Fathead the Movie - your thoughts?

mynameisuntz

Gary Taubes' book is based on some bad premises. He believes the obese don't eat any more than the lean, and therefore insulin is the culprit, not calories....and then he cherry picks the scientific literature to "prove" his point.

Bingo. He cherry-picks data like no one's business. This is why you should always, always, ALWAYS ask for the direct source of any claim. I could go find a study and quote a few lines and make it sound like the study found something that it absolutely did not find, or ignore the context under which the study attained its results.

I'm not sure if you're just feeling argumentative (I would say yes based on your statement that only "untrained" runners need to refuel mid-marathon) but I was actually agreeing with you if you go back through the thread.

There's a difference between doing what is necessary and what is optimal. Genetics plays a major role, but training does too. Do the elite runners *NEED* to refuel mid-marathon? No. I don't think they do. Will some have to? Of course. But by and large, they don't NEED to refuel in order to complete the marathon. Will it help their results? Yes.

Similarly you don't NEED to eat protein or lift weights to lose fat, but will it improve your results? Yes.

I don't mean to sound argumentative or hostile, and I do apologize if I've offended you. It was not my intent. I usually type very strict and to the point when debating something. If we were talking face to face, you'd see I have a good attitude about it.

The part that I said I did not get, which I was backing up with my own experience and made rather clear that I'm not an expert on the subject- was the part about being able to store an incredible surplus of glycogen (500g of carbs worth, or 2000 calories). Which I asked you for clarity on, and I might add, you never gave.

What clarity do you need outside of the study I posted? I'm running short on time but may have time to help.

ilsie99

I don't mean to sound argumentative or hostile, and I do apologize if I've offended you. It was not my intent. I usually type very strict and to the point when debating something. If we were talking face to face, you'd see I have a good attitude about it.

No worries.

What clarity do you need outside of the study I posted? I'm running short on time but may have time to help.

I interpret this-

"Glycogen storage capacity in man is approximately 15 g/kg body weight and can accommodate a gain of approximately 500 g before net lipid synthesis contributes to increasing body fat mass. When the glycogen stores are saturated, massive intakes of carbohydrate are disposed of by high carbohydrate-oxidation rates and substantial de novo lipid synthesis (150 g lipid/d using approximately 475 g CHO/d) without postabsorptive hyperglycemia."

to mean that assuming my glycogen stores are not saturated, I could inject myself with 500g CHO and be fine. Anything more than 500g and the body would need to begin converting the excess to fatty acids in order to prevent hyperglycemia.

But once you reach that glycogen storage capacity, there isn't some hidden excess reserve of 500g that I can store, is what I'm saying and/or asking.

mynameisuntz

I interpret this-

"Glycogen storage capacity in man is approximately 15 g/kg body weight and can accommodate a gain of approximately 500 g before net lipid synthesis contributes to increasing body fat mass. When the glycogen stores are saturated, massive intakes of carbohydrate are disposed of by high carbohydrate-oxidation rates and substantial de novo lipid synthesis (150 g lipid/d using approximately 475 g CHO/d) without postabsorptive hyperglycemia."

to mean that assuming my glycogen stores are not saturated, I could inject myself with 500g CHO and be fine. Anything more than 500g and the body would need to begin converting the excess to fatty acids in order to prevent hyperglycemia.

But once you reach that glycogen storage capacity, there isn't some hidden excess reserve of 500g that I can store, is what I'm saying and/or asking.

Define "be fine" - what's the operational definition for that? You could "be fine" in the fact that you won't see a net fat gain as CHO is converted to glycogen, not fat. Is that what you're saying? Do you believe it'll go directly to fat even if glycogen is not full? I'm lost on the "be fine" part and what you mean by that.

Supercompensation is done by depleting glycogen first and foremost. Which, of course, is a grueling process by itself. When in that state, your body is more "primed" to hold onto higher amounts of glycogen. So when you refeed for 5-7 days at high levels of carbs/calories following depletion, your body compensates by holding onto more. Consider it as your body packing things in tighter. Room is made to fill your stores with more carbs as your body is primed to do so.

Consider it like long-term metabolic damage. You deprive your body to a radical degree for an extended period of time, and it is more "primed" to store more fat upon eating a normal intake again.

ilsie99

Define "be fine" - what's the operational definition for that? You could "be fine" in the fact that you won't see a net fat gain as CHO is converted to glycogen, not fat. Is that what you're saying? Do you believe it'll go directly to fat even if glycogen is not full? I'm lost on the "be fine" part and what you mean by that.

Be fine, as in, not be in a hypoglycemic state, or a state where you are forcing your body to rapidly deal with excess amounts of blood plasma glucose.

Supercompensation is done by depleting glycogen first and foremost. Which, of course, is a grueling process by itself. When in that state, your body is more "primed" to hold onto higher amounts of glycogen. So when you refeed for 5-7 days at high levels of carbs/calories following depletion, your body compensates by holding onto more. Consider it as your body packing things in tighter. Room is made to fill your stores with more carbs as your body is primed to do so.

Consider it like long-term metabolic damage. You deprive your body to a radical degree for an extended period of time, and it is more "primed" to store more fat upon eating a normal intake again.

Ok, I see. I've actually dabbled with this a little in my training, though as you stated, it's grueling and not at all fun. I don't know that you can factor this in to an everyday person's life though, unless they've specifically trained their body to do such a thing.

mynameisuntz

Ok, I see. I've actually dabbled with this a little in my training, though as you stated, it's grueling and not at all fun. I don't know that you can factor this in to an everyday person's life though, unless they've specifically trained their body to do such a thing.

I would never suggest an everyday person undergo this until they have ample experience under their belt. Even after ~4 years of competitive cycling I never went to the lengths of complete glycogen depletion over the course of 7-14 days, *maintaining intense training* (high risk of catabolism if not extremely, extremely careful), and then carb-loading prior to an event.

It was just never worth it to me to endure that, even for just 1-2 weeks.

ilsie99

I would never suggest an everyday person undergo this until they have ample experience under their belt. Even after ~4 years of competitive cycling I never went to the lengths of complete glycogen depletion over the course of 7-14 days, *maintaining intense training* (high risk of catabolism if not extremely, extremely careful), and then carb-loading prior to an event.

It was just never worth it to me to endure that, even for just 1-2 weeks.

You're a competitive cyclist? Now I KNOW you were just having a bad day. You know that 99% of endurance athletes need to refuel mid-race to prevent glycogen debt. Don't tell me you don't need gels or energy drink on a double century. :flowerforyou:

mynameisuntz

You're a competitive cyclist? Now I KNOW you were just having a bad day. You know that 99% of endurance athletes need to refuel mid-race to prevent glycogen debt. Don't tell me you don't need gels or energy drink on a double century. :flowerforyou:

Ha, a century alone burns over 5,000 calories if you work at a 20 mph pace. So doing TWO? Uhh, yeah, going to need lots of GU packets (though I prefer the Clif packets).

I'm not so much anymore. Moving to Chicago isn't a prime move for someone with pipe dreams of being big in cycling (which I never had - I just did it more for fun).

The only time I felt the need to bring any sort of food/sugary drinks was for rides that were over 50 miles, which equates to ~2,500 calories being burned based on the pace I work at. And these were rides where I did not max out glycogen stores or even TRY to. Just, rides.