If we assume a constant protein/fat content, would the carbohydrate type impact what maintenance calories would be?
ie would 1000 calories from glucose differ from 1000 calories from a complex source (oatmeal, excluding fiber)? Would you maintain body composition at either? Could you eat the same number of calories yielded from jelly beans or whole wheat (again, excluding fiber, assuming 100% of caloric content came from carbs)?
If one controlled for calories, would the type of carbohydrates in one’s diet change their maintenance level of calories?
Referring to a misc.fitness.weights post, Lyle Mcdonald believes that it would NOT make a difference ‘on paper.’ I thought the rate of digestion could implicitly alter energy demands, as impaired insulin sensitivity in muscular tissue from chronically elevated levels due to high-gi carbs would cause a net decrease in muscle glucose utilization. Perhaps this only applies in a long-term model?
Scientifically-minded perspectives on this are wanted
Lyle McDonald (all though I dont know him), is right, it doesnt matter if your carbos are from jellybeans or kidneybeans;-).
You are right about differences in the rate of the absorption of carbohydrates from different sources, but a higher intake of simple sugars, or should we rather call them sugars with a high glycemic index, are not going to mess up your insulin sensitivity!
There are other considerations to this question though, with a high intake of simple sugars i.e candys etc. you are not getting all the good stuff, that other sources og carbohydrates provides your body with, vitamins, fibers, trace elements etc. Plus a meal containing more complex carbohydrates will allow you a longer lasting fullness, but you knew that all ready! Take care;-)
‘but a higher intake of simple sugars, or should we rather call them sugars with a high glycemic index, are not going to mess up your insulin sensitivity!’
How would it not? It makes perfect phsyiological sense. Rapid increases in blood glucose caused by high-glycemic foods will cause concurrent rapid increases in insulin to dispose of this glucose. In the long-term, chronically elevating the hormone insulin should cause insulin receptivity to decrease at the cellular level. As far as I know, this model fits perfectly with physiological adaptation.
If x amount of insulin is absorbed at y rate initially, but then at a lesser z rate (due to decreased insulin receptivity) while the amount of glucose to be disposed remains relatively constant in the bloodstream, x amount of insulin would have to be increased to some new value. This now-elevated level would then trigger further desensitivity of insulin receptors. Etc etc etc. As far as I know, this describes the vicious cycle of insulin resistance.
Over the long-term, it HAS been demonstrated that lower gi foods promote fat loss etc, though I guess you’re still asking if that’s a result of increased satiety/decreased calories or some sort of difference in caloric partitioning. I’m unaware of studies controlling for exact calorie matches between the two.
Blowdapanis.
Dude great post.
What you have here is the kind of post I like. A theoretical/research/endocrinology question. In the case of carbs, if you control for calorie level, no difference in maintenance calories would be the logical position from an energy balance standpoint, which, as many DO NOT know, is the key to fat loss/gain. But, keep in mind that high fiber LOW GI foods do provide less energy for a number of reasons at the kcal level than do HIGH GI foods, independent of their effect on insulin levels. So there is one situation in which low GI foods (which typically contain moderate to large amounts of fiber) may provide less energy and therefore overall kcal might need slighty adjusted up. Also, keep in mind the subtle difference between GI and insulin index…that would have to be something else controlled for in this study. I agree with your insulin insensitivity point though. After repeated doses of HIGH GI AND HIGH II foods, insulin becomes less sensitive and as such, more glucose is in the bloodstream for fat deposit (if you will). But then again, from an energy balance standpoint, even if insulin sensitivity was reduced, leading to fat gain sensitivity, from an energy balance standpoint it wouldn’t matter. Stored triglyceride resulting from insulin insensitivty would still be used to make up whatever energy deficit existed that day, and as such, weight would remain at maintenance. Well those are my thoughts, but I hope to hear from you…hell of a discussion here.
I’m out
Vain68
I guess I should more intuitively understand this, but here’s what’s confusing me:
calories in vs. calories out seems like a simplistic representation of the chemical sequence necessary to yield an increase in fat storage. Ie thin individuals eating over perceived maintenance calories are alleged to dispell some of these calories by ‘nervous movement.’ Twitching of the legs and such.
Just because a surplus of energy exists doesn’t necessitate increased fat storage.
I guess I’m looking at this in a non-linear sort of way. While all carbohydrates wind up as glucose, it seems to me that there have to at least be…probabilities at work, compensatory mechanisms based on digestive rate or something that could account for a difference in fat yielded from two identical caloric situations based on the composition of those calories. Perhaps this is more true from a standpoint comparing across carbs/fat/protein than just carbs, as carbs WILL become glucose no matter what at maintenance.
Additional thoughts:
controlling for calories, i see your point. doesn’t a proper maintenance of insulin levels lead to a more general state of satiety/representative hunger in terms of energy demands? or does this operate through some other non-insulin dependent pathway?
if insulin resistance promotes screwed up hunger, i’m guessing you’re likely to eat (unless you consciously bypass your urges) more, pushing you past this caloric maintenance into a state of now-excess calories where your fat cells now have a higher propensity to take in glucose.
What the HELL, i FEEL like im the only one taking crazy PILLS!! A 40% diet of carbs all from jellybeans, and as long as your under calorie maintence it’s all right, you loose WEIGHT!!? GOES crazy, and hucks all his 7grain bread/fruit at passing cars… haha just joking… Interesting comment… It probably has alot todo with the inidividual… like for my bro… he’s been eating under calories for a long time, no weight loss… so i slapped the bastard and told him to change his ratio of carbs to lower, protein higher, and change the type of carbs… hes loosing weight faster then temper of some of the fellow t-mag posters when they hear statement “Protein is overrated”…
I’d like to hear more discussion about this… especially how this would relate to the whole john berredi’s and his P+F and C+P meals to tame insulin…
You know what I’d like to see, a Lyle Mcdonald VS John Beredi round table… they could call it “Food Fight”
I would pay money for that roundtable. John Berardi has alluded to other bb talking trash, I have no doubt that he knows what Lyle thinks of him, go to the “Lyle McDonald” thread on MFW. In my mind Lyle does a better job than any other writer of scouring medical journals and honestly interpreting the results of studies.
Berardi is great at performance nutrition for LBM gain and athletic recovery, but Lyle is the best source for fat loss.
Everyone is gonna hate me on this, but I’d have to concur with Lyle’s opinion that John Berardi’s food combining ideas are kind of voodoo nutrition. I think it sort of makes sense on paper, and I’m sure t-mag has lots of anecdotal reports to support it, but I’d be REALLY interested in seeing the following comparison:
calories controlled, composition of carbs/protein/fat the same in all individuals.
one group eats P + F and P + C meals seperately, the other eats P + F + C meals. Give them a couple months, see what happens.
My guess? I really don’t think it would make much of a difference, whether the calories accounted for were for maintenance, diet, OR mass increase.
To get myself further in trouble, Berardi released an article a few months ago which seemed geared to discredit some of HST. Now, I try to be non-biased, but I have to say Bryan’s argument is more compelling. I could dig up the evidence, but the gist is that repeated bouts of eccentric activity do not hamper muscle recovery in respect to hypertrophy, even if that exposure is frequent.
John’s argument of impaired glycogen replenishment and diminished potential force output are wholly sound, but his advice to wait 7 to 10 days to exercise a given muscle group again would fall more under ‘strength training’ than actual ‘hypertrophy’ training. While the two overlap, I really don’t think they’re identical concepts.
Again, not picking on Berardi, the guy is obviously very bright. I do respect the entire t-mag staff. I just think he’s trying to justify ‘conventional wisdom’ at the expense of new, potential insight into specific mechanisms of muscular growth. No, Bryan Haycock is NOT paying me by the hour.
And to add further flames to the fire, I believe Lyle concurrently came to a lot of Bryan’s conclusions too…so I guess Berardi/Lyle would disagree on this too :-*
Vain…haven’t heard from you much lately either…yeah, I know probably busy chasing the girls with your ripped abs…but hey, that’s what summer’s for…lol. As to the high/low GI carb question…I agree with most of the above and my take is that it is also dependent on wether eating at sub maintenance, maintenance, or above maintenance. Generally, you may get away with more while eating at sub maintenance. Also, I believe it largely depends on how the high GI carbs are consumed…in large doses causing intermittent huge glucose and insulin surges…or in many divided small doses where effect due to quantity of carbs injested per sitting would have many small glucose and insulin releases…in other words, consuming many small divided doses of high GI carbs would have the same cumlative effect of consuming low GI “time release” carb sources. But it would also depend on the type of sugars consumed also (ie dextrose, sucrose, fructose, lactose, etc) as to how these sugars will be metabolized and utilized in the body. Also, those with a natural higher metabolism can probably have an easier time getting away with this. Bottom line though…would be a poor nutritional choice to consume your entire carb load in this fashion.
You could look to science to for the answer or you could just try both methods yourself which I have. Consider this the calorie is a calorie notion is a great if you want a storybook math problem but were talking real life. With that in mind you must consider: Are the higher fiber foods allowing you to get fuller or more satidfied with less. and when you eat 50 grams of jelly beans do you get hungry again sooner or just simply get tired. Either way the answer will likely be that eating “under the insulin curve” so to speak will keep the fat burning flame burning and allow less fat or protein calories to be stored as fat…
Heb,
Still working on trying to rid my lower abs of the last little bit. its fun trying to get there and incorporating all the new little tidbits that are popping up on this forum regarding insulin, cortisol (see my response to other post) and the like.
Anyway, question for you unrelated. Dude, I finally got a girl, been real busy with work and still trying to write up stuff for the PhD…how in the hell do you find time for bb’ing in there man?..I have been getting in to the gym four days per week average, down from the usual 6 before all this…whats it like having a family man…how do you do it?
Out
Vain
PS: whats your take on the cortisol issue?
If you took in sub-maintenance calories and your carbohydrates were from low-glycemic sources you would lose more fat than if you took higher glycemic carbs. Calorie balance works to determine weight loss but it fails to differentiate if the weight will be fat, muscle, or glycogen. This is where nutrient partitioning comes into play. Higher glycemic means higher insulin area under the curve(AUC). Higher insulin means less fat loss (typically) and more protein loss in the long run. Your blood sugar and insulin will rise and fall quickly which will induce counterregulatory hormones like glucagon which will increase protein breakdown leading to less lean mass retention and a slower metabolism. The glucagon release will also lead to more fat breakdown as well; however, we want to retain as much muscle as possible to keep up the metabolism and this will be accomplished by maintaining similar insulin aand glucagon levels. Not to mention that a high G.I. meal will lead to higher ad libitum calorie consumption at the next meal. I have some references on glycemic index but I will have to post them later. I tend to agree with JMB’s philosophy on fat loss for the most part. However, I have read Lyle McDonald’s book on Bromocriptine and feel as though he is very intelligent as well. Nevertheless, I believe that the leptin issue is a little more complex than his belief that it all comes down to dopamine. It is only part of the puzzle but an important part at that.
