Voice Cat LLC & voice-cat.com

ounce wrote:

nkrichards wrote:Thanks for sharing your race report Doug.  It's always interesting to know how others feel and react to the tough spots in a race.  Nice splits overall.  Not a huge fade at the end...you held it together pretty well!  I'm impressed.

Doesn't your body struggle to adjust to such a big swing in your diet.  I know mine would.

Your comments about Proximate Cause are very interesting.  I often wonder if Dr B is recommending statins because he really believes in them or because it's what he's supposed to do.  We've had some discussions and at this point I am taking the statins but at a lower 20mg dose.  I have very mixed feelings.  I would definitely not be taking them if my cholesterol was at the levels it was had I not had a cardiac event.  At this point we're trying to prevent my vulnerable plaque from breaking lose again.  We're not really trying to control the cholesterol levels.  There is so much contradictory information available that I don't know what to believe.  Apparently there is a significantly increased risk of a second event during the 12 months following the first cardiac event.  I plan to have a frank discussion with Dr B about medications after that 12 months is up when I see him on March 1st to discuss appropriate goals moving forward.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this sort of stuff.  You've provided information and/or questions that have been very valuable and thought provoking.

Mark B wrote:He's back to running! Woot!

I wonder if your lack of post-race pain was related to your new cadence. Faster turnover means less chance you're pile-driving those feet into the ground every step. Of course, it could just be improved fitness.

Didn't know you had "vunerable plaque." How is that diagnosed, short of having an experience like Nancy's?

I wanted to run on Sunday, but the Force wasn't within.

I really don't know why I didn't have much post-race or even late in the race pain, other than just blocking it out, which doesn't usually work for me.  Maybe there's more 'power' in the word "work" than I thought.  It also could be that I was concentrating on not wobbling as much, too.

It's an assumption on the vulnerable plaque, Mark.  If Nancy as a BQ runner has vulnerable plaque, then Miche1e has it, you have it and I certainly have it.  I probably have the greatest amount.  I don't believe it's the kind of thing that goes away naturally, either.

Found this, which goes into more detail than I imagined.  http://www.ihimontanafoundation.org/Heart_Information/Heart_Conditions/Vulnerable_Plaque

This link says a lot of the same things http://www.texasheart.org/HIC/Topics/Cond/vulplaq.cfm

Thanks for the links Doug.  I hadn't found those yet and they explained things better than some that I read earlier. 

I wouldn't assume that you have vulnerable plaque...some maybe but not to the point of concern.  Apparently it is more common in women and it is a genetic thing.  Did I mention that I had an uncle who died of a massive heart attack at the age of 58...and had his first heart attack in his 30's.  Of course then they didn't have the technology to figure out the details so we can't be sure it was from vulnerable plaque.

I think the main thing I need to do is try and control inflammation as that seems to be the biggest trigger.

I messaged Dr. B and let him know I wasn't able to read the test results online.  He apologized for the glitch and indicated there wasn't anything concerning in the results.  I'll talk to him on March 1st and will find out more then.

Good to hear you're recovering well and already back running a bit.

nkrichards wrote:

ounce wrote:

nkrichards wrote:Thanks for sharing your race report Doug.  It's always interesting to know how others feel and react to the tough spots in a race.  Nice splits overall.  Not a huge fade at the end...you held it together pretty well!  I'm impressed.

Doesn't your body struggle to adjust to such a big swing in your diet.  I know mine would.

Your comments about Proximate Cause are very interesting.  I often wonder if Dr B is recommending statins because he really believes in them or because it's what he's supposed to do.  We've had some discussions and at this point I am taking the statins but at a lower 20mg dose.  I have very mixed feelings.  I would definitely not be taking them if my cholesterol was at the levels it was had I not had a cardiac event.  At this point we're trying to prevent my vulnerable plaque from breaking lose again.  We're not really trying to control the cholesterol levels.  There is so much contradictory information available that I don't know what to believe.  Apparently there is a significantly increased risk of a second event during the 12 months following the first cardiac event.  I plan to have a frank discussion with Dr B about medications after that 12 months is up when I see him on March 1st to discuss appropriate goals moving forward.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this sort of stuff.  You've provided information and/or questions that have been very valuable and thought provoking.

Mark B wrote:He's back to running! Woot!

I wonder if your lack of post-race pain was related to your new cadence. Faster turnover means less chance you're pile-driving those feet into the ground every step. Of course, it could just be improved fitness.

Didn't know you had "vunerable plaque." How is that diagnosed, short of having an experience like Nancy's?

I wanted to run on Sunday, but the Force wasn't within.

I really don't know why I didn't have much post-race or even late in the race pain, other than just blocking it out, which doesn't usually work for me.  Maybe there's more 'power' in the word "work" than I thought.  It also could be that I was concentrating on not wobbling as much, too.

It's an assumption on the vulnerable plaque, Mark.  If Nancy as a BQ runner has vulnerable plaque, then Miche1e has it, you have it and I certainly have it.  I probably have the greatest amount.  I don't believe it's the kind of thing that goes away naturally, either.

Found this, which goes into more detail than I imagined.  http://www.ihimontanafoundation.org/Heart_Information/Heart_Conditions/Vulnerable_Plaque

This link says a lot of the same things http://www.texasheart.org/HIC/Topics/Cond/vulplaq.cfm

Thanks for the links Doug.  I hadn't found those yet and they explained things better than some that I read earlier. 

I wouldn't assume that you have vulnerable plaque...some maybe but not to the point of concern.  Apparently it is more common in women and it is a genetic thing.  Did I mention that I had an uncle who died of a massive heart attack at the age of 58...and had his first heart attack in his 30's.  Of course then they didn't have the technology to figure out the details so we can't be sure it was from vulnerable plaque.

I think the main thing I need to do is try and control inflammation as that seems to be the biggest trigger.

I messaged Dr. B and let him know I wasn't able to read the test results online.  He apologized for the glitch and indicated there wasn't anything concerning in the results.  I'll talk to him on March 1st and will find out more then.

Good to hear you're recovering well and already back running a bit.

Well, it just seems that if you had it, then I have it.  I'm not worried about it because if a chunk breaks off in the wrong place, then it's "Goodbye, world and Hello, Heaven!"  I think there's a CT, PET scan or MRI scan called "slice 60" that looks at the veins and arteries for plaque.  Maybe this vulnerable plaque is like a sand bar in a river, where the water (blood) just goes around it as long as the sand doesn't build up too much.

I'm surprised the recovery is as painless as it's been.  I think the lighter running schedule in the many weeks prior to the race did not tear up the fibers as much.  Thanks, Nancy.

Well, I was just checking in to see how recovery was going.  I was thinking of you when I was working out today with my trainer and we were talking about HF/LC diets.

Michele \"1L" Keane wrote:Well, I was just checking in to see how recovery was going.  I was thinking of you when I was working out today with my trainer and we were talking about HF/LC diets.

Aw, shucks.  Thanks, Miche1e.  Since you brought up LC/HF, when I was lurking the Javelina Jundred FB group trying to get a feel for the race and the mood.  After the race, I was really interested in the race reports.  One piqued my interest because this guy finished 11th in the 100 mile run (3rd Masters) at a 12:20 pace and he does LC/HF, or more correctly Nutritional Ketosis, also called the Ketogenic Diet.  But LC/HF or HF/LC is getting the tag word for anything not the normal diet.

I knew the guy does LC/HF because one of the fueling methods during the race he used was Vespa.  And Vespa is one of the main re-fueling juice used by ultra and triathletes that do LC/HF.
http://ajwellman.blogspot.com/2015/11/javelina-jalloween-jundred-2015-race.html

This other report about JJ100 was from a friend of the above report.  This guy finished 27th in the 100 mile race.  He goes into his history with LC/HF, specifically his friend that finished 11th turned this guy on to LC/HF.  Plus, in the first sentence, he mentions the meal the night before was a 'couple of fatty meals...'  That was a dead giveaway.
http://ajwellman.blogspot.com/2015/11/javelina-jundred-100-race-report-jon.html

Everybody has to make their own decision about it.  But even you, Miche1e, have enough fat stores in your body to be fueled by ketones for a long, long, long race.

Slightly related, I enjoy needling Hal on FB whenever he espouses how necessary carbs are to fuel a race, by me mentioning how I've finished (now) 3 marathons without carbs.  I think he mentioned it the afternoon of the Houston Marathon, 11 days ago.

Well, I don't deliberately follow a LC diet, but I don't ingest the majority of my carbs as the typical bagels, bread and/or pasta.  Instead I get most of mine from fruits and vegetables.   My occasional traditional carbs being brown rice or another grain like farro or quinoa (both which are a decent protein source as well).  I have become "leaner" as a result and I had my body fat tested at 14% just the other day.  I was surprised as it was 20% when I left Atlanta.  My only vice is that I do enjoy the occasional beer and a good glass (or two) of red wine.  I rarely eat pasta now and my meal of choice the night before a marathon is salmon with a green veggie and rice.  If no rice is available, I have some potato.  I often run my long runs in a depleted state as well.   

Anyway, Jake follows a LC diet with moderate fats (like myself), but he was looking into experimenting with the LC/HF diet.  Not sure how it will affect his lifestyle, but he is more into fitness - strength, stretching and mixed cardio (he runs some, bike some, does HIIT) - than just a specific routine.  I'll keep you posted on what he discovers.  

As for myself, I'm just a bit reluctant to go all out to the HF end - but I do ingest my fat in the form of good fats - olive oil, avocados.

I have a friend here who uses a LC diet (not sure about the other) that had a lot of success running over a 3-yr span, but recently, his performances have really dropped off.  This, of course, may be due to a number of factors including overtraining and overracing, but who knows.  He is my age, and age factors in, but not to this degree.  I follow along with his exploits as well.  

Glad to know recovery is going well.

You're in the beginning stages of being fat adapted, now.  Depending on your percentage of carbs and fat to the total grams, it probably wouldn't take much to 'put you over the edge.'  If you're feeling fueled for a long run or race, then it's working for you now.

To quantify how many fat calories you presently have, let's say you weigh 100 pounds, which means you have 14 pounds of fat, presently.  If you run a 100 mile race, then at 150 calories per mile (the average burn is 100 calories per mile).  So, you burn 15,000 calories in the race.

14 pounds * 3,500 calories per pound = 49,000 calories in your body or 30.6% of your fat stores.

Jake should find that the body will take the path of least resistance when looking for energy to burn.  Should his lowered carb stores be too few to supply, the body will turn to fat.  The longer the body has been burning fat, the easier it is to maintain the body's focus on burning fat, so there's no drop in processing the fat.  He may not need to consume much more fat to burn fat exclusively.  Everyone's a little different in how much fat it takes to get into nutritional ketosis.

I suppose then when I run depleted (like tomorrow when I will run 15-16 without ingesting any carbs before or during - only Nuun) I'm approaching "fat burning" and that was/is the goal.

Michele \"1L" Keane wrote:I suppose then when I run depleted (like tomorrow when I will run 15-16 without ingesting any carbs before or during - only Nuun) I'm approaching "fat burning" and that was/is the goal.

I would say that if you run 15-16 tomorrow with no troubles, then you are fat adapted or fat adapted enough for your body.  Troubles would be defined as bonking. 

Anything that you ingest during the run would not be able to get to your legs as glycogen to fuel your body.  It will scoot right up to your head to give you some clarity.

ounce wrote:

Michele \"1L" Keane wrote:I suppose then when I run depleted (like tomorrow when I will run 15-16 without ingesting any carbs before or during - only Nuun) I'm approaching "fat burning" and that was/is the goal.

I would say that if you run 15-16 tomorrow with no troubles, then you are fat adapted or fat adapted enough for your body.  Troubles would be defined as bonking. 

Anything that you ingest during the run would not be able to get to your legs as glycogen to fuel your body.  It will scoot right up to your head to give you some clarity.

Oh, and welcome to the Dark Side.

Michele \"1L" Keane wrote:Well, I don't deliberately follow a LC diet, but I don't ingest the majority of my carbs as the typical bagels, bread and/or pasta.  Instead I get most of mine from fruits and vegetables.   My occasional traditional carbs being brown rice or another grain like farro or quinoa (both which are a decent protein source as well).  I have become "leaner" as a result and I had my body fat tested at 14% just the other day.  I was surprised as it was 20% when I left Atlanta.  My only vice is that I do enjoy the occasional beer and a good glass (or two) of red wine.  I rarely eat pasta now and my meal of choice the night before a marathon is salmon with a green veggie and rice.  If no rice is available, I have some potato.  I often run my long runs in a depleted state as well.   

Anyway, Jake follows a LC diet with moderate fats (like myself), but he was looking into experimenting with the LC/HF diet.  Not sure how it will affect his lifestyle, but he is more into fitness - strength, stretching and mixed cardio (he runs some, bike some, does HIIT) - than just a specific routine.  I'll keep you posted on what he discovers.  

As for myself, I'm just a bit reluctant to go all out to the HF end - but I do ingest my fat in the form of good fats - olive oil, avocados.

I have a friend here who uses a LC diet (not sure about the other) that had a lot of success running over a 3-yr span, but recently, his performances have really dropped off.  This, of course, may be due to a number of factors including overtraining and over racing, but who knows.  He is my age, and age factors in, but not to this degree.  I follow along with his exploits as well.  

Glad to know recovery is going well.

That's the diet I'd like to be able to say I followed.  I'm close but Marty insists we have red meat more often than we probably should.  We have cut down the frequency and portions significantly though.  We also use butter but I watch the portions.  I guess we would be closer to a HF diet except for the fact that our granddaughters are learning to bake.

Like Michele I try and lean towards a LC diet and I'm not concerned about fats especially the good fats but I'm not ready to go all in.  I haven't tried running in a carb depleted state...at least not on purpose.

And 14% body fat is impressive!!  No wonder she's so fast!!

Ok, Doug (and Nancy), I ran 16 miles with only Nuun for fluid.  No food prior to the run in the morning, only water.  Last time I had eaten (before the run) was at 7 PM Friday night where I had two bowls of spicy shrimp soup that I made (shrimp, tomatoes, chicken broth, a bit of farro, fresh spinach, carrots, shallots, garlic and spices) without bread or crackers and a glass of red wine (plus water).  I felt good the entire run.  Pace was very easy averaging 9:54 for the entire 16, but mostly because of the light layer of snow and ice that covered about 70% of the all purpose trail in the metropark.  I was surprised to actually see the snow and ice since we have none right on the lake.  Typical CLE wind (16-18 mph) but it was sunny and warmer (30F at the start, 36F by the finish) than its been.

Do I qualify as fat burning Doug???  I had chocolate milk and an egg & cheese wrap when I finished - so some definite carbs there!

Doug's the expert, but it seems to me that if you managed 16 miles on just nuun and water without a bonk, you did very well and are using fat as a fuel source. It probably helped that you kept a moderate pace, since revving too high can put more demands on the "I want sugars" system. Good work!

I've moved away from fueling during runs, as well. I haven't gone as long as Michele yet, but I'm getting there. My diet is less LC at the moment, however, so that factors in, too.

Michele \"1L" Keane wrote:Ok, Doug (and Nancy), I ran 16 miles with only Nuun for fluid.  No food prior to the run in the morning, only water.  Last time I had eaten (before the run) was at 7 PM Friday night where I had two bowls of spicy shrimp soup that I made (shrimp, tomatoes, chicken broth, a bit of farro, fresh spinach, carrots, shallots, garlic and spices) without bread or crackers and a glass of red wine (plus water).  I felt good the entire run.  Pace was very easy averaging 9:54 for the entire 16, but mostly because of the light layer of snow and ice that covered about 70% of the all purpose trail in the metropark.  I was surprised to actually see the snow and ice since we have none right on the lake.  Typical CLE wind (16-18 mph) but it was sunny and warmer (30F at the start, 36F by the finish) than its been.

Do I qualify as fat burning Doug???  I had chocolate milk and an egg & cheese wrap when I finished - so some definite carbs there!

Yes!  And yes on the carbs there, but on a run longer than 15, I'll splurge on something carb related as a reward, like grape jam on toast or something or maybe a burger.

To further the experiment, I would recommend that you eat exactly like you've been eating until your next longer than 15 run and see how that works. 

From personal experience, I know that if I've not been faithful to HF/LC for a week or two, that I will not be burning fat and have too few carbs to fuel a long run.  Then it takes me two weeks to get back to burning ketones on a run.  So, if you have enough time in your training to try being off of carbs for a week, then see how far you can run, then you can tweak your blending of carbs and fat as a result.

The therapeutic range for Nutritional Ketosis (fat burning) is 0.5-3.0 mmol/ml of blood ketones.  I can be fine on a long run if I just have anything above 0.1 mmol/ml of blood ketones.  What I don't know is do I need a higher blood ketone level to run an ultra or a triathlon to maintain good fat burning.

If your present eating habits continue to support your running like it did today, be sure to eat that way 2 weeks before Boston or a duathlon, if it's before Boston.  As a defensive measure, I will eat a PB&J, chips, and milk on the night before the race, so my intestines are together.  That amount of carbs that close to the race will not affect the fueling formula.

Mark B wrote:Doug's the expert, but it seems to me that if you managed 16 miles on just nuun and water without a bonk, you did very well and are using fat as a fuel source. It probably helped that you kept a moderate pace, since revving too high can put more demands on the "I want sugars" system. Good work!

I've moved away from fueling during runs, as well. I haven't gone as long as Michele yet, but I'm getting there. My diet is less LC at the moment, however, so that factors in, too.

I think Miche1e would have to do a full blown sprint for a while before she'd bonk.  LC/HF is not recommended for sprinters like 100m, 200m or 4x100m relay because the fats can't be broken down fast enough to burn, as it takes one extra step to prepare ketones for burning.

As far as your change in diet...Et tu, Mark?

ounce wrote:

Mark B wrote:Doug's the expert, but it seems to me that if you managed 16 miles on just nuun and water without a bonk, you did very well and are using fat as a fuel source. It probably helped that you kept a moderate pace, since revving too high can put more demands on the "I want sugars" system. Good work!

I've moved away from fueling during runs, as well. I haven't gone as long as Michele yet, but I'm getting there. My diet is less LC at the moment, however, so that factors in, too.

I think Miche1e would have to do a full blown sprint for a while before she'd bonk.  LC/HF is not recommended for sprinters like 100m, 200m or 4x100m relay because the fats can't be broken down fast enough to burn, as it takes one extra step to prepare ketones for burning.

As far as your change in diet...Et tu, Mark?

Well, I already cut out coffee, so why not?

Okay, I'm not exactly "all in" - but I'm trying to figure out what works for me digestively. The training effect is only a secondary consideration at this point. I'm eating more fruit and trying to at least somewhat limit processed food.

So when you say "like I've been eating" - I assume that you mean for me to get my "carbs" from fruits and veggie rather than traditional sources.  Hopefully the small amount of farro (which is kind of like quinoa) was ok. That and the wine, of course.

Mark B wrote:

ounce wrote:

Mark B wrote:Doug's the expert, but it seems to me that if you managed 16 miles on just nuun and water without a bonk, you did very well and are using fat as a fuel source. It probably helped that you kept a moderate pace, since revving too high can put more demands on the "I want sugars" system. Good work!

I've moved away from fueling during runs, as well. I haven't gone as long as Michele yet, but I'm getting there. My diet is less LC at the moment, however, so that factors in, too.

I think Miche1e would have to do a full blown sprint for a while before she'd bonk.  LC/HF is not recommended for sprinters like 100m, 200m or 4x100m relay because the fats can't be broken down fast enough to burn, as it takes one extra step to prepare ketones for burning.

As far as your change in diet...Et tu, Mark?

Well, I already cut out coffee, so why not?

Okay, I'm not exactly "all in" - but I'm trying to figure out what works for me digestively. The training effect is only a secondary consideration at this point. I'm eating more fruit and trying to at least somewhat limit processed food.

Neither one of y'all are as deep into as I, but maybe y'all don't need to be.

Michele \"1L" Keane wrote:So when you say "like I've been eating" - I assume that you mean for me to get my "carbs" from fruits and veggie rather than traditional sources.  Hopefully the small amount of farro (which is kind of like quinoa) was ok. That and the wine, of course.

"...like I've been eating" means to not change anything that you've eaten for when you run 18 or 20 or both because if you change a couple of things and you bonk, you won't really know which of the couple of things or the food eaten for the 16 mile run caused the bonk at 18 or 20.

As you explained your new menu of food, it seemed odd that you hadn't bonked because you're probably eating more than 50 grams of carbs, but less than 100 or so.  I consume less than 20 grams of carbs, sometimes 6 grams.  So, maybe you can fudge that much and not bonk, which is great for you!

Y'all watch your salt intake because eating whole foods will leave you salt depleted.  Processed foods have a bunch of sodium.  I say this because I get dizzy when I don't ingest enough.  IN the cool weather, I'll take 1/4 tsp of salt in the morning.  When training in cooler weather, I'll take 1/4 tsp salt, twice a day.  In the summer, 1/2 tsp twice a day.  Once, I took a 1/4 tsp dry.  Y-y-y-y-y-yuck!

Since this is the diet blog...

My daughter loaned me a book "Why we get fat and what to do about it" by Gary Taubes.  It's an interesting read.  He's definitely on the LC side of things.  I haven't finished it yet but he essentially says that the high glycemic carbs raise our insulin levels which cause our bodies to store fat and keep it locked up.  That is what makes us gain weight.  He claims that overeating and inactivity are the symptoms of obesity...not the cause.  Because our bodies stored the energy from the food we ate as fat we don't have enough energy in our system so we either have to eat more or we lack the energy to be active.  He claims it's not a matter of will power and that our bodies are in charge of how much we eat and our energy levels.  There is more to it than that obviously but he's definitely on the LC side and has some good arguments.

Now what am I going to do with the half of a birthday cake that was left over from Marty's 60th birthday celebration.

nkrichards wrote:Since this is the diet blog...

My daughter loaned me a book "Why we get fat and what to do about it" by Gary Taubes.  It's an interesting read.  He's definitely on the LC side of things.  I haven't finished it yet but he essentially says that the high glycemic carbs raise our insulin levels which cause our bodies to store fat and keep it locked up.  That is what makes us gain weight.  He claims that overeating and inactivity are the symptoms of obesity...not the cause.  Because our bodies stored the energy from the food we ate as fat we don't have enough energy in our system so we either have to eat more or we lack the energy to be active.  He claims it's not a matter of will power and that our bodies are in charge of how much we eat and our energy levels.  There is more to it than that obviously but he's definitely on the LC side and has some good arguments.

Now what am I going to do with the half of a birthday cake that was left over from Marty's 60th birthday celebration.

Yes, eating lots of carbs raises insulin insensitivity.  An easy way to boil all the information down to one sentence would be:  What would a diabetic eat?  Western diets are addicted to sugar.  Sugar has all of the characteristics of a drug.  Sugar cravings, tough to break the habit, lots of satisfaction when sugar is eaten, etc.  If you train your brain that you need sugar, you'll feed it sweets.  I read where HFCS, when consumed, doesn't ever trigger the brain that it's full and to stop consuming.  Sugar does have that off switch. 

Carbs are probably the least needed of the three macronutrients:  Fat, protein, and carbohydrates.  When I started LC/HF in 2013, I found that I have to have 6 grams of carbs so that my thyroid functions because when I had a period of eating zero carbs for a few days, the reaction was related to the thyroid not getting any carbs.

I also learned that if I eat more than 35 grams of protein a day (0.35 pounds of a meat...like a can of tuna), the excess is converted to sugar, then fat.  Even during marathon training, it's 35 a day unless I run an 18+ long run, then I can have another 35-40 grams of protein.

Very slowly, will power is being discounted as a method of weight loss.  Very slowly.  Jonathan Bailor mentioned this 3 years ago. 

South African doctor Tim Noakes, who wrote "Waterlogged" and is diabetic, is a proponent of LC/HF because he has to.

It's interesting to me that LC/HF is slowly becoming accepted, in spite of people who think they'll die if they don't get a carb and will keel over from a heart attack if they eat a full fat something.

ounce wrote:

nkrichards wrote:Since this is the diet blog...

My daughter loaned me a book "Why we get fat and what to do about it" by Gary Taubes.  It's an interesting read.  He's definitely on the LC side of things.  I haven't finished it yet but he essentially says that the high glycemic carbs raise our insulin levels which cause our bodies to store fat and keep it locked up.  That is what makes us gain weight.  He claims that overeating and inactivity are the symptoms of obesity...not the cause.  Because our bodies stored the energy from the food we ate as fat we don't have enough energy in our system so we either have to eat more or we lack the energy to be active.  He claims it's not a matter of will power and that our bodies are in charge of how much we eat and our energy levels.  There is more to it than that obviously but he's definitely on the LC side and has some good arguments.

Now what am I going to do with the half of a birthday cake that was left over from Marty's 60th birthday celebration.

Yes, eating lots of carbs raises insulin insensitivity.  An easy way to boil all the information down to one sentence would be:  What would a diabetic eat?  Western diets are addicted to sugar.  Sugar has all of the characteristics of a drug.  Sugar cravings, tough to break the habit, lots of satisfaction when sugar is eaten, etc.  If you train your brain that you need sugar, you'll feed it sweets.  I read where HFCS, when consumed, doesn't ever trigger the brain that it's full and to stop consuming.  Sugar does have that off switch. 

Carbs are probably the least needed of the three macronutrients:  Fat, protein, and carbohydrates.  When I started LC/HF in 2013, I found that I have to have 6 grams of carbs so that my thyroid functions because when I had a period of eating zero carbs for a few days, the reaction was related to the thyroid not getting any carbs.

I also learned that if I eat more than 35 grams of protein a day (0.35 pounds of a meat...like a can of tuna), the excess is converted to sugar, then fat.  Even during marathon training, it's 35 a day unless I run an 18+ long run, then I can have another 35-40 grams of protein.

Very slowly, will power is being discounted as a method of weight loss.  Very slowly.  Jonathan Bailor mentioned this 3 years ago. 

South African doctor Tim Noakes, who wrote "Waterlogged" and is diabetic, is a proponent of LC/HF because he has to.

It's interesting to me that LC/HF is slowly becoming accepted, in spite of people who think they'll die if they don't get a carb and will keel over from a heart attack if they eat a full fat something.

Finished the book last night.  He got into the ketone discussion...in the context of weight loss but not running.  He mentioned a lot of the things you have talked about here.  Interesting to say the least.  I'm still not ready to completely go all in but I am willing to cut out some carbs...especially the processed sugar and flour.  Not sure I'm ready to give up my fruit or my corn and carrots or my milk.

So I guess for me the question is how much can/should I alter my diet and how will this affect my running?  If I'm still eating some carbs will by body switch to burning enough fat to sustain itself on long runs?  Sounds like Michele is doing that and doing it very well.

Oh...he also says this diet is more heart healthy also and gives some evidence to back up his claim.

A lot of what all y'all are talking about sounds like the basis behind the South Beach Diet. It was popular 10 years ago and focused on limited (and mostly low glycemic) carbs, tons of veggies and leaner meats, nuts and low-fat cheeses. It wasn't like Atkins, which was super-low carb and 15 pounds of bacon a day.

It worked extremely well for me at the time (I dropped nearly 50 pounds) but we haven't been able to figure out how to make it work on the weird schedules we have now. We still eat too much processed stuff. But we just got a slow cooker, and maybe we can figure out how to make that work for us. (Any good recipes?)

nkrichards wrote:

ounce wrote:

nkrichards wrote:Since this is the diet blog...

My daughter loaned me a book "Why we get fat and what to do about it" by Gary Taubes.  It's an interesting read.  He's definitely on the LC side of things.  I haven't finished it yet but he essentially says that the high glycemic carbs raise our insulin levels which cause our bodies to store fat and keep it locked up.  That is what makes us gain weight.  He claims that overeating and inactivity are the symptoms of obesity...not the cause.  Because our bodies stored the energy from the food we ate as fat we don't have enough energy in our system so we either have to eat more or we lack the energy to be active.  He claims it's not a matter of will power and that our bodies are in charge of how much we eat and our energy levels.  There is more to it than that obviously but he's definitely on the LC side and has some good arguments.

Now what am I going to do with the half of a birthday cake that was left over from Marty's 60th birthday celebration.

Yes, eating lots of carbs raises insulin insensitivity.  An easy way to boil all the information down to one sentence would be:  What would a diabetic eat?  Western diets are addicted to sugar.  Sugar has all of the characteristics of a drug.  Sugar cravings, tough to break the habit, lots of satisfaction when sugar is eaten, etc.  If you train your brain that you need sugar, you'll feed it sweets.  I read where HFCS, when consumed, doesn't ever trigger the brain that it's full and to stop consuming.  Sugar does have that off switch. 

Carbs are probably the least needed of the three macronutrients:  Fat, protein, and carbohydrates.  When I started LC/HF in 2013, I found that I have to have 6 grams of carbs so that my thyroid functions because when I had a period of eating zero carbs for a few days, the reaction was related to the thyroid not getting any carbs.

I also learned that if I eat more than 35 grams of protein a day (0.35 pounds of a meat...like a can of tuna), the excess is converted to sugar, then fat.  Even during marathon training, it's 35 a day unless I run an 18+ long run, then I can have another 35-40 grams of protein.

Very slowly, will power is being discounted as a method of weight loss.  Very slowly.  Jonathan Bailor mentioned this 3 years ago. 

South African doctor Tim Noakes, who wrote "Waterlogged" and is diabetic, is a proponent of LC/HF because he has to.

It's interesting to me that LC/HF is slowly becoming accepted, in spite of people who think they'll die if they don't get a carb and will keel over from a heart attack if they eat a full fat something.

Finished the book last night.  He got into the ketone discussion...in the context of weight loss but not running.  He mentioned a lot of the things you have talked about here.  Interesting to say the least.  I'm still not ready to completely go all in but I am willing to cut out some carbs...especially the processed sugar and flour.  Not sure I'm ready to give up my fruit or my corn and carrots or my milk.

So I guess for me the question is how much can/should I alter my diet and how will this affect my running?  If I'm still eating some carbs will by body switch to burning enough fat to sustain itself on long runs?  Sounds like Michele is doing that and doing it very well.

Oh...he also says this diet is more heart healthy also and gives some evidence to back up his claim.

Do you grow GMO corn?

It's hard to say how much you can change your diet.  Probably somewhere between Miche1e and myself.  It does appear she is doing well on a LC/Medium Fat regimen.  She still needs to test on a longer run, so she can be comfortable she can do it for Boston.  I think that she can.  It seems she can eat fruit without much negative effect, which is surprising to me because fruit has so many carbs in it.  It could be her system (fireplace) is so hot the sugar from fruit burns up very quickly.

All you can do is experiment.

Mark B wrote:A lot of what all y'all are talking about sounds like the basis behind the South Beach Diet. It was popular 10 years ago and focused on limited (and mostly low glycemic) carbs, tons of veggies and leaner meats, nuts and low-fat cheeses. It wasn't like Atkins, which was super-low carb and 15 pounds of bacon a day.

It worked extremely well for me at the time (I dropped nearly 50 pounds) but we haven't been able to figure out how to  make it work on the weird schedules we have now. We still eat too much processed stuff. But we just got a slow cooker, and maybe we can figure out how to make that work for us. (Any good recipes?)

I believe that was the Atkins induction phase that everyone remembers.  People in the low carb world are eating cauliflower like it's going out of style.  Cauliflower is being substituted for rice, mashed potatoes, potato salad, even pizza crust.  Of course, the texture is different, but if you can't eat rice or mashed potatoes, cauliflower is a great substitute.

There's nothing lean and low-fat in LC/HF.  People go to Wendy's and get a double baconator hamburger with lettuce replacing the buns and no fries.  You may want to check out Low Carb Zen for some recipes.  People make cherry cheesecake using sugar-free cherry jello.  Bullet proof coffee.  There's a replacement recipe for just about anything not LC/HF.  I know you're not leading that way, so since you're still willing to do flour and other stuff, let your fingers do the walking.

ounce wrote:

nkrichards wrote:

ounce wrote:

nkrichards wrote:Since this is the diet blog...

My daughter loaned me a book "Why we get fat and what to do about it" by Gary Taubes.  It's an interesting read.  He's definitely on the LC side of things.  I haven't finished it yet but he essentially says that the high glycemic carbs raise our insulin levels which cause our bodies to store fat and keep it locked up.  That is what makes us gain weight.  He claims that overeating and inactivity are the symptoms of obesity...not the cause.  Because our bodies stored the energy from the food we ate as fat we don't have enough energy in our system so we either have to eat more or we lack the energy to be active.  He claims it's not a matter of will power and that our bodies are in charge of how much we eat and our energy levels.  There is more to it than that obviously but he's definitely on the LC side and has some good arguments.

Now what am I going to do with the half of a birthday cake that was left over from Marty's 60th birthday celebration.

Yes, eating lots of carbs raises insulin insensitivity.  An easy way to boil all the information down to one sentence would be:  What would a diabetic eat?  Western diets are addicted to sugar.  Sugar has all of the characteristics of a drug.  Sugar cravings, tough to break the habit, lots of satisfaction when sugar is eaten, etc.  If you train your brain that you need sugar, you'll feed it sweets.  I read where HFCS, when consumed, doesn't ever trigger the brain that it's full and to stop consuming.  Sugar does have that off switch. 

Carbs are probably the least needed of the three macronutrients:  Fat, protein, and carbohydrates.  When I started LC/HF in 2013, I found that I have to have 6 grams of carbs so that my thyroid functions because when I had a period of eating zero carbs for a few days, the reaction was related to the thyroid not getting any carbs.

I also learned that if I eat more than 35 grams of protein a day (0.35 pounds of a meat...like a can of tuna), the excess is converted to sugar, then fat.  Even during marathon training, it's 35 a day unless I run an 18+ long run, then I can have another 35-40 grams of protein.

Very slowly, will power is being discounted as a method of weight loss.  Very slowly.  Jonathan Bailor mentioned this 3 years ago. 

South African doctor Tim Noakes, who wrote "Waterlogged" and is diabetic, is a proponent of LC/HF because he has to.

It's interesting to me that LC/HF is slowly becoming accepted, in spite of people who think they'll die if they don't get a carb and will keel over from a heart attack if they eat a full fat something.

Finished the book last night.  He got into the ketone discussion...in the context of weight loss but not running.  He mentioned a lot of the things you have talked about here.  Interesting to say the least.  I'm still not ready to completely go all in but I am willing to cut out some carbs...especially the processed sugar and flour.  Not sure I'm ready to give up my fruit or my corn and carrots or my milk.

So I guess for me the question is how much can/should I alter my diet and how will this affect my running?  If I'm still eating some carbs will by body switch to burning enough fat to sustain itself on long runs?  Sounds like Michele is doing that and doing it very well.

Oh...he also says this diet is more heart healthy also and gives some evidence to back up his claim.

Do you grow GMO corn?

It's hard to say how much you can change your diet.  Probably somewhere between Miche1e and myself.  It does appear she is doing well on a LC/Medium Fat regimen.  She still needs to test on a longer run, so she can be comfortable she can do it for Boston.  I think that she can.  It seems she can eat fruit without much negative effect, which is surprising to me because fruit has so many carbs in it.  It could be her system (fireplace) is so hot the sugar from fruit burns up very quickly.

All you can do is experiment.

Mark B wrote:A lot of what all y'all are talking about sounds like the basis behind the South Beach Diet. It was popular 10 years ago and focused on limited (and mostly low glycemic) carbs, tons of veggies and leaner meats, nuts and low-fat cheeses. It wasn't like Atkins, which was super-low carb and 15 pounds of bacon a day.

It worked extremely well for me at the time (I dropped nearly 50 pounds) but we haven't been able to figure out how to  make it work on the weird schedules we have now. We still eat too much processed stuff. But we just got a slow cooker, and maybe we can figure out how to make that work for us. (Any good recipes?)

I believe that was the Atkins induction phase that everyone remembers.  People in the low carb world are eating cauliflower like it's going out of style.  Cauliflower is being substituted for rice, mashed potatoes, potato salad, even pizza crust.  Of course, the texture is different, but if you can't eat rice or mashed potatoes, cauliflower is a great substitute.

There's nothing lean and low-fat in LC/HF.  People go to Wendy's and get a double baconator hamburger with lettuce replacing the buns and no fries.  You may want to check out Low Carb Zen for some recipes.  People make cherry cheesecake using sugar-free cherry jello.  Bullet proof coffee.  There's a replacement recipe for just about anything not LC/HF.  I know you're not leading that way, so since you're still willing to do flour and other stuff, let your fingers do the walking.

Sorry to hijack your blog Doug...I promise not to start any tic-tac-toe games.

This book is definitely not a diet book and the author emphasizes that these ideas are not new or original.  He wrote a more technical book a few years back and was encouraged to tell the same story in laymans terms.  It's his attempt to explain how our body processes food and why we have become an obese society.  He tries explain why the current thoughts on diet are incorrect, how we got to this point, and why we aren't willing to change our ideas...yet.

He mentions the Adkins diet and the South Beach diet.  He's much more of an Adkins diet fan.  He does not believe in counting calories or reducing calories at all!  He claims that if we reduce carbs and replace them with protein and fat our bodies will adjust.  The fewer carbs and the more fat the better.  His claim is that if we eat the right foods when we are hungry and only eat until we are full that our bodies will either not be as hungry and/or we will have more energy to burn and become more active without even trying.  He claims that great marathon runners are thin not because they run but that they run because they have so much energy in their system that they need an outlet for it.  Interesting.

All that said...it was a fun and interesting read.  I definitely plan to reduce my sugar and flour consumption and will feel less guilty about the amount of red meat and butter that we already consume.  I'm not ready to go all in though.  Maybe that's a mistake but there's just to much conflicting information out there to make me comfortable yet...

Doug...in response to your question about GMO corn.  No, we don't grow any corn commercially.  We just have a long family tradition of growing sweet corn in the garden.  It's a contest to see who can have corn ripe and ready for the table first and when it's ready we enjoy corn on the cob most days for the 2 or 3 week period it's fresh in the garden.

nkrichards wrote:

ounce wrote:

nkrichards wrote:

ounce wrote:

nkrichards wrote:Since this is the diet blog...

My daughter loaned me a book "Why we get fat and what to do about it" by Gary Taubes.  It's an interesting read.  He's definitely on the LC side of things.  I haven't finished it yet but he essentially says that the high glycemic carbs raise our insulin levels which cause our bodies to store fat and keep it locked up.  That is what makes us gain weight.  He claims that overeating and inactivity are the symptoms of obesity...not the cause.  Because our bodies stored the energy from the food we ate as fat we don't have enough energy in our system so we either have to eat more or we lack the energy to be active.  He claims it's not a matter of will power and that our bodies are in charge of how much we eat and our energy levels.  There is more to it than that obviously but he's definitely on the LC side and has some good arguments.

Now what am I going to do with the half of a birthday cake that was left over from Marty's 60th birthday celebration.

Yes, eating lots of carbs raises insulin insensitivity.  An easy way to boil all the information down to one sentence would be:  What would a diabetic eat?  Western diets are addicted to sugar.  Sugar has all of the characteristics of a drug.  Sugar cravings, tough to break the habit, lots of satisfaction when sugar is eaten, etc.  If you train your brain that you need sugar, you'll feed it sweets.  I read where HFCS, when consumed, doesn't ever trigger the brain that it's full and to stop consuming.  Sugar does have that off switch. 

Carbs are probably the least needed of the three macronutrients:  Fat, protein, and carbohydrates.  When I started LC/HF in 2013, I found that I have to have 6 grams of carbs so that my thyroid functions because when I had a period of eating zero carbs for a few days, the reaction was related to the thyroid not getting any carbs.

I also learned that if I eat more than 35 grams of protein a day (0.35 pounds of a meat...like a can of tuna), the excess is converted to sugar, then fat.  Even during marathon training, it's 35 a day unless I run an 18+ long run, then I can have another 35-40 grams of protein.

Very slowly, will power is being discounted as a method of weight loss.  Very slowly.  Jonathan Bailor mentioned this 3 years ago. 

South African doctor Tim Noakes, who wrote "Waterlogged" and is diabetic, is a proponent of LC/HF because he has to.

It's interesting to me that LC/HF is slowly becoming accepted, in spite of people who think they'll die if they don't get a carb and will keel over from a heart attack if they eat a full fat something.

Finished the book last night.  He got into the ketone discussion...in the context of weight loss but not running.  He mentioned a lot of the things you have talked about here.  Interesting to say the least.  I'm still not ready to completely go all in but I am willing to cut out some carbs...especially the processed sugar and flour.  Not sure I'm ready to give up my fruit or my corn and carrots or my milk.

So I guess for me the question is how much can/should I alter my diet and how will this affect my running?  If I'm still eating some carbs will by body switch to burning enough fat to sustain itself on long runs?  Sounds like Michele is doing that and doing it very well.

Oh...he also says this diet is more heart healthy also and gives some evidence to back up his claim.

Do you grow GMO corn?

It's hard to say how much you can change your diet.  Probably somewhere between Miche1e and myself.  It does appear she is doing well on a LC/Medium Fat regimen.  She still needs to test on a longer run, so she can be comfortable she can do it for Boston.  I think that she can.  It seems she can eat fruit without much negative effect, which is surprising to me because fruit has so many carbs in it.  It could be her system (fireplace) is so hot the sugar from fruit burns up very quickly.

All you can do is experiment.

Mark B wrote:A lot of what all y'all are talking about sounds like the basis behind the South Beach Diet. It was popular 10 years ago and focused on limited (and mostly low glycemic) carbs, tons of veggies and leaner meats, nuts and low-fat cheeses. It wasn't like Atkins, which was super-low carb and 15 pounds of bacon a day.

It worked extremely well for me at the time (I dropped nearly 50 pounds) but we haven't been able to figure out how to  make it work on the weird schedules we have now. We still eat too much processed stuff. But we just got a slow cooker, and maybe we can figure out how to make that work for us. (Any good recipes?)

I believe that was the Atkins induction phase that everyone remembers.  People in the low carb world are eating cauliflower like it's going out of style.  Cauliflower is being substituted for rice, mashed potatoes, potato salad, even pizza crust.  Of course, the texture is different, but if you can't eat rice or mashed potatoes, cauliflower is a great substitute.

There's nothing lean and low-fat in LC/HF.  People go to Wendy's and get a double baconator hamburger with lettuce replacing the buns and no fries.  You may want to check out Low Carb Zen for some recipes.  People make cherry cheesecake using sugar-free cherry jello.  Bullet proof coffee.  There's a replacement recipe for just about anything not LC/HF.  I know you're not leading that way, so since you're still willing to do flour and other stuff, let your fingers do the walking.

Sorry to hijack your blog Doug...I promise not to start any tic-tac-toe games.

This book is definitely not a diet book and the author emphasizes that these ideas are not new or original.  He wrote a more technical book a few years back and was encouraged to tell the same story in laymans terms.  It's his attempt to explain how our body processes food and why we have become an obese society.  He tries explain why the current thoughts on diet are incorrect, how we got to this point, and why we aren't willing to change our ideas...yet.

He mentions the Adkins diet and the South Beach diet.  He's much more of an Adkins diet fan.  He does not believe in counting calories or reducing calories at all!  He claims that if we reduce carbs and replace them with protein and fat our bodies will adjust.  The fewer carbs and the more fat the better.  His claim is that if we eat the right foods when we are hungry and only eat until we are full that our bodies will either not be as hungry and/or we will have more energy to burn and become more active without even trying.  He claims that great marathon runners are thin not because they run but that they run because they have so much energy in their system that they need an outlet for it.  Interesting.

All that said...it was a fun and interesting read.  I definitely plan to reduce my sugar and flour consumption and will feel less guilty about the amount of red meat and butter that we already consume.  I'm not ready to go all in though.  Maybe that's a mistake but there's just to much conflicting information out there to make me comfortable yet...

Doug...in response to your question about GMO corn.  No, we don't grow any corn commercially.  We just have a long family tradition of growing sweet corn in the garden.  It's a contest to see who can have corn ripe and ready for the table first and when it's ready we enjoy corn on the cob most days for the 2 or 3 week period it's fresh in the garden.

You're not hijacking the thread, Nancy.  We're talking about diet, which affects our running.  I'm thrilled to learn about y'alls changes in what y'all eat and not eat.  Especially Miche1e because she's accomplishing running fat-adapted on food and macros that shouldn't make her fat-adapted, from what I've read.  So, I'm learning stuff, too.

There's so many hundreds of billions of dollars dependent on Americans buying processed foods.  Coke is selling less Coke, these days.  Lobbyists are keeping Congress' eye on contributions.  As more studies and results so that processed foods and sugar are really a lot of the problem plus that fat and butter doesn't deserve being demonized, doctors will come around, too.  But it's the doctor's associations that need to come around, next.  After that, pharmaceutical companies, which is a separate pile of hundreds of billions of dollars.

Separately, I have been running.

Whoa, when you say LC/HF, you're talking all the way. That reminds me so much of Atkins. How does it differ? What veggies do you get in this diet?

Oh, we found out that the cauliflower "mashed potatoes" taste infinitely better when you give up trying to make them seem like mashed potatoes. It's better when you give it the respect it deserves.

Mark B wrote:Whoa, when you say LC/HF, you're talking all the way. That reminds me so much of Atkins. How does it differ? What veggies do you get in this diet?

Oh, we found out that the cauliflower "mashed potatoes" taste infinitely better when you give up trying to make them seem like mashed potatoes. It's better when you give it the respect it deserves.

Yes, I'm talking all the way.  I've been doing it for almost 3 years, although I jump off of it after a marathon to have some fun.  I learned that I can't stay off of it for very long, otherwise it'll be much harder to get back on the wagon, due to withdrawals.  I also hypothesize that HIIT and/or weights (building muscle mass) helps keep the weight off due to increasing the lean body mass which burns calories all the time.

And it is a lot like Atkins.  I looked at their website and copied this:

Atkins


How it Works
Control your carbohydrate intake to ignite a fat-burning metabolism.



What You'll Eat

High fiber vegetables, protein (fish/seafood, poultry, beef, pork, eggs, plant-based), healthy fats (olive oil, avocados, nuts, butter), dairy (cheese, Greek yogurt) and low-glycemic fruits (berries, cherries, melon).
If carbohydrate tolerance allows: legumes, higher starch vegetables and whole grains.
Avoid: sugar, refined flour, trans fat.
Why Atkins is Better
The effectiveness and health benefits of a low-carb approach like Atkins has been shown by over 80 clinical studies. The science has demonstrated low carbohydrate diets, like Atkins result in more effective weight loss and improvement in certain health markers when compared to some other weight loss programs.
Atkins can also be personalized to meet individual needs for weight loss and weight maintenance.
-end of their pitch-

So, the major difference between Atkins and LC/HF (specifically the Ketogenic Diet) is the Ketogenic Diet measures total carbs, whereas Atkins measures net carbs.  Atkins 20 is their Phase 1 Induction program where you can have 20 grams of carbs that is not fiber (net carbs).  Fiber is a freebie, which is why 'high-fiber vegetables' mentioned above, is #1 on "What You'll Eat."  So, it's Total Carbs - Fiber = Net Carbs.  I guess after the Induction phase, you can go to Atkins 40 (40 net carbs).

Under the Ketogenic Diet, a carb is a carb is a carb.  You can go as low as you want on carb eating that helps you maintain your Nutritional Ketosis (a blood ketone level of 0.5 mmol/mL - 3.0 mmol/mL).  My carb absolute minimum is 6 grams a day.  6 grams keeps my thyroid working.  6 grams is 2 yellow squash.  I can't tell you how many pounds of yellow squash I eat.

But I've found that I can run a marathon as long as my blood ketone level is greater than zero because I'm usually on the low end of the Nutritional Ketosis scale on most days (0.1-0.8 mmol/mL).