Low carb diet tests in this months Cycling Plus

carytb

Just read the article in this months Cycling Plus about the performance tests done on 3 cyclists who went from a normal high Carb diet to a low carb one. Surprisingly the results after 3 WEEKS were not that good. Anybody who knows anything about the subject knows that no way will someone become fat adapted and be able to perform well after 3 weeks. It's about that time you can feel awful as your body is adapting. The cyclical side of me thinks that there are a lot of advertisers pedalling sugar loaded sports supplements.

zefs

These tests are not to be trusted 100% as everyone is different and each one's body may react in a different way while on these diets. You need to find what works for you and if you can't do that you might as well get advice from an expert.

If you are not a professional cyclist my opinion is that a balanced diet is the best.

simon_e

carytb wrote:

the results after 3 WEEKS were not that good. Anybody who knows anything about the subject knows that no way will someone become fat adapted and be able to perform well after 3 weeks.

I read that and had the same thought.

If that's how seriously (or not) they take such a subject then there's no point reading any further. It's a waste of good paper and people's time. Just glad I hadn't bothered paying for it. It confirmed my long held feeling that C+ is really just an admag with some overpriced bling and so-called 'tests' as filler.

meanredspider

Just on this broad topic, listened to a programme on the radio about the role of enzymes in life. I hadn't twigged just important they are to everything and how we don't really quite understand [edit - understand how to design and make them] them yet. One example they gave was an enzyme that speeds up a reaction so much that, left to its own devices, the reaction wouldn't have taken place in the entire lifetime of the universe.

Anyhow, linking this back to the OP, it just confirms my belief that we are all so different that, what works (or not) for three people says absolutely nothing about how well anything will work for the rest of us.

buckmulligan

meanredspider wrote:

Just on this broad topic, listened to a programme on the radio about the role of enzymes in life. I hadn't twigged just important they are to everything and how we don't really quite understand them yet. One example they gave was an enzyme that speeds up a reaction so much that, left to its own devices, the reaction wouldn't have taken place in the entire lifetime of the universe.

Anyhow, linking this back to the OP, it just confirms my belief that we are all so different that, what works (or not) for three people says absolutely nothing about how well anything will work for the rest of us.

Scientists understand them fine; the structure, function and mechanisms of almost all enzymes are extremely well characterised and understood. In fact, they're rather basic, textbook biochemistry.

How the human body reacts to its environment (in this case, a carbohydrate-rich or -poor one) is a much more complicated issue that involves many thousands of enzymes, hormones and stimuli all exerting a small and unique influence on the output being measured. It's these issues that are less well understood.

meanredspider

BuckMulligan wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

Just on this broad topic, listened to a programme on the radio about the role of enzymes in life. I hadn't twigged just important they are to everything and how we don't really quite understand them yet. One example they gave was an enzyme that speeds up a reaction so much that, left to its own devices, the reaction wouldn't have taken place in the entire lifetime of the universe.

Anyhow, linking this back to the OP, it just confirms my belief that we are all so different that, what works (or not) for three people says absolutely nothing about how well anything will work for the rest of us.

Scientists understand them fine; the structure, function and mechanisms of almost all enzymes are extremely well characterised and understood. In fact, they're rather basic, textbook biochemistry.

How the human body reacts to its environment (in this case, a carbohydrate-rich or -poor one) is a much more complicated issue that involves many thousands of enzymes, hormones and stimuli all exerting a small and unique influence on the output being measured. It's these issues that are less well understood.

With respect, they described the process for generating a new enzyme which was to find an enzyme similar to that which they want to develop, make some adjustments and see which achieves the desired result. They described the process as taking 6-12 months. They also likened our ability to develop enzymes to someone from 100 years ago looking to design a PC. If our understanding was as good as you describe, "rather basic", why would these experts be saying these things and why would it take us up to a year to develop an enzyme?

I absolutely agree about the rest of your points about the complexity of the processes.

neeb

meanredspider wrote:

BuckMulligan wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

Just on this broad topic, listened to a programme on the radio about the role of enzymes in life. I hadn't twigged just important they are to everything and how we don't really quite understand them yet. One example they gave was an enzyme that speeds up a reaction so much that, left to its own devices, the reaction wouldn't have taken place in the entire lifetime of the universe.

Anyhow, linking this back to the OP, it just confirms my belief that we are all so different that, what works (or not) for three people says absolutely nothing about how well anything will work for the rest of us.

Scientists understand them fine; the structure, function and mechanisms of almost all enzymes are extremely well characterised and understood. In fact, they're rather basic, textbook biochemistry.

How the human body reacts to its environment (in this case, a carbohydrate-rich or -poor one) is a much more complicated issue that involves many thousands of enzymes, hormones and stimuli all exerting a small and unique influence on the output being measured. It's these issues that are less well understood.

With respect, they described the process for generating a new enzyme which was to find an enzyme similar to that which they want to develop, make some adjustments and see which achieves the desired result. They described the process as taking 6-12 months. They also likened our ability to develop enzymes to someone from 100 years ago looking to design a PC. If our understanding was as good as you describe, "rather basic", why would these experts be saying these things and why would it take us up to a year to develop an enzyme?

I absolutely agree about the rest of your points about the complexity of the processes.

Understanding what something does and even how it does it is completely different and far easier than designing and making something to do a specific task.

In the case of enzymes, they are basically linear strings of amino acids in a specific order. There are about 20 different types of amino acids, each with different electro-chemical properties. The particular way in which all of these properties interact with each other and with water and salts determines how the protein folds up and what it does. It's relatively easy to determine/observe what a particular enzyme does in its folded state, but to go the other way, i.e. to start out with a desired function and determine what particular sequence of amino acids will fold in exactly the right way to perform that function is a *hard* problem!

meanredspider

Yup - I was probably lazy with my original language but clarified what I meant. We can determine how individual enzymes work but designing and building new ones is very difficult.

ugo.santalucia

meanredspider wrote:

Just on this broad topic, listened to a programme on the radio about the role of enzymes in life. I hadn't twigged just important they are to everything and how we don't really quite understand them yet. One example they gave was an enzyme that speeds up a reaction so much that, left to its own devices, the reaction wouldn't have taken place in the entire lifetime of the universe.

Anyhow, linking this back to the OP, it just confirms my belief that we are all so different that, what works (or not) for three people says absolutely nothing about how well anything will work for the rest of us.

What do you mean we don't understand? There are billions of pounds spent in research every year around the world on enzymes... enzymes are used in industry to catalise reactions and produce all sorts of chemicals. It's all VERY well understood.

Of course many reactions have an activation barrier that can only be overcome with a catalyst, for example (but not necessarily) an enzyme.

meanredspider

ugo.santalucia wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

Just on this broad topic, listened to a programme on the radio about the role of enzymes in life. I hadn't twigged just important they are to everything and how we don't really quite understand them yet. One example they gave was an enzyme that speeds up a reaction so much that, left to its own devices, the reaction wouldn't have taken place in the entire lifetime of the universe.

Anyhow, linking this back to the OP, it just confirms my belief that we are all so different that, what works (or not) for three people says absolutely nothing about how well anything will work for the rest of us.

What do you mean we don't understand? There are billions of pounds spent in research every year around the world on enzymes... enzymes are used in industry to catalise reactions and produce all sorts of chemicals. It's all VERY well understood.

Of course many reactions have an activation barrier that can only be overcome with a catalyst, for example (but not necessarily) an enzyme.

FFS - read what I've written above (we understand what they do, we're censored at designing and making them). And then if you aren't happy with that, listen to "In our time" on R4 iPlayer and listen to what 3 invited experts say... :roll:

Here - let me help:

In Our Time - Enzymes - @bbcradio4
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08rp369

JBrown23

There are a lot of myths in diets and pseudo science, but just thought that I would add, if you ever want to perform optimally in an endurance sport (not ultra events), then it's very important to have carb in your system. If however, you are interested for a specific adaptation (as carb manipulation can support certain adaptations), then there may be a time and a place for this...