Gave up rice. I feel fantastic.

[goatfarmer]

I think you'll find that white rice metabolizes into glucose within 20 to 30 minutes of digesting. You can easily test with a glucometer.

But what do we mean by "metabolizes"? I mean, you do want to digest it at some point! There wouldn't be much sense it eating it otherwise. Try having a big rice meal and then stick your fingers down your throat two hours later. Rice of no rice? You take my point? 250g of rice absorbs nearly a litre of water. It takes an awfully long time for your body to get that water back out. That isn't true of simple sugars. So the 850 kcals is trickling out for many hours. Mixed with sardines, kidney beans, cabbage and natural yoghurt - a reasonable mixed gut - you're talking about 5 hours plus to get 1100 kcals out; I'm far from convinced that there is a problem. I'd avoid Swenson's, however.

By 'metabolize' I mean that the starch breaks down into glucose in quantities that can be detected in your blood. If you are insulin resistant glucose from consuming a portion of rice could be detected in your blood in thirty minutes or less.

[KarenBravo]

I think you'll find that white rice metabolizes into glucose within 20 to 30 minutes of digesting. You can easily test with a glucometer.

But what do we mean by "metabolizes"? I mean, you do want to digest it at some point! There wouldn't be much sense it eating it otherwise. Try having a big rice meal and then stick your fingers down your throat two hours later. Rice of no rice? You take my point? 250g of rice absorbs nearly a litre of water. It takes an awfully long time for your body to get that water back out. That isn't true of simple sugars. So the 850 kcals is trickling out for many hours. Mixed with sardines, kidney beans, cabbage and natural yoghurt - a reasonable mixed gut - you're talking about 5 hours plus to get 1100 kcals out; I'm far from convinced that there is a problem. I'd avoid Swenson's, however.

By 'metabolize' I mean that the starch breaks down into glucose in quantities that can be detected in your blood. If you are insulin resistant glucose from consuming a portion of rice could be detected in your blood in thirty minutes or less.

If this wasn't true, we wouldn't see a jump in BG on our meters.

It's also true for non-diabetics.

Carbohydrates are the first thing to get digested. It starts in the mouth with an enzyme called amylase which is why boiled sweets get smaller as you suck them. They get digested completely in the mouth without ever going to the stomach.

Edited May 24, 2015 by KarenBravo

[Craig krup]

I'm not trying to bump this topic, but I've been thinking. If you 1) want to eat (say) 3,000 kcals a day, 2) don't want to eat a load of fat and sugar, and 3) don't want to be eating within four hours of going to bed, how do you get enough energy without eating loads of starchy carbs? I mean, you could eat a ton of oily fish every day, but just looking at the numbers I don't see how you'd get to 3,000 given the above (reasonable) parameters. In fact if your basic need is 2,500 and you do an extra 500kcals of specific exercise, and you're eating things which don't fully digest (like kidney beans, or peanuts) you'd really, really struggle to go anywhere near your calorie total without starchy carbs.

[Nawanakorn1]

Yes, I also gave up rice. I too feel much better. The fried riced almost killed me. Another person from America had the same issues as me. Sit up from a chair and your legs hurt like hell. After not eating fried rice, I felt better. After giving up all rice, I felt even much better. I also noticed that older Thai men walk kind of funny as though they are in much pain. They should give up eating rice and see how they feel! I love the Thai rice sold in America but it seems that you cannot buy it here. I have people give me khauhommolly from their parents farm that is sold to Japan and America and it reminds me of the Thai rice I purchased in America, but you cannot find it on the streets or in a restaurant. Pains or no pain, I will eat it if it is true khauhomolly. Otherwise, I will stay feeling good. Remember, at your age eating white rice is like eating sugar and that is why Japan is pushing potatoes as it takes longer for your body to break down. Listen to the op. Listen to your body and stay healthy.

[Craig krup]

By 'metabolize' I mean that the starch breaks down into glucose in quantities that can be detected in your blood. If you are insulin resistant glucose from consuming a portion of rice could be detected in your blood in thirty minutes or less.

But isn't that what you want the stomach acids to do? Your brain runs on glucose. Human beings produce eight times more amylase in our saliva than chimps do. We have a gut which is 60% of the length of that of a chimp. We have a massive brain that requires lots of glucose to run properly. We are - from an animal categorization point of view - "the carbohydrate ape". We have culture because we've externalised a large part of the digestion process outside of the body: fire gelatanises carbohydrate and denatures protein, and if you don't do this you do what the chimp days: eat all day, only stopping to fight and copulate. Come to think about it.......no, I won't

What's supposed to happen is that you digest the starch, your pancreas chucks out some insulin and your cells - sensitised to insulin as they are by high intensity exercise - clean out the excess sugar.

If your pancreas doesn't work properly because it's full of fat, or you have too many cells in your body because you're overweight, or your cells don't respond fast to insulin because you don't exercise hard, then you'll have a sugar management problem. But while these are obvious, and scientifically demonstrable, causes of sugar management issues, rice isn't.

As I say, if you need 3,000-3,500 kcal a day, and you don't want to live on fat and sugar, I'm at a loss to know what you could eat other than oats, rice, pasta....

[Nawanakorn1]

Eating 6 Big Mac meals a day is almost 3000 calories. The higher you metabolism, the quicker some of it is digested or pushed out of your body. I don't know about you, but I can honestly say that at my age of 60, I cannot consume nor crap out 6 Big Mac meals a day! Even when I was younger I could not perform this feat. Of course, I did use the toilet more often than now because my metabolism was running at a much higher rate. Now, caculate the calories found in the number of beers that you drink each night and then we can talk about it. But then again, I can drink a lot more now that I have quit eating rice without worry about blood sugar level.

[KarenBravo]

Frankly, I think the OP is just experiencing the Placebo Effect.

[Craig krup]

Eating 6 Big Mac meals a day is almost 3000 calories. The higher you metabolism, the quicker some of it is digested or pushed out of your body. I don't know about you, but I can honestly say that at my age of 60, I cannot consume nor crap out 6 Big Mac meals a day! Even when I was younger I could not perform this feat. Of course, I did use the toilet more often than now because my metabolism was running at a much higher rate. Now, caculate the calories found in the number of beers that you drink each night and then we can talk about it. But then again, I can drink a lot more now that I have quit eating rice without worry about blood sugar level.

Look at what I said. If you don't want to eat a load of sugar and fat, and you need to consume say 3,000 kcals a day, how do you do it without starches? I don't drink at all - not alcohol, nor sugared water - so that doesn't apply to me either.

I eat 166g of oats every morning, about another 800 kcals of pasta and split peas during the average day, and another 250g of rice, potatoes or pasta at night. I've got 7% bodyfat. I'm damned if I'd know how I could possibly strip the starches out of my diet, not consume a load of sugar and fat, and still have enough energy to get through the day. Starches should be at the heart of your diet, and in the absence of sound evidence that rice as a part of a meal has any special negative consequences I can't see a reason to bin it.

Edited May 25, 2015 by Craig krup

[h90]

By 'metabolize' I mean that the starch breaks down into glucose in quantities that can be detected in your blood. If you are insulin resistant glucose from consuming a portion of rice could be detected in your blood in thirty minutes or less.

But isn't that what you want the stomach acids to do? Your brain runs on glucose. Human beings produce eight times more amylase in our saliva than chimps do. We have a gut which is 60% of the length of that of a chimp. We have a massive brain that requires lots of glucose to run properly. We are - from an animal categorization point of view - "the carbohydrate ape". We have culture because we've externalised a large part of the digestion process outside of the body: fire gelatanises carbohydrate and denatures protein, and if you don't do this you do what the chimp days: eat all day, only stopping to fight and copulate. Come to think about it.......no, I won't

What's supposed to happen is that you digest the starch, your pancreas chucks out some insulin and your cells - sensitised to insulin as they are by high intensity exercise - clean out the excess sugar.

If your pancreas doesn't work properly because it's full of fat, or you have too many cells in your body because you're overweight, or your cells don't respond fast to insulin because you don't exercise hard, then you'll have a sugar management problem. But while these are obvious, and scientifically demonstrable, causes of sugar management issues, rice isn't.

As I say, if you need 3,000-3,500 kcal a day, and you don't want to live on fat and sugar, I'm at a loss to know what you could eat other than oats, rice, pasta....

Your brain may run on glucose, mine runs on ketone bodies at the moment. Brain requires only small amounts of Glucose, maybe 20-25% of the total energy. Only if there is too much Glucose in the system it uses it first. Humans can live without eating any carbohydrates at all. I wouldn't call that "carbohydrate ape" and the shorter gut, like dogs and cats indicate that we are meat eater.

If you are older and use 3000-3500 kcal a day, you are either big or do really lots of sport. People usually overestimate what a healthy body needs and how much you burn with sport. The stupid fitness industry supports that.....The stupid mobile phone application calculates that I burned over 2000 kcal at the 85 km I rode the bike at my bodyweight of 64 kg. Complete ridiculous. About same intensity on the trainer which has the correct formula it is about 1000 kcal (even with a +/- 20% error it doesn't come close to 2000 kcal).

So for me burning 3000-3500 kcal would require me to ride EVERY DAY 85km at full speed. If I would be a light, elderly woman, I would have to ride 170 km per day or more. Or work outside in Novosibirsk.

[Craig krup]

Your brain may run on glucose, mine runs on ketone bodies at the moment...If you are older and use 3000-3500 kcal a day, you are either big or do really lots of sport. People usually overestimate what a healthy body needs and how much you burn with sport. The stupid fitness industry supports that.....The stupid mobile phone application calculates that I burned over 2000 kcal at the 85 km I rode the bike at my bodyweight of 64 kg. Complete ridiculous. About same intensity on the trainer which has the correct formula it is about 1000 kcal (even with a +/- 20% error it doesn't come close to 2000 kcal).

So for me burning 3000-3500 kcal would require me to ride EVERY DAY 85km at full speed. If I would be a light, elderly woman, I would have to ride 170 km per day or more. Or work outside in Novosibirsk.

You'd never revise for a life-changing exam, and then sit it, with your brain running on ketones. That ain't healthy, it ain't enjoyable and it ain't normal. As to apps that try to estimate energy expenditure in cycling - well, there's no end to bad products. Energy consumption rises nearly exponentially with speed, which is why bikes are so dangerous as a means to keep fit. I see entire families trickling along the canal towpath at 10 mph, and they'll say, "Oh we cycled ten miles today, who want's some ice cream?" But a bike is a machine for conserving momentum, it supports your weight and at low speeds the air resistance is negligible.

As I say, however, I'm at 7% bodyfat, my basal need is about 2,400 without any specific exercise, I usually exercise and much that I eat isn't perfectly digested - kidney beans, chickpeas, wholemeal bread. These numbers aren't that unusual, and if you don't eat lots of starch but do go to the gym and walk walk about you're going to struggle without eating lots of starch.

Two things I will say. 1) In the tropics you don't use much energy staying warm - obviously - so that knocks it down a bit. 2) People kid themselves. You very rarely spend any time with someone without seeing what they are really about. Most people pour sugar down their necks all day and don't even realise they are doing it. "Oh you can have on", "I just need a boost", "I'm just a little bit thirsty and I fancied this".........Edinburgh uni did a heavy oxygen "O3" study to find out what was really going on with peoples' diets, and the simple fact is that most people either lie or genuinely don't notice when they are putting things into their mouths.

At around 22mph on a bike, incidentally, a 80kg rider would burn about 1,000 kcals in an hour, making a few assumptions about road surfaces, rolling resistance and the weight of the bike.

[h90]

Your brain may run on glucose, mine runs on ketone bodies at the moment...If you are older and use 3000-3500 kcal a day, you are either big or do really lots of sport. People usually overestimate what a healthy body needs and how much you burn with sport. The stupid fitness industry supports that.....The stupid mobile phone application calculates that I burned over 2000 kcal at the 85 km I rode the bike at my bodyweight of 64 kg. Complete ridiculous. About same intensity on the trainer which has the correct formula it is about 1000 kcal (even with a +/- 20% error it doesn't come close to 2000 kcal).

So for me burning 3000-3500 kcal would require me to ride EVERY DAY 85km at full speed. If I would be a light, elderly woman, I would have to ride 170 km per day or more. Or work outside in Novosibirsk.

You'd never revise for a life-changing exam, and then sit it, with your brain running on ketones. That ain't healthy, it ain't enjoyable and it ain't normal. As to apps that try to estimate energy expenditure in cycling - well, there's no end to bad products. Energy consumption rises nearly exponentially with speed, which is why bikes are so dangerous as a means to keep fit. I see entire families trickling along the canal towpath at 10 mph, and they'll say, "Oh we cycled ten miles today, who want's some ice cream?" But a bike is a machine for conserving momentum, it supports your weight and at low speeds the air resistance is negligible.

As I say, however, I'm at 7% bodyfat, my basal need is about 2,400 without any specific exercise, I usually exercise and much that I eat isn't perfectly digested - kidney beans, chickpeas, wholemeal bread. These numbers aren't that unusual, and if you don't eat lots of starch but do go to the gym and walk walk about you're going to struggle without eating lots of starch.

Two things I will say. 1) In the tropics you don't use much energy staying warm - obviously - so that knocks it down a bit. 2) People kid themselves. You very rarely spend any time with someone without seeing what they are really about. Most people pour sugar down their necks all day and don't even realise they are doing it. "Oh you can have on", "I just need a boost", "I'm just a little bit thirsty and I fancied this".........Edinburgh uni did a heavy oxygen "O3" study to find out what was really going on with peoples' diets, and the simple fact is that most people either lie or genuinely don't notice when they are putting things into their mouths.

At around 22mph on a bike, incidentally, a 80kg rider would burn about 1,000 kcals in an hour, making a few assumptions about road surfaces, rolling resistance and the weight of the bike.

No on ketone bodies is perfectly healthy and you are more alert and active after you are used to it. But peak performance is reduced, long time performance not. Brain peak performance: I don't know. In the old times the body was in ketone mode half the year. What can you find all the winter in the alps....meat, fat.....The only problematic thing is the switch.

yes this apps, that have no setting if it is road bike on the street or mountainbike (with big tires) in rough area are useless.

Yes tropics is good argument, I wasn't aware of that, but it is obvious......heat generating is very costly.....

Yes most people don't recognize liquids as food, fruit juice, Coke, coffee full of sugar and creme or a soup....all has lots of energy. This "I need a boost" or strong hunger doesn't exist anymore in ketone mode. Blood sugar level is stable and flat without spikes. Glucose is generated in the necessary amounts in the liver.

When I eat at 19 PM, don't eat any breakfast next day, be on the bike at 11 AM I still have no problems bringing my usual performance, (but take 2 of the small bananas with me).

The usual sugar junky would be starving hungry but unable to mobilize these 140.000 kcal he has additionally on his belly.

Weight of the bike isn't important if it is flat, tire size, not only for resistance when rolling (obvious), but also for the aerodynamic, the top of the tire goes forward with 44mph if you go with 22 (exponentially increase). And of course the aerodynamic of the complete system bike+biker. A fat one will sit more up right and has a lot resistance (the aerodynamic shape of the beer belly doesn't help much ), while the slim one will be flat on the tribar.

[Happy Grumpy]

with 76 kg at 1.75 you are fat (considering not some trained person with lots of heavy muscle)

Actually, yes, I do 5/6 (split biweekly) weight training sessions in my gym every week.

[h90]

with 76 kg at 1.75 you are fat (considering not some trained person with lots of heavy muscle)

Actually, yes, I do 5/6 (split biweekly) weight training sessions in my gym every week.

Sorry for calling you fat

[Happy Grumpy]

I've been called worse.

[Typingdog]

Its complete bs to think rice created ur better diet.

Its to know which rice u eat and the other foods u eat with it.

Eating brown rice could be the best diet for every human, combined with good veggies, meat without preservatives

Eating good rice and veggies changed my life for the better

I understand the op

I don't understand why but when I eat rice esp jasmine rice. My digest system gone bad

Noodle and bread good for my digest system lol

[speedtripler]

Any restrictive diet - "Don't eat anything beginning with the letter "b", "don't eat carbs" - almost always results in people losing weight. They've done the research on this. Basically the diet you have before the change is the one you'd pick - have picked - so as soon as a change takes place you find you can't eat some of the things you'd choose, don't eat enough of other things, and lose weight. Why jack in rice? Probably because of the "just sugar" or "white death" propaganda. As Marcel says (above) brown rice is pretty awesome nutritionally, and I'm far from convinced there's a problem with white rice. I cook massive rice frenzy meals with the yoghurt, kidney beans, fish, spices and veg all in one pot, and I doubt there's much healthier.

That said, if you weren't getting enough protein then roti is going to be a big increase in consumption over rice. Vegetable protein consumption in particular is also associated with lower blood pressure, so roti might be the way forward. I think the average European on a budget will cope a lot better with Thailand if something bread-ish is at the heart of affairs morning and at lunchtime. Even a bread intended for consumption with savoury things would be pretty good with banana and other fruit and a pint of coffee in the morning, or maybe a few pan eggs. Rice is nice, but not thrice a day

Don't eat broccoli? Don't eat beanstalks? Don't eat bran? Don't eat bananas? Don't eat homemade fat free burgers?

Too many too list but I don't like banning by alphabet,Im all for sensible eating but sensible is the key word

Edited August 9, 2015 by speedtripler

[thehelmsman]

if you know that rice has been sprayed with so many chemicals, on the field, that even farmers don't dare to eat the produice they sell to others (article months ago)

after that, the governement sprays a nice bromine on the rice to kill more pests

bromine makes the iodine leave your body ...

same as fluorine does ...

Folks who grow rice for their own table take precautions. After harvest the stalks are plowed under to better the soil, rice is planted by hand (shoots) and not by seed. So, no weed killer is needed. What weeds there are get pulled by hand.

Don't know what processed rice is some keep talking about. Our rice goes straight from field to the rice house, gets shelled and eaten.

I've asked why we don't just buy the rice because it sure isn't a money maker after you pay 15 people to plant, harvest, bundle the rice is piece work and pay for the shucker. The answer is they want to know what they're eating.

[marcosss]

You just avoided diabetes

Is there absolutely any evidence for saying this?

For about six months thirty years ago there was a scare about cholesterol in eggs. They soon discovered that blood cholesterol levels were affected by biliary cholesterol, dumped in big volumes into the gut twice a day, if my memory serves me right. Eggs aren't a problem - they're a very good food - but people like an easy solution if it means they can do everything else that they enjoy. Thailand is doubtless not short of blokes who avoid white rice but drink 2,000 kcal of lager a day!

Type two diabetes is caused by being overweight and by having cells which don't respond efficiently to insulin. The first of these is caused by eating (or drinking) lots of energy-dense food, and the second is caused by failing to take intense exercise.

Don't eat refined sugar, don't eat large amounts of fat, don't eat garbage generally, and wind yourself by going flat out for thirty seconds ten times with short recoveries every three days. If you manage to becomes diabetic after that you're doing well.

Avoid diabetes by eliminating rice? Possibly? You could also try sacrificing a goat.

There is a good deal of evidence that restricting carbohydrate in the diet will reduce if not completely eliminate your chances of becoming a type 2 diabetic. The science is rock solid and in brief it goes like this. You spend a great part of your life eating what is perceived as a healthy diet as prescribed by the FDA's pyramid, low fat and high in carbs. Breakfast is cereal, high GI and causes a spike in insulin in order to control your blood sugar, mid morning snack, a muesli bar, high in sugar or fruit again elevating blood sugar thus the need for insulin to be introduced into the system. Lunch, a sandwich, usually on wheat based bread, the whole grains vs white bread argument is quite irrelevant, it will still elevate blood sugar and make the body secrete insulin in order to stabilise the blood sugar. We have only reached lunch time on an average day and have made the body work with one of the most powerful and dangerous hormones (insulin) three times, the most likely scenario is that you will possibly eat at least two more meals in that day, if they contain carbohydrate, they to will elicits an insulin response. Do this every day for 50 years and you may find yourself overweight, insulin resistant, pre diabetic and ageing prematurely. You don't believe me? Have a good look around you, have a look at the US statistics on diabetes and associated metabolic syndrome cases. It's all there if you care to look & learn. Alternatively you can follow the mainstream, keep eating the diet of a bronze aged agricultural society and reap the consequences of being a dumb-arse.

Oh, and your comment on eating less fat is so far off the mark that actually shows you know absolutely nothing about the latest in good nutrition.

[marcosss]

Your brain may run on glucose, mine runs on ketone bodies at the moment...If you are older and use 3000-3500 kcal a day, you are either big or do really lots of sport. People usually overestimate what a healthy body needs and how much you burn with sport. The stupid fitness industry supports that.....The stupid mobile phone application calculates that I burned over 2000 kcal at the 85 km I rode the bike at my bodyweight of 64 kg. Complete ridiculous. About same intensity on the trainer which has the correct formula it is about 1000 kcal (even with a +/- 20% error it doesn't come close to 2000 kcal).

So for me burning 3000-3500 kcal would require me to ride EVERY DAY 85km at full speed. If I would be a light, elderly woman, I would have to ride 170 km per day or more. Or work outside in Novosibirsk.

You'd never revise for a life-changing exam, and then sit it, with your brain running on ketones. That ain't healthy, it ain't enjoyable and it ain't normal. As to apps that try to estimate energy expenditure in cycling - well, there's no end to bad products. Energy consumption rises nearly exponentially with speed, which is why bikes are so dangerous as a means to keep fit. I see entire families trickling along the canal towpath at 10 mph, and they'll say, "Oh we cycled ten miles today, who want's some ice cream?" But a bike is a machine for conserving momentum, it supports your weight and at low speeds the air resistance is negligible.

As I say, however, I'm at 7% bodyfat, my basal need is about 2,400 without any specific exercise, I usually exercise and much that I eat isn't perfectly digested - kidney beans, chickpeas, wholemeal bread. These numbers aren't that unusual, and if you don't eat lots of starch but do go to the gym and walk walk about you're going to struggle without eating lots of starch.

Two things I will say. 1) In the tropics you don't use much energy staying warm - obviously - so that knocks it down a bit. 2) People kid themselves. You very rarely spend any time with someone without seeing what they are really about. Most people pour sugar down their necks all day and don't even realise they are doing it. "Oh you can have on", "I just need a boost", "I'm just a little bit thirsty and I fancied this".........Edinburgh uni did a heavy oxygen "O3" study to find out what was really going on with peoples' diets, and the simple fact is that most people either lie or genuinely don't notice when they are putting things into their mouths.

At around 22mph on a bike, incidentally, a 80kg rider would burn about 1,000 kcals in an hour, making a few assumptions about road surfaces, rolling resistance and the weight of the bike.

Craig, you are completely out of your field of knowledge in this subject. You should quit now before you are completely demolished by the current science that basically will debunk your entire argument & leave you with egg on your face.

The most successful distance athletes at the moment are those who are fat adapted or on specific ketogenic diets. Research papers by Tim Noakes and Jeff Voleck / Stephen Phinney are just some of the in depth studies done on ketogenic nutrition and sports performance. Using the assumption that an athlete who carb loads can only store around 2000 calories in glycogen, on your figures he would be depleted after two hours. Compare this to a fat adapted athlete with let's say 5% body fat, this athlete has 40000 calories on tap with the ability to metabolise around one gram of fat per minute. As for the mental fog you claim is caused by a ketogenic diet, again you are very wrong, it is caused by a poorly implemented diet. I've been on a ketogenic diet for a number of years and according to my blood work, which I have done every six months, I'm in excellent health with around 12% body fat all of which is subcutaneous. No visceral detected.

Find a Dexa scan and have a scan, let's see what you come up with.

[splodger]

I don't eat rice.Or Asian food for that matter

Thanks,now I know,anybody else care?

[marcosss]

I did forget to mention, on the subject of brain function on a keto diet. The body converts ketones into glucose specifically to accommodate brain function. There is absolutely no basis in your assertion that brain function suffers through not ingesting carbohydrates. The only known symptoms that would present as a "fog" or flu like feeling, is an indication that ones salt intake is not high enough. This is easily remedied by consuming a salty bone broth daily.

Edited September 19, 2015 by marcosss

[Craig krup]

Any restrictive diet - "Don't eat anything beginning with the letter "b", "don't eat carbs" - almost always results in people losing weight. They've done the research on this. Basically the diet you have before the change is the one you'd pick - have picked - so as soon as a change takes place you find you can't eat some of the things you'd choose, don't eat enough of other things, and lose weight. Why jack in rice? Probably because of the "just sugar" or "white death" propaganda. As Marcel says (above) brown rice is pretty awesome nutritionally, and I'm far from convinced there's a problem with white rice. I cook massive rice frenzy meals with the yoghurt, kidney beans, fish, spices and veg all in one pot, and I doubt there's much healthier.

That said, if you weren't getting enough protein then roti is going to be a big increase in consumption over rice. Vegetable protein consumption in particular is also associated with lower blood pressure, so roti might be the way forward. I think the average European on a budget will cope a lot better with Thailand if something bread-ish is at the heart of affairs morning and at lunchtime. Even a bread intended for consumption with savoury things would be pretty good with banana and other fruit and a pint of coffee in the morning, or maybe a few pan eggs. Rice is nice, but not thrice a day

Don't eat broccoli? Don't eat beanstalks? Don't eat bran? Don't eat bananas? Don't eat homemade fat free burgers?

Too many too list but I don't like banning by alphabet,Im all for sensible eating but sensible is the key word

You've misunderstood what I've said. I'm not recommending restrictive diets, I'm suggesting quite the opposite.

[Craig krup]

Your brain may run on glucose, mine runs on ketone bodies at the moment...If you are older and use 3000-3500 kcal a day, you are either big or do really lots of sport. People usually overestimate what a healthy body needs and how much you burn with sport. The stupid fitness industry supports that.....The stupid mobile phone application calculates that I burned over 2000 kcal at the 85 km I rode the bike at my bodyweight of 64 kg. Complete ridiculous. About same intensity on the trainer which has the correct formula it is about 1000 kcal (even with a +/- 20% error it doesn't come close to 2000 kcal).

So for me burning 3000-3500 kcal would require me to ride EVERY DAY 85km at full speed. If I would be a light, elderly woman, I would have to ride 170 km per day or more. Or work outside in Novosibirsk.

You'd never revise for a life-changing exam, and then sit it, with your brain running on ketones. That ain't healthy, it ain't enjoyable and it ain't normal. As to apps that try to estimate energy expenditure in cycling - well, there's no end to bad products. Energy consumption rises nearly exponentially with speed, which is why bikes are so dangerous as a means to keep fit. I see entire families trickling along the canal towpath at 10 mph, and they'll say, "Oh we cycled ten miles today, who want's some ice cream?" But a bike is a machine for conserving momentum, it supports your weight and at low speeds the air resistance is negligible.

As I say, however, I'm at 7% bodyfat, my basal need is about 2,400 without any specific exercise, I usually exercise and much that I eat isn't perfectly digested - kidney beans, chickpeas, wholemeal bread. These numbers aren't that unusual, and if you don't eat lots of starch but do go to the gym and walk walk about you're going to struggle without eating lots of starch.

Two things I will say. 1) In the tropics you don't use much energy staying warm - obviously - so that knocks it down a bit. 2) People kid themselves. You very rarely spend any time with someone without seeing what they are really about. Most people pour sugar down their necks all day and don't even realise they are doing it. "Oh you can have on", "I just need a boost", "I'm just a little bit thirsty and I fancied this".........Edinburgh uni did a heavy oxygen "O3" study to find out what was really going on with peoples' diets, and the simple fact is that most people either lie or genuinely don't notice when they are putting things into their mouths.

At around 22mph on a bike, incidentally, a 80kg rider would burn about 1,000 kcals in an hour, making a few assumptions about road surfaces, rolling resistance and the weight of the bike.

Craig, you are completely out of your field of knowledge in this subject. You should quit now before you are completely demolished by the current science that basically will debunk your entire argument & leave you with egg on your face.

The most successful distance athletes at the moment are those who are fat adapted or on specific ketogenic diets. Research papers by Tim Noakes and Jeff Voleck / Stephen Phinney are just some of the in depth studies done on ketogenic nutrition and sports performance. Using the assumption that an athlete who carb loads can only store around 2000 calories in glycogen, on your figures he would be depleted after two hours. Compare this to a fat adapted athlete with let's say 5% body fat, this athlete has 40000 calories on tap with the ability to metabolise around one gram of fat per minute. As for the mental fog you claim is caused by a ketogenic diet, again you are very wrong, it is caused by a poorly implemented diet. I've been on a ketogenic diet for a number of years and according to my blood work, which I have done every six months, I'm in excellent health with around 12% body fat all of which is subcutaneous. No visceral detected.

Find a Dexa scan and have a scan, let's see what you come up with.

I was weighed in a tank of water with residual gas analysis at Glasgow University during a "bulking" phase of weight training, and I was 7.1%. I was at least 1-1.5kg fatter than normal at that point. I'm fifty. Last Sunday - as usual - I did my back and bicep workout. Eighteen pull ups from a dead hang on the first set. Yesterday - as usual - I did my Wattbike workout. Five two minute intervals at 46k plus. I've listened to people giving me their cockamamie theories for thirty years, and all that's happened is that they've got fatter and weaker.

Egg on my face? Presumably your advice would be that I should instantly consume such a low-carb foodstuff

You've assumed that an athlete burning carbs would only burn carbs. This, of course, is nonsense. Distance runners on high carbohydrate diets burn huge quantities of fat, and it's the carb intake that facilitates this.

What do Noakes and Voleck actually say. A low-carb diet "...could be of benefit for some athletes". Noakes claims to be a distance runner, but the pictures show a fat man with chin wattles like a turkey: physician heal thyself. He has type 2 diabetes, and is looking for something to blame other than the fact that he allowed himself to get fat and didn't do enough flat out interval training: hobbling sixty miles every third month and putting a dent in the world's cheese supply between efforts won't do it. He has been repeatedly criticised, and by heavyweight critics. When I say "heavyweight" I mean they were credible. I don't mean that they are as fat as he is.

[marcosss]

Your brain may run on glucose, mine runs on ketone bodies at the moment...If you are older and use 3000-3500 kcal a day, you are either big or do really lots of sport. People usually overestimate what a healthy body needs and how much you burn with sport. The stupid fitness industry supports that.....The stupid mobile phone application calculates that I burned over 2000 kcal at the 85 km I rode the bike at my bodyweight of 64 kg. Complete ridiculous. About same intensity on the trainer which has the correct formula it is about 1000 kcal (even with a +/- 20% error it doesn't come close to 2000 kcal).

So for me burning 3000-3500 kcal would require me to ride EVERY DAY 85km at full speed. If I would be a light, elderly woman, I would have to ride 170 km per day or more. Or work outside in Novosibirsk.

You'd never revise for a life-changing exam, and then sit it, with your brain running on ketones. That ain't healthy, it ain't enjoyable and it ain't normal. As to apps that try to estimate energy expenditure in cycling - well, there's no end to bad products. Energy consumption rises nearly exponentially with speed, which is why bikes are so dangerous as a means to keep fit. I see entire families trickling along the canal towpath at 10 mph, and they'll say, "Oh we cycled ten miles today, who want's some ice cream?" But a bike is a machine for conserving momentum, it supports your weight and at low speeds the air resistance is negligible.

As I say, however, I'm at 7% bodyfat, my basal need is about 2,400 without any specific exercise, I usually exercise and much that I eat isn't perfectly digested - kidney beans, chickpeas, wholemeal bread. These numbers aren't that unusual, and if you don't eat lots of starch but do go to the gym and walk walk about you're going to struggle without eating lots of starch.

Two things I will say. 1) In the tropics you don't use much energy staying warm - obviously - so that knocks it down a bit. 2) People kid themselves. You very rarely spend any time with someone without seeing what they are really about. Most people pour sugar down their necks all day and don't even realise they are doing it. "Oh you can have on", "I just need a boost", "I'm just a little bit thirsty and I fancied this".........Edinburgh uni did a heavy oxygen "O3" study to find out what was really going on with peoples' diets, and the simple fact is that most people either lie or genuinely don't notice when they are putting things into their mouths.

At around 22mph on a bike, incidentally, a 80kg rider would burn about 1,000 kcals in an hour, making a few assumptions about road surfaces, rolling resistance and the weight of the bike.

Craig, you are completely out of your field of knowledge in this subject. You should quit now before you are completely demolished by the current science that basically will debunk your entire argument & leave you with egg on your face.

The most successful distance athletes at the moment are those who are fat adapted or on specific ketogenic diets. Research papers by Tim Noakes and Jeff Voleck / Stephen Phinney are just some of the in depth studies done on ketogenic nutrition and sports performance. Using the assumption that an athlete who carb loads can only store around 2000 calories in glycogen, on your figures he would be depleted after two hours. Compare this to a fat adapted athlete with let's say 5% body fat, this athlete has 40000 calories on tap with the ability to metabolise around one gram of fat per minute. As for the mental fog you claim is caused by a ketogenic diet, again you are very wrong, it is caused by a poorly implemented diet. I've been on a ketogenic diet for a number of years and according to my blood work, which I have done every six months, I'm in excellent health with around 12% body fat all of which is subcutaneous. No visceral detected.

Find a Dexa scan and have a scan, let's see what you come up with.

I was weighed in a tank of water with residual gas analysis at Glasgow University during a "bulking" phase of weight training, and I was 7.1%. I was at least 1-1.5kg fatter than normal at that point. I'm fifty. Last Sunday - as usual - I did my back and bicep workout. Eighteen pull ups from a dead hang on the first set. Yesterday - as usual - I did my Wattbike workout. Five two minute intervals at 46k plus. I've listened to people giving me their cockamamie theories for thirty years, and all that's happened is that they've got fatter and weaker.

Egg on my face? Presumably your advice would be that I should instantly consume such a low-carb foodstuff

You've assumed that an athlete burning carbs would only burn carbs. This, of course, is nonsense. Distance runners on high carbohydrate diets burn huge quantities of fat, and it's the carb intake that facilitates this.

What do Noakes and Voleck actually say. A low-carb diet "...could be of benefit for some athletes". Noakes claims to be a distance runner, but the pictures show a fat man with chin wattles like a turkey: physician heal thyself. He has type 2 diabetes, and is looking for something to blame other than the fact that he allowed himself to get fat and didn't do enough flat out interval training: hobbling sixty miles every third month and putting a dent in the world's cheese supply between efforts won't do it. He has been repeatedly criticised, and by heavyweight critics. When I say "heavyweight" I mean they were credible. I don't mean that they are as fat as he is.

Should I prostrate myself and kiss your arse now?

The fact of the matter is that carbohydrate restricted diets work. Might not work for you, but they most certainly work for the majority of people who undertake them. Noakes has written numerous books, some of which supported carb loading as a pre race feeding protocol. He has since changed his opinion based on his research. & yes he's known as a distance runner, he has a history of competition. Whatever the photo you may have seen of him, it dosen't sound like the man I saw a year ago. As for criticism by heavyweights, that is a part of peer review, he's been criticised but not discredited or disproven. In fact he is gaining a very large popular following, peppered with stories of improved health by those following his protocol.

As for the the difference between a fat adapted athletes and one who is not, when the non adapted athlete has reached the end of his glycogen stores he or she go through a physiological process, where if they don't replenish their supply of glucose, usually by gulping down glucose gells, their bodies start to break down, and they "hit the wall" or "bonk" this does not happen to a fat adapted athlete. In a nutshell, that is what Jeff Voleck and Stephen Phinney research concluded. The bottom line is that no one gives a rats arse about how many chins you can do, people want a way to improve their well being and a good diet is 80% of the solution for achieving that result.

[Craig krup]

Should I prostrate myself and kiss your arse now?

I could stand on a chair if you think it would help

Whatever the truth is you know what - it won't be a total revolution. This is all Atkins/Hay diet nonsense from decades ago. Athletes have been doing this stuff for decades - it goes through fashions. Real diet science is serious stuff; one professional controversialist is neither here nor there.

Take a look at the level of discourse in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. There ain't gonna be a revolution of the kind you imagine.

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/

[2fishin2]

How is rice a "processed" food?

[marcosss]

How is rice a "processed" food?

White rice has had the husk and germ removed, thus reducing the fibre content. That qualifies as being processed. Brown rice is less processed.

The issue with eating rice, lie in the frequency and quantity eaten along with what it is accompanied with.

[Spleen]

Stopped eating rice and drinking sugar loaded drinks about 4 years ago , I eat German black bread of rye bread , gone from around 102 kilos to 79.

You can pretty much eat what you want if you give sugar and starchy Carbs a miss , So no or very little Rice , White bread or that pony brown bread , pasta , noodles. They need to stop being your staple diet. For those who whinge what else is there to eat , I had chorizo sausage , smoked cheese and bratwurst on rye bread this morning. Plenty of quality food you can get without eating sugar and empty carbs or just vegetables

Edited September 20, 2015 by Spleen

[marcosss]

Should I prostrate myself and kiss your arse now?

I could stand on a chair if you think it would help

Whatever the truth is you know what - it won't be a total revolution. This is all Atkins/Hay diet nonsense from decades ago. Athletes have been doing this stuff for decades - it goes through fashions. Real diet science is serious stuff; one professional controversialist is neither here nor there.

Take a look at the level of discourse in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. There ain't gonna be a revolution of the kind you imagine.

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/

I agree that there will not be a revolution, it is most certainly not in the interests America's food and pharmaceutical industry to promote ketogenic diets. As for references to the American journal of nutrition, aren't they the same people who for the last 40 promoted the national dietary guidelines that resulted in that nation becoming the fatest with the highest incidents of metabolic syndrome on the planet, yes, your absolutely right, they have the runs on the board that proves that they know what their doing & you can call nonsense on everything outside there sphere of influence. Meanwhile I will correct you on the time frame regarding the existence of carbohydrate restricted diets. First up, the Inuit tribes of the polar regions have survived for centuries if not longer on fat and protein zero carbs, Masai tribes diet and milk, fat & protein, again possibly for thousands of years, neither of these groups suffer any I'll effects from there diets and are often used as subjects of epigenetic studies. In the western civilization carb restriction goes back over 100 years, then known as Banting. A bit longer than the handful of decades you mentioned, as for it being nonsense, that is plainly the view of someone incapable of accepting alternatives to the mantra of "the heavyweights" I believe that it's called cognitive dissonance.

[marcosss]

Stopped eating rice and drinking sugar loaded drinks about 4 years ago , I eat German black bread of rye bread , gone from around 102 kilos to 79.

You can pretty much eat what you want if you give sugar and starchy Carbs a miss , So no or very little Rice , White bread or that pony brown bread , pasta , noodles. They need to stop being your staple diet. For those who whinge what else is there to eat , I had chorizo sausage , smoked cheese and bratwurst on rye bread this morning. Plenty of quality food you can get without eating sugar and empty carbs or just vegetables

Sounds like another successful implementation of carbohydrate restriction. Without having to do HIIT three times a week. Well done sir.