Paleo/Primal and the role of carbs.

[MCem222]

Nice title, Joshua.

"Moderator & Resident Encyclopedia"

Speaking of which, I've been meaning to ask you something, Joshua

How did you become so damned knowledgeable about nutrition, and do you have any recommendations for someone with a pretty rudimentary knowledge level to learn more?

I just read the Paleo Solution. I remember Coach Sommer recommended the book. It seems that Wolf covers so much ground that I was left feeling like I had gaping holes in my understanding of the concepts. My goal is to be able to read something like that and understand it at a deeper level than just accepting what the author has to say

[Blairbob]

I'd imagine it's because he reads every bloody thing he can get his hands on besides his current education at school

[Joshua Naterman]

I'd imagine it's because he reads every bloody thing he can get his hands on besides his current education at school

This. It has been a 10+ year journey, and as of right now there really isn't anything out there that can break it down for you.

You have to start with the body's energy systems and branch out from there if you really want to understand what is going on. IT is complicated at first, but with time things fall into place.

[Rik de Kort]

IT is complicated at first, but with time things fall into place.

That's the whole fun of it!

[MCem222]

I'd imagine it's because he reads every bloody thing he can get his hands on besides his current education at school

This. It has been a 10+ year journey, and as of right now there really isn't anything out there that can break it down for you.

You have to start with the body's energy systems and branch out from there if you really want to understand what is going on. IT is complicated at first, but with time things fall into place.

What's the best way to learn that? A biology textbook?

Also, what are you going to school for?

[Joshua Naterman]

Honestly, nearly every exercise science or physiology textbook should have a good explanation of what the energy systems are.

I am going to school for exercise science and doing pre-med alongside my major.

[skyler_t]

hello guys been on the form for a couple of months now but this is my first post. I was also trying to become fat adapted and noticed my workout suffered really bad. I am getting leaner but don't feel my body fat is dropping. Quick question for slizz, in your pre,mid and post workout perfect nutrition u recommended becoming at leased a little bit fat adapted. don't u need really low carbs for a month or 2 to get fat adapted ?

[Blairbob]

2-3 weeks if memory serves. Pretty much sucks during.

As you cut out the carbs, you'll shed a lot of retained water/fluid which will also make you look leaner. BTDT this year. However, the fat burns off much slower.

[Joshua Naterman]

I have changed my recommendation on that. Don't go low carb. Always trust newer posts over older posts when from the same person, because we learn more as time goes on.

Your workouts are suffering because you cannot, I repeat CANNOT use anything but carbs to power intense resistance exercise like what we do in strength training workouts. You also cannot keep your muscles full of glycogen (stored carbs) without eating quite a bit of carbs, around 5 grams per kg body weight.

Eat your carbs.

[Philip Papandrea]

Hi Joshua,

Your workouts are suffering because you cannot, I repeat CANNOT use anything but carbs to power intense resistance exercise like what we do in strength training workouts. You also cannot keep your muscles full of glycogen (stored carbs) without eating quite a bit of carbs, around 5 grams per kg body weight.

That is a very concrete statement. Aren't we as humans made to burn fat as an energy source? I believe that glucose is probably the prefferred fuel if it's available during workouts but to say you can't use anything but carbs doesn't seem quite right. When we are not working out it probably isn't a bad idea to be adapted to using body fat as energy so we don't have to walk around worrying about fueling ourselves with glucose. At 5 grams per kg it's about 340grams of carbs for a 68kg man on a workout day which i guess is still not too high. Would you recommend that for non workout days? I usually feel best in the 100-150g range on most days. Anyway i'm not an expert on this and I am patiently waiting to see what you have to say in the FAT and PROTEIN stickies. What are your feelings on this article as this is where i'm getting my ideas from?

http://www.marksdailyapple.com/what-does-it-mean-to-be-fat-adapted/#axzz22RZbYzvI

[dzejkej]

You also cannot keep your muscles full of glycogen (stored carbs) without eating quite a bit of carbs, around 5 grams per kg body weight.

Interesting. How long it takes to burn through glycogen storage on average when doing heavy resistance work? Because I'm eating about 2.5g - 3g of carbs per kg and I don't feel out of energy during my workouts.

EDIT:

Found the answer here - viewtopic.php?f=8&t=7972&start=90

At very high intensities even muscle glycogen, which is 8-15x more abundant than liver glycogen, only lasts around 80 minutes and that's starting with topped off stores.

[Joshua Naterman]

Well, even at its best (with a high carbohydrate diet and an endurance-oriented training program) muscle can hold around 35g of glycogen per 100g of muscle. That's absolutely maxed out. Real numbers will be less, but taking a biceps muscle as an example, a 1 lb biceps would be enormous. You'd have, with a consistent high carb diet, a max of 159g of sugar stored. That's 454 grams of muscle tissue times .35 grams glycogen per gram muscle tissue. Since you're getting less than that, you could make an ugly guess (that actually bears out fairly accurately) that since you're getting 40-50% of the carbs that you need, you are also running at around 40-50% of full glycogen stores in the muscles that you use regularly. That's what the research in all exercise physiology textbooks that teach the fluctuation of glycogen stores as a function of dietary carbs has shown.

What that means is that instead of having 636 calories of work potential sitting in that bicep, you would only have 318.

Now, if you've ever seen a one pound piece of lean beef, you will realize that your biceps are not even close to 1 lb. Not even big Paul from NY has that much meat.

A more accurate number is probably more like .3 lbs for those of us who have fairly large biceps. That means that with a high carb diet we have 191 calories of work potential sitting around in our biceps. Those who have a lower carb diet like 2-3g per kg BW are going to have about 95 calories of work. That's a big difference.

You guys can have a field day with looking at muscle masses and numbers concerning caloric burn during exercise in working muscles if you want, but what will actually make a difference in your training is simply understanding this:

1) When you aren't getting enough dietary carbs to keep glycogen stores full, you are always using more protein than necessary to try and make up the difference, even though you never achieve full glycogen stores. This means that, for example, if you are eating 20g of protein, 4-5 extra grams of that is being used to make sugar instead of muscle.

2) Glycogen draws water into the muscle. When you are glycogen depleted your muscle tissues are also water depleted to some extent, which means they are not making new proteins anywhere near as efficiently as they should. They are also intrinsically weaker due to their sub-optimal hydration status.

3) There are more things going on, but these are the easiest to make a point with.

Through a variety of mechanisms, you are able to make your body capable of performing less work per workout and adapting more slowly to your workouts simply by not eating enough carbs. This inherently limits the rate at which your body can progress and become ready for the next step, and also at some point will inherently limit how far you can go.

You may not ever have had the experience of what it is like to train when you are properly fed for exercise on a consistent basis, as I had not for many years myself. Just because you are used to how you feel now, and because you have decided that the results you are getting are satisfactory to you, does not mean they are anywhere near the best your body has to give or anywhere near the best your body can respond.

PhilipP: My basis is biochemistry. Fats cannot be burned for energy without oxygen. Neither can protein. That is why anaerobic glycolysis is what we use when we perform resistance training: The intensity is far beyond what oxygen can sustain. That's why we need rest periods. Carbs are literally the only source that can meet this demand.

[Matthew Mossop]

The biggest problem with all those books is that they aren't based on true science. They are not grounded in the body's energy systems. Since most people don't know what these are or how they work they simply don't have the knowledge to make good choices with their nutrition. They don't know how to properly evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of each commercial diet and they haven't got the slightest idea what the long term effects of these diets can be. It's not fair, but that's the way it is.

I just read the Paleo Solution by Robb Wolff and was all set to go low carb too. Honestly I don't like the idea because I don't particularly want to lose a lot of weight.

If you look at his meal plans at the back of the book there are very few carbs there. His take (which I think I'm understanding correctly) is that you're trying to get the body to run on fat rather than carbs. You're eating minimal carbs to supply glucose to the tissues that can only run on glucose (the brain and I'm not sure what else).

I've done this for a few days now and I gotta say I've been starving since the start. However I've read that people tend to get over this after a little bit.

Have you read the book, and if so what's your take on it?

[Philip Chubb]

The Paleo diet started off so great. And then slowly went downhill. The moment it went downhill was when people started questioning what our ancestors ate instead of asking "Is this healthy for me and will it benefit me?". In reality, no one cares what our ancestors ate. We live in a different time period with a lot more potential than they had. Just look at how much better people are in sports now than 20-30 years ago.

I enjoy being low carb but I took some of Joshua's advice before and now I use a refeed day once or twice a week. All the day to day benefits of being low carb (especially when training) along with the benefits of having a powerful fuel source that I can refuel once or twice a week.

It seems to be time to start looking at what's optimal rather than what we used to eat.

[Joshua Naterman]

I just read the Paleo Solution by Robb Wolff and was all set to go low carb too. Honestly I don't like the idea because I don't particularly want to lose a lot of weight.

If you look at his meal plans at the back of the book there are very few carbs there. His take (which I think I'm understanding correctly) is that you're trying to get the body to run on fat rather than carbs. You're eating minimal carbs to supply glucose to the tissues that can only run on glucose (the brain and I'm not sure what else).

I've done this for a few days now and I gotta say I've been starving since the start. However I've read that people tend to get over this after a little bit.

Have you read the book, and if so what's your take on it?

My opinion is that it's got quite a bit of drivel.

 

Edit: The low carb part, especially. We all know better than that. There is probably a good bit of valuable material regarding disease states, but I simply can't vouch for its' accuracy. Robb's lack of understanding regarding insulin sensitivity, diabetes, and food interactions with (and leading to) these states is a bit of an alarm to me, quite honestly. I just can't understand how anyone could think these things... The biochem grad students I know, which are really only two people, both know better, and of course all of our exercise science grad people know better. This stuff isn't exactly secret information. (end edit)

 

Robb himself has been forced to step away from all of his assumptions in that book regarding ketosis and low carb, which he should have known from the start since he had a freaking biochemistry degree. He proves that if you talk a lot, a lot of people listen, even when their performance clearly tells them that what they are doing is not working correctly.

 

You can look at his recent blog posts to see what I mean.

 

Edit: You have to look carefully, but if you read his "revisiting low carbs part 1" (paraphrased) you will see that he still doesn't seem to understand what's going on with diabetes. I have no idea why he still wants to give advice in an area he clearly doesn't appear to have solid grounding in. (end edit)

 

He still doesn't understand the basics of what diabetes research says, from what I have seen, and that's just ridiculous. If someone can't even correctly read/interpret research regarding insulin sensitivity, why on earth should they be writing books about nutrition?

 

I mean come on. Everything starts with the basics.

 

Edit: I have to stand by this last bit completely. A book on overall nutrition is simply something that he wasn't even remotely prepared to tackle successfully. He had, and still has, enormous passion, but he will be dealing with this for a long, long time to come. I doubt it will hurt him much in the eyes of many, but to more educated people it simply casts a large shadow of doubt over his ability to ensure the accuracy of his information, and to moderate the strength of his statements accordingly. (end edit)

[Matthew Mossop]

Hey thanks for the reply. I wrote that a while ago and have completely gone off the low carb thing. Actually I'm on a pretty high carb diet cause it seems to be what I need... I just feel totally starving if I don't get enough.

 

I'm still following the paleo thing for the most part, just ignoring the low carb bit.

 

I can't comment on the insulin sensitivity bit because I don't know much about it. I think you're right about talking a lot and having people listen though.

[Razz]

Joshua Naterman, on 14 Feb 2013 - 18:31, said:

My opinion is that it's drivel.

Robb himself has been forced to step away from all of his assumptions in that book regarding ketosis and low carb, which he should have known from the start since he had a freaking biochemistry degree. 

 

 

1) How much advice have you given to how many people and then changed your stance on it later on? Comeon everyone will make some mistakes. 

 

2) Robb has been against a low carb diet for athletes other than purely strength athletes for YEARS. Just listen to any podcast or look at his blog and he will state this.

 

3) Robb has always said "see how you look, feel and perform", so I don't understand the 

He proves that if you talk a lot, a lot of people listen, even when their performance clearly tells them that what they are doing is not working correctly.

 

You can look at his recent blog posts to see what I mean.

He still doesn't understand the basics of what diabetes research says, from what I have seen, and that's just ridiculous. If someone can't even correctly read/interpret research regarding insulin sensitivity, why on earth should they be writing books about nutrition?

4) How many people has Robb helped with his book? A LOT! He discovered many links to different diseases and gluten/transglutaminase autoimmunity problems, don't make it sound like he got it all wrong.

 

 

5) How many people have Robb helped with his book, his blog, his podcast, his interviews and larger interventions in groups of cops in California? EVEN MORE

[FREDERIC DUPONT]

(...) Just look at how much better people are in sports now than 20-30 years ago. (...)

 

Wow, there opens a major can of worms...

I looked, and was rather underwhelmed!

[Philip Chubb]

One of the ones I recently saw was the speed of track and field athletes. Try that, Fred. It's interesting.

I like Robb Wolf for that exact quote. At the end of what he tells you, he always says to try and see what happens. I do believe he has helped and will continue to help loads more people than he will harm.

[FREDERIC DUPONT]

One of the ones I recently saw was the speed of track and field athletes. Try that, Fred. It's interesting.

 

Marita Koch maybe?

 

What is the real improvement between Jesse Owens 10"00 on a mud track without using starting blocks (had to dig 2 holes in the ground at that time), and 9"58 on a synthetic track and starting blocks? [if I am not mistaken, both records were set in Berlin]

There are many, many angles to look at it, and maybe you'll argue about time keeping, etc... but frankly, how many sub 10 athletes are... hummm... following the rules to the letter these days?

 

[edit] As I said, a major can'o'worms... it is probably much safer to remain on the carbs topic...

[Philip Chubb]

Good point. But you can't honestly think that nutrition getting better isn't one of the factors. I'll get my time machine working and we'll take one of them back to the future and see.

[FREDERIC DUPONT]

Good point. But you can't honestly think that nutrition getting better isn't one of the factors. I'll get my time machine working and we'll take one of them back to the future and see.

 

Thank you.

Nope, I do not really have an opinion about nutrition; my remark was more general.

Good idea --- Do you think that in some events, we might find that an athlete of yesteryear, if given today's nutrition would fill the performance gap?

[Philip Chubb]

I definitely think so knowing what we know now. But I also do see your point and I agree. The new techniques and equipment are probably where more of the credit belongs. Which is sad.

[FREDERIC DUPONT]

I definitely think so knowing what we know now. But I also do see your point and I agree. The new techniques and equipment are probably where more of the credit belongs. Which is sad.

It is quite complex to isolate the effects of multiple overlapping factors.

• Nutritions & advances in understanding metabolism.
• Better training protocols.
• Better pre/rehab.
• Professionalism of Athletes.
• Vastly larger pool of athletes.
• Better "special vitamins", gene transplants...
• etc...

I do not think it is even possible without your time machine...

[Joshua Naterman]

1) How much advice have you given to how many people and then changed your stance on it later on? Comeon everyone will make some mistakes. 

 

2) Robb has been against a low carb diet for athletes other than purely strength athletes for YEARS. Just listen to any podcast or look at his blog and he will state this.

 

3) Robb has always said "see how you look, feel and perform", so I don't understand the 

4) How many people has Robb helped with his book? A LOT! He discovered many links to different diseases and gluten/transglutaminase autoimmunity problems, don't make it sound like he got it all wrong.

 

 

5) How many people have Robb helped with his book, his blog, his podcast, his interviews and larger interventions in groups of cops in California? EVEN MORE

You're right, and I know better now. I speak of what I know, and that's it.

 

If robb limited his discussions to the things he fully understood, I would not be as harsh, and there are a number of areas where he has had a lot of good posts.

 

However, he's more than dabbled in basic nutrition, and done a poor job conveying correct information to the general public. He is probably helping a LOT of people, because compared to what they are currently doing almost anything is better. I know that may sound like an insult, but it's not meant that way. It's just the honest truth.

 

If you stuff a sock into an car's oil leak and duct tape the crap out of it, that leak will stop, but it doesn't mean you fixed the pipe. You'll have to deal with the real issue at some point.

 

A lot of stuff that Robb talks about, particularly in the area of Diabetes management and overall nutritional programming, is just not in synch with basic exercise science. He's gone back on the majority of it now, with his remission of his belief that Ketosis is the ideal dietary state, but seriously... he should have known better than that. My first level coursebooks cover that stuff.

 

I daresay that Robb did not discover the links. He talked, and brought public awareness to, important research that has absolutely helped a lot of people, and perhaps extrapolated that hey... anything that inflammation affects negatively will benefit from removing known inflammatory agents, like gluten, from one's diet! That's almost everything.

 

So, at this point, I don't think Robb's awful, but I am still not thrilled with the way he still makes recommendations that clearly go against how the basic systems of the body work.

 

I have been very, very careful to mold myself into someone who does not do these things. I have made mistakes in the past, and corrected them the moment I found them, but more importantly I learned to only make strong statements about things that are both supported by research and supported by logical, interactively supportive extrapolations from human physiology.

 

Basically, I make sure that multiple systems adapt positively, and look for known feedback mechanisms that either would, or would not, benefit or stay neutral from the changes.

 

If I think something MAY work, I either don't talk about it at all or I am very careful to say that such-and-such makes sense, but we don't know for sure. Experiment at your own ristk.

 

I don't see that level of caution from Robb.

 

In short, he's growing as a more balanced nutritional advisor, but he doesn't have the basic formal education that would have saved him years of mistakes. He could fix that, and I think that he's trying, but it seems like he's doing so indirectly. I prefer the more direct approach, because it saves time and gives you the benefit of many years of vetted information.

 

I don't know what else to say. Three years ago, I would have said that he doesn't know what the crap he's talking about regarding macronutrient scaling, and I would have been right.

 

Now, I can say that he still doesn't get it, but he's getting there. As of today, I think that's accurate. His discussions on disease states are interesting, and sometimes very insightful, but are still based on strong statements that do not reflect the nature of the diseases at times. Again, I think that's a dangerous thing.

 

I believe whole-heartedly that he's a good guy, and that he wants to help, but I think that he still makes statements that  go beyond what we know, and beyond what actually makes sense when you really understand human physiology and nutrition quite well.

 

Do you think I'm being unfair?