Is it Ok to have a carb rich meal after a game?
- Thread starter Gustavo1
- Start date
I personally would say that it's okay. If you are really pushing yourself out there, then you need to refuel after every game. Some people are carb sensitive, and some are not. Try it out, and if it has a negative effect on your weight loss goals, then alter your carb intake a little. It's really all individual.
Good question Gustavo!
There are many different views on this and depending on what you read and which theory you want to subscribe to...it varies! Here's what I've been exposed to....based on what I've read, been told by nutritionist, etc.
At any given time our bodies have a certain amount of glycogen in the blood...but once we start exerting ourselves our blood-sugar level (glycogen) begins to be used-up and our blood-sugar/glycogen level begins to go down. The body responds by drawing on reserves to maintain & replenish our energy/glycogen supply...glycogen is stored in our liver and muscles, and I'll let you guess where fat is stored
So as you perform your sport/exercise, your body is buring a combination of glycogen, fat and creatine-phosphate/ATP. But understand: fat oxidation only occurs when our blood-sugar is low...this is where the notion that it requires about 20 minutes of exercise before our bodies start burning fat! So as you exercise, your burning fat....
Even after your game, your blood-sugar is low and your body is certainly still in the process of taking stored energy (glycogen & fat) and converting it into energy. Here are some "facts" to consider:
The moment you eat some food, your body will digest and convert that food into energy and your blood-sugar level will rise....when that happens fat oxidation will turn off. Based on this understanding, it's been suggested that you delay 30-minutes to a full hour in eating in order to facilitate continued burning fat. In other words, the fat-burn mode will switch off the moment you eat, so avoid eating for a while and snag some cheap fat-burn.
At the same time, it's important to replenish your glycogen....my nutritionist says glycogen can only be replenished through eating; the body can not take from its fat and convert it into glycogen that can then be used to re-fuel the glycogen reserves. Does that make sense? Not exactly, but that's what he said...you need to eat to refuel the glycogen reserves and fat can't be utilized from your own body to do it.
I think we have to ask ourselves what our goals are. If you are a competitive athlete and your body-fat is where you want it, then your chief goal is performance....and we all know that there are many recovery/performance drinks that suggest drinking them before, during and after to have better performance during and in the future. The theory follows; after your body burns it up, it's best to replace it asap.
BUT, if your primary objective is fat loss, then you may want to forgo the maximum benefit of refueling for future performance in lieu of burning some more fat.
The thing is, after exercise your hungry...and that's your body saying HEY, WE'VE BURNED SOME SERIOUS CALORIES....REFUEL ME!!!!! To an extent you should listen to that voice...but much like dieting, answer it with a deficit. Drink some water, eat some lean protein and go easy on the carbs. Have carbs, but don't scarf down a huge bowl of pasta and rationalize that you earned it. You don't want your body to think it's starving....you just wanna wease to the lean side of things.
I often finish racquetball around 9pm after playing for 2 hours. After playing we hit the deli. I like having a salad with dressing on the side, and then a tuna sandwich on toasted wheat with no mayo. I don't care if they "come" with the meal; no steak fries! If I'm still hungry when I get home, I'll have a protien shake with half water and half lite soy-milk.
I believe by it's nature, dieting is operating under a deficit...and under such conditions you can't expect to have your most explosive and best performance....I've had days where I went too lean and then bonked on the court. I've also had days when I've eat a bit heavy and then raged against the machine on the court like a wild-man! What's your flavor: weight-loss OR athletic performance? I try to find a middle-ground. The nice thing is, as my body loses weight and gets lighter/leaner, my performance improves in my sports. Find the balance...but always eat healthy proper foods! ....that in and of itself will pretty much assure a righteous & productive path
There are many different views on this and depending on what you read and which theory you want to subscribe to...it varies! Here's what I've been exposed to....based on what I've read, been told by nutritionist, etc.
At any given time our bodies have a certain amount of glycogen in the blood...but once we start exerting ourselves our blood-sugar level (glycogen) begins to be used-up and our blood-sugar/glycogen level begins to go down. The body responds by drawing on reserves to maintain & replenish our energy/glycogen supply...glycogen is stored in our liver and muscles, and I'll let you guess where fat is stored
So as you perform your sport/exercise, your body is buring a combination of glycogen, fat and creatine-phosphate/ATP. But understand: fat oxidation only occurs when our blood-sugar is low...this is where the notion that it requires about 20 minutes of exercise before our bodies start burning fat! So as you exercise, your burning fat....
Even after your game, your blood-sugar is low and your body is certainly still in the process of taking stored energy (glycogen & fat) and converting it into energy. Here are some "facts" to consider:
The moment you eat some food, your body will digest and convert that food into energy and your blood-sugar level will rise....when that happens fat oxidation will turn off. Based on this understanding, it's been suggested that you delay 30-minutes to a full hour in eating in order to facilitate continued burning fat. In other words, the fat-burn mode will switch off the moment you eat, so avoid eating for a while and snag some cheap fat-burn.
At the same time, it's important to replenish your glycogen....my nutritionist says glycogen can only be replenished through eating; the body can not take from its fat and convert it into glycogen that can then be used to re-fuel the glycogen reserves. Does that make sense? Not exactly, but that's what he said...you need to eat to refuel the glycogen reserves and fat can't be utilized from your own body to do it.
I think we have to ask ourselves what our goals are. If you are a competitive athlete and your body-fat is where you want it, then your chief goal is performance....and we all know that there are many recovery/performance drinks that suggest drinking them before, during and after to have better performance during and in the future. The theory follows; after your body burns it up, it's best to replace it asap.
BUT, if your primary objective is fat loss, then you may want to forgo the maximum benefit of refueling for future performance in lieu of burning some more fat.
The thing is, after exercise your hungry...and that's your body saying HEY, WE'VE BURNED SOME SERIOUS CALORIES....REFUEL ME!!!!! To an extent you should listen to that voice...but much like dieting, answer it with a deficit. Drink some water, eat some lean protein and go easy on the carbs. Have carbs, but don't scarf down a huge bowl of pasta and rationalize that you earned it. You don't want your body to think it's starving....you just wanna wease to the lean side of things.
I often finish racquetball around 9pm after playing for 2 hours. After playing we hit the deli. I like having a salad with dressing on the side, and then a tuna sandwich on toasted wheat with no mayo. I don't care if they "come" with the meal; no steak fries! If I'm still hungry when I get home, I'll have a protien shake with half water and half lite soy-milk.
I believe by it's nature, dieting is operating under a deficit...and under such conditions you can't expect to have your most explosive and best performance....I've had days where I went too lean and then bonked on the court. I've also had days when I've eat a bit heavy and then raged against the machine on the court like a wild-man! What's your flavor: weight-loss OR athletic performance? I try to find a middle-ground. The nice thing is, as my body loses weight and gets lighter/leaner, my performance improves in my sports. Find the balance...but always eat healthy proper foods! ....that in and of itself will pretty much assure a righteous & productive path
It's O.K........I wouldn't worry much about it....if at all.
Avoiding " a carb rich meal " because you're trying to " lose weight " is misguided IMO. Remember, carbs in and of themselves aren't fattening. In other words, carbs don't make you gain fat - consuming excess calories beyond what your body requires makes you gain fat. Generally speaking, for most otherwise healthy gym rats / athletes, the primary concern you should have when it comes to losing fat is calories - not carbs.
Beyond that, your soccer game probably put a pretty good dent in your muscles' energy stores ( glycogen...which is replenished by carbs ) so if anything, if you want to replenish you energy stores in an optimal manner you WANT to have a carb rich meal after your game, not avoid one IMO.
Last edited:
Agree w/Wrangell....
Glycogen, as I mentioned too, is replenished by the intake of food...so you need to eat. Glycogen is most easily derived from carbs, BUT your body can also convert fat and to a dramatically lesser extent protein into glycogen as well. Carbs are just most efficiently & effectively converted into glycogen.
I'm just projecting these figures...but if you play soccer for a good hour you're probably burning about 700 calories. That said, you're green-light to then consume about 560 calories of food (80% exerted) and still be doing well. I'd still suggest a nice balanced meal with some protein as well. You just don't wanna hit a huge bowl of pasta and righteously pound-down 1,400 calories of refined white-flour based pasta.
Another thing my nutritionist told me is that after a good work-out when your body is all running hard....it's nearly impossible for your body to store consumed food-energy as fat; it's gonna go to glycogen. So eating after exercise is widely regarded as an excellent time to take-in your calories! Needless to say, that doesn't mean you can eat as much as you want...just that as timing goes it's optimal.
So as I see it...as we exercise we burn lots of glycogen and some fat; the idea is to gracefully replenish the glycogen but to a lesser extent the fat. Failure to replenish glycogen will leave you weaker when next you play, not turbo-charge fat-loss.
I think that's a common mistake a lot of heavy people make...they get this idea that they'll super-turbo-charge their weight-loss by exercising some 2,000 calories per day AND only eat some 500 calories. It doesn't work that way. It's not just that "healthy" weight-loss should be done gracefully and at a slow rate....it's more that EFFICEINT FAT-loss is achieved in this manner. Your body can only breakdown and oxidize it's stored fat at a certain rate.
In the end, I fully & entirey concur with the consistent theme that Wrangell has always prompted: consuming excess calories beyond what your body requires causes fat gain.
Glycogen, as I mentioned too, is replenished by the intake of food...so you need to eat. Glycogen is most easily derived from carbs, BUT your body can also convert fat and to a dramatically lesser extent protein into glycogen as well. Carbs are just most efficiently & effectively converted into glycogen.
I'm just projecting these figures...but if you play soccer for a good hour you're probably burning about 700 calories. That said, you're green-light to then consume about 560 calories of food (80% exerted) and still be doing well. I'd still suggest a nice balanced meal with some protein as well. You just don't wanna hit a huge bowl of pasta and righteously pound-down 1,400 calories of refined white-flour based pasta.
Another thing my nutritionist told me is that after a good work-out when your body is all running hard....it's nearly impossible for your body to store consumed food-energy as fat; it's gonna go to glycogen. So eating after exercise is widely regarded as an excellent time to take-in your calories! Needless to say, that doesn't mean you can eat as much as you want...just that as timing goes it's optimal.
So as I see it...as we exercise we burn lots of glycogen and some fat; the idea is to gracefully replenish the glycogen but to a lesser extent the fat. Failure to replenish glycogen will leave you weaker when next you play, not turbo-charge fat-loss.
I think that's a common mistake a lot of heavy people make...they get this idea that they'll super-turbo-charge their weight-loss by exercising some 2,000 calories per day AND only eat some 500 calories. It doesn't work that way. It's not just that "healthy" weight-loss should be done gracefully and at a slow rate....it's more that EFFICEINT FAT-loss is achieved in this manner. Your body can only breakdown and oxidize it's stored fat at a certain rate.
In the end, I fully & entirey concur with the consistent theme that Wrangell has always prompted: consuming excess calories beyond what your body requires causes fat gain.
That's interesting BSL. My understanding ( which is usually wrong I might add
) was that glycogen really represents a means of ' storing ' glucose. I always thought if you're going to rely on non-carb sources like fat and protein for energy, they'd be converted to glucose for direct use and thus have no need to then be ' stored ' as glucose would they not ? And any excess of fat and protein would get preferentially stored as fat instead of glycogen.
In other words, would it not be more accurate to say fat and protein get converted to glucose only instead of glycogen ? I have virtually ' zero ' knowledge ' of nutrition, so I'll have to defer to you and your nutritionist on this one.
Thoughts ?Just to add to your point on why it may be " optimal " and " an excellent time "to take in some carbs as soon after a cardio workout as possible. I'd simply add that another reason is that there is that oft cited ' window of opportunity ' soon after a workout that will boost the rate at which your body can replenish your glycogen stores. That said, it's probably not a critical issue that most average gym rats have to worry about IMO.
Opps....my bad, I meant to say fats & proteins can be converted into glucose --> glycogen. And yes, I believe glycogen is the means in which our body facilitates glucose storge. Sorry. Good point. Look at these guys on a strict Atkins zero-carb diet, they're still in the gym doing stuff...so where is the glycogen coming from? Not to suggest I have the answer, I'm just saying...it's confusing.
I don't have the stats in front of me, but I do recall that carbs are the most efficeint means to be quickly converted into glucose. Fats actually generate more energy per gram, but they require more energy and time to breakdown before the body can utilize them. It's that glycemic load thing...carbs are quick to convert/breakdown and fats take longer. Protein takes the longest and are a very poor choice for a fuel.....but I've repeatedly heard the body can run on protein to some degree.
Ya know what's funny...I was just recently killing some time (before a movie) in a bookstore and I was reading some of Dr.Barry Sears "The Zone Diet" and in his book he outlines all sorts of things that just fly in the face of modern nutritional understanding. He explicitely outlines how, during exercise, you don't want to break out of your "fat-burning" zone and get into the "inferior" fuel of glycogen. Yeah; and this is a Doctor writing!
It's frustrating....because we like to think of things as a true science. 2+2=4, simple & factual as that. I've done a lot of reading through various diet books, nutritional information guides, etc. You can read a lot of conflicting stuff all published by certified & educated experts. It's almost as if we're arguing religion; it's a matter of what you want to believe in.
You can take 2 guys of almost identical size, build, age and genetic backgrounds.....put them both on a nice cruise w/open-buffet and let them both slam the same 6,000 calories per day. One will gain more weight then the other, one may put on 1 pound over a week, while the other (ME) would gain 4.5 pounds. We know people who can't put on weight, and those who have a tough time taking it off.....truly, all our nutritional information doesn't quite explain this gross discrepancies.
I spend a lot of time trying to understand these nutritional concepts, all because I want to make the most of my dieting efforts. Will I start burning 7x more fat after an hour of exercise? Will a delay in eating immediately after cardio give my body more time to continue harvesting it's fat-storage? Will taking BCAA's really reduce catabolism? The trainers listen to the nutritionist and the nutristionist (like mine) extrapulate their theories from research studies.....but these are the same research & clinical trials that once told us Vitamin E is a miracle heart-antioxidant and we should take 2,000iu per day....NOW they say more then 400iu has been associated with a greater chance of heart-disease!!!!
I'm going to defer back to what you pounded me with when I first came to this forum: eat whole foods, eat small meals throughout the day, drink water, avoid chemicals, additives, flavorings, colorings, don't buy into miracle supplements and if your intent is to lose weight....let your needs exceed your feeds!
Or in simplier terms: Deep-fried Twinkie BAD, celery good...get off that couch!
We understand a lot about nutrition
I don't have the stats in front of me, but I do recall that carbs are the most efficeint means to be quickly converted into glucose. Fats actually generate more energy per gram, but they require more energy and time to breakdown before the body can utilize them. It's that glycemic load thing...carbs are quick to convert/breakdown and fats take longer. Protein takes the longest and are a very poor choice for a fuel.....but I've repeatedly heard the body can run on protein to some degree.
Ya know what's funny...I was just recently killing some time (before a movie) in a bookstore and I was reading some of Dr.Barry Sears "The Zone Diet" and in his book he outlines all sorts of things that just fly in the face of modern nutritional understanding. He explicitely outlines how, during exercise, you don't want to break out of your "fat-burning" zone and get into the "inferior" fuel of glycogen. Yeah; and this is a Doctor writing!
It's frustrating....because we like to think of things as a true science. 2+2=4, simple & factual as that. I've done a lot of reading through various diet books, nutritional information guides, etc. You can read a lot of conflicting stuff all published by certified & educated experts. It's almost as if we're arguing religion; it's a matter of what you want to believe in.
You can take 2 guys of almost identical size, build, age and genetic backgrounds.....put them both on a nice cruise w/open-buffet and let them both slam the same 6,000 calories per day. One will gain more weight then the other, one may put on 1 pound over a week, while the other (ME) would gain 4.5 pounds. We know people who can't put on weight, and those who have a tough time taking it off.....truly, all our nutritional information doesn't quite explain this gross discrepancies.
I spend a lot of time trying to understand these nutritional concepts, all because I want to make the most of my dieting efforts. Will I start burning 7x more fat after an hour of exercise? Will a delay in eating immediately after cardio give my body more time to continue harvesting it's fat-storage? Will taking BCAA's really reduce catabolism? The trainers listen to the nutritionist and the nutristionist (like mine) extrapulate their theories from research studies.....but these are the same research & clinical trials that once told us Vitamin E is a miracle heart-antioxidant and we should take 2,000iu per day....NOW they say more then 400iu has been associated with a greater chance of heart-disease!!!!
I'm going to defer back to what you pounded me with when I first came to this forum: eat whole foods, eat small meals throughout the day, drink water, avoid chemicals, additives, flavorings, colorings, don't buy into miracle supplements and if your intent is to lose weight....let your needs exceed your feeds!
Or in simplier terms: Deep-fried Twinkie BAD, celery good...get off that couch!
We understand a lot about nutrition
2 things come to mind...
Again, my nutritionist explains that immediately after exercise/exertion, your body can not store glucose as fat. He told me "the food you eat will not be converted to fat....it'll be stored as glycogen...it's impossible for your body to store it as fat". Does that make sense? Not really. I can see where your body might replenish all it's glycogen storage BEFORE storing anything as fat, but not the entire fat-storage system being shut-down.
I've heard from many people that after exercising your body is still furiously in the energy-production mode and eating any food will be just like stoking the furnace with more fuel: you'll actually get a thermogenic response and it'll jack your metabolism up even more! The opposite of your body thinking it's starving, it tells your body to crank it up hardcore! It falls into the catagory of "Train hard, eat hard"....
I'm not really able to present answers in this case...these are just things I've repeatedly been exposed to through my studying all this stuff.
I do believe that at one point in my routine I was exercising substantially and not eating enough...my biking & swimming was laborous & not terribly strong. Matt told me to fuel those routines and I suddenly found I was swimming faster, harder and cranking it on the bike....best of all, my HR-monitor indicated I was burning much more calories, more calories then the pre-exercise food I was taking in! Also, I think I started losing weight a bit faster and seeing results. So yes: I got more results by eating more! I suppose I may have been leaning towards starvation mode prior to that.
Wow this is a lot of useful info!
So bottom line, if I understood correctly, is that if i'm still trying to lose weightI shouldn't go overboard with the carbs after the game and instead answer my body's request to refuel with minimal carbs as its late at night when I finish my games. Once i get my weight down to where I want it, then I can start following a diet specially for soccer training, which will include a lot more carbs, right?
Hope i got it right.
So bottom line, if I understood correctly, is that if i'm still trying to lose weightI shouldn't go overboard with the carbs after the game and instead answer my body's request to refuel with minimal carbs as its late at night when I finish my games. Once i get my weight down to where I want it, then I can start following a diet specially for soccer training, which will include a lot more carbs, right?
Hope i got it right.
No, there is nothing at all wrong with having a lot of carbs after soccer.
Again, ...your issue of wanting to lose weight has nothing specifically to do with carbs.
As I said before, carbs in and of themselves aren't fattening. Carbs don't make you gain fat - consuming excess calories beyond what your body requires makes you gain fat. This primary issue when it comes to fat loss isn't carbs - it's calories.
If anything, it's the other way around. The bulk of your post soccer meal should be comprised of carbs.
I think you got it right....
There is a choice you have to make....if you want top soccer performance then you really do want to re-fuel with some good carbs asap and probably eat to replace 130% the amount of calories you just burned performing your exercise....
If you are looking to lose fat, then I'd suggest eating about 45 minutes after you've stopped exercising (still within the opportune window for replenishment, but giving your body some extended continued fat-oxidation) and eat to the tune of about 80% the amount of calories you just burned performing your exercise. Figure about 600 calories per hour.
And you still want to eat some protein & fiber along with that meal...if not for the recovery of the muscle, but also to inhibit the rate of absorbtion of your food so that your blood-sugar doesn't spike and the insulin response causes more fat-storage. Even-keel on the blood-sugar!
There is a choice you have to make....if you want top soccer performance then you really do want to re-fuel with some good carbs asap and probably eat to replace 130% the amount of calories you just burned performing your exercise....
If you are looking to lose fat, then I'd suggest eating about 45 minutes after you've stopped exercising (still within the opportune window for replenishment, but giving your body some extended continued fat-oxidation) and eat to the tune of about 80% the amount of calories you just burned performing your exercise. Figure about 600 calories per hour.
And you still want to eat some protein & fiber along with that meal...if not for the recovery of the muscle, but also to inhibit the rate of absorbtion of your food so that your blood-sugar doesn't spike and the insulin response causes more fat-storage. Even-keel on the blood-sugar!
I suppose that depends on your definition of what that ' window ' is, because in terms of maximum glycogen replacement at least, the ' window " I have seen most often referenced as corresponding to when enzymes are most active to make glycogen is more like 15 minutes...and not spanning 45 minutes.
In any event, on this notion of not eating anything at all for 45 minutes post-exercise in order to maximize fat oxidation.
Sounds like you're saying if you took 2 people , and they had all other things being equal, except one of them had some post workout nutrition within 15 minutes of completing exercise and the other one didn't have any post workout nutrition till after 45 minutes of completing exercise, the latter would burn more fat.
Any idea how many more calories ( i.e % more etc. ) the person who had some post workout nutrition 45 minutes after exercise would burn versus the person who had some post workout nutrition 15 minutes after exercise ?
And you still want to eat some protein & fiber along with that meal...if not for the recovery of the muscle, but also to inhibit the rate of absorbtion of your food so that your blood-sugar doesn't spike and the insulin response causes more fat-storage. Even-keel on the blood-sugar!
Are you saying all insulin spikes cause fat storage after exercise ?
Doesn't insulin induced fat storage primarily occur when your glycogen tanks are full...which clearly...they wouldn't be anywhere close to being full after a soccer game would they ?
The "carbo-loading window of opportunity" immediately after a hard workout is mainly of concern to endurance athletes who are anticipating doing an event or workout that could lead to a bonk or "hitting the wall" due to running out of muscle glycogen. Usually this would mean more than one or two hours of aerobic exercise; if a lot of anaerobic sprinting is involved, glycogen stores could be used up more quickly (a hard soccer game could fall into this description, so if you have a game the next day, you may want to consider whether you want to reload your glycogen stores with carbs after your game).
Sports drinks are useful during an endurance event or workout to keep glycogen stores from getting empty too quickly. (They are no more useful than any other sugary drink at most other times, and can be detrimental for calorie control if taken indiscriminately.)
Last edited:
What I'm saying.....is that I've read and studied some research that suggest that our bodies will continue to oxidize fat while blood-sugar is low....and it's been suggested that by holding-off on eating, we can squeeze a bit more fat-burning in. What I've read goes like this:
When you first start to exercise you immediately start burning/using the glucose in your blood and glycogen stored in the liver & muscle. After about 20 minutes of exercise your body will start to open-up and draw on fat-reserves IN COMBINATION with glycogen. We're not like an airplane where we can select which fuel tank you draw from; it's a combination of fuels at all times.
If we're not eating during exercise, the body is drawing on glycogen reserves and fat. Our bodies are trying to maintain a blood-sugar level. You and I know when the game is over, but our bodies don't...the moment that whistle blows we stop playing and start pouring the Gatorade ON YOUR HEAD, but our bodies are still at work oxidizing fat and bringing-up the rears with what it anticipates will be more exertion.
I've had a few trainers tell me, and a nutritionist agree to some extent, that the moment we eat something (like some oranges or gel), our blood-sugar will go up..and the moment the body senses the blood-sugar is normal or higher then normal: fat oxidation gets dramatically shut down. I was told to wait 30minutes to one hour before eating just to keep the body in a blood-sugar deficit and burn-up some more fat.
It's a theory Wrangell, nothing more. They did not suggest this for weight-training.....for weights they said the sooner the better...hit it with carbs and especially protein. But for cardio, you can play the hold-off scheme.
How many calories? Good question. Well, when I exercise my HR-monitor suggest that I'm burning about 35-40% of my calories derived from fat, but that's when I'm pumping away. Once we stop exercising our heart-rates fall and I'd guess we're back to our RMR of say 100-calories per hour. As you mentioned, we burn more fat% at a lower exertion (figure 60%), so I'm guessing waiting 45 minutes might be good for about (100 calories x .60 x 45 minutes)...all of 27 additional calories...and that doesn't account for what you'd still be burning even if your sugar goes up. In all it seems rather negligible....BUT still, the theory suggest and purports that you can leave your body in a greater percentage of fat-burning by letting it continue metabolizing fat anticipating more exercise...instead of chugging the fruit-juice and (not entirely, but substantially) reducing fat oxidation.
But again, the other theory suggest that eating will fire-up the furnace even more and you'll have a greater thermogenic response. I've noticed that after eating a good meal (post exercise) I sometimes can feel even more heat coming off my body then had I not eaten much. So here again is another theory that suggest the opposite....to eat.
Insulin spikes are supposed to cause A MORE RAPID absorbtion of glucose into the body. Your body will assimilate the glucose faster. After exercise you certainly would have some serious openings for replenishing pf lost/depleted glycogen reserves!
Your query is OUTSTANDING...where does the glucose flow? Will it entirely go into glycogen storage first and only then go to fat?....or does it enter into both at the same time? Thank you, you've given me my first question when I next see Alan! (I love playing stump the nutritionist
). But at the same time, Alan told me it's "impossible" for your body to store or add to fat after you've exercised, which is entirely why it's prime-time to eat after exercising....but what if you've used 800 calories of stored glycogen and just ate 1,400 calories of food?? Something has to give.......no?The only thing I find consistent is this: you can ask 3 different nutritionist and get 3 different answers. You'd think it's the science of nutrition, but it seems more like the practice. Research offers different supporting info and nobody wants to risk looking like they don't have the answers. I can think of at least 3 different people on this forum who do this for a living...yet they won't address this issue for fear of looking less then expert! I don't blame them.
I'll see what I can find out from Alan...he tends to back his stuff up with some pretty serious clinical studies where they draw blood, analyze things to no end and really get into it. Anything else you'd like to question? Sometimes I wonder if you're trying to make me realize I'm wrong about something, or if you're really asking from genuine uncertainty. I think the latter. Gosh it must be fun to pour Gatorade on your head!
I know that.
That's exactly why I said " That said, it's [ the window ] probably not a critical issue that most average gym rats have to worry about IMO "
It's only really of a concern when you ' need ' to ensure you top up your glycogen for a period much sooner than 24 hours IMO, so your focus is actually to maximize the rate of glycogen replenishment. In my case, this might involve my hockey players' need to maximize the rate of glycogen replenishment when they play 4 - 5 hockey games over the course of a weekend tournament.
But for the average gym rat who has a soccer game or hockey game or cardio at 7:00 p.m. one night and then hits the gym / field / rink the next day at 7;00 p.m., there should be more than adequate glycogen available. However if they train the next morning or at lunch, enhancing the rate of glycogen replenishment starting from the night before may have some value.
I just read that a recent study concluded that eating raisin's were as equally effective as all these high-tech endurance drinks/bars!
It's almost as if they're trying to sell us something that we can't already get....nahhhh
It's almost as if they're trying to sell us something that we can't already get....nahhhh
Good summary.
My sense is that after you do cardio, your glycogen stores are low ( or lower ) and the enzymes that are needed to create more replacement glycogen are at peak levels ( i.e active ) and ' raring to go ' as it were. To create that glycogen the enzymes need glucose and they need energy. If you eat carbs soon after exercise, they're converted to glucose. Your body / enzymes then breaks down your body fat to get the energy ( ATP ) it needs to ' create ' glycogen from glucose. So, if you wanted to enhance fat oxidation after exercise, wouldn't it also makes sense to have glycogen replacement ( which burns fat for energy ) as one of the main mechanisms to burn fat ...after exercise ?
Only reason I ask, is that it would seem to me that this 45 minute theory should purport to yield significant results...otherwise ...why bother.
I just didn't know what ' significant ' difference there is ...or shall I say means ......between 15 minutes and 45 minutes.Is it 50%, 25%, 10% better ? Just curious in trying to quantify it in some rough way.
Fair enough
I fact, I read somewhere that this " heat ' is actually related in part to your body's processes involved in replacing glycogen after exercise.
Agreed.
In fact, it's that 15 minute window I mentioned earlier.
Your query is OUTSTANDING...where does the glucose flow? Will it entirely go into glycogen storage first and only then go to fat?....or does it enter into both at the same time? Thank you, you've given me my first question when I next see Alan! (I love playing stump the nutritionist
Again, I don't know much about nutrition, but it just seems to me that under normal circumstances it is usually the case that your body only begins to store macro nutrients like carbs, fat and protein as fat when all it's other primary needs for which those macros are intended for are met ...be it protein for tissue repair / synthesis, carbs / glucose for glycogen replacement etc.
Then again, you've got EPOC to consider.
You may burn 800 calories of stored glycogen DURING exercise - but - how many calories of fat are you going to burn over the next 24 hours to get the energy ( from fat ) needed to replace that glycogen.
The only thing I find consistent is this: you can ask 3 different nutritionist and get 3 different answers. You'd think it's the science of nutrition, but it seems more like the practice. Research offers different supporting info and nobody wants to risk looking like they don't have the answers. I can think of at least 3 different people on this forum who do this for a living...yet they won't address this issue for fear of looking less then expert! I don't blame them.
I'll see what I can find out from Alan...he tends to back his stuff up with some pretty serious clinical studies where they draw blood, analyze things to no end and really get into it. Anything else you'd like to question? Sometimes I wonder if you're trying to make me realize I'm wrong about something, or if you're really asking from genuine uncertainty. I think the latter. Gosh it must be fun to pour Gatorade on your head!
Trust me ...it's the latter. :yelrotflmao:
I look at each day as yet another opportunity to confirm in my mind how very very little I little really know about health & fitness. The only way I'm going to hope to learn anything is to ask questions. As your friend Alan himself said.....
" Question fitness advice given to you by others. "why" is one of the most powerful words you can put in your vocabulary. I encourage my clients, students, and colleagues to question everyone's advice " -- Alan Aragon
It's a little weird the way you have so many quotes from Alan....but I'll be hitting him up with some of these questions when I next see him.
The thing is....there are theories, understandings and clinical studies that rather contradict eachother. The good news, according to Alan, is that we're really splitting hairs and it's not really as relavent to the average person as we'd like to figure. Every time I bring him another supplement (CLA, Red Rice Yeast, etc)...he just pulls out some real studies that show little to no effects. The most he'll go along with is a good multi-vitamin and maybe some fish oil....that's about it.
I keep thinking that perhaps if I take a certain combination of supplements, eat 72.4525 calories of an exact mixture of carbs/protein at certain intervals during my routine I'll suddenly unlock a magical combination of genetic codes...fat will melt off, muscle will build, hairlines increase and I'll send out pheromones that will draw super-models to me.
There's just too much hype on the market. Alan keeps telling me....at the end of the week, it's how much came in, how much was burned-off and to just eat a well-balanced diet...and to be "good" about 90% of the time. Everything else is just splitting hairs and it would take Mr.Spock with his tricorder to read the minute differences.
It's like my investments...I'm always looking for safer, better or higher returns on my money. Same with health, I want results from my efforts, but in the end it's really pretty brain-free & simple.....but from habit I still ask & question what more I could do to get the most out of it.
As for the idea of holding-offon eating to allow the body to burn more calories as it continues to pull-up fat reserves...Alan just rolled his eyes and told me not to worry about it. He said the body won't store fat after eating so just eat anyways. It may trigger a slow-down of fat-burning, but it's pretty much a dismissable amount.
The thing is....there are theories, understandings and clinical studies that rather contradict eachother. The good news, according to Alan, is that we're really splitting hairs and it's not really as relavent to the average person as we'd like to figure. Every time I bring him another supplement (CLA, Red Rice Yeast, etc)...he just pulls out some real studies that show little to no effects. The most he'll go along with is a good multi-vitamin and maybe some fish oil....that's about it.
I keep thinking that perhaps if I take a certain combination of supplements, eat 72.4525 calories of an exact mixture of carbs/protein at certain intervals during my routine I'll suddenly unlock a magical combination of genetic codes...fat will melt off, muscle will build, hairlines increase and I'll send out pheromones that will draw super-models to me.
There's just too much hype on the market. Alan keeps telling me....at the end of the week, it's how much came in, how much was burned-off and to just eat a well-balanced diet...and to be "good" about 90% of the time. Everything else is just splitting hairs and it would take Mr.Spock with his tricorder to read the minute differences.
It's like my investments...I'm always looking for safer, better or higher returns on my money. Same with health, I want results from my efforts, but in the end it's really pretty brain-free & simple.....but from habit I still ask & question what more I could do to get the most out of it.
As for the idea of holding-offon eating to allow the body to burn more calories as it continues to pull-up fat reserves...Alan just rolled his eyes and told me not to worry about it. He said the body won't store fat after eating so just eat anyways. It may trigger a slow-down of fat-burning, but it's pretty much a dismissable amount.
I just took them from Leigh's interview with Alan - posted in another sub-forum here.......
http://training.fitness.com/articles-fitness-health/interview-alan-aragon-29984.html
I'll add a few quick comments later - 4 computers in the house and my I'm still being bumped by my son for my own computer
So long as you're not lactose intolerant, you could always have a big glass of chocolate milk .
.