Sport Carbs and excercise
- Thread starter Phee
- Start date
Sport Fitness
I am not going to address that question, directly, there are far too many potentially independent and personal variables involved.
How are you addressing your personal calorie approximation? This is actually the most important question to ask yourself.
Additionally, I believe carbohydrates, in general, tend to get a undeserved bad name. Carbohydrates are a powerful macro nutrient--even more than people realize, IMO.
Likewise, carbohydrates "can be" an important part of a person's fitness program.
Furthermore, whether carbohydrates are manipulated can depend on: Whether one is carbohydrate sensitive, starting place when beginning a fitness program, timing and "goal position" within ones fitness path, and so on and so forth.
One can lose tissue with "appropriate" and "adequate" carbohydrate consumption in the face of a calorie deficit. In addition, one can gain tissue with a no carb, low carb, or moderate carb intake in the face of a calorie surplus.
What have you determined your calorie needs to be, my friend?
Best wishes
Chillen
Last edited:
Im not one of those people that says carbs are bad, I eat a good amount of them on days that I lift and a smaller amount on days that I dont. I don't really count calories, I just eat healthy, a lot of protein everyday, I carb cycle on days I lift, I just eat healthy, and the more weight I lose I either train harder or cut less food out of my meals because my BMR has gone down. I've gone from 290-240 doing this so far and have put on a good amount of muscle mass. My goal is to start bulking once I hit a low % of body fat. Going to the gym has changed my life around and its like a second home to me
Here's something I think is rather interesting (at least to me, he, he)
Inside each of us is what I will term as a: "Glucose Bucket".
The size of this "Glucose Bucket" can vary per person (dependent on a persons size, blah, blah).
This termed "Glucose Bucket" is where carbohydrates are stored in the organs, muscles, etc.
Each of us need a set of calories per day according to the activities we perform.
Dependent on the "type of calories ingested (and activity): this "Glucose Bucket" can be manipulated one way or the other (in other words added to, taken away, or cause a spill over) whether calories are in a surplus or a deficit.
Uh....where is this leading......you may ask.
Let's call it: "Surplus Calorie Tolerance" that "some people" can experience if their previous "trend history is set up properly".
I am not advocating whether this is optimal or suboptimal in ones goal, just something to "think about"
For example. A person with a calorie approximation need of 2600 calories, consumes a mere 25 grams of carbohydrates for two weeks (eating high protein/good fat meals) among these 2600 calories.
In these two weeks, the "Glucose Bucket" gets severely depleted and/or is nearly empty, and for a lack of argument doesn't enter Ketosis.
I contend, that if this person has a calorie need of 2600c, and eats reasonably over this amount (as an example), and reasonably......increases carbohydrates, the body is going to "suck up" the added or extra carbohydrates (thus calories) into this "Glucose Bucket" and be much more reasonably tolerant to a calorie surplus than it otherwise would.
This has been my personal experience experimenting with my self (at times) the last couple of years.
Thoughts..........uh, huh?!
LOL
Chillen
Last edited:
Yes, this is what I am referring to. There are two rr's in referring, Karks
, he, he. The other point I am making, is although it is about calories in versus calories out, the "Glucose bucket" can "effect" how "tolerant the body can be in the face of a calorie surplus", thus displaying that it ISN'T just about this rather simple equation--at times.
This is not withstanding the potential of water weight increase (which is not really an actual tissue increase) with the additional carbohydrate consumption.
Just thought, I would throw this out there, and see what some of the regs thought.
Best wishes,
Chillen
Last edited:
Isn't it still calories in Vs calories out but with the number changed?
What I'm trying to say is that when you're glycogen depleted and your body needs to turn to fat for energy supply your metabolic rate increases making the 'calories out' number higher
It doesn't remove this rather important energy equation, of course.
Its just that we carry a glass within in us with a certain capacity to store carbohydrates, and dependent on what is eaten (and corresponding activity) will depend on whether it gets full, is emptied, or is spilled over. There is simply a certain amount that is stored, and we carry around a "reserve fuel tank" so-to-speak.
If it is completely emptied (for a lack of argument) as one enters ketosis, than proteins (are converted), and fats are used as fuel; however, if one were to suddenly stop this "trend", the body will "suck up" the added carbohydrates consumed and start filling its glass again.
And, I think it is reasonable that the body is going to be much more tolerant to calories. "thoughts?"
Not to mention the "potential" (and I say potential as we are not all efficiently the same) of being much more insulin sensitive (or the cells being more reactive to insulin or--taking "less" insulin to do its work within the cells. While in contrast, if one is insulin resistant, it can take "more" insulin perform its job in the cells). Insulin can get a bad name too, it doesn't deserve by some. It just takes understanding this hormone a bit more.
I thought this was interesting......and thought I would throw it out there for some thoughts.
Chillen
Last edited:
Glycogen depletion would, imo, function as a buffer for taking in a surplus with carbs, you would gain weight (since you are taking in more than you are taking out) but most of this weight would be because the glycogen stores are filling (if you train, some of the gain might be from muscle, too) this buffer only works until the glycogen stores are full, when they are full, you are out of buffering, and now the extra weight will come on as fat or muscle, notwidthstanding water weight.
Though, I don't know if this has much practical applyability.
would one, when bulking, eat little carbs some days to build up this buffer (lower glycogen stores), then many carbs other days to build down this buffer, though not build it down completely so carbs "run over" the bucket and goes to fat? (fill up glycogen stores) in order to minimize fat gain?
One hole in this theory is that the body could store fat from other macronutrients instead of carbs. If one is in a surplus, extra mass will be stored. So while glycogen stores takes care of carbs that come in, dietary fats and protein could still be converted to bodyfat. Although minimizing fat production from carbs could probably make it so you gained less bodyfat during a bulk. What do you think, Chillen?
One must also keep in mind that with low glycogen stores, exercise function will be limited. Though, with keeping the glycogen stores high (but not running over) on training days would take care of this.
Also, a question:
Will I be able to exercise harder with 100% glycogen stores than with 70% glycogen stores if the exercise only takes away 50% of my glycogen stores? Leaving me with 50% left in the first example and 20% left in the second example.. The energy for exercise is still there, it's enough, so it having 70% shouldn't impair exercise intensity in this example, should it?
I think what I'm touching on here might just be a theoretical basis for carb cycling. If you make sure the bucket is never running over, you will minimize bodyfat made from carbs. But would bodyfat made from fat and protein just simply take over, or would this result in less bodyfat and more muscle added?
this is interesting
Though, I don't know if this has much practical applyability.
would one, when bulking, eat little carbs some days to build up this buffer (lower glycogen stores), then many carbs other days to build down this buffer, though not build it down completely so carbs "run over" the bucket and goes to fat? (fill up glycogen stores) in order to minimize fat gain?
One hole in this theory is that the body could store fat from other macronutrients instead of carbs. If one is in a surplus, extra mass will be stored. So while glycogen stores takes care of carbs that come in, dietary fats and protein could still be converted to bodyfat. Although minimizing fat production from carbs could probably make it so you gained less bodyfat during a bulk. What do you think, Chillen?
One must also keep in mind that with low glycogen stores, exercise function will be limited. Though, with keeping the glycogen stores high (but not running over) on training days would take care of this.
Also, a question:
Will I be able to exercise harder with 100% glycogen stores than with 70% glycogen stores if the exercise only takes away 50% of my glycogen stores? Leaving me with 50% left in the first example and 20% left in the second example.. The energy for exercise is still there, it's enough, so it having 70% shouldn't impair exercise intensity in this example, should it?
I think what I'm touching on here might just be a theoretical basis for carb cycling. If you make sure the bucket is never running over, you will minimize bodyfat made from carbs. But would bodyfat made from fat and protein just simply take over, or would this result in less bodyfat and more muscle added?
this is interesting
Very true; I recently heard it described (can't remember where) as insulin being a key that unlocks cells to allow growth. It can do this for muscle and fat. But of course once its job is completed and your muscles have taken on enough glycogen for replenishment and repair Insulin is then free to unlock the fat cells and build up stores there too. Which of course leads back to your 'bucket' analogy
Insulin isn't bad or good, I don't think I can think of anything that is inherently bad (don't challenge me on that one! ). It can increase transportation of nutrients into fat cells and muscle cells. You want to manipulate it so it transports them into muscle cells instead of fat cells. If you manipulate it well, insulin can be your best friend. (example is a pwo drink) if you don't manipulate it well, it can be your worst enemy (for example by eating a lot of high GI carbs (or high glycemic load meals, in reality) throughout the day. this will keep insulin high always and will result in higher transport of nutrients into fat cells, muscle cells will probably fill up pretty quickly with this approach, and your buffering system is gone)
). It can increase transportation of nutrients into fat cells and muscle cells. You want to manipulate it so it transports them into muscle cells instead of fat cells. If you manipulate it well, insulin can be your best friend. (example is a pwo drink) if you don't manipulate it well, it can be your worst enemy (for example by eating a lot of high GI carbs (or high glycemic load meals, in reality) throughout the day. this will keep insulin high always and will result in higher transport of nutrients into fat cells, muscle cells will probably fill up pretty quickly with this approach, and your buffering system is gone)I have no actual proof of this but I would say that any decrease in glycogen stores would affect training ability. I say this purely from personal experience where I've taken in fewer carbs than usual (but not fully depleted) and found my endurance has decreased a little.
IMO there has to be a knock-on effect from the lower stores rather than the 'run at full power until empty' idea, similar to that of a car engine, that you just described
Definately so; Insulin is your bodies most anabolic hormone. HGH for instance has no direct anabolic effect, by injecting a surplus into your body all you're really doing is creating an artificial increase in insulin at the right time as excess HGH is turned into IGF1 (insulin like growth factor)
p.s. I know you probably know that Karks, but others might be reading that would find that interesting
I wasn't applying the logistics of the Glucose bucket concept to ones training and whether its optimal or suboptimal. We know how important carbohydrates can be to one's energy, attitude (and mood), and to ones fitness training.
To continue: (a different view--sort of contradictory, he, he)
Lets say one eats at their approximated MT line for two weeks (say 2200), but consumed less than 25g of carbohydrates. Lets assume this person's glucose bucket is depleted or nearly depleted during this time period (as most would be). We all have a set of calorie/grams in our reserve tank. This is depleted during this hypothetical situation.
The person consumes the same amount of calories (2200), but this time consumes marginally more carbohydrates (by lowering proteins/fats), and their glucose bucket gets filled to capacity, and the person continues this trend. This persons continues a rather HIGH carbohydrate intake, and the glucose bucket, gets spilled over...........(say a lot fructose) floating around with no where to go.........activity not supporting its use......but one is at MT-Line (theoretically)?
EDIT: It cant go to the reserve tank......its full. Calorie needs are met.......what happens?
Stored or no?
Uh, huh!
LOL
Chillen
To continue: (a different view--sort of contradictory, he, he)
Lets say one eats at their approximated MT line for two weeks (say 2200), but consumed less than 25g of carbohydrates. Lets assume this person's glucose bucket is depleted or nearly depleted during this time period (as most would be). We all have a set of calorie/grams in our reserve tank. This is depleted during this hypothetical situation.
The person consumes the same amount of calories (2200), but this time consumes marginally more carbohydrates (by lowering proteins/fats), and their glucose bucket gets filled to capacity, and the person continues this trend. This persons continues a rather HIGH carbohydrate intake, and the glucose bucket, gets spilled over...........(say a lot fructose) floating around with no where to go.........activity not supporting its use......but one is at MT-Line (theoretically)?
EDIT: It cant go to the reserve tank......its full. Calorie needs are met.......what happens?
Stored or no?
Uh, huh!
LOL
Chillen
Last edited:
How can activity not support its use if you’re at your ‘MT-line’? Doesn’t that contradict itself?
the overspill would eventually be used for energy if one is at the mt line, though, just when it happens, it might turn into fat, it would turn into ATP when the body needed it.
Following your example, if the person ate a big breakfast, his bucket fills over and the overspill is made into fat, though he doesn't eat for some time, and in the time he doesn't eat, the body's energy needs will be supplied by the fat he created just after he ate breakfast. So if you are at your MT line, eventually, you will hold the same amount of mass.
I guess you could try to eat very often and very small portions so that you won't have to convert anything to fat, IE, what you eat is just enough to cover what you need of energy then and there, you will stay at your MT line throughout the day, the body doesn't need to tap into reserves for energy or make reserves when energy is abundant, it just goes off what you eat and leave the rest alone. This is theory, as it would be practically impossible.
What I'm getting at is that during the day the body will most of the time be either anabolic or catabolic. If you are at your MT, then the net result of the time spent anabolically and the time spent catabolically will make up for each other.
So if one eat's a lot of carbs so the bucket spills over and the body converts the overspill to fat, that fat will be used later when the body needs energy again and there is no just-digested food avalable (IE, is catabolic)
Following your example, if the person ate a big breakfast, his bucket fills over and the overspill is made into fat, though he doesn't eat for some time, and in the time he doesn't eat, the body's energy needs will be supplied by the fat he created just after he ate breakfast. So if you are at your MT line, eventually, you will hold the same amount of mass.
I guess you could try to eat very often and very small portions so that you won't have to convert anything to fat, IE, what you eat is just enough to cover what you need of energy then and there, you will stay at your MT line throughout the day, the body doesn't need to tap into reserves for energy or make reserves when energy is abundant, it just goes off what you eat and leave the rest alone. This is theory, as it would be practically impossible.
What I'm getting at is that during the day the body will most of the time be either anabolic or catabolic. If you are at your MT, then the net result of the time spent anabolically and the time spent catabolically will make up for each other.
So if one eat's a lot of carbs so the bucket spills over and the body converts the overspill to fat, that fat will be used later when the body needs energy again and there is no just-digested food avalable (IE, is catabolic)
With the most recent post I made, the point is: Can one over consume carbohydrates at their MT-Line, fill their glucose bucket to capacity (by eating far too much sugar), and still gain tissue? (EDIT: unwanted tissue)
A rephrase.
Thoughts?
Chillen
Last edited:
With the most recent post I made, the point is: Can one over consume carbohydrates at their MT-Line, fill their glucose bucket to capacity (by eating far too much sugar), and still gain tissue?
A rephrase.
Thoughts?
Chillen
I imagine that in the short term there would be minimal effect but over the long term there would be negative effects like decreased insulin sensitivity from the frequent spikes the sugar would cause and maybe over time body composition would change to contain more fat than muscle
Your opinion?
With the most recent post I made, the point is: Can one over consume carbohydrates at their MT-Line, fill their glucose bucket to capacity (by eating far too much sugar), and still gain tissue? (EDIT: unwanted tissue)
A rephrase.
Thoughts?
Chillen
read my post, just above yours.
So, in the face of the energy equation we all know and love the (Calories IN and Calories OUT), Carbohydrate consumption "could", for the lack of a better word, "muck" up this balance--dependent of course on ones eating habits, and trend history (and activities) with carbohydrate consumption.
I don't know if its even possible to eat exactly at one's MT-Line in the first place; however, personally (and again hypothetically) it can be possible for one to gain unwanted tissue eating at their MT-Line while eating far too much carbohydrates (and other forms of sugar) when their glucose stores get full, and begin to spill over.
The question I guess we are missing here is if the calorie energy balance is hypothetically "equalized", the carbohydrate stores full (for lack of argument), and spilling over.....does the glucose bucket in itself act like "separate" entity---and despite this equalization, the excess gets stored as unwanted tissue? (see what I am getting at?)
Best wishes,
Chillen
the (Calories IN and Calories OUT), Carbohydrate consumption "could", for the lack of a better word, "muck" up this balance--dependent of course on ones eating habits, and trend history (and activities) with carbohydrate consumption.I don't know if its even possible to eat exactly at one's MT-Line in the first place; however, personally (and again hypothetically) it can be possible for one to gain unwanted tissue eating at their MT-Line while eating far too much carbohydrates (and other forms of sugar) when their glucose stores get full, and begin to spill over.
The question I guess we are missing here is if the calorie energy balance is hypothetically "equalized", the carbohydrate stores full (for lack of argument), and spilling over.....does the glucose bucket in itself act like "separate" entity---and despite this equalization, the excess gets stored as unwanted tissue? (see what I am getting at?)
Best wishes,
Chillen