The effect of extreme carbo-loading
July 17 2013 by Dr. Andreas Eenfeldt
in Exercise
in Exercise 
59 Comments
Top Comments
All Comments
- Peggy HollowayAll of the people we cycle with on multi-day rides carbo-load like crazy. They really think that because they are biking 60+ miles a day they need lots of calories and that carbs are there best bet. They snack on cookies and gatorade all day and eat pancakes, muffins, etc. for breakfast and pasta or baked potatoes for dinner. My partner and I have to work hard to find low-carb, high-fat options for the main meals. Of course, we don't eat anything at the rest stops. I overheard a woman who was rinsing out her water bottle comment that the water tasted like Gatorade. I remarked that I didn't think I'd ever tasted Gatorade. She looked at me incredulously and asked "What do you drink." My answer "water." She continued to look dazed and confused.
It makes me dazed and confused to see how many of our fellow bikers are considerably overweight. - So you're saying he just gained weight because he gained weight?
- VincentNo i'm not saying he had gained weight because he gained weight. If you start with the premise of conservation of energy then when you ingest 3000 calories, all 3000 calories has to be accounted for since energy can't be created nor destroyed. In my view, when there is more energy from food ingested then is leaving the body in a x period of time the "excess calories" are going to be stored in the body as a form of chemical energy.
What does not make sense to me, is that some people appear to say that insuline causes the body to convert energy ingested through food into chemical energy stored in the body as adipose tissue. This would mean that if i consume 2000 calories while over a x period of time 3000 calories worth of energy are leaving my body my adipose tissue would still increase in size? And when insuline levels are low the amount of energy ingested does not matter because somehow all of that energy is leaving my body? This is a line of thought without empirical i'm not keen on accepting.
- VincentYes, I know energy is lost through urination in the form of glucose by diabetics. And I agree with your quote about the problem with oversimplification, that's also why I have a difficulty with the name of this post and for every subjects regarding human metabolism for that matter, heck for almost everything in life :) But my main point is that all the energy ingested must in some way be accounted for since energy can't be lost nor created? But if someone claims that he or she is consuming 4000 calories worth of energy and loses weight, those 4000 still has to go somewhere regardless if the subject is a steam engine or a human being. It all depends on the level of measurement and accuracy
About the role of insuline, this is a nice article to read http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=319.
Among other things he discusses the point that muscles cells don't need insuline to take up glucose from the blood. In the article you provided, the author states
"because high blood glucose is toxic, our muscles and liver are not already full of glycogen, and insulin will quickly force it into one of them, whereupon it will be stored as glycogen and used as needed."
So, the point being discussed in the a for mentioned article makes it seem that the above quote is a oversimplification?
Anyway, I'm just baffled by the fact that people constantly mistake correlation for causation and make claims that are totally unjustified or worse just flat out false, or at least an oversimplification:)
- FrankGFor many decades I DID accept that calories are all that matters so I have ALREADY challenged these axioms! You will need to come up with something new to convince m that my change of direction was wrong.
I am well aware of the BBC documentary and have offered it myself in comments, on many occasions.
Do you assume that folks here have not already discussed at length these basic ideas that you feel free to trot out yet again? Please read back over previous blog posts and comments.
Does the fact that J. Stanton did not write a 600 page textbook on the subject make his statement incorrect? You agree that insulin facilitates the access of glucose to cells and more does it to a greater degree. That insulin is not necessarily required for any access is a separate issue surely? Are you saying that every time insulin is mentioned we need to trot out EVERYTHING about it? What is being oversimplified?
- VincentThe problem with the internet is that there is just to much being said and to little time to digest is all. If of course you still want time to pursue the things in live that matter to you :) I agree that when someone on first glance looks likes he is full of bs then of course you can filter that out. What I would like to stipulate is that most people lack the knowledge when reading raw date to interpret that in a meaningful way, and i'm not a exception. I find statistics very hard to comprehend. And that comes back to what you said earlier, for most people things have to be simplified to such a degree that things become very distorted. And so many arguments in my experience with people go like this: Q "How do you know what you say is true?" A "Because everybody says it is" Q "Yes but how do you know they are right" A"Because they just are, that's just common sense".
- FrankGYou need to understand that I grew up in the UK during an era when black & white TV was just starting. When the BBC brought out an expert (in a white coat or otherwise) they really were a knowledgeable and trustworthy source.
Having read Gary Taubes' Good Calories Bad Calories (which too many misleadingly paraphrase as just saying carbs->Insulin->obesity) one of the biggest lessons for me is that: we can no longer trust just the opinion of "experts", no matter their qualifications. Objective evidence is what convinces me these days.
Now I agree that there is a certain amount of human nature that falls into traps and I accept that after a while of someone showing me that they are trustworthy, I am less skeptical of what they assert but if it doesn't make sense or ring true, then I will still of course question it... no matter the source.
After diagnosis with Type 2 Diabetes I had to learn how to read nutritional labels and in the same way I see it is a survival skill and have learned (still always learning) how to read primary source research material. By which I mean more than just even the author's own conclusion but their objective findings. Did they ask all the pertinent (and impertinent) questions? Are there other possible interpretations of the data that they either ignored or failed to consider?
I don't subscribe to the thinking that one needs to have a science degree to be a scientist, or to apply scientific reasoning. In fact it seems clear to me that some leave academia with minds already closed by what their mentor "knows" to be true.
One of my all time favourite quotes from Jacob Bronowski and one which I repeat often to my son at University is, "It is important that students bring a certain ragamuffin, barefoot irreverence to their studies; they are not here to worship what is known, but to question it."
What does not make sense to me, is that some people appear to say that insuline causes the body to convert energy ingested through food into chemical energy stored in the body as adipose tissue. This would mean that if i consume 2000 calories while over a x period of time 3000 calories worth of energy are leaving my body my adipose tissue would still increase in size?
Of course not. That's just silly.
If your insulin levels are abnormally high your body will tend to store fat though, meaning that it's going to be an uphill battle to get lean. Lower those insulin levels and if you're overweight you'll WANT to eat less calories than you burn.
- Ondrej
- RayI think Anthony should give up his blog. It isn't becoming, and he does a much better job when writing a book. In the context of a book, he drops all macho pretext and sticks to documented facts. I really dislike his online persona. It almost makes me wish I didn't buy his books (but they are pretty good).
- FrankGNone of what?
Does saying that "If your insulin levels are abnormally high your body will tend to store fat" make abnormally high levels of insulin a prerequisite for excess fat storage?
Here we go again.... ((yawn))
- ChristopherThank you father.
Your always loving son Commodus.Meditations, The Sixth Book: III.
- stenHere is one for you.
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Healthday/story?id=4507131&page=1
It specifically tied high insulin to success with low carb diet.The key reason for a low insulin profile is however that high insulin is very strongly tied to maximum risk of heart disease, the one thing most want to avoid by avoiding obesity.
Here link to a British very large study that found elevated fasting insulin being prime indicator of heart disease risk compared to all other standard markers like HLD, LDL, blood pressure, blood sugar, HbA1c etc. Over 3,000 women were tested and followed for some 10 years, so far.
http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pm...
Here another study summary relating high fasting insulin also to obesity.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12243850These subjects have been gone over and over so many times by now so please excuse those who write "here we go again". They forget that a majority of people are influenced by the mainstream old fat bashing ideas. Please take some time to study the links before a weighted reply!
- stenAssuming obesity is a cause of insulin resistance makes no sense to me. That is the other option to the strong association obesity - high fasting insulin. But please, try to find references proving that point and let us know what you came up with! Then read Gary Taubes books as I have no more time to comment just now!
Zepp's 2nd link is clear, at least for mice. A completely reversed relation for humans would be hard to think of with many other variables being similar in cause and effect.The key I think is that insulin is such a powerful agent in disease and obesity that if mainstream medicine accepted it as a cause of just obesity and started measuring it and then corrected it, the metabolic diseases as heart disease and obesity would reduce catastrophically, for the medical profession that is.
Please check the 3000+ study on UK women based on fasting insulin again. Maybe there is also a clue to weight gain in the results, knowing that women over 60 sometimes tend to increase a lot in weight. The insulin levels came first in the study. N.B..
- PaulAny comments Jennie on the interview with Prof. Tim Noakes ?
- stenFrank, you are spot on.
Carb-loading is as far from low carbing one can get.
We know that low carb is both weight reduction and improved and sustained health.
Nothing beats LCHF! - DaveThere are several problems with the caloric
input/output approach. The most significant
flaw is that some calories are not just
calories--they are metabolic signals or metabolic
activators that differ qualitatively from other
source of calories. If there is a pattern of high
carbohydrate diet, then glucagon responsiveness
in pancreas A cells is down-regulated
(making the high-carber prone to low blood
sugar and the need to snack every 3-4 hours)
and the ability to produce ketones is
down-regulated, among many other factors.I agree with the basic idea that all calories are not equal, but there are seemingly related issues I am not clear about.
I often eat what I think are considered high carbohydrate foods (sweet potatoes, lentils, oats, bananas) and do not "need to snack every 3-4 hours". How is that to be explained? If I eat walnuts, almonds, pistachios, or peanuts (especially after exercising) and get what I think might not be a sufficient amount of calories from those low carbohydrate foods, I will feel like eating more, or snacking. Are you sure you are not conflating all (unprocessed) high carbohydrate foods with wheat, rye, and barley which supposedly stimulate appetite?
For someone who is not keto-adapted with full
capacity to burn fat, they will need carbohydrates
to keep up the energy level, which means
snacking on carbs, which raises insulin, which
diminishes further the capacity to burn fat (while
insulin has been raised).I have not had problems burning fat or maintaining energy levels or with snacking incessantly while on a high carb diet -- with many of the carbs from wheat! I no longer eat wheat, but in general carbs (I do not eat processed foods) do not seem to have the negative effects on me that some people would have me believe they do. I suspect much, but not all, of the anti-carb hype comes from people who are fat and lazy (no offense to those who are; I have my own flaws) and/or subscribe to the "Paleo" ideology.
To be in fat-burning mode, isn't it important to avoid eating or drinking *anything* that has a sweet taste or carbs? Not difficult to do.
- PaulHi "Dave"
check term 'science' in your dictionaryspam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam
spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam - Paul"I doubt you are capable of it, "Paul"
Paul is my real name - and why are you insulting me?(which I don't mind). Are you a vegan with an extremely high IQ ?
- PaulOne last comment. 2 comments.
"For someone who is not keto-adapted with full
capacity to burn fat, they will need carbohydrates
to keep up the energy level, which means
snacking on carbs, which raises insulin, which
diminishes further the capacity to burn fat (while
insulin has been raised)."1) One does not need to be keto-adapted to utilize fatty acids for energy
2) you want me to "engage in a serious dialog" with someone who reasons this way ?. You kiddin' me?. Let me quote Richard Dawkins here: to have a dialog with you would be as if a reproductive biologist would have a dialog with staunch believer of Stork Truth of Babies Deliveries.
- Paul"You think it is an insult if someone uses your name?! Strange."
insult referred to this comment: "I doubt you are capable of it,"
not to using my name. Now, how someone with: "a relatively high IQ.", can not figure this out?(I know you are not a vegan, you indicated this several times on this blog before "Dave")
- Paul1) "I started posting here a few days ago" - thus your first post is No.42 on this page, yet you state in the comment No. 52: "...my posts have been on-topic..." using plural "my posts" - are you honest in all other aspects of life?, with exception of this blog?.
2) "I do not know how many people read this. I doubt few stick around very long considering all the unaddressed health concerns and what seems to be hollow bragging about how great this diet is." - so, why are you wasting your time here - do you want to "help us" to ruin our health by eating sugar again? - be one of those who does not stick around. Enjoy your rice and potatoes.
- PaulWe do not have good answers here Davej. We only feel good and look good.
Friend of mine pointed out to me a page on a vegan blog where they discuss in endless deliberations that fructose is a ketone - just a reminder, they confused ketone with ketose. With commentaries how bad ketones are, obviously.
I suggest you go to their site - I am sure they will have all the answers for you
- Robin WillcourtVincent's dilemma is equating energy "in" with energy "out," while true on the surface, the statement must be modified to say "energy IN that is in a usable form AND is actually able to be absorbed by the intestines must equal energy OUT for the body to remain at a constant weight."
The caloric content of food is calculated by using a bomb calorimeter that does not take into account which part of the food is actually usable: eg, gristle and many fibers are not. Thus, right from the get go we have an inbuilt error.
After that, not every calorie is equally available for storage. Glucose is efficiently snapped up and used/stored while fat and protein are not. Energy is also used in differing amounts based on whether it is a fat, sugar or amino acid to store and burn our basic nutrients. Thus, a calorie is NOT a calorie. Therefore, you will get fatter eating 500g of starch than you will 500g of broccoli or steak.
An acquaintance was a world-class mountain biker for his age group (around 40). He rode hard every day for hours at remarkably high heart rates and had done so for years. He carb-loaded, as typical. He did not gain weight, but he had a medical procedure and, after examining him, the physicians informed him he had one of the more advanced cases of atherosclerosis they had seen. He was in disbelief, as he had always exercised hard and been lean his entire life. He now reports that he has found out this is not uncommon among high-intensity endurance athletes. He was unsure whether to attribute it to the exercise intensity, the carb-loading or the combination of both.
It makes me dazed and confused to see how many of our fellow bikers are considerably overweight.