> Here is a site that has some studies. I really haven't read them all, but have at it.
>
>
http://www.lowcarbresearch.org/lcr/results.asp?catid=219
I just read all the abstracts listed on the posted sit so I am having at it.
Initial thoughts
1. None of these articles address the question asked about carbohydrates after long runs. The 9th
research study comes the closest by stating that protein as a source of energy decreases during
exercise. Carbohydrates and fat are the primary source of fuel. This is what I stated. You don't
need to replenish what wasn't burned. Most of us have plenty of fat stores so we don't have to
replace that right away. We don't store a lot of Carbohydrates however. That's why carbohydrate
replenishment after exercise is important.
2. For a site called low carb research they don't have much research. Only 9 studies? There are
thousands of studies on metabolism done every year.
3. These 9 studies only come from 2 Universities. It would have been much better if it were diverse
studies done over the world. Instead the students were educated by the same people and may carry
the same biases.
4. 8 of the 9 studies examine high fat and high carbohydrate diets. Protein was left at a consistent
level. One of the studies states that injuries occur in women who have high carbohydrate low fat
diets because they do not obtain enough calories. This and most other conclusions, are
independent of protein.
5. Some of the research is interesting however there are gaping holes. Most have very small sample
sizes (Some as low as 5). Many use items with simple sugars to increase carbohydrate intake. This
immediate carbohydrate rush into the bloodstream does little to no benefit for the body.
Carbohydrates composed as much as 80% of the diets on High Carb sample. This is more than anyone
would suggest. Most studies admit that their results are statistically insignificant. Workout
volume is not consistent between subjects. Some cyclist trained 6 hours a week others trained 25
etc.. I didn't see variables put in place to disrupt subject learning of procedures or increased
performance being a result of increased fitness over the testing period. They put subjects on a
diet for a week and tested them. They took them off the diet for 2 weeks. Then they placed them
on another diet for a week. They used the same tests each time. Over 9 weeks I think I would
probably perform better from just knowing the procedures. I also look at where I am in my fitness
over a 9-week period. A huge difference between the beginning of May and the middle of July.
Just a few of my thoughts Mike
[email protected]
