PDA

View Full Version : sweets, candy, jelly etc when bulking?



J.C.
10-25-2004, 06:50 AM
I recently heard about some guy I used to know in Scotland who has just got into the junior national rugby squad. I don't think he has played a proper game yet but he's in the 18-21 "squad". Anyway, my mum used to work with his and she was talking about these diet sheets they gave the juniors on a training camp to help them gain some weight.

As well as all the usual bulking stuff you'd expect in a weight-gain diet like:
6 eggs a day
a couple of chickens
a few pints of milk etc

There was quite a heavy emphasis on simple sugars and quite a rejection of fats. For instance they:
are supposed to keep fruit pastilles/jelly babies or similiar on them at all times.
Have jam on every piece of bread or toast. But NO butter.
Eat things like jam tarts and syrupy puddings as desserts.
Have jelly when they can.

From a fitness perspective myself and as someone who is trying to gain a bit of weight I obviously found this quite interesting. I can think of two possible reasons why this kind of diet is being suggested to them. It could be because the coaches don't care if they get fat - they just want them to get heavier . Or it could be because eating jelly babies all day will cause such a huge insulin response that their muscles will grow quickest as long as they weight train enough.

Isn't this a bit dangerous in regards to type-2 diabetes? I just can't imagine that playing with your blood-sugar and hormones that much is a good idea.

Any ideas or comments? Sorry for the long post :)

ryuage
10-25-2004, 07:11 AM
why dont you ask

J.C.
10-25-2004, 07:34 AM
Well I hardly knew him anyway and haven't seem him for about 6 years. It is just that our mothers worked together for a bit and his mum stayed at our house a few weeks ago, so I heard from her. My family moved from Scotland to England about 6 years ago, so I have'nt seen him since then. His mum was just complaining about the cost of feeding him (!) so we got talking about the diet he was set.

I think it would be a bit wierd if I just rang up someone who vaguely knows who I am from mostly second-hand experience, and asked some nutrition questions.

Plus, I thought the amazing knowledge of WBB forum members would tell what was going on! :bow:

ryuage
10-25-2004, 07:43 AM
the thing is their could be endless possibilities on why "they" want them eating the way they do.. it's a toss up

J.C.
10-25-2004, 07:52 AM
Ok... Well would you say this is a good way of gaining weight. I liked Chris Mason's article on eating lots of fat and protein to gain muscle easily, this diet wants you to eat lots of carbs and protein. Although as simple sugars are digested so easily you will probably get fatter this way.

If I applied those ideas, then I'd start carrying gelatine sweets around with me and start getting through whole packets a day. That's a whole lot of calories but will it realistically make me get bigger?

Vido
10-25-2004, 12:21 PM
If I can remember correctly, I don't think Chris Mason's article promoted eating lots of fat, but rather, lots of calories. My point is he wasn't saying "Spread 6 tbsp of butter on every piece of bread you eat", he was saying "if your total calorie consumption isn't where it needs to be, then it might be ok to incorporate some less clean foods" (as they contain more calories). I believe he recommended 25 cals/lb bodyweight. That's not easy to do with egg whites, tuna, and oats.

As to the idea of eating a whole lot of simple sugars to bulk, it's really not intelligent at all.

1) It's not healthy (you mentioned Type-II diabetes already)
2) All those foods they suggested are basically "empty" calories. That is, there are no/few nutrients in them. At least when you have a burger (or something else that you wouldn't normally consider on any kind of diet) there is some substance to it.

Isaac Wilkins
10-25-2004, 12:29 PM
As a strength coach, I can see a couple of reasons why they're doing it this way. I don't think it's necessarily the ideal way to do it, but it's not quite as stupid as you think.

First, as Vido said, overall calories. You might have a hard time getting a player to try to pack in another 200 calories of rice, meat, or whatever at every meal. But have them add some chocolate to their milk. Put a slice of cheese on a burger. Spread some jelly on their toast. Before you know it, they've managed to squeeze in a lot of calories.

Athletes don't always understand really complicated diet plans. If a coach has 30 players, and doesn't have time to do full nutrition education sessions, then they're better off eating a lot of foods they're used to, rather than trying to get them to revamp their whole diet based on a sheet you gave them to interpret.

Also, these are rugby players, and high level ones at that. They're not bodybuilders. This is one of the things that irritates me about these boards. Everyone assumes that a bodybuilding diet is ideal for athletes. It's not. Their carbohydrate demands are MUCH higher than a bodybuilders, and with the volume of training they do their performance would suffer greatly if they followed a normal bodybuilding diet. Athletes, especially mixed power/endurance athletes like rugby players perform best when on a fairly high caloric and high carbohydrate diet. Perhaps even 60% of calories or above, depending upon overall intake. These guys are probably doing three hour practice (run/sprint/agility) sessions five or six days a week. Plus they're lifting and possibly running additionally.

Vido
10-25-2004, 12:34 PM
Just because they need more carbs doesn't mean the sources have to be $#@%ty.

Isaac Wilkins
10-25-2004, 04:16 PM
Read the rest of my post.

Also notice that I said it wasn't ideal.

Welcome to real life and real training.

PowerManDL
10-26-2004, 05:14 AM
He's absolutely right. Reality > "how it should be"

Vido, that's missing the whole point of what he said. These guys are more concerned with performance, by far, than they are with their physique. With that in mind, "****ty" sources don't matter so long as the calories and macros are there.

J.C.
10-26-2004, 06:55 AM
I think its probably to do with the fact that they will be needing a lot of carbs to fuel their bodies with all the training they are likely to do. I really have no idea about the training but I assume it is probably pretty close to what Borris said as these are guys who could be representing their country in a year or two.

By eating so many simple sugars they are ensuring they are getting a high carb diet and also one that is pretty sustained if they are eating sweets all day. If they come off the pitch and then have to do weights in an hour, they probably won't be able to eat a ful meal then, but they will be able to eat a packet of candy, have some toast and jam or whatever to restore their blood-sugar levels and to get some calories in.

Plus, as rugby players it probs doesn't matter too much if they gain a little fat. Maybe the coaches think they can lose it later if they have to. I imagine that the goal of these sort of junior training camps is to get all the potentials up to strength and size as quick as possible (and their skills obviously) and then refine them later.

I still think it could be something to do with insulin response though. Vido said it was "really not intelligent at all". Well I doubt that athletes would be put on an unintelligent diet. There is obviously some thinking behind it even though his points were all valid.

Vido
10-26-2004, 11:32 AM
I don't think I'm the one missing the point. Drummer was suggesting using this diet to bulk, not play a sport.

I still don't agree with feeding athletes crap though, both from a performance and a health-standpoint, but that's really not the topic of this thread.

Isaac Wilkins
10-26-2004, 02:21 PM
Nope, actually drummer posted this up for comments based on what he'd heard it was for, not in regards to using it as a bodybuilding "bulking" diet.

And that was for athletes playing a sport who wanted to get bigger.

Given its tendency towards lower fat implies that the coaches are a little behind the times (fat is bad), but also showing a definite preference towards athletic carbs. If they're eating several eggs, chicken, other meat, and so on, then they're certainly getting enough fat.

It works. Very well.

galileo
10-26-2004, 03:10 PM
It works. Very well.

Someone needs to write a book called "Not being a ****ing ****** with your diet."

Vido
10-26-2004, 03:19 PM
Nope, actually drummer posted this up for comments based on what he'd heard it was for, not in regards to using it as a bodybuilding "bulking" diet.


Ok... Well would you say this is a good way of gaining weight. I liked Chris Mason's article on eating lots of fat and protein to gain muscle easily, this diet wants you to eat lots of carbs and protein. Although as simple sugars are digested so easily you will probably get fatter this way.

If I applied those ideas, then I'd start carrying gelatine sweets around with me and start getting through whole packets a day. That's a whole lot of calories but will it realistically make me get bigger?

_-_v_-_
10-26-2004, 03:19 PM
Someone needs to write a book called "Not being a ****ing ****** with your diet."

And I need to read it.

Isaac Wilkins
10-26-2004, 03:22 PM
Clever. Read his original post.

Vido
10-26-2004, 03:31 PM
Clever. Read his original post.

Read my original post. It was AFTER he started talking about using this as a bodybuilding tool. I understand that the original post was about athletes, but you could see even from that first post that his mind was toiling with the idea of using it for bodybuilding purposes. His subsequent posts only served to demonstrate his curiosity.

Isaac Wilkins
10-26-2004, 03:34 PM
Fair enough, I'll accept that.


This is rapidly becoming stupid, and what could be a good thread is degenerating into us arguing semantics.

If anyone wants to continue arguing the actual points of the thread, I'm all for that, it could be instructive to some people. As far as the point of the thread, let's consider his question answered and open it up.

Vido
10-26-2004, 03:41 PM
Don't you think that athletes would have more energy if they ate complex carbs as opposed to crap? I mean, sure they can drink gatorade or whatever during a game or practice, but what good does "fueling" your body with simple sugars do (at meals NOT around training time)?

Isaac Wilkins
10-26-2004, 03:49 PM
Sure.

This is where real life comes into play. 6000 calories or more is a damn lot of oatmeal and brown rice. It's not as much oatmeal, rice, Gatorade, pizza, and toast with jelly.

These athletes are usually on their own to eat, in a big ass cafeteria or in their own apartments. It's harder to get them to eat exactly the way you want to.

I deal with several football players (American football) that eat pretty much everything in sight, and put down at least a pizza a night. More if they lie to me so that I don't yell at them. They drink almost exclusively sugared drinks (Gatorade, sugared soda, juice, etc) and water. They all lose a ton of weight during the season and during hard conditioning.

These are big, athletic guys, but I know a lot of props in rugby who are in the 5'10", 250+ pound range.

Isaac Wilkins
10-26-2004, 03:55 PM
Their glycolic system is so revved up all of the time that they're burning an enormous amount of calories, even while at rest. At rest, this is mainly triglyceride, but also a fair amount of carbohydrate.

Also, during their workouts they deplete huge amounts of glycogen. The body attempts to replenish this first, before storing glucose as triglyceride. These athletes are almost always in a somewhat depleted state as they simply can't metabolize the glycogen fast enough. They're always in a carb-needy state. A stiff three-hour practice will almost deplete most people's muscle glycogen. If this carries on for several consecutive days, they'll be damn near depletion all of the time.

At this point (and actually before), performance suffers.

Coaches would be better served doing lighter skill practices mixed with conditioning sessions, but they are handcuffed by schedules and many are so used to running long, exhaustive practices to "toughen 'em up" because that's what they went through back in the dark ages. Done properly, skill development can be achieved much faster and with less stress on your athletes. The athletes will then be much more ready to play all season.

That got a little off-topic, but I felt the need to rant.

Vido
10-26-2004, 03:56 PM
Well, if the only argument is convenience, then I can't really disagree with you. I'm just saying that if someone COULD eat 6000 cals of "clean" foods, I would not only expect them to be more healthy, but also to perform better. Perhaps this isn't applicable to the real-world because the majority of people CAN'T eat 6000 "clean" cals every day.

Isaac Wilkins
10-26-2004, 04:06 PM
Correct. Ideally, clean foods would be the way to go. Although, in their case, and their needs for glycogen replenishment, more sugars might be useful than you'd think.

Think along the lines of cyclical dieting, say UD2.0 or a CKD. On the refeeds, especially early on, simple sugars are utilized because they can be more rapidly shuttled to glycogen. These athletes are pretty much always in a state that a lifter right out of a depletion workout would be.

They'd be better off with dextrose, Gatorade (glucose), and maltodextrin than they would sucrose (half glucose and half fructose), of course, but you take what you can get. For bodybuilders, it's kiddie cereal.

Vido
10-26-2004, 04:19 PM
Think along the lines of cyclical dieting, say UD2.0 or a CKD. On the refeeds, especially early on, simple sugars are utilized because they can be more rapidly shuttled to glycogen. These athletes are pretty much always in a state that a lifter right out of a depletion workout would be.

See, this is where I have problem with understanding the benefits of simple sugars. I think I'm biased because I really don't think my body handles them that well. On UD2, my best carb-ups were strictly low GI (oats and brown rice, that's it). The ones where I ate cereal and that kind of junk didn't work nearly as well...for me anyway.

Isaac Wilkins
10-26-2004, 04:27 PM
See, this is where I have problem with understanding the benefits of simple sugars. I think I'm biased because I really don't think my body handles them that well. On UD2, my best carb-ups were strictly low GI (oats and brown rice, that's it). The ones where I ate cereal and that kind of junk didn't work nearly as well...for me anyway.

You're an exception. Most do far better if they start with simple sugars and move to low GI carbs as their insulin sensitivity decreases.

For pure cutting purposes, probably a strict low GI refeed will be a touch more effective in that one doesn't fully load back up and your super compensation isn't as big. One won't feel as strong or have as much anabolic rebound, but one will enter a fat burning state again sooner. Of course, leptin rebound probably won't be as substantial, and metabolic shut-down is potentially more likely.

Vido
10-26-2004, 04:38 PM
For pure cutting purposes, probably a strict low GI refeed will be a touch more effective in that one doesn't fully load back up and your super compensation isn't as big. One won't feel as strong or have as much anabolic rebound, but one will enter a fat burning state again sooner. Of course, leptin rebound probably won't be as substantial, and metabolic shut-down is potentially more likely.

Why wouldn't one fully load back up? If a person needs 1200 g carbs to completely re-fill glycogen stores, and eats them either in the form of low GI or high GI carbs, I would think the only difference would be the time it takes for the storage to take place.

Isaac Wilkins
10-26-2004, 04:52 PM
Why wouldn't one fully load back up? If a person needs 1200 g carbs to completely re-fill glycogen stores, and eats them either in the form of low GI or high GI carbs, I would think the only difference would be the time it takes for the storage to take place.

Longer time to consume/break down = lower insulin sensitivity = larger percentage stored as fat.

More blood glucose is just hanging around. It's not getting into the muscle cells as insulin is not stimulating the GLUT-4 receptors as well, so not as many are on/in the plasma membrane of the cell, so it's more likely to be stored as fat.

This is why one gets the spike and crash when one consumes a really high GI item. Lots of glucose in the blood very quickly (fast digestion) which is responded to by the body with a ton of insulin. This insulin stimulates the GLUT-4 receptors to come to the surface of the cell, making the cell much more permeable to glucose. Most of that glucose gets pulled out of the blood quickly as a result. This is the crash.

Glucose is utilized in a heirarchical manner. The liver takes the first stab at it, as it's responsible for maintaining blood glucose and keeping the brain and organs fed. Well, in a depleted person the liver is empty, so that's filled (this is partially why you eat the fruit before the depletion workout so that the liver (fed readily by fructose) is sated). Either way, it's only around 400 calories worth. Next up are the muscle cells. If they're depleted, they're desperate for glucose to make glycogen. If they're not (a well fed individual), they pass it along. Then come the adipose (fat) cells. They have GLUT-4 receptors to, so if the muscle cells have passed up on it, they grab that glucose to make triglyceride. Fat people who drink sugared soda and eat pastries get fatter.

nzk
10-26-2004, 07:23 PM
in case anyone is still wondering, eating a lot of sugary foods does not "play with your hormones" and most definitely does not cause diabetes.
obesity does cause diabetes though...but u dont have to eat sugar to get fat.

Isaac Wilkins
10-26-2004, 07:38 PM
Other than create a ton of insulin swings and feed fat cells, I agree.

I think one would find that high sugar intake and adult onset diabetes were highly correllated. That in no way means (and this is an important thing for a lot of people to learn) that high sugar consumption necessarily CAUSES diabetes. Obesity, as you stated, has been linked to it. Often, high sugar intake goes hand in hand with obesity.

You can get enormously fat from oatmeal.

J.C.
10-27-2004, 03:56 AM
So... If you've all finished arguing (which was still quite interesting Vido and Borris), have we decided:

1/ It is a bit behind the times to not allow butter or red meat and seemingly shun fat.

2/ They are told to eat candy constantly because they are always in a state of glycogen depletion and it is the easiest way to get their energy back.

3/ Athletes need a lot more carbohydrate. I assume this is part of the reason why fats are avoided - to get the ratios right and allow the guys to concentrate on eating the protein and carbs.

4/ Eating all this sugar probably isn't the best way to bulk and gain weight unless your training hard 4 hours a day - which most weightlifters don't.

p.s. I know eating lots of sugary food does not necessarily cause diabetes but the two have been correlated. Obesity is the main cause and a recent study showed waist size was a better indication than diet. That said, eating so many simple sugars may make you fat and it causes huge insulin spikes so it still doesn't seem like a great idea.

galileo
10-27-2004, 06:02 AM
Disclaimer - I didn't read the entire thread.

1. Depends on your goals.
2. Depends on their goals.
3. Fats are mainly avoided as part of a deprecated mentality that fat = bodyfat. Eat fat according to your goals.
4. Not the best way to bulk and a good deal of that is because you'll end up overeating. If I eat higher quality carbs I tend to eat far less than if I'd eat candy due to satiation. For the rest, see Borris' posts.

J.C.
10-27-2004, 06:57 AM
Disclaimer - I didn't read the entire thread.

1. Depends on your goals.
2. Depends on their goals.
3. Fats are mainly avoided as part of a deprecated mentality that fat = bodyfat. Eat fat according to your goals.
4. Not the best way to bulk and a good deal of that is because you'll end up overeating. If I eat higher quality carbs I tend to eat far less than if I'd eat candy due to satiation. For the rest, see Borris' posts.

Read the entire thread then. :idea:

I wasn't trying to dispute anything. More I was trying to clarify what had been agreed. Borris seems most in the know so I go with what he said: i.e. not a stupid way to eat but not the best, but the most practical for quick results according to their likely training.

Maki Riddington
10-27-2004, 08:17 AM
Athletes who compete at a high level (college, semi pro) tend to respond well to nutrition, even if their sources or ratios are not optimal. In my experience I would chalk this up to the fact that their bodies are primed for activity and are constantly exerting themselves. It would almost seem that it has something to do with their body type. This is more of an observation.

Isaac Wilkins
10-27-2004, 10:15 AM
Athletes who compete at a high level (college, semi pro) tend to respond well to nutrition, even if their sources or ratios are not optimal. In my experience I would chalk this up to the fact that their bodies are primed for activity and are constantly exerting themselves. It would almost seem that it has something to do with their body type. This is more of an observation.

Yep, that's what I said. ;)

galileo
10-27-2004, 10:35 AM
Read the entire thread then. :idea:

I wasn't trying to dispute anything. More I was trying to clarify what had been agreed. Borris seems most in the know so I go with what he said: i.e. not a stupid way to eat but not the best, but the most practical for quick results according to their likely training.

I don't think I implied you were trying to dispute anything. Watch yourself.

Isaac Wilkins
10-27-2004, 10:36 AM
I don't think I implied you were trying to dispute anything. Watch yourself.


*cues The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly in the background*

:cool:

galileo
10-27-2004, 12:18 PM
:D

Maki Riddington
10-27-2004, 12:30 PM
Sorry Borris, I should have said that I was agreeing with you based on my own observations.

Isaac Wilkins
10-27-2004, 02:46 PM
Sorry Borris, I should have said that I was agreeing with you based on my own observations.


lol. I was just busting your chops, like I did Gal's. ;)

TTT
10-31-2004, 02:24 AM
Listen to Borris, he obviously knows his biochemistry...

As for the whole sugar debate, no one here has yet raised the issue of how it screws your teeth up!!

Isaac Wilkins
11-01-2004, 01:07 PM
As for the whole sugar debate, no one here has yet raised the issue of how it screws your teeth up!!

Heh. Yeah, that's a WHOLE different issue. I suppose they should rinse their mouths with water frequently, floss, and all that good stuff.

galileo
11-01-2004, 01:13 PM
Heh. Yeah, that's a WHOLE different issue. I suppose they should rinse their mouths with water frequently, floss, and all that good stuff.

You do that anyway, right? It's the etiquette of your profession.

Isaac Wilkins
11-01-2004, 01:15 PM
You do that anyway, right? It's the etiquette of your profession.

lol. Yeah, I take care of the ol' choppers.