Topwine

some more reading to broaden your perspective and knowledge ... defending fruit … and other NONcomplex carbs http://www.thenutrit...ncomplex-carbs/

What a sensible post ! Some people refuse to read well reasoned other sides of the argument and only look to quote references and articles that agree with their own point of view. Danny Roddy has a great new post out on FRUCTOSE ! (the poison you know ...) http://www.dannyroddy.com/main/2013/7/23/casualties-of-the-nutritional-dark-ages-part-2-fructose

I know the pro HFLC guys on here don't want to hear this, but I have been saying to read the work of Ray Peat PhD , and other researchers, to get an unbiased but opposing view and take the best of both camps. Ray Peat is of the opinion that it is mostly the polyunsaturated fats in the modern diet that is the cause of much of the modern health problems. This includes omega 3 ! Cold water fish oil is not designed to be in warm weather man. Anyway, go read some of Ray peat's articles for perspective or read Danny Roddy's blog which explains it all in a more user friendly language. http://www.dannyroddy.com/main/2013/5/21/a-bioenergetic-view-of-high-fat-diets Before we start, I want to make it extra clear that I don't think there is a magic macronutrient ratio one has to eat to be healthy. I gave up 'the macronutrient wars' a long time ago after I crash-landed on my zero-carb adventure. That being said, you have to get your calories from somewhere, should it be from fat or carbohydrate or, does it even matter? Answering that question depends on your context. For instance, following my low-carb experiment I began studying the work of Ray Peat, Hans Selye, Broda Barnes, Roger J. Williams, Albert Szent-Györgyi, Gerald Pollack and more recently Gilbert Ling. After shedding pounds of cognitive dissonance, I adopted the idea that health problems were likely the result defective energy metabolism. http://raypeat.com/articles/articles/fishoil.shtml

The long term success rates of bariac surgery is not that good. A lot of the patients gain a lot of the weight back.

You might try a Low/No Carb Diet for a while. It works wonders. Cut out the carbohydrates (all sugars and most starches like bread, cakes, pasta, etc. )

You guys should read this article, to avoid becoming like this, if it isn't too late allready ... http://authoritynutrition.com/confessions-of-a-biased-low-carb-zealot/

Great thinking ! BTW, I am actually busy reading one of Dr. Phil Maffetone's articles right this moment ! He knows his stuff. http://naturalrunningcenter.com/2013/01/03/runners-sugar-addiction-white-stuff-running-wearing-out-probably-dr-phil-maffetone/

thank you for taking the time to write this. You raise some good points. I'll give you my view, based on considerable own research, without trying to judge you. I am however not a doctor, and cannot give you medical advice. I cannot read that research paper you mention, because it is only an abstract and there does not seem to be a free complete version available. Without reading the whole thing, it would be impossible to see what and how it was tested. What was their definition of "athletes" Do you fall in this definition ? How long was the study ? Long term effects in athletes ? I have read many reports of long term athletes that still develop metabolic syndrome longterm. Bruce Fordyce and Oscar Chalupscy immediately comes to mind. The same author of that paper concludes in another of his papers on fructose : We suggest excessive fructose intake should be considered an environmental toxin with major health implications. http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/21115612 There seems to be no doubt, fructose in higher doses is not healthy and causes metabolic disease. Now, how much is excessive, or too much ? That is the million dollar question. More research would probably get us the correct aswer in the future. But why gamble ? Why not cut it out from your diet? Fructose is only very partially absorved in the small intestines and gets then converted by the liver into fat. When that happens your body stops making use of your fat stores while doing that. You therefore lose some of your fat burning energy. The rest of the fructose is fermented in your big intestines by bacteria to create short chain fatty acids which can be used by body as energy or normally stored as fat. It also creates a lot of gas during this fermentation process in many people or cause stomach cramps or other gastro intestinal problems. The whole idea is to get your body to use its natural energy stores, ie fat, as efficiently as possible. Therefore it must be adapted to burn fat as efficiently as possible. Glucose, (not fructose !) can be supplemented in athletes to help recover their gycogen stores and give some High intensity power, but there is a health payment in the long term imo if these glucose or carb ingestion leads to Blood Glucose spikes which are proven to damage other organ cells like the pancreas and brain nerves. If you eat fruit, you probably get enough fructose in per day already. Taking more with energy drinks is unhealthy imo. If I were you, I would try to find another energy drink or design and make your own with just glucose (dextrose) as energy source.

Isomaltulose (chemical name: 6-0-a-D-glucopyranosyl-D-fructose), also known by the trade name Palatinose, is a disaccharide that is commercially manufactured enzymatically from sucrose via bacterial fermentation. It is a natural constituent of honey and sugar cane and has a very natural sweet taste. It has been used as a sugar substitute in Japan since 1985. It is particularly suitable as a non-cariogenic sucrose replacement.[1] Isomaltulose is fully absorbed in the small intestine as glucose and fructose. Like sucrose, it is fully digested and provides the same caloric value of approximately 4 cal/g. It is low-glycaemic and low-insulinemic. The effect of isomaltulose is that the glucose enters the blood at a slow rate, avoiding high peaks and sudden drops in glucose levels and therefore insulin levels as well. This leads to a more balanced and prolonged energy supply in the form of glucose.[2] Being low-insulinemic, isomaltulose also supports improved fat oxidation during physical activity as high insulin levels hinder the use of lipids as an energy source. As such, isomaltulose can increase the amount of fat used as energy, thus enhancing performance endurance.[3] Isomaltulose is tolerated like sucrose and not suitable for people with a pre-existing intolerance to fructose and those who are unable to digest sucrose. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isomaltulose You must remember, you can lower the GI index of anything by adding fructose to it. You can achieve a healthier (without the fructose) lower GI of glucose (dextrose) by consuming your total amount of dextrose in a race, not at once, but in small doses of it over the whole time frame of the race / training. You will not spike your BG levels that way. 32GI is just clever marketing of lower GI for an expensive product. It still contains fructose, which is bad !

If you mean by that, Glycemic Index, and that he uses 32GI to lower his GI of his drink ? He can do that by mixing only 6 grams pure dextrose in his 2 hour bottle and get the same GI or Blood Glucose response.

sounds great, I'll have to taste this ! Are you aware that the 32GI contains half fructose which is essentially useless and not good for your health ? Why don't you rather use pure dextrose as carb source ? It is way cheaper too !

Being " a common concept " does not make it true !

I am not against eating more carbs after heavy training to reload muscle glycogen levels if you are into high intensity training. It needs to be done sensibly though, with intake regulated by how well your body can metabolise the carbs and how your BG respond afterwards. People pay a lot of money to have their bikes setup properly or pay for other advice, but then don't do a simple BG test to see how their BG levels react after ingesting certain levels of sugar/carbs. Difficult to understand.

I would not agree with your last sentence. Care to give scientific evidence references for that ? IMO high Blood Glucose (BG ) spikes are to be avoided. It has been proven that cells, especially pancreas Beta-cells get killed by high BG spikes . Not good .

Jaco, I would be careful of what your blood sugar is going to do after ingesting 60 grams of dextrose in 1 go ...That is a lot and could lead to a nasty spike , which is not healthy .

that is very dependent on the individual. Test with BG meter while cycling every 15 min . You have to set upper limit of allowed BG level you would be happy with not to deduct from fat burn and loss of performance.

People misunderstand the function of way overpriced 32GI. You can do your own slow uptake of glucose, without the negative effects of fructose, by adding small amounts of pure glucose to your water that you will consume over the duration of an hour or more QED !

32GI contains fructose. stay away from fructose ! Pure glucose is best form of carbohydrates, when used in moderation to not spike blood glucose too much. Moderate Protein is good, just watch the amount of sugar with it .

Discover magazine article requires subscription. did you read it ?

Yes, I am certainly not judging, just from my own experience, if you are not really strict by counting , planning and possibly weighing some times, one can easily misjudge the amount of carbs you consume per day. also knowledge about food contents become very important as well as studying the food labels carefully and understanding what all the terms on there actually mean. I have a very physically active friend who is Type 1 and he has been able to improve control his BG control from good to excellent on this LC diet. His HbA1c was at or below 5% at last check ! He also reported much more consistent energy levels with very few Hypo's, if any. Insulin way down as well.

Just interested. How long are you on this LC diet and how low are your carbs per day. do you calculate very strict as you say ? All the stuff I have read so far on Type 1 's (my son is 1 too) seems to indicate that if your carbs are low enough and you are fully adapted, then your insulin requirements go way down ( up to 90% less) and Hypo's seems to be a very rare occurance then as well. Have you read Dr Bernstein's book ?

Hi It all sounds very good. If you are in true ketosis and are producing enough ketones in your blood, then it's been proven to improved your insulin sensitivity and could be the reason why your BG levels drop so much during exercise which enhances insulin sensitivity even more. All good since your goal probably is to reduce your daily insulin injections also. When exercising in my ketogenic state my BG often gets to 3.4 without any adverse effects, but then I am not Type 1 and my body auto adjusts insulin levels lower, and yours obviously not able to.

Have you tried Google ? ... Seek and thou shall find .

Like yourself has said, it's all relative. A big improvement from a 4h argus will be the same as a small improvement in a sub 3 h argus. The performance increases, if any, will obviously be lower at the top of the field, for obvious reasons. but a 1 or 2 % difference there could mean a lot ito position results. If you are so good as you obviously think you are, are you then not interested in ANY possible advantage ?

I think I and others have posted our performance increases inthis thread before. My 28km time trial performance have improved. Also my climbing performance have increased quite a lot. There is a caveat though. You cannot start with your muscle glycogen levels at too low. Somehwere between full and 30%. If it is too low you are going to have to compromise on the intensity. I have not tested on longer rides of more than 90 minutes where I have previous reference times.