Atkins Diet and Racing

[Top Sirloin]

On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 15:29:33 GMT, warren <[email protected]> wrote:

>Also, bonking may not be all bad because if you ingest enough carbs in the following 24 hours or
>so you can end up storing more glycogen than you'd normally have. And, bonking can lead to
>greater releases of growth hormone in that same 24 hours. Do you ever feel very recovered the day
>after bonking?

One benefit of working out is that incoming carbs are used to replace muscle glycogen rather than
liver glycogen (or stored as fat). The percentage of glycogen in the liver is one of the primary
determinants in how much fat your body uses for energy.

When you bonk you've just ensured that you've used up all of your muscle and liver glycogen,
allowing you to burn the maximum amount of fat the _next_ day. When you burn 1,000 calories during a
workout, you've really created a caloric deficit the _next_ day as your body works to replace what
you've used. You didn't burn 1,000 calories of fat that day unless you were in ketosis.

--
Scott Johnson "Always with the excuses for small legs. People like you are why they only open the
top half of caskets." -Tommy Bowen

 

[Steve McGinty]

On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 15:29:33 GMT, warren <[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>, Amit
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Dave M Wyman <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<D%_Ta.138109
>>
>> >
>> > Because I usually want to lose weight, rather than gain it, I'll often ride 3-4 leisurely hours
>> > without eating any carbs before or during the ride. By the end of that time, I'm usually tired
>> > and cranky, but I also know that my body has been consuming its own fat to provide engery,
>> > rather than running on energy from breakfast carbs.
>> >
>>
>> This is the Warren G method of fat loss.
>
>Show me where I said that.
>
>No one has yet mentioned that if you run out of adequate carbs and you're not some super fat burner
>then you'll cannibalize muscle tissue for fuel.
>
>Also, bonking may not be all bad because if you ingest enough carbs in the following 24 hours or
>so you can end up storing more glycogen than you'd normally have. And, bonking can lead to
>greater releases of growth hormone in that same 24 hours. Do you ever feel very recovered the day
>after bonking?
>
My bonking experiences are so bad I'd rather hit myself over the head with a shovel than do it
intentionally.

Regards! Stephen

 

[Bob M]

On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 15:31:50 GMT, warren <[email protected]> wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>, Kurgan Gringioni
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> "warren" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:240720031559450925%[email protected]...
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > thank you very much.
>> >
>> > Translation:
>> >
>> > Trying to ride 100 miles in 5 hours with no carbs and no glycogen
>> would
>> > be (nearly?) impossible. I think you would pass out after 3-4 hours or crash into something
>> > when your brain stopped getting enough sugar to function well enough to keep you upright.
>>
>>
>>
>> That's not true.
>
> I said "nearly" because I knew somebody would come up with some freaky example, and they cheated
> and ate some carbs anyway. This guy was on Atkins so no carbs to speak of.

I ride 3 hours of mountain biking, with about 7-8 hours total per week. My daily carb intake is
under 50 grams of food and my carb intake before and after a long ride is less than 100 grams --
generally around 60. Considering that I'm burning way, way more than 400 calories for 3 hours of
biking (and I'm going to be increasing this to 4-5 hours soon), I have to be burning fat. And I feel
great. I do like post-exercise carb drinks, though.

Check out this page:

http://www.lowcarbresearch.org/lcr/results.asp?catid=219

In particular:

"From the Unversity of Otago in New Zealand and the journal Metabolism,
2002: In this study, researchers studied the effects of high fat and high carbohydrate diets on the
metabolism and endurance of cyclists. The researchers placed the study participants on 3
diets. One was high carbohydrate (70%), the second was high fat (66%) while the third was high
fat followed by carbohydrate loading. They reported that the cyclist eating the high fat diet
had greater lipolysis (fat breakdown) and fuel availability, and greater endurance for long
distances."

"From the University of Otago, New Zealand and the Nurtrition Research Newsletter, 2000: In this
study, researchers placed well-trained bicycle male and female athletes on one of two diets. The
first diet was the traditional low fat (15%), high carbohydrate (69%) diet and the second was much
higher in fat (50%)and much lower in carbohdyrate (35%). At the end of 12 weeks, they did not find
in body fat percentages, lean body mass, or body weight but they found that the bone mineral density
among the high fat, low carbohydrate group increased significantly while it did not in the high
carbohydrate, low fat group. The researchers concluded that increased dietary fat does not increase
body weight or add body fat."

"From the New York State University at Buffalo, 1999: In this study, female athletes were placed on
diets that varied in fat and carbohydrate content. The researchers found that when the women
consumed a higher fat, lower carbohydrate diet their athletic endurance and intensity improved."

"From the New York State University at Buffalo, 1994: A team of researchers studied the effects of a
high fat diet and a high carbohydrate diet on the aerobic capacity and endurance of male athletes.
The researchers openly state that the results were the opposite of what they expected: The athletes
performed better on the high fat diet than on the high carbohydrate diet, even though the total
caloric intake was the same in both diets. They concluded that athletes who restrict dietary fat to
low levels may be sacrificing their endurance performance. "

--
Bob M in CT Remove 'x.' to reply

 

[Bob M]

On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 10:51:31 -0400, Top Sirloin <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 15:24:25 GMT, warren <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> In article <[email protected]>, Top Sirloin
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 23:04:12 GMT, warren <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> >Trying to ride 100 miles in 5 hours with no carbs and no glycogen
>>> would
>>> >be (nearly?) impossible. I think you would pass out after 3-4 hours or crash into something
>>> >when your brain stopped getting enough sugar to function well enough to keep you upright.
>>>
>>> His brain would be using ketones and tiny amount of glucose from gluconeogenesis.
>>
>> I've bonked enough times to know that you're going to be jepordizing your ability to stay upright
>> when your brain is running on fumes.
>
> That's true. Your body can't instantly turn a switch and flip over to a FFA and ketone based
> metabolism, it can take days. The original poster however, has already been through that pain.
>
> There was some research mentioned in mfw about putting endurance athletes on low-carb diets to
> improve their fat utilization and then carb loading before events, but it wasn't shown to be of
> any benefit.
>
> I do think a lot of the people doing stuff like adventure racing or even RAAM might do better just
> running off their fat stores in ketosis the whole time.
>
>

I agree. However, I do think that a recovery drink of carbs helps me. Carbs before also seem to give
me a small boost. I haven't yet tried carbs during, but I'm up to only 3 hours of riding.

--
Bob M in CT Remove 'x.' to reply

 

[Warren]

In article <[email protected]>, Mr. Toast
<[email protected]> wrote:

> "Mack Mad" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
> > "David A" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> > > Anybody have any information or experience with bicycle racing/training
> > and
> > > Atkins dieting?
> > >
> > > I understand most of us racers are in great shape and would never need to
> > be
> > > on a diet of course certainly for sure, but some of us are ex-racers, and want to get back in
> > > race shape.
> > >
> > > I went on a 40 mile ride and it was OK, having eaten virtually no carbs before or during the
> > > ride.
> > >
> > > But the big question, a 40 mile ride is one thing, a 100 mile ride in 5 hours solo is another.
> > >
> > > David
> > >
> >
> > Maybe I am dense, but why would one actually consider Atkins if participating in an exercise
> > program that included a 5 hour century? I can see using Atkins for people that need to lose
> > weight pretty quickly and have no ability to exercise
>
>
> I don't know about that. I've gotten a lot of the people at my squash club to go on Atkins diets.
> Going low-carb hasn't hurt their ability to move on the squash court.

Do they play 7+ hours a week? Do they play hard for more than an hour each time? Either of these
would tend to need more carbs, or at least more glycogen.

> I should probably dig up the study *before* posting, but one of the recent go-arounds of Atkins
> dieters losing more weight than people on low-carb diets followed people three months after the
> diet ended. The Atkins dieters had still lost almost double the weight.

What about the change in their lean body mass? Gain muscle or lose muscle? How about after 6
months? A year?

-WG

 

[Dave M Wyman]

Depends on the definition of bonking. To me, it's a sudden, and almost total loss of energy, same as
"hitting the wall" - not good. At that point, you can't ride anymore.

Raptor wrote:

> Dave M Wyman wrote:
>
>> David A wrote:
>>
>>> Anybody have any information or experience with bicycle racing/training and Atkins dieting?
>>>
>>
>> I haven't raced in many years, but I do ride a few centuries every year and I enjoy training on
>> hills. I think I'd bonk if I didn't consume some carbs during the century rides. I've learned,
>> though experience, that I don't need to gorge myself on carbohydrates during long rides - there's
>> only so much energy my body can extract from carbohydrate-rich foods or drinks over a given time
>> period, anyway.
>
>
> Isn't bonking a good thing for someone focusing on weight loss? It's really only bad if you want
> to ride fast. Just keep the electrolytes and fluids topped up, and you'll be okay.
>
> Right?

 

[Dave M Wyman]

Amit wrote:

This is the Warren G method of fat loss. The problem I have with it is
> that you are compromising your aerobic development and the intensity of the ride. Poor nutrition
> might also affect how well you can recover, thus compromising the intensity of subsequent rides.

Doesn't seem to have effected my riding - other then to help me lose weight.

>
> If you're trying to lose weight bonking is bad, because when you bonk you're not burning a lot of
> calories (even though you feel like ****), it's better to not bonk and ride longer even if it
> means having to eat.

Agreed - the suggestion for carrying carbs was to forstall bonking.

Dave

 

[Warren]

In article <[email protected]>, Bob M <[email protected]> wrote:

> I ride 3 hours of mountain biking, with about 7-8 hours total per week. My daily carb intake is
> under 50 grams of food and my carb intake before and after a long ride is less than 100 grams --
> generally around 60. Considering that I'm burning way, way more than 400 calories for 3 hours of
> biking (and I'm going to be increasing this to 4-5 hours soon), I have to be burning fat. And I
> feel great. I do like post-exercise carb drinks, though.

How much muscle mass/weight have you gained? Are you cannibalizing any muscle tissue for fuel during
your rides without carbs?

(Snipped a bunch of study results...)

At least one of the studies said "cyclist" not plural.

Are you aware that (generally) a person with a high ratio of slow twitch fibers can burn/oxidize
more fat than a person with a high ratio of fast twitch fibers? Did the studies account for that or
did they just go out and find people who were already good at endurance (probably well-developed ST
fibers) and then test them?

-WG

 

[Mr. Toast]

warren <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<250720031030167067%
> >
> > I don't know about that. I've gotten a lot of the people at my squash club to go on Atkins
> > diets. Going low-carb hasn't hurt their ability to move on the squash court.
>
> Do they play 7+ hours a week?

Some of them, yes.

> Do they play hard for more than an hour each time?

Some of them.

> Either of these would tend to need more carbs, or at least more glycogen.

I think they do have a little gatorade for the longer sessions. It shouldn't take you out of ketosis
though, because you are burning that sugar as fast as

> > I should probably dig up the study *before* posting, but one of the recent go-arounds of Atkins
> > dieters losing more weight than people on low-carb diets followed people three months after the
> > diet ended. The Atkins dieters had still lost almost double the weight.
>
> What about the change in their lean body mass? Gain muscle or lose muscle? How about after 6
> months? A year?

Grrr, I posted the study to another message board and I just found the post in the archives, but the
links are to news articles and they are both dead links now. Without the names of the authors of the
study it will be a pain to dig up on PubMed, I'll keep digging and get back to you.

But I was able to review some of the details of the study. It was a 6 month followup, not a three
month followup. And yes, they retained more lean body mass. That is pretty universal in all the
various studies of low-carb diets - the low-carbers almost always have a better results in the lost
fat mass department than in the lost weight department because they retain more muscle while dieting
(this may simply be because they eat more protein though, not because of the low-carb aspect).

 

[Bob M]

On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 22:46:05 GMT, David A <[email protected]> wrote:

> Anybody have any information or experience with bicycle racing/training and Atkins dieting?
>
> I understand most of us racers are in great shape and would never need to be on a diet of course
> certainly for sure, but some of us are ex-racers, and want to get back in race shape.
>
> I went on a 40 mile ride and it was OK, having eaten virtually no carbs before or during the ride.
>
> But the big question, a 40 mile ride is one thing, a 100 mile ride in 5 hours solo is another.
>
> David
>
>
>

What's the difference? If you can do 40 miles with few carbs, then why couldn't you do 100?

--
Bob M in CT remove 'x.' to reply

 

[Carl Sundquist]

"Bob M" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> What's the difference? If you can do 40 miles with few carbs, then why couldn't you do 100?

Because your stored glycogen isn't limitless.

 

[Bob M]

On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 11:09:56 -0500, Carl Sundquist <carlsun@cox- internet.com> wrote:

>
> "Bob M" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> What's the difference? If you can do 40 miles with few carbs, then why couldn't you do 100?
>
> Because your stored glycogen isn't limitless.
>
>
>

If you're doing Atkins and are in ketosis, then you don't have any stored glycogen, at least in your
liver. In muscles, yes. But if you can do 40 miles, you can do 100 miles. You're operating on a fat
burning mechanism, not a carb burning mechanism. I eat well less than 100g carbs per day, yet bike
about 7 hours per week. This week, I'll bike 20 miles tomorrow, then about 12-15 miles on Thursday
(due to taking some time off because of a concert), then about 30-35 miles on Friday. Normally, I'd
also bike over the weekend, but I'm watching my friend's kids then entire weekend. That's about 5
hours because of the short week. Anyway, even assuming that I'm taking in 100 grams of carbs per
day, that's 100g x 5 days = 500 grams, which is 2,000 calories. I'm burning well beyond 2,000
calories in five days. Where's my energy coming from? Fat. I say to you that if you can ride 40
miles, you can ride 100. I'll know this year, as I'll be riding a ride that's 60 miles a day for two
days, and I intend to continue to eat low amounts of carbs as I do it. The longest ride I've had so
far is 3 hours of mountain biking, and I noticed no ill effects whatsoever. In fact, I had as much
energy at the end as I did at the beginning. Bonking occurs because your body is not used to burning
fat for energy. My body
is.

--
Bob M in CT remove 'x.' to reply

 

[Carl Sundquist]

"Bob M" <[email protected]> wrote in message news[email protected]...
> On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 11:09:56 -0500, Carl Sundquist <carlsun@cox- internet.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > "Bob M" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>
> >> What's the difference? If you can do 40 miles with few carbs, then why couldn't you do 100?
> >
> > Because your stored glycogen isn't limitless.
> >
> >
> >
>
> If you're doing Atkins and are in ketosis, then you don't have any stored glycogen, at least in
> your liver. In muscles, yes. But if you can do 40 miles, you can do 100 miles. You're operating on
> a fat burning mechanism, not a carb burning mechanism. I eat well less than 100g carbs per day,
yet
> bike about 7 hours per week. This week, I'll bike 20 miles tomorrow, then about 12-15 miles on
> Thursday (due to taking some time off because of a concert), then about 30-35 miles on Friday.
> Normally, I'd also bike over the weekend, but I'm watching my friend's kids then entire weekend.
That's
> about 5 hours because of the short week. Anyway, even assuming that I'm taking in 100 grams of
> carbs per day, that's 100g x 5 days = 500 grams, which is 2,000 calories. I'm burning well beyond
> 2,000 calories in five days. Where's my energy coming from? Fat. I say to you that if you can ride
> 40 miles, you can ride 100. I'll know this year, as I'll be riding a ride that's 60 miles a day
> for two days, and I intend to continue to eat low amounts of carbs as I do it. The longest ride
> I've had so far is 3 hours of mountain biking, and I noticed no ill effects whatsoever. In fact, I
> had as much energy at the end as I did at the beginning. Bonking occurs because your body is not
> used to burning fat for energy. My body
> is.
>

Fair enough.

However one factor is the rate which you are burning calories. You describe riding ~ 65 miles in 5
hours, which unless you live in a particularly windy or hilly area is not a high caloric demand
effort. The rate which you are burning calories is far more easily replenished by fat stores,
especially if your body is conditioned to convert fat more readily, than if you were riding at twice
that rate of speed.

 

[Dashi Toshii]

"Bob M" <[email protected]> wrote in message news[email protected]...
> On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 11:09:56 -0500, Carl Sundquist <carlsun@cox- internet.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > "Bob M" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>
> >> What's the difference? If you can do 40 miles with few carbs, then why couldn't you do 100?
> >
> > Because your stored glycogen isn't limitless.
> >
> >
> >
>
> If you're doing Atkins and are in ketosis, then you don't have any stored glycogen, at least in
> your liver. In muscles, yes. But if you can do 40 miles, you can do 100 miles. You're operating on
> a fat burning mechanism, not a carb burning mechanism. I eat well less than 100g carbs per day,
yet
> bike about 7 hours per week. This week, I'll bike 20 miles tomorrow, then about 12-15 miles on
> Thursday (due to taking some time off because of a concert), then about 30-35 miles on Friday.
> Normally, I'd also bike over the weekend, but I'm watching my friend's kids then entire weekend.
That's
> about 5 hours because of the short week. Anyway, even assuming that I'm taking in 100 grams of
> carbs per day, that's 100g x 5 days = 500 grams, which is 2,000 calories. I'm burning well beyond
> 2,000 calories in five days. Where's my energy coming from? Fat. I say to you that if you can ride
> 40 miles, you can ride 100. I'll know this year, as I'll be riding a ride that's 60 miles a day
> for two days, and I intend to continue to eat low amounts of carbs as I do it. The longest ride
> I've had so far is 3 hours of mountain biking, and I noticed no ill effects whatsoever. In fact, I
> had as much energy at the end as I did at the beginning. Bonking occurs because your body is not
> used to burning fat for energy. My body
> is.

How fat are you Bob? Your mileage is not very high and your time is slow, so I wouldn't be so sure
that the Atkins diet is doing you any good.

You are only burning 2000 calories in five days? That's not much, I can burn 2000 calories in 2
hours on my Computrainer and on the road in 5 /12 - 6 hours.

No need for a silly and dangerous diet like the Atkins one.

Eat healthy and you may be able to do the same some day.

Dashii

 

[Curt]

Well, you sure sound intelligent. How do you know Atkins is dangerous? Do you know anything about it
other than what the hyped up media states? If you think it is dangerous, I suspect not. I have read
the book and have done plenty of research on the diet. It is sound if you follow it correctly.
Within 5 years you will see a change in the way people eat, due to Dr. Atkins research. This is JMHO
of course, but non-the-less my prediction.

Wow, you burn 2000 cals in 2 hours....good for you. The only problem is that the computrainer is
really inaccurate. You don't burn 2000 cals in that amount of time, but it looks nice on your screen
and it makes you feel good. Isn't that what the marketers of that machine want you to think, so you
can tell all your friends to buy one.

Please. Curt

>
> How fat are you Bob? Your mileage is not very high and your time is slow,
so
> I wouldn't be so sure that the Atkins diet is doing you any good.
>
> You are only burning 2000 calories in five days? That's not much, I can
burn
> 2000 calories in 2 hours on my Computrainer and on the road in 5 /12 - 6 hours.
>
> No need for a silly and dangerous diet like the Atkins one.
>
> Eat healthy and you may be able to do the same some day.
>
> Dashii

 

[David A]

"Dashi Toshii" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> "Bob M" <[email protected]> wrote in message news[email protected]...
> > On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 11:09:56 -0500, Carl Sundquist <carlsun@cox- internet.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > "Bob M" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > >>
> > >> What's the difference? If you can do 40 miles with few carbs, then
why
> > >> couldn't you do 100?
> > >
> > > Because your stored glycogen isn't limitless.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > If you're doing Atkins and are in ketosis, then you don't have any
stored
> > glycogen, at least in your liver. In muscles, yes. But if you can do
40
> > miles, you can do 100 miles. You're operating on a fat burning
mechanism,
> > not a carb burning mechanism. I eat well less than 100g carbs per day,
> yet
> > bike about 7 hours per week. This week, I'll bike 20 miles tomorrow,
then
> > about 12-15 miles on Thursday (due to taking some time off because of a concert), then about
> > 30-35 miles on Friday. Normally, I'd also bike
over
> > the weekend, but I'm watching my friend's kids then entire weekend.
> That's
> > about 5 hours because of the short week. Anyway, even assuming that I'm taking in 100 grams of
> > carbs per day, that's 100g x 5 days = 500 grams, which is 2,000 calories. I'm burning well
> > beyond 2,000 calories in five days. Where's my energy coming from? Fat. I say to you that if you
can
> > ride 40 miles, you can ride 100. I'll know this year, as I'll be riding
a
> > ride that's 60 miles a day for two days, and I intend to continue to eat low amounts of carbs as
> > I do it. The longest ride I've had so far is 3 hours of mountain biking, and I noticed no ill
> > effects whatsoever. In fact, I had as much energy at the end as I did at the beginning.
Bonking
> > occurs because your body is not used to burning fat for energy. My body
> > is.
>
> How fat are you Bob? Your mileage is not very high and your time is slow,
so
> I wouldn't be so sure that the Atkins diet is doing you any good.
>
> You are only burning 2000 calories in five days? That's not much, I can
burn
> 2000 calories in 2 hours on my Computrainer and on the road in 5 /12 - 6 hours.
>
> No need for a silly and dangerous diet like the Atkins one.
>
> Eat healthy and you may be able to do the same some day.
>
> Dashii
>
>

I originally started this post. I wanted to get feedback from *racers*, like Cat 3 or higher,
someone who knows what it takes to ride a bike 100 miles in 5 hours, solo. Its hard enough to ride
and not bonk with carbs, let alone no/low carbs. But thats the point, and thats why I am asking, can
you ride 20 mph+ for 5 hours (past your bodies reserve, and beyond immediate energy stores) without
carbs? or, can you increase carbs during the ride without kicking yourself out of ketosis?

And if you can ride on low carbs, what are you eating? Banana's don't work, power bars don't work,
gatorade doesn't work.

 

[Dashi Toshii]

"curt" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Well, you sure sound intelligent.

You don't.

>How do you know Atkins is dangerous? Do you know anything about it other than what the hyped up
>media states?

Yes.

> If you think it is dangerous, I suspect not. I have read the book and have done plenty of research
> on the diet.

Well golly, you read the book, so I guess that you are the expert.

> It is sound if you follow it correctly. Within 5 years you will see a change in the way
> people eat,
due
> to Dr. Atkins research.

I'm sure that we will, all the fatties will be dead, I guess that you are a fattie, right?

> This is JMHO of course, but non-the-less my prediction.

Which means it is worthless.

>
> Wow, you burn 2000 cals in 2 hours....good for you. The only problem is that the computrainer is
> really inaccurate.

How do you know, and did I say that I use the built in features for determining calories burned?

>You don't burn 2000 cals in that amount of time, but it looks nice on your screen and it makes you
feel
> good.

I can, I'm sure a fattie like you is too much of a weak **** to work out for two hours on the CT.

>Isn't that what the marketers of that machine want you to think, so you can tell all your friends
>to buy one.

If it disturbs you that you have been taken and fell for a diet scam, too bad Dummy.

Don't forget to come back and post again after you get off of your dialysis machine. <VBG>

Dashii

 

[Curt]

Ahh, I hope to talk to you in 5 years. It will be fun to repost you little rant. I can tell you
didn't read the book. That is the first thing you need to do to understand Atkins approach. If you
didn't do that, you really are just trying to get a rise out of me. It isn't working. As far as me
being fat, I don't think so. I use Atkins to get more ripped.

Respectfully, Curt

"Dashi Toshii" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> "curt" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> > Well, you sure sound intelligent.
>
> You don't.
>
> >How do you know Atkins is dangerous? Do you know anything about it other than what the hyped up
> >media states?
>
> Yes.
>
> > If you think it is dangerous, I suspect not. I have read the book and have done plenty of
> > research on the diet.
>
> Well golly, you read the book, so I guess that you are the expert.
>
> > It is sound if you follow it correctly. Within 5 years you will see a change in the way
> > people eat,
> due
> > to Dr. Atkins research.
>
> I'm sure that we will, all the fatties will be dead, I guess that you are
a
> fattie, right?
>
> > This is JMHO of course, but non-the-less my prediction.
>
> Which means it is worthless.
>
> >
> > Wow, you burn 2000 cals in 2 hours....good for you. The only problem is that the computrainer is
> > really inaccurate.
>
> How do you know, and did I say that I use the built in features for determining calories burned?
>
> >You don't burn 2000 cals in that amount of time, but it looks nice on your screen and it
> >makes you
> feel
> > good.
>
> I can, I'm sure a fattie like you is too much of a weak **** to work out
for
> two hours on the CT.
>
> >Isn't that what the marketers of that machine want you to think, so you can tell all your friends
> >to buy one.
>
> If it disturbs you that you have been taken and fell for a diet scam, too bad Dummy.
>
> Don't forget to come back and post again after you get off of your
dialysis
> machine. <VBG>
>
> Dashii

 

[ESMD]

Atkins and serious bonking - Cannot think of a better way for a serious cyclist/endurance athlete to do permanent nerve system damage in my opinion as an elite sports medicine physician. Atkins is also great for sucking massive amounts of calcium out of your bones - like we need more osteo problems with endurance/high aerobic athletes.

 

[Amit]

warren <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<250720030825073728%[email protected]>...
> In article <[email protected]>, Amit
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Dave M Wyman <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<D%_Ta.138109
> >
> > >
> > > Because I usually want to lose weight, rather than gain it, I'll often ride 3-4 leisurely
> > > hours without eating any carbs before or during the ride. By the end of that time, I'm usually
> > > tired and cranky, but I also know that my body has been consuming its own fat to provide
> > > engery, rather than running on energy from breakfast carbs.
> > >
> >
> > This is the Warren G method of fat loss.
>
> Show me where I said that.
>
Okay you didn't say exactly that, it was Henry that likes to go out and ride 3-4 hrs after just a
cup of coffee to "lose fat".

But, in a pretty good thread a while back you wrote :

"I would say that part of aerobic fitness is the ability to burn fat but there are some specific
adaptations your body makes that allow it to burn more fat. Simply doing long rides won't do
it-especially if you eat lots of carbs for your fuel while riding."

This was in the context of fat loss and it seems to imply one should then do long rides without
eating (too many) carbs.

You also seemed to suggest that losing fat was evidence of burning fat during exercise. I don't
think that has to be true at all. That fat coudl be burned during rest to compensate for a
calorie deficit.

> Also, bonking may not be all bad because if you ingest enough carbs in the following 24 hours or
> so you can end up storing more glycogen than you'd normally have. And, bonking can lead to greater
> releases of growth hormone in that same 24 hours. Do you ever feel very recovered the day after
> bonking?
>

I can't say. I've only bonked twice in my life and it felt terrible. The first time I was really
worried, because I hadn't experienced those symptoms before. I have felt slower because of not
eating many times, but I don't consider that bonking. I don't think you have to actually bonk to see
this supercompensation effect.

-Amit