|02-11-2007, 06:49 PM||#1|
| wisslew |
Rank: New Member
Join Date: Feb 2007
Dear forum members,
I was wondering if anyone here could help me sort out some bio-chemical reactions in regards to training.
There seems to be 2 types of diets yielding 2 different energy sources for the body when training. The first being the basic hi-carb diet where the body runs on carbohydrates and the other being the ketogenic type diet. On this diet, one burns fat for energy.
Here is How I understand it. Please correct me if I am wrong. If one eats lots of carbs and their body is used to running on that, then carbs will be used in a workout first followed by burning protein (from muscles likely) for energy. Some small amount of fat gets used in there as well.
On a ketogenic diet, one burns fat first from intra-cellular fat sources, then the carbs from the liver and lastly from protein.
Assuming the above, here is my question: If one is on a low carb diet but hasnt, for whatever reason, reached the state of ketosis with the limited amount of carbs they are eating, will there be a general lack of energy in workouts since the body is still running on carbs? And hence an overall weakness until one either ate more carbs or got into ketosis? It seems to me that a general low carb diet where ketosis hasnt been achieved would just lead to the cycle of carbs being used first for energy then protein, which would lead to mucscle wasting since the body has so little carbs. Is this line of reasoning correct?
Any help would be greatly appreciated. If possible, please stick with the science of this pertaining to body-chemistry more then just opinions as to which diet people think is proper for training. I am trying to grasp all this from the perspective of biology as that will help me know whats best for me.
(As an aside, my general diet is high fat, moderate protein and low carb. However, this is mainly due to scicence and research I have done on how to be healthy and what is natural, not specifically for training. If ya dropped a person in the middle of nowhere for example and said survive for a year, their diet would end up being high fat/protein from animals and low carb as they would only be available in season mostly. I am just concerned with whether I am getting to many carbs or too litte as pertaining to my above question.)
Anyway thanks again for any help you guys may have.
|02-12-2007, 06:06 AM||#2|
| hrdgain81 |
Rank: Light Heavyweight
Experience: 5-7 Years
Join Date: Mar 2005
|02-12-2007, 06:50 AM||#3|
| EricT |
Experience: 7-10 Years
Join Date: Jul 2005
It sounds like the so called "paleo diet" you are talking about. It's not really scientific. Like hardgain said, survival and bodybuilding is too different things. Also survival and optimal is too different things. It is also a big mistake to try and correlate anceint hunter-gatherer diets to modern times of food surplus.
The reason fat and animal protein was so important was because it gave the biggest bang for the buck. Which means that you feast on it when you can get it but you can by no means get it everyday. High amounts in those times has a differnt meaning than it does today. You want to have a paleo diet then you better eat really small amounts most of the time or else all that high fat is gonna kill you.
But if you want to bodybuild I would rely on modern nutrition. But these are fat loss diets. They have nothing to do with optimal health. I can assure you that high fat in a truly paleolithic diet would have been high saturated fat. The people that promote this stuff are pseudo-scientists who twist facts to promote a dietary view. You want to eat paleo put some insects in your diet. Try to eat only the fattest blubber filled animals when your can get them and eat the whole thing, innards and all. Don't be afraid of eating what you find under a rock either. And forget about the nice mixed greens with balsamic vinegar dressing
One thing I would point out is that so many of the assumptions made are based on the health decline seen in "modernized" tribal societies vs. their original living conditions. Or basically the higher incidence of acute health problems, infections, and lower mortality seen in a shift to an agricultural existence for some populations. Diet can be blamed for some of that but not for everything. One of the BIGGEST difference between the two is OVERCROWDING. Basically the more people you have living in one unchanging area, the better chance you have of getting sick.
Pretty much everything about this kind of "science" is stupid to me. They lump different times, different parts of the world, and different peoples together. Native americans and "cavemen" are viewed as part of the same picture, which is absurd. They ban certain foods that would have been a staple for some people, such as tubers, while promoting others that would have hardly been available at any time. Corn is outlawed although it was a staple at certain times and for certain native americans. It's really rediculous.
Last edited by EricT; 02-12-2007 at 07:51 AM..