What's the Best Way to Increase My Carbohydrate Intake?
Hi there Anthony,
I recently purchased your The Fat Loss Bible and am very pleased with it. Excellent, no-gimmick advice based on solid science and praxis...kudos to you.
It takes a certain type of moral courage to deliver a sensible product like yours, in the context of an industry that's built upon hyperbole, glitz and unrealistic promises. Unlike many others, you don't go for the quick and easy buck. But enough of the back-slapping...(you must be beginning to wonder if I'm softening you up for a loan request!).
Here's my quick question:
I'm a 35-year-old competitive powerlifter lifting in the 75 kg category. Up until the age of 33, I lifted in the 100kg category, but decided to drop weight after starting to suffer glycemic control issues (postprandial sweating, sugar cravings, heart palpitations etc.). I employed a low carb diet to drop the weight. This approach worked well for me as it helped with hunger and satiety, which in turn, made it easier for me to maintain negative energy balance through the diet. The satiety I experienced on this diet was much better than what I had experienced in more 'balanced' calorie restricted diets in the past (I used to experience stomach-gnawing cravings in between meals).
However, now that I've been at this weight (circa 75kgs) for a couple of years, I'm keen to get some more carbohydrates into my diet to assist with training performance. My concern, however, is that I may lose some of the satiety and hunger advantages that I currently enjoy with the high protein, high fat protocol.
Knowing that you're a guy that maintains lean condition and that also uses carbs to support training performance, I'm wondering if you can share with me (and your readers) how you manage this combination...especially in terms of managing hunger and satiety.
Much appreciated Anthony,
Harry
Anthony replies:
Hi Harry,
excellent question. While low-carbohydrate diets never caught on in the upper echelons of professional sport, plenty of serious recreational and amateur athletes tried them, often with disastrous results. As such, we are now seeing the pendulum in sporting circles swing decisively back towards higher carbohydrate intakes. Even bodybuilders are starting to turn their backs on the low-carbohydrate approach, with the high-carbing proteges of pre-contest ‘gurus’ like George Farah and Hany Rambod taking out pro titles like there’s no tomorrow.
So as both strength and endurance athletes start re-stocking their pantries with high-carbohydrate foods, are there are any important lessons we've learned that will help us avoid the pitfalls of the fanatical low-fat/high-carbohydrate era?
You bet.
One is to tailor your carbohydrate intake to your activity type and to the volume of your training. Just because one regularly exercises, doesn't automatically mean that gargantuan levels of carbohydrate are required. As a powerlifter, it's highly unlikely you'll need the same high level of carbohydrate intake as a competitive road cyclist or triathlete (you've probably already figured this out).
The other critical lesson learned is that when it comes to carbohydrate, quality is everything. During the low-fat era, Westerners binged on large amounts of refined carbohydrate foods, eating their way into record levels of obesity and diabetes. During the subsequent low-carbohydrate counter-reaction, we saw a knee-jerk tendency to vilify carbohydrates in general. The fact that the dietary changes seen during the obesity and diabetes epidemics were marked by increased overall caloric consumption, increases in overall fat intake*, and increases in refined carbohydrate intake was lost on most of the population. Australia and America didn't become the fattest nations in the world by binging on taro, pumpkin and berries; they did it by swilling down gallons of sugar-sweetened beverages and munching on foods laden with sugar and refined flours.
As I discuss in The Fat Loss Bible, refined carbohydrate foods typically offer poor satiety value, leading to over-consumption and subsequent weight gain and glycemic control problems. Throw in the refined "heart-healthy" linoleate-rich vegetable fats that were promoted heavily during this period, and the problem is magnified.
The key to increasing carbohydrate intake in a healthy manner is to focus on quality. The two most important factors to consider when choosing quality carbohydrate sources are glycemic index and anti-nutrient content.
Glycemic Index (GI).
Depending on who you listen to, the GI is one of the most important nutritional discoveries of the 20th Century, or a complete waste of time. I'm here to tell you that, unless you're one of the lucky few with naturally outstanding glycemic control, GI is very important. Not because it offers some mystical, magical "metabolic advantage" (it doesn’t), but because it's a huge help in keeping your blood sugar levels stable and your mental state on an even keel. This is critical if you are trying to get on top of fluctuations in hunger, energy and mood, and if you wish to attack your workouts with the kind of vigour and focus required to get optimal results.
Therefore, I recommend emphasizing low-GI carbohydrate sources. To learn more about the GI and find out the GI value of a specific food item you can visit the website of the University of Sydney researchers who pioneered the concept:
Some excellent low-GI carbohydrate-rich foods include sweet potato, quinoa, and taro.
Tasty, nutritious, and low-GI: Sweet potatoes have become a favored staple among athletes and bodybuilders.
Anti-Nutrient Content.
Cereals and other plant foods including legumes, nuts and seeds contain significant amounts of anti-nutrients. Some of these substances are quite literally toxic, and when consumed in high enough concentrations in raw foods can be fatal. Fortunately, cooking reduces anti-nutrient content and has allowed humans to greatly expand their plant food menu over time. Unfortunately, cooking does not completely deactivate anti-nutrient activity, and the anti-nutritional content of commonly eaten foods can have very real health consequences. The anti-nutrients found in cereal grains include phytates, lectins, enzyme inhibitors and glycosides that interfere with the absorption of nutrients such as vitamins D and B6. Some cereals like sorghum and millet contain large amounts of tannins.
Cereals such as wheat, rye and barley also contain gluten, a troublesome protein for both celiacs and non-celiac gluten sensitive individuals [1]. And irrespective of whether you suffer celiac disease or gluten allergy, wheat starch can prove problematic. Studies with healthy folks show almost all of them fail to break down an appreciable amount of wheat starch, explaining why symptoms such as bloating, belching, flatulence and abdominal discomfort are so commonly associated with cereal grain consumption[2].
Legumes are a particularly rich source of anti-nutrients including protease inhibitors, amylase inhibitors, phytates, flatus factors, hemagglutinins, saponins, cyanogens, lathyrogens, tannins, allergens, acetylenic furan and isoflavonoid phytoalexins.
Phytates impair mineral absorption, lectins may impair immune function and increase gut permeability, while tannins and the various enzyme inhibitors interfere with the digestion of proteins and carbohydrates.
Modern-day health authorities and dieticians might be enamoured with cereal grains and legumes, but the reality is humans were never meant to eat these foods in any appreciable quantity. Humans evolved as hunter-gatherers subsisting on diets of animal flesh and non-cereal, non-leguminous plant foods such as tubers, vegetables, berries and fruits. While the human species is around 2.4 million years old, grains and legumes became staples in the human diet only around 10,000 years ago, a development necessitated by a combination of population growth and significantly diminished availability of wild game.
This doesn’t mean you must avoid all cereal grains or consume only carbohydrate sources that were available to Stone Age humans. Attempting to do so would greatly limit your selection of carbohydrate-rich foods and could prove impractical. As an example, I myself eat potatoes and white rice, two “neolithic” carb sources that nevertheless have a relatively low anti-nutrient content and a low incidence of allergenicity. I do, however, strongly recommend combining these high-GI items with low-carbohydrate/high-fiber green and orange vegetables to temper their glycemic effects.
Here’s a brief list of suitable high-carbohydrate foods, based on the criteria above:
Sweet potato, taro, quinoa, pomegranate, berries, yams, potato, white rice (the latter two combined with low-carb/high-fiber vegetables to moderate their glycemic impact).
Fruits are an option but I recommend lightly cooking them to break down their fructose content. Banana, stewed apple, stone fruits and tropical fruits are all suitable choices. Dried fruits, along with nuts, make a great emergency snack, but most commercially prepared dried fruits contain sulphur dioxide as a preservative; liberal consumption is recommended only if you live alone and do not have a girlfriend.
Lower carb choices include pumpkin, kohl rabi, carrots, green peas, turnips, beetroot, radish, onion, etc. It’s also worth remembering that certain dairy products, including milk and yoghurt, contain appreciable amounts of carbs. When it comes to dairy, many adults find that cultured products such as yoghurt, cream and cheese cause far less gastrointestinal issues than milk.
Immediately after intense glycogen-depleting exercise is the one time you can forsake the GI rule; in fact, high-GI carb sources may actually offer an advantage over low-GI sources during this period, although the evidence is not conclusive. Glucose/dextrose, glucose polymers (aka maltodextrin), waxy maize, rice syrup, and barley malt syrup are all suitable post-training carbohydrate sources.
My advice Harry, would be to start out shooting for a daily carbohydrate intake somewhere between 150-350 grams daily. This is merely a suggested starting point and by no means written in stone. The exact amount will depend on your training volume and personal carbohydrate tolerance. The better your glycemic control and the higher your training volume, the more carbohydrate you will need and tolerate.
Also, if you've had trouble with satiety in the past, then never forget the potent satiating power of fiber and fat. Increasing the content of both at a meal can go a long way to increase the satiety value of that meal. In fact, when I am training extra hard and trying to maximize my daily caloric intake, one of the things I'm careful to do is make sure I'm not eating too much fat or fiber - they are too effective at filling me up! If you're getting hungry within 2 hours after most of your meals, then chances are you are eating too little overall, or that your meals contain too little fat and/or fiber. On the flipside, if you are still feeling full 4-5 hours after a meal, you are either eating too much or shoveling in too much fiber and/or fat.
The best way to increase your fiber intake is, not through the use of processed fiber products nor with whole-grains, but with fruits and vegetables naturally high in roughage. As for boosting your fat intake, meats (untrimmed or partially trimmed), whole eggs, oily fish, olive oil, macadamia oil, coconut products, avocado, nuts and seeds (preferably soaked and roasted) are all good sources.
Similar to the fuel mix used in a high-performance race car, you will need to experiment with the amount of fat and fiber you consume at a meal until you get the ideal balance; one that allows you to eat 3-5 meals spaced throughout the day without getting ravenous in between feedings, and without showing up to the dinner table still full from the last meal.
*It’s commonly claimed that fat consumption fell during the obesity epidemic. Incorrect. According to USDA and FAO data, total fat intake rose during this period. The amount of fat consumed as a percentage of total calories fell, but this was merely an artifact of an even greater rise in carbohydrate intake.
Losing Muscle and Energy on Atkins, Eating Before Bed, the Lowdown on Potatoes and Rice
Hello sir, I appreciate all the work you do regarding fitness and nutrition.
1. An unrequested testimonial
I used the Atkin's diet for 3-4 months in 1998. I lost around 50-60 pounds (went from 235-240 lbs down to 180-185). At the time, I thought it was great... I felt fantastic, energetic, faster, etc. I started to work out (weight lifting with no real program) about half way through. All the great rantings from your typical Atkins' zealot. Upon hitting 180-185, I still had a slight belly (I am 5'8") but I felt so great that I mostly lapsed all my dietary controls. I eventually ceased my workouts as the low willpower excuse of "too much going on" started to overtake me. Even a few years later, I had still only gone up to about 220 pounds, but I noticed something peculiar between 2002 and now (sure, 8 years sounds like a long time, but I've changed companies twice, jobs within companies about 6 times, bought two houses, sold one, got married, had two kids in the intervening time... plenty of mental strain for someone {who was not committed in the first place} to pay little attention to fitness).
The peculiar thing was that I could not seem to get back on the diet. I would get headaches, nausea, mood swings and, worse yet, I felt worse at 220 pounds (physically/fitness wise) than I had at 235 or 240 before... especially in the legs. Before I had ever tried any diet, I always seemed to have an unlimited capacity for improving leg strength... using the leg press and quad extension machines at the gym, the amount of weight seemed to only affect the number of reps, lifting anything that oculd be placed on the rack was no problem, I even had visible muscle separation in my quadruceps despite being an absolute fatty. After the diet, not so much. I was having an incredibly hard time getting back into any training without a lot of pain and much, much more effort than I had needed before... even my arm strength (especially for deltoids) was affected.
I had some suspicions before reading your site, your well documented summary of studies, and sections of your book, but I think you have helped me to confirm my suspicions. That fad diet in 1998 that seemed so successful for me served to rob me of all kinds of muscle mass. It was hard to notice at the time, because my overall lighter weight placed less strain/resistance on the reduced muscle mass, making me feel lighter and faster, but when weight started coming back on, it was all fat and the mass to support it was no longer there. It's now patently obvious to me that the absolutely required blood sugars that my body needed and was not getting from dietary intake were being scavenged from my own muscles. It's also ovious that the weight loss was a simple excessive reduction in calories that worked well at my high weight of the time but did not work so well at lower weights.
When I first started Atkin's after reading a few of the alarming first chapters, and I was a regular couch potato, I didn't know how to fill a day with protein calories, so I just started cutting out anything that was not protein or fat (bread and vegetables and pasta and fruit are DANGEROUS, AVOID THEM) and I ended up eating very little. After a few months, I got some recipes and ideas learned and started filling up that caloric gap with increased intake, and the weight loss STOPPED because instead of monitoring overall intake, I was just monitoring calories from ONE source (carbohydrates). When I broke the diet and tried to go back, I shaved out all carbohydrates but already knew how to fill a day with protein and fat calories, so repeated weight loss was difficult.
Sure, people who know what they are doing don't fall into those traps, but couch lizards to whom these fad diets appeal tend to pay a lot less attention to nurtition and fitness, and process information regarding nutrition in a much more binary way (I eat only things of x type OR I eat anything but things of y type).
So anyway, I appreciate the sort of final nail in the coffin of Atkin's that you helped nail in for me, it is very good work you are doing and I appreciate it. I really hope more people read your writings and if they learn ANYTHING, I hope they learn to take a critical approach to each new weight loss/fitness "system" and understand that the loss of lean mass is always a possibility, and almost never a good thing.
2. Questions
Regarding your book, I see sweet potato listed as a food item that is recommended, but not the unrelated potato (russet, for example). I understood these to be nutritionally next in quality after a sweet potato based on a 1992 study (The Center for Science in the Public Interest, I can't find much else regarding the study)... but that study could be amazingly misrepresentative, which is why I am asking you. Here is a link to a brief summary of the study (which may have just been something designed to increase sweet potato sales, for all I know):
http://www.foodreference.com/html/sweet-pot-nutrition.html
So, without asking you to do any research for me, I'm just wondering if you have anything specific regarding potatoes that keeps them off your recommended list (they are not on your "not recommended" list), beyond the temptation to slather them full of butter, sour cream, etc.
Second question: any opinions on brown rice as a carb source? I know it's great in a bucket for working out your hands, but my wife insists that it and a few varieties/preparations of oats are somehow "good"grains for human consumption. I'm doubtful.
Third question... should there by any concern regarding a late evening workout and post workout carb supplementation? I understand that there is really not any evidence that shows that a large PM meal provides no problems (and may even provide advantages), but that meal would still occur a good 3-4 hours before sleep begins. On the other hand, eating a PM meal, waiting for digestion, working out intensely for 30-45 minutes (more like 30 given the shape I am in, and not all THAT intense) then following up with a sensible carb/protein supplement would leave a significant intake happening pretty close to the beginning of sleep.
I know that GH spikes/suppression don't really have much to do with weight loss or body composition (in the amounts that can be affected by timing of caloric intake, anyway), but aside from that, is there any concern over sucking down a couple hundred calories right before bedtime?
I understand you may not have the time/interest in responding, I will go about my stumbling attempts at improving my health regardless. If you have time to respond with anything on the two questions, I thank you in advance, and even if you don't, I thank you for all the information you have already publicized for everyone to read.
-Shane
Anthony replies:
Hi Shane,
Thanks for sharing your experiences on the Atkins diet. These fad-type diets are usually less-than-optimal for sedentary folks and are a complete disaster for athletic folks. I've said it before and I'll say it again: aside from amputation of your limbs, ketogenic dieting is quite possibly the quickest and most effective way to destroy your performance in any glycogen-depleting athletic endeavour. As for muscle, there is an ever-increasing body of evidence showing that both the low-insulin and glycogen-depleted conditions often induced by very low-carbohydrate dieting are anathema to muscle preservation and growth.
Regarding potatoes, I am a huge fan of the sweet variety as they are carbohydrate- and nutrient-rich (not to mention delicious when prepared properly) but have a relatively low-GI. However, one can't eat them day in and day out. That's a sure-fire path to boredom and potential food sensitivities.
I have no problem with people eating white potatoes (I eat them myself), but it must be remembered that they are a high GI item that can cause marked spikes in blood glucose levels. Therefore, I recommend consuming them with at least some fat and mixed in with low-carb, low-GI foods that are high in fiber. Most green and orange/yellow vegetables will fit the bill. Adding some fiber and fat helps lower the overall GI of the meal and tempers the rise in blood glucose.
As for brown rice, I'm not a big fan of whole grains. Yeah, I know, dietitians wank on about them as if they are the Rosetta Stone of nutrition, but you must remember these are the same people who tell you supplements are unnecessary, soy is healthy, saturated fat "clogs" arteries, and that anything more than the meagre RDA for protein will cause you to blow your kidneys out your backside.
The reality is that grains, legumes, and even nuts and seeds contain high amounts of anti-nutrients, a class of substances that includes phytate, lectins, and enzyme inhibitors. These compounds can reduce mineral absorption, increase gut permeability, impair immune function, and hamper digestion. Cereal grains also contain substances that interfere with the absorption of important vitamins such as D and B6. There is nothing "healthy" about any of these potential side effects.
In the case of nuts and seeds, anti-nutrient activity can be greatly reduced by soaking (minimum 1 hour, maximum 6 hours) and roasting. In the case of cereal grains, the most effective method for reducing anti-nutrient activity is to remove the outer husk, for it is in this protective outer layer that anti-nutrients are most concentrated.
When health "experts" tell you to consume whole-grains, they are effectively instructing you to increase your intake of potentially harmful anti-nutrients. Their rationale for doing so is that whole-grains are higher in fiber and therefore have a lower GI, and that whole grains have a higher nutrient content than refined grains.
Both claims are highly suspect. If the whole grain cereal in question has been ground into a wholemeal (as is usually the case in most food products) then there is no difference in blood sugar response, despite the higher fiber content. As with white and wholemeal wheat breads, the glycemic response of white and brown rice is similar.
Whole grains: not so healthy after all.
As for claims of a higher nutrient content, well, it is true that whole grains have higher levels of numerous vitamins and minerals than refined grains. But what the whole-grain shills are not telling you is that the accompanying high anti-nutrient content will see to it that your body does not benefit from most of those extra vitamins and minerals.
Take the case of magnesium, an important mineral that most Westerners are deficient in. Because magnesium-rich foods are relatively scarce, dietitians and health authorities make much ado about the high magnesium content of whole-grains. However, when subjects were given white bread with phytate added in an amount normally found in wholemeal bread, magnesium absorption was dramatically reduced (http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/79/3/418). Magnesium absorption was around 60% lower when phytic acid was added to phytic acid-free white-wheat bread at an amount similar to that in whole-meal wheat bread and around 25% lower when added at an amount similar to that in "brown" bread. A far more efficient and less toxic way to improve your magnesium status would be to take a highly absorbed supplemental form such as magnesium citrate on a daily basis.
And a far better way to increase your nutrient intake and reduce the GI of your meals would be to consume, not brown rice, but white rice mixed with high-fiber/high-antioxidant/high-nutrient/low-GI vegetables, as well as some added fat, similar to what I suggested for potatoes. My personal favourite is to consume white rice with a delicious pumpkin soup I brew up using diced pumpkin and beef bones. I let it simmer for hours, and the result is a creamy gelatin-rich mixture that not only has attained legend status among my family and friends, but does a great job of moderating the glycemic effect when mixed with white rice. I usually throw in some cheese to supply the extra fat (after cooking the soup I let it sit in the fridge overnight, next morning I remove the layer of fat that settles at the top).
As for late eating after a PM workout, this is a situation encountered by many who are forced to train late due to work or other commitments. Don't stress over the effect of elevated blood glucose levels on nocturnal GH levels, because there doesn't appear to be any. A study in which the blood sugar levels of men were significantly elevated during early sleep via glucose infusion showed no suppression of night-time GH release (http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/32/1/65). The alleged GH-suppressing effects of eating close to bedtime appears to be yet another one of those common beliefs everyone accepts as fact but no-one ever actually provides any evidence for.
A more realistic concern is the digestive effect of eating a large meal, something that causes an acute rise in metabolism, immediately before sleep, a low-energy state in which the body diverts energy to growth and repair. Digestion is energy-intense work, and it is prudent to leave a gap of 1-3 hours between eating a large meal and hitting the sack. Of course, this isn't always practical. If you train late, have a post-workout drink, then wait 1-2 hours to eat a solid meal, then wait 1-3 hours before getting to bed, it could be well after midnight before you finally get some shut-eye.
There are a number of ways to deal with this scenario; the most suitable method depends on the type of workout and also your own personal response to eating before sleep. Some folks can eat right before sleeping and suffer no adverse reactions; others wake up feeling like they’ve been hit by a truck.
If you have just finished a weight training workout, my advice would be to have a solid meal containing moderate- to high-protein, low- to moderate-fat, moderate- to high-carbohydrate immediately after showering up, then wait an hour or two before hitting the sack. Weight training does make inroads into glycogen stores, but the level of depletion is nowhere near that experienced after activities like sprinting, boxing, cycling, etc.
However, if you've just finished a bout of glycogen-depleting activity, then you'll want to take advantage of the heightened glycogen re-synthesis that occurs within the first 30 minutes of ending the workout. Depending on how late it is, I would consume 1g/kg bodyweight of carbohydrate (75g for a 75kg person) in liquid form along with my whey, EAAs or BCAAs. After an hour or so, I'd eat a solid meal.
If you don't have enough of a gap before bedtime, just have a solid meal. You may need to experiment with macro ratios for that last meal. Too much protein and too little carbohydrate will amp up your excitatory neurotransmitters and have you tossing and turning all night instead of sleeping soundly.
Cheers,
Anthony.
Don't Panic if You Can't Afford Organic
Hi Anthony,
I am very interested in gaining back my healthy lifestyle [but] I can't afford to eat organic all the time, is this a problem?
Claire.
Anthony replies:
Hi Claire,
you don't need to eat organic to be healthy. It’s important to eat nutrient-rich plant foods, so just be sure to emphasize low-pesticide fruits and vegetables. Here’s a recent ranking of fruits and vegetables based on their pesticide levels:
http://www.foodnews.org/fulllist.php
Buy as fresh as possible, as close to the source as possible. Be sure to peel or wash fruits and vegetables thoroughly.
Cheers,
Anthony.
—
References
- Kaukinen K, et al. Intolerance to Cereals Is Not Specific for Coeliac Disease. Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology, 2000; 35: 942–946.
- Anderson IH, et al. Incomplete Absorption of the Carbohydrate in All-Purpose Wheat Flour. New England Journal of Medicine, 1981; 304: 891-892.
Disclaimer: All content on this web site is provided for information and education purposes only. Individuals wishing to make changes to their dietary, lifestyle, exercise or medication regimens should do so in conjunction with a competent, knowledgeable and empathetic medical professional. Anyone who chooses to apply the information on this web site does so of their own volition and their own risk. The owner and contributors to this site accept no responsibility or liability whatsoever for any harm, real or imagined, from the use or dissemination of information contained on this site. If these conditions are not agreeable to the reader, he/she is advised to leave this site immediately.