carbing up w/hi GI carbs?
what kinds of carbs and in what amounts, frequencies, etc. should be used to carb up after an extremely low carb diet? I've asked this a couple times and for some reason it always gets ignored. Do you use table sugar stuff like candy? Low GI carbs like oats? Starches like yams? Breads? Combination? What, please help.
I use low GI carbs...
I like low GI carbs. Studies testing the glycogen storing capabilities of various carbs show that starchy carbs store the most muscle glycogen.
From my notes......or whatever......if you have nothing else to do or read......... The Glycemic Index (GI) has over the years become the focus of heated debates among various health advocates, particularly with respect to weight and blood sugar management. Proponents for the utilization of the glycemic index argue that the consumption of low GI meals (lower than 55 on a scale from 0 - 100) results in greater weight loss and satiety compared to the consumption of high (greater than 70) GI meals, while opponents of the glycemic index question these findings and argue against high-glycemic index foods promoting obesity. Based on how fast a particular food raises blood sugar over a 2-3 hour period, the glycemic index uses a numbering index, whereby glucose is the reference point of 100 (some sources use white bread as a reference of 100, in which case glucose would be 140). A baked potato for instance ranks 85 on that scale, brown rice 79, white bread 72, table sugar 65, bananas 51, milk 30, grapefruit 25, and broccoli 6. However, when comparing the databases of different researchers, one can find discrepancies with their rankings of certain foods, which doesn't help to support the validity of that system. Defendants of the glycemic index explain that one reason for these inconsistencies is the fact that within the same food group there can be a tremendous variation in the GI. Rice for instance ranges from 38 - 94 on the glycemic index scale as a result of rice being available as white and brown rice, and there is short-grain, medium-grain, and long-grain rice, as well as those types of rice that either do, or do not contain amylose - all having varying effects on the glycemic index. It is interesting to note the calcium / magnesium ratio for instance also varies tremendously between white and brown rice, and between short, medium, and long-grain rice. Hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) measurements appear to support the notion that low-glycemic index foods are particularly advantageous for diabetics by reducing measurements by almost ½ of a percentage point, and thus lessening the risk of developing renal and vascular complications. However, there are known inconsistencies with the lab tests and their interpretation, and levels can vary up to 1% among individuals regardless of the glycemic index of the foods consumed. HbA1c is a lab test that measures the number of glucose molecules attached to hemoglobin over a period of 90 - 120 days, which is expressed as a percentage, with 3 to 6% considered to be normal, and lower being better. This gives a better average of blood sugar management with diabetics since it is averaged over 2 - 3 months, in contrast to the daily high / low glucose fluctuations when measuring blood sugar. One of the biggest predicaments surrounding the glycemic index are the inconsistencies with specific foods -- where the preparation of a particular food, or the ripening process can change the GI as much as 30%. There is also the total rise versus acceleration in blood glucose, and a lack of actual units or measurements per food item, and the question remains why some people are affected by the glycemic index, and why others show little or no response at all. It is also hard to convince anyone that according to the glycemic index, white table sugar rates "healthier" than a slice of watermelon, a baked potato, or a bowl of rice. The Glycemic Load (GL) was developed trying to improve on some of the concerns raised regarding the glycemic index by calculating the glycemic index of a food item times its carbohydrate content in grams. It uses a scale similar to the glycemic index where for instance 10 or less is low (good), versus 20 or higher being high (to be avoided). On the glycemic load index, one baked potato ranks 26, one banana ranks 14, one cup of 2% milk ranks 4, and ½ cup of steamed broccoli ranks 1. According to glycemic load proponents, the long-term consumption of a diet with a high glycemic load increases the risk of developing Type II diabetes and elevated levels of C-Reactive Protein (CRP), both of which increase the risk of developing cardiovascular disease. By applying the principles of the glycemic load, the Nurses' Health Study concluded that "A diet high in glycemic load may increase the risk of pancreatic cancer in women who already have an underlying degree of insulin resistance." An Italian study concluded that "This study supports the hypothesis of a direct association between glycemic index & glycemic load, and ovarian cancer risk and, consequently, of a possible role of hyperinsulinemia / insulin resistance in ovarian cancer development." Of course it is one thing to propose a hypothesis, and it is another thing to actually present concrete evidence that consuming baked potatoes creates a greater risk in developing these conditions than consuming plain table sugar. From a clinical perspective, many individuals clearly have an abnormal response to what is considered to be high glycemic food sources, and for them, the glycemic index / glycemic load can be somewhat of a guide and quite helpful. The question remains --- is it really high glycemic foods, or is it the simple sugar content of these foods? When one analyzes the chemistry of these people, it becomes apparent that their bodies are simply unable to compensate because of chemical or nutritional shortcomings. The list of players affecting insulin / glucose metabolism is quite lengthy, and includes manganese, sodium, chromium, vanadium, biotin, potassium, Vitamin C, Vitamin B6, niacin / niacinamide, various hormonal interactions, and an individual's weight and physical activity. Other nutrients involved include magnesium, calcium, germanium, zinc, Vitamin E, folate, PABA, and essential fatty acids (EFAs). Sodium greatly affects insulin response, and it is along with ascorbic acid and biotin one of the most important factors to prevent or reduce erratic glucose level changes, including on an in-between meal basis. Manganese, and to some extent chromium and niacin / niacinamide control glucose response and liver glycogen storage while potassium, Vitamin B6 and Vitamin C either help stabilize, or interfere with that process, depending on a patient's hypoglycemic or hyperglycemic disposition. If one is able to correct and balance these factors, the Glycemic Index becomes meaningless and can be largely ignored. To a lesser degree the same applies to the Glycemic Load, although its greater emphasis on the carbohydrate content of specific foods makes it somewhat more valuable for anyone suffering from any sugar metabolism-related problems, particularly diabetes. However --- as much as they have become a dinosaur in the eyes of some proponents of low-carb dieting - discriminating between Simple, Refined, and Complex Carbohydrates is still as important and relevant as ever, particularly as far as long-term health effects on the entire body are concerned. The Satiety Index (SI) is one of the most interesting concepts created by rating foods by their ability to be more or less satisfying than white bread, which is used as a reference index of 100. Food items rated less satisfying and filling over a two-hour period following their consumption were given a score below 100, while food items that were rated more satisfying and filling compared to white bread were given a score above 100. Dr. Susanne Holt, who developed the satiety index, found that: Cakes, donuts and candy bars were among the least filling, averaging about 65 to 70%. French fries, breakfast cereals, white pasta, rice, and bananas ranked from about 100 to 150%. Cheese with 146% was about 3x more filling than croissants, which were rated at only 47%. Eggs, beef, apples, oranges, grapes, brown pasta, whole grain bread and popcorn averaged from about 150 to 200%. Oatmeal and fish ranked 209% and 225% respectively. Potatoes were the clear winner with 323% as the most satisfying food. According to this satiety index, several interesting - and somewhat unexpected discoveries emerged: Fat is by far not as satisfying as thought. Protein made it into a higher, but not as high as expected category. Pastries and most sweets were the least satisfying, which was expected. Potatoes (unlike French fries with the fat) were by far the most satisfying foods, which took everyone by surprise since they rank rather poorly according to the glycemic index and the glycemic load. Variations of these scores for individuals with different biochemical backgrounds can be expected, since eating fruit makes some people hungry very quickly, while in contrast to the findings in the study above, fatty foods do provide longer-lasting satiety for them, however the poorer scores given to donuts and candy bars certainly supports their reputation of not only being addictive, but the least filling and satisfying. It is unfortunate that the satiety of these foods was studied for 2 hours only instead of extending the trial period to perhaps 4-5 hours. This would have more realistically reflected the time inbetween meals for the average person, and so made it more practical to apply the satiety index on a day-to-day basis. Health Effects of Simple, Refined & Complex Sugar / Carbs: Medical problems developing as a result of consuming refined or complex carbohydrates are generally of a digestive nature, such as longer transit time (refined carbs), or abdominal bloating (complex carbs), or they adversely affect mineral uptake and balance (iron, calcium, zinc...). However, medical problems resulting from ingesting simple carbs (sugar, honey, molasses, syrup, candy, pop, cakes, any sweet / overripe fruit...) are much more significant: In contrast to complex carbs, simple carbs require more resources of specific nutrients such as biotin, Vitamin C, manganese and chromium. Manganese is unaffected by complex carb intake, but simple carbs lower manganese levels in those with hypoglycemic (low blood sugar) tendencies, and they raise manganese levels in individuals with an inclination for hyperglycemia (high blood sugar). Simple carbs (including fructose from fruit) promote the formation of VLDL triglycerides, while refined or complex carbs don't, so in contrast to complex carbs, simple carbs raise the risk for cardiovascular disease. Simple carbs decrease omega 3 Essential Fatty Acids (EFAs) and germanium levels (which have blood thinning properties), and complex carbs support or enhance both. Unlike simple carbs, complex carbs are fiber-rich, which: improves digestive health and transit time, may result in lower absorption / bioavailability of specific minerals, particularly calcium, iron, zinc and slows glycogen conversion, which better stabilizes blood sugar. Unlike complex carbs, simple carbs (sweets) can cause pain when in contact with exposed dental roots. Simple carbs can promote osteoporosis in trabecular bone through the chromium / parathyroid mechanism, while complex carbs can promote osteoporosis in cortical bone through a calcium- lowering effect, which they have in common with high protein / phosphate sources. Simple carbs - unlike complex carbs - trigger more medical symptoms such as headaches, fatigue, depression, drowsiness, skin eruptions, mucus / throat discomfort, or sugar withdrawal symptoms. Simple carbs - unlike complex carbs - can be a causative, or contributing factor with mood disorders, and - particularly with children - behavioral problems. According to some research, simple carbs - unlike complex carbs - promote free radicals. Simple carbs - unlike complex carbs - effect an opposing change in hyper / hypoglycemics, resulting in a higher sodium / potassium ratio with hyperglycemics, and a higher potassium / sodium ratio with hypoglycemics, which can subsequently lead to an increase in blood pressure with the former, and a decrease in blood pressure with the latter. In contrast to complex carbs, ingesting simple carbs reduces the WBC's ability to destroy bacteria hagocytosis. In sugar-intolerant types, this can lead to increased pus information, and in patients with leukemia to an increased WBC count. There is also an inhibiting effect on the immune system by the formation of AGE's (advanced glycosylation end product). In a comparison study patients who had actual episodes of ischemic heart disease or strokes, the incidence of elevated VLDL triglycerides versus elevated LDL cholesterol was 2.2:1. Some reports by researchers ranged from 2:1 to as high as 4:1 according to their statistics or observations, so simple sugar can be considered to be a much bigger culprit with cardiovascular disease or ischemic stroke than fats. On the other hand, sodium counteracts the effects of saturated fats and/or transfatty acids, so people who retain a lot of sodium enjoy a moderate amount of protection from ischemic heart disease or stroke, but suffer from a greater risk of hemorrhaging stroke or (congestive) heart failure. In contrast, low aldosterone (low sodium) types are at a much higher risk from the effects of LDL cholesterol and related problems, but are less prone for high blood pressure-related strokes. Although after all this complexity, I still use the KISS principle (keep it simple stupid)......it saves taxing the last three brain cells I have left.......I don't do a calorie count per se because of "accuracy" issues with that also......and just eat whole grains, cut out sugars, simple and refined carbs and get the rest of my carbs from veggies..... and adjust the amount of food up or down when necessary......
If you are depleted and looking to store carbs fast, you would go with high GI carbs for a couple reasons. First and probably the most important is high GI carbs will create a higher insulin level and can be 'tucked away' much quicker and much more efficiently. Also, when you are carbing up you are looking at a lot more carbs than you are probably used to. So, you would want carb-dense sources so that you don't have to eat 10 bowls of oatmeal but could rather have white rice and maple syrup or rice or white bread with jam, etc.. Now, I will pick on a poster in this thread and ask this: If you were to use dextrose as your carb source in a postworkout meal, why would you say that you would carb up with low GI carbs? It seems to be a contradiction in that postworkout carbing up is the same as carbing up after being depleted from low carbs. Come on, bite. hehe Skip [email protected]
White rice with maple syrup sounds awesome right now. I'm on my second day of depleting for a comp this weekend. I will be using white rice as my main carb up source, along with some potato. I might try the maple syrup too, usually I add honey to my rice when carbing up but maple syrup sounds even better.
post-wrkout carbing is in a completely different category IMO and would be the only time I would use a fast-acting high GI carb (outside fo cheating that is)
Originally posted by DistantThunder post-wrkout carbing is in a completely different category IMO and would be the only time I would use a fast-acting high GI carb (outside fo cheating that is) Just out of curiosity, I would be interested in your logic as to why you think the two would be in different categories. I know that you said that it is your opinion and I respect that. However, it seems that we disagree somewhat. Just for shits and giggles, let's throw this one around for a minute or two. Game? Skip [email protected]
Originally posted by DIGGS White rice with maple syrup sounds awesome right now. I'm on my second day of depleting for a comp this weekend. I will be using white rice as my main carb up source, along with some potato. I might try the maple syrup too, usually I add honey to my rice when carbing up but maple syrup sounds even better. It tastes GREAT, bro. I usually go with 1 1/2 cups of white rice and 1/8 cup of real maple syrup. I also add in my chicken breast and if you warm it all up a bit, it is very tasty. Skip [email protected]
Thanks for that. Can't complain about food tasting great that close to a comp. By the way Skip I placed 2nd in the heavyweights at the Queensland tittles 1 1/2 weeks ago, 1 point was the difference. How close can it get, no complaints about the decision though, it was a fair call. I have the nationals this weekend. Doing my utmost to turn the tables and win. Everything is going just right at this stage. Then I'm taking a couple of years off from competing to put that extra mass on. DIGGS P.S. I'm drooling at the mouth over the thought of warm maple syrup on a big plate of nice fulfilling carbs MMMM!!!
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Skip [B]Just out of curiosity, I would be interested in your logic as to why you think the two would be in different categories. I know that you said that it is your opinion and I respect that. However, it seems that we disagree somewhat. Just for shits and giggles, let's throw this one around for a minute or two. Game? Skip Sure, but I usually get injured whenever I play......I guess I'm a bit confused myself at this point......and maybe I misunderstand what you are saying/ suggesting. Excepting post workout, when would you necessarily be in a situation when you would "absolutely" need fast acting carbs or be in an extreme carb depleted state? (although I'm not sure I like that terminology)......this is assuming, of course that you are taking in the slow-release carbs at proper times/intervals. Besides the fact that ingesting large amounts of simple carbs is clearly "unhealthy" in the general sense of the term, it would seem to me if someone needs carbs that badly/quickly non-post-workout, that person is being somewhat negligent with his/her diet......I will grant you that some do take dextrose or whathave you preworkout for an extra "kick" but I don't see the absolute "necessity" if you are eating complex carbs in the proper amounts....perhaps an early morning workout at most........and as I suggested before in the post above, the so-called glycemic index can vary greatly per individual based on a number of factors.......and I am by no means suggesting that carbs are bad because conversely if your diet is too low in carbs you will lose muscle mass and gain fat-a number of studies on active individuals have clearly indicated that.........but if you're one of those genetic freaks that can use this type of loading to to go to a completely different level in terms of building muscle, I very much envy you......from what you say, you appear to be able to use simple carbs in a way that most of the guys that I lift with, including myself can't-without putting on a shitload of fat that is.....My bias is more from talking from the point of view of the less genetically gifted.....bust my chops as much as you want to.....being married gets you used to it......... 😀
Originally posted by DIGGS Thanks for that. Can't complain about food tasting great that close to a comp. By the way Skip I placed 2nd in the heavyweights at the Queensland tittles 1 1/2 weeks ago, 1 point was the difference. How close can it get, no complaints about the decision though, it was a fair call. I have the nationals this weekend. Doing my utmost to turn the tables and win. Everything is going just right at this stage. Then I'm taking a couple of years off from competing to put that extra mass on. DIGGS P.S. I'm drooling at the mouth over the thought of warm maple syrup on a big plate of nice fulfilling carbs MMMM!!! LOL I bet you ARE drooling, bro! Congrats on the placing. I know all too well how it feels to miss the top spot by a point or two. *sigh* At least you admit to it being a fair call. Not many can say that. Good luck at the Nationals and let me know how it unfolds. Skip
Originally posted by DistantThunder [QUOTE]Originally posted by Skip [B]....bust my chops as much as you want to.....being married gets you used to it......... 😀 I am married, also, but I wasn't trying to bust your chops at all. I just appreciate a good exchange and was wondering what your opinion was on the subject and wanted to hear you elaborate a bit more. Now that you have elaborated, it is clear that you are wrong and I am right. LOL Just kidding. I couldn't resist. My position is that, first, I am certainly no genetically gifted bodybuilder and that is why I have worked so hard over the years to come up with things that I can benefit from. My clients aren't usually genetically gifted, either, and my concepts and prepping has worked time and time again with the approaches that I use - one being fast acting carbs at the start of the loading phase. I should probably be a bit more clear when I say that I advocate for fast acting carbs during a loading phase. I am speaking of a loading phase before a show, primarily. I may start with fast acting carbs on, say, wednesday but slowly switch them over to slower acting carbs into Thursday and certainly for friday (usually, though there have been exceptions). When I refer to someone being severely depleted, I am simply speaking in relative terms. I consider being severely depleted the last week before a show as opposed to when you are depleted at, say, the 3 or 4 week mark. In a situation like that, the muscle is literally a sponge and will soak things up very quickly. Fast acting carbs are more efficient at this point. You also have the insulin response being higher from faster acting carbs. This is why I say that the storage of these faster acting carbs is much more efficient and quicker than loading with slower acting carbs. Also, consider that I use a 'shitload' program with alot of guys, too. This is even more important that the carbs are fast acting because the loading phase is relatively short compared to a traditional load. The faster carbs are NEEDED in this situation and slower acting carbs simply wouldn't work well. Lastly, I just want to be clear that I do not advocate for fast acting carbs during periods when you are trying to get lean unless it is a high carb day that is infrequent (every couple weeks or so) and for loading during a prep phase (show). In this case, the high GI carbs (not just simple sugars as you refered to them) hardly pose a threat to one's health as the time that they are being ingested is pretty brief. Just my opinion but....... Skip [email protected]
Always looking for a debate Skip.... As for carbing up for a show, I prefer low GI carbs. Actually low to moderate GI carbs. I would look at a true "carb up" as different than gylcogen replentishing after a workout. Also, I'm so damn hungry after a long diet, and carb depletion, that 10 bowls of oatmeal is more appealling than a quick carb drink. There are a million ways to go about carbing up. And there's probably enough studies to support any choice you choose if you look hard enough. If you understand your body, and enough about nutrition, you should make an educated decision on what works best for you. I personally am still learning what works best for my body, and I'm sure I'll never stop learning.
Originally posted by Troponin Always looking for a debate Skip.... 😉 I don't see much of a difference at all with carbing up after a workout and carbing up for, say, the first 6 to 8 hours of carb loading for a show. Again, I don't recommend fast acting carbs for the entire carb loading phase but I was just trying to pick his brain as to why he thought that fast acting carbs were not a good choice for carb replenishing. I honestly think that more guys think that fast acting carbs are will phuk up their condition than guys who actually have tried this approach and not gotten good results from it. Not ALL guys, mind you, as there are certainly things that work for some that don't work for others. I just try to get them to say that they worry about their condition. You know that most guys go by what they hear and not by what they have actually tried or experimented with. That all. I guess I have too much time on my hands the last couple days. hehe Skip [email protected]