New Product - Super Mass600

[Dwight Schrute]

Hmmm... :think:

85 / 26 * 34 ~= 111
85 / 26 = 111 / 34
GIp / GLp = GIm / GLm
GI / GL = k
GI = k * GL

In other words, the GI is directly proportional the GL, and vice versa. When quantity of carbs are normalized, a high GI food will be a proportionately high GL food. There is no extra significance to be found in the GL when we are assuming an equivalent intake of carbohydrate. A potato would still be a "worse" choice than fructose.

Wrong again. The GI is NOT directly proportional because the inclusion of fat, amino acid content of certain high protein foods and digestion rates has a significnat influence on the GL. The above was a comparison of JUST maltodextrin and and a baked potato. If you want a comparison of a potato to fructose I can do that as well.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

They are completely interrelated. It is a simple mathematical procedure to get the GL form the GI, or vice-versa. Each value is just a different way of interpreting the same data set, and neither one is more or less significant than the other than index 1 vs. index 2 GI values are.

Read above. You obvisouly don't know what you are talking about when it comes to the GL.

I would make the guess that your area of study is defiently NOT nutrition.

 

[Nabeshin]

1. How do you know its the GI causing your GI stress?

404 - Funny not found.

I meant that it's just plain easier to focus on the wholeness of foods, rather than their GI.

Oh man, you really thought I was suggesting a low GI diet gave me, like, anal fissure or something?:rofl:

2. What a ridiculous comparison.

What a convincing rebuttal.

3. You want to maximize muscle gain and limit fat loss? EAT WHOLE FOODS THAT HAVE A LOW GLYCAEMIC LOAD!

Well, in that case I'll be upping my potato intake.

4. Really? Waht is the rule because up until this thread you have shown that you didn't even understand the the correlation between GI

... and what?

and completely ignored the effect of insulin on LPL. Thank god I let you know or you would be posting those false and compeltely ridiculous statements.

Of course. Please, take all the credit for the things I never wrote --- I don't need it.

5. If its relatively unimportant then its it wouldn't be much of a factor would it? We have already estblaished that it has and you can search the enormous amount of reseach which comfimrs this.

Not sure what you're saying here. The GI rule has notable contradictions, the GI itself is measured in a very contrived environment, the GI of a meal is determined by more than the carbs in it, and in light of the existence of an easier rule, there's not much reason to consider the GI when choosing carbs. That's what I'm saying here.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

404 - Funny not found.

I meant that it's just plain easier to focus on the wholeness of foods, rather than their GI.

Oh man, you really thought I was suggesting a low GI diet gave me, like, anal fissure or something?:rofl:


What a convincing rebuttal.


Well, in that case I'll be upping my potato intake.


... and what?


Of course. Please, take all the credit for the things I never wrote --- I don't need it.


Not sure what you're saying here. The GI rule has notable contradictions, the GI itself is measured in a very contrived environment, the GI of a meal is determined by more than the carbs in it, and in light of the existence of an easier rule, there's not much reason to consider the GI when choosing carbs. That's what I'm saying here.

1. You typed it. Thats what is sounded like. With you suggesting people using 80g of oats who knows.

2. It didn't warrant a rebuttal. It was completely irrelevant.

3. Ooops...typo. But in your case, eat all the potatoes you like.

4. GL. Sorry, writing plans for actual clients and typing. Maybe I need to concentrate on them a bit more.

5. You didn't have to write it. It was plainly obvious.

6. And what you are saying is completely wrong as I stated many times before. BUt don't let the research influence you or anything. I'm sure after you have read the amount of clinical data that states how important the GI CAN be, you will surely dismiss that as well.


404 - Funny not found.


Wow. That is one I have never heard before and hope to never again. That is bad and I do have a dry sense of humor.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

They would be practically equivalent in terms of lipogenesis in the context of a weight gainer from a macroscopic perspective over the long run for a young ectomorphic subject?

Ahh...ok, so now we know all your recommendations are for a young ectomorphic subject.


Why didn't we all see that before?

 

[Nabeshin]

Read above. You obvisouly don't know what you are talking about when it comes to the GL.

GL = GI / 100 * Net Carbs
​

• [size=-1](GL): Glycemic Load is equal to the Glycemic Index of a food times the number of grams of carbohydrates in the serving of food that's being eaten.
  www.nutritiondata.com/glossary.html[/size]
• [size=-1]An indicator of glucose response or insulin demand that is induced by total carbohydrate intake. It is calculated by multiplying the weighted mean of the dietary glycemic index by the percentage of total energy from carbohydrate.
  www.health.gov/dietaryguidelines/dga2005/report/HTML/G1_Glossary.htm[/size]
• [size=-1]Is a measure of the density and digestion speed of carbohydrates (the glycemic index of a food multiplied by the amount of carbohydrates per serving).
  www.zonecafe.com/zone_cafe_contact/05_zone-diet-glossary.asp[/size]

I would make the guess that your area of study is defiently NOT nutrition.

That was borderline argumentum ad hominem. I'm sorry if I've offended you. I really appreciate this board and all the effort you've put into it, and your posts have put all the stuff I've gleaned from my library's bio books in a whole new light. I do disagree with you on this matter, but I do so respectfully --- though perhaps my coarse sense of humor doesn't always make that clear.

I don't want to argue with the king of the hill, so just let it be known that a scrawny 5'10" 175lb @ 8% kid who's been training for less than a year and majors in computer science thinks that the wholeness of foods outweighs their GI, and that skinny guys shouldn't fret about Supermass making them fat.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

GL = GI / 100 * Net Carbs
​

• [size=-1](GL): Glycemic Load is equal to the Glycemic Index of a food times the number of grams of carbohydrates in the serving of food that's being eaten.
  www.nutritiondata.com/glossary.html[/size]
• [size=-1]An indicator of glucose response or insulin demand that is induced by total carbohydrate intake. It is calculated by multiplying the weighted mean of the dietary glycemic index by the percentage of total energy from carbohydrate.
  www.health.gov/dietaryguidelines/dga2005/report/HTML/G1_Glossary.htm[/size]
• [size=-1]Is a measure of the density and digestion speed of carbohydrates (the glycemic index of a food multiplied by the amount of carbohydrates per serving).
  www.zonecafe.com/zone_cafe_contact/05_zone-diet-glossary.asp[/size]

That was borderline argumentum ad hominem. I'm sorry if I've offended you. I really appreciate this board and all the effort you've put into it, and your posts have put all the stuff I've gleaned from my library's bio books in a whole new light. I do disagree with you on this matter, but I do so respectfully --- though perhaps my coarse sense of humor doesn't always make that clear.

Unbelievable. The correlation as in if their GI is high doesn't necessarily mean their GL is high. That is what I though you were comparing. For example the GI of certain foods such as Eggs, MIlk, Cheese, Red Meat have a very LOW GI but have a higher GL. It seemed as you were making a direct comparison between potatoes, malt, and fructose.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

That was borderline argumentum ad hominem. I'm sorry if I've offended you. I really appreciate this board and all the effort you've put into it, and your posts have put all the stuff I've gleaned from my library's bio books in a whole new light. I do disagree with you on this matter, but I do so respectfully --- though perhaps my coarse sense of humor doesn't always make that clear.

I don't want to argue with the king of the hill, so just let it be known that a scrawny 5'10" 175lb @ 8% kid who's been training for less than a year and majors in computer science thinks that the wholeness of foods outweighs their GI, and that skinny guys shouldn't fret about Supermass making them fat.

You haven't offended me at all but it gets a bit old if someone argues with you are on aspects of nutrition when you clearly haven't even looked at all the factors. YOu simply make a blanket statement that the GI isn't that important when in reality it is VERY important for a lot of people.

I never argued to you that the "wholeness" of foods wasn't as important OR more important. I advocate whole foods all the time and the diets I design have more whole fiids than most. That was the point at all. The point is that the GI in my experience and in my clients experience has a major effect on gains and or fat loss.

You simply have made a point but have not shown me any evidence as to WHY except the fact that you are an ecto. I have shown you that there for the majority there is a correlation between the GI and subsequent insulin release. That release effects LPL and adipose storage to a large degree. Insulin has a MAJOR impact on adipose storage and if you ignore that then you simly have not done enough research in this area.

 

[Nabeshin]

Ahh...ok, so now we know all your recommendations are for a young ectomorphic subject.


Why didn't we all see that before?

From my third post, just prior to this whole shitstorm getting started.

in the context of adding calories to a bulking diet in protein-shake form, I don't think it's going to make a quantifiable difference. Though endos may need to tred more carefully, if you're an ecto or a meso, and you take a serving or two of Supermass a day alongside a smart regimen of 4-5 solid meals, you will be primed for maximum muscle growth with minimal fat. The same could be said for rolling-your-own gainer using oats and whey --- you'll just feel like you're drinking kitty litter.

The emphasis was in the original. I wish I knew why nobody saw it before, I wrote it for a reason.

You obviously think I'm stupid, and this argument has basically gotten to the point where you just say I'm wrong and that's supposed to be that --- I can't find anything you've said previously to back up your (6) above, for instance. Just because you're so much smarter than me doesn't mean you get to say "you're wrong, I'm right" and that's that.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

No, you are not stupid at all. Quite the opposite but you simply have to dig a bit deeper. Why would even argue this point if it hasn't shown an effect in my clients? I have noe reason to argue a point if its false. THis is how I make my living so its pointless to defend a position that is false or insignificant.


You can't find anything? Then please pick up any college text that deals with human metabolism and physiology. Insulin is a PRIME regulator of LPL and adipose storage. It is a FACT. Look it up.


As for your other points you need to dig a bit deeper.

"While it's clear that the insulin demand exerted by foods is important for long-term health, it doesn't necessarily follow that we need an insulin index of foods instead of a glycemic index. When both have been tested together, the glycemic index is extremely good at predicting the food's insulin index. In other words, a low-GI food has a low insulin index value and a high-GI food has a high insulin index value. Furthermore, the level of glucose in the blood is directly related to adverse reactions such as protein glycosylation (linkages between glucose and protein) and oxidative molecules.

There are some instances, however, where a food has a low glycemic value but a high insulin index value. This applies to dairy foods and to some highly palatable energy-dense "indulgence foods." Some foods (such as meat, fish, and eggs) that contain no carbohydrate, just protein and fat (and essentially have a GI value of zero), still stimulate significant rises in blood insulin. "

 

[Dwight Schrute]

"I don't think it's going to make a quantifiable difference. Though endos may need to tred more carefully, if you're an ecto or a meso, and you take a serving or two of Supermass a day alongside a smart regimen of 4-5 solid meals, you will be primed for maximum muscle growth with minimal fat."

You are wrong AGAIN and not because I say so but because the results form people swithcing over to a LOW GI alternative has given them better results.

I train them. I know. You don't. This also occurs with people that are not trianing with me. You arguement is based on your "opinion" and not from actual experience.

Why the hell would I lie about that?

 

[Nabeshin]

I have shown you that there for the majority there is a correlation between the GI and subsequent insulin release. That release effects LPL and adipose storage to a large degree. Insulin has a MAJOR impact on adipose storage and if you ignore that then you simly have not done enough research in this area.

I acknowledge this. That's why following a low GI diet tends to be a good way to minimize fat accumulation. But, as you have acknowledged, there are exceptions --- this all started with potatoes.

Though I have called into question the accuracy of the GI due to the way it is measured and the affect concomitant consumption of protein and fat has on it, I've never once denied the basic underlying process it points to. I never once denied that a more rapid spike in insulin results in greater lipogenesis.

The ONLY point I'm making about GI is that which you say you don't disagree with --- that it's not the most important factor. In my mind, that makes it relatively unimportant. If you can discern a "good" food from a "bad" one more accurately by assessing its "wholeness" than it's GI, I literally see no reason to use the GI over wholeness --- save for diabetics, extremely carb sensitive endos, and pre/post-wo. If there is something I've missed here, please let me know.

If you look through this thread, you'll see that's its mostly you telling me how some biological process works, me agreeing with you, than me stating that that's not my point.

My point is to all you people out there in internet land: in a jam? Can't figure out if something's safe to eat? Then just ask yourself this simple question --- is this how this food came out of the ground, or off the tree? Is this how I'd find this food in its natural state? Don't sweat the GI, you can't go wrong by this method. If I'm wrong in this regard, please tell me how.

The other point I was trying to make was that true ectos shouldn't be too concerned about the malto in Supermass. I felt like these guys might have been getting scared away by a factor that would probably not affect them to any noticeable degree. The way age affects this is news to me, and thanks for bringing that to my attention.

I think a whole lotta **** coulda been avoided if I hadn't mashed two arguments into one post, and for that I apologize.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

I acknowledge this. That's why following a low GI diet tends to be a good way to minimize fat accumulation. But, as you have acknowledged, there are exceptions --- this all started with potatoes.

Though I have called into question the accuracy of the GI due to the way it is measured and the affect concomitant consumption of protein and fat has on it, I've never once denied the basic underlying process it points to. I never once denied that a more rapid spike in insulin results in greater lipogenesis.

The ONLY point I'm making about GI is that which you say you don't disagree with --- that it's not the most important factor. In my mind, that makes it relatively unimportant. If you can discern a "good" food from a "bad" one more accurately by assessing its "wholeness" than it's GI, I literally see no reason to use the GI over wholeness --- save for diabetics, extremely carb sensitive endos, and pre/post-wo. If there is something I've missed here, please let me know.

If you look through this thread, you'll see that's its mostly you telling me how some biological process works, me agreeing with you, than me stating that that's not my point.

My point is to all you people out there in internet land: in a jam? Can't figure out if something's safe to eat? Then just ask yourself this simple question --- is this how this food came out of the ground, or off the tree? Is this how I'd find this food in its natural state? Don't sweat the GI, you can't go wrong by this method. If I'm wrong in this regard, please tell me how.

The other point I was trying to make was that true ectos shouldn't be too concerned about the malto in Supermass. I felt like these guys might have been getting scared away by a factor that would probably not affect them to any noticeable degree. The way age affects this is news to me, and thanks for bringing that to my attention.

I think a whole lotta **** coulda been avoided if I hadn't mashed two arguments into one post, and for that I apologize.

And I believe just because its not the most importnant factor, that doesn't make it insignificant and unimportant. You seem to go from one extreme to another. You already stated you agreed with me on how insulin can effect LPL and the GI CAN BE a very good indication of this. So IMO it IS a significant factor. If it wasn't, you could throw all the research on type 2 diabetics down the tubes.

Your whole arguement is based on the difference of a potato and that is an exception to the rule. You don't make blanket statements about a concept based on the exceptions. You should form that from the majority of data that exists.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

I literally see no reason to use the GI over wholeness --- save for diabetics, extremely carb sensitive endos, and pre/post-wo. If there is something I've missed here, please let me know.

I never choose one over the other, I use ALL the factors in determining food choices.

Diabetics (type 2) and carb sensitive is the same thing. Endo's metabolize lipids slower than most. They are not endo's because of carbs.

 

[Nabeshin]

"I don't think it's going to make a quantifiable difference. Though endos may need to tred more carefully, if you're an ecto or a meso, and you take a serving or two of Supermass a day alongside a smart regimen of 4-5 solid meals, you will be primed for maximum muscle growth with minimal fat."

You are wrong AGAIN and not because I say so but because the results form people swithcing over to a LOW GI alternative has given them better results.

I train them. I know. You don't. This also occurs with people that are not trianing with me. You arguement is based on your "opinion" and not from actual experience.

Why the hell would I lie about that?

Well, I don't think you would. I guess you took "maximum" and "minimum" literally, and it's my fault that I didn't use those words with scientific precision. I'm sure that better nutrition will produce better results, and I know that there are better options from a nutritional perspective than malto. I just wonder how much better we're talkin' about here. Principles of diminishing margnial utility and revealed preference make me think that its probably not that big a deal for ectos, who would experience the effects at a fractional magnitude relative to endos. It's not a good fit, but I would compare this to "statistical noise." If a single night of insomnia could completely negate the benefits of eschewing a malto-based gainer, is it even worth sweating?

Now, I am going by my own experience here, but I don't exactly have much choice in the matter. I'll take your word that avoiding malto improves results --- and obviously I believe that since I'm doing it myself --- but I just have a hard time thinking that guys like me --- and there are plenty of 'em out there --- should be really concerned about maltodextrin in their gainer.

 

[Nabeshin]

And I believe just because its not the most importnant factor, that doesn't make it insignificant and unimportant.

That's not the converse of what I'm saying. Can you give me an example --- apart from pre/post-wo and for diabetics --- when you'd want to use GI in addition to, or in place of, the whole foods rule when choosing a food? I can't think of one, and that's why I don't think about GI when planning my menu.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

I never use anything over the whole foods rule. In fact most of the meals I plan are whole food including pre and psot workout. I add a shake or two to those meals but I hardly ever plan a diet intially without using whole foods for every meal. The body by deisgn responds better to nutrients delivered in a steady state throughout the day. This helps digestion and absortion of nutrients and creates a positive nitrogen balance throughout the day much better than high GI foods which will cause peaks and valleys of various hormones and enzymes.

When you use lower GI foods energy levels are most stable, blood glucose and insulin levles are more stable and for the most part the hormonal responses are more stable which eliminates many of the negatives of excess calories.

 

[Nabeshin]

I never use anything over the whole foods rule. In fact most of the meals I plan are whole food including pre and psot workout. I add a shake or two to those meals but I hardly ever plan a diet intially without using whole foods for every meal. The body by deisgn responds better to nutrients delivered in a steady state throughout the day. This helps digestion and absortion of nutrients and creates a positive nitrogen balance throughout the day much better than high GI foods which will cause peaks and valleys of various hormones and enzymes.

When you use lower GI foods energy levels are most stable, blood glucose and insulin levles are more stable and for the most part the hormonal responses are more stable which eliminates many of the negatives of excess calories.

Well, in essence, we're on the same page. I just can't bring myself to think in terms of GI because of its exceptions. But cut me some slack --- I am a computer programmer, after all.

And I've also royally fucked myself in the ass by missing the gym, a meal, and a good night's sleep by staying up late debating nutrional obscurities. And I'm in the middle of a cutter.

G'night folks. Pleasure tradin' blows with you, Bobo --- hope this thread proves educational and entertaining to somebody besides myself.

 

[Sixpack]

So Bobo do you consider Fruit pre and postworkout low GI?How on average how much do you incorporate in your diet either for bulking or cutting and what type?WOuld you pay much attention to taking it in at certain times like some people do. They make a big deal about avoiding fruit at night etc. Whats your take

 

[Dwight Schrute]

Haven't we been over this already? I thought you already aske dme this in a PM some time ago. Fruit is fine pre workout. 1 or 2 pieces of fruit are fine.