Jump to content


jdatkinsn

Member Since 25 Oct 2008
Offline Last Active Dec 01 2011 08:31 PM
*----

Posts I've Made

In Topic: Excersizing mistake

21 June 2012 - 06:06 PM

electrolytes = salt

If you take water, put some salt in it, you've added "electrolytes"

Gatorade is designed also to be diluted with water 50/50. Also, I wouldn't consider drinking gatorade for anything less than 1 hour of strenuous exercise. Playing paintball is hardly strenuous exercise btw. Maybe after 20 points of XBall, I'd think about possibly taking a sip of Gatorade, but anything before is just a waste.

Gatorade was designed for activities far more strenuous than paintball, for athletes in far better shape than those that play paintball on a recreational basis.

If you burn 200 calories in an afternoon of playing paintball, you'll smoke that workout with one container of gatorade easily.

Low blood sugar = fat loss

spiked blood sugar (gatorade) = fat gain

If you don't already look like this-

Posted Image

While doing this-

Posted Image

Don't be injecting tons of useless calories in your body drinking this-

Posted Image

Dragon Tozan brought Gatorade to LL5, I 50/50'd some Gatorade with water, it was the first time I've drank it in probably 10 years


First, the term "electrolytes" encompasses more than just sodium- there's also potassium, chloride, calcium and magnesium. Understanding the relationship between them, especially the sodium-potassium pump, is important in understanding hydration.

Second, low blood sugar does not equal fat loss, but I get what you're getting at. Low blood sugar is clinically referred to as hypoglycemia and is not a state you want to spend too much time in. Being hypoglycemic starves your brain of glucose, and if you aren't able to free up liver glycogen or create more glucose via gluconeogenesis (the process by which protein is converted into glucose), then you will die.

What I think you're trying to say is that low insulin allows fat loss, and in that you're correct. Stable, homeostatic blood sugar levels (i.e. healthy "fasting" numbers) don't require any endogenous insulin production, so triglycerides can flow freely out of fat cells to be utilized as energy. If you're constantly spiking your blood sugar with drinks like Gatorade, you're also flooding your body with insulin to manage the glycemic surge. Insulin inhibits lypolisis.

Right path though, Mike! Glad to see you've gotten more interested in nutritional science! You're in the right place, belief wise!

In Topic: what jogging really does

09 April 2012 - 04:43 PM

Jogging will not waste muscle tissue, that is simply false. However, what is possible is that those who combine high intensity or prolonged cardiovascular activity with a weight lifting regimen might find their gains are slowing down. This is common sense as energy and nutrients have to be directed to both replenishing glycogen stores used in cardio and feeding muscle that your are trying to build. Protein can be used as energy in cardio exercise, it just simply needs to be changed into a usable form which your body can do through a metabolic pathway, much in the same way it can use lactic acid to fuel you, however your body wont be tapping into your own muscles for energy unless you are severely malnourished or underweight. Your body as a rather large store of glycogen in both your muscles and, primarily, in your liver, so I doubt anyone is losing muscle because of cardio. However, if one is not increasing the caloric intake if combining both cardio and weight lifting, mass will go down just because the calories out is now greater than those in.

Source:
I'm a god damn genius


Your blunt, absolute calorie math disregards the (more important) role hormesis plays in all this, but for the most part, yes.

In Topic: Sugar is "toxic"

05 April 2012 - 06:17 AM

You're confusing "optimal" with "requisite". You don't NEED any dietary.carbohydrate, but you'd be a little silly to try to play an NBA game without some.

It is a "your mileage may vary" type of thing. For most, a proper alchemy is a diet low in sugar and starch (between 20 and 75 grams a day, say), completely absent vegetable oils and combined with some variety of rather intense lifting. There is a ton of nuance, obviously, but no one reads so those are the bullet points.

In Topic: what jogging really does

04 April 2012 - 12:59 PM

A lot of claims in this thread without any science.

Let's back up a touch. To think that at any one point in time your body is burning anything exclusively as a fuel source is nonsensical- everyone, regardless of how much they know about human endocrinology, can wrap their heads around this. You're never burning just fat or just muscle tissue or just glucose from the toast you had for breakfast. You're always burning some combination of the food you've eaten, your own body fat, ketone bodies (usually in transient amounts, but still) and, on occasion, muscle tissue.

You can look at lab measures of respiratory quotient to verify this- after a night's sleep, most peoples RQ lies between .80 and .84. An RQ of .69 is pure fat metabolism, and RQ of 1.0 is pure glucose. After a starch and sugar heavy meal you're probably in the .90 to .94 range, but you're still burning some body fat. Whether or not you're adding back even more is irrelevant to the fact that some is always being burned.

The next thing to consider is that jogging, even if it's for an hour or more, is inconsequential to the hormones in your body that actually regulate whether or not you lose fat. Weight loss is much more than a matter of energy balance- it's about your fasting insulin, your blood sugar, your thyroid hormones, etc. To think that some jogging a few times a week would have a meaningful effect absent dietary change is like think that you can permanently keep your heart rate at 180bpm just by running for half an hour. Yes, it elevates for a few minutes, but then homeostasis takes over. The running was inconsequential. Eat a bowl of oatmeal 30 minutes before your run and guess what you're burning? Oatmeal. Not muscle, not fat, not any statistically significant amount at least.

"It's science, google it" is not proof of a concept. Anyone who offers you that explanation and won't explain it to you themselves is probably wrong. Doesn't matter if you're talking about nutrition or astrophysics- if someone tells you "I just know, it's been proven", they're probably full of shit.

In Topic: Sugar is "toxic"

04 April 2012 - 12:42 PM

http://www.2buildmus...r-is-toxic.html

great article


Jeeze, wish someone had been talking about this on this very forum 18 months ago :)

And to whoever said that sugar is necessary, that is categorically false. There are certain cells in the body that require glucose but you do not need to eat sugar to obtain it. If you literally ate no sugar and no dietary carbohydrate (all carbohydrate becomes sugar), your body would still synthesize the necessary glucose via a process called gluconeogenesis (literally translates to "birth of new glucose"), where your liver converts protein to glucose.

Your requirement for dietary carbohydrate is zero. You literally need none, not even if you work out, not even if you have a fast metabolism. The human body simply and irrefutably doesn't require it.

Now, whether you'll perform well during endurance exercises or enjoy your limited dietary palate is a different story. But you don't actually need any.