|
federicosuave
Feb 5, 2004, 1:29 PM
Post #126 of 417
(91163 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 1, 2003
Posts: 19
|
Quick question about pasta - The SciAm article above states that pasta is a high GI food, but other articles (e.g., this one from Running Planet) indicate that most pasta (expecting refined spaghetti) is relitively low on the GI scale.
My uneducated guess is that the SciAm authors were using the term pasta to mean refined spaghetti, which everyone seems to agree has a high GI. However, what about the other types of pasta, including angel hair, and whole-wheat pastas? Should these be avoided as well? I hope not - I love the taste of whole-grain pastas, and would hate to limit my intake of them!
http://images.google.com/...hole_Wheat_Pasta.jpg
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Feb 5, 2004, 4:51 PM
Post #127 of 417
(91163 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: Quick question about pasta - The SciAm article above states that pasta is a high GI food, but other articles (e.g., this one from Running Planet) indicate that most pasta (expecting refined spaghetti) is relitively low on the GI scale. My uneducated guess is that the SciAm authors were using the term pasta to mean refined spaghetti, which everyone seems to agree has a high GI. However, what about the other types of pasta, including angel hair, and whole-wheat pastas? Should these be avoided as well? I hope not - I love the taste of whole-grain pastas, and would hate to limit my intake of them! http://images.google.com/...hole_Wheat_Pasta.jpg
The article you cite answers the question: it depends on the type of pasta.
-Jay
|
|
|
|
|
kman
Feb 7, 2004, 8:50 PM
Post #128 of 417
(91163 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 16, 2001
Posts: 2561
|
2 weeks ago I cut out white bread, pasta and rice and started excersizing every other day. I also stopped eating junk food and only use a tiny bit of sugar in my coffee. When I go to the gym I hit the weights...low weight, lot of reps. Then after that I get on the elyptical trainer for about 35 minutes and keep my heart rate around 135ish. So far I have lost 3 pounds. I heard that by hitting the weights first it eats up the glycogen? reserves and when you do the cardio after it starts burning fat right away, and continues burning fat afterwards, and also prevents you from loosing muscle. Is this information accurate??? I want to loose fat, not muscle. Is there anything else I can do to speed up the fat burning or is this a good rate? Any info much appreciated.
|
|
|
|
|
roughster
Feb 7, 2004, 9:13 PM
Post #129 of 417
(91163 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2002
Posts: 4003
|
In reply to: 2 weeks ago I cut out white bread, pasta and rice and started excersizing every other day. I also stopped eating junk food and only use a tiny bit of sugar in my coffee. When I go to the gym I hit the weights...low weight, lot of reps. Then after that I get on the elyptical trainer for about 35 minutes and keep my heart rate around 135ish. So far I have lost 3 pounds. I heard that by hitting the weights first it eats up the glycogen? reserves and when you do the cardio after it starts burning fat right away, and continues burning fat afterwards, and also prevents you from loosing muscle. Is this information accurate??? I want to loose fat, not muscle. Is there anything else I can do to speed up the fat burning or is this a good rate? Any info much appreciated.
Both lifting weights (especially when doing low weight/high reps) and Overall Cardio will burn your glycogen storage in your muscles. The reason why people lift 1st is lifting generally takes a little more mental focus than over all cardio. Also you will have a better ability to specifically focus on isolated movements of lifting if your body is not "over all" tired from cardio. I don't really think there is that much benefit to lifting 1st. If anything it provides a warmup and gets the blood flowing, but no added glycogen reserve is being burnt.
It sounds like you have a sensible plan and I bet your 3lbs/2 weeks will dramatically increase as your bodies metabolism catches up to the new routine and starts responding. The key is to balance your intake. When your working out hard and on a regular basis your hungry can reach "epic" proportions. Most likely with a new routine, your food intake will go up to help fuel the work outs. The key is balancing the intake with the right foods (more protein and water since most people do not get enough of either) and limiting the intake to a point where you are still in a calorie deficeit.
I have been working on loosing "weight" while maintaining my cardio. Right now my cardio is awesome but my hunger that goes a long with doing long endurance workouts is out of control. If your working out hard, you can defeat yourself (from a weight loss prospective) if your calorie intake matches your output.
Anyways, good luck and like I said earlier, it sounds like you have a good plan. If it is working for you, by all means stick to it! Half of the battle is just getting your ass off the couch, and it looks like you have that one beat!
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Feb 9, 2004, 5:09 PM
Post #130 of 417
(91163 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: 2 weeks ago I cut out white bread, pasta and rice and started excersizing every other day. I also stopped eating junk food and only use a tiny bit of sugar in my coffee. When I go to the gym I hit the weights...low weight, lot of reps. Then after that I get on the elyptical trainer for about 35 minutes and keep my heart rate around 135ish. So far I have lost 3 pounds. I heard that by hitting the weights first it eats up the glycogen? reserves and when you do the cardio after it starts burning fat right away, and continues burning fat afterwards, and also prevents you from loosing muscle. Is this information accurate??? I want to loose fat, not muscle. Is there anything else I can do to speed up the fat burning or is this a good rate? Any info much appreciated.
I think your question is pretty well covered in my initial post to this thread. If you want to maintain muscle mass while dieting, maintain a high intake of high-quality carbohydrates, and reduce calories by reducing fat intake. Low-carbohydrate diets are not sensible for athletes.
-Jay
|
|
|
|
|
ricardol
Feb 9, 2004, 6:06 PM
Post #131 of 417
(91163 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 11, 2002
Posts: 1050
|
Well i think i may have something to share .. since i just lost a bit of weight and it has definately improved my climbing ..
I went from 170+ lbs .. to 152lbs .. i about 2 weeks .. at the beggning of january .. and have kept the weight at about 154 plus or minus 2 lbs ..
.. what worked for me -- getting dumped .. yup for 2 weeks after getting dumped i could not eat anything (felt queezy) .. so i ate about 1/2 a meal per day .. i was hungry all the time -- it sucked..
.. now that i have my appetite back -- i've managed to keep the weight from coming back by doing the following ..
1 - cut out most fried food
2 - cut out hamburgers
3 - cut out all burritos
4 - cut out pizza
5 - cut down my portions of food to about 2/3 rds of the previous size
6 - cut out snacking at work (junk food)
7 - halved the # of soda's i consume
8 - hit the gym 2 or 3 times a week ..
i am eating more of the following
1 - soup
2 - sandwiches
3 - sushi
4 - tacos
i bet most people could loose weight at a decent rate (not the massive starvation diet i went on) .. by just cutting out some of the foods they eat .. cutting portions down.. and eating more of stuff that is better for them.
.. i think i lucked out and didn't loose much muscle mass during my weight loss -- since i find that i'm pulling harder now at the gym that before .. i finally led my first 5.11a .. and outdoors i'm leading harder stuff .. (though really you could argue that these improvements were more about mental state than physical ability)
-- ricardo
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Feb 9, 2004, 6:54 PM
Post #132 of 417
(91163 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: Well i think i may have something to share .. since i just lost a bit of weight and it has definately improved my climbing .. I went from 170+ lbs .. to 152lbs .. i about 2 weeks .. at the beggning of january .. and have kept the weight at about 154 plus or minus 2 lbs .. .. what worked for me -- getting dumped .. yup for 2 weeks after getting dumped i could not eat anything (felt queezy) .. so i ate about 1/2 a meal per day .. i was hungry all the time -- it sucked.. .. i think i lucked out and didn't loose much muscle mass during my weight loss -- ricardo
If you really did lose 18 lb in two weeks by nearly fasting, then you indeed did lose a lot of muscle mass. It is unavoidable.
-Jay
|
|
|
|
|
jayteefiveseven
Feb 9, 2004, 7:35 PM
Post #133 of 417
(91163 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 25, 2004
Posts: 52
|
aaa
|
|
|
|
|
roc_klimber
Feb 9, 2004, 7:59 PM
Post #134 of 417
(91163 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 9, 2002
Posts: 87
|
SWIM
|
|
|
|
|
winter
Feb 10, 2004, 8:28 PM
Post #135 of 417
(91163 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 9, 2003
Posts: 2961
|
Hey Roughster, I have the same hunger problem. Since I started an intense endurance training routine I am hungry 24-7 feel like I can't get enough. Problem is, I am getting uber strong, but not uber lean.
Can anyone recomend good fill you up foods?? I find that a high protein meal makes me hungry soon after. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
valeberga
Feb 10, 2004, 8:56 PM
Post #136 of 417
(91163 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 2, 2003
Posts: 434
|
In reply to: Interesting. My physician suggested that I follow a diet where I get 50% of my calories from fat (nuts, flaxseed oil etc), 30% protein and 20% carb. Not only have I lost excess poundage (not too much, I am 5'3" and weigh 108 pounds), I have put on lots of muscle and I am never ever hungry. The fat in my diet makes me feel full all the time; I often have to remind myself to eat.
So I am a biochemist and not a nutritionologist, but your diet does make sense. Of course the disclaimer is, any diet that reduces caloric intake is a good start. But anyway, the ingestion of fats does normally induce the production of satiety hormones. This is the physiological explanation for why eating desert before dinner ruins your dinner, as the saying goes.
Another thought, if your diet is primarily fat calories, common sense says that your metabolism should become accustomed to metabolizing fats as a primary energy source. So if you couple that with caloric debt, your body may go looking for fat in all the right places..
Another theory could be that your metabolism is not very efficient at metabolizing fats, and a good deal of it is just excreted (the brown-colored way) regardless of caloric debt. This combined with the appetite-suppressing effects of fats may be the reason for this diet's particular effectiveness.
|
|
|
|
|
pushsendnorcal
Feb 12, 2004, 10:33 PM
Post #137 of 417
(91163 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 15, 2003
Posts: 207
|
I have a couple of questions reguarding the diet that is
50% fat
30% protein
20% carbs
1) Does it have a calorie limit or minimum
2) What are the particular rules(no refrined flour/sugar etc. . . )
thanks
Oh yeah for all the Atkins lovers-
After Dr. Atkins died from an incident involving a fall then slipping into a coma, medical examiners found that was 30pounds overweight. Very interesting. There is a full article somewhere on the net
|
|
|
|
|
piedradura
Feb 12, 2004, 11:48 PM
Post #138 of 417
(91163 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 16, 2004
Posts: 64
|
Thanks for the info! :lol: 8)
|
|
|
|
|
rocknut1
Mar 17, 2004, 5:12 PM
Post #139 of 417
(91163 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 17, 2003
Posts: 99
|
This will work 100% of the time, its easy, but most people who try it lack the will power to stick with it.
DO MORE, Be Active. Do this once daily
Eat well balanced meals, but eat less. Do this four times daily.
Do not eat after 6:oopm
Repeat tommorow.
No Doctor Phil, No Atkins, no books, no AB-sizer
Turn off the TV and get off the couch.
Easy
|
|
|
|
|
pushsendnorcal
Mar 18, 2004, 3:22 AM
Post #140 of 417
(91163 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 15, 2003
Posts: 207
|
Wow you must be really smart. Come on guys who needs an education in nutrition when we have rocknut's plan. The worlds weight problem can finally end. Only if you exclude beta and alpha receptor ratio, rate of metabolism and the percentage of brown fat in one's body just to name a few of the factors in weight gain or loss
If you have something that works for you great but don't pretend you have the answer to a multi-dimension issue with a simple be active and eat good. Its the same if David G. were to say the answer to climbing 100+ V12s 5.14s is just to climb.
Whatever
|
|
|
|
|
drrock
Mar 18, 2004, 3:30 AM
Post #141 of 417
(91163 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 18, 2003
Posts: 610
|
edit
|
|
|
|
|
drunkencabanaboy
Mar 18, 2004, 3:42 AM
Post #142 of 417
(91163 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 10, 2004
Posts: 153
|
I would have paid someone for this thread... this info is priceless.
|
|
|
|
|
roughster
Mar 18, 2004, 3:54 AM
Post #143 of 417
(91163 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2002
Posts: 4003
|
In reply to: Hey Roughster, I have the same hunger problem. Since I started an intense endurance training routine I am hungry 24-7 feel like I can't get enough. Problem is, I am getting uber strong, but not uber lean. Can anyone recomend good fill you up foods?? I find that a high protein meal makes me hungry soon after. Thanks. |
|
|
|
|
james_climber
Mar 18, 2004, 4:08 AM
Post #144 of 417
(91163 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 11, 2004
Posts: 304
|
i would like to lose weight but i cant :D then i chose climb more and think less , i heard about guys became anorexic just take care , climber
later esos
|
|
|
|
|
meataxe
Mar 26, 2004, 1:25 AM
Post #145 of 417
(91163 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 23, 2002
Posts: 1162
|
This is an interesting thread. I think I've dropped a few pounds since reading it, since I started analysing more of what I eat. (My body fat is definately down.)
Sorry jt, I didn't take a "before" picture for my testimonial.
Here's a good site, if you want to add up all the nutritional values. I've used it to discover what I've been doing right. I did find that my protein intake was actually a little on the low side (and fat just a little high).
http://nat.crgq.com/
The other thing I've started taking notice of is the glycemic index (although not in an Atkins' low-carb sort of way) I've always been a high-carb guy since the days I used to race mountain bikes.
The main benefit I see in low-GI foods is that you don't get hungry as easily. This is a good thing now that I don't burn nearly as many calories. I've read a few articles and some studies have found that people eating low-GI carbs eat as much as 25% fewer calories without specifically trying to reduce intake. Other studies have linked high-GI foods with serious health problems including diabetes.
|
|
|
|
|
federicosuave
Mar 26, 2004, 1:55 AM
Post #146 of 417
(91163 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 1, 2003
Posts: 19
|
In reply to: Does anyone have any thoughts on the practice of food combining? (e.g., Shelton, 1982) Basically, the theory is that protiens, acid fruits, and starches all require diferent gastric secretions to be properly digested, and should therefore not be combined at the same meal. For example, protiens require an acidic solution, and starches require an alkiline solution in order to be properly digested. Thus, combining the two retards the digestion of both. In fact, according to this theory, combining the two results in partially digested food that gets caught in the intestinal walls, which can become a breeding ground for bacteria, causing "allergies" and illness.
It's a bunch of nonsense.
In reply to: Furthermore, Horst (2002) recommends a 4:1 ratio of carbohydrates to protiens...
If there an optimal carbohydrate to protein ratio exists, it has yet to be discovered.
In reply to: ...saying that the carbs are necessary for proper digestion of the protiens.
Carbohydrate is not necessary for the digestion of protein. The ratio of carbohydrate to protein consumed post-exercise affects the proportion of the amino acids that are taken by muscle cells. So, for your post-exercise meal or snack you should consume a combination protein and carbohydrate, such as a non-Atkins energy bar.
In reply to: Has anyone tried food combining?
Yes.
In reply to: Is there any scientific literature that speaks to the benefits or detriments of such an approach?
There is little direct benefit or detriment. Basically, it's a silly "theory," based on an incorrect understanding of digestion.
There may be an indirect effect that could be a benefit or a detriment, depending on whether or not you want to lose weight. Food combining (which would more accurately be called "food segregating") results in limiting the number of foods you eat at any one meal. Research has shown that limiting the diversity of foods at a meal leads to lower consumption of calories. So, following the so-called principles of so-called food combining may have the unintended affect of promoting weight loss.
-Jay
|
|
|
|
|
meataxe
Mar 26, 2004, 2:41 PM
Post #147 of 417
(91163 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 23, 2002
Posts: 1162
|
I remember lots of people going on about this in the late 80's. I wouldn't do it because I like the combo of a good meal.
My take on it is that while "protiens, acid fruits, and starches all require diferent gastric secretions to be properly digested" may be true, I'm not so sure the any proof that they "should therefore not be combined at the same meal". It would have to be shown that if your stomach produces all those juices at once, it is harmful and why. (Granted, I haven't read the book.)
This diet idea never seemed to go very far... maybe subsequent research didn't back it up, or maybe it was too difficult to put into practice.
The other one I heard about the same time was the idea of "layering" ie. eating protiens first (or maybe it was carbs first) and so on. That's how I used to eat when I was a little kid. (Mashed potatoes first!) :)
|
|
|
|
|
liv2boulder
Apr 3, 2004, 2:17 AM
Post #148 of 417
(91163 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2004
Posts: 1
|
Thanks for the awesome info. I have found it very useful. I was just wondering how to determine a healthy balance of strenght to weight ratio. I want to set a realistic and healthy goal. Thanks.
jen
|
|
|
|
|
federicosuave
Apr 3, 2004, 4:24 PM
Post #149 of 417
(91163 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 1, 2003
Posts: 19
|
Thanks for the info, Jay (even though I think you edited my post, rather than quoting it :)). After a literature search, I basicallly came to the smae conclusion that you posted -- that there is no scientific evidence that such a diet improves digestion or nutrient absorption. However, I was a bit surprised that I could not find any controlled studies that directly compared the health effects of a balanced vs dissociated diet. The closest that I found was Golay et al. (2000), which found that there was no significant difference in weight loss between subjects on a balanced diet and subjects on the dissociated diet (where caloric intake and substrate composition were kept constant in both diets). Do you know of any other literature?
Reference
Golay A, Allaz AF, Ybarra J, Bianchi P, Saraiva S, Mensi N, Gomis R, de Tonnac N. (2000). Similar weight loss with low-energy food combining or balanced diets. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 24(4):492-6.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Apr 4, 2004, 1:24 AM
Post #150 of 417
(91163 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: Thanks for the info, Jay (even though I think you edited my post, rather than quoting it :)).
Did I? Sorry! The edit and the quote button are right next to each other, and I must have accidentally clicked on the edit button. Sorry, again.
In reply to: After a literature search, I basicallly came to the smae conclusion that you posted -- that there is no scientific evidence that such a diet improves digestion or nutrient absorption. However, I was a bit surprised that I could not find any controlled studies that directly compared the health effects of a balanced vs dissociated diet. The closest that I found was Golay et al. (2000), which found that there was no significant difference in weight loss between subjects on a balanced diet and subjects on the dissociated diet (where caloric intake and substrate composition were kept constant in both diets). Do you know of any other literature?
No. I doubt that food combining has ever been scientifically studied, since there is no reason to hypothesize that it would accomplish anything. The ideas that it is based on are in blatant violation of high school level biology.
-Jay
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
