New Product - Super Mass600

Page 3 of 3 First 123
  1. Registered User
    Nabeshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Age
    30
    Posts
    287
    Rep Power
    264
    Level
    14
    Lv. Percent
    98.11%

    Quote Originally Posted by Bobo
    That statement is the most ridiclous thing I have ever seen. Really, you have to explain that because that makes zero sense from any nutritional standpoint.
    Bad word choice --- mea culpa. The meaning I intended to convey was that they would be practically equivalent in terms of lipogenesis. And I should probably emphasize that this is for ectos, who I imagine are the target audience of gainers. An endo should tread carefully.

    And in case anyone is wondering, I did use gainers and malto, and I'm now using oats and bananas. For me, it's a way to save money and boost nutrition, but at the cost of a little convenience. I'm an ecto, and this has made zippo impact on my fat metabolism. Depending on how you value your cash relative to your time, and contingent on your somatype, a malto based gainer might have a favorable cost/benefit ratio to you. I don't know. But, to restate my thesis, the idea that malto will make you fat is misleading, so don't be afraid to give Supermass a shot and draw your own conclusions.

    No, I don't work for ATW. In fact, I buy my whey at costco.

  2. Board Sponsor
    wheystation's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Age
    53
    Posts
    960
    Rep Power
    599
    Level
    25
    Lv. Percent
    26.45%

    Quote Originally Posted by Zero Tolerance
    I'm ordering some right now.. But how do I get the $2.00 off? I mean, I can't afford it otherwise.

    Order placed...

    Hey, send me an email at wheystation@aol.com with your order number and I will give you the 2.00 off - I like to call it my "I LOVE AM" coupon.

    Have a great weekend.

    Laura

    PS> lets get all you experts to answer my new thread - Talk to the Owner.....he needs to hear what you guys want _____000000 _______besides PB FLAVOR
  3. I am faster than 80% of all snakes
    Dwight Schrute's Avatar
    Stats
    6'1"  221 lbs.
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Age
    41
    Posts
    12,911
    Rep Power
    7019

    Quote Originally Posted by Nabeshin
    Agreed. But, the quantifiable difference between two different nutritional tactics may still be null.


    Agreed.


    I don't believe I ever said LPL activity is irrelevant to lipogenesis.


    Consider carrots.

    But really, I don't know what you're getting at. The crux of my vociferous fulmination is that the GI is a poor predictor of lipogenesis probability. If you're suggesting that GL is a good predictor, we're back to potatoes being fat pills.


    Actually, the way GI is determined is very independent of my philosophy. It's also very relevant.

    1. Are you kidding me? Null? Where do you ever get that from? The difference is VERY significant. Just look at the research.

    2. Yet you are totally ignoring the role insulin has in increased LPL as well as increased triglyceride storage. There is very big correlation between GI and GL. You are basing your arguement on the exeptions to the rule, not the majority.

    3. No we are not because the GL is 26 for 5oz. of potatoes compared to 10 for 1 Tablspoon of Maltodextrin. The difference is VERY large in terms of total glycemic load.

    You are completly ignoring the relationship that the GI had on the GL. For the most part the GI is a good indicator of the GL. Granted there are exeptions and you are using potatoes (which is an exceptin) to validate you belief on the whole which isn't accurate. In fact many vegetables fit that category but the majority of food items follow a pattern and the GI is a good indicator of the GL. Increase the response and the amount of insulin in an enviroment with caloric excess and you WILL have an increase in adipose storage.
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.
    •   
       

  4. I am faster than 80% of all snakes
    Dwight Schrute's Avatar
    Stats
    6'1"  221 lbs.
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Age
    41
    Posts
    12,911
    Rep Power
    7019

    Quote Originally Posted by Nabeshin
    Bad word choice --- mea culpa. The meaning I intended to convey was that they would be practically equivalent in terms of lipogenesis.
    I don't know where you are getting your information from but that is completely and totally false. Maltodextrin will definetly have much more an influence on lipogenesis than any oatmeal will. You can break it down into so many factors that I can't believe that you even mande that statement. Its so wrong on many levels.
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.
  5. Senior Member
    exnihilo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Age
    35
    Posts
    1,577
    Rep Power
    926
    Level
    29
    Lv. Percent
    99.02%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by Nabeshin
    No, I'm not being sarcastic at all. I honestly believe whole foods are superior all the way, every way, except for convenience (once again, ignoring pre/post-wo). I also agree that many experiments are flawed, and hence the conclusions they produce are questionable. Hence my feelings on the bearing the GI has on bodybuilders.

    I was kinda thinkin' all those linkages would make the amylase take longer to do its thing, i.e., time to completion scales at least linearly with number of links. If such is not the case, then pooh on me.
    It does take time for glucose molecules to be cleaved - but from a physical standpoint it's a lot like having a stack of legos, and proceeding to pull lego after lego off the end in rapid succession. The time it takes is negligible.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nabeshin
    OK, unless sucrose breaks down slower than maltodextrin, this is only true because ice cream contains protein (and fat). But since you're theoretically adding these ingredients to a protein shake, how much better does the ice cream really perform? And could that not be compensated for with a scoop of peanut butter?
    Ice cream's GI is irrelevant, I referenced it because it's a food that you can use as a "weight gainer" that's 10,000 times more palatable than maltodextrin, with an effect on the body that's marginally worse in most cases (this really depends on the saturated fat content). The issue is not how fast sucrose is broken down (it's a disaccharide) but the fact that the fructose molecule must be converted to glucose by the liver. If you're an ecto, and you honestly feel that not eating enough is the source of your problems, ice cream and oreo cookies will fix that problem in a most enjoyable manner. Some people like olive oil or peanut butter, those are healthier options, but you said that you didn't notice any change in leanness with maltose over oats, so I thought I'd suggest that you take advantage of that and have some fun
  6. Registered User
    Nabeshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Age
    30
    Posts
    287
    Rep Power
    264
    Level
    14
    Lv. Percent
    98.11%

    Quote Originally Posted by Bobo
    1. Are you kidding me? Null? Where do you ever get that from? The difference is VERY significant. Just look at the research.
    OK, so if we were to take two identical ectomorphs, and put them through the same paces, but have one of them get one meal a day from a serving of Supermass, then by then end of, say, a 32 week bulker, how much fatter is the gainer guy gonna be? If it's 10 pounds, then our gainer friend might be perturbed. But if it's one pound, he might consider the convenience he reaped and not give a damn. And if it's no pounds, then he pretty squarely lost nothing.

    This is what I'm getting at. Even if, on a microbiological level, the gainer candidate really did put on more fat than his compadre, in the long run, it might not matter.

    For 2 months, I bulked without a gainer. For another 2 months, I bulked with. I actually gained less fat the second session, most likely because I went from 3 days a week to 4 days a week of training. In fact, frustrated by the fact that I wasn't swole yet, I cut down on my gainer intake from 3 to 2 meals a day --- and I started using a custom blend of protein and malto that provided fewer calories and a greater portion of protein per meal --- and just boosted my intake of whole foods (brown rice and chicken breast, mostly). 2 months of 1,500 calories over maintenance got me fat.

    My point is that the gainer seemed to do precisely dick to my fat metabolism. Even if it did do something, if I can't measure, who cares? All this talk about LPL activity, and it was plain eating too much whole food that actually made a discernable difference in my accumulation of lard.

    In retrospect, I shouldn't have started two arguments in one thread, as this is getting confusing as hell. But right here, what I'm saying is, the dangers of a malto-based gainer are greatly exaggerated.


    Here, on the other hand, is where I'm flinging poo at the GI:

    You are basing your arguement on the exeptions to the rule, not the majority.
    That's exactly my point --- there are many notable exceptions to this rule. Hence, it's not a very good rule. Here's a better one: eat whole foods.

    3. No we are not because the GL is 26 for 5oz. of potatoes compared to 10 for 1 Tablspoon of Maltodextrin. The difference is VERY large in terms of total glycemic load.
    Ah, ok, you meant the ratio of the GL to the serving size. (Gee, so that's why he kept mentioning quantities...) Well, that makes sense, in that malto is much more calorically dense than a potato, so if you eat equal volumes of each, the malto will cause a larger insulin spike than the potato. But bodybuilders don't eat for volume, they eat for mass --- calories in particular. What's important is not how much a particular volume of food affects insulin, but how, say, 50g of it does. Which would give you the GI of a food. And you know how I feel about that.

    You are completly ignoring the relationship that the GI had on the GL. For the most part the GI is a good indicator of the GL.
    I take it you consider the GL to be a good indicator of lipogenesis, then?

    I don't disagree with the rest of your post.
  7. I am faster than 80% of all snakes
    Dwight Schrute's Avatar
    Stats
    6'1"  221 lbs.
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Age
    41
    Posts
    12,911
    Rep Power
    7019

    Quote Originally Posted by exnihilo
    Some people like olive oil or peanut butter, those are healthier options, but you said that you didn't notice any change in leanness with maltose over oats, so I thought I'd suggest that you take advantage of that and have some fun
    That is more a results of his 20 year old metabolism more than anything. The body is constantly releasing and storing fats (constantly) and those with an increased metabolism have high energy requirements but the fact of the matter is that high insulin concentrations are causing more lipids to be sotred rather than oxidized. Lucky for him (and me when I was 20) that his energy requirements are so high that you don't see much of a difference. Given years, it will catch up and he will understand what I am talking about because it will become MUCH more a factor.
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.
  8. Registered User
    Nabeshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Age
    30
    Posts
    287
    Rep Power
    264
    Level
    14
    Lv. Percent
    98.11%

    Quote Originally Posted by Bobo
    I don't know where you are getting your information from but that is completely and totally false. Maltodextrin will definetly have much more an influence on lipogenesis than any oatmeal will. You can break it down into so many factors that I can't believe that you even mande that statement. Its so wrong on many levels.
    Sigh. The meaning I intended to convey was that they would be practically equivalent in terms of lipogenesis in the context of a weight gainer from a macroscopic perspective over the long run.
  9. I am faster than 80% of all snakes
    Dwight Schrute's Avatar
    Stats
    6'1"  221 lbs.
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Age
    41
    Posts
    12,911
    Rep Power
    7019

    Quote Originally Posted by Nabeshin

    In retrospect, I shouldn't have started two arguments in one thread, as this is getting confusing as hell. But right here, what I'm saying is, the dangers of a malto-based gainer are greatly exaggerated.


    Here, on the other hand, is where I'm flinging poo at the GI:


    That's exactly my point --- there are many notable exceptions to this rule. Hence, it's not a very good rule. Here's a better one: eat whole foods.


    Ah, ok, you meant the ratio of the GL to the serving size. (Gee, so that's why he kept mentioning quantities...) Well, that makes sense, in that malto is much more calorically dense than a potato, so if you eat equal volumes of each, the malto will cause a larger insulin spike than the potato. But bodybuilders don't eat for volume, they eat for mass --- calories in particular. What's important is not how much a particular volume of food affects insulin, but how, say, 50g of it does. Which would give you the GI of a food. And you know how I feel about that.


    I take it you consider the GL to be a good indicator of lipogenesis, then?

    I don't disagree with the rest of your post.

    That is YOU, not the majority of people out there. I have trained over 400 people and I can tell you first hand the majority respond better to LOWER GI diets.

    When I was 20 I could eat anything and everything but does that make the nutritonal advice invalid? NO.

    For the majority of people the GI has a VERY significant impact on lipogenesis. You are always going to have ecto's who can metabolize lipids extremely fast but that fact remains that insulin will increase the storage of fat in an environment of calorice excess. That is fact and for most people is has a VERY pronounced effect.

    Because there are exceptions to the rule its a bad rule? That is ridiculous. For the majority of foods the rule stands. Nobody in this thread said it was the only factor, just that it IS a factor. You OTOH seem to think that since their is an exception that you throw the whole concept out the window. That is absurb.
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.
  10. I am faster than 80% of all snakes
    Dwight Schrute's Avatar
    Stats
    6'1"  221 lbs.
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Age
    41
    Posts
    12,911
    Rep Power
    7019

    Quote Originally Posted by Nabeshin
    Sigh. The meaning I intended to convey was that they would be practically equivalent in terms of lipogenesis in the context of a weight gainer from a macroscopic perspective over the long run.
    And you are completely wrong.
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.
  11. I am faster than 80% of all snakes
    Dwight Schrute's Avatar
    Stats
    6'1"  221 lbs.
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Age
    41
    Posts
    12,911
    Rep Power
    7019

    Quote Originally Posted by Nabeshin

    Ah, ok, you meant the ratio of the GL to the serving size. (Gee, so that's why he kept mentioning quantities...) Well, that makes sense, in that malto is much more calorically dense than a potato, so if you eat equal volumes of each, the malto will cause a larger insulin spike than the potato. But bodybuilders don't eat for volume, they eat for mass --- calories in particular. What's important is not how much a particular volume of food affects insulin, but how, say, 50g of it does. Which would give you the GI of a food. And you know how I feel about that.


    I take it you consider the GL to be a good indicator of lipogenesis, then?

    I don't disagree with the rest of your post.
    Umm...That is WHY the GL exists because it determines the difference in portion size. That is why they created the Insulin Index in the first place.

    No you are wrong again. The GL is BASED on the load that is release pertaining to portion size. 5oz. is 35-45g of carbohydrates (depending onf the type) where 1 Tablpsoon of Malto is 10g. So if matched the same amounts of carbs the GL of Malto would be 34-45 compared to 26 for the potato. The difference is significant.


    The GI AND GL are good indicators. As I said in the beginning both are good factors. For the most part the higher the GI the higher the GL. There are exceptions to the rule and WHY teh GL was created but that doesn't invalidate the concept of GI and for the majority of foods its STILL a good indicator.
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.
  12. Board Sponsor
    wheystation's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Age
    53
    Posts
    960
    Rep Power
    599
    Level
    25
    Lv. Percent
    26.45%

    One of the things that I love about this board is the raw honesty. I have been copying this thread for the owner for a while and he is learning something, too and this guy is scary smart already.......Thanks for keeping me in the loop.

    Now, damn it - get back at it.

    Laura
  13. Registered User
    Nabeshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Age
    30
    Posts
    287
    Rep Power
    264
    Level
    14
    Lv. Percent
    98.11%

    Quote Originally Posted by exnihilo
    It does take time for glucose molecules to be cleaved - but from a physical standpoint it's a lot like having a stack of legos, and proceeding to pull lego after lego off the end in rapid succession. The time it takes is negligible.
    Oh. Well then. I just got served.

    Ice cream's GI is irrelevant, I referenced it because it's a food that you can use as a "weight gainer" that's 10,000 times more palatable than maltodextrin, with an effect on the body that's marginally worse in most cases (this really depends on the saturated fat content). The issue is not how fast sucrose is broken down (it's a disaccharide) but the fact that the fructose molecule must be converted to glucose by the liver. If you're an ecto, and you honestly feel that not eating enough is the source of your problems, ice cream and oreo cookies will fix that problem in a most enjoyable manner. Some people like olive oil or peanut butter, those are healthier options, but you said that you didn't notice any change in leanness with maltose over oats, so I thought I'd suggest that you take advantage of that and have some fun
    Fructose in ice cream? Hmm, maybe if you get that fruity stuff. Or the cheap "high fructose corn syrup" variety. Have to get tactical about my ice cream purchases...

    All seriousness aside, I actually don't eat ice cream. I have no desire to eat sugary stuff, and my only unhealthy urge is sated in my weekly cheesesteak. I used malto because I thought it was better than sugar, and I wouldn't have to blend **** every morning --- my health-conscience since caught up with me and I don't use it anymore.

    I still think you can't beat a malto-based gainer for convenience. During an 8 hour work shift, you probably aren't gonna get 3 meal breaks. So, two shaker cups full of gainer, and a tub full of chicken and rice, and you're good to go. That's what I view the gainer's purpose to be --- an easy on the road source of cals for ectos (and mesos, but **** them) which requires almost no prep work. And Supermass looks to fill that role nicely.
  14. I am faster than 80% of all snakes
    Dwight Schrute's Avatar
    Stats
    6'1"  221 lbs.
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Age
    41
    Posts
    12,911
    Rep Power
    7019

    Here is my bottom line. The GI is still a good indicator but its not the most important. The GL is another great indicatorand they both are interralated for the most part.

    Just because there are exceptions to the rule does not invalidate the whole concept and saying its not a good indicator is not accurate at all.

    In a caloric excess the negatives of high insulin response/load is magnified.
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.
  15. I am faster than 80% of all snakes
    Dwight Schrute's Avatar
    Stats
    6'1"  221 lbs.
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Age
    41
    Posts
    12,911
    Rep Power
    7019

    Quote Originally Posted by Nabeshin

    I still think you can't beat a malto-based gainer for convenience. During an 8 hour work shift, you probably aren't gonna get 3 meal breaks. So, two shaker cups full of gainer, and a tub full of chicken and rice, and you're good to go. That's what I view the gainer's purpose to be --- an easy on the road source of cals for ectos (and mesos, but **** them) which requires almost no prep work. And Supermass looks to fill that role nicely.

    THere are several weight gainers out there with better carb sources and if Supermass had Barley, Brown Rice or Hydrolyzed Oat Flour I bet their sales would go up by a very LARGE margin.
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.
  16. Registered User
    Nabeshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Age
    30
    Posts
    287
    Rep Power
    264
    Level
    14
    Lv. Percent
    98.11%

    Quote Originally Posted by Bobo
    That is YOU, not the majority of people out there. I have trained over 400 people and I can tell you first hand the majority respond better to LOWER GI diets.
    And there are other people like ME, who might not get anything other than a throbbing pain in the ass from a LOWER GI diet.

    When I was 20 I could eat anything and everything but does that make the nutritonal advice invalid? NO.
    Great, but that's NOT what I'm suggesting.

    For the majority of people the GI has a VERY significant impact on lipogenesis.
    Look, in a nutshell, you argue that for most people and for most foods, a high GI equals greater lipogenesis. Well, I'm not gonna argue with that. But I do think it's akin to saying that for most feathers in most places, the acceleration of a feather will be less than that of a billiard. Both proposals are right. They both ignore some pretty severe contradictions, though. A potato is a high GI food, and plenty of 30 year old (and older) body builders eat them right up to the day of competition --- and get down into low single digit body fat percentages. Likewise, a feather dropped in a vaccuum is going to accelerate at 9.80 m/s^2, just like a billiard.

    But there is a crucial difference between the GI and the acceleration scenario. And that is that, while both can be used a rule of thumb, one is crappy rule of thumb, whereas the other is really good.

    Calculating the actual rate of acceleration of a feather in atmosphere is damn difficult, and it can't really be wrapped up in one neat equation, much less a tidy paragraph. Surface area, the deformation of such with increasing velocity, angle of descent, path of descent... it all works out to a migraine. So, we acknowledge that feathers, and other feathery type things, tend to accelerate slower than "solid" things.

    The GI, on the other hand, is a solution without a problem --- at least for bodybuilders. You wanna minimize fat gain and maximize health? EAT. WHOLE. FOODS. You don't need to sit around fretting your GI/GL, just eat the brown rice and the oats and be done with it.

    Because there are exceptions to the rule its a bad rule? That is ridiculous.
    No, it is because there is a more accurate rule that is easier to employ that using the GI as your guiding light is ricockulous.

    You OTOH seem to think that since their is an exception that you throw the whole concept out the window. That is absurb.
    You seem to have read something I didn't write --- I never said the GI wasn't a factor. I just think it's relatively unimportant, and unwieldy vis-a-vis the whole foods rule. If it suits you fine, well... uh... fine. Have it. Now I'm gonna go have some tuna, potato, and carrots.
  17. Registered User
    Nabeshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Age
    30
    Posts
    287
    Rep Power
    264
    Level
    14
    Lv. Percent
    98.11%

    Quote Originally Posted by Bobo
    So if matched the same amounts of carbs the GL of Malto would be 34-45 compared to 26 for the potato.
    Hmmm...

    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.
  18. Registered User
    Nabeshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Age
    30
    Posts
    287
    Rep Power
    264
    Level
    14
    Lv. Percent
    98.11%

    Quote Originally Posted by Bobo
    And you are completely wrong.
    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?
  19. Registered User
    Nabeshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Age
    30
    Posts
    287
    Rep Power
    264
    Level
    14
    Lv. Percent
    98.11%

    Quote Originally Posted by Bobo
    Here is my bottom line. The GI is still a good indicator but its not the most important. The GL is another great indicatorand they both are interralated for the most part.
    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.

    Just because there are exceptions to the rule does not invalidate the whole concept and saying its not a good indicator is not accurate at all.
    The 386 is not a piece of crap. It's a triumph of engineering. But the Opteron still pwns it.
  20. I am faster than 80% of all snakes
    Dwight Schrute's Avatar
    Stats
    6'1"  221 lbs.
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Age
    41
    Posts
    12,911
    Rep Power
    7019

    Quote Originally Posted by Nabeshin
    And there are other people like ME, who might not get anything other than a throbbing pain in the ass from a LOWER GI diet.


    Great, but that's NOT what I'm suggesting.


    Look, in a nutshell, you argue that for most people and for most foods, a high GI equals greater lipogenesis. Well, I'm not gonna argue with that. But I do think it's akin to saying that for most feathers in most places, the acceleration of a feather will be less than that of a billiard. Both proposals are right. They both ignore some pretty severe contradictions, though. A potato is a high GI food, and plenty of 30 year old (and older) body builders eat them right up to the day of competition --- and get down into low single digit body fat percentages. Likewise, a feather dropped in a vaccuum is going to accelerate at 9.80 m/s^2, just like a billiard.

    But there is a crucial difference between the GI and the acceleration scenario. And that is that, while both can be used a rule of thumb, one is crappy rule of thumb, whereas the other is really good.

    Calculating the actual rate of acceleration of a feather in atmosphere is damn difficult, and it can't really be wrapped up in one neat equation, much less a tidy paragraph. Surface area, the deformation of such with increasing velocity, angle of descent, path of descent... it all works out to a migraine. So, we acknowledge that feathers, and other feathery type things, tend to accelerate slower than "solid" things.

    The GI, on the other hand, is a solution without a problem --- at least for bodybuilders. You wanna minimize fat gain and maximize health? EAT. WHOLE. FOODS. You don't need to sit around fretting your GI/GL, just eat the brown rice and the oats and be done with it.


    No, it is because there is a more accurate rule that is easier to employ that using the GI as your guiding light is ricockulous.


    You seem to have read something I didn't write --- I never said the GI wasn't a factor. I just think it's relatively unimportant, and unwieldy vis-a-vis the whole foods rule. If it suits you fine, well... uh... fine. Have it. Now I'm gonna go have some tuna, potato, and carrots.

    1. How do you know its the GI causing your GI stress? There are others like you who have GREAT results with a lower GI as well. I train them. Do you? Do you have experience in the field other than yourself or do you abse everything of your own experience and disregard everyone esle when you make your arguements?

    2. What a ridiculous comparison.

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

    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 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.

    5. If its relatively unimportant then its it wouldn't be much of a factor would it? We have already established that it has and you can search the enormous amount of reseach which confirms this.
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.
  21. I am faster than 80% of all snakes
    Dwight Schrute's Avatar
    Stats
    6'1"  221 lbs.
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Age
    41
    Posts
    12,911
    Rep Power
    7019

    Quote Originally Posted by Nabeshin
    Hmmm...

    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.
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.
  22. I am faster than 80% of all snakes
    Dwight Schrute's Avatar
    Stats
    6'1"  221 lbs.
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Age
    41
    Posts
    12,911
    Rep Power
    7019

    Quote Originally Posted by Nabeshin
    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.
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.
  23. Registered User
    Nabeshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Age
    30
    Posts
    287
    Rep Power
    264
    Level
    14
    Lv. Percent
    98.11%

    Quote Originally Posted by Bobo
    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?

    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.
  24. I am faster than 80% of all snakes
    Dwight Schrute's Avatar
    Stats
    6'1"  221 lbs.
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Age
    41
    Posts
    12,911
    Rep Power
    7019

    Quote Originally Posted by Nabeshin
    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?


    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.
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.
  25. I am faster than 80% of all snakes
    Dwight Schrute's Avatar
    Stats
    6'1"  221 lbs.
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Age
    41
    Posts
    12,911
    Rep Power
    7019

    Quote Originally Posted by Nabeshin
    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?



    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.
  26. Registered User
    Nabeshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Age
    30
    Posts
    287
    Rep Power
    264
    Level
    14
    Lv. Percent
    98.11%

    Quote Originally Posted by Bobo
    Read above. You obvisouly don't know what you are talking about when it comes to the GL.
    GL = GI / 100 * Net Carbs



    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.
  27. I am faster than 80% of all snakes
    Dwight Schrute's Avatar
    Stats
    6'1"  221 lbs.
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Age
    41
    Posts
    12,911
    Rep Power
    7019

    Quote Originally Posted by Nabeshin
    GL = GI / 100 * Net Carbs




    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.
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.
  28. I am faster than 80% of all snakes
    Dwight Schrute's Avatar
    Stats
    6'1"  221 lbs.
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Age
    41
    Posts
    12,911
    Rep Power
    7019

    Quote Originally Posted by Nabeshin
    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.
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.
  29. Registered User
    Nabeshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Age
    30
    Posts
    287
    Rep Power
    264
    Level
    14
    Lv. Percent
    98.11%

    Quote Originally Posted by Bobo
    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 ****storm 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.
  30. I am faster than 80% of all snakes
    Dwight Schrute's Avatar
    Stats
    6'1"  221 lbs.
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Age
    41
    Posts
    12,911
    Rep Power
    7019

    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. "
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.
  31. I am faster than 80% of all snakes
    Dwight Schrute's Avatar
    Stats
    6'1"  221 lbs.
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Age
    41
    Posts
    12,911
    Rep Power
    7019

    "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?
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.
  32. Registered User
    Nabeshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Age
    30
    Posts
    287
    Rep Power
    264
    Level
    14
    Lv. Percent
    98.11%

    Quote Originally Posted by Bobo
    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.
  33. I am faster than 80% of all snakes
    Dwight Schrute's Avatar
    Stats
    6'1"  221 lbs.
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Age
    41
    Posts
    12,911
    Rep Power
    7019

    Quote Originally Posted by Nabeshin
    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.
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.
  34. I am faster than 80% of all snakes
    Dwight Schrute's Avatar
    Stats
    6'1"  221 lbs.
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Age
    41
    Posts
    12,911
    Rep Power
    7019

    Quote Originally Posted by Nabeshin
    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.
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.
  35. Registered User
    Nabeshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Age
    30
    Posts
    287
    Rep Power
    264
    Level
    14
    Lv. Percent
    98.11%

    Quote Originally Posted by Bobo
    "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.
  36. Registered User
    Nabeshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Age
    30
    Posts
    287
    Rep Power
    264
    Level
    14
    Lv. Percent
    98.11%

    Quote Originally Posted by Bobo
    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.
  37. I am faster than 80% of all snakes
    Dwight Schrute's Avatar
    Stats
    6'1"  221 lbs.
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Age
    41
    Posts
    12,911
    Rep Power
    7019

    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.
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.
  38. Registered User
    Nabeshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Age
    30
    Posts
    287
    Rep Power
    264
    Level
    14
    Lv. Percent
    98.11%

    Quote Originally Posted by Bobo
    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 ****ed 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.
  39. New Member
    Sixpack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Age
    35
    Posts
    85
    Rep Power
    168
    Level
    8
    Lv. Percent
    27.11%

    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
  40. I am faster than 80% of all snakes
    Dwight Schrute's Avatar
    Stats
    6'1"  221 lbs.
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Age
    41
    Posts
    12,911
    Rep Power
    7019

    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.
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.
  

  
 

Similar Forum Threads

  1. T-gel and new products?
    By lifted in forum Anabolics
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-16-2003, 01:22 PM
  2. New product labels include trans fatty acids!
    By LakeMountD in forum Weight Loss
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 07-10-2003, 02:58 PM
  3. Nutrex Vitrix - New Product
    By Nelson in forum Supplements
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 05-12-2003, 10:00 AM
  4. Question about the new products available at BDC
    By CROWLER in forum Anabolics
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 05-04-2003, 12:47 AM
  5. EQL releases new Product
    By YellowJacket in forum Anabolics
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-02-2003, 08:05 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Log in
Log in