starting strength gym
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 30

Thread: Why should I consume less process sugars?

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    116

    Default

    • starting strength seminar april 2024
    • starting strength seminar jume 2024
    • starting strength seminar august 2024
    This is just my opinion and experience, but slower acting carbs like beans tend to provide me energy for a longer period. If I drank a Big Gulp, it dumps a bunch of sugar in my bloodstream. If I don't use it, it goes to fat. I try to eat sugar either before a workout or after it, where it's more likely to get used.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    Tasmania, Australia
    Posts
    916

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by autumnal View Post
    This is just my opinion and experience, but slower acting carbs like beans tend to provide me energy for a longer period. If I drank a Big Gulp, it dumps a bunch of sugar in my bloodstream. If I don't use it, it goes to fat. I try to eat sugar either before a workout or after it, where it's more likely to get used.
    Yeah and that's pretty consistent with most people who are not carb sensitive/insulin resistant, I would've thought.

    For my evening workouts lately I've been having a decent meal with some slower acting carbs 90 mins or so prior, but then I do the dishes and some family stuff and make a sweet mocha drink and some marshmallows that comes down to the gym with me. I'm liking this protocol a lot.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    305

    Default

    Alot of people are going to disagree but here it goes......

    I think that unless you're at 10% and trying to cut down (a.k.a taking your body extremely far out from where it wants to be naturally), all this talk is just NOISE. It simply doesn't matter. I find it amusing when people say how "they feel" after eating X or Y type of food. Placebo is a helluva effect. I suspect they wouldn't feel the same way if it was a blind study. We all get tired sometimes. We all get energetic. etc.. There are a million variables and what you just ate an hour ago is just one of them. Alot of it comes down to your mental state and ultimately your attitude. I used to skip going to the gym on days that I just felt extra tired or run down. Now days I go anyways and many times set the PR I was supposed regardless of how I felt before the gym. If you think you can, you can. If you think you can't, you can't. There is alot more mental attitude influence then there is "what you just ate" influence.

    Obviously our body DOES react differently to different foods. We don't know all the mechanisms and the answers. Anyone that claims to KNOW the answer is bullshitting. But my point is the effect is overall small in the big picture and just doing the big things is most important (monitoring how much you eat, staying active, having a good attitude, etc.). Unless you have an actual disease where your body cannot account for things like increased blood sugar; It's just an excuse.

    As for long term effect... We still don't know these either. "We" think that eating alot of sugar could possibly fry your response system over time and lead to things like diabetes developing. But really... We dont KNOW.

    Eat what you want. If you aren't getting the results you expect, change something till you are. If you think refined sugar makes you tired, your probably right. If you think it doesn't effect your energy levels, your also probably right. What difference does it make on your reality if its placebo or not?

    One thing I do know though is that living your life on the results of studies that look how mice react to insanely high doses of X chemical, that then try to extrapolate it to humans, is just a recipe for disaster.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    2,587

    Default

    I dunno about sugar, but if I eat a bunch of simple carbs, I will crash hard. I'll get light headed when I stand up. . . . When I was a teenager I had cold sweats a few times during these blood sugar crashes. . . . I pretty much just stay away from candy now. I couldn't possibly eat a bagel or some sweat pastry for breakfast.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    Atlanta, Georgia
    Posts
    549

    Default

    Timelinex,

    I really appreciate this response. You mention some great points. Specifically, that nobody really knows the mechanisms behind carbohydrate (and other stuff) breakdown and how it impacts the body. A large number of people have jumped onto the no-carb bandwagon by arguing that lower Glycemic index carbs result in lower insulin spikes while ignoring that protein also causes a relatively significant insulin spike in and of itself. It also ignores the fact that the human body has very effective mechanisms for moderating blood sugar levels in the average population. My personal take on this is mostly related to satiety. A faster digesting food is digested faster, leaving your body wanting more food to digest. I don't believe the blood sugar level is super important, but maybe that the digestion speed results in a craving for more food. With calorically dense food choices, this is dangerous. Also, I believe Dr. Feigenbaum or Dr. Baraki mentioned that insulin sensitivity is likely explained by a fat person just being fat. They can't produce enough insulin to adequately stimulate blood glucose uptake because they have such a large amount of receptors (due to increased mass).

    I also like your less quantitative approach to making changes. If you think something isn't working? Change it and see. This is how I figure things out for myself as well.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    603

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dalton Clark View Post
    Timelinex,

    I really appreciate this response. You mention some great points. Specifically, that nobody really knows the mechanisms behind carbohydrate (and other stuff) breakdown and how it impacts the body. A large number of people have jumped onto the no-carb bandwagon by arguing that lower Glycemic index carbs result in lower insulin spikes while ignoring that protein also causes a relatively significant insulin spike in and of itself. It also ignores the fact that the human body has very effective mechanisms for moderating blood sugar levels in the average population. My personal take on this is mostly related to satiety. A faster digesting food is digested faster, leaving your body wanting more food to digest. I don't believe the blood sugar level is super important, but maybe that the digestion speed results in a craving for more food. With calorically dense food choices, this is dangerous. Also, I believe Dr. Feigenbaum or Dr. Baraki mentioned that insulin sensitivity is likely explained by a fat person just being fat. They can't produce enough insulin to adequately stimulate blood glucose uptake because they have such a large amount of receptors (due to increased mass).

    I also like your less quantitative approach to making changes. If you think something isn't working? Change it and see. This is how I figure things out for myself as well.
    Yeah , I like Times response too but the way I understand it is that yes we do understand carb breakdown (and the other macros) very well: all carbs turn into glucose. The time it takes is different. Protein stimulate insulin, sure, but don't have much effect on blood glucose levels (I think?), probably because turning amino acids into glucose is not a preferred pathway.

    The blood sugar is important because if you're lowering your blood glucose (I.e it's going into the cells) then your body will 'sense' that it needs to get back to baseline and thus you have a craving.

    It is much more complicated than receptor density when it comes to diabetics, but depending on their stage they can't produce insulin because they have effectively destroyed their pancreatic beta cells
    And thus can't produce insulin.

    This is all pretty complicated. Not sure if understanding the 'weeds' of macronutrient biochemistry is super important for us but I think it's cool to discuss! Maybe one of the docs around here can chime in.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    Atlanta, Georgia
    Posts
    549

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Royce Nichols View Post
    Yeah , I like Times response too but the way I understand it is that yes we do understand carb breakdown (and the other macros) very well: all carbs turn into glucose. The time it takes is different. Protein stimulate insulin, sure, but don't have much effect on blood glucose levels (I think?), probably because turning amino acids into glucose is not a preferred pathway.

    The blood sugar is important because if you're lowering your blood glucose (I.e it's going into the cells) then your body will 'sense' that it needs to get back to baseline and thus you have a craving.

    It is much more complicated than receptor density when it comes to diabetics, but depending on their stage they can't produce insulin because they have effectively destroyed their pancreatic beta cells
    And thus can't produce insulin.

    This is all pretty complicated. Not sure if understanding the 'weeds' of macronutrient biochemistry is super important for us but I think it's cool to discuss! Maybe one of the docs around here can chime in.
    Regardless of the source that stimulates insulin release, the result of that insulin release is always the same. Insulin triggers a reduction in blood glucose levels by signalling cells to uptake glucose from the blood. While it is possible to turn amino acids into glucose through gluconeogenesis, that is not related to insulin specifically and is triggered through different means.

    Also please note that I did not reference diabetes but insulin resistance which is more prediabetic than actual diabetes. Also, type II diabetes rarely progresses so far that they are incapable of producing insulin. That would be insulin dependent type II diabetes which is not the norm, to the best of my knowledge.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    603

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dalton Clark View Post
    Regardless of the source that stimulates insulin release, the result of that insulin release is always the same. Insulin triggers a reduction in blood glucose levels by signalling cells to uptake glucose from the blood. While it is possible to turn amino acids into glucose through gluconeogenesis, that is not related to insulin specifically and is triggered through different means.

    Also please note that I did not reference diabetes but insulin resistance which is more prediabetic than actual diabetes. Also, type II diabetes rarely progresses so far that they are incapable of producing insulin. That would be insulin dependent type II diabetes which is not the norm, to the best of my knowledge.
    No, insulin release does not always do the same thing. Its functions related to protein metabolism are separate from its functions on blood glucose. This is why I said proteins can stimulate insulin release but don't alter blood glucose and that the gluceoneogenesis pathway is not preferred and probably wouldn't alter much anyway. And the reductions in blood glucose was first initiated by an increase in blood glucose (from carbs), and thus stimulated insulin, and then the insulin lowered blood glucose, not the other way around (I may have misinterpreted your second sentence).

    Ah, OK, thanks for the clarification about what stage. Your receptor theory is still incorrect. More receptors would actually be beneficial. More receptors=more active sites available for insulin to bind to and therefore glucose can more quickly leave the bloodstream. Yes, there are problems at the receptor level, but it has more to do with alterations in the expression of the receptor (changes in amino acids that decorate the receptor), and therefore the ability of the insulin receptor's function to handle insulin, and thus glucose stays elevated in the bloodstream.

    You are also incorrect about it being rare for people to progress to late stage diabetes

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Chicago Burbs, IL
    Posts
    1,525

    Default

    "Good Calories, Bad Calories" - Taubes (available on audible)

    Helped me a lot with this.

    Sugar and highly processed carbs have are very easily and rapidly digested. Sending your insulin through the roof, which has a number of long term consequences. (spoiler alert, they are bad)

    You can help yourself by getting stronger (more receptors). You can also alter your diet to go what is called keto-genic (aka fat burning mode), by eating very low carb and "moderate protein". Either approach can potentially cure type-2 diabetes, and has a number of other health benefits.

    If you're really in trouble, do both. These "programs" are not without conflicts. It all depends on your objectives. To implement this stuff I read "Keto Clarity", a lot more how to, where the Taubes book is more research re-examination.

    If stabilizing your blood sugar levels quickly is your goal do both. This will cost your strength program some. It appears to be working for me. My squat and press are screwed up by injuries anyway. But I've also had unexpected struggles on my Deadlift. At this particular point, it works for me. I'll make up lost ground later. But still lifting now for health benefits.

    Good luck.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    305

    Default

    starting strength coach development program
    Quote Originally Posted by Cheesepuff View Post
    "Good Calories, Bad Calories" - Taubes (available on audible)

    Helped me a lot with this.

    Sugar and highly processed carbs have are very easily and rapidly digested. Sending your insulin through the roof, which has a number of long term consequences. (spoiler alert, they are bad)

    You can help yourself by getting stronger (more receptors). You can also alter your diet to go what is called keto-genic (aka fat burning mode), by eating very low carb and "moderate protein". Either approach can potentially cure type-2 diabetes, and has a number of other health benefits.

    If you're really in trouble, do both. These "programs" are not without conflicts. It all depends on your objectives. To implement this stuff I read "Keto Clarity", a lot more how to, where the Taubes book is more research re-examination.

    If stabilizing your blood sugar levels quickly is your goal do both. This will cost your strength program some. It appears to be working for me. My squat and press are screwed up by injuries anyway. But I've also had unexpected struggles on my Deadlift. At this particular point, it works for me. I'll make up lost ground later. But still lifting now for health benefits.

    Good luck.
    Are you saying that your diabetic and your body doesn't adjust for the insulin appropriately? If so you might want to get that checked out by a doctor.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •