The four references noted above are from peer-reviewed journals. Do you have research library access to the scientific journals? Did you read the papers? Paper #2 above is not behind a paywall; anybody can freely access it through the link I provided above.

Sounds like excellent questions. Reference #1 discusses less fermentation in the gut; that implies to me that the sugars are less available.

Did you ask Generation UCAN? I'll go and ask them, but feel free to ask on your own.

Ultramarathon athletes have been running (and swimming and biking) experiments for many years. And I've already learned from them: GI distress is widespread among these athletes. Consuming large amounts of sugar-based supplements over many hours sounds like a terrible idea. This experience applies to those who will never race: high osmotic pressure of traditional sugars stresses the GI tract and is a huge contributory factor to systemic inflammation.

I already have -- and I've never used the product. Associating high concentrations of carbs with GI distress was a missing link for me.

Skepticism is fine. OTOH, someone's claiming that a researcher is "taking a check" without a fact-based chain of reasoning is dreadfully inappropriate. We are all about lowering inflammatory response.

I have not found that forgoing carbs during exercise causes any problems. On last Saturday, I did a 50 mile bike ride with some significant climbs and headwinds, and I managed to finish with the 'fast' group. My only energy intake was some full-fat cheese. The other riders were eating lots of carbs during the ride.

Bowling I asked a number of specific questions.
Despite appearing to be a point by point reply...
Your reply addresses none of them.

You have referred me to four links. three of which are behind a paywall, and the other does not answer any of my questions.

Re your suggestion


I specifically said I was looking for independent info. I already get more than enough sales and marketing spam in my inbox, and I'm not inclined to volunteer my address to get even more. Your offer to contact UCAN and relay more of their sales spiel is of little interest to me.



As high concentrations of carb are not on the menu of most low-carbers it should not surprise you that it's not a "missing link" to anywhere for me.

GI distress from high sugar liquids is not on my concern list. Hardly surprising from someone who frequents low-carb board. If you're selling a product, or an idea, it's a good idea to tailor your message to the target audience/market.




Unfortunately shills and spammers are a fact of life. Over the years I've seen them come, and I've seen them go. (Though the mods here do an excellent job in sniffing them out.)
Posters who are newly registered or make their first post supporting or defending a commercial product, then dissappear without any (or token) posts in other areas.

The following link gives an indication of the common warning signs.
http://www.cyclingforums.com/t/4934...great-nutrition

Of course the OP (in this cycling link) posting his promotion site may be just a genuine Poster with an appallingly bad appreciation of netiquette!

Amergin: after I had posted the four references to science papers. You said, "Can't find anything that looks like independent scientific analysis of this. Most of the links are UCAN or what looks suspicously like commercial shills." That statement is false. I have read all four peer-reviewed science papers, and I see no evidence for the conflicts of interest you imply. Your aspersions against those researchers writing those papers, the paper reviewers, and those journals appear to be completely unwarranted.

Even if you don't have free access to the papers themselves, you do have access to read the abstract/summary of each of the papers. Did you come to your "commercial shills" conclusion after chasing those links? If so, what is it in the abstracts of those papers that came to that conclusion? Or did you not bother to follow those links showing independent scientific analysis of this product?

I read the ground rules for these discussions. They explicitly note: Members are encouraged to provide references to research and medical studies. Your complaint that the research and medical studies provided are behind a paywall is out of line.

As a rule of thumb, if you want source information on any topic -- especially some newer topic -- you should go to peer-reviewed science papers. For better or worse, most of those published papers are indeed behind a firewall. This has nothing to do with Generation UCAN, nutrition, or even biology in general -- it's just how science papers work today. Aaron Swartz believed that access to all science papers should be open and free. FWIW, I heartily agree.

As a practical matter, it's pretty easy to get access to science papers. Universities have subscriptions providing blanket access to all students, faculty, and staff. A University near to me provides walk-in access to their subscription: you can get a 1-hour pass daily to use a library terminal giving complete access. I'd be very surprised if a highly-motivated person couldn't find access to a science library

Why do you presume that you couldn't get independent info from them? Skepticism is completely appropriate, but your cynicism is inappropriate. Here's how you could ask the question: "What references to science papers do you have that answer these questions?" And then list your questions. Simple!

I've never had this happen with any company I've ever contacted with a question. If you were actually concerned about this, there are trivial ways to work around it: contact the company via a FB private message, or use a throwaway mail address (like a mailinator one) for the response.

More??? I provided links to independent peer-reviewed studies.

AFAICT, your allegations of "speil" are all spin an no fact. You crossed the line from skepticism to wholly unwarranted cynicism.



Here are the facts about carbs and osmotic pressure:

1. We have about 2 spoonfuls of carbs in our blood.
2. When we consume simple sugars, the small size of the molecules gives makes them easy to transfer from the GI tract to the bloodstream -- a high osmotic pressure.
3. That rapid transit rate of the small molecules stresses the epithelial cells in the intestine. It leads to GI distress and systemic cellular inflammation.

I had never understood why my digestion worked so much better on a low-carb diet. The discussion of a food product with a very large molecular size (implying a very low osmotic pressure) helped me understand this entire dynamic. I learned something new -- simply by Volek's discussion of Superstarch in "The Art & Science of Low-Carb Performance".

Now, this may be old hat to you, but I can guarantee you that there are many low-carbers who don't understand the nuances of GI distress and even small amounts of sugars. More importantly, it's highly useful for low-carbers to understand and convey this idea to the masses who still think that "a calorie is a calorie". You're interested in having as many people in your circles understand the dynamics of low-carb diets, right?



What exactly does that have to do with Dr. Jeff Volek???

Maybe some of those new posters leave because they interact with regulars who pretty clearly have a closed mind on a topic.

And what happens when you skeptically examine what I've said in this discussion about Superstarch? I've repeatedly said: I don't use it, and have no plans to use it. I don't think it has broad applicability to the low-carb community. And I'm not selling the product. If you rationally think I'm a shill, you must also rationally conclude that I'm the worst shill in the history of civilization.

At the same time, the product is intriguing. It's one of a very short list of supplements that challenges head-on the notion of carb-loading. If this product helps drive athletes to a low-carb diet, I think that will be a wonderful thing for the entire low-carb movement. I am mystified why the attacks exist on this product, and I was disgusted with the totally unwarranted "taking a check" aspersions being cast at Volek.

I think you've asked some great questions; you clearly understand the nature of a fact-based discussion. At the same time, I'm mystified about your response to fact-based papers behind a paywall. This has nothing to do with Generation UCAN, nutrition, or even biology in general -- it's just the way that science papers are currently published. If you were motivated, you would either find a way to access local science papers, or you would find someone in your circle of friends who could help you access those papers. I appreciate skepticism, but I think the cynicism you're expressing here is unwarranted.

Please answer my question: do you agree that the snide "taking a check" comment here without a fact-based chain of reasoning was dreadfully inappropriate?

We were discussing athletes who participate in grueling endurance events: the Ironman Triathlon, a 100-mile endurance run, or the open-water Molokai to Oahu Paddleboard Race. Is it possible to do well (or even complete) such a race without regularly taking carbs? I do not know. I haven't heard of any athlete who has ever succeeded doing that -- or even attempting it.

Volek/Phinney talk a lot about endurance events; they note that the fat stores are more than adequate for even the longest endurance events. If we have plenty of fat reserves for any race, then what purpose would be served by exclusively eating something like full-fat cheese?

OTOH, we do know that blood sugar levels decrease during such races -- even for keto-adapted athletes. Consumption of judiciously small amounts of carbs (as 100-miler Tim Olson did during his record-breaking performance) makes lots of sense.

BG is regulated by hormones, primarily insulin. Basically, as insulin rises, it stimulates glycogenesis (creation and storage of glycogen) and inhibits gluconeogenesis (creation and release of glucose). Each time a "judiciously small amount of carbs" is ingested, insulin rises. Therefore, eating judiciously small amounts of carbs during a race inhibits an otherwise normal metabolism which would keep BG within normal range according to demand, explaining the BG drop you pointed out, in spite of the incoming "judiciously small amounts of carbs" which is admittedly hypothesized to cause BG to rise to compensate for that drop as you alluded to: "makes lots of sense".

On the other hand, gluconeogenesis creates glucose from substrates, one of which is glycerol, which is part of triglycerides, found in dietary fat, which does not stimulate insulin as dietary carbs do, therefore does not inhibit gluconeogenesis. Thus, eating "judiciously small amounts of..." fat, would provide the necessary substrate for gluconeogenesis to continue, without otherwise interfering with gluconeogenesis itself, which is actively responding to demand by trying to keep BG within normal range for this demand.

Never mind winning a race -- can you point to a single ultramarathon athlete anywhere who has even attempted to complete a race ingesting no carbs? How about just a normal marathon athlete? Can you point to a single nutritionist, physiologist, medical doctor, etc., who is saying that the ingestion of a small amount of carbs "inhibits an otherwise normal metabolism"? Is there anybody anywhere who is recommending the ingestion of zero carbs during ultra-endurance events? Do you practice what you speculate -- why don't you label yourself as ZeroC?

The existence of the word "gluconeogenesis" does not imply that exclusive reliance on this metabolic path is advisable for anyone.

All you've done is provide us with a thought experiment, but no evidence that you've ever done anything beyond playing with the abstract idea. You seem to have concluded that ultramarathon athletes would perform better with zero carbs during a race, but you haven't provided a shred of evidence to back up the claim. Do you have any plans to do anything real to test your idea?

The absence of evidence for zero-carb for ultramarathon performance prevents us from making the claim that "some carbs is better than none". Occam's razor, when applied to the existing evidence for "less carbs is better than more", suggests "no-carb is better than some" as more likely. The thought experiment, as you call it, on insulin/glycogenesis/gluconeogenesis gives plausibility to this alternative as well.

No. Occam's razor categorically prefers real evidence to a thought experiment. Real athletes are completing (and winning) real races by consuming carbs during the races. You can't produce a single endurance athlete who has tried even what you are proposing. You can't even point to a single nutritionist, physiologist, medical doctor, etc., who is saying that the ingestion of a small amount of carbs "inhibits an otherwise normal metabolism". You are presenting an extreme point of view about nutrition, and you're presenting nothing to back it up.

Please remember the rules for discussion in this forum:

members are encouraged to provide references to research and medical studies. Do not be offended if someone asks you for proof to what you claim is a fact.

If you have any references or medical studies to back up your "inhibits an otherwise normal metabolism" claim, please provide them. You should not be offended by my request. If you have no references or studies to back up that claim, please acknowledge that. Thank you.

If it's anything other than your personal thought experiment, you should be able to provide references. Capiche?

Actually, Occam's razor refers to the selection of the simplest hypothesis which explains the facts. This hypothesis can then be used to predict further facts, or predict as-of-yet unknown outcomes based on those facts, for example in experiments which test this hypothesis. We have evidence that less carbs is better than more in a dose-response fashion, but we have no evidence about no-carb. Therefore, the simplest hypothesis that most likely predicts the outcome of no-carb is that the curve is somewhat linear, whereby no-carb is best, some-carb is worse, and high-carb is worst.

Perhaps it would help to spell it out for you. Here are the facts:

• There are tens of thousands of ultramarathon racers on the planet.
• Ultramarathon races are highly taxing on our energy systems. Having efficient and reliable energy delivery of the multi-hour duration of the race is crucial for athletes.
• All ultramarathon racers are highly motivated to perform well in races: to complete the race and place well in their division. They have trained for long periods of time and have a huge emotional investment to perform well.
• You cannot name a single ultramarathon athlete anywhere who consumes zero carbs in a race.

Why are there no ultramarathon athletes anywhere who are going zero-carb during races? The simple explanation: the expense of gluconeogenesis is way too high to justify its use by ultramarathoners. They are far better off getting that essential nutrition from a small trickle of dietary carbs during their race. Earlier in this discussion, you tried to bamboozle us with a claim:
But that discussion says no such thing! In fact, the winner of that race explicitly notes in this interview that he uses 100 calories (but no more) of carbs per hour during his course-record winning race.

If a reputable researcher had made such a gross factual error, they would immediately apologie for the mistake and retract the claim.

Gluconeogenesis is a magical metabolic transformation; the synthesis of glucose from fats or amino acids is a remarkable evolutionary adaptation. However, as fans of Once Upon a Time know well, all magic comes with a price. The energy cost for creating glucose this way is too high for these endurance athletes.

So you do acknowledge that your earlier statement about endurance athletes was, in fact, wrong. Why did that take so long to correct your error?

No. You do not have a hypothesis -- at least in terms of the scientific method. Please look at that chart: step 2 comes before step 3. You have absolutely no evidence that zero carbs is workable for ultramarathon athletes.

You're starting with a belief about zero carbs and trying to backfill. You're not using the scientific method; that's why you're getting into trouble.

Neither do you, therefore you cannot draw conclusions, yet you did anyway:

For anyone interested in the discussion about the viability of gluconeogenesis to supply carbs to ultramarathoners, I highly recommend Paul Jaminet's article. Paul notes (with a reference to a science paper):
Ignoring the energy requirements to produce glucose via gluconeogenesis already noted in our discussion here, there's a very real question if the kidneys and liver would be able to produce sufficient glucose for ultramarathoners. See the link in Mr. Jaminet's article for the link to his discussions on the dangers of zero-carb diets. I deeply appreciate the diligence -- both the reasoning and references to science papers -- that Paul provides.

[Silence. Martin has no response.]

Martin: answering my question shows the proper application of Occam's Razor to this discussion: with all things being equal, the simplest explanation tends to be the right one. The explanations you've tried to provide here are convoluted and contorted. Most importantly -- and despite your claim to the contrary -- you have failed to name a single ultramarathon athlete who competes without consuming carbs. Ockham has spoken!

We most definitely do have evidence of the effectiveness of a low-carb diet in ultramarathon races. Tim Olson won with a record breaking performance in the 2012 Western States 100. He did it consuming about 100 calories of carbs (but no more) per hour.

The interesting twist: you provided our discussion with the link to the discussion about Tim Olson's win. You made the claim, "Athletes don't need carbs in their extreme endurance events. In fact, they may do much better without carbs: http://forum.lowcarber.org/showthread.php?t=445468". That was wrong; Tim definitely consumes carbs while racing.

Please stop trying to bamboozle the newsgroup. There is no evidence that zero-carb is viable for ultramarathon athletes. There is plenty of evidence that ultramarathoners thrive -- setting records -- consuming a small amont of carbs while racing.

You're starting with a belief about zero carbs and trying to backfill. You're not using the scientific method; that's why you're getting into trouble.

And the simplest explanation is that less carbs is better than more in a dose-response fashion.