Re: Low Carb (Paleo) Half Marathon Report

Discussion in 'General Fitness' started by JR, Sep 28, 2004.

  1. JR

    JR Guest

    "Ignoramus12690" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > I ran a half marathon today, in Quad Cities. Some highlights:
    >
    > - next to no carbs eaten yesterday and today (due to eating no vegs to

    avoid
    > "runners trots" that I had on my previous extended run)
    > - No Gatorade
    > - No bonking
    > - Ran without stopping even for a second
    > - 2:08:50 running time
    > - Feeling very good afterwards
    >


    Well I've only been running since February, and I _DO_ use carbs. Lots of
    them. And I ran the Philadelphia Distance Run (1/2 marathon) last week in
    1:45:41. Although there are lots of potential differences between you and
    me, I would have to think that carbs is the major one. This is based on
    times of other races you've reported. Particularly your 5K back in the
    spring, where you ran FASTER than me.

    Jeff.
     
    Tags:


  2. JR

    JR Guest

    > >> - Ran without stopping even for a second
    > >> - 2:08:50 running time
    > >> - Feeling very good afterwards
    > >>

    > >
    > > Well I've only been running since February, and I _DO_ use carbs. Lots

    of
    > > them. And I ran the Philadelphia Distance Run (1/2 marathon) last week

    in
    > > 1:45:41. Although there are lots of potential differences between you

    and
    >> >

    >
    > Jeff, first of all, congratulations on your excellent performance. My
    > hat is out to you. Second, how much did you train for your half
    > marathon?
    >


    Weekend long runs...up to 15 miles. No more than 25-30 miles per week.
    9:15-9:30 pace, although towards the end, the pace dropped down to the high
    8 minute range.

    For the race, I somehow managed a 8:03 pace. I'm certain that my gels
    helped. At one point, around 8 miles, I could really tell that the one I
    ate at 5 miles kicked in.
     
  3. Tony

    Tony Guest

    Snipped from below: "the following 3 diets: 14-day
    high carbohydrate with 70 +/- 9 percent energy (%E) carbohydrate, 16
    +/- 5%E fat, and 14 +/- 2%E protein; 14-day high fat with 66 +/- 10%E
    fat, 20 +/- 3%E protein, and 15 +/- 4%E carbohydrate; and 11.5-day
    high-fat diet followed by 2.5-day carbohydrate-loading"

    I'm very suspicious why they didn't try to use more balanced percentages.
    If you're comparing a higher fat diet to a higher carb diet, keep the
    protein the same, and keep the fat/carb percentages opposite, for example:

    60%C / 20%F / 20%P and
    20%C / 60%F / 20%P and why not throw in
    40%C / 40%F / 20%P for comparison, and
    50%C / 30%F / 20%P (my personal favorite :)

    The high carb version they used is slanted and may have included inadequate
    protein. Also it included too little fat. It's well known that the diet
    has to have adequate amounts of fat as well as protein. If you don't eat
    enough fat it won't be stored in between the muscle fibres, which is more
    available than body fat. This alone could account for their perceived
    result. Nobody is arguing that you don't need fat to perform well - for
    endurance activities fat is always the primary fuel. Also, as you know,
    tests of 2 weeks duration mean little if the body is used to something very
    different. This study is flawed.

    - Tony

    Ignoramus29063 wrote in message ...
    >Here's a great study that shows how a high fat diet boosts performance
    >in endurance events -- a 100 km bicycle ride.
    >
    >A highlight:
    >
    >``In the 100-km time trial, the high-fat and the fat with
    >carbohydrate-loading conditions attenuated the decline in power output
    >observed in the high-carbohydrate condition (P =.03 to.07), although
    >the corresponding improvement in performance time of 3% to 4% (-2% to
    >10%) was not statistically significant (P =.16 to.22). Power output
    >during the final 5 km of the time trial in the fat with carbo-loading
    >condition was 1.3-fold (1.0 to 1.6, P =.04) greater than in the
    >high-carbohydrate condition. Overall, for every 10%E increase in
    >dietary fat, 100-km mean power increased by 2% (-0.0% to 4%, P
    >=.06). ... In conclusion, high-fat dietary conditioning increased fat
    >oxidation, and although the main effects were not statistically
    >significant, there was some evidence for enhanced ultra-endurance
    >cycling performance relative to high-carbohydrate.''
    >
    >Full text of the article is available.
    >
    >Henceforth, I am completely resolved to train for and run a sub-4 hour
    >marathon on my current diet. Already started doing some speedwork, as
    >of yesterday.
    >
    >http://tinyurl.com/69n2k
    >
    >Effects of high-fat and high-carbohydrate diets on metabolism and
    >performance in cycling.
    >
    >Rowlands DS, Hopkins WG.
    >
    >School of Physical Education and Department of Physiology, University
    >of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.
    >
    >We compared the effects of high-fat and high-carbohydrate dietary
    >conditions on metabolism and short- and ultra-endurance cycling
    >performance. Seven cyclists (VO(2)max 72 +/- 7 mL x kg(-1) x min(-1))
    >underwent a 2-week adaptation to each of the following 3 diets: 14-day
    >high carbohydrate with 70 +/- 9 percent energy (%E) carbohydrate, 16
    >+/- 5%E fat, and 14 +/- 2%E protein; 14-day high fat with 66 +/- 10%E
    >fat, 20 +/- 3%E protein, and 15 +/- 4%E carbohydrate; and 11.5-day
    >high-fat diet followed by 2.5-day carbohydrate-loading. The conditions
    >included a pre-exercise meal of the same composition as the preceding
    >diet. Each diet condition was preceded by a 2-week standardizing
    >normal diet. The exercise test lasted approximately 5 hours and
    >comprised a 15-minute trial, an incremental test to measure the peak
    >fat-oxidation rate, and a 100-km trial. Sports bars and a 5%
    >carbohydrate solution were ingested during the tests. The diets had no
    >statistically significant effect on 15-minute performance, although
    >the high-fat condition tended to reduce distance covered by -2.4% (95%
    >confidence interval: -5.4% to +0.6%, P =.11) relative to the fat with
    >carbo-loading condition. In the 100-km time trial, the high-fat and
    >the fat with carbohydrate-loading conditions attenuated the decline in
    >power output observed in the high-carbohydrate condition (P =.03
    >to.07), although the corresponding improvement in performance time of
    >3% to 4% (-2% to 10%) was not statistically significant (P =.16
    >to.22). Power output during the final 5 km of the time trial in the
    >fat with carbo-loading condition was 1.3-fold (1.0 to 1.6, P =.04)
    >greater than in the high-carbohydrate condition. Overall, for every
    >10%E increase in dietary fat, 100-km mean power increased by 2% (-0.0%
    >to 4%, P =.06). Relative to the high-carbohydrate condition, the
    >high-fat conditions resulted in the following metabolic changes
    >consistent with greater lipolysis and fuel availability: lower plasma
    >insulin concentration before exercise (P <.0001), and during exercise
    >a 10% to 20% higher plasma-glucose concentration (P <.01), higher
    >plasma glycerol (P <.05), and a 2.5-fold to 2.9-fold increase in the
    >peak fat-oxidation rate (P <.0001). In conclusion, high-fat dietary
    >conditioning increased fat oxidation, and although the main effects
    >were not statistically significant, there was some evidence for
    >enhanced ultra-endurance cycling performance relative to
    >high-carbohydrate. Copyright 2002, Elsevier Science (USA). All rights

    reserved.
     
  4. On 2004-09-30, Ignoramus29063 <[email protected]> wrote:

    >> Note that they all took carbohydrate supplements during the actual test!

    >
    > They both took those supplements, but the LC group still won.


    So are you going to take supplements ?

    > Short term exercise never been something that I brought into question.
    >
    > I was discussing endurance exercise, not 15 minute short time exercise.


    You're planning on doing speedwork, right ? Did the low carb people do their
    speed work on a low carb diet, or did they in fact do most of their speed work
    prior to the study, on a regular diet ?

    Cheers,
    --
    Donovan Rebbechi
    http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
     
  5. On 2004-09-30, Ignoramus29063 <[email protected]> wrote:

    > In a 3,000 calorie diet, 15% of calories from protein amounts to 450
    > calories from protein, or to 112 grams of protein. That's hardly
    > insufficient.


    An appropriate amount for an endurance athlete is about 0.8gm/lb , so 112gm
    is borderline at best.

    Cheers,
    --
    Donovan Rebbechi
    http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
     
  6. Tony

    Tony Guest

    Donovan Rebbechi wrote in message ...
    >On 2004-09-30, Ignoramus29063 <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >> In a 3,000 calorie diet, 15% of calories from protein amounts to 450
    >> calories from protein, or to 112 grams of protein. That's hardly
    >> insufficient.

    >
    >An appropriate amount for an endurance athlete is about 0.8gm/lb , so 112gm
    >is borderline at best.
    >


    I've seen higher figures than that even in the low-carb "protein power"
    diet:
    http://www.proteinpower.com/faq/protein.html#calculate

    My point is those percentages are arbitrary and slightly unbalanced. Also,
    the test only lasted 2 weeks. The fat % in the high-carb diet they use is
    also probably far lower than most athletes eat. One could argue that
    adequate protein and fat are more important than carbs for normal function,
    so shaving their percentages so low could very definitely skew things.

    - Tony
     
  7. Tony

    Tony Guest

    Ignoramus29063 wrote in message ...
    SNIP
    >Let's see, there were two groups, one LC and another HC.
    >
    >During the test, they both had same protocol, but the LC group won.


    Perhaps, but with skewed percentages between the 2 diets. Again you can't
    cut protein more in the HC diet and call the test fair. Also the 60/20/20
    is a much better comparison because it's well known now that you need both
    adequate protien AND fat for endurance function. Their HC diet percentages
    were unfairly low on those crucial macronutrients. Nobody ever said carbs
    were more important than proteins or fats. The percentages I suggested
    would produce a fairer test.

    - Tony
     
  8. On 2004-09-30, Ignoramus29063 <[email protected]> wrote:

    > No.
    >
    > Let's see, there were two groups, one LC and another HC.
    >
    > During the test, they both had same protocol, but the LC group won.
    >
    > That means that LC is better for endurance exercises, compared to the
    > control group.


    The definition of LC that they used includes taking supplements during
    exercise.

    But then, pretty much everyone does this. Even diabetics do so, as I
    pointed out.

    > That's the conclusion to make.


    No, it's not "the conclusion to make", because the results were not
    statistically significant.

    >>> Short term exercise never been something that I brought into question.
    >>>
    >>> I was discussing endurance exercise, not 15 minute short time exercise.

    >>
    >> You're planning on doing speedwork, right ?

    >
    > Yep.


    And this study suggests that your performance on that speed work would
    probably be better if you took carbs, right ?

    >> Did the low carb people do their speed work on a low carb diet, or
    >> did they in fact do most of their speed work prior to the study, on
    >> a regular diet ?

    >
    > Probably, they did it on a regular diet, and then performed better
    > after switching to LC.


    That's not what the study says.

    The study demonstrates that on a 15 minute test, they performed worse, not
    better, after switching to LC. Performance on a 15 minute test is a pretty
    good predictor of performance during speed work.

    Cheers,
    --
    Donovan Rebbechi
    http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
     
  9. In article <[email protected]>,
    Tony <[email protected](remove)hotmail.com> wrote:
    >Donovan Rebbechi wrote in message ...
    >>On 2004-09-30, Ignoramus29063 <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>
    >>> In a 3,000 calorie diet, 15% of calories from protein amounts to 450
    >>> calories from protein, or to 112 grams of protein. That's hardly
    >>> insufficient.

    >>
    >>An appropriate amount for an endurance athlete is about 0.8gm/lb , so 112gm
    >>is borderline at best.
    >>

    >
    >I've seen higher figures than that even in the low-carb "protein power"
    >diet:
    >http://www.proteinpower.com/faq/protein.html#calculate
    >
    >My point is those percentages are arbitrary and slightly unbalanced. Also,
    >the test only lasted 2 weeks. The fat % in the high-carb diet they use is
    >also probably far lower than most athletes eat. One could argue that
    >adequate protein and fat are more important than carbs for normal function,
    >so shaving their percentages so low could very definitely skew things.


    iirc, the protein figure Sam quotes for endurance athletes is 1.4-1.6 g/kg.
    For the canonical 70 kg athlete, that's 100 g/day, give or take. Sedentary,
    iirc, is 0.6 g/kg. The 1.6 g/kg does round to 0.8 gm/lb (well, 0.7), so
    I guess that's where Donovan got his figure.

    On the other hand, someone running 10 km/week probably doesn't need the
    extra 1 g/kg, and I don't recall seeing reference to just how much running
    it is that makes one an endurance athlete for this purpose.

    The mere percentages wind up being misleading and uninformative in application
    to endurance athletes. ex:
    Consider someone with a basal metabolism of 2000 Kcal/day, and that they're
    eating a diet that is 55:25:20 CHO/fat/protein in calories. That's
    1100:500:400 Kcalories, or 275:55:100 grams. In other words, that off-the-cuff
    fractioning is already as much protein as an endurance athlete would need, but
    the person is sedentary.

    Retry: 70 kg person at 0.6 g/kg protein -> 42 grams, 168 Kcal/day. That's
    8.4% of calories from protein. Top the fat at 30% (600 calories, the level
    at which our seminar yesterday, among other things, noted it being an
    epidemiological risk) and that leaves us with 1232 calories of CHO, for
    308 g. Profile is, then, 61.6:30:8.4 %, or 1232:600:168
    So, high fat diet for sedentary person would be 60:30:10. A little more
    middling, I guess, would be 70:20:10.

    Now make them an endurance athlete, buring off 500 Kcal/day aerobically.
    Protein need increases by 1 g/kg, for 70. That's 280 Kcal of the extra
    calories. Supply the rest, 220 Kcal (55 grams), from carbs, and we now have:
    1452:600:448 Kcal, for 58:24:18 % To round, 60:20:20% -- for an endurance
    athlete, not a sedentary person.

    Even though the endurance athlete is eating more carbs, the percentage
    is actually down. (Make it an extra 1000 Kcal/day, supplying all the extra above
    the protein requirement by carbs and it does rise. But I probably won't be
    running 70 mpw, and I think that 35 mpw would be sufficient to class as 'endurance
    athlete').

    Anyhow, the thing is, the percentages don't tell the story. They don't
    say percent of what (leave out the daily calorie needs, and the protein needs).
    Nor do they describe the dietary changes to get from here (sedentary) to
    there (exercising regularly). I much prefer the approach of starting with
    a sedentary diet (a more or less well-known quantity) and then adding what's
    needed for the amount of exercise I'm doing.

    But yes, 'the study' does look to be shaky in its applicability.

    --
    Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
    Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
    evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
    would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences
     
  10. On 2004-09-30, Ignoramus29063 <[email protected]> wrote:

    > I am training to run a long distance on LC. For that, I want to train
    > the fuel system that will be working predominantly during a long run,
    > which is fat oxidation.


    Then don't do any speed work, because speed work does NOT train fat
    oxidation. Speed work not only uses carbs, you depend heavily on the
    lactic acid energy system. Grab yourself any physiology book or search
    the web and take a look at how anaerobic metabolism works.

    If you do wish to do some speed work, you should at least understand
    what it is for. It is NOT for training fat oxidation -- aerobic training
    runs and especially long aerobic training runs that do this.

    > Taking carbs before short runs would defeat
    > this purpose and train my carb oxidation system,


    As would speed work, because speed work is heavily dependent on anaerobic
    metabolism.

    > which is completely pointless as far as preparing to burn fat efficiently
    > during a marathon is concerned.


    "Burning fat efficiently" is not the only thing you need to be able to do
    for marathon performance. If your maximum aerobic capacity is higher, then
    your sub maximum capacity is also higher, which means that you are more
    likely to be in the "fat burning zone" at a faster pace.

    Speed work is primarily for boosting your aerobic capacity.

    It also improves your running economy -- meaning that you are able to run at
    a faster pace by burning less calories.

    > Hence, I will train, including speedwork, on LC. I already started
    > yesterday.


    At least try to read some books -- running books, not crackpot fad diet
    books -- so that you are not any more ignorant than necessary.

    > Performance of my speed work is only relevant as far as it improves my
    > whole marathon performance. Surely, I could run faster if I burned
    > carbs on tiny 15 minute runs. So what?


    So improving your aerobic capacity will improve your marathon performance.

    > I would be burning fat during
    > the marathon, not carbs. So, I would rather train for speedwork on
    > LC -- stressing the fat oxidation system --


    NO!!!!! Please desist with this idiocy. Read a book. And shut the hell up
    about what the purpose of speed work is until you've actually learned
    something about training.

    > Would you train your triceps to improve your pullups performance? I
    > hope not.


    An analog would be doing sets of 10 bench presses to improve your 1 rep
    max performance. Sure, the sets of 10 train your lactic acid energy system,
    which the powerlifter doesn't really need for competition. But they also
    produce adaptions which are useful, for example, hypertrophy.

    The fact that the powerlifter doesn't need that energy system in competition
    does not mean that they should avoid it in training like some sort of deranged
    religious fundamentalist.

    > Why, then, would I train my carb oxidation system to improve my fat
    > oxidation performance?


    You would train at a high speed to improve your maximal aerobic capacity
    and your running economy. That way, you reduce your caloric requirements
    at a given speed, which means lower fuel requirements.

    You also don't burn carbs as rapidly since you can run more aerobically
    (lower percentage of maximal effort means less dependency on lactic acid
    system) at a given pace.

    > My objective is to show that a marathon can be run by an ordinary
    > low carber, with reasonable preparation, in under 4 hours. That will,


    You're not an "ordinary low carber", you are a very stubborn fool. An
    "ordinary low carber", even a diabetic, will take carbs during a race.

    Cheers,
    --
    Donovan Rebbechi
    http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
     
  11. jmk

    jmk Guest

    On 9/30/2004 11:58 AM, Ignoramus29063 wrote:
    > In article <[email protected]>, Tony wrote:
    >
    >>Snipped from below: "the following 3 diets: 14-day
    >>high carbohydrate with 70 +/- 9 percent energy (%E) carbohydrate, 16
    >>+/- 5%E fat, and 14 +/- 2%E protein; 14-day high fat with 66 +/- 10%E
    >>fat, 20 +/- 3%E protein, and 15 +/- 4%E carbohydrate; and 11.5-day
    >>high-fat diet followed by 2.5-day carbohydrate-loading"
    >>
    >>I'm very suspicious why they didn't try to use more balanced percentages.
    >>If you're comparing a higher fat diet to a higher carb diet, keep the
    >>protein the same, and keep the fat/carb percentages opposite, for example:
    >>
    >>60%C / 20%F / 20%P and
    >>20%C / 60%F / 20%P and why not throw in
    >>40%C / 40%F / 20%P for comparison, and
    >>50%C / 30%F / 20%P (my personal favorite :)
    >>
    >>The high carb version they used is slanted and may have included inadequate
    >>protein. Also it included too little fat. It's well known that the diet
    >>has to have adequate amounts of fat as well as protein. If you don't eat
    >>enough fat it won't be stored in between the muscle fibres, which is more
    >>available than body fat. This alone could account for their perceived
    >>result. Nobody is arguing that you don't need fat to perform well - for
    >>endurance activities fat is always the primary fuel. Also, as you know,
    >>tests of 2 weeks duration mean little if the body is used to something very
    >>different. This study is flawed.

    >
    >
    > In a 3,000 calorie diet, 15% of calories from protein amounts to 450
    > calories from protein, or to 112 grams of protein. That's hardly
    > insufficient.
    >
    > Otherwise, yes, it would be interesting to test your favorite
    > macronutrient combination as well.
    >
    > What the study shows is that, for endurance events, a high carb diet is
    > not at all superior.
    >
    > i

    PLEASE take alt.support.diet OFF these crossposts!

    --
    jmk in NC
     
  12. On 2004-09-30, Robert Grumbine <[email protected]> wrote:
    > In article <OeX6d.3556$[email protected]>,
    > Tony <[email protected](remove)hotmail.com> wrote:
    >>Donovan Rebbechi wrote in message ...
    >>>On 2004-09-30, Ignoramus29063 <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> In a 3,000 calorie diet, 15% of calories from protein amounts to 450
    >>>> calories from protein, or to 112 grams of protein. That's hardly
    >>>> insufficient.
    >>>
    >>>An appropriate amount for an endurance athlete is about 0.8gm/lb , so 112gm
    >>>is borderline at best.
    >>>

    >>
    >>I've seen higher figures than that even in the low-carb "protein power"
    >>diet:
    >>http://www.proteinpower.com/faq/protein.html#calculate
    >>
    >>My point is those percentages are arbitrary and slightly unbalanced. Also,
    >>the test only lasted 2 weeks. The fat % in the high-carb diet they use is
    >>also probably far lower than most athletes eat. One could argue that
    >>adequate protein and fat are more important than carbs for normal function,
    >>so shaving their percentages so low could very definitely skew things.

    >
    > iirc, the protein figure Sam quotes for endurance athletes is 1.4-1.6 g/kg.
    > For the canonical 70 kg athlete, that's 100 g/day, give or take. Sedentary,
    > iirc, is 0.6 g/kg. The 1.6 g/kg does round to 0.8 gm/lb (well, 0.7), so
    > I guess that's where Donovan got his figure.


    I think I've seen 1.5-1.7. The exact numbers depend on the study, different
    studies get different numbers, but they seem to be consistently in the .6-.8
    range for athletes.

    These numbers are what you need to maintain even nitrogen balance,
    they're the x intercepts of the least squares line estimate of nitrogen
    balance as a function of protein intake. The numbers don't include any safety
    margin.

    I agree with your basic approach re macronutrient intake (compute
    protein in absolute amounts and split the rest between fat and carbs).

    Cheers,
    --
    Donovan Rebbechi
    http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
     
  13. rayfield

    rayfield Guest

    "jmk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > On 9/30/2004 11:58 AM, Ignoramus29063 wrote:
    > > In article <[email protected]>, Tony wrote:
    > >
    > >>Snipped from below: "the following 3 diets: 14-day
    > >>high carbohydrate with 70 +/- 9 percent energy (%E) carbohydrate, 16
    > >>+/- 5%E fat, and 14 +/- 2%E protein; 14-day high fat with 66 +/- 10%E
    > >>fat, 20 +/- 3%E protein, and 15 +/- 4%E carbohydrate; and 11.5-day
    > >>high-fat diet followed by 2.5-day carbohydrate-loading"
    > >>
    > >>I'm very suspicious why they didn't try to use more balanced

    percentages.
    > >>If you're comparing a higher fat diet to a higher carb diet, keep the
    > >>protein the same, and keep the fat/carb percentages opposite, for

    example:
    > >>
    > >>60%C / 20%F / 20%P and
    > >>20%C / 60%F / 20%P and why not throw in
    > >>40%C / 40%F / 20%P for comparison, and
    > >>50%C / 30%F / 20%P (my personal favorite :)
    > >>
    > >>The high carb version they used is slanted and may have included

    inadequate
    > >>protein. Also it included too little fat. It's well known that the

    diet
    > >>has to have adequate amounts of fat as well as protein. If you don't

    eat
    > >>enough fat it won't be stored in between the muscle fibres, which is

    more
    > >>available than body fat. This alone could account for their perceived
    > >>result. Nobody is arguing that you don't need fat to perform well - for
    > >>endurance activities fat is always the primary fuel. Also, as you know,
    > >>tests of 2 weeks duration mean little if the body is used to something

    very
    > >>different. This study is flawed.

    > >
    > >
    > > In a 3,000 calorie diet, 15% of calories from protein amounts to 450
    > > calories from protein, or to 112 grams of protein. That's hardly
    > > insufficient.
    > >
    > > Otherwise, yes, it would be interesting to test your favorite
    > > macronutrient combination as well.
    > >
    > > What the study shows is that, for endurance events, a high carb diet is
    > > not at all superior.
    > >
    > > i


    > PLEASE take alt.support.diet OFF these crossposts!
    >
    > --
    > jmk in NC


    Just skip the thread if you don't want to read it you jackass. Yes, it
    really is that easy.
     
  14. Dally

    Dally Guest

    Donovan Rebbechi wrote:

    > You're not an "ordinary low carber", you are a very stubborn fool. An
    > "ordinary low carber", even a diabetic, will take carbs during a race.


    There's also a trollish element to him. That's why it's cross-posted,
    so he can be seen and annoy the maximum number of people. You're a
    sweetheart to attempt to educate him, but you're wasting your breath.
    Err, fingers.

    Dally
     
  15. MU

    MU Guest

    On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 15:26:16 GMT, Tony wrote:

    > This study is flawed.


    How would you know?
     
  16. Barf Bag

    Barf Bag Guest

    >Just skip the thread if you don't want to read it you jackass. Yes, it
    >really is that easy.


    Don't these idiots kill you? Somebody's FORCING them to read it LOL.
     
  17. MU wrote:

    > On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 15:26:16 GMT, Tony wrote:
    >
    >>This study is flawed.

    >
    > How would you know?


    See if you can handle this. Not everybody is as ill-equipped to deal
    with science as you.

    HTH

    Bob
     
  18. JMA

    JMA Guest

    "rayfield" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    >
    > "jmk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]


    >> PLEASE take alt.support.diet OFF these crossposts!
    >>
    >> --
    >> jmk in NC

    >
    > Just skip the thread if you don't want to read it you jackass. Yes, it
    > really is that easy.


    I think that jackass is the one defending the lack of netiquette here if not
    the attention seeking idiot that did it in the first place. It's been asked
    by at least 3 people now to have the group removed.

    Jenn
     
Loading...
Loading...