gaining weight > Forums > Zone Diet - Welcome to life in the Zone

Unanswered

Active Topics

Forums

Forums > Zone Living Forums > Athletic Performance

Subject: gaining weight

You are not authorized to post a reply.

Page 2 of 3

Author

Messages

Cranberrycat User is Offline

Posts:5313

Zone Expert

03/30/2009 11:48 AM
I have been trying to follow this discussion at a distance (being that I have no real expertise in the athletic field). But, I do find this discusssion very interesting. Jeffrey, I think it all came together for me with your twin analogy. I definitely think that the twins would weigh and measure differently, if one used AAS, while the other didn't. And, in the case of the injected insulin, I think that Matthew may have a point there, because of the way the insulin was used. I believe that the energy is still balanced, but is redirected, as Jeffrey stated. One twin used his intake and stored it as muscle, because his body was directed to do so. That may mean that he might have lacked energy to do other things (since the diets were the same). The other twin used his intake for his energy expenditure, rather than storing it, because there was no chemical there to tell the body to do anything else with it. I won't go into the insulin discussion, only to say that it is important to have a post-workout snack, after an intense workout, to feed the body and help build and repair those muscles. A high carb (or highly unfavorable carb) snack is going to provide a quick release, but this practice will also muck around with the body's ability to burn fat for energy, rather than burning carbs. A more moderated snack (zone favorable snack) will still provide the necessary nutrients, but it will also promote fat burning. And, a true fat-burning machine will burn fat 24/7. A Carb-burning machine is less efficient. It will fluctuate between hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia more radically. Nothing worse than suffering hypoglycemia when your body is trying to perform! (isn't that the "bonk" that I hear you guys talking about?) The thing about the Zone is that you MUST eat enough protein in order to supply your LBM with what it needs. Along with the adequate protein, you should be eating an adequate amount of carbs and fat. I get the feeling that Matthew does not think he is getting enough protein to support/build his LBM. So, increase the protein. Then, increase the carbs and fat. I think that the struggle isn't that we are not getting enough calories, but rather that we are eating too much food. A proper Zone Diet should be veggies and fruits, lean protein and monounsaturated fat. Perhaps, if Matthew tried to eat lower glycemic meals and snacks, he may find the energy that he is looking for?

Cranberrycat We don't own the earth; we borrow it from our children.

Matthew

Posts:174

Zoner

03/30/2009 1:19 PM
Cranberry: I do eat low glycemic meals and snacks. I don't know why you would assume that I don't. I often eat 6+ times per day, and it is almost always with lean sources of protein, healthy fats, and low GI carbs, including tons of veggies and fruit. In fact, other than really one meal per day, 6 days out of the week, I eat pretty much a Zone diet (only with additional blocks and additional healthy fats to fill my increased caloric requirements due to the amount of exercise I do on a daily basis (often in excess of 3 hours per day). There is ONE time that I do not use low GI carbs, and that is immediately post-intense strength training. The reason why is because I want the insulin response (coupled with protein and BCAAs). That is what I am looking for. Because insulin, under those circumstances, is very anabolic. This is why professional bodybuilders inject insulin (in addition to everything else they are using). So, by eating a high GI + protein meal, I am intentionally manipulating my body's hormones to get my body to do what I want it to do after strength training -- repair and rebuild muscle in the most efficient manner possible. During the rest of the day I am also manipulating my hormones, by eating low GI carbs, protein and healthy fats, but I am controlling my hormones to limit insulin response so my body doesn't use it to store fat during the times of the day when insulin will do exactly that. I do get enough protein to support and build my LBM. And the protein recommendations of the Zone are sufficient to do that. But there is a difference between being sufficient and being optimal. And that is why I add additional protein above and beyond 1 g/ lb. of LBM. And when you are strength training with maximal weights 6+ hours per week and doing other exercises/training another 14 hours per week that are moderate to strenuous, you are probably looking for "optimal" and not merely "sufficient". A 5% difference in performance may not matter to most people, but it is a world of difference to me. The "twin" example is a very good example. But please note my response. I never claimed that hormones don't matter when it comes to body composition and whether your body is building muscle or building fat. Of course hormones matter a great deal. There are entire training systems used by advanced athletes based on this concept (one is even called the "Hormonal Fluctuation Model"). The use of steroids and insulin by professional bodybuilders is meant to take advantage of the role hormones play in the building of muscle and the storage or burning of fat. And of course the way we eat manipulates our hormones as well. As I mentioned before, the two twins following identical training programs and diets with one using steroids and the other not would most certainly involve changes in body composition between the two. Hypothetically, assuming no loss of energy to other purposes, the steroid-using twin would be better able to burn fat and use the energy to build muscles because that is what his hormones are telling him to do. Since a lb. of fat is more dense than a lb. of muscle, the steroid using twin could conceivably supply the energy to build 7 lbs. of muscle from every 5 lbs. of fat he has on his body (assuming his other nutritional needs are being met, such as sufficient calories for his energy expenditure and sufficient protein). But at some point, using the energy from your fat stores to supply the muscle building process is difficult to do. The lower your body fat levels get, the more your body tries to hold onto them, and of course the less energy your are able to supply for the purpose of building muscle, from your fat stores. So there is a limit to how much more muscular the steroid twin can get as compared with his non-steroid twin. I would propose another comparison. Let's take two identical twins, both of whom have 8% body fat, are elite strength athletes, have them follow exactly the same training protocol for a year, but have them eat different diets for a year. One eats a Zone diet that provides him with 1,800 calories per day (and let's assume this is 600 calories less than his maintenance diet according to the various calculators out there). The other brother eats as I have described, eating a "maintenance" diet that is still a Zone diet, but getting an additional 600 calories (at this point I don't care if they come from additional fat blocks only or additional blocks). At the end of a year of training, which do you think will have more lean muscle? Which do you think will be stronger? To be clear, there are 3 separate (but interrelated issues here): 1. Does a lean strength athlete need more calories than is provided under the "basic" Zone diet to gain (or maintain) muscle at optimal rates (or at all for that matter)? 2. If yes, how much additional calories do they need? 3. If yes to #1, what is the best way to get those additional calories to perform at optimal levels. I think the answer to #1 is clearly yes. I think the answer to #2 is some figure that is slightly above their maintenance levels for gain muscle and at maintenance levels to keep body weight. I think that the answer to #3 is by a combination of adding additional blocks, post workout nutrition involving high GI carbs + protein + BCAAs, and, if necessary, adding additional fat blocks. By the way, it is clear that Dr. Sears agrees that the answer to #1 is "yes" as well. Although I am not aware of specifically what he has written on #2, what I have seen leads me to believe that his answer would be similar to mine. I think the only area of disagreement I might have with Dr. Sears what the nature of the additional calories should be. He would fill the additional caloric requirement of elite lean strength athletes with additional fat blocks only. I would do that too, but I would add a non-Zone high GI+protein+BCAA post workout meal to the equation. I would also (depending on the athlete) increase the number of blocks so that the athlete was getting more than 1 g/lb. of LBM. How much more (or even if more is needed) depends a bit on the athlete and how much strength training and other high intensity work he or she is doing. Frankly, I attribute the majority of this disagreement to the fact that it appears most, if not all, of the Zone-sponsored athletes are endurance athletes and not strength/power athletes. I think if Dr. Sears worked with a larger cross sections of elite level powerlifters, weightlifters, bodybuilders, football players, etc., he might very well change change what it means to be "in the Zone" for these athletes. As I mentioned, Dr. Jonny Bowden, who co-authored the book, "Living the Low Carb Life" with Dr. Sears, does believe that for athletes who train intensely, high GI carb drinks are beneficial post-workout (though he thinks it is poor advice for the general exercise public).

Cranberrycat User is Offline

Posts:5313

Zone Expert

03/30/2009 3:05 PM
Matthew, I hope I can cover your response adequately, but I don't really have a lot of time at the moment. I really had no way of knowing whether or not you were eating low glycemic meals or not. I don't recall that you had ever discussed it before. But, based on your response, I think that you are perhaps not allowing yourself to really get in the Zone. Big difference between eating low glycemic MOST of the time and being in the Zone ALL of the time. Also, I continue to see you post about this additional calorie expenditure that you feel you need, but I will try to explain my thoughts a bit better. I think most athletes that are trying to Zone probably struggle with the performance aspect and the post-workout aspect. I can see your point, regarding endurance athletes vs. strength/power athletes. I don't have the athletic expertise here, so I will defer on that, for the most part. A higher glycemic snack may be fine after a workout, as long as it has adequate protein and fat to go along with it. But, I think that you are looking for elevated insulin levels to repair the muscle fibers, whereas the elevated insulin levels is also going to take you out of the Zone (OOZ, as I like to refer to it). I must have been confused, because I thought I had read in another one of your posts, that you were concerned that you didn't get enough protein to support your LBM and muscle building efforts. I really have no problem with your feelings on increasing protein for the reasons that you posted. What I like about the twin example is that it illustrated that the 2 people ingesting the same meals over the year still had a different body build because one received steroid injections. Obviously, only an analogy, as I have never actually seen a study like that. Because of it being an analogy, I suppose that there are a number of things that could go wrong with the analogy, if it was actually put into place. But, the point was to show that a diet of equal calories can result in a difference of body builds, and that the calorie distribution was not necessarily the same. I would like to see a study done on identical twins where both twins are put on an equal number of calories, but one follows a Zone Diet and the other follows a hi-carb diet. Probably would be impossible to eliminate the variables, but it would be interesting to see. ON your proposed study: I think you would have to be more specific with regard to whether the additional calories are coming from fat or from increased blocks, since the addition of one or the other would have very different results. Too many blocks can take one out of the Zone, if added blocks are not necessarily needed. If both twins are trying to increase muscle mass, then they should eat the same number of blocks. Then, the added 600 calories need to be defined. Do they come from fat? Carbs? Protein? The point here is that the twins can't both be in the Zone if one eats one way and the other eats another way. The Zone may happen for one, but not for the other. Here are the answers (as best as I can give them) to the questions that you have posted: 1. Does a lean strength athlete need more calories than is provided under the "basic" Zone diet to gain (or maintain) muscle at optimal rates (or at all for that matter)? -- if a lean strength athlete is trying to gain muscle, he/she may need more blocks of protein (accompanied by carb/fat). If he/she is maintaining muscle, then he/she may not need to eat extra blocks, but rather eat his/her protein as per the protein prescription. I think we all agree that if one is trying to increase LBM, then we need to eat the amount of protein that allows for the increase. 2. If yes, how much additional calories do they need? -- that answer is going to fluctuate with every individual, depending on current stats and desired state. 3. If yes to #1, what is the best way to get those additional calories to perform at optimal levels. -- the best way is to not think calorically. If you need additional protein, then eat more protein. There is also going to be a corresponding need for additional carb and fat, so all of this will work together, to keep you in the Zone. Looks like we are all in agreement (for the most part)on these 3 questions. Except that you are also thinking that there is an additional energy need. This is not necessarily true. It could be true, but this will vary individually. Actually, the additional energy need depends on what is happening to your body. If you are losing fat stores (and you are already optimally lean), then you would increase fat blocks. But, if you are losing LBM, then you would probably want to re-analyze whether or not you are getting enough protein. I would not try to prevent the destruction of LBM by feeding the body high carbs or high fat, in this case. Wow, I wrote more than I had planned!

Cranberrycat We don't own the earth; we borrow it from our children.

Matthew

Posts:174

Zoner

03/30/2009 6:37 PM
1. But what if the protein prescriptions are too conservative? Does a Bulgarian weightlifter who lifts maximal weights 30 hours per week 6 days per week only need 1 g/lb of lbm? Are you telling me that this weightlifter would not benefit from a higher ratio of protein per pound of lbm than 1 g and only needs exactly the same ratio is another elite athlete who only trains with heavy weights 5 hours per week or does twice a day training for 10 hours? There seems to be a bias against going over 1g/lb of lbm of protein here because that is the maximum in Dr. Sears' physical activity factor. Of course the additional protein over 1g / lb. of lbm must be balanced with a commensurate increase in carbs and fat so you remain in the Zone. 2. Yes the answer fluctuates, but obviously let's assume you are already dealing with someone who is consuming 1g/lb? Obviously Dr. Sears thinks that athletes of this nature might well need even more calories, since he suggests (in "Entering the Zone") that truly elite athletes consume 2x the fat blocks. That is a 33% increase in calories. Frankly, caloric requirements can exceed this amount as well. 3. As long as you agree that protein requirements can be more than 1g/lb., then yes, we are mostly in agreement. If you think that is the cap to protein requirements, we probably are still in disagreement. Also, a remaining area of disagreement is that you should never ever leave the Zone to perform at your best. But the Zone is all about hormone manipulation and decreasing inflammation. Insulin is treated as though it is always the enemy, but that simply isn't the case. There are brief windows of opportunity where insulin is your friend when it comes to getting your body to do what you want it to. And that period of time is within the first 30 minutes post heavy training. During that period, insuln is highly anabolic and stimulates muscle growth (as long as it is accompanied by protein and BCAAs). Adding fat reduces the insulin response during this critical window which is why I am not in favor of a Zone balanced meal post-intense strength training. The bottom line is that 4-5 meals per day that I consume are Zone balanced meals (sometimes with more fat blocks and adding additional blocks so I meet my protein requirements that are higher than 1g/lb) using the foods that Dr. Sears recommends. But 1-2 times per day (depending on whether my intense strength training is 1x per day or 2x per day), I use a non-Zone meal that consists of high GI carbs coupled with protein. Why? Because just like my Zone meals are manipulating my insulin levels for the purpose of avoiding fat storage, decreasing inflammation, increasing lean body mass, etc., so too are my non-Zone meals doing the same thing... the non-Zone meals just happen to be doing it in relation to the changed circumstances that my body is facing due to intense strength training. Insulin is interesting because it can be either good or bad depending on timing and the nutrients in your blood stream when you get the large insulin release. Most certainly, you don't want a large insulin response most of the day. But you do want a big insulin response immediately post training. That insulin response helps build muscles faster, speeds recovery, prevents catabolism, etc. during that specific time. The problem I have is that when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. You need to use the right tool for the right job for optimal results. Most of the time, staying in the Zone is the right tool for the job of all those healthy things that we want... but there are discreet times when it most certainly is not optimal. And one of those times is immediately post intense strength training.

Jeffrey

Posts:237

Zoner

03/30/2009 9:08 PM
Hi Matthew, I decided to track my calorie intake to a "T" today. It is 7:00 PM and I've eaten 1206 calories so far. These are actual, all up calories - I counted every calorie in everything I have eaten so far. I do have to estimate, but I'd be shocked to be off by more than 5% either way. I will eat a 2 block snack, run a 5k and eat a 3 block meal and a 1 block bedtime snack before I go to sleep (this is my "adder" - I didn't eat this extra block until recently). I expect this to be about 1900 calories and it is typical of what I eat most days. I input 24 hours of Resting into the exrx calculator and it return 1691 calories. That's a full sleep 24 hours a day. What I'm doing ought to be impossible assuming the exrx calorie / ooutput energy equation is right. Dr. Sears explains why it isn't when one burns a higher percentage of fat for energy - you get 3x the ATP and, therefore, need fewer calories to move one's body. His theories are consistent with my reality - its anecdotal, but works awsome for me. ;-) By the way, I'm not contending that a "standard" Zone diet is optimized to gain lean muscle mass at the optimal rate (there are so many variables, it is silly - each person has to make a good faith effort on their own if they are interested). I don't know. I'm just applying its principles to my own life to see what I can get out of it. After sleeping in on Saturday, I weighed in at 161.5 lbs in the morning. I'm gaining weight, but it is hard to put a number on the rate. My goal is 168-170 lbs while lowering my approximate 9% body fat by the end of the year. We'll see where I end up. I'm off to eat my 2 block snack and go run my 5k...

Matthew

Posts:174

Zoner

03/30/2009 9:10 PM
************ Dr. Sears' latest book actually discusses this topic in good detail. Your body doesn't run on calories, it runs on ATP. The amount of ATP that can be generated from a calorie of fat is ~3x the ATP available from a calorie of carbs. I believe this is likely why our body stores fat and not carbs - it is a more efficient way store ATP potential. To get the same ATP potential from carbs, you'd need to store 3x as many calories of carbs around your waistline. ************ This is something I wanted to address, but I wanted to make sure I was right first. I want to point out there is an error here. 1 calorie of fat does not produce ~3x the ATP of 1 calorie from a carb. Now 1 gram of fat produces more ATP than 1 gram from a carb. The actual difference is 2.49x as much (I went and looked it up in a biochemistry textbook). Note the difference between talking in terms of calories versus grams. So why does this matter? Because 1 gram of fat has 2.4x as many calories as 1 gram of fat (using the actual calorie numbers of 3.81cal/g for carbs and 9.13 cal/g for fat rather than the approximations of 4 cal/g and 9 cal/g). Now, what do you see when you compare the two numbers... calories versus ATP? 2.49 v. 2.40? You see that whether we are talking calories or ATP we are really talking about the same thing for all intents and purposes... we are talking about the energy provided by food. And the difference between the two figures is only about 4%. So at the end of the day, when you say, "calories don't matter, only ATP does" that may be technically true on the biochemical level, but talking calories instead of ATP is really just a shorthand for the same concept.

Matthew

Posts:174

Zoner

03/30/2009 9:18 PM
You actually posted while I was posting, so we sorta crossed. I want to point out that things like exrx and the like are estimates of your caloric needs (and please see my post above about why it doesn't matter whether we talk about calories or ATP, since we are really talking about the same things). They don't come up with the exact number down to a science, but it is a good enough estimate. One thing you should note is that as long as you have sufficient fat stories to supply the missing calories, you can achieve some modest muscle growth in caloric deficit. But as a I mentioned above, the closer your fat stores get to zero, the more trouble you are going to have adding any muscle while in a calorie deficit. Also see my discussion of the difference between sarcomeric hypertrophy and sarcoplasmic hypertrophy.

Cranberrycat User is Offline

Posts:5313

Zone Expert

03/30/2009 9:32 PM
Matthew, 1. I never suggested limiting the protein prescription. If that Bulgarian lifter needs more protein than what Sears recommends, I have no problem with him taking in more. Balanced with carb and fat, as you said (I hope I was clear in my post, maybe I wasn't). 2. I also have no problem with athletes eating more fat, doubling the fat block. Athletes have higher energy needs, and because they are burning fat for energy, they may be losing fat stores too quickly. Consuming more fat is a way of keeping the fat stores intact. But, if fat loss is not occurring, this would not be necessary. Just to clarify, I don't really see a lot of harm in any of us overconsuming fat. I double my fat intake, basically to regulate my carbs better. But, Eating more fat will not take us out of the Zone. Incidently, in caloric thinking, doubling the fat block does not necessarily add up to a ton of calories. 3. I do agree that protein requirements MAY be more than what the protein prescription suggests. What you and I disagree on is that I believe we should strive to stay in the Zone, and you don't think so. Well, I feel I am performing at my peak if I am IN the Zone. Here is an example (remember, I am not athletic, but I do compete in the sport of bowling). Before I realized that there was such a thing as "The Zone", I would consume a bowl of Chex cereal before I would go to a bowling competition. I would start out bowling these crazy high games, but by the end of the series, I could barely make my average. Fast forward to my "in the Zone" days, and I consume a zone meal before my bowling competition. I am alert, mentally clear, and still capable of bowling some really good games. However, my glucose and insulin levels are steady, and I can sustain my alertness and concentration, so that I can make it through the series without losing my stamina. THAT is peak performance (as I know it in my world). Insulin is not necessarily the enemy, it does serve a purpose in the body (otherwise modern medicine would have come up with a way of getting rid of it by now). But, if you use high carb low fat snacks to induce a spike in insulin, you are going to reverse your chances of keeping yourself in the Zone. Aren't there other ways of stimulating muscle growth, without taking you out of the Zone? OH, and if you are saying that you go OOZ 1-2 times per day on a consistent basis, then I can see why you are struggling to understand how the Zone can work for you. You are basically telling me that you have not given it a chance to work. Doing this consistently is likely not going to allow your body to be in the Zone the rest of the day, even if the rest of your meals are zoned meals. The Zone is not just about eating right, it is a state of being.

Cranberrycat We don't own the earth; we borrow it from our children.

Matthew

Posts:174

Zoner

03/30/2009 9:49 PM
Cranberry: The Zone is not an end unto itself, it is a means to an end. The end being reduction of excess fat, reduction of inflammation, production of lean muscle stores, etc. through the use of (among other things) hormone manipulation. For someone who doesn't train INTENSELY with heavy weights, staying in the Zone at all times is probably a good thing to accomplish those goals, and probably the best way to do so. For someone who is seriously training with intense weights, the Zone no longer does that for certain periods of the day (or not as well as it could). In a sense, the Zone has shifted. And all the Zone is is a Zone in which the ratio of protein to carbs to fat is maintained at certain ratios in order to manipulate hormones in the body to do what we want them to do. Eating a high GI meal accomplishes that hormone manipulation better during the 30 minutes post intense exercise better than the Zone you are in for the other 23 hours, 30 minutes of the day. You body is already in a different hormonal state as a result of truly intense exercise (and I cannot stress how much I mean INTENSE) than it is during the rest of the day. So why should we conclude that what is proper in terms of nutrition for periods other than that is optimal for nutrition when in that state? As I mentioned, there is plenty of scientific and empirical evidence regarding the P+C+BCAA post-workout meal. In fact, there are many who believe that the pre/post workout meals (and possibly the first meal after your post workout meal) are the most important times for nutrition in an athlete's entire day.

Cranberrycat User is Offline

Posts:5313

Zone Expert

03/30/2009 10:09 PM
Well, I certainly can not disagree that you and I are different. But, we are still talking about performance, are we not? The Zone is not an end to anything, nor is it a means to an end. It is a continuous state of well-being. After I reduce my excess fat stores, I don't see an end at all! I see myself continuing indefinitely in the Zone. BTW, your 30 minutes of high GI eating is affecting your body longer than that. Especially if you are doing this 1-2 times per day, the effects can last a lot longer.

Cranberrycat We don't own the earth; we borrow it from our children.

Matthew

Posts:174

Zoner

03/30/2009 11:06 PM
Yes, the meal does effect me for longer, but that is what I want, because it takes about 2 hours post training for my hormone levels to return no their baseline from training, so I want to make damned sure to take advantage of that window of opportunity and get as much and as many nutrients into my muscles as possible during that time period. In fact, I count on those meals having a longer effect. You are right that the Zone is about hormones, inflammation and health. BUT, the diet that gets you into Zone is usually they same, but there are times it isn't. And post workout is a time when it isn't, at least for genuinely seriously athletes training their bodies very hard.

Jeffrey

Posts:237

Zoner

03/31/2009 12:34 AM
Hi Matthew, Can you check that chemistry textbook and tell us how much ATP it says a gram of carb produces and how much ATP a gram of carbs produces? I stand corrected - I reread Toxic Fat and Dr. Sears does claim a gram of fat produces 3x more ATP than a gram of carbs... It is grams, not calories. Adjusting for calories, the difference doesn't appear all that large. I think Dr. Sears needs to explain his view stated in the Anti-Inflammation Zone that a calorie of fat produces a lot more ATP than a calorie of carbs. Without the underlying data, it is hard to know what he's seeing. Unfortunately, the web doesn't fill in the blanks (at least not yet).

Karen

Posts:868

Zoner

03/31/2009 2:14 AM
I don't know if this helps, but the following is an article on Dean Karnazes. It states what he does. Even if it doesn't help, it's still a good read. http://www.zonediet.com/tabid/130/itemid/1100/Endurance-champion-is-in-the-Zone.aspx

Happy Zoning! Karen

Cranberrycat User is Offline

Posts:5313

Zone Expert

03/31/2009 10:16 AM
Matthew, Here is another point, kind of getting away from the ATP thing and the calorie thing, but focusing on inflammation. I have relatively good control over my inflammation levels, despite the fact that I still carry a bit more fat on my body than what I would prefer. But, extra body fat does not necessarily mean elevated levels of inflammation. At the same time, you are very athletic, very little body fat, very muscular. Yet, you are working out daily (can I even assume twice per day?). It just seems to me that you are putting quite a bit of strain on your body by doing what you are doing. To the point that you are concerned about getting in a high carb snack in order to boost insulin levels and repair the muscle fibers.... And, if you are counting on those high carb snacks to have a 2 hour effect (and it would be 4 hours, if you consider doing this 2 times per day), then there is almost no chance that you can really keep your inflammation levels low the rest of the time. You have a very low chance of being in the Zone at all for the rest of the day. I was thinking about this topic earlier, on my way to work. It really is a good topic, and I wish there were more information from Sears on this topic. I would love to hear Sears comment on this. Wonder if we would get anything from Sears if we posted something on the CHAT? I have tried submitting questions to him on www.drsears.com, but have never gotten response from that. However, I have gotten some things clarified by the CHAT people, when they were unable to answer questions, they would go to top (Sears) for the answer.

Cranberrycat We don't own the earth; we borrow it from our children.

Matthew

Posts:174

Zoner

03/31/2009 11:11 AM
Jeffrey: I'll see if I can find the section in the biochemistry textbook again regarding the ATP produced for a gram of fat versus a gram of a carbohydrate. I found the biochemistry textbook online after much searching. From memory (and I may be wrong on the actual numbers) I think it said that a gram of fat produces 0.49 Moles of ATP and a gram of a carbohydrate produces 0.20 Moles of ATP. Interestingly, this biochemistry textbook compared the ratio of ATP between fat and carbs side by side with the ratio of calories to show that calories are a very close approximation of the amount of ATP contained in each. Given that anywhere from 5-15% of a carb you eat is burned off in the digestion process (themogenic effects of feeding) and anywhere from 2-5% of a fat is burned off due to the TEF, I guess you could say that every gram of fat you eat ultimately produces approximately 3x (2.87x using 15% and 2%) as much ATP as every gram of carbohydrates you eat (once you account for the digestion process). Now, in some ways this is talking about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. The reality is that every one of these calculators has a lot of assumptions in them. The TEF have a range. The calories (or ATP for that matter) in the food that we eat are approximations (e.g., some apples are bigger than others, two identical cuts of meat weighting exactly the same amount may have different numbers of calories because they are not identical in the amount of fat, close but not identical, etc.), the amount of energy that we burn during exercise is an approximation (i.e., two people of equal weight and body composition could use the same training program and burn different amounts of calories because one person is stronger than the other and thus uses more weight), etc. Heck, even our shorthand for the amount of calories in gram of carbs, fat, or protein is an approximation (fat actually has 9.13 calories per gram, carbs actually have 3.81 calories per gram, protein actually has slightly over 4 calories per gram). To add to the confusion, even two people with the same LBM and body weight, age, height and other vital statistics can have different base metabolisms, which means they have different BMR because your metabolism can speed up or slow down based on the amount of calories you consume (among other things). Heck, even "light" activity can burn different calories. Think about the difference between someone sitting and typing on Internet message board versus an attorney trying to get a legal brief finished up by the end of the day to meet a court deadline, or a professional chess player sitting and studying a board in the middle of a tournament. The former two can be exhausting and performed under intense mental focus and adrenaline, and thus burn more calories. I am not saying that that the energy calculators like exrx are 100% accurate, just as I am not saying the various calculations with our food calories are 100% accurate. They are, however, reasonable starting points and approximations that work fairly well on average. They may need to be played with. An individual may find that he needs more calories than the exrx calculator comes up with, or less. That said, they are still useful starting points. To show how much more confusing things are, take a look at protein requirements. The studies are all over the map when it comes to the amount of protein per lb of lbm is sufficient. This is, in part, because there are so many damned variables. As mentioned above, a Bulgarian weightlifter really cannot be said to be in the same population as a marathoner in terms of the amount of stress each places on their musculature, despite the fact that both are elite athletes. 1 g per lb of lbm might be all the marathoner needs, but it might be well below what the weightlifter needs. Also the quality of the protein matters. If you are getting a lot of your protein from vegetables, nuts, seeds, legumes, etc., you will need to eat a lot more protein than someone who gets his protein from animal sources because of the TEF and the bioavailability of the protein in each. So really, we are playing a big game of approximations and we need to realize that, because the more approximations there are in a system, the greater the margin of error. I can use every calculator out there for food and energy and still find at the end of the day, that my actual needs are 20% higher or 20% lower than what the calculators tell me due to the inherent approximations in the system. So how do you deal with this since it is not an exact science from a dieter's perspective? You start with the approximations and then make adjustments from there. I may find that exrx tells me that I need 3,200 calories to maintain my bodyweight. But let's say I eat that and find that I am gaining unwanted bodyweight. Simple, I just adjust the starting point downward by 200 calories. If that doesn't work, I adjust it downward again. If I want to go the other direction and gain body weight, I start incrementally adding 200 calories to my daily intake until I see my body weight start to increase. This is a far more practical approach to total caloric intake, I think. Obviously, the quality of what we eat and the ratios matter quite a bit as far as our hormones, inflammation and general health go. So we aren't just talking about the quantity of food here, but also the quality. And this is what I like in particular about the Zone diet. It provides a practical approach to choosing healthy foods in the correct ratio to for good health, reduction of inflammation, and regulation of hormones. The main issue I have with the Zone (and why I have tweaked it to my purposes) is that for my level of activity: 1. I don't get enough calories (or ATP) to perform at my best. 2. I don't get enough protein 3. Post workout nutrition isn't optimal So all I have done is make minor fixes to suit my needs. I eat more blocks in order to get more protein. This also brings with it more calories. So it partially solves #1 & #2. I add non-Zone high GI carb + protein + BCAA post workout meals. This solves #2 and #3 and partially solves #1. Then I add additional fat blocks. This solves #1. I just want to add an addendum about the non-Zone post workout meal. This meal is a non Zone meal in that it does not maintain the ratio between carbs, protein and fat that the other meals of the day do. But does it really take me "out of the Zone"? I think the answer is no. The Zone is really that status of your body, not the status of your food. Yes, your food is used to bring your body into the Zone, so we use a shorthand of calling the foods that we eat with that particular ratio being in the Zone. But as Dr. Sears himself explained, there is a range of ratios between carbs and protein that one can eat and still be in the Zone. Lean athletes have a greater range between the two. Post intense workout, this range increases even further (or it could be argued that the Zone shifts during this period). Now a so-called "Zone" meal might still be in the acceptable range of this shifted Zone during the post intense workout period, but are the ratios optimal to put you within your new "Zone" post workout? My thinking is no, they aren't, for a specific population of athletes (those that train intensely in strength & power sports), and there is pretty good scientific and empirical evidence to back me up on that. Our insulin acts very very differently post intense workout than it does during the other periods of the day. So why should we think that a nutrient ratio that works under normal circumstances is still the ideal nutrient ratio during completely different circumstances? There is an assumption being made that elevated insulin is always a bad thing. There are discreet and small windows of time for particular populations, when elevated insulin levels are a very very good thing, hormonally speaking. They are promoting all the same things that are promoted by staying in the Zone ratios. For this specific population (lean athletes who are training very intensely with weights), during a short 30-60 minute window following training (it actually goes on for about 2 hours, but becomes less pronounced as time goes on, the Zone is no longer a ratio of protein to carbs is no longer .75, but becomes more along the lines of between .25-.5. Take a look at Dr. Sears' "bell curve" of proper ratios between protein and carbs. It ranges from 0.6-1.0 (with .75 being ideal). I guess all I am really saying is that for a discreet period of time for a particular population, this "Zone" shifts to the left. So to stay in the Zone during these discreet periods of time, you need to eat accordingly. I have been told that I am eating OOZ when I have a high GI carb + protein + BCAA meal immediately after intense strength training. I disagree. I think I am actually staying in the Zone, it is just that the Zone has shifted. From a practical point of view, what this means is that within the first 15 minutes post training, I have a post exercise shake with approximately 300 calories in it that is approximately 4:1 high GI carbs to protein. About 1-2 hours later, I have a traditional Zone meal, because the Zone is shifting back to where it normally is throughout the day. Healthy fats are usually a good thing to have with your meals, but because of the brief window of opportunity I have to take care of my post workout nutritional needs, I do not want fat in this meal because it lowers my insulin response during the one time of the day when I don't want my insulin response to be blunted. It also slows the digestion and absorption of the carbohydrates, protein and BCAAs during the window of time when I want them to rapidly get into my muscles and liver. As with most things it is a trade off. I am missing out on some of the anti-inflammatory benefits of fat, but I am also benefiting from that anti-inflammatory benefits of the high GI + protein meal getting to my muscles to start the repair process during the window of opportunity. During my most "hardcore" period of strength training (when I was regularly competing and winning powerlifting competitions), I took inflammation even more seriously than you can imagine. So much so that I actually took 15 minutes ice baths as soon after training as I could to reduce inflammation. I regularly received massages as well. To that I added nutritional strategies that most certainly included a post workout shake. I practiced both relaxation meditation and sports meditation (visualization). And they made a big difference. When you train with very very heavy weights, pushing your body to the limits of what it is capable of, for 9-10 hours per week (as I was doing when I was competitively powerlifting) you take every opportunity you can to help your body and mind recover from the rigors of training like that. Only a tiny fraction of people who train with weights ever train in the manner in which I did (and still do, albeit with not to the same level as my competitive days). I guarantee that my "Zone" during my post workout periods was very different than my "Zone" during other periods of the day. Getting back briefly to insulin: I am not a bodybuilder and frankly it bears no interest for me. But I do have a passing familiarity with bodybuilding. Professional bodybuilders have ALWAYS taken steroids, but if you notice the trend from the days of Arnold to what happened in the 1980s and 1990s, you will notice that bodybuilders have become substantially bigger and more muscular, and noticeably so. Those "in the know" about bodybuilding attribute this to many factors (I don't want to claim it is just one factor that has caused this). But, among the most important factors, and #1 on most people's list in this regard is the introduction of insulin injections that began occurring in the early 1980s. Substantially elevated insulin levels, we are told, is the enemy and takes us out of the Zone and promotes increased storage of fat. Yet, the bodybuilders learned how to manipulate insulin injections so that it had the opposite effect, it increased muscle mass while still allowing them to maintain very low levels of bodyfat. Indeed, recent studies have confirmed what bodybuilders have known all along... insulin is the most anabolic hormone in the human body... more so than even testosterone. But, unlike testosterone, insulin is only anabolic during certain periods. Now, I am not suggesting that anyone go out and start injecting any hormones like testosterone or insulin (I am a lifetime natural lifter). However, if we can manipulate our food to create a similar response in our hormones, we can see similar (albeit less extreme) results. And the primary way to do that is through consuming post workout high GI carbs + protein + BCAAs. We get a natural insulin "injection" at the right time. BTW, knowing what I am telling you, when do you think bodybuilder inject insulin? If you guessed immediately after training, you are 100% correct. Just to test the theory, I did a search for "how to inject insulin bodybuilding" and pulled up a bunch of "how to" articles for aspiring bodybuilders. The first few links I found offered exactly this advice, which is precisely what you would expect (along with eating carbs and protein). So all the post workout high GI + protein + BCAA meal is doing is forcing our bodies to naturally produce the same hormones for the same purpose that (non-natural) bodybuilders inject into their system. Finally (and I realize this is a very very long post), I want to stress again that Dr. Sears' has associated himself primarily (almost exclusively) with endurance athletes. You just don't see strength/power athletes being Zone sponsored athletes. I think that if Dr. Sears worked more closely with a wide cross-section of strength/power athletes, he might very well make some alterations to the Zone diet for such athletes to more accurately reflect their needs. I have a feeling that if Dr. Sears did so, he might very well make recommendations along the same lines that I am making to tweak the Zone for a special population of athletes. Anyway, it is some "food" for thought.

Matthew

Posts:174

Zoner

03/31/2009 11:15 AM
Cranberry: I was in the middle of typing my very long post when you typed your response. I think you raise some very good points. I think I cover my thinking about them in my post (if you want to wade through all of it). But your thinking is along the same lines as mine with Dr. Sears. In fact, if you skip ahead to the final paragraph of my long post, I kinda make the same point about a dearth of information from Dr. Sears on this subject and wishing that he would address it. I guess that great minds think alike... ...of course my mom also said, "so do demented ones."

Matthew

Posts:174

Zoner

03/31/2009 11:43 AM
Jeffrey & Cranberry: I just wanted to tell you that, whether or not we ever come to some form of consensus or not, I am very much enjoying the discussion. I enjoy and appreciate having my views challenged, because it can lead to greater understanding. Perhaps I learn more about a subject and it confirms my prior beliefs, but perhaps I find out something I didn't know before and I need to rethink my conclusions. I pride myself on being an evidence-based thinker who is willing to change his views when presented with sufficient contradictory evidence. I am in a search, in all things, for the truth, and try to never be afraid to question my beliefs and conclusions and when they are off the mark, to alter my view accordingly. I hope both of you are enjoying this discussion as much as I am, and are as equally challenged by it (in a good way).

Cranberrycat User is Offline

Posts:5313

Zone Expert

03/31/2009 12:09 PM
Matthew, I am enjoying this discussion, as well. I don't agree with one-sided thinking at all, and I don't believe that Sears has all of the answers. I think that we are all in search of the same thing... the truth. This discussion is taking me into areas that I am not well-versed at all, so it is definitely a thought-provoking thread. Now, I will get back to reading your response to Jeffrey!

Cranberrycat We don't own the earth; we borrow it from our children.

Cranberrycat User is Offline

Posts:5313

Zone Expert

03/31/2009 12:34 PM
Ok, I read that post (good post, but very long...LOL). I am willing to accept the fact that most of this is all based on those estimations, too. We trust those who came up with all of those numbers to have come up with them fairly accurately, but there still can be room for error. In my own world, I probably push my zone recommendations beyond what Sears would advise, as per his online calculator. You see, I don't have a lot of muscle mass, and I am short, so my protein requirements are probably less than 11 blocks per day. However, I would not go below 11 blocks. I could not imagine a day with any less than what I eat now! And, to be quite honest, I should (and am) work on building my LBM, as well as work on the fat burning. Over the past 3 months, I have probably gained about as much LBM as I have lost fat, so my scale really hasn't moved, but my measurements are changing like crazy. So, I feel that I must be doing something right. Enough about me! I am still not sold on your post-workout nutrition regimen, but I am willing to accept that perhaps the need for that is different for athletes. I don't know that for a fact, I haven't really studied it before. My assumption would be that a high carb snack, which is intended to raise insulin levels in the body, is a threat to maintaining the state of the Zone for the rest of the day. But, at this point, I think that it would be very helpful for Sears to chime in. And, I agree, it would be interesting to hear from other power athletes rather than endurance athletes, who have successfully implemented the Zone. Have you ever had your AA/EPA tested? To be quite honest, I have not, but it would be interesting to see how inflammation is handled in the body of an athlete who practices your post-workout nutrition regimen. Hmmm, maybe this is the study that we are looking for! Wonder if it exists?

Cranberrycat We don't own the earth; we borrow it from our children.

Matthew

Posts:174

Zoner

03/31/2009 1:11 PM
I have never had any tests. Interestingly, at another website that I frequent dedicated to strength/power athletes and bodybuilders (mostly directed to a male audience since the name of the website is "testosterone") and Dr. Bowden (a colleague and friend of Dr. Sears) writes a column there occasionally called Question of Nutrition. I checked in and he had written column today. Unfortunately, he didn't really address any of the issues we are discussing here, and couldn't participate in the discussion of the article due to his workload. I am going to send the editor-in-chief of the the link the this thread and see if he might be able to get Dr. Bowdens' thoughts and comments, perhaps for a different article down the road, or perhaps for a response via private e-mail.

You are not authorized to post a reply.

Page 2 of 3

Forums > Zone Living Forums > Athletic Performance > gaining weight

ActiveForums 3.6

	Copyright 2007 by Zone Labs Inc Privacy Statement \| Terms Of Use \| About Zone Labs \| Contact Us \| Affiliates \| Press Room \| Careers \| Site Map