Sport Low carb, glycogen, protein breakdown questions
- Thread starter Karky
- Start date
Sport Fitness
Hoss
1
Yes protein does get into the cells without insulin. Here's a piece of the Results of one of my favorite journal articles:
"NET HEPATIC GLUCOSE UPTAKE (NHGU) in conscious dogs receiving an intraportal glucose infusion was reduced by the concomitant intraportal delivery of a mixture of gluconeogenic amino acids (GNGAA) (9). This occurred in spite of the fact that insulin and glucagon concentrations and the load of glucose reaching the liver were controlled and kept equivalent in the presence and absence of amino acid infusion.
Abundant electrophysiological evidence indicates that nutrient sensors in the hepatoportal region play a role in modulating nutrient intake, pancreatic hormone secretion, and nutrient disposition. Glucoreceptors in the portal vein respond to stimulation by D-glucose but not by other monosaccharides or L-glucose (12). The afferent firing rate in the hepatic branch of the vagus nerve is inversely proportional to the portal vein glucose concentration (12). Moreover, sensors for 15 different amino acids have been identified in the hepatoportal region of the rat (13). Intraportal injection of these amino acids alters the afferent firing rate in the hepatic branch of the vagus nerve (13)."
IMO low carb is great. But what's low carb? I bet yours and mine low carb are different from someone like chillen. And ours will differ also, I went on a low carb diet and was getting 200g of carbs (some cheap too!). And I was still losing weight AND gaining muscle, you know the impossible. I really think you should look into pro/carb timing, keeping fat away from carbs. Now given during that time you wont be burning fat, but at least you won't be storing nearly as much. Just a thought.
I feel any 'low carb' below 40g or so isn't low carb. Once you get under there I'd almost call it no carb, because it's such a trivial amount. As far as 'keto' diets, I dunno. The book isn't closed yet. But I've tried and didn't like it. Obviously come comp time carbs are gone, and I can honestly tell you after 8 days of next to no carbs I felt like crap and hated everyone lol..
"NET HEPATIC GLUCOSE UPTAKE (NHGU) in conscious dogs receiving an intraportal glucose infusion was reduced by the concomitant intraportal delivery of a mixture of gluconeogenic amino acids (GNGAA) (9). This occurred in spite of the fact that insulin and glucagon concentrations and the load of glucose reaching the liver were controlled and kept equivalent in the presence and absence of amino acid infusion.
Abundant electrophysiological evidence indicates that nutrient sensors in the hepatoportal region play a role in modulating nutrient intake, pancreatic hormone secretion, and nutrient disposition. Glucoreceptors in the portal vein respond to stimulation by D-glucose but not by other monosaccharides or L-glucose (12). The afferent firing rate in the hepatic branch of the vagus nerve is inversely proportional to the portal vein glucose concentration (12). Moreover, sensors for 15 different amino acids have been identified in the hepatoportal region of the rat (13). Intraportal injection of these amino acids alters the afferent firing rate in the hepatic branch of the vagus nerve (13)."
IMO low carb is great. But what's low carb? I bet yours and mine low carb are different from someone like chillen. And ours will differ also, I went on a low carb diet and was getting 200g of carbs (some cheap too!). And I was still losing weight AND gaining muscle, you know the impossible. I really think you should look into pro/carb timing, keeping fat away from carbs. Now given during that time you wont be burning fat, but at least you won't be storing nearly as much. Just a thought.
I feel any 'low carb' below 40g or so isn't low carb. Once you get under there I'd almost call it no carb, because it's such a trivial amount. As far as 'keto' diets, I dunno. The book isn't closed yet. But I've tried and didn't like it. Obviously come comp time carbs are gone, and I can honestly tell you after 8 days of next to no carbs I felt like crap and hated everyone lol..
thanks. I honestly understood pretty much nothing of that article 
I have thought about the timing, PC and PF meals, and if this low (or zero as you call it) carbs thing doesn't work for me, I'm gonna try that.
I guess there are positive and negative sides to both low carb and "normal" diets, and in the end you are just going to have to put up pro and con.
One thing I'm wondering, even though insulin is lowered, if testosterone and GH gets elevated (assuming, for this arguments sake that this is true) will that make up for some of the effect lost from low insulin?
And If my scale at my parents and my scale here is correct, I've lost 2lbs over the last 3 days. I have noticed that different scales read different amounts (for example the scale at my parents house and the scale at my GF's house back when I was living in my home town with my parents) so I'm unsure, but given the low carbs and the fact that calories have been kept at 4000 which is what I usually use to bulk, is it safe to assume that it is merely water loss from no carbs and glycogen?
.. that was a long sentence..
I have thought about the timing, PC and PF meals, and if this low (or zero as you call it
) carbs thing doesn't work for me, I'm gonna try that. I guess there are positive and negative sides to both low carb and "normal" diets, and in the end you are just going to have to put up pro and con.
One thing I'm wondering, even though insulin is lowered, if testosterone and GH gets elevated (assuming, for this arguments sake that this is true) will that make up for some of the effect lost from low insulin?
And If my scale at my parents and my scale here is correct, I've lost 2lbs over the last 3 days. I have noticed that different scales read different amounts (for example the scale at my parents house and the scale at my GF's house back when I was living in my home town with my parents) so I'm unsure, but given the low carbs and the fact that calories have been kept at 4000 which is what I usually use to bulk, is it safe to assume that it is merely water loss from no carbs and glycogen?
.. that was a long sentence..
The Anabolic diet is not supposed to be a diet designed to get you the quickest gains, it's more a diet designed to allow the body to gain muscle while at the same time loosing fat, or atleast minimizing it to the lowest point.
If your #1 goal is to gain strength and muscle, and you don't care about fat gain then carbs are your friend.
Seriously, these question's have been asked on T-nation and you'd find much better answers there from people who have been on this diet for a long time.
If your #1 goal is to gain strength and muscle, and you don't care about fat gain then carbs are your friend.
Seriously, these question's have been asked on T-nation and you'd find much better answers there from people who have been on this diet for a long time.
Fair enough.
Although, if I assume the purpose of this anabolic diet is to optimize gains in muscle mass while minimizing gains in fat, you almost have to track and break out ( measure ) your relative fat and muscle gains over a designated period of time don't you ?
What formula / calculator / nutrient per pound guideline did you use to arrive at 4,000 a day ?
Is it something you determined or something provided in accordance with the ' anabolic diet ' guidelines ?
If the 'anabolic diet ' calls for 35% from proteins, then what % / grams ( i.e per body weight ) does the ' anabolic diet ' prescribe for calories to come from fats and carbs ?
If the anabolic macro nutrient allocations are based on % of your daily overall calorie intake, then I guess the answer to that question depends if your 4,000 intake is a ' reasonably sufficient caloric intake ' to optimize mass gain or not.... I would think.
If, for example, your intake should be closer to 25 calories per gram in order to optimize mass gain ( again, it may be 18 ,20, 22,28 etc. - I wouldn't know which it is ), then @ 220 lbs., that would be 5,500 calories and 35% is 480 grams of protein...a gap of 180 grams ( instead of 50 grams ) from your present 300 gram intake.
So, to me, I think I'd want to nail down what the most optimal intake of daily overall calories is - does the ' anabolic diet ' have a means of determining this ?
Seems to me , if you want to assess whether this ' anabolic diet ' lived up to it's claims, you have to - at the very least - measure track gains in fat lbs and muscle pounds wouldn't you ?
For example, if after 16 weeks let's say you gained 20 lbs of weight as shown on your scale.
Presumably, you would want to know if that 20 lb weight gain is due to 15 lbs muscle and 5 lbs fat....or 10 lbs muscle and 10 lbs fat.....etc. etc.
The question, in my mind, is whether this so- called anabolic diet ' will yield significantly different gains in mass and fat and strength than a more traditional training diet otherwise would.
How one person can objectively determine that .....would seem the biggest challenge IMO - accounting for things like the placebo effect etc. etc.
How much quicker - i.e as compared to a more traditional training diet ?
the problem with measuring how much is fat is that I have no way to do so, I'd have to do the water thing, which is expensive. This experiment is for me, so to determine if it works for me I will have to look in the mirror, at the measurements and see how energy and strength is in the gym.
first phase, typically 3-4 weeks eat 18 times your BW in calories
bulking phase
I don't know if I will eat that much, it will be very hard to get those kinds of calories down on this phase, maybe if I cut first, since I am a little big right now. If I decide to bulk at this weight, I will just increase cals until I start gaining weight at 1-2 lbs a week.. probably 1 as I am a pretty firm believer there is a limit to how much muscle your body can put on.
cutting phase:
quotes from: TESTOSTERONE NATION - Eat Like a Man, Part II - Living the Anabolic Diet
first phase, typically 3-4 weeks eat 18 times your BW in calories
bulking phase
I don't know if I will eat that much, it will be very hard to get those kinds of calories down on this phase, maybe if I cut first, since I am a little big right now. If I decide to bulk at this weight, I will just increase cals until I start gaining weight at 1-2 lbs a week.. probably 1 as I am a pretty firm believer there is a limit to how much muscle your body can put on.
cutting phase:
quotes from: TESTOSTERONE NATION - Eat Like a Man, Part II - Living the Anabolic Diet
So, your cited quote said...
"
60% fat, 35% protein, and only 5% carbs. There are 3 phases......switch gears. On the weekends, eat 30% fat, 10% protein, and a whopping 60% carbs
And ....
" To do this, he should consume 20-25 calories per pound of desired bodyweight everyday "
So, you're 220 lbs now. I assume you want to add about 15 lbs over 16 weeks - putting your ' desired weight ' at 235 lbs. If that ' 20-25 calories per pound ' is O.K. - let's go with 22 - then your target calories for the day day would be 235 x 22 = 5,100 calories a day.
So, 5,100 x 60% from fat is about 3,000 calories a day from fat.
Even if it is lower ( i.e 2,500 - 3,000 ) how do you plan to get so many fat calories in one day ?
actually, he says you should overshoot your "goal weight" by 15%, what you get then is what you should calculate your calories from, so my weight would be 270 and that would be closer to 6000 cals. the problem is, I doubt I can do that.. 2000 calories more than what I am eating now. The way to get fat calories is eating a lot of fat foods. Almonds, nuts, eggs, avocado. I'm gonna go to the grocery store today to check for some more foods high in fat and protein and protein alone (as of now the problem is getting protein up there without adding too much fat as I go along), all low in carbs
I think the most important part in the bulking phase is that I gain weight. So I will up calories until I gain weight at about 1-2 lbs a week, I think this is a better approach for me since different people will have different metabolisms.
I think the most important part in the bulking phase is that I gain weight. So I will up calories until I gain weight at about 1-2 lbs a week, I think this is a better approach for me since different people will have different metabolisms.
I find it quite odd that a diet aimed at decreasing fat, has you getting %60 percent of your calories from fat. Am I missing something here? This doesn't sound healthy to me...
That's one of those popular myths that makes a lot of people wince anytime someone says they're eating low-carb. It's all calories to the body whether it comes from fat, carb, protein or alcohol. Too many will cause weight gain and too little will cause weight loss.
This is also related to the high cholesterol myth that eating fat causes your bloodwork to be horrible. But every low-carb book I've read in the past including Atkins and TNT have specifically recommended blood testing so you can see the good results of the diet.
I'm sure Barilla (a pasta company) has no self-interest in cherry-picking their studies and findings about diet that cuts all of their products from a persons diet...