MB Madaera
Lost 31.7 lbs fat
Built 11.7 lbs muscle


Chris Madaera
Built 9 lbs muscle


Keelan Parham
Lost 30 lbs fat
Built 4 lbs muscle


Bob Marchesello
Lost 23.55 lbs fat
Built 8.55 lbs muscle


Jeff Turner
Lost 25.5 lbs fat


Jeanenne Darden
Lost 26 lbs fat
Built 3 lbs muscle


Ted Tucker
Lost 41 lbs fat
Built 4 lbs muscle

 
 

Determine the Length of Your Workouts

Evaluate Your Progress

Keep Warm-Up in Perspective


ARCHIVES >>

"Doing more exercise with less intensity,"
Arthur Jones believes, "has all but
destroyed the actual great value
of weight training. Something
must be done . . . and quickly."
The New Bodybuilding for
Old-School Results supplies
MUCH of that "something."

 

This is one of 93 photos of Andy McCutcheon that are used in The New High-Intensity Training to illustrate the recommended exercises.

To find out more about McCutcheon and his training, click here.

 

Mission Statement

H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy

Privacy Policy

Credits

LOG IN FORUM MAIN REGISTER SEARCH
Difficulties Natural Bodybuilders Have?
1 | 2 | Next | Last
Author
Rating
Options

gerry-hitman

In my opinion the greatest problem we natural bodybuilders have is gaining fat when we want to put on muscle mass. There is no getting around it, if we want to gain muscle mass we must eat calories in excess of our base. When we lift HIT and eat in excess of our base yes we will gain muscle. However the negative is we will gain fat also that at some point we will have to cut, or remain fat.

This is what I do not like about building mass, the fat. I suppose this is true also for the steroid users but I believe they put on less fat when bulking or so I have gathered.

Anybody like to comment?

Gerry
Open User Options Menu

southbeach

Why do you assume you need excess calories over your basal + 'expenditure from training/activity' to make muscle? Why would excess calories over need be helpful to muscle building?
Open User Options Menu

gerry-hitman

southbeach wrote:
Why do you assume you need excess calories over your basal + 'expenditure from training/activity' to make muscle? Why would excess calories over need be helpful to muscle building?


Im saying yes, excess calories above base + expenditure from training, are needed to produce new muscle tissue.

Are you saying no, just exactly what are you saying here; you believe that extra calories are not needed to gain extra muscle?

Gerry
Open User Options Menu

Jozzzef

gerry-hitman wrote:
In my opinion the greatest problem we natural bodybuilders have is gaining fat when we want to put on muscle mass. There is no getting around it, if we want to gain muscle mass we must eat calories in excess of our base. When we lift HIT and eat in excess of our base yes we will gain muscle. However the negative is we will gain fat also that at some point we will have to cut, or remain fat.

This is what I do not like about building mass, the fat. I suppose this is true also for the steroid users but I believe they put on less fat when bulking or so I have gathered.

Anybody like to comment?

Gerry


Professionals advice to eat about 200-250 calories above maintenance. This way, there's little risk of increasing great amount of fat. If you're natural, you don't need to have one-digit BF%. It's ok to be between 10 to 15%. I've read somewhere a comment written by AJ that it's totally natural for a bodybuilder to have a certain thickness of fat. You can't get grow without fat. Having let's say 5% BF throughout a year is not healthy. Nor will you grow stronger and bigger.
Fat is also an isolator; i.e. maintains a body warm.

Open User Options Menu

tompuderbaugh

As Dr. D and Arthur Jones have said many times over the decades, perhaps a "bit" of extra calories is needed to have the raw materials present for additional muscle growth. But it is not much. Way less than most people think.

Look it up in any physiology textbook....Muscle tissue is mostly water, WAY mostly water.

Those who continue to chant that huge amounts of extra protein and calories are necessary are just not scientifically correct.

The most important factors are, in decending order of importance:

1. The genetic ability to build extra-large muscles (but unfortunately this is fixed at birth and most people simply do not have it).

2. The correct stimulation to grow.

3. The correct rest period following the stimulation.

4. The necessary nutritional factors to maintain the body and have a bit left to fuel the extra growth.

As Arthur himself once told me over a lunch in Ocala -

"If you have the first three, then any reasonable diet will suffice. But if you don't have the first three, then all the protein that Joe Weider can shove down your throat (and remove dollars from your wallet in return) won't matter a tinker's damn!"

Strong works perhaps....But he isn't wrong.

Good training.

Tom Puderbaugh
Open User Options Menu

gerry-hitman

Jozzzef wrote:
gerry-hitman wrote:
In my opinion the greatest problem we natural bodybuilders have is gaining fat when we want to put on muscle mass. There is no getting around it, if we want to gain muscle mass we must eat calories in excess of our base. When we lift HIT and eat in excess of our base yes we will gain muscle. However the negative is we will gain fat also that at some point we will have to cut, or remain fat.

This is what I do not like about building mass, the fat. I suppose this is true also for the steroid users but I believe they put on less fat when bulking or so I have gathered.

Anybody like to comment?

Gerry


Professionals advice to eat about 200-250 calories above maintenance. This way, there's little risk of increasing great amount of fat. If you're natural, you don't need to have one-digit BF%. It's ok to be between 10 to 15%. I've read somewhere a comment written by AJ that it's totally natural for a bodybuilder to have a certain thickness of fat. You can't get grow without fat. Having let's say 5% BF throughout a year is not healthy. Nor will you grow stronger and bigger.
Fat is also an isolator; i.e. maintains a body warm.



So you agree we need to eat above base to gain muscle mass. Its my belief your going to gain some fat with the muscle, and when you cut you will lose some muscle with the fat.

Now there are diffrent diets than can improve the results; the one im using seems to keep muscle loss very small when cutting. In fact I gained a little muscle at the start when I had lots of fat, but when I got to the lower levels the muscle gains stopped.

I Am curious to read about southbeach method to gain muscle which not having extra calories.
Open User Options Menu

southbeach

If it is true that resistance training spares muscle loss during dieting then why do you need many excess calories to BUILD muscle tissue? Seems to me just enough is sufficient.
Open User Options Menu

Ciccio

I'll tell you all when I'm done with cutting now, after my half year of bulking.

Franco
Open User Options Menu

stevecollins33

I'm with Stuart McRobert on the whole issue of weight gain/loss, i.e. that there is a fat/muscle pay-off.

It's difficult to talk ratios but McRobert has stated a 3:1 muscle to fat ratio is fairly normal when gaining. His advice is to aim for the 12% bodyfat mark and any bulk phase should cease when you hit 15%, when you should start trimming back. Regardless of whether McRobert's assessment is accurate for the general population, I think most of us would accept a 12lbs muscle gain in exchange for 4lbs of flab.

Open User Options Menu

Waynes

Switzerland

southbeach wrote:
Why do you assume you need excess calories over your basal + 'expenditure from training/activity' to make muscle? Why would excess calories over need be helpful to muscle building?


I thought like that and tried to stay cut and get bigger, it did not work for me, gains were far to slow, then I added calories VERY slowly, and started to add weight, yes I also put on a little fat, but you either stay small and cut, or grow bigger but put on a little fat, if you do it right and slow you should do well.

I was eating about 13 calories per pound of bodyweight, now about 23.

This is also the thinking over at Tnation and BB.

More again going out tonight.

Wayne
Open User Options Menu

veganmaster

gerry-hitman wrote:
There is no getting around it, if we want to gain muscle mass we must eat calories in excess of our base. When we lift HIT and eat in excess of our base yes we will gain muscle. However the negative is we will gain fat also that at some point we will have to cut, or remain fat.

Anybody like to comment?

Gerry


I am sitting here looking at my 3-ring binders full of scientific studies on human metabolism/overfeeding/underfeeding/exercise
so I suppose I should answer! I've ruminated on studies germane to this topic very often for the past few years (I like to read the entire studies).

I've been studying human nutrition for 12 years or so, and getting obsessed with studying the nitty gritty of metabolism & muscle building has really
strengthened my knowledge of how energy, in the form of CHO, PRO, FAT & ALC is processed. High-quality studies can be identified by their use of
direct or indirect calorimetry - which is where subjects are put into a regularly calibrated gas-exchange chamber.

First off, you can indeed be in negative calorie balance & still build muscle mass, if you exert enough energy. The classic study
"Metabolic effects of a mixed and a high-carbohydrate low-fat diet in man, measured over 24 h in a respiration chamber" is a good example (& a catchy title huh).

Hurni et al compared a mixed diet to a HCLFD - both having 88 grams of protein. Subjects bicycled on a machine for 2.5 hours.
Despite both groups being in negative calorie balance (MD=-340 kcal) (HCLFD=-458 kcal), both groups gained PRO over the 24 h period.
According to their calculations the mixed diet group gained (+11g) of PRO while the low-fat, high carbohydrate group gained even more
PRO (+17 g). Multiply these gains by 5 to get the LBM change.

What happens is that FAT (& glycogen) oxidation covers the energy deficit
while the exercise stimulus increases protein synthesis - and since both diets had 88 grams of PRO, which is plenty, they gained net muscle.

In fact the HCLFD group gained about 85g of LBM in a day, while losing 80.5 grams of FAT. THere are many other lines of evidence,
but the basic facts hidden in the quality calorimetry studies lead to a few conclusions:

1. Excess calories = increase in both LBM and Fat stores - higher the ratio of CHO:F, the more LBM deposited.

2 - The best ratio of muscle to fat gains in the literature come from a starch overfeeding diet using about 90 grams of protein, 20% or less calories from fat,
and a very high level of CHO kca (~4300 kcal/d). This is because complex CHO digest more slowly so less glucose is converted via De Novo Lipogenesis to FAT.

The ideal combo for fat gain is simple sugars + Fats, not surprising to anyone whose been to a fast food joint ;).

It is a complex process, but the research does show that if you want to gain only muscle, you have to either increase your energy expenditure
and/or reduce fat intake. But the funny thing is that the fastest way to gain LBM is to eat a HCLFD with a "mere" 90 grams of protein but many thousands
of excess kcal/d! Many studies show gains of LBM between 2-5 lbs PER WEEK! And that's with ZERO exercise in many cases.

The problem is, as you've mentioned, is that it comes with 2-8 lbs of fat you must burn off via exercise! This is a complex area, and I'd be glad
to share more studies and opinions on human metabolism. :)



Open User Options Menu

HamsFitness

HI VeganMaster,

Thank you for your contribution, it was interesting and I for one am happy to read more -

could you provide links to any of these for my own reading please?


Ta
Open User Options Menu

Drew Baye

Florida, USA

Lyle McDonald's most recent book, The Protein Book, which has dozens of pages of references spanning years of research, suggests quite a bit higher protein intakes for people in hard training.

www.bodyrecomposition.com

It's a little pricey, but it's one of the best books I've read on the subject, and I read a lot. Highly recommended.
Open User Options Menu

veganmaster

Wizard wrote:
HI VeganMaster,

Thank you for your contribution, it was interesting and I for one am happy to read more -

could you provide links to any of these for my own reading please?


Ta


Here's a link to main study I mentioned above (click the page link to get the .pdf):
http://tiny.cc/DWTdd

As long as you have the title of the study you can find the full .pdf for free using google, usually in the top 5 search results, often from www.ajcn.org :)

Here are some essential overfeeding/metabolism studies to read:
"Hormonal response to overfeeding"
Forbes Et Al
"Changes in macronutrient balance during over- and underfeeding assessed by 12-d continuous whole-body calorimetry"
Jebb Et Al
"Glycogen storage capacity and de novo lipogenesis during massive carbohydrate overfeeding in man"
Acheson Et Al

"Effect of Carbohydrate Overfeeding on Whole Body and Adipose Tissue Metabolism in Humans"
Minehira Et Al

This last one shows the most impressive LBM:F gain I've seen in the literature, using a a starch based (50%+ complex CHO) overfeeding diet containing 759 g CHO, 91 g PRO, 95g FAT - indeed the use a similar diet in another study, with results almost as impressive. What you will realize if you read these studies is that overfeeding can pack on several pounds of LBM a week, no problem @ "only" 90 grams of PRO/d. This is because the more CHO you eat, the less Nitrogen you piss away via urine, sweat, etc. The truth is, overfeeding on starches with no added fat may hit near the ideal LBM:F ratio, because simple sugars are more easily converted via DNL to FAT.

But the problem is: it's a damn challenge for me to eat 4300 kcal worth of pasta and rice and beans! The more practical method for me is Malodextrin + soy protein drinks (because of course processed liquids can be digested faster - yes I have studies on gastric emptying too LOL I'm a huge nerd).

So the committed natural bodybuilder has a several options:

1. "Dirty" - Increase kcal intake drastically with ZERO regard to composition, then use PSMF (Protein-Sparing Modified Fast) and/or increased Energy Expenditure to burn off the fat layers.
2. "Nerdy" - Increase kcal intake and strive for ideal increase in body composition - get ~90 g/d PRO + Tons of CHO (preferably high ratio of complex:simple) + Mimimize FAT intake + increase Energy Expenditure if the FAT starts building.

The point is to start with a base of intense exercise (increased Protein Synthesis & Fat oxidation) - then add a constant stream of energy, preferably modest in protein and very high in CHO (a regularly full belly).

Dirty is probably the faster than Nerdy, if you don't mind blimping up and coating your arteries with plaque, etc ;) but if you really pay attention to diet and energy expenditure, there is no reason you can't steadily gain muscle without fat. Thus the common sense suggestion of experts to just increase kcal a few hundred kcal while exercising enough to keep FAT oxidation high.

Any of that make sense?? Damn I'm a nutrition nerd ;)

Oh, I'd also like to address the idea that hundreds of grams of protein may be needed for bodybuilders, as it simply doesn't have much quality scientific evidence behind it, IMO. Check this study for example:

J Sports Med Phys Fitness. 2002 Sep;42(3):340-7.

"Effects of high-calorie supplements on body composition and muscular strength following resistance training."

The authors took 73 subjects and divided them into 3: 1 group was control while the other 2 groups consuming 2000 kcal supplements:
Control (no supplement)
CHO/PRO group (+356 g CHO & +106 PRO)
CHO group (+500 g CHO)

All subjects performed RT 4 days per week!

Results:
CHO group = +3.4 kg LBM -.3 KG FAT
CHO/PRO = +2.9 kg LBM +.2 KG FAT

Yep, if you believe the hype you'd think 106 extra grams of PRO would yield a bigger increase in LBM, yet in fact the opposite is true - the CHO group got the best LBM:F results. The authors rightly conclude that "once individual protein needs are met, energy content of the diet has the largest effect on body composition."

The reason for this is the simplistic protein myth that goes, "eat lots of muscle to gain muscle." It's simply not true - I have old studies where protein balance is acheived at 3% kcal protein! It takes about 3000 kcal to do this, because they way it works is the more CHO you eat, the less Nitrogen (protein) you excrete! This is exactly why there is no such thing as protein deficiency in humans eating real food, as long as they meet their caloric needs. That's why it's termed "protein-calorie malnutrition."

Note that even during a starvation diet containing no CHO or FAT, just 5 grams/hr of protein (for an average man) is enough to maintain LBM, despite the severe caloric deficit (average kcal expended is around 90-100 kcal/hr). I say this just to point out that our metabolism is geared towards burning CHO & FAT and protecting muscle, for obvious reasons - if you eat nothing for a few days you will still only lose about a gram/hr of protein, which is really a small contribution to your total energy expenditure...









Open User Options Menu

goya

Hi veganmaster,

What you say kind of matches what was written in this very good article called "Spotlight on Metabolism".

It's available here:
http://nutrition.jbpub.com/...tmetabolism.pdf

I have often used it as a refrence and it conviced me that high carb diets were not as bad as some people make them to be.

Basically carbs are protein sparing but also fat sparing. If you are already pretty lean you recommendation of a high carb/low fat diet with enough protein makes sense as carbs are less readily converted to fat than fat from the diet. But as you mentioned, high carbs + high fat will favor fat storage.
Open User Options Menu

veganmaster

goya wrote:
"Spotlight on Metabolism".
It's available here:
http://nutrition.jbpub.com/...tmetabolism.pdf


Thanks for the link!

Basically carbs are protein sparing but also fat sparing. If you are already pretty lean you recommendation of a high carb/low fat diet with enough protein makes sense as carbs are less readily converted to fat than fat from the diet. But as you mentioned, high carbs + high fat will favor fat storage.


Yes, the misinformation on CHO is astounding. FAT storage is 95-98% efficient, because FAT is already in the chemical form for storage. Thus the fat you eat is the fat you wear. PRO & CHO are much less efficient, losing up to 30% or so of the energy via heat loss etc. CHO does not turn into FAT via DNL in significant amounts in people eating high-CHO diets (this has been confirmed in a LOT of studies). This is because we can store about 700-1100 grams of glycogen, and because complex carb diets are filling (all that fiber/bulk). The body can certainly make a lot of fat from DNL, for example check the study in my previous post "Glycogen Storage Capcity..." - they used MASSIVE amounts of escalating sugar kcal (up to 1000g/d) to overcome the glycogen stores and thus ramp up DNL!

So if you drink 5000 kcal of pepsi a day, you will deposit every gram of fat you eat (losing just a few % of energy in the process). Yet excess glucose or protein will lose like 30% of the energy just converting them to FAT. This is the kernal of truth that supports the infrastructure of CHO misinformation: Americans did NOT reduce their fat intake over the decades - instead they simply increased their intake of simple sugars, while still eating the same unhealthy diet (yes, the % of kcal from fat went down, but not the absolute amount ingested). Thus their bodies ran more and more off of glycogen, because it is on top of the oxidative hierarchy (glucose feeds our big brains). Add to this decreased exercise and you get the "obesity epidemic."

The simple truth is: everywhere you find large populations of people that are trim and chronic disease-free, they eat a diet very high in carbohydrates, and very low in animal foods/junk food.
Check www.drmcdougall.com if you want tons of science-based info detailing why.

Sorry if I went off topic a little...;)


Open User Options Menu

gerry-hitman

veganmaster wrote:
goya wrote:
"Spotlight on Metabolism".
It's available here:
http://nutrition.jbpub.com/...tmetabolism.pdf


Thanks for the link!

Basically carbs are protein sparing but also fat sparing. If you are already pretty lean you recommendation of a high carb/low fat diet with enough protein makes sense as carbs are less readily converted to fat than fat from the diet. But as you mentioned, high carbs + high fat will favor fat storage.

Yes, the misinformation on CHO is astounding. FAT storage is 95-98% efficient, because FAT is already in the chemical form for storage. Thus the fat you eat is the fat you wear. PRO & CHO are much less efficient, losing up to 30% or so of the energy via heat loss etc. CHO does not turn into FAT via DNL in significant amounts in people eating high-CHO diets (this has been confirmed in a LOT of studies). This is because we can store about 700-1100 grams of glycogen, and because complex carb diets are filling (all that fiber/bulk). The body can certainly make a lot of fat from DNL, for example check the study in my previous post "Glycogen Storage Capcity..." - they used MASSIVE amounts of escalating sugar kcal (up to 1000g/d) to overcome the glycogen stores and thus ramp up DNL!

So if you drink 5000 kcal of pepsi a day, you will deposit every gram of fat you eat (losing just a few % of energy in the process). Yet excess glucose or protein will lose like 30% of the energy just converting them to FAT. This is the kernal of truth that supports the infrastructure of CHO misinformation: Americans did NOT reduce their fat intake over the decades - instead they simply increased their intake of simple sugars, while still eating the same unhealthy diet (yes, the % of kcal from fat went down, but not the absolute amount ingested). Thus their bodies ran more and more off of glycogen, because it is on top of the oxidative hierarchy (glucose feeds our big brains). Add to this decreased exercise and you get the "obesity epidemic."

The simple truth is: everywhere you find large populations of people that are trim and chronic disease-free, they eat a diet very high in carbohydrates, and very low in animal foods/junk food.
Check www.drmcdougall.com if you want tons of science-based info detailing why.

Sorry if I went off topic a little...;)




Anyone here ever read a book called protein power by Michael R. Eades, great book.

When carbs are ingested at low levels or removed altogether, and a high protein/fat diet is consumed, gaining fat becomes nearly impossible. I have done it both ways, the high carb low fat way, and the low carb high fat high protein way.

There is no doubt in my mind removing carbs to low levels 30g per day with eating high fat and protein does the best for losing body fat. I even went so far as eating 1000 calories daily over my base with this and could not gain a pound of fat. Why?

Insulin. Im surprised no one mentioned this as it is the key storage hormone and is secreted when carbs are ingested; almost no insulin is secreted with fat and protein. Yes if you eat high carbs and fat together that will result in fat storage because the carbs cause the insulin spike and load the fat into the fat cells. Remove the carbs however and fat will not upload into the fat cells.

I do believe carbs are needed to grow serious muscle mass and for this reason to me, the ideal would be a combination of periods of low carbs, and periods of higher carbs.


Gerry
Open User Options Menu

Crotalus


There is no doubt in my mind removing carbs to low levels 30g per day with eating high fat and protein does the best for losing body fat.
Gerry


Couldn't agree more. This year was the first time I went off of a low calorie, high carb diet onto a high protein/fat , low carb diet and the results floored me. That's LOW CARB ... NOT ' no carb'. I've adjusted mine as three or four day protein and fat /low carb followed by a day of high carbs and low protein and fat.. This along with training mostly with JREPS has made an big difference in my appearance. Wish I tried this years ago
Open User Options Menu

southbeach

gerry-hitman wrote:
veganmaster wrote:
goya wrote:
"Spotlight on Metabolism".
It's available here:
http://nutrition.jbpub.com/...tmetabolism.pdf


Thanks for the link!

Basically carbs are protein sparing but also fat sparing. If you are already pretty lean you recommendation of a high carb/low fat diet with enough protein makes sense as carbs are less readily converted to fat than fat from the diet. But as you mentioned, high carbs + high fat will favor fat storage.

Yes, the misinformation on CHO is astounding. FAT storage is 95-98% efficient, because FAT is already in the chemical form for storage. Thus the fat you eat is the fat you wear. PRO & CHO are much less efficient, losing up to 30% or so of the energy via heat loss etc. CHO does not turn into FAT via DNL in significant amounts in people eating high-CHO diets (this has been confirmed in a LOT of studies). This is because we can store about 700-1100 grams of glycogen, and because complex carb diets are filling (all that fiber/bulk). The body can certainly make a lot of fat from DNL, for example check the study in my previous post "Glycogen Storage Capcity..." - they used MASSIVE amounts of escalating sugar kcal (up to 1000g/d) to overcome the glycogen stores and thus ramp up DNL!

So if you drink 5000 kcal of pepsi a day, you will deposit every gram of fat you eat (losing just a few % of energy in the process). Yet excess glucose or protein will lose like 30% of the energy just converting them to FAT. This is the kernal of truth that supports the infrastructure of CHO misinformation: Americans did NOT reduce their fat intake over the decades - instead they simply increased their intake of simple sugars, while still eating the same unhealthy diet (yes, the % of kcal from fat went down, but not the absolute amount ingested). Thus their bodies ran more and more off of glycogen, because it is on top of the oxidative hierarchy (glucose feeds our big brains). Add to this decreased exercise and you get the "obesity epidemic."

The simple truth is: everywhere you find large populations of people that are trim and chronic disease-free, they eat a diet very high in carbohydrates, and very low in animal foods/junk food.
Check www.drmcdougall.com if you want tons of science-based info detailing why.

Sorry if I went off topic a little...;)




Anyone here ever read a book called protein power by Michael R. Eades, great book.

When carbs are ingested at low levels or removed altogether, and a high protein/fat diet is consumed, gaining fat becomes nearly impossible. I have done it both ways, the high carb low fat way, and the low carb high fat high protein way.

There is no doubt in my mind removing carbs to low levels 30g per day with eating high fat and protein does the best for losing body fat. I even went so far as eating 1000 calories daily over my base with this and could not gain a pound of fat. Why?

Insulin. Im surprised no one mentioned this as it is the key storage hormone and is secreted when carbs are ingested; almost no insulin is secreted with fat and protein. Yes if you eat high carbs and fat together that will result in fat storage because the carbs cause the insulin spike and load the fat into the fat cells. Remove the carbs however and fat will not upload into the fat cells.

I do believe carbs are needed to grow serious muscle mass and for this reason to me, the ideal would be a combination of periods of low carbs, and periods of higher carbs.


Gerry


The problem is it's not that simple.

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol 66, 1264-1276. An insulin index of foods: the insulin demand generated by 1000-kJ portions of common foods

"However, protein-rich foods and bakery products (rich in fat and refined carbohydrate) elicited insulin responses that were disproportionately higher than their glycemic responses."

"...some protein and fat-rich foods (eggs, BEEF, fish, lentils, CHEESE, cake and doughnuts) induced as much insulin secretion as did some carbohydrate rich foods (eg. BEEF was equal to brown rice and fish was equal to grain bread)."

"....fish, beef, cheese, and eggs had larger insulin respones per gram than did many of the foods consisting predominately of carbohydrate"


I really really wish this insulin theory nonsense would die already ;)

Open User Options Menu

gerry-hitman

Crotalus wrote:

There is no doubt in my mind removing carbs to low levels 30g per day with eating high fat and protein does the best for losing body fat.
Gerry


Couldn't agree more. This year was the first time I went off of a low calorie, high carb diet onto a high protein/fat , low carb diet and the results floored me. That's LOW CARB ... NOT ' no carb'. I've adjusted mine as three or four day protein and fat /low carb followed by a day of high carbs and low protein and fat.. This along with training mostly with JREPS has made an big difference in my appearance. Wish I tried this years ago


Yes and there is a ton of science to support this. Carbs raise insulin, this is fact. Insulin is the primary storage hormone, fact. Lower the storage hormone and guess what? Storage (fat) is lowered.
Open User Options Menu

Butters

gerry-hitman wrote:
Yes and there is a ton of science to support this. Carbs raise insulin, this is fact. Insulin is the primary storage hormone, fact. Lower the storage hormone and guess what? Storage (fat) is lowered.


That's mostly true, but your body can't turn to fat what isn't there. The law of thermodynamics still applies no matter how spiked your insulin is. If you're eating under maintenance and insulin is spiked, where exactly is your body going to get these calories to turn into fat?

The reason people find better fat loss on low-carb diets is easier diet adherence. A low-carb diet is more often than not going to be higher protein than a high carb diet. Protein and fats are much more filling than carbs in smaller amounts.

Back the subject of muscle growth though. Someone earlier brought up that muscle is mostly water. It is true that 1 lb of muscle only has about 600 calories in it if your body burns it as energy. But there is a metabolic cost to building muscle. It takes around 2000-3000 calories to build one pound of muscle. Your body isn't conditioned to turn fat to muscle beyond much of a beginner level. You've got to eat to fuel the muscle building.
Open User Options Menu

gerry-hitman

Butters wrote:
gerry-hitman wrote:
Yes and there is a ton of science to support this. Carbs raise insulin, this is fact. Insulin is the primary storage hormone, fact. Lower the storage hormone and guess what? Storage (fat) is lowered.


That's mostly true, but your body can't turn to fat what isn't there. The law of thermodynamics still applies no matter how spiked your insulin is. If you're eating under maintenance and insulin is spiked, where exactly is your body going to get these calories to turn into fat?

The reason people find better fat loss on low-carb diets is easier diet adherence. A low-carb diet is more often than not going to be higher protein than a high carb diet. Protein and fats are much more filling than carbs in smaller amounts.

Back the subject of muscle growth though. Someone earlier brought up that muscle is mostly water. It is true that 1 lb of muscle only has about 600 calories in it if your body burns it as energy. But there is a metabolic cost to building muscle. It takes around 2000-3000 calories to build one pound of muscle. Your body isn't conditioned to turn fat to muscle beyond much of a beginner level. You've got to eat to fuel the muscle building.


Butters: That's mostly true, but your body can't turn to fat what isn't there. The law of thermodynamics still applies no matter how spiked your insulin is. If you're eating under maintenance and insulin is spiked, where exactly is your body going to get these calories to turn into fat?

Gerry: Yes agreed, but what many times happens is when we cut calories lower, the metabolism slows down. What once took fat off at 2000 calories on the high carb low fat/protein diet suddenly stops due to metabolism slow down. Then if one keeps eating at that level fat loss will stop, and fat storage can get re-started. This then forces a still lower calorie deficit to compensate.

With the low carb high fat/high protein diet, insulin is kept low allowing a much higher calorie count without fat gain, I know this to be true for a fact and have proven it on myself. I have eaten 1000 calories over base and continued to lose body fat! The reason one does not feel hungry on the high fat diet is he/she can eat MUCH more food and still accomplish the fat loss goal. Insulin is the key hormone that cannot be ignored, a calorie is not a calorie when you compare fat to carbs, as they are handled totally different by the body.

Butters: The reason people find better fat loss on low-carb diets is easier diet adherence. A low-carb diet is more often than not going to be higher protein than a high carb diet. Protein and fats are much more filling than carbs in smaller amounts.

Gerry: YES and the reason is both that fat/protein satiates much better than carbs, and also a person on the high fat diet with low carbs can eat MUCH more and lose body fat. I eat a TON of food during the week never hungry, and cannot gain fat during the week and ALWAYS lose body fat.


Butters: Back the subject of muscle growth though. Someone earlier brought up that muscle is mostly water. It is true that 1 lb of muscle only has about 600 calories in it if your body burns it as energy. But there is a metabolic cost to building muscle. It takes around 2000-3000 calories to build one pound of muscle. Your body isn't conditioned to turn fat to muscle beyond much of a beginner level. You've got to eat to fuel the muscle building.

Gerry: 100% agree, this is fact.





Open User Options Menu

Raider22

Ohio, USA

As long as there are enough amino acids to sustain life, you can gain muscle mass. That is quite a bit fewer calories than BMR plus expenditure! There are a few studies in microbiology that have been done on this subject. I will try to find them.

Open User Options Menu

veganmaster



I really really wish this insulin theory nonsense would die already ;)



I agree completely, whoever wants to see the big picture instead of obsessing over scientific distortions read this article and its references for the facts about the glycemic index and rampant Carb-phobia:

http://www.drmcdougall.com/...ly/glycemic.htm

People soak up whatever memes are the most prolific, and I believe simple memes outcompete more nuanced memes - and thus the truth often is very unpopular, especially in the field of nutrition.

Many are so ignorant of basic nutrition they think wholesome foods like potatoes, wheat and carrots should be avoided for health and weight loss reasons. Yet wherever and whenever humans switch to a diet based on these foods, they lose their excess weight and reverse chronic disease. The science is very clear about why people are fat (and usually diseased) - they eat too much fat, too much animal foods, too few plant foods. But the harsh truth rarely sells as well as a comforting lie.



Open User Options Menu

simon-hecubus

Texas, USA

Sorry to hijack, but please help out with the Volume and Frequency polls so we get fair and even representation.

Thanks,
Scott
Open User Options Menu
1 | 2 | Next | Last
H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy