If anyone starts to give me advice on what to eat, well, I just turn them off! Who needs a diet? Just eat balanced meals and "good" food. I can eat anything I want and would never ever say I cannot
eat something because it is "against" my diet!!!

Cut back on carbs? Why? If you are trying to lose weight, just balance the quantity of food with the amount of exercise and let the scale be your guide. Pretty simple.

.

---

Dave Campbell | Facebook | @DaveECampbell | h2ofun@h2ofun.net

Boom Nutrition code 19F4Y3 $5 off 24 pack box | Bionic Runner | PowerCranks | Velotron | Spruzzamist

Lions don't lose sleep worrying about the sheep

Nope, not that simple! Friel indicates that when he cut out carbs his performance improved, and the balance food intake with exercise paradigm, again not that accurate.

That *is* a diet!



You just said you had to eat balanced meals and good food. So you don't eat anything you want. You restrict yourself.



Weight isn't everything. There was a very recent study here that examined the consumption of high fructose sugars in children. Same calorie input. Ended with the same weight. Both groups ate pretty junky food. The non-sugar group had hot dogs, pizza, etc. But at the end of the study, just 10 days, the high-fructose group had far more fat accumulation in the liver and bloodstream. Bad.

Very short, limited study, but kind of frightening in its suggested implications.

So you should modify the h2ofun diet to be "balanced meals, good food, and limited consumption of high-fructose drinks except when engaged in exercise lasting longer than two hours."

I'm not going to argue with friel cause he knows his shit and is probably more updated on the research than I but I will try to rationalize what he said and put it in the context of a competitive age group athlete in his 50's

1. Endurance athletes have a tendency to put a lot of focus on carbs. For an elite level athlete who is at a very low bf% training 4-6 hours a day, glycogen depletion is a legitimate concern so they must consume a lot of carbohydrates (all macros actually) to keep up with their training demands. For an age group athlete carrying a little extra fuel around their midsection, depending on your level of competitiveness and training volume carbohydrate consumption may not be as big a concern.

2. The main benefits of a paleo diet are the improved quality of the food being eaten and the increased consumption of lots of animal protein. This is a very drastic change from the usual diets of most people and these are the people who will see the biggest change. For those of us who are getting adequate high quality protein (all essential amino acids) and are already consuming good quality food (good micro and macronutrient profile) the benefit of a paleo diet will not be as pronounced.

3. With regard to carbohydrates and fat you are right in saying that is an ongoing debate. The USDA has been preaching this low fat, high carb approach for years and this really isn't a very good approach to the majority of the population. Eliminating carbs completely is in my opinion not the right tool for the job, reducing carbs for weight loss for a limited amount of time yes but for endurance competition my guess is that consuming adequate fat along with enough carbs for optimal fueling is still the quickest way to finishline.

I have just finished reading his book too and find I disagree with a few of his ideas. I guess everybody is built differently and despite the studies that he refers to, what works for one person may not for another.

My approach in over three decades in triathlon has been "everything in moderation" although I must admit you wouldn't always classify everything about Ironman as moderation. This attitude of moderation applies equally to diet as well as exercise. Intensity in training I believe is one sure way to burn out either mentally or physically. If you want to continue doing triathlon into your dotage I would suggest less of the intensity and more of the consistency. I think it is what keeps me on the podium in most races.

what keeps most on the podium has little to do with the eat, how they train or read......what keeps fast people fast is the genes thier parents gave them.

I did not read the book but I saw an interview with another higly estimated expert (Caroline Rauscher from Germany) who is not in favour of a low-carb diet. The bottom line was that although the body learns how to burn fat during sports, it forgets how to burn carbohydrates, which is of course detrimental to performance.

Source, or specifically what is "a lot"?

I've noticed that a lot of really fast athletes don't eat nearly as many carbs as I thought they would, which made my after dinner dessert that I passed off as "glycogen restoration" seem overkill.

At the very least the book and the discussion needs to be had in this country, for every "elite athlete" who has a legitimate need to consume carbs there are 99 triathletes who are downing sports drinks and candy to finish a sprint or a local 10k. Contrast that with Kilian Jornet who set the speed record up and down Denali on single Gel and some water, and there is a pretty big gap.

I'm amazed that a group of what is generally an openminded, forward thinking group of athletes, can be so dogmatic about diet. Here you have a well respected coach suggesting that there may be a better way and many will laugh at him.

Do what works for you but my experience is that he is right. For me. Remove processed carbs and sugar. Add fat and more veg. I got leaner and faster. I also feel better and don't carry bars and gel for every ride and run.

And just for some added fun, I no longer believe a calorie is just a calorie.

I've heard that before, maybe some science classes at a local college would clear it up for you.

No thanks. I'll just stick to what works for me.

Protein is actually the most prevelant element in the body next to water. It contributes to body structure and processes such as cell membranes, enzymes and more.

The diet he recommends being higher in protein for endurance athletes over 50 is actually nothing new and generally recommended for anyone over 50. The idea is that as we age, we actually lose muscle mass. Once we hit 50, it speeds up. It is a process called sarcopenia. The high protein diet is intended to deliver more amino acids to the body for preserving of muscle mass to prevent/delay sarcopenia and keep the body functioning optimally.

---

"Just don�t abandon everything you�ve ever learned because of something someone said on the internet." - Eric McGinnis

Jimmy Riccitello gave me the best nutritional advice that I have used for the last 15 years. He stated "Eat a little of a lot of different foods". We still do not know all we would like to know about nutrition and this helps to keep the bases covered.

YES, it is that simple. I'm late 50s and I'm siding with Dave on this one. You could write a book, scratch that - a tome - on diet and exercise studies that have been proven wrong.

Yes, I do agree with that! However, it reminds me of a discussion that a young doctor had with an older experienced physician about which surgical procedure to use. It seemed that there were two competing procedures and the younger doctor was confused on which to use. The older physician told him, "It doesn't matter, if one procedure was better than the other, that one would see more use. Since there were strong proponents on both sides, the results are the same."

Here you have a well respected coach suggesting that there may be a better way and many will laugh at him.

Friel says a lot that is laugh worthy. Not just about diet.

I don't know that he is a well respected coach.... Maybe a mildly respected author, but not coach

---

Eric Reid AeroFit | Instagram Portfolio
Aerodynamic Retul Bike Fitting

“You are experiencing the criminal coverup of a foreign backed fascist hostile takeover of a mafia shakedown of an authoritarian religious slow motion coup. Persuade people to vote for Democracy.”

I think you can stop being amazed now.

To encourage fat adaptation so you use less glycogen which must be replenished by eating more total calories to avoid hunger or inability to perform at higher intensities.

http://cyclingtips.com.au/...-and-how-to-try-one/


In his 60s Friel uses that to get back to his 154 racing weight from when he was 18.

I shrunk from 205 pounds with a 36" waist to 139 and 27" that way only eating when hungry, eating enough my hunger was sated 30 minutes after the last bite, and always eating when hungry.

That's not a real solid assessment of the ongoing study, but prelim data presented at a conference. Also, there wasn't a "high-fructose group" here. The two 'groups' were two different races receiving the same treatment. I don't believe there was a control group where they let morbidly obese children continue stuffing themselves with soda. Jean-Marc Schwarz is doing awesome stuff, but we can't relate this to fueling adult athletes. ~200lb kids barely over 5' with near 50% body fat are a different game. Having two groups receiving the same treatment means there shouldn't be a statistically significant weight loss difference between groups. The data shows that the kids cutting out fructose lost 1kg on average in that 10 day period. Not statistically significant, but a kg is a kg. We know we store fat when we take in more calories than needed (or take a couple days off of training). In a caloric deficit (assumed due to the median weight loss) we stop storing more calories/fat than we expend. In addition to being a site for processing fructose, the liver is a good place to store calories (when there is a clear excess) and seems related to non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). My guess would be that the caloric demand outpaced the caloric consumption (Yes, there had to be a caloric deficit or large increase in activity for that weight loss. With experience in interventional research in minors, good luck making those kids eat the new stuff you sent home with them). Some of the fat from the livers was released for energy.


However, the recommendation at the end of the post makes sense. I'm not sure if you are referencing high-fructose corn syrup or a drink with a high percentage of carbohydrates coming from fructose. Even if it's defined as a simple sugar, fructose isn't processed for energy super quickly so it's best combined with something that hits the blood easily (dextrose/glucose or maltodextrin) instead of playing the main role in fueling high intensity exercise. HFCS? I'll be darned if a cool Coke doesn't taste great during a long aerobic effort.

edit: I'm still figuring out quotes

That's why I used the adjectives "short , limited."

Quote:

Also, there wasn't a "high-fructose group" here.

The entire group was the high-fructose group. And the the low fructose group. So the divison was performed temporally rather in the traditional control vs. experiment division. Doesn't follow the usual protocol needed for a rigorous experiment, but the result is still pretty striking, e.g. suggesting further study.

Quote:

The two 'groups' were two different races receiving the same treatment.

That'd be one group. They didn't treat the two races any differently, as far as I can tell


I agree that it doesn't have that much to do with fuelling athletes. I was mostly countering the idea that "a calorie is a calorie." I believe there's plenty of evidence that there is far, far more to a diet (for athletes or otherwise) than just calorie content.

Back in the day he coched me to 4 world's medals.
How many have hou won - I wonder?

I think our viewpoints are fairly similar. The previously mentioned data would not be a good way to provide evidence for our opinion though. As you mentioned, there are far better sources out there.

You mean this article?

http://www.nytimes.com/...tein-diets.html?_r=0

-Robert

---

"How wonderful it is that nobody need wait a single moment before starting to improve the world." ~Anne Frank