Research conflicts with reality?

[John Schneider]

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.

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 CHO’s 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 CHO’s- 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, I’d 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. I’d explain that low CHO diets don’t 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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Liam Dougherty Springer

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]

I was reading a book and it dawned on me that may be the case oops

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.... GRAMS? Wait how'd that get there?

Thanx MOD.

[John Schneider]

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]

Originally Posted by John Schneider

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 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]

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?

[Dave Van Skike]

Originally Posted by Steven Low

that clears it up.

[Mike ODonnell]

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....

Originally Posted by Steven Low