Fat is a great fuel for endurance events, but it is simply not adequate for high level aerobic exercise (over 50% VO2Max) or for anaerobic exercise such as sprints or intervals.

As exercise intensity increases to 60 and 90% VO2Max, carbohydrate metabolism takes over and is more efficient than fat metabolism. Since a well-fed athlete can hold about 1500 carbohydrate Calories, this level of intensity can be sustained for approximately 2 hours. After that, stored carbohydrates are used up and you may hit the wall or ‘bonk.’ An athlete can sustain 60-90% VO2Max for more than 2 hours by simply replenishing carbohydrate stores during exercise. This is why it is critical to eat easily digestible carbohydrates during moderate exercise that lasts more than a few hours. If you don’t take in enough carbohydrates, you will be forced to reduce your intensity to less than 50%VO2Max and tap back into fat metabolism to fuel activity.

http://sportsmedicine.about.com/cs/...aa080803a_2.htm

if i had a 100 years to sit at the computer, i could continue posting articles, but hopefully i got my point across, and why i would not consider restricting my carbs to the lc-levels - I COULD NOT EXERCISE TO THE SAME LEVEL OF INTENSITY, AND THUSLY THE SAME LEVEL OF FITNESS
********WITHOUT CARBOHYDRATES********

something i have spent my entire life doing, so know a thing or two about it.

So, you spent your whole life mislead, but it's never too late to educate yourself. This may explain why, if you spent your whole life bodybuilding, you're still at 160 lbs. You might try to do it the right way and follow CKD or other professional bodybuilding nutrition.

There are hundreds of "articles" saying anything you want them to say, as believe it or not, you're not the only pro-sugar person in the world. That doesn't make them textbooks. Sugar addictions is a growing epedemic, thanks to the sugar association and the food pyramid, the source of most of these opinions.

When someone tells you sugar is preferred fuel for anabolic workout, it has nothing to do with the brain, unless you think the brain is a muscle that needs to do anarobic workout, which won't surprise me if that's what you think.

But let's assume your quoted article is correct.

It only means that some professional body builders may need sugar, not the average person. This in contrast to your assertions that only diabeics should control their carbs. The average person is not a bodybuilder dedicating their whole life to pumping iron.

Wa'il

where in the world did you get anything about body-building ? you seem to consider these people in high regard, and in the know. while some of them go natural, most of them are steroid users, and not what i would consider to be healthy.

i am not a bodybuilder of any sorts, and people think i look pretty darn good - most people think i weigh about 145, but because i exercise, i weigh more.

none of these articles were about the brain needing sugar, but rather that sugar is necessary for intense aerobic exercise, and for anaerobic exercise. my vigorous cardio routine requires lots of sugar, in order to perform it - it is just that simple. you can keep blinders on if you want, but i know better, because this is what i have spent my life doing - lots of vigorous cardio - i know what works - and as i have shown you, fat can not be used effectively for intense workouts.

fat is an excellent source of fuel. we use it most of the time, for most things - this is obvious by looking at the amount of fat that we have evolved to store, and the relative lack of sugar that our bodies can store at one time. but our brains need sugar, and when we exercise with any sort of intensity, we need sugar.

i also find it funny that you attempt to ridicule me for my weight, and yet i never ridicule you guys for it, even knowing that many of you are still very overweight.

no one considers me to be overweight, even in the slightest.

but i thought this was about being healthy. it just shows what i have been saying before - many people will rationalize until the cows come home, if they think something can keep fat off them - which is one of the big reasons people try controlled-carb diets.

one last tidbit about weightlifting - i do not consider this to be a large anaerobic use of energy. for most of us lifting weights, very little of the time spent is in anaerobic mode.

you want to lift the weight slowly, such that you are not jerking it up, breathing out slowly, and making the final exhale when you reach the top - then once again lower the weight even more slowly, while breathing in oxygen for the next lift. make sure you rest for a minute or so in between sets. very seldom are you in an anaerobic mode. unlike vigorous cardio, where you are constantly burning sugar, either while in anaerobic or high-aerobic modes - that sugar-electric meter is going full blast.

Huh? You base your point on 10+ opinion articles on anaerobic needs for sugar as proof low-carb is bad for the average none-diabetic person, and talk about how brain functions would suffer bla bla bla, then you ask this question?

Maybe you should try to follow the line of your arguments, it's makes things easier....

I don't know, I never saw you. All I can judge by is your arguments. And from your claims of unnatural powers, and miracculous 12 year old looks in your ancient 40's. This is not a place to claim miracles. You might want to phone America's funniest videos or Ripleys beleive it or not.

Yes, none of them were. That's why you failed to make the brain/sugar argument, after your St. Marcos "proof".

Second, don't confuse anaerobic with aerobic. They're totally different. That's why you didn't get the bodybuilding point.

Wa'il

You're the one bragging about your miraculous anaerobic powers, and long life experience, plus unnatural powers, plus yada yada yada.

So it's a valid point to question your under weight in light of such claims.

Had you been claiming you're a marathon runner, I would understand, as it would make sense.

Wa'il

fair enough. i thought you were claiming i was overweight. the get-up-and-go i was claiming was due to VIGOROUS CARDIO, not to weightlifting. very few people are in anaerobic phase for any length of time, while weightlifting, and are probably burning fat during most of that interval.

weightlifting is a good thing, in that it helps with our muscular and skeletal systems. but cardio is 10 times more important, as it gets right down to the cellular level. every cell in the body, except red blood cells, if i recall correctly, has mitochondria busily spewing out energy for us. in order to give us lots of energy, those cells have to have the needed ingredients coming from good diets, healthy machinery inside to manufacture, healthy membrane walls for ingress/egress, and an efficient blood stream to deliver this energy. all in all, the best indicator of overall health, since so much has to be working at high efficiency, if you want good results.

also, "burning fat while exercising" is meaningless, and just something that trainers say because it makes them appear knowledgeable. it makes no difference what fuel is being burned during exercise, in regards to the amount of fat we will ultimately have on our body, as long as it is carbs or adipose fat, and not protein or essential fats. the main thing is to have enough carbs readily available during exercise, as there will always be enough fat, unless one has gone into anorexic/starvation mode.

one thing i would like to mention for people, because it is a source of frustration for many, is the following:

our optimal fat/muscle is largely regulated by our hormones. our diet allows us to reach our optimal level, but not to exceed it. the higher our natural estrogen levels are, the more fat cells we had added before puberty, and thusly the more fat we will have. likewise, the higher our testosterone is, the more muscle we can make. this is why body builders take steroids, which are just testosterone-derivatives. but going against how our bodies are designed to work, is not an advisable thing, in terms of our health. so, DO NOT LET THE MIRROR dictate what your final outcome is, but rather YOUR HEALTH.

as far as the brain-sugar, you can find that in thousands of places. i intentionally only posted some of the articles about needing sugar during exercise, since that might be harder to find for some.

by the way, i never claimed to look 12 years-old. i will let others judge my knowledge by what i post - they can choose for themselves whether it seems like my posts have any relevancy in their lives.

You can post all the op/eds you want, doesn't make them true. But since you claim to have read, and trust, textbooks, as opposed to scientific studies, let me show what textbooks actually say on this issue:

So, while circumventing the natural way of supplying your body with glucose through overdosing on sugar, you don't have to. Eating natural, whole food is enough. Ample meat, green veggies, and the occasional fruit is more than enough.

Let alone the fact your muscles can't hold too much glycogen, as it's limited by muscular size, so excess sugar is stored as body fat. More is less in this case.

Well, unless middle school in the U.S. is different than here in Canada, so maybe 14?:

Yet,

I hate to depress you with this news, but being in the 40's is like 20 years before retirement age, and is quite young. Not middle school young, but young

Wa'il

whenever we break down protein to make sugar, we place ammonia in the body. the liver detoxifies this, in making urea, but it is not gonna keep pace with it, if it is done a lot. protein should only be used for re-building, not for energy-making.

getting attention from middle-shoolers does not equate to being their same age.

i know of no one, pushing 50, who could come close to my cardio output. very few at any age, can. this has mostly to do with lifestyle, nutritional and otherwise.

and yes, i have always advocated that any sugar, after glycogen stores are full, will be stored as fat, which is why we need amounts every day.

While such super unimaginable powers at the old age of 40 (LOL), yet lookinking like a middle school boy might be reserved to Gary Coleman, Peter Pan or Michael Jackson, let's get real here.

Here's what avoiding sugar, and following a natural healthy diet, with animal meat, and animal fat (yes, especially saturated fat) can do to your health:

Dr. Barry Groves (67+) : http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/aboutbg.html



Real people, real results, with solid scientific background, with athletic records, not anonymous internet wannabe Peter Pans who survived till their amazing 40's

Wa'il

Tamarian, I always get a case of the falling over guffaws after hearing from one of these "you need carbs for exercise" nuts. Since even in a "carb loaded" body, glucose reserve run out in about 20 minutes, and then it's ketones, sugar doesn't seem to cover much in extended exercise.
If you cruise over to Laura Richard's site, you will find a link to research done on low carb female athletes done at the University of Buffalo. Surprise, their preformance improved when they got away from sugar.
This poster has been a source of great amusement to me, I wonder if he knows just how foolish he sounds to the rest of us? Nyah Levi

Yep, you'll find it in our studies section as well.

The problem here though is first scientefic studies are not acceptable, only textbooks. Now we get real textbook quotes, then it's not good, we need this, we get this, then it's not good, there's too many conspiracies amongst scientists, doctors, biochemists etc. against sugar. Even human evolution is not acceptable when talking at this supernatural level on the need for sugar.

I have to agree on this. Unfortunately, we really want this war zone to be a place were we can debate on an intellectual level, using scientific evidence. But here with this thread, we're not having a good representative of the other side, and it's to the detriment of good debate that we' don't have a good representative of the pro carb side. There are many points that can be debated, and science has not yet nailed down, so there are points that can be made on each side. But once you enter the supernatural world, the science goes out the window.

For great debate and excellent arguments from pro-carb crowd that can be challenging, checkout the nutrion Usenet group (some great gems there occasionally), which we also mirror on our forum:

http://forum.lowcarber.org/forumdisplay.php?f=128

Wa'il