PDA

View Full Version : Research conflicts with reality?


John Schneider
07-21-2008, 05:24 AM
I'm currently working on my M.S. in Exercise Science and I'm enrolled in an "Advanced" Nutrition class this 5 weeks. Last week's assignment was focussed on Carbs. Everyone concluded from the research that active individuals should be taking between 60-75% of their caloric requirements from CHO.:eek:

The thing was that the research I came across did not support a CHO restrictive diet like the Zone, but my athlete who has been following it religiously for 9 months now (keeping highly detailed logs) and dialing it in a little with increased fat and starting to save his CHO blocks for post workout as recommended here at the PM. He doesn't show any signs of having trouble recovering muscle glycogen and his performance only continues to improve.

The question is, how do you resolve when research doesn't match up with what you are observing in real life? Right now I'm just assuming that the studies are executing things in a poor manner. Below is the questions and my responses for the assignment:

1) Based on the recommendations in the literature how many grams/kg AND total grams of CHOís should your active individual ingest each day? Make sure you include the weight of the individual as well as the typical amount of exercise (intensity, duration and mode) that the individual is engaged in each day.

2) Again based on the literature how would you suggest that the above individual obtain the CHOís- liquid vs solid, simple CHO vs complex CHO (or both) and meals/snacks/ingestion during exercise. Be as specific as possible. The idea at the end of the course is to be able to look at your answers and have a good idea what the active athlete should be ingesting in the way of macro nutrients.

3) An active individual (average of 10 hours of exercise each week- combo of aerobic and resistance training) asks you to explain to them why a low CHO diet is probably not the best way for them to eat- how do you respond?

John Schneider 20 Jul 08 9:02 PM MST

1. My athlete, Chad, is preparing for basic training in the Marine Corps. He weighs 70kg and trains six days a week. 4days/ wk he does some type of metcon with a perceived exertion of about 80% normally and twice a week he is lifting heavy either with power lifting movements or the Olympic Lifts and their variations at an intensity between 75 and 95% 1RM. Each training session lasts for approximately an hour. According to the reading, he should be taking 5-7g of CHO for every kg of body weight which would put him between 350-490 grams of carbohydrates/ day.

2. During exercise, the source of the CHO as solid or liquid makes little difference in the short term(1). I prefer liquid because there is no chewing involved. If he were doing longer bouts, Iíd recommend solid CHO sources because solid CHO feedings For post workout, I recommend high glycemic index foods over low glycemic index foods because they aid in the recovery of muscle glycogen faster.(3)

3. Iíd explain that low CHO diets donít provide enough CHO to replenish muscle glycogen for an active individual and that their performance would diminish (4) Low CHO diets might be good for sedentary individuals only concerned with fat loss, but for an active individual interested in performance, they need an adequate amount of CHO.

(1) MASON, W. LEE; McCONELL, GLENN; HARGREAVES, MARK; Carbohydrate ingestion during exercise: liquid vs solid feedings; Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise. 25(8) 966-969; August 1993

(2) HARGREAVES, M., D.L. COSTILL, A. COGGAN, W.J. FINK, and I. NISHIBATA. Effect of carbohydrate feedings on muscle glycogen utilization and exercise performance. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc., Vol. 16, No. 3, pp. 219-222, 1984

(3) L. M. Burke, G. R. Collier and M. Hargreaves; Muscle glycogen storage after prolonged exercise: effect of the glycemic index of carbohydrate feedings; Journal of Applied Physiology, Vol 75, Issue 2 1019-1023, 1993

(4) Langfort, J., Zarzeczny R., Pilis, W., Nazar K., Kaciuba-Uscitko H.; The effect of a low-carbohydrate diet on performance, hormonal and metabolic responses to a 30-s bout of supramaximal exercise; Journal European Journal of Applied Physiology, Volume 76, Number 2 128-133; July, 1997

Sub-note: What do you do when the research you find doesn't match with what you are observing in real life? Chad is actually following the Zone diet strictly with some tweaks like taking in more fat and saving some of his CHO servings for post workout(I've gone through his nutrition logs)and has been for 9 months now. His performance has only improved and he feels great. Many other CrossFit affiliates observe the same results. I did the assignment as it was called for because I understand that personal testimony has no place in academia, but what I've read here doesn't match with what I'm seeing?

Robb Wolf
07-21-2008, 01:56 PM
Folks never allow for adaptation:
http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/1/1/2

this is a fantastic article...one will NEVER do glycolytic work without glycogen but everything else runs fine on ketones and lipids.

Need a health related answer? Look to evolutionary biology.

Liam Dougherty Springer
07-21-2008, 06:21 PM
Robb awsome article. Especialy liked the information on mineral intake.

One thing bothers me it stated that a protien intake of less than 1.2 g per pound LBM would result in a nitrogen defficiancy and loss of muscle mass. I haven't found that to be true Paleo/Zone/IF.

Is it due to the IF or is Zone sufficiant carb intake to counter the muscle loss?

Sorry for highjacking this thread but it is highly related and may be interesting?

I also during periods of lower activity will reduce my blocks especialy my carbs and keep fat high but not as high. For instance normaly I am at 173-175 10% BF or more I eat 18 bocks 9 blocks carb PWO 4-5x fat blocks. My diet on some rest days or durring periods of lower activity 14 -16 blocks protein 4 block zone less fat whey protein berries and fruit and or coconut water and fish oil PWO and around 6 carb blocks rest of day in form of VLC veggies and one apple in the first meal of the day. with 2-3x fat bocks. I average about 16 hour fast window/ day.

I weigh 166# right now and at about 9% BF or less. I am nursing a injury for the past 6 weeks and have been on the second eating schedual. I have lost about 6 lbs some of this was definately fat. I figured the muscle loss was due to not lifting or WODing like I had been thus less need for muscle. I have deffinatly gained some muscle in the prosterior chane which is the area I have been rehabing.

Is my eating less a bad idea?
Is the muscle loss abnormal or unnescessary?
I thought I would just gain the muscle back quickly once I was useing it again, am I wrong?

I know this is alot of questions thanx to any one who takes the time to anwer.
Any suggestions?

Mike ODonnell
07-21-2008, 07:35 PM
One thing bothers me it stated that a protien intake of less than 1.2 g per pound LBM would result in a nitrogen defficiancy and loss of muscle mass. I haven't found that to be true Paleo/Zone/IF.

That was in KG....not LBS.

The effects of reducing daily protein intake to below 1.2 g/kg reference weight during a ketogenic diet include progressive loss of functional lean tissue and thus loss of physical performance,

Liam Dougherty Springer
07-21-2008, 09:07 PM
I was reading a book and it dawned on me that may be the case oops:o

Well I feel better. Guess I should pay more attention before I get all worked up.

Silly metric system counting everything in easy to figure multiples of 100. Why don't they just switch to our system pounds, ounces, and.... :confused: GRAMS? Wait how'd that get there?:rolleyes:

Thanx MOD.

John Schneider
07-23-2008, 06:58 AM
Robb, thanks for the link. I get frustrated when we get fed stuff that I can plainly see is wrong. It's too bad we can't introduce anything other than peer reviewed scientific journals, otherwise I'd just feed them PM articles.

Liam Dougherty Springer
07-24-2008, 09:50 PM
Robb, thanks for the link. I get frustrated when we get fed stuff that I can plainly see is wrong. It's too bad we can't introduce anything other than peer reviewed scientific journals, otherwise I'd just feed them PM articles.

Man its crazy how a feild of "reserch" can be so willing to limit there ability to take "new", alternative and quite possibly revolutionary theories imto consideration. I mean it would be one thing if the low carb promoters were acting on some sort of yoga meditation induced:p psycic revalation... there is well documented clinical, cultural, and scientific controled studies backing the theory. what more could you ask for to legitamize the diets effect.

....I just don't get it?!

Steven Low
07-25-2008, 06:28 PM
Last time I checked most of these processes are reversible. Simple biochemistry... which apparently most of the people who run these studies don't know. Yes, glycogen can be manufactured from lipids, amino acids and nucleic acids... not just carbs. Who would've thought?

(aka pretty much what Robb said)

As I recall, if it were not for gluconeogenesis (manufacturing of glucose of the liver through carbs/lipids/amino acid/nucleic acid metabolism) our brains wouldn't work.... fortunately, we don't need those now do we?

http://www.health-science-spirit.com/HF5-2.gif

Dave Van Skike
07-25-2008, 08:08 PM
http://www.health-science-spirit.com/HF5-2.gif

that clears it up.

Mike ODonnell
07-25-2008, 08:25 PM
Probably would of been easier to say:
- there are essential amino acids (proteins)
- there are essential fatty acids
- there are NO essential sugars.....as in the body needs them from outside sources....as it can make it's own internally....

http://www.health-science-spirit.com/HF5-2.gif

Steven Low
07-25-2008, 08:38 PM
Probably would of been easier to say:
- there are essential amino acids (proteins)
- there are essential fatty acids
- there are NO essential sugars.....as in the body needs them from outside sources....as it can make it's own internally....
Nah, that picture is awesome.. well, maybe just to Robb and I.... or maybe just ot me. :(

Mike ODonnell
07-25-2008, 08:40 PM
Nah, that picture is awesome.. well, maybe just to Robb and I.... or maybe just ot me. :(

Your hogging Greg's Bandwidth.....may cost him another $10/month in hosting charges....

Steven Low
07-25-2008, 09:19 PM
Your hogging Greg's Bandwidth.....may cost him another $10/month in hosting charges....
No, all images are hotlinked.. he's not paying anything. :) Although the site hosting that may get angry (health-science-spirit.com)....

There's really no way to uplaod anything to rape his bandwidth other than avatars which aren't really high quality pictures anyway and won't take up much bandwidth. Text based posting isn't that much either! So ha!

Dave Van Skike
07-25-2008, 09:52 PM
You know that Doors song, The End (http://youtube.com/watch?v=dbI5K0AzNHI)...that's an awesome song.

John Schneider
08-07-2008, 09:14 PM
Here's some more from my class that I thought you guys would be amused by. This week we touched on fat then tried to combine the recommendations for all the macronutrients and the results were all jacked up. See below.

1) Based on peer reviewed literature what is the maximum fat intake recommended for your active individual (express as total grams). Make sure you show how you calculated the recommendation- weight of individual, type of activity, age, etc.
Fat should make up 20-35% of energy consumption.(1) Since my athlete is on a 2100Calorie/day diet (based on the PRO recommendations and his goal to gain weight), he should take in between 46g ((2100x20%)/9) and 81g ((2100x35%)/9) of fat per day.

2) For your active individual summarize in an easy to view format the following:
a) Age, weight, gender and activity level of the individual
24yrs old, 155lbs, Male, High activity level
b) Grams and Calories of CHO recommended for the individual
350-490g/day 1400-1960Calories/day
c) Grams and Calories of Protein recommended for the individual
57-183g/day 228-732Calories/day
e) Grams and Calories of Fat (lipids) recommended for the individual
46-81g 414-729Calories/day
f) Total Caloric intake for the individual (based on the grams recommended from b-e above).
Between 2042-3421Calories/ day would be the recommendation according to the simple addition of these components. However, my athlete is gaining weight on a 2100 Calorie diet. The problem here is that the recommendations for the CHO donít match up with the rest of the requirements. The minimum value recommended for CHO was 5-7g/ kg while the minimum recommendation for Protein was only .8g/kg. The minimum recommendation for PRO is supposed to represent just short of a 15% Macronutrient distribution. If .8x70=56=15% then the total caloric intake should be 56x4=224 which divided by .15= a 1493Calorie diet. The minimum recommendation for the CHO provides 1400Calories by itself which would be a 94% which leaves little room for PRO and Fat. My athlete keeps a detailed food log and was holding steady in weight at 1550-1700 Calories/day. Clearly there is something wrong with these recommendations.
(1) Melinda M. Manore, Nutrition and Physical Activity: Fueling the Active Individual, Presidentís Council on Physical Fitness and Sports Series 5 No.4 March 2004

If I'm missing something here, please let me know before I post my response and anger my teacher and insight all the students who can't critique what they read into a rage.

Mike ODonnell
08-07-2008, 10:59 PM
The fear of fat is stupid and a complete lie
http://www.fitnessspotlight.net/2008/08/07/fatsthe-real-story-and-why-you-need-them/

That and train any athlete on a low(er) carb diet....and then carb load him for an event.....so he is used to fat as fuel and uses carbs only for "turbo boost"...will crush any other athletes eating carbs all day long....and those are the ones that eventually "bonk" and need gatorade.....

Trygve Lunde
08-08-2008, 05:31 AM
i agree. but when you have to deliver almost every day, how should it be then? Like Sunday, Wednstay, Thursday and Friday i have to be 100% specially on Sunday. Should i then do low(er) carb on Sunday, Monday and Friday? and high carb the other days?


The fear of fat is stupid and a complete lie
http://www.fitnessspotlight.net/2008/08/07/fatsthe-real-story-and-why-you-need-them/

That and train any athlete on a low(er) carb diet....and then carb load him for an event.....so he is used to fat as fuel and uses carbs only for "turbo boost"...will crush any other athletes eating carbs all day long....and those are the ones that eventually "bonk" and need gatorade.....

Darryl Shaw
08-08-2008, 05:35 AM
Here's some more from my class that I thought you guys would be amused by. This week we touched on fat then tried to combine the recommendations for all the macronutrients and the results were all jacked up. See below.

1
Fat should make up 20-35% of energy consumption.(1) Since my athlete is on a 2100Calorie/day diet (based on the PRO recommendations and his goal to gain weight), he should take in between 46g ((2100x20%)/9) and 81g ((2100x35%)/9) of fat per day.


24yrs old, 155lbs, Male, High activity level

350-490g/day 1400-1960Calories/day
57-183g/day 228-732Calories/day

46-81g 414-729Calories/day

Between 2042-3421Calories/ day would be the recommendation according to the simple addition of these components. However, my athlete is gaining weight on a 2100 Calorie diet. The problem here is that the recommendations for the CHO donít match up with the rest of the requirements. The minimum value recommended for CHO was 5-7g/ kg while the minimum recommendation for Protein was only .8g/kg. The minimum recommendation for PRO is supposed to represent just short of a 15% Macronutrient distribution. If .8x70=56=15% then the total caloric intake should be 56x4=224 which divided by .15= a 1493Calorie diet. The minimum recommendation for the CHO provides 1400Calories by itself which would be a 94% which leaves little room for PRO and Fat. My athlete keeps a detailed food log and was holding steady in weight at 1550-1700 Calories/day. Clearly there is something wrong with these recommendations.
(1) Melinda M. Manore, Nutrition and Physical Activity: Fueling the Active Individual, Presidentís Council on Physical Fitness and Sports Series 5 No.4 March 2004

If I'm missing something here, please let me know before I post my response and anger my teacher and insight all the students who can't critique what they read into a rage.

Your math looks fine apart from the bit about 1400kcal of CHO being 94% of 2100kcals (it's 66.67%) so the most obvious explanation for the discrepancy between predicted calorie requirements and claimed calorie intake is your athlete is leaving a few things out of his food log.

John Schneider
08-08-2008, 06:28 AM
Your math looks fine apart from the bit about 1400kcal of CHO being 94% of 2100kcals (it's 66.67%) so the most obvious explanation for the discrepancy between predicted calorie requirements and claimed calorie intake is your athlete is leaving a few things out of his food log.

No, the 1400kcal of CHO is compared to the minimum of Calories recommended for day based on the suggestion that .8g/kg of PRO is adequate for 15%.

Trust me, I've seen this kid eat. He is meticulous. He doesn't really eat anywhere near that many carbs. He is almost following a 40/30/30 but instead of CHO/PRO/FAT it is more like FAT/PRO/CHO. He has a very low BF% (sub 10% at least) and has only performed better since he raised his fat content.

I really think the recommendations from the mainstream are broken.

Darryl Shaw
08-09-2008, 04:19 AM
Trust me, I've seen this kid eat. He is meticulous. He doesn't really eat anywhere near that many carbs. He is almost following a 40/30/30 but instead of CHO/PRO/FAT it is more like FAT/PRO/CHO. He has a very low BF% (sub 10% at least) and has only performed better since he raised his fat content.

I really think the recommendations from the mainstream are broken.

Before accepting your athletes food log as fact it's worth considering that his BMR is going to be around 1753 kcals/day so if he's doing anything more demanding than scratching his ass he'd be losing weight if he really was eating 1550-1700kcals/day.

John Schneider
08-11-2008, 05:48 AM
I just watched the Robb Wolf video from CrossFit yesterday where he is talking about activity level and your requirements. I think that may have been where I went wrong.

Jarod Barker
08-12-2008, 12:27 PM
John,

I think your athlete sits around all day reading performance menu articles and stalking the forum. Though I have heard he eats pretty well, he's a vegan right?

John Schneider
08-13-2008, 06:09 AM
Haha. Well I guess there are worse things he could be reading. And if you were a vegan, I'd mock you relentlessly until you saw the light. Either that or force feed you beef gravy.

Jarod Barker
08-13-2008, 01:37 PM
As much as I love the idea of eating mass quantities of soy and seitan to stay on the zone, I'm afraid it'll never happen. I like my food to suffer before I eat it.

Back on topic though, it has always been a belief of mine that research all too often simply reinforces the status quo. Scientists, doctors, researchers, etc are afraid of losing credibility by challenging accepted beliefs, and so their research is therefore biased and typically aimed at further proving previously determined "facts." This is why I love the studies where they're testing something and inadvertently find something else.

According to all the books I have and all the men's health, men's fitness, men's whatever articles I've collected over the years, we should all be eating high carb and low fat diets. This is simply not true. I've done high carb diets. I've done 3,500 calories a day with pastas, breads, and sports drinks. I let the numbers speak for themselves. Since abandoning high carb "sport" diets, my strength has gone up, I've gained considerable muscle, and I've lost body fat. My performance on a high carb diet doesn't even compare to my performance on a high fat diet. For whatever reason though, the medical field and much of the sport world still think that high carb diets are the way to go. But you're absolutely right, research and reality say two different things. Alot of things are that way though, just like how helicopters and bumblebees can't fly.