[quote]IL Cazzo wrote:
I’m moving to TE/DE full time rather than playing ol/DT so I can afford to lose about 20lbs. As I said, over the last year my carb ups turned into insane food orgies…mmmm food orgies.
Also, after Dan John did it, I figured I’d try it. If for no other reason than to retrain the brain and to see if I could do it.
I must say, all these reports of people not being able to lift heavy and all this other shiite, is well, shiite if you ask me. Today’s workout was as good as, if not better, than anyother workout I’ve had in a long time. Heavy and intense and dense.
After this, I’ll transition back to a pure-er version of the AD, but with a shortened carb-up…like one day and keep the junk for special occasions.
[/quote]
Yeah, I remember you talking about eating whole boxes of Fruity Pebbles n stuff LOL!
To the original poster:
Check the mammoth “My Experience on the Anabolic Diet” thread started by mdragon. Be prepared to have everything you ever thought you knew about macro nutrition turned upside down
50g a day or less would be considered “Very Low Carb”. Between 50-100 would be considered “Low Carb”. Anything over 100 is not even considered “low”. Can’t recall where I read that, but it made sense at the time.
So yes- staying at or below 50 a day is tough (not counting PWO), but it isn’t impossible. Not even close.
On the flipside- don’t expect to gain any mass whatsoever on anything less than 100g/day. You need carbs to grow just as much as you need protein and fat. If you are gaining mass at 100g/day or below- you aren’t actually eating 100g/day or below.
[quote]eengrms76 wrote:
<<<On the flipside- don’t expect to gain any mass whatsoever on anything less than 100g/day. You need carbs to grow just as much as you need protein and fat. If you are gaining mass at 100g/day or below- you aren’t actually eating 100g/day or below.[/quote]
If by this you mean on an ongoing indefinite basis then that’s true. Muscle contractions are powered by glycogen and no matter how well adapted one gets, glycogen needs to be replaced for anything approaching serious weight training.
However cyclical carb loading lifestyles do not suffer from this drawback. After adaptation , where lipids have become the body’s preferred source of metabolic fuel, controlled periodic carb loading is done where lipids continue to be the preferred source and the dietary carbs are efficiently shuttled into muscles and the liver(primarily) to be used for upcoming training.
VERY low carb intake on non loading days is essential to prevent the metabolism from reverting to glucose as it’s preferred fuel.
Bottom line? If your saying that you can’t consume below 100 or even 50 grams a day most of the time and grow there’s going to be a parade of guys behind me seconding me when I say, not only is this incorrect, but the enhanced endocrine function of eating this way is more anabolism friendly than the other way around.
[quote]IL Cazzo wrote:
realpeanutbutter wrote:
IL Cazzo wrote:
No, he’s not insane.
I rarely go over 50. Havent in many years. When I do, I get fat.
Play both sides of the line in football, only breaking for specials, compete in Olifting and play softball…so no, endurance is not an issue.
What IL caz isn’t telling you is that he is old school anabolic diet. Secret weapon
You still CHO up IL Caz?
-chris
Sometimes…my carb up days have the tendency to turn into eat everything in sight.
I’m on the VD right now lol. So the low carb part didnt bother me at all.[/quote]
I don’t understand this.
Why are you doing the V-Diet? I assume it is to shed fat but you really should not be carrying much fat if you are as active as you say and have been eating low carb (unless you are drinking bacon grease.)
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
I don’t understand this.
Why are you doing the V-Diet? I assume it is to shed fat but you really should not be carrying much fat if you are as active as you say and have been eating low carb (unless you are drinking bacon grease.)[/quote]
He’s more than capable of answering for himself and I’m sure will, but this guy has been known to consume a “whole chicken wrapped in bacon” in a sitting so that should give you a clue regarding his approach to gaining size and strength.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
In one article, Charles Poliquin wrote:
“People are kidding themselves about how many carbs they need. There’s a difference between a mouth and a vacuum. Forty to fifty grams per day of good carbs is plenty for most of the population. That’s why there are so many fat dieticians and personal trainers. Nutrient timing makes a difference, too. A lean 200-pound man can keep his leanness eating 250 grams of carbs a day, if 200 of them are taken post-workout and the other 50 grams spread throughout the day in low glycemic carbs. Remember, I said “stay lean,” not get lean. Get lean first if you want to eat carbs. The leaner you are, the more carbs you can eat.”
50 grams of carbs? 200 total calories from carbs? Even at a 2000 calorie diet (most on here probably need far more than that a day), thats 10% carbs. Does that sound ridiculously low to anyone else?
Am I missing something here? Is this only for people who don’t work out? [/quote]
Yeah, you’re missing something and it’s in the very paragraph you quoted. Where he said a leaan 200 lb man could keep their leaness just fine on 250g of carbs a day. [Obviously, some individuals could have more too] 50 grams might be about right for a small sedentary woman.
[quote]eengrms76 wrote:
50g a day or less would be considered “Very Low Carb”. Between 50-100 would be considered “Low Carb”. Anything over 100 is not even considered “low”. Can’t recall where I read that, but it made sense at the time.[/quote]
[quote]CrewPierce wrote:
I can’t see at staying below 50g carbs for any extended period of time. For those of you who live by this do you have trouble remembering things?
The brain runs only on carbs and it’s been shown that people who stay on carb restricted diets for more than a month have memory loss.
Just wondering what your expierence is on it so I can get some outside of the lab results.[/quote]
The brain will function quite happily on ketones. I doubt if many people who come to this site stay very low all the time though anyway. Most will be using some form of cycling. Also, since adapting to fat metabolism my memory and acuity overall have improved noticeably along with not getting sleepy spells like I used to. Except sometimes on load days.
These very low carb diets aren’t meant to be longterm, certainly not for people who want to gain appreciable muscle mass. I have found they work very well are probably the best was to lose fat once the body adjusts.
[quote]CaliforniaLaw wrote:
Eat the entire egg.
[/quote]
Couldn’t have been said better. You’re wasting one of nature’s best protein sources. The yolk is good for you. I eat dozens of fee-range omega 3 eggs weekly. They are also dirt cheap.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
These very low carb diets aren’t meant to be longterm, certainly not for people who want to gain appreciable muscle mass. I have found they work very well are probably the best was to lose fat once the body adjusts. [/quote]
“Very low carb” is a general term, but cyclical diets which are very low carb much of the time, like The Anabolic Diet, are lifestyles intended to be lived indefinitely and do indeed create a superior physiological environment for gaining appreciable muscle mass long term.
[quote]greekdawg wrote:
CaliforniaLaw wrote:
Eat the entire egg.
Couldn’t have been said better. You’re wasting one of nature’s best protein sources. The yolk is good for you. I eat dozens of fee-range omega 3 eggs weekly. They are also dirt cheap.
[/quote]
Yup. Eggs do a body good. To up the protein content, you can buy egg whites or egg beaters in a carton. Much cheaper than throwing away perfectly good egg yolks. Eat eggs and add egg beaters in the carton for extra protein.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
These very low carb diets aren’t meant to be longterm, certainly not for people who want to gain appreciable muscle mass. I have found they work very well are probably the best was to lose fat once the body adjusts.
“Very low carb” is a general term, but cyclical diets which are very low carb much of the time, like The Anabolic Diet, are lifestyles intended to be lived indefinitely and do indeed create a superior physiological environment for gaining appreciable muscle mass long term.[/quote]
I agree. I’ve never personally done the AD, but cyclical diets like that with carb-ups can be followed longterm. I prefer to get modest amounts of fruit, oats, and whole grains everyday when not strictly dieting, but I have no doubt the AD works well. Many have gotten great results on it.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
eengrms76 wrote:
<<<On the flipside- don’t expect to gain any mass whatsoever on anything less than 100g/day. You need carbs to grow just as much as you need protein and fat. If you are gaining mass at 100g/day or below- you aren’t actually eating 100g/day or below.
If by this you mean on an ongoing indefinite basis then that’s true. Muscle contractions are powered by glycogen and no matter how well adapted one gets, glycogen needs to be replaced for anything approaching serious weight training.
However cyclical carb loading lifestyles do not suffer from this drawback. After adaptation , where lipids have become the body’s preferred source of metabolic fuel, controlled periodic carb loading is done where lipids continue to be the preferred source and the dietary carbs are efficiently shuttled into muscles and the liver(primarily) to be used for upcoming training.
VERY low carb intake on non loading days is essential to prevent the metabolism from reverting to glucose as it’s preferred fuel.
Bottom line? If your saying that you can’t consume below 100 or even 50 grams a day most of the time and grow there’s going to be a parade of guys behind me seconding me when I say, not only is this incorrect, but the enhanced endocrine function of eating this way is more anabolism friendly than the other way around.[/quote]
I was intending my comment to mean longterm. Without periodic carb ups logterm very low carb diets are hard to build muscle on. Also- typically with a very low carb diet you are also hypocaloric. Not always, as in the AD you just mentioned, but typically.
[quote]hockechamp14 wrote:
eengrms76 wrote:
50g a day or less would be considered “Very Low Carb”. Between 50-100 would be considered “Low Carb”. Anything over 100 is not even considered “low”. Can’t recall where I read that, but it made sense at the time.
[quote]ThomasM wrote:
Roy wrote:
I stay lean with about 350-400 carbs a day. Carbs alone don’t make you fat, it’s the big picture.
Amen to that.
I guess we’re two of the few who can “tolerate” carbs, or is it all just hysteria? No comment.[/quote]
If you are already lean enough you can maintain that leanness on more carbs. Nobody is arguing that.
It’s not “hysteria”, there is such a thing as carb tolerance, or intolerance I guess. It is related to how lean someone already is. I’m currently not very lean and normally don’t tolerate high amounts of carbs well, so it’s even worse right now. Any by tolerate I mean I tend to put on fat easier as a result, not anything to do with literally tolerating them.
And yes- Carbs alone, in excess, can make you fat. Maybe not obese, but fat.
[quote]eengrms76 wrote:
I was intending my comment to mean longterm. Without periodic carb ups logterm very low carb diets are hard to build muscle on. Also- typically with a very low carb diet you are also hypocaloric. Not always, as in the AD you just mentioned, but typically.[/quote]
I did pretty much figure that, but thought I’d throw it out there. One of the biggest misconceptions seen in the big AD thread is guys thinking that it’s permanently/primarily ketogenic or the same as Atkins which it certainly is not.
