high carb variability

[MMouse]

Don't know if this has been discussed but as far as high carbs go's wouldn't ranges differ from person to person such as what might considered be high for some could be low for others?

Speaking for myself. On an off/rest day I'm closer to 300g of carbs on a heavy day 500-600g (mostly from unrefined, high fiber). If I go below 200g, I will feel like ass. Keep in mind my protein and fat minimums are at least met and I understand genetic, activity, and diet make up how well one can handle carbs or how much one can handle carbs.

So while 200g may be low for me, it may be high for someone else

 

[Badger67]

I'll bite...

After a lot of experimentation with my diet over the years my body prefers a lower carbohydrate intake ( 175g i can tolerate moderately well, but preferably under 100g ). This is generally going to be based on your insulin sensitivity, metabolism, muscle mass, mitochondria, even thyroid function and so on.

So in short, there is a variance for many individuals. My roommate thrived off high carb and high fat simultaneously which generally doesn't abode well for many. And there are others who can't tolerate much carbohydrate. Diets aren't a one size fits all, though there is a middle ground most people fall into and that is generally where people start to see what is working and not.

 

[MMouse]

I'll bite...

After a lot of experimentation with my diet over the years my body prefers a lower carbohydrate intake ( 175g i can tolerate moderately well, but preferably under 100g ). This is generally going to be based on your insulin sensitivity, metabolism, muscle mass, mitochondria, even thyroid function and so on.

So in short, there is a variance for many individuals. My roommate thrived off high carb and high fat simultaneously which generally doesn't abode well for many. And there are others who can't tolerate much carbohydrate. Diets aren't a one size fits all, though there is a middle ground most people fall into and that is generally where people start to see what is working and not.

Interesting. I should mention culture should have a role as well.

Coming from an asian backround, i've grown up to eating alot of rice, and portions are fairly large per sitting (2-3+cups per meal) and some western influences such as cereal and bread. And while obesity doesnt run in the family I've had no problems yo-yoing until I exprimented with limiting carbs. Affected my adherence completely.

I've heard of people being able to do high carb/high fat daily and still be shredded.

Did you grow up eating very little carbs?

 

[Badger67]

I grew up eating too many more than likely. Pop and juice made up most of my fluids, bread, cereal, rice ( i love rice like you can't believe). I've never been above 14/15% BF but i've never been below 11.5% really. Limiting my carb intake has been better than caloric restriction or fat restriction for me.

 

[Synapse]

Don't know if this has been discussed but as far as high carbs go's wouldn't ranges differ from person to person such as what might considered be high for some could be low for others?

Speaking for myself. On an off/rest day I'm closer to 300g of carbs on a heavy day 500-600g (mostly from unrefined, high fiber). If I go below 200g, I will feel like ass. Keep in mind my protein and fat minimums are at least met and I understand genetic, activity, and diet make up how well one can handle carbs or how much one can handle carbs.

So while 200g may be low for me, it may be high for someone else

Yes, absolutely. Carb tolerance/requirements vary a LOT from person to person for a great number of reasons. If you're getting to your goals and feeling great, then don't feel like you're doing something wrong just because your carb tolerance is higher than others.

 

[Seriously-Dead]

Carb tolerance? How does this "carb tolerance" work, physiologically?

 

[MMouse]

Carb tolerance? How does this "carb tolerance" work, physiologically?

Lol I wish I knew. Insulin sensitivity I guess?

I had just listened to 2 different podcasts from both alan aragon and lyle. They did mention if one can handle high carbs, they'll most likely attain their goals whether thats fat loss/performance.

Another important factor is mood. If high/low carb makes you depress, get off it.

 

[RafailNadull]

Another important factor is knowing how to form evidence based opinions about what's actually causing differences in things you care about. Mood especially is the outcome of a very complicated process that is a function of a ton of variables.

 

[Sinister]

Lol I wish I knew. Insulin sensitivity I guess?

I had just listened to 2 different podcasts from both alan aragon and lyle. They did mention if one can handle high carbs, they'll most likely attain their goals whether thats fat loss/performance.

Another important factor is mood. If high/low carb makes you depress, get off it.

Yes, even the great Aragon and McDonald have to acknowledge what happens, physiologically, when people intake carbohydrate. Hence the "handle" them. Otherwise you're merely speaking of handling as in how much sugar you dump on your corn flakes or into your coffee, in the literal sense. There is sensitivity, and resistance. There are also differences in people whose bodies are more apt to store muscle vs. fat. Doesn't mean the guy apt to store fat can't use that to his advantage, it's just going to take more work than the guy apt to store muscle.

 

[Seriously-Dead]

Lol I wish I knew. Insulin sensitivity I guess?

I had just listened to 2 different podcasts from both alan aragon and lyle. They did mention if one can handle high carbs, they'll most likely attain their goals whether thats fat loss/performance.

Another important factor is mood. If high/low carb makes you depress, get off it.

The big problem is that the definition of high carbohydrate itself has been altered and horribly butchered in the literature and popular culture over the years.

The pendulum has really swung back and forth here and it's represented in the research and how it labels "high carb/low fat" or "low carb/high fat". Back in the 80s and 90s, low carb referred to diets that were about <40% carbohydrate, and high carbohydrate was >60% of daily calories with fat at about <10%. Unsurprisingly, this era had a ton of positive results in favor of high carb low fat diets. Nowadays, most of the literature defines high carb as 35% (with fat at about >25%) and low carb as <10%. Unsurprisingly, this era had a ton of positive results in favor of high fat low carb diets.

When you actually read into the literature, essentially any diet that has fat >25%, protein <20%, with ~40%-60% carbohydrates usually turns out to be a shit diet. Because the foods that at-risk or diseased and uneducated populations choose are generally processed low-fibre, unsatiating, nutrient absent garbage. The big takeaway is that a low-carb diet can lead to favorable changes because it essentially restricts people from making terrible choices (they're essentially relegated to some dairy, protein, veggies and fruit). Likewise, low-fat diets can lead to favorable changes because when fat intake is set ultra-low it restricts people's food choices to lean protein, veggies, fruit, dairy, legumes/pulses, and unprocessed cereals.

When people do low-fat high carbohydrate diets right (like in the research done by Dean Ornish), and aim for really low fat intakes, they've shown it's possible to essentially reverse coronary artery disease and diabetes in severely diseased populations. In that same vein, I don't think ANYONE is carb intolerant or whatever. Physiologically, the concept makes no sense and in terms of research the outcomes are straight forward. The failure lies in the definition and practical application of high carbohydrate diets, not in any physiological mechanisms.

 

[Badger67]

Minor problem there i see is that %'s are based on a caloric total rather than a gram total. Sounds nice at first until looked at more closely.

If someone's diet is 60% carbs @ 1500 calories, yeah that might be great. If they end up eating let's say 23-2600 calories, they might not be able to get away with this if their glycogen stores are full and they aren't as active to burn it off, thus resulting in more fat storage potentially.

This is why a gram amount i find works better than a % total of calories or establishing a baseline for studies or labs, as it keeps things more accountable and concrete and generally for the public they will eat healthier and more nutrient dense foods as already stated.

Some people definitely can handle more carbs ALA my roommate, others tend to have insulin or metabolic issues, mitochondrial issues, GLUT1/4 issues bordering on type1/2 diabetes, thyroid issues.

In my most recent stint doing rehab in acute care with a myriad of patients including many diabetic, most were NIDDM as a result of low carb.

 

[Synapse]

The big problem is that the definition of high carbohydrate itself has been altered and horribly butchered in the literature and popular culture over the years.

The pendulum has really swung back and forth here and it's represented in the research and how it labels "high carb/low fat" or "low carb/high fat". Back in the 80s and 90s, low carb referred to diets that were about <40% carbohydrate, and high carbohydrate was >60% of daily calories with fat at about <10%. Unsurprisingly, this era had a ton of positive results in favor of high carb low fat diets. Nowadays, most of the literature defines high carb as 35% (with fat at about >25%) and low carb as <10%. Unsurprisingly, this era had a ton of positive results in favor of high fat low carb diets.

When you actually read into the literature, essentially any diet that has fat >25%, protein <20%, with ~40%-60% carbohydrates usually turns out to be a shit diet. Because the foods that at-risk or diseased and uneducated populations choose are generally processed low-fibre, unsatiating, nutrient absent garbage. The big takeaway is that a low-carb diet can lead to favorable changes because it essentially restricts people from making terrible choices (they're essentially relegated to some dairy, protein, veggies and fruit). Likewise, low-fat diets can lead to favorable changes because when fat intake is set ultra-low it restricts people's food choices to lean protein, veggies, fruit, dairy, legumes/pulses, and unprocessed cereals.

When people do low-fat high carbohydrate diets right (like in the research done by Dean Ornish), and aim for really low fat intakes, they've shown it's possible to essentially reverse coronary artery disease and diabetes in severely diseased populations. In that same vein, I don't think ANYONE is carb intolerant or whatever. Physiologically, the concept makes no sense and in terms of research the outcomes are straight forward. The failure lies in the definition and practical application of high carbohydrate diets, not in any physiological mechanisms.

I'm not sure anyone ever means to imply that a person is literally "carb intolerant", and it's a silly fight to pick. Yeah, we get it, humans are physiologically geared to eat carbs. By all means, if you want to change the game and come out with some groundbreaking new terminology for the variability in how well people handle carbs, then be my guest. You're arguing semantics, not science.

I can tell you with 100% certainty that myself and the vast majority of people I've ever worked with could never handle 600g of carbs a day like the OP while progressing towards any goal, unless that goal is to get fat and feel like crap. I'm also confident in telling him that if he tolerates/handles/does well with/succeeds on 300-600g of carb a day, then there's nothing wrong with that either.

 

[Seriously-Dead]

I'm not sure anyone ever means to imply that a person is literally "carb intolerant", and it's a silly fight to pick. Yeah, we get it, humans are physiologically geared to eat carbs. By all means, if you want to change the game and come out with some groundbreaking new terminology for the variability in how well people handle carbs, then be my guest. You're arguing semantics, not science.

I can tell you with 100% certainty that myself and the vast majority of people I've ever worked with could never handle 600g of carbs a day like the OP while progressing towards any goal, unless that goal is to get fat and feel like crap. I'm also confident in telling him that if he tolerates/handles/does well with/succeeds on 300-600g of carb a day, then there's nothing wrong with that either.

I guess I just don't really understand anyone's position when they are talking about carb intolerance, variability, etc. Are you (or is anyone) suggesting there is some kind of intolerance that happens outside of the context of energy needs? Because I think anyone can handle 300-600g of carbs per day if it fits within their energy needs, even if it means going low-ish on fat and protein.

 

[Broscience]

Don't know if this has been discussed but as far as high carbs go's wouldn't ranges differ from person to person such as what might considered be high for some could be low for others?

Speaking for myself. On an off/rest day I'm closer to 300g of carbs on a heavy day 500-600g (mostly from unrefined, high fiber). If I go below 200g, I will feel like ass. Keep in mind my protein and fat minimums are at least met and I understand genetic, activity, and diet make up how well one can handle carbs or how much one can handle carbs.

So while 200g may be low for me, it may be high for someone else

My opinion on your current carb intake is that you must be 200+ibs somewhat shredded or cutting weight if 200 grams is low enough for you to feel the way you do . Their is no reason to do high days like your doing because if your eating 300g on a daily bases there's no way your tapping out your glycogen stores enough to need a 200-300g carb up everytime you train. Also eating high fiber with the goal to replenish in a day doesnt make much sense either . Your body doesnt empty out like a cup and start fresh everyday. My recommendation is eat a consistent calorie diet based on your goals and if you feel your training took enough calories away from your goal add them back in with carbs . Protein and fats are a lot more filling than carbs for the most part (tho potatoes are very filling) so that will prob help with that feeling . Im curious to know your weight + carb/protein/fat break down .

I think the higher and lower carbs varies person to person depending on weight because of caloric expenditure associated with it Also DRASTICALLY difference in carbs when comparing the attempt to gain or lose weight also in relations to caloric expenditure and diet approach.

 

[Seriously-Dead]

Their is no reason to do high days like your doing because if your eating 300g on a daily bases there's no way your tapping out your glycogen stores enough to need a 200-300g carb up everytime you train.

Another common misconception. Carbohydrates are used for a hell of a lot more than just replenishing glycogen.

Some organs rely almost entirely off of glucose metabolism just for daily function. The brain in resting conditions consumes about 120g of glucose per day. Liver glycogen stores are constantly being filled and emptied, which accounts for about 100g of glucose (and the liver's storage capacity can be expanded). The liver itself gets about 50% of it's fuel from lactate. The GI tract relies on glucose entirely for it's function. Kidneys and the heart also use a substantial amount of glucose or lactate for daily functions.

Most of this demand, if carbohydrates are not supplied in sufficient quantity, is met via protein catabolism/gluconeogenesis.

Seriously, carbohydrates are not some mythical creature that need to be tamed. You can eat ridiculously high amounts in the context of energy balance and experience no negative effects. I eat 300g of carbs on deficit days, and other than 1-2 hours in the gym 5-6 days per week I'm almost completely sedentary. On surplus days I'm hitting like 700-900g of carbs easily. No weight gain. And no, I'm not a genetic freak (the hilarious thing is that I used to think I was "carb sensitive" and had to be "ketogenic" :/)

 

[Wariowokecancel]

Most people would be fat as hell on TS' diet because most wouldn't be burning off the excess energy.

 

[MMouse]

certainty that myself and the vast majority of people I've ever worked with could never handle 600g of carbs a day like the OP while progressing towards any goal, unless that goal is to get fat and feel like crap. I'm also confident in telling him that if he tolerates/handles/does well with/succeeds on 300-600g of carb a day, then there's nothing wrong with that either.

Well I should mention I'm usually training all year around. At times when I prep for fights I'm averaging 3-5hrs per day(1-2workouts per day) 4-5x week, 12-15 hours a week of total training time.

Majority of the population though I'd say aren't training this much so I'd agree lower-moderate carbs would be better.

 

[MMouse]

Another common misconception. Carbohydrates are used for a hell of a lot more than just replenishing glycogen.

Some organs rely almost entirely off of glucose metabolism just for daily function. The brain in resting conditions consumes about 120g of glucose per day. Liver glycogen stores are constantly being filled and emptied, which accounts for about 100g of glucose (and the liver's storage capacity can be expanded). The liver itself gets about 50% of it's fuel from lactate. The GI tract relies on glucose entirely for it's function. Kidneys and the heart also use a substantial amount of glucose or lactate for daily functions.

Most of this demand, if carbohydrates are not supplied in sufficient quantity, is met via protein catabolism/gluconeogenesis.

Seriously, carbohydrates are not some mythical creature that need to be tamed. You can eat ridiculously high amounts in the context of energy balance and experience no negative effects. I eat 300g of carbs on deficit days, and other than 1-2 hours in the gym 5-6 days per week I'm almost completely sedentary. On surplus days I'm hitting like 700-900g of carbs easily. No weight gain. And no, I'm not a genetic freak (the hilarious thing is that I used to think I was "carb sensitive" and had to be "ketogenic" :/)

Dead, have you seen the low carb presentations by Dr. Jeff Volek and Alan Aragon?

Aragon mentions bluezones, countries/cultures that were predominatly eating very high carb sources that have the healthiest and longest living rates.

What are your thoughts?

 

[MMouse]

My opinion on your current carb intake is that you must be 200+ibs somewhat shredded or cutting weight if 200 grams is low enough for you to feel the way you do . Their is no reason to do high days like your doing because if your eating 300g on a daily bases there's no way your tapping out your glycogen stores enough to need a 200-300g carb up everytime you train. Also eating high fiber with the goal to replenish in a day doesnt make much sense either . Your body doesnt empty out like a cup and start fresh everyday. My recommendation is eat a consistent calorie diet based on your goals and if you feel your training took enough calories away from your goal add them back in with carbs . Protein and fats are a lot more filling than carbs for the most part (tho potatoes are very filling) so that will prob help with that feeling . Im curious to know your weight + carb/protein/fat break down .

I think the higher and lower carbs varies person to person depending on weight because of caloric expenditure associated with it Also DRASTICALLY difference in carbs when comparing the attempt to gain or lose weight also in relations to caloric expenditure and diet approach.

well I try to get in 18-36g of fiber

my protein intake is at 120-130g
fat intake is at 40-50g

my weight is at 130lbs

 

[scottm]

Dead, have you seen the low carb presentations by Dr. Jeff Volek and Alan Aragon?

http://forums.sherdog.com/forums/f15/aragon-volek-carb-debate-2584743/