Re: Shaun Perry, diets and snake oil.

Tim Jesson wrote:
"didgerman" <didgerman@xxxxxxx> wrote in message news:Yyfui.2183$1G1.363@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
BrritSki wrote:
didgerman wrote:
Quick question here for the fitness gurus......
Shaun Perry seems to have lost a fair amount of blubber to keep his place as England's 9. Reading in the press that he was prescribed a diet by one of England's fitness staff Matt Lovell. Perry was put on a diet of no carbs and supplements.
Now, I'm no expert although my own training/diet regime saw me complete an Olympic distance Triathlon in 2.20 {stay out of this mg, you're not equipped}, but the up to date word on the street, backed up by many huge studies is that the Atkins diet is a complete load of ***. Weight loss is a simple equation of calories in, V calories out, that is scientific fact, if big companies could make money out of it we'd hear nothing but this. However, the 'mad' idea of eating less and using more calories just doesn't have that commercial attractiveness that a paperback telling you how to cut out the chips did.....
Yebbut a) the Atkins Diet DOES work for some people for varying periods of time
No it doesn't. What works is cutting calories from your diet and not replacing them, hey presto, weight loss. If you want to cut out carbs alone and thus half your usual calories and call it Atkins or anything else that's your business, but as a theory Atkins is proved beyond any doubt to be a crock of ***.

and b) "no carbs and supplements" is NOT necessarily Atkins.

Atkins is cutting out carbs though isn't it? Lovell has obviously decided this is a good idea for weight loss, whereas if you're entering a period of high exertion it emphatically is not.



Didge,

There is something in the low carb thing for weight loss.

There is. You take in fewer calories. The only thing Atkins really has going for it is that it's easier to overeat with carbs. I know, I just finished up the kid's new potatoes after tea.....

You're right that
calorie control does work but it's very hard for some people and not the only solution. There are serious disadvantages to using exercise to balance the calorie equation. The metabolic process varies from person to person.

Hmm, it is the only answer, some may prefer to go about it a different way, but ultimately, if you've lost weight, you've spent a period of time in calorie deficit and that's it.


The main advantage of low carbing is ease of weight loss but mostly it's about blood sugar control (the main precursor to weight loss) which regulates hunger, insulin production and body fat storage. Low carbing is used by type 2 diabetics successfully although rarely prescribed as a treatment in the UK.

You have it in a nutshell when you say that calories in - calories out = storage. The thing is that squirrel *** has a lot of calories in it. Calories can pass through as well as be used up.

Also, bodies in mild ketosis lose calories through ketones in breath and urine as well as the squirrel mode.

I guess you know about the metabolic processes, glycogen production and control, ketones and insulin sensitivity or you wouldn't be spouting off ;-)

I had to look Ketones up tbh....
But you're moving off topic bringing diabetes into the mix, unless Perry is one.


As far as impact on athleticism is concerned I don't know. What I can tell you is that on a low GI diet I can exercise for 40 minutes at a constant 90-95% max heart rate (very anaerobic)

I've no doubt. But you'd go better with some carbs on board. Anyone can exercise at a high heart rate, and in fact the more stressed your body gets at not having the right fuel, the more your heart rate rises.

or about 90 mins constant at 85% max
(just aerobic).

That's not just aerobic, far from it at that level of exertion. That's the general rate of effort we're comfortable with for anything up to two hours, using up the carbs you've eaten and stored away and fat.

That didn't change at all when I switched to a low GI diet
as opposed to consuming masses of pasta or other high carb low-fat foods for fuel.

Now now, nobody is saying you need masses of anything....

>The main issues at this level of exercise intensity are fluid and salt

Salts aren't an issue over 90mins assuming a normal western diet, even in high heat. Fluids certainly would be an issue for the more protein/fat based athlete as they don't hold as much water as fuel from carbs.

levels and then blood sugar. I cramp up well before I run out of steam. I use rehydration fluids loaded with glucose when exercising at high intensity to keep blood sugar high and it doesn't break the ketosis (for those who might be interested!). If I don't take on glucose, I struggle to do more than 25 mins anaerobically.

Interesting. I've had issues with cramp for just over a year now. Doc says my b12 levels are down, probably because I'm now dairy intolerant, or something....
I've tried to avoid it but I reckon I'm going to have a b12 shot in the arse 2-3 times a year {shh, matua approaching....}. As for you, when you say anaerobic, you're talking about stuff like sprinting and weight lifting, not a 25 minute run. It may just be a case of needing to build up your oxygen transport/fat burning, and you can do that just be doing what our mate Perry should've done, and that's long slow runs....


Cheers,
TJ


.