Sport Low carb, glycogen, protein breakdown questions

[Phate89]

If you had to guess, and based on your knowledge of the claims of the anabolic diet , what do you ballpark ' significantly ' as being defined as - i.e as compared to a traditional macro profile ( other things being equal ) for example ..

- 10% less fat ?
- 20% less fat ?
- 50% less fat ?

Also, If weigh training is primarily an anaerobic activity, and since you need oxygen to burn fat effectively...I assume you aren't relying on fat as a primary fuel for an intense weight workout or HIIT ( which normally places a lot of demands on glycogen ).

Are you saying that you are using protein and it's conversion to glucose ( i.e gluconeogenesis ) for fueling HIIT and intense weight training ?

There is no exact number to how much more fat you'd not be losing, it all depends on the person on how clean they eat, how clean their carb-ups are, etc.

No, you will be using the 5% of carbs your intaking from your diet for anaerobic activities, at the end of the week when they get depleted you go on a carb-up to refill them. You train your body to use fat for anything else, and save the carb's for your weight training sessions.

 

[amp89]

Hey, to ignore everything thats going one right now... I've been using something very similar to this for the last few weeks for weight loss, and it has been pretty damn effective. I haven't noticed any problems in energy or anything, my lifts arent as good as they could be, but besides that the weight loss has been pretty good. I think its cool that you are going to just use this as an experiment, but do think you would be better off with some other diet if you are trying to add some muscle and strength. Just my two cents.

 

[Wrangell]

if it works, sure. I will have to see how long I can keep up eating this much fatty food. it is very unusual for me and I haven't adapted to it. I'm kinda sick of cheese and almonds.

Well, for what it's worth, the guideline of a 60% intake of fat is 2 X that recommended by the American Heart Association - the AHA recommends no more than 30% of total calories to come from fat ( with saturated fat not to exceed 7 % ).

It would interesting to see how strong advocates of the anabolic diet could reconcile consuming 60% of your calories from fat ( while being on this anabolic diet ) for the next 30+ years against those guidelines put forth by the AHA to keep total fat under 30%.

The concern is that insulin makes the body secrete (I think that is the right word to use) other hormones that are fat storing and preventative of fat burning. So if you eat a lot of carbs you will always have a lot of insulin in your bloodstream, which will in turn make you gain fat and prevent you from burning fat.

Do you mean, because it stores fat, carbs and protein as fat ...or just stores carbs as fat ?

I guess the critical factor is the degree to which your glycogen stores are full regardless of relative insulin levels.

I would think, if your glycogen store only 75% full, high levels of insulin are geared toward making that glucose available so it can be converted to glycogen - so, that's a good thing.

I don't see why your body would need to store nutrients to any greater degree as fat, when your glycogen stores are only 75% full....you''d think the bulk of any available glucose in your system would be earmarked to replenish glycogen rather than being stored as fat. ( i.e. when glycogen stores are only 75% full )

However, as pointed out in this thread, insulin is also responsible for getting protein into the muscle cells faster and making the protein synthesis going faster. So I guess it is kind of a choice one will have to make.

Fair enough.

Personally I'd like to gain muscle with very little fat so I don't have to take very long cuts to lose it. When you are cutting you are not gaining muscle and you are not gaining as much strength as while bulking.

Again, I guess it depends on your approach to gaining muscle and losing fat.

I suppose these diets are one approach that focus on a more of a short term cutting time frame with radical changes in macro nutrient profiles. Another possible approach might be to bulk for 4 months, cut for 4 months, and maintain for 4 months with only modest or relatively minor adjustments / changes to training regimens and macro nutrient allocations and calories within each 4 month time frame....then start all over again and do the same thing year in and year out.

 

[Phate89]

Wrangell: Many people on the Anabolic diet were able to lower blood pressure, lower bad cholestrol, and raise good cholestrol even when Doctors said that was impossible and they should have dropped dead with the amount of fat they were eating.

Karky, i suggest you take a blood test now and after your done with the AD and see for yourself.

 

[Wrangell]

There is no exact number to how much more fat you'd not be losing, it all depends on the person on how clean they eat, how clean their carb-ups are, etc

Well, it's just that you said, an anabolic diet will result in.......

" significantly less fat gain "​

....presumably as compared to a traditional training diet.

I just wondered what you meant by " significant " - assuming of course one strictly adheres to the guidelines of the diet as prescribed.

So, it's not an unreasonable question to ask..... it would be " less fat gain " than what ?

And how much less fat - i.e what is " significant " ?

 

[Wrangell]

Wrangell: Many people on the Anabolic diet were able to lower blood pressure, lower bad cholestrol, and raise good cholestrol even when Doctors said that was impossible and they should have dropped dead with the amount of fat they were eating.

I don't follow.

What is your point ..exactly ?

Are you suggesting that eating a diet consisting of 60% fat for the next 30+ years is actually more beneficial to your health rather than being detrimental ?

 

[Phate89]

I don't follow.

What is your point ..exactly ?

Are you suggesting that eating a diet consisting of 60% fat for the next 30+ years is actually more beneficial to your health rather than being detrimental ?

Along with consistent high intensity exercise and weight lifting, it appears so.

What is your theory as to why people were able to increase their heart health AFTER increasing their fats to 60%?

 

[Karky]

Wrangell, not everyone agrees with the American Heart Association, aren't they the ones who claim dietary cholesterol will increase your blood cholesterol? If those organizations over in the US are anything like the ones in Norway it is just a bunch of conservative people who are afraid to say anything radical to upset the people.

I must apologize, I had missread somewhere. Insulin doesn't make the body secrete hormones, but enzymes
The enzymes will store energy as fat, doesn't matter what it comes from, they are the hormones responsible for fat storing.
lipogenic enzymes are fat building, which will be activated
and lipolytic are fat burning, which will be decreased.

On a high carb diet your glycogen stores are probably always very full. How much the stores will need to be depled for the body to shove all the carbs in there instead of storing it as fat, I don't know. But you can't find one specific number as I seriously doubt it is black and white like that.

 

[Hoss]

Wow I missed a huge part of this thread, and I'm def not gonna read the whole thing (seeing that I bet people have been arguing). Karky if you have any specific questions lmk, endocrinology is a big interest of mine.

 

[Phate89]

Well, it's just that you said, an anabolic diet will result in.......

" significantly less fat gain "​

....presumably as compared to a traditional training diet.

I just wondered what you meant by " significant " - assuming of course one strictly adheres to the guidelines of the diet as prescribed.

So, it's not an unreasonable question to ask..... it would be " less fat gain " than what ?

And how much less fat - i.e what is " significant " ?

Ha. A lot less complicated than I thought I have never heard a certain number, or an educated guess. I just know that while on it, I can stay within 6-8 pounds of my desired weight (while maintaining) even with some MASSIVE cheats and drinking thrown in - obviously this is not optimal and it has only been a couple short phases, but it is valuable to me to know that I can do that every once and awhile and not feel the pain as much, especially since if I was on a carb diet I would probably have gained twice or three times that.

As far as gaining, when I really put my mind to it I put on 30 pounds in the first 5 months of being on the diet and did not notice a significant rise in bodyfat. Now, I am not trying to all out gain but I can see myself getting thicker and wider in certain places and am gaining very little scale weight while getting stronger... can you ask for more than that?

A quote from someone who has been on the diet.

 

[realworksuks]

Well, it's just that you said, an anabolic diet will result in.......

" significantly less fat gain "​

....presumably as compared to a traditional training diet.

I just wondered what you meant by " significant " - assuming of course one strictly adheres to the guidelines of the diet as prescribed.

So, it's not an unreasonable question to ask..... it would be " less fat gain " than what ?

And how much less fat - i.e what is " significant " ?

Alright Wrangell, you want numbers?

Here are my numbers from my keto bulk phase... and some from my regular bulk phase.

Coming off a keto cut starting at 9.5% body fat, in a 2 week time period I gained .7 total pounds of fat and 4.8 pounds of lean mass (remember lean mass includes water fluctuations too.

This gave me a new body fat percentage of 9.6%. A .1% increase in body fat! The crazy thing about this is that every one of my measurements (9 measurements on the body total were taken) went down or stayed the same EXCEPT in my abdomen area, which only went up a mere millimeter.

So yes! Significant less fat gain.

BUT! Over the next two week period I gained .4 pounds of fat and .6 pounds of lean body mass. This was still on a keto bulk eating 5500 calories per day. My body fat percentage was 9.8%.

It was at this time that I decided that keto bulking was too slow for me so I reintroduced carbs into my diet.

At my next body fat test, 3 weeks later, I had gained 5 pounds exactly 2.9 of which were fat and 2.1 of which was lean body mass.

SIGNIFICANTLY MORE FAT GAIN! Also keep in mind my calories were LESS THAN ON A KETO BULK! Around 3500-4000. My new bodyfat percentage jumped a whopping 1.5%!!!!

So, I continued with a regular bulk for another 2 week period and had another body fat test. I had gained 4.5 pounds 2.1 of which were fat and 2.4 of which were lean body mass.

Once again, significantly more fat gain! Calories were kept the same. Bodyfat jumped again another .9% bringing it up to 12.2%

So if you wanted to use my numbers as an example I gained anywhere from 400-1500% MORE BODYFAT WITH A REGULAR DIET AND LESS CALORIES!

My macro ratios were 40 % protein, 35% carbs, and 25% fat, about.

There...... that's your numbers. These tests were taken with top of the line calpiers tested by a professional trainer.

EDIT: Also keep in mind that during this keto bulk I was eating carbs before and after weight training, and never reaching a state of ketosis through urine samples. I was eating around 70-100g of carbs if you include the pre and post workout carbs, usually 25g before and after workouts.

Had I not had these carbs before and after workouts I may have gained less fat, or perhaps even LOST FAT!

 

[Wrangell]

Wrangell, not everyone agrees with the American Heart Association, aren't they the ones who claim dietary cholesterol will increase your blood cholesterol? If those organizations over in the US are anything like the ones in Norway it is just a bunch of conservative people who are afraid to say anything radical to upset the people.

I don't doubt it.

Just as I suspect not everyone agrees with the merits of " keto " diets and " anabolic " diets.

Can't say if they are conservative people at the AHA or not, but my guess would be that the AHA bases it's recommendations ( to some extent at least ) based both on gold standard peer reviewed studies and cardiovascular studies like the longitudinal Framingham Heart Study.

So, I would think the AHA recommendations are well grounded in science........ a claim I suspect supporters of " keto " diets and " anabolic " diets would make as well.

I must apologize, I had missread somewhere. Insulin doesn't make the body secrete hormones, but enzymes the enzymes will store energy as fat, doesn't matter what it comes from, they are the hormones responsible for fat storing. lipogenic enzymes are fat building, which will be activated and lipolytic are fat burning, which will be decreased.

No problem.......I'm not too well versed on enzymes as it is I'm afraid.

On a high carb diet your glycogen stores are probably always very full. How much the stores will need to be depled for the body to shove all the carbs in there instead of storing it as fat, I don't know. But you can't find one specific number as I seriously doubt it is black and white like that.

I agree.

I just don't see why your body would be predisposed to converting carb sourced glucose to fat at all if your glycogen stores aren't full. I would think any and all glucose you had ( beyond what your brain etc. requires ) would be directed to the largest extent toward replenishing glycogen storer first. And only when glycogen stores are full, does excess glucose get stored as fat.

So, you're right, in the context of a gym rat, if you train hard every day for 1 hour...be it with weights and or some form of cardio, the critical factor would seem to be the state of your glycogen stores day to day after such training AND how many total calories you take in each day.

So, it may be that instead of a 5% consumption of carbs, if you train hard enough, you could consume 50% carb and still never reach glycogens stores that are 100% full. And of course, 5% or 50% of 2,000 calories a day is a lot different than 5% or 50% of 4,000 calories a day. So, you're right ...it's not black and white.

 

[Wrangell]

A quote from someone who has been on the diet.

Who is that .." someone " btw ?

And, can you provide the link that contains that quote you provided please ?

 

[Phate89]

Who is that .." someone " btw ?

And, can you provide the link that contains that quote you provided please ?

Sure.

TMAGNUM FORUMS - My Experience On the Anabolic Diet

CJK - about 15 posts down.

 

[Wrangell]

Alright Wrangell, you want numbers?

Here are my numbers from my keto bulk phase... and some from my regular bulk phase.Coming off a keto cut starting at 9.5% body fat

And how much did you weigh " starting at 9.5% body fat " ?

And how long - i.e weeks - were you on the " keto cut " ?

And how many grams of carbs did you consume a day during this " keto cut " ?

There...... that's your numbers. These tests were taken with top of the line calpiers tested by a professional trainer.

What would happen if they weren't " top of the line calpiers " ?

 

[Phate89]

Has anyone ever told you you ask too many questions

 

[realworksuks]

And how much did you weigh " starting at 9.5% body fat " ?

And how long - i.e weeks - were you on the " keto cut " ?

And how many grams of carbs did you consume a day during this " keto cut " ?



What would happen if they weren't " top of the line calpiers " ?

1. 156

2. 3 weeks

3. 20-50g

4. Results wouldn't be as accurate...

 

[Wrangell]

Has anyone ever told you you ask too many questions

Mostly only from people who don't have the answers.

Besides......

" Investigating the reasoning behind the advice will often reveal that the answer is "just because", rendering the advice anywhere from helpful, to dangerous, to just a plain waste of time and resources. I encourage my clients, students, and colleagues to question everyone's advice " -- Alan Aragon​

 

[Wrangell]

Sure.

TMAGNUM FORUMS - My Experience On the Anabolic Diet

CJK - about 15 posts down.

I asked you this question earlier on this thread ( Post # 65 ) ...

" If you had to guess, and based on your knowledge of the claims of the anabolic diet , what do you ballpark ' significantly ' as being defined as - i.e as compared to a traditional macro profile ( other things being equal ) for example ..

- 10% less fat ?

- 20% less fat ?

- 50% less fat ? "​

I checked that thread / link you gave me re CJK, and on this link, you make a post to their thread and ask CJK this exact same question as above .....as if it were your own........you asked CJK.....

" If you had to guess, and based on your knowledge of the claims of the anabolic diet , what do you ballpark ' significantly ' as being defined as - i.e as compared to a traditional macro profile ( other things being equal ) for example ..

- 10% less fat ?
- 20% less fat ?
- 50% less fat ? "​

If you're going to copy my question verbatim..........at least give me credit for it.

 

[Wrangell]

1. 156

2. 3 weeks

3. 20-50g

4. Results wouldn't be as accurate...

Calipers aren't " accurate " at the best of times - especially at accurately measuring changes to a degree of .1 % for example. But that is a debate for another thread.

Would you concede that after 3 weeks on a keto " cut " diet - in which you only consumed only 20-50g of carbs a day and you continued to train - your glycogen stores are almost completely depleted ?