravating for my digestive system. I can "only" tolerate sugar and fruit, and even then only in limited amounts, so I take these things only during exercise times, on an empty stomach. My usually low insulin levels seem to aid in getting a great benefit from this surge of sugar during exercise, and I appreciate the performance result (I ran 19:52 in my first 5k attempt, on a hilly course). It does seem to aid recovery as well. My personal experience is that the "type" of sugar is meaningless, be it sucrose or brown rice - anything that can be metabolized will do. Glucose is a powerful sports performance nutrient in my experience, and should be used for that purpose only. Perhaps it shouldn't be used at all, I am willing to try this in my next off-season. As is, my tempo runs or intervals absolutely suck when I am running off of "fat only".
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home