Performance Diet Types and Terminology

[G-dub]

Tim, with the absence of Bob recently there are actually only two people that year after year give everyone that joins this forum advice over and over and over again day after day. Henry and James answer the same questions with the same enthusiasm as last month, last year, last 5 years. Doesn't mean the answers are always 100% right, but let's face it, we are dealing with highly variable situations here when we talk about diet and exercise - no one really knows for sure. Your anger seems a little over the top - especially since you really haven't counciled anyone on anything that I can see, just bitching about your feelings being hurt or saying that you are smarter than everyone else. Maybe it's you that needs to step back.

[jackarabit]

Arrogance comes in many flavors. My favorite is predatory false modesty. Tim sure doesn't suffer from that! Plenty of room here for another polymath to hang out his shingle.

[G-dub]

Exactly. No one needs to win these discussions. Put it out there, toss it around, take from it what you want. And as James and Greg say: "experiment and bring back the results". Everyone gets so upset with our Dutch friend, but all I see is someone that is pulling for everyone to do better. He is the first usually to congratulate great efforts. He usually is the first to provide council on training questions and in fact tailors them to what he can see in the individual. And he is the first to call BS on, well, BS. So what that sometimes he is cantankerous and sometimes gets burned out with the same cycles of the same stuff over and over again. And yeah, maybe he could do a better job with how he phrases things - but then again, I don't see any of us on the Dutch thread exchanging ideas. The forum probably would have died a long time ago and many of us wouldn't have improved like we have if he would have listened to those with hurt feelings and left it.

[Tim K.]

Guys, I sincerely appreciate your feed back and it is nice to get something constructive.

G-dub, your absolutely correct, no one needs to win a discussion. I personally am not trying to win anything. Most of the time if there is a "winner" everyone has lost. I have no reason to question what hjs has said is accurate from one perspective or point of view. From where I am standing the break down is the unwillingness to accept another strategy or point of view. A+B=C is true when approaching a problem from one direction but is not necessarily true when approaching from a different direction. I dont understand how being told "your wrong" with no actual supporting evidence can be swallowed by anyone and when questioned about it the reslut is an explosion of quasi related topics and sidebars that become a distraction from the original single point.

I dont counsel anyone. I almost always attempt to post links to the information I used to form my opinions and understanding. I also dont like answering the same questions over and over again. Its not my personality. I suggested an "enhanced" FAQ and suggested several posts over the past several months be included in the FAQ because I dont enjoy the "broken record".

Jackarabit, as usual I have to pull out the dictionary to read your post. Im far from a polymath. 90% of the time Im the dumbest guy in the room on 90% of the discussion. Ive learned to keep my mouth shut and listen. I only open my mouth and talk when I am very confident I actually know what Im talking about and can add something to the conversation. I truly appreciate when someone offers me additional info or correction I can verify.

Again, Thank you for the perspective.

[left coaster]

Henry has his own responsibility for how people respond to him and he's no victim. That said, in this particular thread it is clear he is making an effort to stay calm and neutral and I appreciate it.

I understand why Tim is reactive but if we don't let people show change (as I think HJS has done here) and we keep jumping all over them, then we are the ones perpetuating dysfunction, not them.

[Tim K.]

Lefty, I attempted everything I could to ask my way to a conclusion, to gain some common ground and understanding of what it was he was trying to convey. I really dont feel I perpetuated any dysfunction. I simply would not let the information I was trying to convey get burred in a mountain of words. Demonstrating change is admirable, Im still not going to let anyone run over me part way instead of all the way.

[G-dub]

We are all probably misunderstood lots of the time given the challenges of written word, usually at pace on a digital keyboard, vs verbal communication and body language. And I have to agree with you Tim, I usually never understand what Jack is saying and have misinterpreted most of his posts from the very beginning! But in the end, this is all in good fun and let's face it, we are a bunch of aging type A's with seemingly nothing better to do with our time.

[jackarabit]

As no one asked, chukar do very well on the diet of worms. Performance orientation like in the thread head. All I know is food makes my clothes shrink.

[mdpfirrman]

There's a lot more in common, Tim, with what Henry and you believe, than different. Too much carbs, especially simple ones, do your body harm. We can all agree with that. It's best to eat mostly complex carbs with what we do eat is what I gathered (which I try to do but I'm not always successful at it - though it's a LOT easier for me eliminating gluten). I think you BOTH feel that way, though I think Henry would say it's OK to eat simple carbs as long as you're training really hard (though most American's don't train as hard as they think they do and I would for one agree with that).

I think what it comes down to is Tim thinks that you should stay in a state of ketosis and you can perform better on ultra low carbs if you eat enough fat. That's where (if I'm right) you two differ in opinion. I don't know if there's enough evidence on either side to really state it as fact but I tend toward the same approach I've read that Robb Wolf wrote about in the piece that I linked earlier in the thread - that IF you do a lot of powerful training (spints, fast twitch type stuff), you need some carbs thrown into the mix (Henry's belief). Tim, you're an absolutist LC follower from what I gathered, which I really respect. You (I think) would argue (vehemently it seems) that most like me haven't tried it long enough to know what can be achieved on very low carb plans.

Would love to hear from Shawn Baker on this. I know he follows a low carb diet and definitely does a lot of powerful stuff (not just aerobic but quite a bit of anaerobic work). Just my attempt to summarize the similarities and differences. Sorry in advance if I'm wrong in any way or misrepresented your views. I've learned a lot from both of your views (what this thread was intended to do by Lefty).

[hjs]

I am on holliday, so missed out.

Apart from what every believes, thinks, says, Tim crossed the line for me by wanting to delete my (or anyones) contribution, I was under the believe we are living in a free world....

And, although he is free to so, but it pisses me also off a bit, he asks, asks and asks, but on return questions he often does not respond. That is a least not helping a discussion much.

Re, the matter at hand, I have to see the first athlete in a sport which demands a lot of volume anaerobicly to work on worldclasslevel. Very short distance people (a lactic anaerobic work) very long distance (super aerobe), not inbetween. My own personal experience was, that it does limit. Repeated lactic work on low carbs, did not work great and was super painfull. The burn you have on say max 4x1k session is even worse when glycogeen reserves are low.
Other point was my weight, I got leaner and leaner, vains on my vains to the point that my hormone balance got off.
Other points, very good for a clean skin, clean test.

A guy like Shawn is to me a great example of low volume, high intensity, high frequency trainy, he never does repeated high volume lactic stuff. The needed glycogeen per session is limited.
He has a powerlift background, with a very strong pull, much less so an aerobic background. And his training is fully aimed at 500 meter and less. His performance here is great, but for above his training is not suited. Btw, he knows that I think that, he proberly does not fully agree, but is fine with me saying so.
I find it great what he does, just like I would find it great if someone would excel and be training for longer wirk, think Dave Williams, pulling a 1.45 full marathon, aged heigh 40 s.

The whole subject is relative young, certainly not fully understand, but to me certainly has very positive sides. The way people in general feed themselves is very poorly in my view. And current medicine and food industry has strong influences due to their financial position in the matter. They have zero interest in stopping the current high carb way of eating. Which goes against what I think is natural.
A very dogmatic approach does not help the matter, I don,t think there is only one way who leads to Rome. Ofcourse, I certainly don,t know it all, but have a very long experience in sports in general, plus not being an Einstein I do think I have reasonable thinking skills. So at times I think I know what I am talking about and put my cards on the table bluntly. Not seldom people don,t like, do be it. I have no hidden agenda, I just tell it like it is for me.
And, feel free to fully ignore

[Tim K.]

Yes, there is a lot of common ground. What I believe is based on the N=1 from Peter Attia and the actual (although small sample groups) clinical studies done by Stephen Phinney and/or Jeff Volek is that there is no room for broad stroke recommendations when it comes to the application of carbs to a low carb diet.

This is my understanding with regards to insulin: When you eat a meal with enough carbohydrate in it to overrun the upper limit that is acceptable in your blood, there in an insulin response in proportion to the surplus. If the amount of insulin is very small and there is room in the muscle tissue the surplus will be deposited into the muscle tissue and all is well. If however the insulin response is of sufficient magnitude to cause the liver to start converting some sugar to fat you have now crossed a threshold. You body is now in fat storage "mode", from which it does not quickly recover from. This is what is being discussed in the video linked to in a previous post and again here: Have a look at 24:50-27:30 (continue to 30:15 for some more if youd like)of this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ATDvhZQo4A

My understanding of what is being said is that of the 28 people they had in the study 2 of the participants did not convert any of the carb in their diets to fat, the other 26 did to varying degrees, until the diet they were fed got low enough in carb. Once you get switched to converting sugar to fat and storing it, you dont just switch back again when blood sugar is low again, you need to eat again, or suffer through low blood sugar until the system has a chance to change direction again and start withdrawing from the fat reserve. This is what happens over night. Why is it slow to change back in that direction? IDK, its just the way it is. It switches, withdrawing enough energy to support base metabolic requirements. Beyond that, it takes a lot longer to get you body to the point where it can withdraw fat at a high enough rate to provide enough energy for strenuous work.

Carb loading in any manner that results in you body storing fat, from a LC perspective is counter productive. You have stored a few hundred calories in favour of locking yourself out of access to a(few) hundred thousand.

From what I understand there are low carb athletes that do carb load before an event. They must be very careful to not have too large an insulin response as this can in the short term, lock them from access to the fuel source they have been adapted to.


If you are going to be LC and look for the type of performance benefits offered by LC then yes, it is my understanding and experience that if you want to preform any task, including living, the calories have to be there. If they are not coming from carbs, they must come from fat. Jeff Voleks background in sport was in power lifting. He found there was no performance gain in sports like power lifting, however no significant deterioration (if it was done right) either. You just need to figure out how to do it right for you. I dont think there is anything wrong with carbs in the diet, I eat tomatoes, nuts, blue berries, strawberries etc. I just need to keep consumption below the point where keytones drop. If they do, I have over consumed. This is the highly variable and personal part of the diet that no one can tell you, you have to figure it out for you. Some need to be under 30g/day others can consume well over 100g/day, but if they do it all at once, they are out of ketosis.

Its not a matter of trying it long enough if your not doing it right. Personally I seemed to hit it right on the first try and felt amazing (normal) for several months (combination of exercise diet and lifestyle), I started having issues after about three months and I had to go back and attempt to remember what I had done and try to recreate. I finally figured out that I simply cannot tolerate much sugar at all. I had started putting sugar in a little instant coffee powder (caffeine is another huge no no for me) along with whipping cream and coconut butter in the morning to make the diet a little more "fun". After that I slowly let more and more carb creep in, including all the "healthy" carbs like sweet potatoes etc. I personally walk a fine line. Others not so much. My weight has never been an issue, I do it because cognitively I feel like crap. I had been diagnosed with and given medication for depression anxiety and ADHD, all of which failed me. Now Im fine when Im in ketosis, not so much with Im not.

As a broad statement, I personally dont agree that eating complex carbs is a better option than eating simple carbs. I think you are far better off eating blue berries, orange, strawberries etc than you are eating potato, pasta or bread. If you look at the glycemic index, many complex carbs are very high, nearly as high or some are higher than table sugar. The only time complex carbs dont are if they havnt been chewed (by a machine or you). Once it is ground, your enzymes break it down in bulk, not slowly as it would a "wheat kernel" and it is absorbed as a simple sugar at a very high rate. Who the hell eats kernels of wheat?

Edit: typed on a hurry, corrected some grammar and mistakes.

[hjs]

Fine post from Tim. Clearly showing his personal experience. Good chance though he can,t see my posts anymore lol, when on his fo list

The part about carbloading, the point here is here is performance inprovements, or second leaning out when in a cal. Restriction sitiation. The fact you may gain some weight short term is not very relevant (fat mass). This is never much in the big picture. If performance is not helpen, the whole point of carb loading is pointless. If performance is helpen, a bit of fat conversion is no point.

Re complex carbs, some people with bowel trouble, better limit those, when food in the lower bowels is still being processed that cause all kinds of trouble. And for refeading/carbloading fast acting carbs are much more usefull. After exercise, the time window muscle are very insuline sensitive is pretty short, so better make use of that window via fast carbs.

[markinnb]

Would love to hear from Shawn Baker on this. I know he follows a low carb diet and definitely does a lot of powerful stuff (not just aerobic but quite a bit of anaerobic work). Just my attempt to summarize the similarities and differences. Sorry in advance if I'm wrong in any way or misrepresented your views. I've learned a lot from both of your views (what this thread was intended to do by Lefty).

here it is Mike, page 2 i think.

HFLC diet combined with intermittent fasting has been, in my experience, a very effective approach for improved health, and athletic performance- strict definitions tend to be a bit elusive- my diet consists of lots of grass fed meats, some wild fish, leafy vegetables, nuts (mostly macadamia,almonds, pecans)- high fat dairy (heavy cream, cheese,butter) fruit is occasional and mostly berries, sometimes some dark chocolate, lots of eggs (often 6-12 a day), sometimes some whey protein, basically no grains, no processed foods- most days 20-50gm of carbs, fair bit of protein 150-200gm and maybe 300-400gm of fat- use lard, butter and coconut oil to cook with, olive oil on salads/avocado- generally 1-2 meals a day train very often in am after 14-18 hrs fasting. In my view it is unquestionably clear that most chronic diseases stems from chronic consumption of processed carbohydrates, sugars and industrial omega 6 rich vegetable oils- eliminate that stuff and that's 90% of the battle- fights between vegans and carnivores are fairly pointless after that!

[Tim K.]

Fine post from Tim. Clearly showing his personal experience. Good chance though he can,t see my posts anymore lol, when on his fo list

The fact you may gain some weight short term is not very relevant (fat mass). This is never much in the big picture. If performance is not helpen, the whole point of carb loading is pointless. If performance is helpen, a bit of fat conversion is no point.

First off, there is a hell of a lot more there than my personal experience. Secondly, I can see your posts just fine. Its a poor life strategy to completely exclude any potential source of information, regardless of how painful it can be to glean.

The consequences of gaining lipid mass in the context of a LC diet is the entire point I am trying to get across!!!

IF YOU ARE A LOW CARB ATHLETE AND YOU EAT ENOUGH CARB TO CAUSE YOUR BODY TO STORE FAT, YOU HAVE, FOR A PERIOD OF TIME, LOST THE ABILITY TO ACCESS YOU FAT STORES FOR ENERGY AND ARE NOW AGAIN EXCLUSIVELY DEPENDENT ON CARBS FOR ENERGY.

The symptoms you experienced when LC, while unfortunate and unpleasant, dosnt mean LC dosnt work, it simply tells me you were doing it wrong.

[Shawn Baker]

I'll add a few more comments here.

What works for one does not work for all, we all have some genetic differences that make the ideal nutrition strategy individual and I also believe even among individuals it can and does change- aging, activity, illness all can impact what is more appropriate. Having said that we all share a similar physiology and there is much more commonalities than differences. As a physician with 20+ years of experience it is clear to me that our population has clearly gotten sicker and sicker and while the causes are multifactoral, modern diet is much of the problem. We have multi billion dollar industries that promote and sell us food that has been chemically engineered to be hyper palatable and thus addictive- good for the corporate bottom line but awful for our health. Also, while it impossible to know for sure what our evolutionary ancestors ate, it is also clear their food choices were fairly limited in comparison and it is very likely they had a much lower meal frequency. (Compared to the 3 meals/2-3 snacks a day current paradigm).

We have a pretty robust capacity for metabolic adaptation, and can function reasonably well on a number of different macronutrient profiles. If we look at basic mammalian physiology we see carnivores that eat only once a week and herbivores that constantly graze up to 18 hours daily and while we are clearly different we still share much of the same mammalian structure and physiology. When we look at studies on athletes done in the last 50 years they have virtually always been done on test subjects that consume multiple meals in a day and generally with a propensity towards higher carbohydrate intake. Certainly since the 1960s when Scandanavian researchers found carb loading to be effective that has been dogma- If we look at, for example, optimal timing for protein ingestion, the results generally show more frequent smaller feedings are preferable- the subjects of these studies undoubtedly are chronically used to eating many times per day and thus their metabolic machinery has been chronically adapted to that regime (similar to how a lion is chronically adapted to a 1 per week feeding)- if the same studies were done on athletes that for several years were adapted to lower meal frequencies and or different diets would the outcomes be different? Can only speculate because those studies have rarely been done (Phinney, Volek) and they are only scratching the surface.

For me personally, as an "old guy" athlete, I have no money or contracts riding on how I perform and so I am free to experiment and see what is possible. As Henry points out my focus currently is the short stuff, I am clearly low carb and do spend a fair bit of time in fasted state. My assumption is that this decreases overall inflammation. I also do things like taking cold showers and ice baths and really focus on good sleep, so those things might be confounders. My capacity to go very hard on a nearly daily basis is likely a result of the aforementioned strategy. I also now enjoy a much improved overall health, energy level, mental disposition and clarity. I certainly am open to experimentation and have employed other strategies to include carb cycling, targeting and cyclic ketogenic strategies. My personal performance with respect to rowing has only gotten better as I have consistently set new PRs despite getting "older" (granted I've only been rowing for almost 3 years). Although Henry points out that I am not doing long sessions (by design), I found just as a way of an anecdote that when I played Rugby a few weeks ago (first time in 20 years) I was able to go hard for 90 minutes with lots of sprinting against guys 30 years my junior with no problem, was not tired and ran entire time. Maybe I'll change down the road, but currently I am enjoying the best health of my life and arguably am performing very well from an athletic perspective.