Should I eat carbs at dinner, after I come home from training?

[DevilEyes]

Now, I can keep going, or you can come with some proof of your own and have a discussion, without linking me to someone elses site to have them do it for you.

As soon as I finish reading the findings that you have posting I would be happy to. As far as linking to "someone elses sites", I could have just as easily cut-and-pasted the info as well; instead I linked it to the sites to enforce the credibility and provide reference for the arguments within.

 

[Vedic]

Credibility. Oh geez its' Berardi, he must be right:icon_lol:. I didn't cut and paste shit. Those are studies done in universities, the explanations with them are my writings from threads on here and other boards.

Like I said bring some scientific backing, that prove it. Otherwise it is very bland.

 

[Saith]

The main reason is

Carbohydrate nutrition before, during, and after exercise.

Costill DL.

The role of dietary carbohydrates (CHO) in the resynthesis of muscle and liver glycogen after prolonged, exhaustive exercise has been clearly demonstrated. The mechanisms responsible for optimal glycogen storage are linked to the activation of glycogen synthetase by depletion of glycogen and the subsequent intake of CHO. Although diets rich in CHO may increase the muscle glycogen stores and enhance endurance exercise performance when consumed in the days before the activity, they also increase the rate of CHO oxidation and the use of muscle glycogen. When consumed in the last hour before exercise, the insulin stimulated-uptake of glucose from blood often results in hypoglycemia, greater dependence on muscle glycogen, and an earlier onset of exhaustion than when no CHO is fed. Ingesting CHO during exercise appears to be of minimal value to performance except in events lasting 2 h or longer. The form of CHO (i.e., glucose, fructose, sucrose) ingested may produce different blood glucose and insulin responses, but the rate of muscle glycogen resynthesis is about the same regardless of the structure.

Odd, why would the study use only simple carbohydrates rather than a mix of simple and complex carbohydrates to study the effects of insulin sensitivity on muscle glycogen resynthesis?

 

[DevilEyes]

I didn't cut and paste shit. Those are studies done in universities, the explanations with them are my writings from threads on here and other boards.

The main reason is

Carbohydrate nutrition before, during, and after exercise.

Costill DL.

The role of dietary carbohydrates (CHO) in the resynthesis of muscle and liver glycogen after prolonged, exhaustive exercise has been clearly demonstrated. The mechanisms responsible for optimal glycogen storage are linked to the activation of glycogen synthetase by depletion of glycogen and the subsequent intake of CHO. Although diets rich in CHO may increase the muscle glycogen stores and enhance endurance exercise performance when consumed in the days before the activity, they also increase the rate of CHO oxidation and the use of muscle glycogen. When consumed in the last hour before exercise, the insulin stimulated-uptake of glucose from blood often results in hypoglycemia, greater dependence on muscle glycogen, and an earlier onset of exhaustion than when no CHO is fed. Ingesting CHO during exercise appears to be of minimal value to performance except in events lasting 2 h or longer. The form of CHO (i.e., glucose, fructose, sucrose) ingested may produce different blood glucose and insulin responses, but the rate of muscle glycogen resynthesis is about the same regardless of the structure.

can be found here word for word: Carbohydrate nutrition before, during, and after e...[Fed Proc. 1985] - PubMed Result



I could link the others but I won't. Your "writings and explanations" are:

I'd don't see a reason for any High Gi carbs post exercise if:

1. The first phase is insulin independemnt

2. The insulin dependent phase is a slow release.

and

In other words, amino acids are much more important post workout and the amounts of insulin needed to achieve the synergism is small.

As much as I appreciate the information and studies that you are providing, I am perfectly capable of understanding what is being presented in the studies, interpreting the data and drawing my own conclusions.


As I stated before, my goal is to find the truth (not prove that I am right and you are wrong). It will take a little while for me to sort out and research the data that you have provided. If I have any questions, need any explanations, or see anything that I disagree with, I will post it here and hopefully you will be receptive to add assistance or debate my disagreement without any hostility.

 

[Vedic]

Odd, why would the study use only simple carbohydrates rather than a mix of simple and complex carbohydrates to study the effects of insulin sensitivity on muscle glycogen resynthesis?

You can't be serious

 

[Vedic]

can be found here word for word: Carbohydrate nutrition before, during, and after e...[Fed Proc. 1985] - PubMed Result



I could link the others but I won't. Your "writings and explanations" are:



and



As much as I appreciate the information and studies that you are providing, I am perfectly capable of understanding what is being presented in the studies, interpreting the data and drawing my own conclusions.


As I stated before, my goal is to find the truth (not prove that I am right and you are wrong). It will take a little while for me to sort out and research the data that you have provided. If I have any questions, need any explanations, or see anything that I disagree with, I will post it here and hopefully you will be receptive to add assistance or debate my disagreement without any hostility.

Lol you haven't obviously read anything I have written here about this. Frankly look in my signature or do a search on my name, I don't need to explain my knowledge. If you are, then do it and you will see both sides of the argument and decide on your own.

Its not about who is right and who is wrong. Its about science and performance and what the findings say. However physiology and glut4 responses that exercise induced will never change.

Sure post anything, I enjoy discussing it. I come off as harsh, but its my tone. its nothing personal. I know I sound like a asshole on here:icon_lol:

 

[DevilEyes]

To be honest, after reading everything, I have forgotten what the original points were that we were differing on. Was it "insulin levels do/don't affect glycogen synthesis" or "High-GI carbs vs Low-GI carbs PWO" or something else entirely?

 

[Vedic]

HIGH GI vs LOW GI and your insulin remark in the first post.

 

[DevilEyes]

As far as the insulin argument, exactly what part of that did you disagree with?


Insulin is an anabolic hormone that regulates the m.etabolism of carbohydrates, fats, and starches in the body, and it promotes muscle uptake of amino acids for making proteins. Insulin, by definition, causes most of the body's cells to take up glucose from the blood (including liver, muscle, and fat tissue cells), storing it as glycogen in the liver and muscle. As its level is a central m.etabolic control mechanism, its status is also used as a control signal to other body systems (such as amino acid uptake by body cells). I am confident that you already knew this so I'm not sure which part you are objecting to.

 

[Vedic]

It isn't needed PWO. Did you read any of those studies? You know what Glut4 is right? Look in the red, adding insulin or sugar, does nothing that low GI doesn't.

 

[Vedic]

and then there was gatorade.

 

[Vedic]

No I take the theory of "if it isn't broke don't try to fix it. When it quits working is when to switch.

 

[Saith]

You can't be serious

I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm just curious. Wouldn't all three of those be absorbed much faster than sweet potatoes? To me any simple sugar is high-GI, even though glucose is clearly the highest.

 

[Vedic]

All three of what? It never said whether they were liquid or not. Absorbed faster in what regaurd? What's your point?

 

[Saith]

All three of what?

The form of CHO (i.e., glucose, fructose, sucrose)

It never said whether they were liquid or not.

I don't think it would matter too much if the method of consumption was the same for all three.

Absorbed faster in what regaurd?

Digested. Circulated through the blood stream.

What's your point?

I'm not trying to make a point, I'm just trying to understand why the study would use only simple carbohydrates to test the absorption rate of different glycemic indices.

Maybe if I can give you an example it will help. If I want to test the theory of wind resistance, I can drop a bowling ball, a rock, and an iron shot from a tree and count to see how long it takes them to hit the ground. However, with this test I would likely come to the conclusion that wind resistance has no effect on the rate of descent of objects because all three landed at approximately the same time. If I used a rock, a sheet of paper, and a maple seed, I would draw a much clearer understanding of the effects of wind resistance on objects.

So in the case of proving the effects of glycemic index, it makes more sense to me to use truly low-GI foods (sweet potatoes, whole grains, etc.) along with high-GI foods (glucose, sucrose, fructose) to get a better understanding of the process.

All I'm wondering is, am I missing something here?

 

[Vedic]

The form of CHO (i.e., glucose, fructose, sucrose)

Because that isn't what the study was about, and they don't cater to forum members. Either way it compares low gi anf high gi, some of you expect everything to be exactly as we would want it:icon_lol: yup let the universities hop right on that

I don't think it would matter too much if the method of consumption was the same for all three.

Really? Ever had nutrition 101?




Digested. Circulated through the blood stream.

Lost me there, it all is circulated lol



I'm not trying to make a point, I'm just trying to understand why the study would use only simple carbohydrates to test the absorption rate of different glycemic indices.


First repsonse answered it.


Maybe if I can give you an example it will help. If I want to test the theory of wind resistance, I can drop a bowling ball, a rock, and an iron shot from a tree and count to see how long it takes them to hit the ground. However, with this test I would likely come to the conclusion that wind resistance has no effect on the rate of descent of objects because all three landed at approximately the same time. If I used a rock, a sheet of paper, and a maple seed, I would draw a much clearer understanding of the effects of wind resistance on objects.


Obviously you are new to the academic world of nutrition. 99% of the studies done are for medical purposes. Of those most are funded by universities and hospital organizations. University of Texas, Connecticut, Utah and a few others are the exceptions to doing sport applicable ones. Like I said its low gi or high gi. Jesus how do you really think MID gi will fair? Her's a hint, the red part in the study where it states "the type of carb doesn't matter" it doesn't matter.:icon_lol:


So in the case of proving the effects of glycemic index, it makes more sense to me to use truly low-GI foods (sweet potatoes, whole grains, etc.) along with high-GI foods (glucose, sucrose, fructose) to get a better understanding of the process.

All I'm wondering is, am I missing something here?

That is why they decide what studies are done on and you don't:icon_lol:

 

[Saith]

That is why they decide what studies are done on and you don't:icon_lol:

I dunno, if there's any reason why someone can't explain something to me it's either because it doesn't make sense or they are poor communicators.

 

[Vedic]

I am probably both of those. It's not that complicated man.

 

[MikeMartial]

Vedic: Stop being a dickhead. Everyone here is well aware that your a knowledgable guy. I want you to continue to contribute to this forum in a mature and productive manner. Yes, there's times when redundant questions get the best of us and test our patience, but Saith is a senior member, and other's have posted questions to you that are valid. What's boring and common knowledge to you may not be to someone else.

If you're going to answer, please do so in a constructive way.

 

[Vedic]

Will do.

By boring I mean, seriously, don't post me to Berardi's or anyone elses side of it. People should learn to speak for themselves and conversate.

But I will do as you ask, no problem.