Saturday, 16 March 2013

Everyone is Different, Part 2.

Cont'd from We are not all the same.

A long, long time ago...

I learned that Everyone is Different, thanks to a study by Julia H. Goedecke, Alan St Clair Gibson, Liesl Grobler, Malcolm Collins, Timothy D. Noakes and Estelle V. Lambert.

Well, stone the flamin' crows! Timothy D. Noakes' name just popped up in Alan Aragon's article 2013 NSCA Personal Trainers Conference: Looking Back at my Debate with Dr. Jeff Volek. Dr. Noakes has had problems with his blood glucose level and has adopted a very-low-carb/ketogenic diet.

What also caught my eye in Alan Aragon's article was (Note: TTE = Time To Exhaustion):-
"However, the authors’ conclusion is misleading since 2 of the 5 subjects experienced substantial drops in endurance capacity (48 and 51-minute declines in TTE, to be exact). One of the subjects had a freakishly high 84-minute increase in TTE, while the other increases were 3 and 30 minutes."

I expect that the subjects with 84 and 30 minute increases in TTE would be praising ketogenic diets, whereas the subjects with 48 and 51 minute declines in TTE would be cursing them and the subject with 3 minutes increase would be "Meh". Vive la difference!

Also note that sprint capability...remained constrained during the period of carbohydrate restriction. As mentioned in It's all in a day's work (as measured in Joules), exercise above a certain intensity (~85%VO2max) burns significant amounts of carbs, no matter how fat-adapted someone is.

Cont'd on Everyone is Different, Part 3.


ProudDaddy said...

Your original "Everyone is Different" article still stands as one of the most edifying that I've ever read. I thank you.

Nigel Kinbrum said...

I'd never have written the article had I not bought Tim Noakes' book "Lore of Running" and spotted that histogram on P122!

Bill said...

Hi Nigel,
I'm curious - what is your opinion on Aragon vs. Volek? I've only seen Aragon's version, and unfortunately we probably won't see the other side of the coin (ie, I doubt Volek will post his take on the debate).

Nigel Kinbrum said...

Hi Bill,

I debated with Alan Aragon in his fructose alarmism post and have to admit that he really knows his stuff. I don't know anything about Jeff Volek.

The comments are interesting in that they support Alan's contention that people who do significant amounts of glycolytic activity need more dietary carbs than people who don't.

Cheers, Nige

Unknown said...

I read Alan Aragon's take on the debate. He did seem to have the weight of the evidence on his side, but that's the issue that I think Volek and others are trying to ultimately highlight. Their strategy has yet to undergo such a through level of trial. One being right doesn't necessarily mean that the other is wrong.

Nicely done, Mr. Kinbrum--I think this is a very fruitful successor to Part 1. Also, to echo ProudDaddy's sentiments, Nigel, the whole "Everyone is Different" line of commentary that you've done, is one of those defining trademark contributions of yours in this realm of the blogosphere.

Nigel Kinbrum said...

Why are you still awake at 2am? You know what lack of sleep does to the metabolism ;-p It looks as though 4 weeks of fat adaptation is good for ultra-endurance activities for some people.

Thanks to Bill Lagakos (who commented above), I was reminded of another well-controlled study where results are all over the place. I'm thinking about writing Part 3.

The blogosphere is full of people throwing rocks at each other, based on their conflicting personal experiences. Oh, the drama!

Unknown said...

I a creature of the night, good sir. My metabolism revs to astronomical levels as a howl evil lyrics to the backdrop of a crimson shrouded full moon. ; )

I saw part 3 as well as the post about mid-Victorian era and mortality--good stuff. It really is a welcomed break from this conflict taking place in the blogosphere at the moment. I read your hilarious comment on Wooo's blog about how people don't read over as much at this place because there's a lack of drama. I could help with that, although I wouldn't advise it and it would require a bit of work. . . lol.

Nigel Kinbrum said...

I'm a bit of a night owl, but I was fast asleep at 2:13am.

Oh, yeah. Those rotters! I have to admit that ItsTheWoo covers an interesting array of subjects, even if I don't agree with her at times.

I don't think that I could cope with loads of comments. Due to a technical problem ( has suddenly appeared in my blog according to NoScript and it's messing up Opera on my phone), I can't leave comments using my phone.

Nigel Kinbrum said...

It was one of the "Sociable" buttons that was causing the problem, so I've removed them all.

Galina L. said...

"One being right doesn't necessarily mean that the other is wrong."
I really like that line.

Unknown said...

Don't know of it's all that better, but you could give Disqus a shot, Nige.

Nigel Kinbrum said...

As there aren't many comments to manage on here, I'll stick with Blogger.

Unknown said...

Fair enough. Not to mention, Disqus has a bad habit of thinking like a dumb bot, and it's part of Google's evul master planz to rule us allz.

Unknown said...

Hi Nigel

I hope all is well.

I never thought Alan Aragon or Lyle McDonald wee valid sources of information.

I spoke further to Cambridge, Caltech and Harvard scientists who are physicists and biophysicists.

I now know with certainty that Lyle McDonald's equation is laughably wrong and simplisitc at that.

*The human body is an open system

*The human body is also a non- equilibrium system

Because of these two facts, this makes the situation hellishly complex to the maximum.

No scientist that I ever spoke to could give me even a rough idea of what this equation looks like . They admitted as much. They said it is too complex. They also said if it could EVEN be done, it would not be a singular equation. It would be many.

This area of thermodynamics is extremely subtle they said. It's not well understood. It's a work in progress.

They said we must consider FREE ENERGY ( which includes entropy) rather than energy.

There are huge problems using a measurement of heat ouput from burnign a substance and trying to predict what happens when a substance is consumed by humans.

The very top people in this specialty personally told me that fat amd muscle gain/loss has to do with extremely complex physiological and biochemical processes- it's not a basic thermodynamics problem. This is what they said.

Aragon got a spanking the other day and completely avoided the issue of my scientists' information and how McDonald is completely wrong with his equation.

The unknowns about obesity are far greater than any knowns currently. It will probably remian this way in our lifetimes. But to admit this as genuine scientists do would make no monet for these Blogosphere salesmen like Aragon and McDonald.

Wishing you well,


Nigel Kinbrum said...

Hi Razwell,
I'm good, thanks.

The human body is hellishly complicated, but I still believe that, generally speaking, accumulation of body-fat is due to consuming more food than the body is burning.

Cheers, Nige

Puddleg said...

Excess energy; yes it seems fiendishy simple. But as Brother Taubes might say, it begs the question - why?

If person A takes in excess energy today, why don't they become more energetic and less hungry tomorrow?

Why does their appetite not cut out, their saliva dry up, and the food turn to sawdust in their mouths?

Why does the digestion keep on chugging instead of saying "fuck you, are you crazy?" and dumping the excess where the sun don't shine?

So many questions...

Nigel Kinbrum said...

It's got something to do with stability of blood glucose level. So, for some people, it's all about the carbs.