What is excess carbohydrates?
My answer is any amount above which you need to refill glycogen stores of muscle/liver for daily needs. I think the issues with too much carbs become prevalent in the fact that beyond filling those stores there are simply no "good" disposal pathways for carbs. So yes... exercise creates more of a buffer so that you have that glycogen sink to fill before overconsumption.
My intake yesterday was 52% fat, 24% carbs, and 24% protein for a total of 4000 calories. This is a decent shift from the 65/15/20 I had been implementing. I honestly feel more recovered today than I have been after my workouts. Whether it be due to more carbs or not remains to be seen. Could my muscles have been struggling to replenish glycogen stores without enough carbs, and thus not feel as recovered?
Okay, this makes good sense. But I have a few questions about it...
Originally Posted by Neckhammer
Does this work the same for everyone? Or only those whose muscles are insulin sensitive?
Hypothetically, say you have a 150g deficit of glycogen. If you eat 150g of carbs, will all of this be directed to fill your glycogen stores, or will insulin also partition some of it to fat storage? I assume this would be the case if your muscles are insulin sensitive.
However, say you have the same deficit and eat the same amount of carbs, but you are insulin resistant, will a large amount of these carbs then be stored as fat instead of replenishing glycogen stores?
Ok... your muscles.. and anyone's, even those who have IR, will be objectively more insulin sensitive post workout than if you were sedentary. However this may only make an IR individual sensitive enough to be "normal" for that post work out period.
Originally Posted by Future_PB_Dr
IR means your cells don't wanna let the nutrients in, so they circulate in the blood at higher than normal levels for longer than normal amounts of time. This causes the same sort of damage that overconsumption can cause, but on a regular basis. It also means that the glucose still needs to be disposed of in some manner... even if it can't be assimilated into the cells. So to me this means that those secondary disposal pathways and lipogenesis happens more readily in a IR person.
Thats my current understanding. The energy imbalance of the cells has caused the cells to preserve themselves by not allowing energy in as readily (insulin resistance)... this saves the cells, but causes collateral damage to other systems since elevated blood lipids and blood glucose (both signs of IR) wreak havoc....
I probably could proof read this and explain better, but oh well. I think thats about right
Exactly. I think that is an interesting question.
Originally Posted by not on the rug
Hmm I actually think fat might be VERY important to muscle growth, simply because in the natural world fat and protein always go together! That's how nature made it, and nature knows what it is doing. Perhaps it is that saturated fat and cholesterol increase our testosterone and provide a hormonal environment where we muscle up? It makes sense to me that we have adapted to hunt and drag huge logs onto the fire (exercise), then eat the animal (fat and protein), then get strong.
What I still don't understand is why carbs would be associated with muscle growth. If the kill was successful we wouldn't load up on sweet potatoes and leafs, cause hey we have meat! I've heard the theory that insulin spiking after work drives protein into the muscle? But I thought insulin spiking is what we are trying to avoid with paleolithic eating?
Surplus calories - that's easy, we absolutely need surplus food to build mass. I certainly do when lifting. I've done this by holding protein at .7g/pound body weight, and increasing fat (butter/almonds/coconut oil/sardines in oil) for the excess calories. But whenever I've added sweet potatoes I've added mass, but around the mid-section.
Anyhow, just some pondering, it is an interesting question.
No, chronically elevated levels of insulin are what we want to avoid. Insulin is the doorman that lets nutrients into the cells, both muscle and fat cells. So when we want to get nutrients into the muscle cells, insulin is key. When we want to mobilize the fats from our adipose tissue, we want insulin to lay low.
Originally Posted by KimchiNinja
Insulin is vital. It's not the enemy. The problem is when we lose the ability to respond to insulin's message.
Originally Posted by RichMahogany
when you add the sweet potatoes, you are taking in excess calories, so are you eating less protein or fat to counter the calorie increase? because added calories will equal weight gain. don't forget about the butter, etc that you might add to the sweet potatoes as well.
Originally Posted by KimchiNinja
if you eat sweet potatoes one day and feel soft in the mid-section the next day, thats just water retention. not the end of the world.
Okay, I am back. I just got back from spring break, so I took a full week off of lifting and intense eating. However, I did stuff my face with abundant amounts of seafood, and was able to maintain my weight despite barely eating during the day but gorging for dinner. Anyway, I am ready to begin my second attempt at weight gain with a new perspective: more carbs.
I saw the interesting thread going on right now about rice and potatoes, and love the debate. I've recently been reading The Perfect Health Diet, and it seems to make a lot of sense. Perhaps not rice, but why wouldn't Grok have eaten all the potatoes and starchy tubers he could find? Do you think he was worried about the carbohydrates? Rhetorical question...but really, I am making the appropriate connections now, and am convinced that eating more rice, potatoes, etc. will help me gain the weight I want. I think I am going to opt for the traditional bulk and cut method.
Back to lifting...call me crazy, but I decided to drop all the way down to 155lbs on squat and bench, and 185 lbs on DL (on the classic SS routine) and work my way back up from there. I really want to work on form and I am hoping that starting here will prevent me from stalling and help me break past the 210lb squat and bench plateau I hit circa two weeks ago. Plus, I am hella sore from yesterday despite this heavily reduced weight, though this is no surprise given I hadn't worked out in over 10 days.
I really think this approach is going to work much better. It will be easier, too. Here's a question, though. For those of you that are die-hard CI/CO proponents, how can you explain my lack of weight gain despite averaging 3500-5000 calories (65%fat, 15%carbs) for at least two months? I was working out ~1.5 hours a week, doing weight-lifting alone, no HIIT or met-con workouts, just SS lifting. I am not asking because I do not believe in CI/CO and want to belittle you, I am not sure where I lie on the issue yet myself, but my n=1 is telling me that it doesn't hold totally true, and I would like to hear what you guys have to say about that?
Yeah, but aren't a lot of us screwed up from living for decades in the United States of Sugar?
Originally Posted by RichMahogany
I'm pretty scientific about my self-experiments (periodically logging exact calories, weighing to the gram, cook everything at home, use gym body analyzer). The interesting thing about paleo is that I can go 3000 calories on heavy lifting days, with carbs under 40g and sugar under 15g...and not gain fat weight (2200 is around my maintenance for non-workout days). Mix is 70 fat / 25 pro / 5 carb (from vegi). Right now I'm in keto-lifting mode, eating lots fat/protein, gaining muscle, body fat slightly decreasing, weight more or less neutral.
But if I even go 2500 on lifting days with 100-150g carbs (from adding sweet potatoes or brown rice) the waist fat starts. And then it just goes and goes. I've been down that road. The body analyzer at the gym confirms it is fat increase along with muscle increase. It is possible I could add MORE muscle with carbs, don't know for sure, just not a fan of the strong but high body fat look that a lot of heavy lifting guys have.