|
On January 24 2014 11:02 SoleSteeler wrote:
Alright. So say I wake up and have about 60-70 minutes before I'm at the gym ready to workout. What do you guys say I should eat? I usually drink a protein shake which usually is enough. Sometimes I might have a small (like 3-4 spoonfuls) bowl of rice. This morning I had milk and cereal and it really didn't work out too well.
If you do go the oatmeal route, be aware of its relatively high fiber content, compared to the average food a modern person eats. Higher fiber intake means you may need more fluids as well. More fluids can mean you need more electrolytes to balance the increased water intake. So I suggest adding salt to the oatmeal and eating it watery, then drinking 1-2 full glasses of water.
|
On January 27 2014 18:24 SoleSteeler wrote:
Thanks for the breakfast responses all. I like my protein shake because it has caffeine, it's absorbed quickly (right?) into my body so I don't have to wait to digest very long, and it's not "nothing"; I like having something in my body when I work out, especially since I don't really eat after around 7:00 PM; that's about 14 hours fasted from the night before (with sleeping) which I'd prefer not to do.
It's not absorbed that quickly. Isolate is about 90 minutes to really start breaking down (minus the sugar/fat in it). Hydrolysate is around 60 minutes to start. (Hydrolysate gets fully absorbed in a few hours) It's still more useful for after the workout, as you won't get access to any of it during the workout (but you will be sated).
If you're doing morning workouts and need to eat, some BCAA and a little carbs is the way to go. Creatine seems to work *slightly* better after the workout, but that's definitely a "per person" situation.
|
On February 01 2014 08:25 MtlGuitarist97 wrote:
Hm so I'm thinking about starting to take whey. I don't get enough calories in each day which is kind of an issue (I get enough for maintenance but not that much of a surplus), and I was thinking about making my shakes into milkshakes to get extra calories + improve taste. Any recommendations for whey that's not too pricey and if this is an advisable idea?
Whey is a good way to get extra protein if you dont have time, and I know some people would just recommend it to be added period (unless you have some sort of negative reaction to it). As for brand, I recommend ON Gold Standard
|
On February 01 2014 22:10 Najda wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2014 08:25 MtlGuitarist97 wrote:
Hm so I'm thinking about starting to take whey. I don't get enough calories in each day which is kind of an issue (I get enough for maintenance but not that much of a surplus), and I was thinking about making my shakes into milkshakes to get extra calories + improve taste. Any recommendations for whey that's not too pricey and if this is an advisable idea? Whey is a good way to get extra protein if you dont have time, and I know some people would just recommend it to be added period (unless you have some sort of negative reaction to it). As for brand, I recommend ON Gold Standard
Cool. Should I bother looking into the more complicated stuff (BCAA for example) or is it enough just to be taking it at this stage in my lifting?
|
For brand of protein, Jamie from Chaos and Pain just did a write up on quality brands a couple weeks ago. Go look for it on his blog (NSFW).
Most supplements are pointless for 99% of people. I wouldn't worry about BCAA.
|
On February 01 2014 22:44 phyre112 wrote:
For brand of protein, Jamie from Chaos and Pain just did a write up on quality brands a couple weeks ago. Go look for it on his blog (NSFW).
Most supplements are pointless for 99% of people. I wouldn't worry about BCAA.
That spreadsheet's pretty useful. The ON protein is by no means the cheapest, but it seems to have a decent taste and not be too overpriced (it has no fillers or anything), so I'll probably end up going with it. There are ones with less carbs that cost less, but to me it's not that big of a deal since it's minimal and I'm not competing for bodybuilding. Thanks for the help.
|
On January 22 2014 12:22 phyre112 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2014 09:13 Najda wrote:
I remember reading an article recently about how high fructose corn syrup gets a bad reputation for no real reason and has identical chemical makeup to regular sugar. I tried looking for where I read this information and I'll edit it if I can find it, so I have no idea how reputable the information was or if I'm even remembering it right. If I remember right, It's got a higher percentage of fructose relative to glucose than "normal" sugar, which is the major difference - hence the name. Fructose is metabolized through a slightly different pathway, with some slightly less desirable side-products. Its negative effects as far as weightlifting are concerned mostly deal with the fact that it doesn't restore muscle glycogen, only liver glycogen, so it's pretty much the most empty calorie you can get. That's really all there is to it. Again, this is if I'm remembering right... last time I looked this all up was in that 2 year ago period where everything is starting to get a bit hazy.
People do need to understand that sugar is sugar is sugar. Though fructose does not have an identical chemical makeup to "regular" or table sugar, it is one of the components. Table sugar is glucose (6 carbon sugar) and fructose (5 carbon sugar). Originally, it was thought fructose could be used as a low-calorie sweetener in pure form because it has very low biological availability--unfortunately this resulted in some nasty GI issues as the bacteria in the large intestine had fun with it. It was discovered that when combined with even small amounts of glucose it is absorbed near-completely and there we have HFCS, which happens to be a cheaper alternative to table sugar.
Saying that it doesn't restore muscle glycogen is completely false if you take a step back and look at higher orders of metabolism. Fructose enters the gluconeogenic pathway in the liver and is released into the blood as glucose.
|
On February 05 2014 04:16 -VapidSlug- wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2014 12:22 phyre112 wrote:On January 22 2014 09:13 Najda wrote:
I remember reading an article recently about how high fructose corn syrup gets a bad reputation for no real reason and has identical chemical makeup to regular sugar. I tried looking for where I read this information and I'll edit it if I can find it, so I have no idea how reputable the information was or if I'm even remembering it right. If I remember right, It's got a higher percentage of fructose relative to glucose than "normal" sugar, which is the major difference - hence the name. Fructose is metabolized through a slightly different pathway, with some slightly less desirable side-products. Its negative effects as far as weightlifting are concerned mostly deal with the fact that it doesn't restore muscle glycogen, only liver glycogen, so it's pretty much the most empty calorie you can get. That's really all there is to it. Again, this is if I'm remembering right... last time I looked this all up was in that 2 year ago period where everything is starting to get a bit hazy. People do need to understand that sugar is sugar is sugar. Though fructose does not have an identical chemical makeup to "regular" or table sugar, it is one of the components. Table sugar is glucose (6 carbon sugar) and fructose (5 carbon sugar). Originally, it was thought fructose could be used as a low-calorie sweetener in pure form because it has very low biological availability--unfortunately this resulted in some nasty GI issues as the bacteria in the large intestine had fun with it. It was discovered that when combined with even small amounts of glucose it is absorbed near-completely and there we have HFCS, which happens to be a cheaper alternative to table sugar. Saying that it doesn't restore muscle glycogen is completely false if you take a step back and look at higher orders of metabolism. Fructose enters the gluconeogenic pathway in the liver and is released into the blood as glucose.
Doesn't it do so inefficiently though? I remember hearing in a Ben Pakulski video that if fruit is your main source of carbs this is bad, in part because fructose isn't too efficient at restoring muscle glycogen.
|
On February 05 2014 05:14 NeedsmoreCELLTECH wrote:
Doesn't it do so inefficiently though? I remember hearing in a Ben Pakulski video that if fruit is your main source of carbs this is bad, in part because fructose isn't too efficient at restoring muscle glycogen.
No, efficiency is not the problem here. Consumption of a large amout of HFCS will spike your blood glucose levels (through gluconeogenesis) all the same as consuming a large amout of table sugar. Fruits are packed with simple sugars. In general, any time you are consuming simple carbohydrates (sugars) in place of the complex, it is a bad thing for your metabolism as it is absorbed quickly and spikes blood glucose. Oddly enough, when this happens, it causes an oversecretion of insulin and a corresponding plummet in glucose levels (the "sugar crash"). The sugar crash is mainly responsible for the problems associated with exercise as it is impossible to perform at any appreciable intensity. The levels of both glucose and insulin tend to go through several alternating phases of peak/trough before eventualy finding peace. I guess, in short, the glycemic index of your carbohydrates is infinitely more important than if it is a pentose or hexose.
There are interesting things you can do with simple sugars, though. One is to time sugar consumption for post-workout recovery along with protein because the insulin spike also stimulates amino acid uptake. Last I read (years ago, could have changed) the perfect ratio was about 4g sugar per g protein.
|
On February 05 2014 06:35 -VapidSlug- wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2014 05:14 NeedsmoreCELLTECH wrote:
Doesn't it do so inefficiently though? I remember hearing in a Ben Pakulski video that if fruit is your main source of carbs this is bad, in part because fructose isn't too efficient at restoring muscle glycogen. There are interesting things you can do with simple sugars, though. One is to time sugar consumption for post-workout recovery along with protein because the insulin spike also stimulates amino acid uptake. Last I read (years ago, could have changed) the perfect ratio was about 4g sugar per g protein.
a la chocolate milk
|
On February 05 2014 06:35 -VapidSlug- wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2014 05:14 NeedsmoreCELLTECH wrote:
Doesn't it do so inefficiently though? I remember hearing in a Ben Pakulski video that if fruit is your main source of carbs this is bad, in part because fructose isn't too efficient at restoring muscle glycogen. Fruits are packed with simple sugars. In general, any time you are consuming simple carbohydrates (sugars) in place of the complex, it is a bad thing for your metabolism as it is absorbed quickly and spikes blood glucose. Oddly enough, when this happens, it causes an oversecretion of insulin and a corresponding plummet in glucose levels (the "sugar crash").
Recently I had a blood test shortly after eating 500kCal in fruit calories. That's 120g of sugars. My glucose came out at 5.2mmol/L. How? Where was my spike?
|
I eat around three or four raw fruits every day. Is that too much? Is there a better way for me to get sugars into my system? And how should I time them?
|
On February 01 2014 17:26 randommuch wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2014 11:15 ieatkids5 wrote:On February 01 2014 09:58 randommuch wrote:While he may have spewed mostly crap, he did have at least one point I think everyone should realize. SjPhotoGrapher wrote:
The foods on the lowest end of the food chain are also the most mineral dense and healthiest foods to eat which are the fruits, nuts, seeds, grains, legumes, etc.
You have to remember, the foods that come directly from earth are of the highest quality so getting your Omega's and CoQ10 a long with other enzymes is much better from vegetables than meat since you're not ingesting all of the waste that the meat has in it As long as you have the funds and access to a wide variety of fruits/veggies/nuts/grains and can tolerate not eating meat, I'm sure your body would thank you in the long run. This is a general nutrition thread anyway, not everyone here is about body building. I personally try to avoid meat even though it tastes heavenly and so far so good. I've dropped a lot of fat but at the same time continue to do the same amount of cardio and lifts and well, it works for me, maybe others may like non-meat diets more. It's all personal preference on how you want to feel. Besides, meat acts as a carcinogen (or mutagen, I don't remember which exactly), but so does burnt toast  ... Do you have sources to back that up? There is a lot of evidence in the OP that suggests that eating a diet of non-processed meat in addition to the foods you mentioned is healthier than the same diet without the meat. On February 01 2014 10:36 XXXSmOke wrote:On January 11 2014 15:12 Catch wrote:
Doctors have no place giving solid nutritional advice. Cardiologists either, as far as I know. If you were even around the medical field at all, you would know this.
The only thing to trust are studies, and even then very carefully.
The human body is a science. If you're not going to post scientific material, then your argument has no base. Simply saying "40-50% longer" has no merit. Lets see the studies that say that. Lets see the studies that say animal protein is bad, cholesterol is bad, greens are the end all be all. Lets see recent ones (5 years maximum).
I don't see why you are still arguing. You obviously don't want to change your mind or at least look at the evidence. Ieatkids posted 10+ studies, while you rely on here-say, one of the most dangerous routes to take in the medical field. The problem is most studies are now funded by the food companies........ Real honest right????? That's why he said The only thing to trust are studies, and even then very carefully. If you're referring to the carcinogens in meat I was lookin around on pubmed http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15199546http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24168237As for specifically non-processed meats, my professor was ranting last week about a recent study showing evidence that even non-processed meats aint as great as we thought. I'll see if I can bug her about it and get the site. I think there's also something about heavy metals building up in animals, particularly the liver, (someone was talking earlier bout eating liver), that can cause toxicity issues in your later years. Not the U.S. but still, animals have issues getting rid certain things. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1687428512000040Oh, and the burnt toast thing. http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/acrylamide-in-foodOr just google acrylamide. Cancer and toxicity issues aren't quick killers so in all honesty you should really eat what makes you feel good, sort of the point I was making earlier but I was more speaking out of just personal experience with friends and myself. Some people feel a lot better when they are on non-meat diets  .
Thanks for posting those links. Interesting stuff.
Things to note:
- it's only for substantial amounts of red or preserved meats.
- cancer related compounds (like NOCs and others mentioned in the abstract) were only significant in processed meats and meats cooked at high temperatures
- i couldn't find any numbers for "substantial amounts" and "high temperatures" so we'll just have to use good judgment in figuring out our diets
- second study found possible association between substantial amounts of red meat and colon cancer because of certain mutagens, but those same mutagens present in white meat was not linked with colon cancer. not sure what to make of this, but if i guess if one is really paranoid, he can just stick to fish and white meat...
but yeah, i agree that we should just eat whatever makes us feel good. and to try out many different diets to see how each one affects you.
|
|
|
I'm glad to say I consume 4/5 of these on a regular basis :D
|
5/5 get on my level 
|
On February 07 2014 17:37 ieatkids5 wrote:5/5 get on my level
I don't even know how to use coconut oil, lol.
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
On February 07 2014 20:16 MtlGuitarist97 wrote:I don't even know how to use coconut oil, lol.
Smear it all over your body.
|
On February 07 2014 20:20 marvellosity wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2014 20:16 MtlGuitarist97 wrote:On February 07 2014 17:37 ieatkids5 wrote:5/5 get on my level I don't even know how to use coconut oil, lol. Smear it all over your body.
Oh I think I'm using butter wrong too then.
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
The greater the skin area applied to, the better the absorption of nutrients.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
