3000 miles in 10 months... so Why am I still fat?

[Per Elmsäter]

EvilDog wrote:
> Let me make a few suggestions here.
>
> 1) You will need to do your riding to burn fat and not carbs. This is
> done by riding at a completely comfortable aerobic pace and not
> anaerobically. This means that you will have to pedal more easily
> and at a lower heart rate. Try staying at about 65% of your max
> for the duration of your ride. No showing off, no heroics. Avoid
> sprinting and fast paces. Just keep it easy. The harder you ride,
> the more your muscles will depend on burning carbs and not fat.
> This is why you are having a strong sugar craving after your ride.
> Also you will want to up your daily intake of protein if you
> haven't already done so.
>


This suggestion is absolutely bogus and one of the myths going around.
Probably started by the fitness industry in order to market their products.
The harder and longer you ride the more fat you will burn. Period
It is true that at a higher intensity you will burn more carbs than fat.
_*Percentagewise*_. However totally you will still be burning more fat at a
high intensity than at a low intensity.
Also if you get your fatburning engine going you will continue to burn lots
of fat after your workout as your body is recovering.

--
Perre

You have to be smarter than a robot to reply.

 

[David Kerber]

In article <[email protected]>, usenet-
[email protected] says...
> just wondering, how come u let yourself get all lazy when u get married?
> is that horrible curse that comes when u get marriedn and get kids? if
> so i dont tihnk i will ever get married at all?

It's not that you get lazy; if anything you work much harder overall,
and fatigue contributes greatly to lack of exercise. But your
priorities change; they almost have to for a marriage to work, and they
change even more when you have kids.

.....

--
Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the
newsgroups if possible).

 

[Badger_South]

On Fri, 04 Jun 2004 09:16:32 GMT, "Per Elmsäter" <[email protected]> wrote:

>One way of achieving this is to have workouts lasting longer than 45
>minutes. The effects of this training is that the body uses less carbs and
>more fat at a given intensity.
>
>--
>Perre

This seems to be my experience, but would it be 'Lyle-approved' <g>?

I...seem...to recall some debunking of the 'fat-burning' zone wrt training
duration and intensity.

At any rate, I like the idea of using >7-10 hours per week as a benchmark for
expecting fat loss. I'm currently doing two 50 minute sessions per day on average,
which makes it about 10-12 hours/wk, and that works for weight loss, whereas
one 50 min session/day did not (5-6 hrs/wk).

-Badger

 

[SanShou]

Doug Cook wrote:
> The story thus far....
> 12 years ago - single, 6'3", 180lbs., hair, and competing in citizens
> class triathlons.
> Fast forward to last July... Married, two kids, mortgage, no hair,
> sedentary, 279lbs.
> Sick of that fat man in the mirror, I bought some XXL cycling clothes,
> dusted off and tuned up my old Trek, and started riding again. Now 10
> months and close to 3000 miles later... I still weigh 274! I mean...
> come on! 3000 miles for 5 pounds?!
> My fitness level has increased tremendously. I use to struggle on 10
> mile rides. Now I do at least 3-4 weekday rides of 15-30 miles each and
> one weekend ride for 50-70 miles - all solo. My computer puts my average
> speed for these rides between 16-18mph depending upon the particular
> ups&downs of the ride. My HRM says my average rate is usually right
> about 75% of max (although that can vary, usually on the high side, when
> the ride has climbing). I feel lean and mean while I ride, but when I
> get home I wonder who that fat guy in the mirror is!
> I don't diet per se, but I do eat sensibly. The days that I've tracked
> my caloric intake it's usually right between 2500 - 3000. One friend who
> is a "wellness" expert suggests I'm not eating *ENOUGH*. Although she
> readily admits she doesn't specialize in athletes ("slovenly couch
> potato" is how she describes her typical client), she says that with my
> activity level my BMR is 5300... as she explained it that's the number
> of calories needed to just maintain my weight! Therefore she thinks my
> body thinks it's being starved and refuses to let go of the fat. She
> thinks by eating MORE the body will move away from this starvation
> reflex and start shedding pounds. She also suggested riding easy first
> thing in the morning BEFORE breakfast so the body has to switch to fat
> because the glycogen stores will be low (sound like a recipe for the
> BONK to me).
> Well, I tried to eat 4000 calories today and about died! I felt
> horrible, stuffed, tired, etc. I tried riding with just water (no sport
> drink), and found myself craving sugar after the ride.
> Any experts lurking out there that would like to comment? Are there any
> coaching services online that could help customize my training to help
> me lose weight? I can't afford to hire a coach.
> Any thoughts would be appreciated.



I qualify all my answers by saying I am a student of those nutrionalists
and trainers that have helped me, but I am not certified (except for
maybe in insanity) nor classically trained fitness. Therefore I may
misinterpt many things.

There are a lot of people that debunk the not eating enough theory, but
if you are excessively over reaching your calorie goal your body reacts
to this by entering starvation mode. You no longer burn fat but start
to deplete the organs of whatever energy they have left. Your
metabolism slows down and you become sluggish. I had this happen to me
when I was training for a Martial Arts full contact tournament one
year. I would run eight miles, bike 10 miles, and put in an hour or two
of Kung Fu training. I decided to drop a weigh class so I decided to
eat 2000 to 2500 calories a day. When I falled to lose weight, my
friend who does work with athletes told me to add a few hundred
calories a day to increase my metabolism until my weight gain matured.
He said starving ones self slows the burn of fat and muscle and
increases the burn of energy in organs until you are completely
drained. At around 3000 calories a day I was able to lose weight
"quicker" than at 2000 calories a day.

However you don't sound like your in starvation mode. If you suffer from
fatigue and emotional drainage, then you might be in starvation mode.
However what you describe to me seems like your workouts are improving
which shouldn't be happening if your body is trying everything it can do
to hold on to its energy.

However weight training is the real key to losing weight. So many people
say to me, "Weight training will just make me bigger and I don't want to
be bigger." However the number one burner of calories is lean muscle
mass. Although cycling can produce some extra lean muscle, you can
maximize your gains by doing some light lifting as well. Once you have
the lean muscle mass you will burn even more calories in a restful
state. Then combining the additional metabolism boost of the lean muscle
mass with your cardio workouts will a) allow you to go longer and harder
and b) burn more calories.

However there is one caveat to this. During a short cardio excursion you
are more likely to burn lean muscle at first than fat. This is why
everyone says to make your cardio works out last a certain amount of
time. I liken this to using the electrical power in a car to ignite the
gas that runs it. Lean muscle mass is like the electricity, the quick
boost to give you energy at the start and the catalyst to start the
burning of more long lasting energy supply such as fat in the case of
the body or gas in the case of the car.

Hope that helps and I didn't forget anything important.



--

 

[Terry Morse]

In article <1X%[email protected]>,
SanShou <[email protected]> wrote:

> However there is one caveat to this. During a short cardio excursion you
> are more likely to burn lean muscle at first than fat. This is why
> everyone says to make your cardio works out last a certain amount of
> time.

I don't think that's correct. For short efforts, you mostly burn
glycogen stored in your muscles. Here is the sequence of energy
usage:

ATP 2-3 seconds
phosphocreatine 10-20 sec
glycogen (anaerobic) 2-3 min
glycogen (aerobic) 30-60 min
fat very long time

The main reason to do aerobic exercise for extended time is because
it takes that long to get a training adaptation. I just read a
decent overview of the training zones and their purpose, worthwhile
reading for a cyclist who wants to improve. Not a weight loss
article, but a training article:

http://tinyurl.com/2b62m

--
terry morse Palo Alto, CA http://bike.terrymorse.com/

 

[SanShou]

One other thing I forgot to put in my last post was probably the most
important thing that Fitness Professionals start with in diagnosing
weight. Start a journal.

In this journal write down everything you eat or drink in a given day.
The write down what excercise you did that day, whether it is a walk, a
20 mile bike ride, or nothing. You don't have to write down the things
you do everyday such as walk from the car to my desk at work. Then weigh
yourself the next morning. You can then see the progress and on what
days you are losing and gaining. You can also see how what you are
eating and what your work out is really doing for you over time.

Then try and adjust it. Eat more for a week. What happens? Eat less for
a week. Take in as little simple sugars as possible for a week. You get
the picture...



--

 

[Hieronymus]

"Per Elmsäter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Hieronymus wrote:
> > "Per Elmsäter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...

>
> You know. It's not like I've been studying scientific abstracts that I can
> link you to. This is information that I've gathered at coaching seminars
and
> other training related educatin that I've gone through.
> Try reading training related journals instead of obesity journals. One
> reason pro cyclists are interested in this is because they want to train
in
> such a fashion that they learn to utilize fat for energy rather than
carbs.
> One way of achieving this is to have workouts lasting longer than 45
> minutes. The effects of this training is that the body uses less carbs and
> more fat at a given intensity.
>
> --
> Perre
>
> You have to be smarter than a robot to reply.
>
Okay, thank you I will give the training journals a try. Like I said I
have heard the same thing too. I was just wondering why it is so and how it
was proved.

 

[Insight Driver]

Hieronymus wrote:
> "Insight Driver" <[email protected]> wrote in message news-
> :[email protected]:X5Rvc.100718$OI5.4574-
> [email protected]...
> > > Perre
> > Please give a scientific citation for this information. I've heard
> > this for years and I am still sceptical that this old piece of cycling
> > advice is true. I have read obesity journals and other professional
> > literature and I cannot evidence for this claim. Thank You, Hieronymus
> >
> > You are online are you not? Use your own search skills and educate
> > yourself, why don't you? What Pierre posted is factual, not lore.
> > Rather than task someone else to prove it to YOU, why don't you go
> > find out for yourself? At the very least, put in enough effort to try
> > to prove him wrong or admit he's right.
> >
> Insight Driver, Read my question a wee bit closer. I did not write
> anyone is right or wrong. Nor did I ask anyone to prove anything to
> me. I wrote that I have tried to find scientific validation of the
> fact in question (did you not see the part about reading journals?). I
> cannot find any studies online or not online to validate the fat
> burning question. All I did was ask Perre to give me a little help.
> You are the one who said it is factual, how do you know it to be
> factual? Like any good scholar would do, give me a site or journal
> reference to show the case for your point since I am unable to come up
> with any proof on my own.



I feel sorry for anyone who cannot come up with balanced information in
this internet age. This, to me, means that the person has an agenda and
is just fishing for facts to fit it.



--

 

[Doug Cook]

"David Kerber" <ns_dkerber@ns_ids.net> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, usenet-
> [email protected] says...
> > just wondering, how come u let yourself get all lazy when u get married?
> > is that horrible curse that comes when u get marriedn and get kids? if
> > so i dont tihnk i will ever get married at all?
>
> It's not that you get lazy; if anything you work much harder overall,
> and fatigue contributes greatly to lack of exercise. But your
> priorities change; they almost have to for a marriage to work, and they
> change even more when you have kids.
>

Amen. It's a matter allocating the 24 hours in a day to all the demands. I
started off as a TV news producer in four different markets, moved to PR,
and finally Strategic Marketing - all long hour jobs and the last two with
lots of travel. Add to that a wife and 2 kids with whom I love spending
time, meetings and volunteer work at my church, and top it off with my other
hobby of woodworking.

AND after years spent being continually exhausted, I finally realized I'm
one of those people who NEED 9 hours of sleep. I don't know why, but I'm
chronically sleep-deprived if I don't make sure I get that much.

So, where did I find the time to stating riding again? I started my own
consulting firm. I end up working MORE hours, but I get to choose which
hours!

To sum up... you don't really get lazy after you get married (although you
may euphemistically refer to it as such). In reality you work much harder!
It's just not exercise.

 

[mjduffy1]

Per ElmsäTer wrote:
> EvilDog wrote:
> > Let me make a few suggestions here.
> >
> > 1) You will need to do your riding to burn fat and not carbs. This is
> > done by riding at a completely comfortable aerobic pace and not
> > anaerobically. This means that you will have to pedal more easily
> > and at a lower heart rate. Try staying at about 65% of your max for
> > the duration of your ride. No showing off, no heroics. Avoid
> > sprinting and fast paces. Just keep it easy. The harder you ride,
> > the more your muscles will depend on burning carbs and not fat.
> > This is why you are having a strong sugar craving after your ride.
> > Also you will want to up your daily intake of protein if you
> > haven't already done so.
> >
> This suggestion is absolutely bogus and one of the myths going around.
> Probably started by the fitness industry in order to market their
> products. The harder and longer you ride the more fat you will burn.
> Period It is true that at a higher intensity you will burn more carbs
> than fat. _*Percentagewise*_. However totally you will still be burning
> more fat at a high intensity than at a low intensity. Also if you get
> your fatburning engine going you will continue to burn lots of fat after
> your workout as your body is recovering.
> --
> Perre
> You have to be smarter than a robot to reply.

It's bogus and it's not--yes, the higher your intensity, the more fat
you will burn per unit of time. However, a lower intensity allows the
workout to be extended. I can do three hours above 85% (with carb
supplementation), but I can do 60% all day long. Since the *rate of
increase* in fat burning falls off dramatically as one enters the
"aerobic" zone, riding slower will make fat-burning sense, *provided*
this will extend the workout significantly. Of course, if one is time
limited rather than endurance limited, it's best to ride like hell.





--

 

[Badger_South]

On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 10:47:18 GMT, mjduffy1 <[email protected]> wrote:

>Since the *rate of
>increase* in fat burning falls off dramatically as one enters the
>"aerobic" zone, riding slower will make fat-burning sense, *provided*
>this will extend the workout significantly. Of course, if one is time
>limited rather than endurance limited, it's best to ride like hell.

Hah.

I'll go you one better -

It's best to ride like the demons of hell are chasing you!

-Badger

 

[Per Elmsäter]

Badger_South wrote:
> On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 10:47:18 GMT, mjduffy1
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Since the *rate of
>> increase* in fat burning falls off dramatically as one enters the
>> "aerobic" zone, riding slower will make fat-burning sense, *provided*
>> this will extend the workout significantly. Of course, if one is time
>> limited rather than endurance limited, it's best to ride like hell.
>
> Hah.
>
> I'll go you one better -
>
> It's best to ride like the demons of hell are chasing you!
>
> -Badger

In a way they are you know. Shape up or die is a cruel fact of life for lots
of people.

--
Perre

You have to be smarter than a robot to reply.

 

[Badger_South]

On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 15:56:56 GMT, "Per Elmsäter" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Badger_South wrote:
>> On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 10:47:18 GMT, mjduffy1
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Since the *rate of
>>> increase* in fat burning falls off dramatically as one enters the
>>> "aerobic" zone, riding slower will make fat-burning sense, *provided*
>>> this will extend the workout significantly. Of course, if one is time
>>> limited rather than endurance limited, it's best to ride like hell.
>>
>> Hah.
>>
>> I'll go you one better -
>>
>> It's best to ride like the demons of hell are chasing you!


>In a way they are you know. Shape up or die is a cruel fact of life for lots
>of people.

I try to hang just this side of the completely obsessive compulsive, wrt to
improvement and mileage and time in the saddle.

Heck, I'm just now ramping up, a little, (at least this is what I tell the wife.)

-Bad

 

[jbieryjr]

Doug, Congrats. First don't be discouraged. Depending on our age and
daily lifestyles, fat loss can take time. You completed the first part
by getting your cardiovascular in shape. Next you need to get the diet
under control. If you are really serious then take a look at the Zone
diet. Dr Barry Sears is an biochemist that developed a balanced diet for
athletes. It is based on your daily caloric load and ideal body mass.
This is a difficult diet and takes time to master. Be patient and true
to the diet and in 3 months you start to see the response. What ever
diet you choose to follow, keep in mind to balance the diet. High
protein diets are not approved for the physically active. If you want an
easier read and a good introduction into The Zone plan, then pick up
"Body for Life". A little cheesy of a program, but is a good start for
beginners.

Second, lower your max HR to about 65%. Fat burning is an aerobic
process that requires Oxygen. Keep in mind fat burning does not start
until after the excercise. Fat burning is the bodys way to replace
glucose used. Your friend is correct in recommending exercising in AM,
but do not eat for 1-2 hrs after the excersise. This will maximize the
fat burning process.

Good Luck



--

 

[enzoferarri]

Doug Cook wrote:
> The story thus far....
> 12 years ago - single, 6'3", 180lbs., hair, and competing in citizens
> class triathlons....yada yada yada



Doug,

Understand a few things.

1. Your enemy: High Fructose Corn Syrup (start reading labels...like
Gatorade for example)
2. Your friend: Much more protein, much less carbs, but still balanced,
and much more fiber.
3. Beg, borrow or steal "Body Rx" by Dr. Scott Connelly...this is the
guy that started MetRx. Read it. Basically, WITHOUT starving, and by
eating smaller meals, doing some weight training, still biking, and
watching AND recording what you eat, you can fix yourself. Period.

My concern about a full blown Atkins is loss of lean muscle mass, and
the fact that you will probably bonk if you don't get a reasonable level
of carbs. One of the points of this book is the widespread use of High
Fructose Corn Syrup, starting about 1980, also corresponds VERY closely
with the increase in average body weight for Americans. Fructose does a
VERY nasty but effective job of bypassing the metabolic screen and
GREATLY encorraging fat storage. As does the eating 3 larger meals...the
body keeps thinking that it's not going to be fed again and goes to fat
storage every 3 jours or so. Smaller, better balanced meals 6 times a
day. No starving hunger, just better results. Lastly, weight training as
an adjunct to your cardio, has fat burning effects MUCH longer than
cardio. Cardio fat burning stops the instant the exercise deos, yet
weight training burns fat for hours...anaerobic benefit.

In short, go buy that book. Keep at it but do it smarter. I'm back into
my size 32-33 pants, and I thought they were lost forever.

Enzo



--

 

[Pat]

>
> My concern about a full blown Atkins is loss of lean muscle mass, and
> the fact that you will probably bonk if you don't get a reasonable level
> of carbs.

You really shouldn't discuss the Atkins Diet if you know nothing about it,
and it is obvious that you do not know the principles of it. If you had
read Dr. Atkins' book, you would find out that it is not a "low carb diet"
but a "controlled carb diet" that, after the initial 2 weeks, adds 5 grams
of low glycemic carbs a day per week to the diet and maxes out with as many
carbs as you can eat and maintain your weight. There is no "loss of lean
muscle mass" and anyone can get a "reasonable level of carbs" on the Atkins
Diet.



One of the points of this book is the widespread use of High
> Fructose Corn Syrup, starting about 1980, also corresponds VERY closely
> with the increase in average body weight for Americans. Fructose does a
> VERY nasty but effective job of bypassing the metabolic screen and
> GREATLY encorraging fat storage.

During the first 2 weeks of the Atkins Diet, a person is weaned from
dependance on sugar.



As does the eating 3 larger meals...the
> body keeps thinking that it's not going to be fed again and goes to fat
> storage every 3 jours or so. Smaller, better balanced meals 6 times a
> day. No starving hunger, just better results. Lastly, weight training as
> an adjunct to your cardio, has fat burning effects MUCH longer than
> cardio. Cardio fat burning stops the instant the exercise deos, yet
> weight training burns fat for hours...anaerobic benefit.
>
> In short, go buy that book. Keep at it but do it smarter. I'm back into
> my size 32-33 pants, and I thought they were lost forever.
>
> Enzo

Not everyone has a job that enables them to eat 6 times a day. It may be
ideal, but impractical. and what you meant by "cardio fat burning stops the
instant the exercise deos" I have no idea. Riding a bike keeps the fat
burning for a while after the ride is over. Yes, weight training is good
and we should all do it. But don't bash Atkins when you don't have any idea
about the principles of the diet.

Pat

 

[Terry Morse]

Pat wrote:

> You really shouldn't discuss the Atkins Diet if you know nothing about it,
> and it is obvious that you do not know the principles of it. If you had
> read Dr. Atkins' book, you would find out that it is not a "low carb diet"
> but a "controlled carb diet" that, after the initial 2 weeks, adds 5 grams
> of low glycemic carbs a day per week to the diet and maxes out with as many
> carbs as you can eat and maintain your weight. There is no "loss of lean
> muscle mass" and anyone can get a "reasonable level of carbs" on the Atkins
> Diet.

Five grams of carbs per day is "reasonable"? I don't think so. My
daily target is more like 600 grams. Weight loss benefits aside, any
diet that greatly restricts carbs is going to be total disaster for
an aerobic athlete. After about 90 minutes of exercise, your body
starts to consume lean muscle as fuel. To counteract this, your
recovery meal should contains carbs and protein. Carbs raise insulin
levels, and insulin is an anabolic (muscle building) hormone.
Protein is consumed to repair the muscle damage caused by the
exercise. Finally, carbs taken after exercise replenishes stored
muscle glycogen, which will prevent muscle fatigue and the infamous
"bonk".

Fad diets may come and go, but the basic nutritional needs for
athletes remain the same.
--
terry morse Palo Alto, CA http://bike.terrymorse.com/

 

[Daniel Crispin]

"Terry Morse" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Pat wrote:
>
> > You really shouldn't discuss the Atkins Diet if you know nothing about
it,
> > and it is obvious that you do not know the principles of it. If you had
> > read Dr. Atkins' book, you would find out that it is not a "low carb
diet"
> > but a "controlled carb diet" that, after the initial 2 weeks, adds 5
grams
> > of low glycemic carbs a day per week to the diet and maxes out with as
many
> > carbs as you can eat and maintain your weight. There is no "loss of lean
> > muscle mass" and anyone can get a "reasonable level of carbs" on the
Atkins
> > Diet.
>
> Five grams of carbs per day is "reasonable"? I don't think so. My
> daily target is more like 600 grams. Weight loss benefits aside, any
> diet that greatly restricts carbs is going to be total disaster for
> an aerobic athlete. After about 90 minutes of exercise, your body
> starts to consume lean muscle as fuel. To counteract this, your
> recovery meal should contains carbs and protein. Carbs raise insulin
> levels, and insulin is an anabolic (muscle building) hormone.
> Protein is consumed to repair the muscle damage caused by the
> exercise. Finally, carbs taken after exercise replenishes stored
> muscle glycogen, which will prevent muscle fatigue and the infamous
> "bonk".
>
> Fad diets may come and go, but the basic nutritional needs for
> athletes remain the same.
> --
> terry morse Palo Alto, CA http://bike.terrymorse.com/

Remember that Atkins and other diets are not designed for athletes
training...
they are designed to loose weight. If you don't have weight to loose, you
should
eat differently.

I have not read Atkins books but it sounds really similar to Montignac's
method.
In essence it's designed to prevent insulin over production by cutting out
the foods
that makes Insulin spike. There are a lot of carbs sources that won't make
your
insulin spike, those are fine. Even an athlete should avoid these nasty
foods like
potatoes.

 

[S o r n i]

Daniel Crispin wrote:
> Remember that Atkins and other diets are not designed for athletes
> training...
> they are designed to loose weight. If you don't have weight to
> loose, you should
> eat differently.
>
> I have not read Atkins books but it sounds really similar to
> Montignac's method.
> In essence it's designed to prevent insulin over production by
> cutting out the foods
> that makes Insulin spike. There are a lot of carbs sources that
> won't make your
> insulin spike, those are fine. Even an athlete should avoid these
> nasty foods like
> potatoes.

Especially loose potatoes!

Bill "Crispin Recipe?" S.

 

[Badger_South]

On Thu, 01 Jul 2004 06:50:54 -0700, Terry Morse <[email protected]> wrote:

>Pat wrote:
>
>> You really shouldn't discuss the Atkins Diet if you know nothing about it,
>> and it is obvious that you do not know the principles of it. If you had
>> read Dr. Atkins' book, you would find out that it is not a "low carb diet"
>> but a "controlled carb diet" that, after the initial 2 weeks, adds 5 grams
>> of low glycemic carbs a day per week to the diet and maxes out with as many
>> carbs as you can eat and maintain your weight. There is no "loss of lean
>> muscle mass" and anyone can get a "reasonable level of carbs" on the Atkins
>> Diet.
>
>Five grams of carbs per day is "reasonable"? I don't think so. My
>daily target is more like 600 grams. Weight loss benefits aside, any
>diet that greatly restricts carbs is going to be total disaster for
>an aerobic athlete. After about 90 minutes of exercise, your body
>starts to consume lean muscle as fuel. To counteract this, your
>recovery meal should contains carbs and protein. Carbs raise insulin
>levels, and insulin is an anabolic (muscle building) hormone.
>Protein is consumed to repair the muscle damage caused by the
>exercise. Finally, carbs taken after exercise replenishes stored
>muscle glycogen, which will prevent muscle fatigue and the infamous
>"bonk".
>
>Fad diets may come and go, but the basic nutritional needs for
>athletes remain the same.

Adds 5 grams, until the tolerated level is reached, i.e. you're not
regaining the carb addiction thing, staying in benign dietary ketosis. The
induction phase is 20 gms, so adding 5 grams would be 25. Some ppl get up
to 30-50gm over a period of weeks. You add 5 gms per day as a way to slowly
find your limit. So if you added 5 to the base 20 gms and were good, on day
two you'd add another 5 to make 30. That's 5 gms of low glycemic index
carbs, not sugar.

In the window period, surrounding relatively intense exercise, one may
consume glucose, usually in the form of a protein drink and sweet tarts,
etc., and here the insulin aids in muscle building, and not increasing the
size of the fat cells.

FWIW

-B