[quote]Dirty Tiger wrote:
CT, How do you feel about the “AD’s” testoterone boosting claims?[/quote]
In my opinion this was where Dr. D overstated his case. He makes a statement in the original book claiming steroid like results which is unfortunate as that strains credulity and he is smarter than that.
[quote]MODOK wrote:
I would definitely recommend it( with a few mods) to anyone looking to gain solid bodyweight with minimal fat gain. [/quote]
Hey MODOK, what are the “few mods” you are talking about?
thanks MODOK!
CT:
Thanks a lot for your wisdom in this thread. I’m sitting around 145 (at 5’7) and probably 18% BF. I want to gain a ton of mass of course, but an illness brought me down to 132 from 176 and I have only recently started gaining weight and getting better.
Following your advice on page 1, if I were to go with say:
Protein: 1.5g /lb
Fat: .75g /lb (yes, good fats mostly)
Carbs: 50g
Then up the protein/fat grams by 10% each, as a starting point, and gauge the diet from there…
Is that a good approach for someone with my BF levels looking to gain mass? Or does it matter what my ultimate physique goal is?
I used to entertain the idea of dieting down to 10% bf levels first, but I have been convinced that it’s foolish and I should have way more muscle mass on me before thinking of cutting; I’ve no problem gaining fat while gaining muscle, just curious about your take on the matter.
Thanks again for your time.
[quote]PonceDeLeon wrote:
CT:
Thanks a lot for your wisdom in this thread. I’m sitting around 145 (at 5’7) and probably 18% BF. I want to gain a ton of mass of course, but an illness brought me down to 132 from 176 and I have only recently started gaining weight and getting better.
Following your advice on page 1, if I were to go with say:
Protein: 1.5g /lb
Fat: .75g /lb (yes, good fats mostly)
Carbs: 50g
Then up the protein/fat grams by 10% each, as a starting point, and gauge the diet from there…
Is that a good approach for someone with my BF levels looking to gain mass? Or does it matter what my ultimate physique goal is?
I used to entertain the idea of dieting down to 10% bf levels first, but I have been convinced that it’s foolish and I should have way more muscle mass on me before thinking of cutting; I’ve no problem gaining fat while gaining muscle, just curious about your take on the matter.
Thanks again for your time.[/quote]
It is a good idea IN YOUR CURRENT STATE, You lost a lot of muscle and you need to rebuild it before dieting down. The starting point I gave (the one you mentioned) is adequate for your goal. Since you will essentially be regaining muscle, chances are that your will not gain fat. Once you reach your previous muscle mass then you can entertain the thought of cutting down to 10%.
[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
doubleh wrote:
It depends on the type of training you use. For example doing a biceps-only session will use less total glycogen than a lower body session. If you do 30 sets per workout you will use more glycogen than if you do 5 sets per workout. If you do sets of 8-15 reps you will use more glycogen than if you do sets of 1-5 reps.
But and ‘‘average non-idiotic’’ training session will use around 90-150g of glycogen. So in theory you would deplete your glycogen in 4 weekly workouts. BUT this isn’t so because of two reasons:
A) When you are fat adapted and in a ketogenic state, which is glycogen sparing, you might only use up half as much glycogen. So you could, in theory require 8 workouts to deplete glycogen. But even if that is the case, you will never completely deplete glycogen because…
B) Even in the absence of carbs, your body will still replenish the glycogen stores to some extent. It will do so by transforming certain amino acids into glucose(glutamine, alanine, serine, glycine and threonine being the most glucogenic amino acids) which can then be stored as muscle glycogen. Obviously you want to avoid breaking down muscle amino acids to build new glucose, which is why a higher protein intake is important if your carbs intake is low: in that case the body will use the amino acids from the free amino acids pool to produce new glucose. ‘‘Won’t this reduce the amount of protein that we can use to build muscle?’’. Not really, if you are a natural trainee there is a limited amount of protein that you can use to build muscle tissue. Over 1.0 to 1.25g per pound is about the limit; so if your protein intake is at 1.5 to 1.75g per pound, you will be able to use the excess to form new glucose without interfering with protein synthesis.
doubleh wrote:
2) Doesn’t it stand to reason that replenishing glycogen semi-regularly is a good idea for lifters b/c it is a better energy source for anaerobic activity (since it doesn’t have to be oxidized to release ATP, i.e. energy)?
Yes… but most cyclical diets go overboard on the carb-up. Since you are never depleting your glycogen stores completely, 200-250g every 7 days is enough, unless you are training twice a day everyday, in which case you will need more frequent loadings.
[/quote]
First of all, CT, thank you for all your input on this thread. Your expertise is most helpful. I’d like to pick your brain again, if you don’t mind.
Re: A) and B) above - 2 things here. #1, my understanding of the AD was that it is NOT strictly a ketogenic diet. The carb loads were designed to keep one out of ketosis, the whole “skimming the surface of ketosis” line the venerable Disc Hoss used way back in the original AD thread, and one of the reasons for the carb-ups. #2 - it makes sense these type of diets are glycogen sparing, as NORMAL aerobic activity is fueled by burning fat. However, as brought up by Tribulus, if intense anaerobic activity (i.e. weightlifting) CAN be fueled by an energy source other than glycogen, what is it, and why eat ANY carbs? You said the body can replenish glycogen by converting fats and protein, so why not stick to those macros? In other words, what is the benefit (outside of overall health, let’s focus strictly on training in this context) of eating carbs?
Re: your response to 2) above - This ties in with the above question. If as you say a fat-adapted trainee may only use half as much glycogen as normal in a training session, what is he burning for fuel? He may use less glycogen, but he’s expending the same amount of energy per session, carbless diet or not. SOMETHING is fueling the muscle.
My thought is this: if it’s fat, then semi-frequent carb loads make sense because we don’t want fat to fuel anaerobic activity because of the oxidization issue I brought up earlier. If it’s still glycogen, through the conversion of fats and protein, then my original question stands: why re-load on carbs at all if the body can replenish glycogen on its own?
I hope this is coherent, thanks again.
[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
25% of the population will actually do better on a moderate carbs diet (40% protein, 40% carbs, 20% fat)
than on a low carbs diet. It seems like you are one of these guys, some are just not built to optimally function in a very low carbs environment. YES your body can adapt, but it means that you will be able to function and survive NOT achieve your body comp goals. Adaptation is meant for survival of the species, not looking hawt on the beach.[/quote]
For the moderate-carbs population, is there any benefit to varying the amount of carbs at different meals or different days?
[quote]andersons wrote:
Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
25% of the population will actually do better on a moderate carbs diet (40% protein, 40% carbs, 20% fat)
than on a low carbs diet. It seems like you are one of these guys, some are just not built to optimally function in a very low carbs environment. YES your body can adapt, but it means that you will be able to function and survive NOT achieve your body comp goals. Adaptation is meant for survival of the species, not looking hawt on the beach.
For the moderate-carbs population, is there any benefit to varying the amount of carbs at different meals or different days?
[/quote]
You might want to look into Carb Cycling, keeping the protein and fat intake constant during the week, having low, medium and high carb days (typically corresponding high and medium days to workout days), and also restricting carbs to morning and post-workout meals.
CT wrote a article detailing all the how-to’s on it;
http://www.T-Nation.com/readArticle.do?id=811783
Been doing it for over a month now and the results are great.
Has anyone truly answered the question: can you build muscle on a low carb (less than 50 carbs/day) diet?
I love to eat low carb and do well on it. However, when I want to go on a mass cycle (with a little AS help) I don’t gain muscle. I’d like to give the low carb approach another shot. I should also mention that i don’t like to carb up. it gets me out of ketosis and i feel lethargic. I weigh 210 with 8% BF and always get 400gm of protein. so protein intake is never the problem.
[quote]Joaquin wrote:
Has anyone truly answered the question: can you build muscle on a low carb (less than 50 carbs/day) diet?
[/quote]
I am starting to lose sight of why this diet is superior to a medium-high carb diet…at least for mass building.
It so freaking complicated!
the bottom line for me is: can someone build muscle on a low carb diet without a carb up meal or day (consistent low carbs)? this would assume a high caloric intake and bodybuilding style training
[quote]Dirty Tiger wrote:
Joaquin wrote:
Has anyone truly answered the question: can you build muscle on a low carb (less than 50 carbs/day) diet?
I am starting to lose sight of why this diet is superior to a medium-high carb diet…at least for mass building.
It so freaking complicated![/quote]
It’s not superior for mass-building, never claimed that it was. The question was whether it was possible to gain muscle mass on a low-carbs diet. The answer to that question is YES if protein and energy intake is adequate.
Now is it BETTER at building mass than a diet including moderate and well-timed doses of carbs? NO! However most peoples will stay leaner while adding size on a high calories low-carbs diet.
Personally, when training to gain I like to add carbs during and post-workout. But even then I rarely exceed 75-100g per day (100-125g if you count veggies, trace carbs and nuts). Some with better insulin sensitivity than me can handle a higher carbs intake than this without adding too much fat, but I find that a this amount of carbs, while ingesting a high protein/moderately-high fat (mostly good fats) diet the rest of the day is what allows me to add muscle without gaining much fat and while feeling great.
But it is an individual thing. For example, my ex-girlfriend (a natural competitive bodybuilder) was extremely insulin-sensitive and thus could eat a large amount of carbs without any problems. Heck, in her fat-loss/pre-contest diet she would still consume 300g of carbs per day (she was 135lbs).
Put her on a low-carbs diet and she will not be gaining much muscle mass (she is among the 25% of the population who do better on higher carbs).
I already mentioned my friend Hugo Girard, the 6’2’’ 330lbs strongman with 10.5% body fat. He is even less insulin sensitive than me so he doesn’t even ingest carbs (except for green veggies and nuts) in his diet; but his strength and muscle mass are still going up. This is an example of someone who does much better on high fats than high carbs.
I can’t tell you precise numbers; but from my experience:
75% of the North American population is insulin resistant to some degree
25% of the same population is insulin sensitive
The 75% breaks down pretty much evenly (35-40%) between individuals who are very insulin resistant (will do best on a close to no carbs diet, 50g and less) and those who are moderately resistant (will do best on a moderate carbs intake, around 0.5g per pound timed properly).
[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
Dirty Tiger wrote:
Joaquin wrote:
Has anyone truly answered the question: can you build muscle on a low carb (less than 50 carbs/day) diet?
I am starting to lose sight of why this diet is superior to a medium-high carb diet…at least for mass building.
It so freaking complicated!
It’s not superior for mass-building, never claimed that it was. The question was whether it was possible to gain muscle mass on a low-carbs diet. The answer to that question is YES if protein and energy intake is adequate.
Now is it BETTER at building mass than a diet including moderate and well-timed doses of carbs? NO! However most peoples will stay leaner while adding size on a high calories low-carbs diet.
[/quote]
Fair enough. Staying leaner while adding size is my goal.
I appreciate all your advice. I’ve learned a geat deal.
Re-posting from before. Anyone with more knowledge in this field than I have any ideas about the below questions?
Re: A) and B) above - 2 things here. #1, my understanding of the AD was that it is NOT strictly a ketogenic diet. The carb loads were designed to keep one out of ketosis, the whole “skimming the surface of ketosis” line the venerable Disc Hoss used way back in the original AD thread, and one of the reasons for the carb-ups.
#2 - it makes sense these type of diets are glycogen sparing, as normal aerobic activity is fueled by burning fat. However, as brought up by Tribulus, if intense anaerobic activity (i.e. weightlifting) CAN be fueled by an energy source other than glycogen, what is it, and why eat ANY carbs? You said the body can replenish glycogen by converting fats and protein, so why not stick to those macros? In other words, what is the benefit (outside of overall health, let’s focus strictly on training in this context) of eating carbs?
Re: your response to 2) above - This ties in with the above question. If as you say a fat-adapted trainee may only use half as much glycogen as normal in a training session, what is he burning for fuel? He may use less glycogen, but he’s expending the same amount of energy per session, carbless diet or not. SOMETHING is fueling the muscle.
My thought is this: if it’s fat, then semi-frequent carb loads make sense because we don’t want fat to fuel anaerobic activity because of the oxidization issue I brought up earlier. If it’s still glycogen, through the conversion of fats and protein, then my original question stands: why re-load on carbs at all if the body can replenish glycogen on its own?
*Anyone? From CT’s latest post, clearly something about carb ingestion contributes positively to the muscle-building process; I just can’t seem to figure out what it might be.
CT for someone who is 5’11" and around 170-175 lbs with 12-15% bodyfat(not lean), What would you recommend as far as carb meals frequency. I train 5-7 days a weeks(lifting 5-6 days a week and soccer 1-3 times per week).
I have been eating carbs for the last 3-4 days(feel much better with no carbs), should I do an induction phase again even though I been on the AD for around 3 months.?
I am trying to get down to 9-10% bodyfat.
Thanks.
[quote]doubleh wrote:
<<< if intense anaerobic activity (i.e. weightlifting) CAN be fueled by an energy source other than glycogen, what is it, and why eat ANY carbs? You said the body can replenish glycogen by converting fats and protein, so why not stick to those macros? >>>[/quote]
Until somebody demonstrates otherwise I’m standing by my position that glycogen is the only direct source of fuel for intense anaerobic work, but that lipids and aminos can be converted to glycogen in the absence of available glycogen or carbs.
My question then remains, why? When the judicious intake of some carbs takes care of the whole deal and leaves dietary protein alone to rebuild damaged muscle while fats are used to fuel everything else? Of course this is never absolute. There will be some unavoidable crossover to some degree, but with all due respect I’m not grasping why I would ever intend for my metabolism to use protein for energy when it’s so easy to avoid and the potential downside is so serious.
Just figured I asked CT for his thoughts on acute acidosis on such a diet like the Anabolic diet. Obviously with a VLCD, the lack of alkaline foods like fruit and starchy vegetables such as yams and potatoes would leave someone at a high-ER chance of developing acidosis.
But CT, do you know if it’s anything to worry about? Obviously one of the best vegetables to eat are your leafy greens which seem to be the most alkalizing, which you often recommend for those who chose to have 50g or less carbs a day. Is it anything anyone should worry about while on the Anabolic diet, or alteration of it?
BTW Thanks for making this thread one of the most knowledgable threads on bodybuilding via low-carb diets. This thread is an A+ wealth of information because of you. Thanks
[quote]GrabAKimber wrote:
Just figured I asked CT for his thoughts on acute acidosis on such a diet like the Anabolic diet. Obviously with a VLCD, the lack of alkaline foods like fruit and starchy vegetables such as yams and potatoes would leave someone at a high-ER chance of developing acidosis.
But CT, do you know if it’s anything to worry about? Obviously one of the best vegetables to eat are your leafy greens which seem to be the most alkalizing, which you often recommend for those who chose to have 50g or less carbs a day. Is it anything anyone should worry about while on the Anabolic diet, or alteration of it?
BTW Thanks for making this thread one of the most knowledgable threads on bodybuilding via low-carb diets. This thread is an A+ wealth of information because of you. Thanks [/quote]
It is of EXTREME IMPORTANCE to keep your body alkaline. If your body is acid all the metabolic processes (including protein synthesis and fatty acid mobilization) are rendered less effective.
That’s why green veggies are important. Glutamine can also help keep the body alkaline.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
doubleh wrote:
<<< if intense anaerobic activity (i.e. weightlifting) CAN be fueled by an energy source other than glycogen, what is it, and why eat ANY carbs? You said the body can replenish glycogen by converting fats and protein, so why not stick to those macros? >>>
Until somebody demonstrates otherwise I’m standing by my position that glycogen is the only direct source of fuel for intense anaerobic work, but that lipids and aminos can be converted to glycogen in the absence of available glycogen or carbs.
My question then remains, why? When the judicious intake of some carbs takes care of the whole deal and leaves dietary protein alone to rebuild damaged muscle while fats are used to fuel everything else? Of course this is never absolute. There will be some unavoidable crossover to some degree, but with all due respect I’m not grasping why I would ever intend for my metabolism to use protein for energy when it’s so easy to avoid and the potential downside is so serious.[/quote]
Well, I did some further research rather than being lazy and it appears I found my answer. (Quick point of clarification: intense anaerobic work is directly fueled by ATP, and indirectly by glycogen, see the following.) ATP fuels short, intense anaerobic bursts (i.e. lifting), and is replenished in the short-term by breaking down creatine phosphate, and intermediately by burning glycogen. So, glycogen comes into play when ATP and/or ATP + CP sources in muscles are exhausted. HERE IS THE KEY that I found, at least insomuch as I understand it: glycogen is readily available in the liver and muscles when needed and is a superior source for ATP than lipids because it does not require oxidation, a long metabolic process (see my earlier post in this thread; hey, I was right!) However, on low-carb diets, if glycogen stores are depleted, lipid oxidation comes into play, but due to the nature of this process, it takes much longer to replenish the ATP.
So, to draw conclusions from this, it would appear that depleted glycogen levels would impair one’s ability to recover ATP levels during a workout, therefore impacting one’s work capacity. This makes sense, illustrated nicely by the “crash” day that most ADers hit in the 2-week adaptation phase, and once adapted, seems to me like something to avoid like the plague.
To further draw conclusions, if the AD is glycogen-sparing, it seems to me to be something that we don’t necessarily want. If the body gets used to “hordeing” glyc, it may impact ATP replenishment during workouts. In my opinion carb-ups are necessary to keep the body out of “glycogen starvation mode”, if that makes sense, so it will continue to liberally make use of it when needed, such as in the gym.
Bottom line: I think carb-ups over the weekend, or 1-day, or something similar - anything that can keep the body used to storing and utilizing glycogen when needed WITHOUT taking one out of fat-burning mode - make more sense than CT’s 1 carb-up meal approach. This, after all, was Dr. D’s original theory regarding this diet. I feel weird disagreeing with someone as knowledgeable as CT, but maybe he can respond again if he’s so inclined.
Just wanted to share what I discovered; I like closure on things. And I’m no expert in this field, so if anyone is and can provide info to counter any conclusions I’ve drawn, I’m all ears. I have no problem changing my opinion when presented with new facts. Apologies for the long post, hope someone can make use of it.
[quote]doubleh wrote:
Bottom line: I think carb-ups over the weekend, or 1-day, or something similar - anything that can keep the body used to storing and utilizing glycogen when needed WITHOUT taking one out of fat-burning mode - make more sense than CT’s 1 carb-up meal approach. This, after all, was Dr. D’s original theory regarding this diet. I feel weird disagreeing with someone as knowledgeable as CT, but maybe he can respond again if he’s so inclined.
[/quote]
The thing is that you are somewhat misinterpreting my recommendations. The one meal carb-up is for body composition only; or in other words to MAXIMIZE fat loss.
If you read my article ‘‘refined physique transformation’’ you will find that my recommendations change depending on the degree of leanness of the individual.
These recommendations are:
For men
Above 20% body fat: carb-up at around 0.75g of carbs per pound every 14 days
15-20% body fat: carb-up at around 0.75g of carbs per pound every 10 days
12-15% body fat: carb-up at around 1.0g of carbs per pound every 7 days
10-12% body fat: carb-up at around 1.25g of carbs per pound every 7 days
Less than 10% body fat: carb-up at around 1.25g of carbs per pound every 4-5 days
I also make recommendations regarding the type of food to use for a carb-up:
For men
Above 20% body fat: carb-up only with clean carbs (yams, non-green veggies, fruits, oatmeal, rice, potatoes, grits, etc.)
15-20% body fat: carb-up only with clean carbs
12-15% body fat: carb-up mostly with clean carbs. One or two ‘‘cheat’’ items is acceptable but avoid eating foods that are both high in fat and sugar.
10-12% body fat: Carb-up can include a bit more cheat food, but still stay away from fat/sugar combo foods.
Less than 10% body fat: the refeed can be more lenient. While results will be better with cleaner food, when you get down below 10% it’s okay to include some dirtier meals (pizza, burgers, pastries, etc.) in your refeed day.
Finally the recommended amount of carbs for the ‘‘diet days’’ are also dependent on body fat levels:
For men
Above 20% body fat: no more than 30g of carbs per day
15-20% body fat: 0.25g of carbs per pound of body weight per day
12-15% body fat: 0.35g of carbs per pound of body weight per day
10-12% body fat: 0.45g of carbs per pound of body weight per day
Less than 10% body fat: 0.55g of carbs per pound of body weight per day
So someone who is relatively lean (10-12% for example) and weighs 200lbs can use 90g per day, preferably around workout time. So you could very well have 40g of carbs pre/during your workout, 40g post-workout and 10g of trace carbs during the day.
Even someone who is slightly less lean (12-15%) at the same 200lbs can go up to 70g per day which stills allows some carbs peri-workout.
Really, my recommendation to go super low carbs is only for fatter individuals.
The point I was making in this thread is that it IS possible to gain size while not ingesting carb. I never said that it was optimal.
BTW, just a correction regarding ATP. ATP is the ONLY fuel source that the body can use. When ATP is depleted the body will use different substrates to produce new ATP and replenish the reserves.
Creatine phosphate is the first substrate used to produce ATP and it is the fastest (higher power) but the one with the shortest duration (around 12 seconds).
Glucose used under anaerobic condition is the second way to replenish ATP, it is the second fastest way to produce ATP but is is also of short duration (around 70-120 seconds)
Glucose used under aerobic condition is the third way to replenish ATP. It is not as fast as the previous two systems but can last longer (up to 15 minutes and sometimes more)
Fatty acids via fatty acid oxidation is the fourth way and it is the slowest of the energy production pathways, but last a REALLY long time! When doing intense training this system is used mostly to replenish ATP stores during recovery periods. In fact most of the ATP is replenished between sets via the fat oxydation pathway.
Now what about ketones you say? Very little literature exists on the subject because basically no research studies the energy substrate used during weight training while in a ketogenic state. My educated guess from the available literature which shows no decrease in performance during a low-carbs diet when performing work in the zone that would normally rely on the third energy system (glucose with oxigen) would suggest that ketones are about the same power (speed of energy production) as using glucose + oxygen to produce ATP and it would also last as long as the fatty acid oxydation system.
So this tells us that during ‘‘regular bodybuilding’’ training (sets of 6-12 reps lasting 30-60 seconds), glycogen would indeed be the only way to efficiently fuel your workouts. Ketones could also be used, but the lower energy production speed would be too slow to allow the maintenance of the same intensity.
HOWEVER if one is performing work that relies more on the phosphagen system (ATP and creatine) … sets of 1-5 reps lasting 20 seconds or less … training intensity should not be affected by a ketogenic diet since glucose is not super important during those sets AND that ATP is replenished between sets either by using ketones or fat.