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 3 of 3

Author

Messages

Matthew

Posts:174

Zoner

03/31/2009 1:39 PM
I sent the e-mail to the editor at the Testosterone site linking this thread and asking if he or Dr. Bowden might take a crack at answering some of the questions raised in here, particularly the issue of post workout nutrition.

Cranberrycat User is Offline

Posts:5313

Zone Expert

03/31/2009 2:19 PM
I also posted a zone chat question relating back to this thread, in hopes that someone will forward this to Sears.

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

Matthew

Posts:174

Zoner

03/31/2009 4:23 PM
BTW, if any of you are curious about my usual "radical" post workout nutrition, it usually involves downing a 12 oz. glass (1.5 servings) of raw low fat milk and a large whole banana (and perhaps downing some BCAAs). A 12 oz. glass of raw non-fat milk contains 15g of protein, 21g of carbs and 1.5g of fat. A large whole banana has about 51g of carbs, 2g of protein and 1g of fat. So, I am getting about 17g of protein (68 calories), 72g of carbs (288 calories), and 2.5g of fat (~23 calories). This post workout meal is roughly 380 calories, with a carb to protein ratio of approximately 4:1 (I also usually drink 2-3 cups of water). This turns out to be roughly what Dr. Berardi recommends as well (0.8 g/kg of carb and between 0.2-0.4 g/kg of protein). It also falls within the range of 10-20% of my daily caloric intake (maintenance for me is roughly 3,200 calories and a diet designed to increase body mass is roughly 3,600 calories). Interestingly, this post exercise "meal" has pretty much been a staple of bodybuilder post workout nutrition for decades. Amazing how it appears to have been validated later by science!! And the great thing is that (other than the BCAAs), I am not forced to rely on supplements or processed foods to get within my "post workout Zone." I drink organic raw milk because I am allergic to processed milk (which is homogenized and pasteurized which I believe turns a healthy food into an unhealthy food). This is the most expensive part of the post workout meal. About an hour after working out, I will eat a whole meal that is a Zone balanced meal with healthy fats, low GI carbs and lean sources of protein. This meal is roughly 40-30-30 (although I admit to not being that anal about hitting the ratios exactly). This meal will generally be a bit higher in calories, roughly around half again as many calories (~600 calories). I also have a Zone balanced meal of roughly the same size about an hour and 1/2 before training. Between these three meals, i.e., withing the span of 4 hours, pre-workout through second post workout meal, I am eating about 50% of my days calories (~1,600 calories), getting ~107g of protein (428 calories), ~192g of carbs (768 calories), and ~42.5g of fat (383 calories). Over this 4 hour period, my diet is roughly 27% protein, 49% carbohydrate, and 24% fat. Over this period, the ratio of protein to carbs is ~0.55 (which is close to the lower end of the Zone... but remember, only one of the 3 meals in that 4 hour period is a non-Zone meal and that meal is immediately post workout to take advantage of the window of opportunity presented).

Cranberrycat User is Offline

Posts:5313

Zone Expert

03/31/2009 11:38 PM
I found an article under the fitness tab, "How to Burn Fat Faster". Although the topic is geared toward people that are trying to shed some fat, I think it does cover some things that we were talking about. -------------------------------------------------------------- To burn fat, you have to lower insulin levels, since insulin inhibits the release of stored fat from the adipose tissue. This is true as you exercise, but it is also true as you watch TV. Exercise just speeds up the fat-burning process. All exercise burns the same number of calories, but not necessarily the same amount of fat. Let’s look at running. If you increase your running pace from, say, 5.5 miles per hour to 6.5 miles per hour, you will burn both more fat and more calories if you cover the same distance. However, if you then increase your pace from 6.5 miles per hour to 7.5 miles per hour, you’ll actually burn less fat in proportion to the total calories burned. That’s because your muscles need adequate amounts of oxygen to metabolize fat to chemical energy (adenosine triphosphate or ATP) needed for muscle contractions. As you go beyond a certain exercise intensity, this growing lack of oxygen transfer to the muscle cells makes them more dependent on burning stored glucose for ATP production. You are still burning calories, but more of these are coming from a low-octane fuel (glucose) and less is coming from a high-octane fuel (fat). The combination of the Zone Diet plus high-dose fish oil increases your oxygen transfer capacity so that you can keep using high-octane fat for ATP production at increasingly higher exercise intensities. Furthermore, doing high-intensity aerobic exercise in an effort to burn fat faster can set you up for muscle injury due to the excess impact on your joints. Every time you lift both feet off the ground (as you do when you run), each foot transmits three times your weight through your ankles, legs, knees, and hips as it hits the surface. This is why brisk walking is recommended over running to minimize potential damage to your joints and minimize increased inflammation. Strength training, on the other hand, uses primarily glucose for ATP production. Therefore you will always burn less fat during a strength-training workout than an aerobic workout. However, this is more than compensated by increased muscle mass that can extract excess glucose from the blood throughout the day. This effectively lowers the need for extra insulin secretion and thus allows more effective burning of fat throughout the day. Realize that 80 percent of your insulin-lowering ability will come from your diet, and only 20 percent from exercise. The amount of fat burning from exercise drops even further if you are following a high glycemic-load diet. This is because excess insulin produced by a high glycemic-load diet blocks the release of stored fat for its potential use as energy. This explains why many people who spend an extraordinary number of hours in the gym have very little to show for their efforts. However, following the Zone Diet maximizes the fat-burning benefits of exercise.

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

Matthew

Posts:174

Zoner

04/01/2009 1:06 AM
I have to be honest: I read that article shaking my head the whole time thinking, "how the hell could a piece of s*** article like this get published on this website?" There is so much in that article that is outright wrong or taken out of context that I don't even know where to begin... Whoever wrote that article is proof that a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing, because he or she doesn't have a very good grasp of the broader picture and really doesn't know that much about exercise science nor must he or she have any real practical experience training people. I don't know who the author of that article is, but in the future he or she should stay away from writing about exercise and training and stick to something he or she knows about -- which clearly isn't training. Really, that is how offended I am at this article and the exercise advice given in it. I can be humble perhaps when I see an article on diet and biochemistry and proffer my theories and my best understanding of the material I am reading... that is outside my expertise, though I do my best to understand it and read as much as I can to expand that knowledge. But I am not going to write an official article on these subjects either. But when I read something like this (particularly since it is an article that was published on this site, and thus has the aura of credibility, and not merely a post on a message board) it is hard not to be incredibly harsh and dismissive, particularly when I KNOW that it is wrong and very seriously so. I am shocked and amazed that an article like this could make it on to this website. Let me get this right... anaerobic training doesn't burn as much fat as aerobic training? Really? I guess all those studies regarding high intensity interval training being vastly superior to low intensity continuous aerobic exercise for fat loss are wrong, never mind the practical experience that shows it too. Take a look at Olympic sprinters who run the 100m and 400m. Compare their physiques and body fat levels to longer distance runners. These athletes don't know the meaning of an exercise that isn't highly anaerobic. Here is another analogy when it comes to faster-paced running and interval training for fat-burning purposes as compared with slower paced aerobic exercises... would you rather have 100% of $100 or 50% of $500. The author seems to think that 100% of $100 is more than 50% of $500. A greater percentage of energy used to fuel the exercise (at the time you are doing it) comes from fat for lower intensity exercise, but a greater amount of fat is used for high intensity exercises. Never mind the fact that the oxygen debt created by aerobic exercise has to be repaid later. I could go on and on about many more things that are just ridiculous in this article, but I will curb my tongue further so I don't get banned. Suffice it to say, this article actually has very little relevance to our discussion (in addition to being dead wrong about what it actually does have to say).

Cranberrycat User is Offline

Posts:5313

Zone Expert

04/01/2009 8:44 AM
Well, for what it's worth, I am glad that you are being honest with your comments. I didn't realize how really "off" it was. I went back to the article to see who wrote it, but there is nothing stating who did. I was also looking for some citations of studies to support the article, but there were none. I have read in other places (not here) that anaerobic training burns less fat, as well. Have to remember where I read it, but I am pretty sure it is in some of the Curves literature (they "specialize" in women's fitness). They would like for women to keep their target HR lower than 85% to burn fat more efficiently (somewhere between 60-85%, but can't remember exactly). The claim is that there is less efficiency in fat burning if pushing the limit. However, on the other hand, one who pushes the limit may not burn it as efficiently, but will burn more fat overall(it is basically the same as your money analogy). The article supports the fact that muscles need glucose for ATP production. The Zone (diet plus fish oil) claims to improve the transfer of oxygen to the muscles so that the fat can be metabolized into ATP, rather than glucose. I think this is what I wanted to focus on. Do you have any coments about that?

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

Matthew

Posts:174

Zoner

04/01/2009 1:32 PM
Okay, I guess this would be a good time for a little overview of the energy systems that make muscle go and my best understanding of the implications of these systems when it comes to what you are trying to accomplish from exercise: 1. The short terms energy system: also known as the phosphate energy system or the alactic energy system which runs on adenosin triphosphate and creatine phosphate (sometimes also called the ATP-CP system). ATP is can be completely depleted in a muscle within a matter of 5 or 6 seconds, followed by CP within about a maximum of 20 or so seconds. So, short explosive power or strength movements lasting less than about 20-30 seconds depend to varying degrees on the ATP-CP system (which peaks at about 5-7 seconds and diminishes thereafter) to power the muscles. Sprinting the 100m or 200m is an example of use of the phosphate energy system, so is lifting maximal weights, explosive jumping, the various athletic feat performed by football players during the 5-10 seconds that such plays typically go, etc. Once the ATP-CP energy system is depleted, maximal intensity can no longer be maintained because the body has to rely on other energy systems to replace the depleted ATP-CP in the muscles. It takes about 3 minutes following their depletion to fully replace the ATP-CP in the muscles, although about 50% is replaced within the first 30 seconds and about 75% or so is replaced within a minute. 2. The intermediate energy system: Both the intermediate and the long-term energy systems use glycogen, but the intermediate system uses "non-oxidative glycolysis" (i.e., without the presence of oxygen) to provide fuel for the muscles. Glycolysis is the process by which glycogen is broken down to supply ATP for the muscles. At higher intensities, non-oxidative glycolysis is used for this process, which results in some lost energy that cannot be immediately used for muscle energy. In the absence of oxygen, a by-product of this chemical action is lactic acid. The intermediate energy system begins to kick in after about 6 seconds and peaks at around 30 seconds and diminishes thereafter until it provides minimal contribution after about 90 seconds or so, when the long-term energy system begins to predominate as the primary energy system relied on by the body. Running maximally between roughly 300-600 meters is a good example of use of the intermediate energy system. Most resistance training programs that people use when lifting weights use this system (not maximal strength/power athletes like powerlifters and Olympic weightlifters however). 3. The long-term energy system: This energy system also uses glycolysis for energy, but does so in the presence of oxygen. Carbohydrates, fat or protein can be broken down for glycolysis when using this energy system. Fat is the preferred source of energy when the body is at rest and become a more important source of energy the longer that exercise lasts. Fat metabolism requires more oxygen than carbohydrate metabolism, thus, the greater the intensity of the exercise, the more the body relies on carbohydrate sources for energy as opposed to fat. The long-term energy system doesn't predominate as the primary energy system until after 90 seconds of continuous exercise. Now, if this is all you know (as it appears the author does) what he or she recommends seems to be reasonable... but that is most certainly NOT all that is at play. You see, that "oxygen debt" has to be repaid, following exercise. Moreover, regardless of whether the source of the energy (fat or carbohydrate) used for glycolysis, following exercise, during periods of rest (extending for as long as 3 or more hours), the body now needs to replace what was depleted... and where does it find the energy to do that? Your fat stores are one of the primary areas. Moreover, the energy expenditure for higher intensity exercise vastly exceeds the energy expenditure for lower intensity exercise. So, while a smaller percentage of the energy may come from fat (at the time of exercise) a higher total amount of fat is mobilized as energy. Moreover, a bigger oxygen debt has to be repaid in the hours post-training with intense exercises. You may notice something about the time periods here as they relate to interval training. High Intnesity Interval Training typically involves maximal effort for approximately 30 seconds followed by a 60 second period of either rest or lower intensity exercise that uses the long-term energy system (during which period the ATP-CP and muscle glycogen that has been depleted are replaced. Now, if you were to look at this model without a fuller understanding, you would think that lower intensity exercise (or for that matter complete rest) would be superior to more intense exercise regimes because fat is being used as the primary energy source for glycolysis. But this is most assuredly NOT the case. In fact, there are numerous studies that show that HIIT is vastly superior to low intensity exercises for reducing fat levels. Why is this? Because eventually the oxygen debt has to be repaid! That means, that your body goes through the process of oxygen dependent glycolysis following a bout of higher intensity exercise to replace the muscle glycogen expended in the high intensity exercise. In order to do this, it will use, among other things, fat as a source of energy. Moreover, far more energy is being used for repeated bouts of intense exercise over short periods of time than long periods of time. The thing is, by focusing on the energy being used to fuel the muscles at the time they are being used, the author of the article misses the most important part of the equation... what happens AFTER exercise is over. And during the post exercise period, the body is mobilizing more fat with high intensity interval training than it does with lower intensity exercise. During the post exercise period, lasting as long as 3 hours afterward, the body is using far more oxygen than had no exercise occurred. And what is this oxygen being used for? To burn fat. Moreover, the greater the intensity of the exercise, the higher the rate of the fat burning in the post exercise period. Thus, what matters most for fat burning is NOT the energy system being used at the time of exercise, but rather the energy that is used in the period following training. The greater the intensity and the duration of the exercise, the more fat will be mobilized in the hours post training. And THAT is what matters the most. That is why numerous studies have shown the superiority of HIIT training to slow steady state aerobic exercise for fat burning. Also, there is a reason why this article (as poor as it is) is somewhat irrelevant to our discussion. This article concerns fat loss and not muscle gain for lean athletes. For someone who isn't already lean and training intensely at high intensities, I would never recommend a high GI post exercise carb drink. Why? Because high insulin levels block the mobilization of fat. But for the lean strength/power athlete, mobilization of fat is not his or her primary concern. That athlete is looking for the highest anabolic effects he or she can obtain. That particular athlete wants muscular recovery, repair of damages caused by exercise, etc. to occur at optimal rates. So that particular athlete will benefit from high insulin levels during a certain window of opportunity to meet his goals. This will replace the glycogen faster (from the consumed high GI carbohydrates) and get the necessary proteins and BCAAs to the muscles fastest to start the rebuilding process, as well as the other anabolic properties that insulin has on muscles. For someone who wants to burn fat, a low GI zone meal is perfect post exercise... but not for someone who wants to build muscle, or simply recovery as quickly as possible after exercise. I think it was the famous Russian exercise scientist Vladimir Zatsiorsky said that an athlete should train as intensely and as frequently as he is able to recover from. The faster you can recover, through proper nutritional strategies (among other strategies) the more you can train, which means the stronger, faster, more powerful, more muscular you will become. I want to make it clear that the high GI carb + protein + BCAA post exercise meal is not intended for people looking to lose fat. It is not meant for the casual trainer or weekend athlete. It is not meant for the type of training that most people do. It is intended for people who train very intensely. I would never recommend such a meal for someone who just got done with an hour of moderate-paced aerobic exercise. I wouldn't even recommend it to serious strength trainers who just got done with a bout of HIIT or heavy weight training if that athlete happens to have too much fat (and is training for the purpose of losing fat). It is the wrong tool for the job. There are pluses and minuses to using high GI meals. They serve a specific purpose. At higher intensities the body prefers the use of carbohydrate energy systems to continue to process of supply energy. Moreover, glycogen levels can become severely depleted during long bouts of intense exercise. This is what happens when a marathoner "bonks". His or her glycogen levels have been depleted and he or she is now reliant of conversion of fat to supply energy. That is well and good if you are walking, because the ability of the body to convert fat to energy at low intensity levels is fairly high, but the faster and more intensely you are running, the harder that conversion becomes. This is why many endurance cyclists that are mentioned on this very site who are in the Zone are eating high GI meals as they compete. THEY DO NOT WANT TO HAVE TO RELY ON FAT TO SUPPLY THEIR ENERGY AT HIGH INTENSITY LEVELS (even if though they are using the long-term energy system) BECAUSE THE CONVERSION TO USABLE ENERGY IS TOO SLOW! With lean strength/power athletes and bodybuilders, of primary importance is the anabolic and restorative properties of associated with high insulin levels. They want to the muscles to recover and repair themselves and replace glycogen levels as quickly as possible and to get as much use from the anabolic properties of high insulin levels as possible. Insulin is a transport hormone, and post intense strength training, it is being used to transport protein, glycogen and BCAAs to the muscles (among other things). It may reduce or prevent the use of fat during this period, but for the lean athlete, this is not really the primary concern -- recovery and muscle building are the primary concerns. So there is most assuredly a trade-off going on with respect to post-exercise nutrition, and the manner in which you handle this trade off has a lot to do with your training, your goals, and your present status. Anyway, that broadly addresses my best understanding of the process.

Matthew

Posts:174

Zoner

04/01/2009 1:40 PM
Here are two articles posted by Dr. Jonny Bowden (again, a friend and colleague of Dr. Sears who is also a proponent of lower carb diets like the Zone) at his blog on the subject of cardio: Monday, March 2, 2009 The Problem With Cardio Training We all know cardio training is great for the heart. But for weight loss... maybe not so much. As my friend Craig Ballantyne, CSCS, MS says, "Cardio exercise is such a strange thing. In theory, it should work perfectly well for all men and women, but as anyone who has tried it knows, the practicality of it just doesn't add up". A recent study in the International Journal of Obesity illustrates the point perfectly. The researchers had people exercise 5 times a week for 3 months. The average weight loss was a respectable 8.2 pounds. So far so good. But when the researchers looked at the actual individuals in the study, a different picture emerged. The best subject lost an amazing 32 pounds! The worst one actually gained almost 4. The individual variance was enormous. In other words, it was good for some people.. for others, not so much. The researchers think they know why. They classified the exercisers into two groups which they named "compensators" and "non-compensators". The compensators got hungry as a result of their exercise and consumed a whopping 268 additional calories a day, thereby basically wiping out their exercise efforts at least as far as weight loss was concerned. The compensators- not surprisingly- lost the least amount of weight. "If your cardio program is not working for you, check your appetite and calorie intake to see if you are "compensating" for your efforts', suggests Ballantyne. And if you are, you might be better off with a high-intensity interval program! http://www.jonnybowden.com/2009/03/problem-with-cardio-training.html Monday, March 16, 2009 Correction: Cardio is NOT a Waste of Time OK, I admit it: When it comes to weight loss, I'm not a big fan of long, mindless cardio. And recently I wrote a piece- "The Problem with Cardio" that might have led you to believe I think cardio is a waste of time. That's not actually true. I think that aerobic exercise is way oversold as a weight-loss strategy, and that most people could get the positive calorie burning effects in a much shorter time with high-intensity interval training. But just because jogging an hour a day may not be the most effective way to lose weight doesn't mean you should abandon your cardio work. Not long ago, scientists at McMaster University Department of Medicine, Health Sciences and Rheumatology Division compared the findings of 17 studies that examined the effect of exercise on anti-aging and the immune system. They were looking to answer the following question: "What, if any, are the effects of regular aerobic and/ or resistance exercise on the immune system in healthy older adults?" They looked at these studies with a very critical eye, extracting only results that met very rigorous critera. Their conclusion: Aerobic exercise appears to be a friend of the immune system". OK, remember these guys are scientists and tend to couch their findings in very conservative terms. But considering the incredibly rigorous standards they applied to their review of the research, that conclusion is pretty impressive. Coupled with all the other benefits we know even moderate aerobic exercise can confer- on the brain, for example, as well as on blood pressure, mood, well-being and the circulatory system- there's no reason to abandon those 30 minute a day walks, just because they may not be the best way to go when it comes to losing weight. And by the way- though daily moderate-intensity exercise (like walking) may not be the best way to lose weight, it may be an essential component to keeping weight off. Findings from the National Weight Control Registry that follows people who've successfully lost a minimum of 30 pounds and successfully kept it off for a minimum of a year show that approximately an hour a day of moderate intensity exercise is one of the key strategies for weight maintenance. http://www.jonnybowden.com/labels/calorie%20burning.html Here is a youtube video in which Dr. Bowden talks about the myth of the fat-burning zone and exercise in general: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rS5MHSNFxtQ

Cranberrycat User is Offline

Posts:5313

Zone Expert

04/01/2009 3:03 PM
Sorry, I am posting before I have read your other posts, I don't have time to read right now. Just checked my email, this is the response from Dave Shreck: "Here's the latest from Dr. Sears.You should have stable blood sugars before exercise, thus a Zone snack 30 minutes prior to your workout is sufficient.After your workout you have a 2 hr. window that drops off dramatically within 30 minutes. It's important to utilize this small window to replenish and rebuild. A Zone meal or snack is sufficient.A high carb snack is not necessary, a balanced Zone snack will adequately stimulate insulin levels. High levels of insulin will inhibit the release of HGH and limit muscle repair and growth. As you have mentioned an athletes primary concern should be recovery by controlling silent inflammation with the Zone and OmegaRx & EicoRx supplementation.While we do feature endurance athletes on our site we do have professional athletes from the NBA, NFL and MLB who utilize the Zone principles and omega products. Unfortunately, these athletes require contracts. Many of the athletes on our site have benefited from the Dr. Sears technology for years and have offered their endorsements gratuitously." I have responded back, because there is a direct contradiction regarding whether or not insulin will inhibit or stimulate muscle repair and growth. So, I have asked if he has some references that he could share.

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

Matthew

Posts:174

Zoner

04/01/2009 3:31 PM
Thanks for posting that, Cranberry. BTW, I use Zone principles too, it is just that I make some changes to them during specific periods of times of my day. And the main change is that I think that serious and lean strength/power athletes benefit from the high insulin levels coupled with a high GI carb + protein + BCAA meal immediately post intense exercise more than there is a detriment. I am not saying that you aren't giving anything up by doing this, but on the whole, I think the benefits outweigh the negatives for this particular population of athletes. Also, I am willing to bet that a serious athlete can reasonably well control inflammation by using other strategies post workout while still maintaining elevated insulin levels (at least immediately post workout). I used to use ice-baths for example (and many professional athletes do this). Massage does this as well. I guess I just think that whatever suppression of there is of GH (and I am not sure this is the case post intense training) and inflammation control is more than offset by the various anabolic properties of higher insulin levels post exercise (if that is accompanied by carbs, protein and BCAAs). Anyway, I would very much like to see more analysis of this subject for lean elite strength/power athletes following strenuous strength training by Dr. Sears.

Matthew

Posts:174

Zoner

04/01/2009 4:03 PM
Here is something I found on the net regarding GH being suppressed by high insulin levels: *** GH and Diet It's interesting that the study mentioned above that high fasting insulin suppresses GH secretion. Most bodybuilders when preparing for a competition always start cutting back on excess carbohydrates and consume yams and brown rice which are high in fiber and reduce the rate at which insulin is secreted. Diet influence's GH secretion; diets that are high in carbohydrates can lead to a blunted GH response. <b>Excessive amounts of carbohydrates stimulate excessive insulin release by the pancreas. Reducing carbohydrates will lower insulin which will increase GH, epinephrine and glucagon secretion, all of which mobilize bodyfat stores.</b> The most important point in regards to GH and diet is that GH levels increase when insulin levels are low. More precisely, the cause of GH inhibition is not high insulin levels but rather high blood sugar (which, because insulin is secreted to bring down blood sugar level, overlaps in time with high insulin levels. But it should be noted that it is not just any food that causes a rise in blood sugar and the consequent insulin release, but primary high glycemic carbohydrates. And some kinds of carbs cause a greater blood sugar increase than others. Eating a large amount of carbs at once will cause a greater increase in blood sugar levels than eating a small amount of carbs. Also, eating fat with carbs will blunt the rise in blood sugar. What this means is, consuming a large amount of high glycemic carbs by themselves could completely halt GH release. Or more generally, a high carbohydrate, low fat diet is absolutely devastating to GH levels. This is one of the reasons why many people trying to lose weight on a low fat, high carbohydrate diet reach a diet "plateau" after a period of time. Their inability to continue to lose weight is partly due to suppressed GH levels from excess carbohydrates. It should be mentioned that you do need some carbohydrates and going on a Low Carb diet could lead to decreases in muscle as well as fat. The reason for his could be that a strict low carb diet would lead to chronically low insulin levels; <b>insulin is needed to drive Amino Acids into the muscle cells.</b> Moreover, IGF-1 is produced in the body through the combined actions of GH and insulin. A Low Carb diet would lead to a reduction in IGF-1 levels. You do need some carbohydrates but just start cutting out soft drinks, sweets, and other high glycemic carbohydrate foods. ** So, it seems that if your goal is fat loss, you don't want GH to be suppressed because of the benefits it has on fat loss. But it might seem that if your goal is gaining muscle, you might want insulin increased (which suppresses GH). Like I said, it looks like there is a trade-off going on here. Having a Zone snack post exercise might be great for fat loss, but it might not be as good for muscle gains.

Matthew

Posts:174

Zoner

04/01/2009 4:53 PM
I found an answer by Dr. Bowden that somewhat addresses the issue in one of his "Question of Nutrition" articles at the testosterone website, but he doesn't go into much detail. What a Load! Q: I read that the glycemic index is overrated and that what we should really be paying attention to is glycemic load. What's the difference? A: The glycemic index is overrated. You should be paying attention to glycemic load. There's a big difference. Here's the scoop: Glycemic index is a way of measuring the impact a given amount of carbohydrate has on your blood sugar, something you definitely want to know. But to do a fair comparison, they have to use a fixed amount. In the case of the glycemic index, it's a standard 50 grams of carbohydrate. Problem is, very few carbohydrate foods in real life are 50-gram portions. See, if you go to a store to buy spices and there's a spice that's $500 a pound, that sure sounds like a lot of money. But if you're only buying a half-teaspoon of the stuff, it's pretty irrelevant. You want to know what you're going to pay at the register, not necessarily what you'd pay if you bought a pound. Similarly, you really don't care what the impact of 50 grams is on your blood sugar; you care what the impact of the amount you're actually eating is. Glycemic load is a more sophisticated formula that takes into account the actual grams of carbs you're eating -- the portion size. The glycemic index of carrots is high, leading a lot of people to think you should never eat carrots, which is a dumb conclusion. Fact is, the average carrot has 3 grams of carbs. You'd have to eat like a giant rabbit to have a significant impact on your blood sugar. The glycemic load of a carrot, on the other hand, is only 3, making it an extremely low-glycemic food -- unless you're drinking pure carrot juice or eating 13 carrots at a sitting. Pasta, on the other hand, has a moderate glycemic index, but is almost never eaten in 50-gram portions. Factor in the portion size at a typical Olive Garden and your blood sugar will be on the roof, and stay there for a week. Not surprisingly, the glycemic load of pasta is very high. The technical formula for glycemic load is GI (glycemic index), multiplied by the number of grams of carbohydrates in the portion, then divided by 100. Low glycemic load is between 1 and 10, medium is between 10 and 20, and anything over 20 is very high. That said, remember that both glycemic index and glycemic load only refer to the food eaten alone. Add some fat or protein and the total impact goes down. And plenty of high-glycemic foods are good for you (say, carrot juice) while plenty of low-glycemic foods (fried donut holes) are not. So take glycemic load into account, but don't be a slave to it. It's just one measurement to consider when planning a diet. Incidentally, athletes in training actually can benefit from high-glycemic foods, especially when they're training twice a day. Mrs. Smith with Metabolic Syndrome... not so much!

Matthew

Posts:174

Zoner

04/01/2009 4:59 PM
Here is another excerpt that "sorta" addresses the question: Fake "Health" Foods Q: What's a food that dedicated gym-goers eat that they shouldn't eat? In other words, what's a common "pretend" health food? A: I thought this was a terrific question to put to my informal panel of experts, and not one of them hesitated to render an opinion, all of them good ones. Gregg Avedon, one of the world's most successful fitness models, singled out sports drinks like Gatorade or Powerade. "They're designed for endurance athletes and pro-athletes who burn crazy calories and deplete muscle glycogen very quickly at a very high level, yet you've got the average fitness enthusiast training at a mid- to low-level range drinking these beverages without thinking twice." ***The implication here (when read in the context of the other answer) is that for serious athletes, high GI carbs can be a very good thing during and following intense training.

Matthew

Posts:174

Zoner

04/01/2009 6:57 PM
Found another tidbit from Dr. Jonny Bowden on the subject (I continue to cite him because of his association with Dr. Sears): http://yourtotalhealth.ivillage.com/diet-fitness/how-soon-should-eat-after-working-out.html How Soon Should I Eat After Working Out? By: Jonny Bowden Question : Is it true that I should refrain from eating for two hours after a workout? Also, the instructors at my gym told me that I should only eat protein after a workout -- that if I eat carbohydrates or fat, I'll gain weight. Is that true? Answer : The information about not eating after a workout is completely wrong. Every responsible source in bodybuilding and athletics recommends that you eat after training, and preferably within 45 minutes (maybe up to 60) after a workout. This period, known as the golden hour, is when the muscles absorb the most nutrients and when glycogen, an energy reserve in your muscles, is replaced most efficiently. The actual composition of the post-workout meal is a matter of some debate; for optimal glycogen replacement, most people recommend carbohydrates, but a certain amount of protein (at least 10 percent of the meal) is needed for muscle repair and growth. I think the above recommendation is a good general guideline for athletes, but for weight management you probably have to go higher in protein and lower in carbs. You don't have to eat a big meal, but you should eat something after training. Lots of people get good results with a small, high-protein shake -- just beware of the extremely high sugar and carb content of juice-based smoothies. Experiment with the amount of food or drink and with the proportions of carbs, protein and fat to find out what works best for you. Perhaps what the trainers at your gym are trying to emphasize is the need to moderate carbohydrate intake in a weight-loss program. They correctly want to see you become a "better butter burner," that is, someone whose metabolism burns fat faster and more efficiently. That is best accomplished by eating a nutritionally dense, low-calorie diet that offers a balance of protein, high-quality fat and the right kind of carbohydrates. This will keep your hormones balanced and your fat-burning machinery working optimally. I agree that you shouldn't load up on carbs and fat after a workout, but the idea of not eating anything at all for two hours after working out is balderdash.

Matthew

Posts:174

Zoner

04/01/2009 7:32 PM
Okay, I am getting more convinced that I am right about post exercise nutrition being a high GI carb + protein in a 4:1 ratio. I was doing a search of things written by Dr. Bowden on the subject and came across google books which had an except from Dr. Bowden's book, "The 150 Greatest Ways to Boost Your Energy". In it, he discusses during exercise and post-exercise nutrition for athletes and recommends a product called "Accelerade". I looked up Accelerade on the internet and looked at its nutritional information. One serving (12 oz.) has 120 calories with only 10 of those calories from fat. It contains 21 g of carbs and 20 grams of those ARE SUGARS!!! How much protein? 5 grams... notice something about the ratio? Approximately 4:1 again... And this is advice given by a low carb guru and colleague of Dr. Sears!!! Here is a link to the excerpt from the book: http://books.google.com/books?id=rjoF1pQVcugC&pg=PA71&lpg=PA71&dq=Johnny+Bowden+athlete+post+workout+carb&source=bl&ots=dfnmeWT2xx&sig=dDkBgW5eX3fSL3-xbOnmq8wnv2g&hl=en&ei=Ff7TSYbsCaC0tAPciom2Cg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10#PPA71,M1 Here is a link to the nutritional content of Accelerade: http://www.accelerade.com/products/NutritionInformation.aspx Here is a section from the Accelerade website on "How Accelerade Works" How it Works (4:1) In 1997, six of the country's top exercise physiologists convened with the goal of developing the next generation of sports drinks. Out of this symposium came Accelerade - the first sports drink to contain carbohydrates in combination with protein in a patented 4:1 ratio. That's a ratio that research has shown is ideal. Because while protein is key, the amount of protein is what's important. Too much, and it can't be processed by the body. Too little, and it won't work like it needs to. Simply, the science behind the ratio is what takes you beyond rehydration straight to peak performance. Recovery, the key to peak performance If rehydration were the only factor to enhancing performance, a conventional sports drink would be enough. But athletes don't just need to rehydrate, their muscles need to recover, too. Protein speeds muscle recovery. During prolonged exercise, the body breaks down muscle to meet energy needs. Research has shown that consuming a carbohydrate-protein sports drink during exercise can minimize muscle breakdown Ζ, 9], may aid in supporting muscle synthesis Ζ], and improve protein balance Ζ, 9]. In contrast, a conventional sport drink during exercise resulted in an increase in muscle breakdown and a decrease in synthesis which is definitely not optimal for athletes Ζ]. Why is this important? It is crucial for endurance athletes to maintain lean muscle mass during training and competition to maximize performance. Therefore, a carbohydrate-protein sports drink can aid in maintaining protein balance which helps to maintain muscle mass. What athlete doesn't want to recover quicker? That's why the protein in Accelerade helps start the rebuilding process of muscles damaged during exercise. The ability of any athlete to perform at their best is directly related to how fast their muscles recover after exercise. Protein-enhanced Accelerade gives muscles a jump-start on getting back to peak performance. In fact, Accelerade has been shown to significantly reduce muscle damage following exercise. Compared to a conventional sports drink, it minimizes muscle soreness. In 2004 and 2006, researchers at James Madison University studied post-exercise muscle damage in cyclists who drank Accelerade or a conventional sports drink while riding a stationary bicycle to exhaustion by measuring lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) and/or creatine kinase (CK) levels, biomarkers of muscle damage ⎖, 11]. In both studies, athletes who drank Accelerade during exercise experienced a reduction in musclular damage (evidenced by lower LDH and/or CK plasma values) then when drinking the conventional drink. Athletes who drank Accelerade also reported a decrease in muscle soreness 24 hours after exercise ⎗]. Why drink Accelerade? Accelerade helps to speed up the recovery process by reducing muscle damage and also decreases soreness that can occur with endurance exercise. Accelerade is beneficial during and also after exercise to enable the athlete to perform at his/her best later on that same day or days following. 1. Brooks, G.A. and J. Mercier. J Appl Physiol, 1994. 76(6): p. 2253-61. 2. Dohm, G.L. Exerc Sport Sci Rev, 1986. 14: p. 143-73. 3. Lemon, P.W. and J.P. Mullin. J Appl Physiol, 1980. 48(4): p. 624-9. 4. van Hall, G., et al.. J Physiol, 1996. 494 ( Pt 3): p. 899-905. 5. Romijn, J.A., et al. Am J Physiol, 1993. 265(3 Pt 1): p. E380-91. 6. Manore, M. and J. Thompson. Sport Nutrition for Health and Performance. 2000, Human Kinetics: Champaign. p. 21-61. 7. Seifert, J., J. Harmon, and P. DeClercq. Int J Sport Nutr Exerc Metab, 2006. 16(4): p. 420-9. 8. Koopman, R., et al. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab, 2004. 287(4): p. E712-20. 9. Miller, S.L., et al., Int J Sport Nutr Exerc Metab, 2007. In press. 10. Saunders, M.J., M.D. Kane, and M.K. Todd. Med Sci Sports Exerc, 2004. 36(7): p. 1233-8. 11. Romano-Ely, B.C., et al. Med Sci Sports Exerc, 2006. 38(9): p. 1608-16. http://www.accelerade.com/science/HowItWorks.aspx There is also a link to the studies supporting the claims so that you can read them yourself: http://www.accelerade.com/science/ClinicalStudies.aspx

Jeffrey

Posts:237

Zoner

04/06/2009 12:03 AM
<div class='NTForums_Quote'>***The implication here (when read in the context of the other answer) is that for serious athletes, high GI carbs can be a very good thing during and following intense training.</div> Matthew, I think it is more a factor of what an athlete does than how "serious" they are about it. I've heard Tory Polamalu speak out against Gatorade (he's a Zoner). I think he's a pretty "serious" athlete by any definition imaginable. Put him on a bike and have him pedal for 8 hours a day, though, and he'll appreciate some Gatorade (along with some protein and some good fats). Same thing with Dean Karnazes. When he's running marathons, even 50 in 50 days, he probably can stay pretty close to a traditional Zone - even though he's serious about his effort. Have him set off on a 150 mile run, though, and out come the cheese pizzas. it isn't that one effort is more serious than another, it is just that he's doing different things that require different nutritional inputs to optimize performance.

Mark

Posts:1

Newbie

07/22/2009 10:59 AM
Thanks to all of you for your contributions. Matthew, you were very informative.

Kyle

Posts:1

Newbie

07/24/2009 2:36 PM
So as a recap, (way too much for me to read on this thread right now) it is suggested that those trying to gain weight and lean mass should up the fat intake? I'm about 6'4" 178 lbs (dropped from 185-190 in the last month or so) and BFP is 10-12%. I lift 4-5 days a week (mostly bodyweight lifts but always compound/multi joint movements) and I used to run but I stopped so that I'd stop losing weight. I would love to add my runs back in but I need to find a way to add some lean body mass. I'm eating between 18-20 blocks a day and its just not doing it for me. Any suggestions?

Sue K

Posts:8674

Zone Expert

07/24/2009 3:36 PM
Hi Kyle! To gain LBM, make sure you're using the appropriate activity level to calculate blocks, and then add a block or two of additional protein daily, balanced appropriately for the Zone with carb and fat (with a couple extra balanced blocks it's a total in the vicinity of 21-23 blocks daily in your case, depending on your actual body fat% and activity level). To maintain body fat in the Zone (or to gain body fat if it goes too low) you would add extra fat to meals and snacks. If you're in the situation where you're eating the correct amount of protein for you needs but still seem to lack energy for workouts, you would also add more monounsaturated fat to meal and snacks.

sue Lost 100 lbs 14 yrs ago, off BP meds, thanks to the Zone diet and Zone fish oil! To view my before/after pics and meal photos scroll over this picture and click when the link appears.

jill

Posts:9

Newbie

07/26/2009 8:32 AM
Matthew, The "article" quoted by Cranberry Cat can be found on p. 103 in Sear's "Anti_Inflammation Zone". Are you saying Zoners are being misled? Jill

You are not authorized to post a reply.

Page 3 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