Tyler123,
I empathize with the whole poor college guy situation. Been there - trust me.
MCTs can likely be found at a GNC or Vitamin World (I think that’s the name) or a local dietary supplement shop. I’ll bet there are great online leads that other readers can offer. I can only think of Netrition. I believe Jarrow Formulas once supplied some specialty oils for some of my research ages ago - but I don’t know if they sell MCTs. I also once personally used a Twinlab product as well that came in a bottle (used by the spoonful).
ENOVA is different. As a diglyceride (as opposed to common tri-glycerides), they are metabolized differently as I’ve explained before on these Forums (perhaps try a search. They are used just like any other oil.
The maximum amount of peanut butter would depend largely on one’s daily fat kcal needs. That is, a 30% fat diet is about 100g of fat for an adult, training male. I’ve seen data that suggest limiting fat in a meal to 30-50g however, as this appears to push the “use it vs. store it” limit.
The “meal vs. snack” thing is partly semantics. If it’s larger relative to one’s daily needs, it’s generally considered a meal; if it’s about half that size, it’s a snack.
I have a rather straight forward question that I hope you can answer.
Are there any known long term health implications to cyclical dieting, reduced carb intake, ketosis, cheat days etc…
Basically, if you reduce carbs and calories(eat clean) for 6 out of 7 days and then hammer 5-6 k of calories on one day.
I’m quite sure that it can’t be beneficial for heart health. Having extremely elevated insulin coupled with massive circualting triglycerides is probably not a good thing. But I would like your opinion on this.
Hi B-Rock,
I’m going to be tough on you here, so brace yourself, but competing in five weeks would require you to be much leaner than 11%. Your stats indicate that you’re in pretty darn good shape for a fairly heavy guy… but one usually needs to be approaching the mid-low single digits (<5-6%) at five weeks out, IMO. This far into a diet, the body’s self-preservation mechanisms make further leanness tougher and tougher. That is, leaning out isn’t a linear downward process, as it sounds like you’ve already discovered.
But I guess it also depends on whether one is just out for experience vs. competing as a real contender.
It’s hard for me to encourage extreme competitive leanness, as it may have repercussions on one’s metabolism but I also understand the competitive mentality. One approach is to set a contest date 6-12 months out and plan training and eating cycles backward from that date (shooting for a leanness goal 2-3 weeks out and taking the final week or two to adjust and replenish.
marcus_aurelius,
Very tough question. You’re right in observing that T (free or total T) isn’t the only limiting factor. But it is one of the largest. This is evidenced by comparing “natural” bodybuilders with androgen using bodybuilders. Clearly limits exist somewhere on the scale, even when considering all our biological options.
If hard pressed to put numbers to it, I’d guess a 5’9" or 5’10" average height guy might be able to hold 200-205 at about 8-10% fat. Feel free to disagree; this isn’t a scientific statement, just personal observation. (I have been backstage for years, though, at every competitive level. And I’ve competed regionally.)
Nutrition and training becomes more advanced daily but some level of reality (not limitation per se) does assert itself. I think that from a BB perspective, there are ways to look much bigger/ more muscular… just as there are ways beyond sheer mass to excel at other sports. There’s nothing wrong with learning to be proud of accomplishments - even if we don’t weigh 280lb. at 4% fat.
[quote]marcus_aurelius wrote:
Dr. LL,
Is the amount of muscle one can attain on one’s frame bounded by the total circulating T(or free T) ?
(because there are other factors like MGF, etc that are involved too)
ie. if in theoretical case I had been practicing “ideal” training for say 10 -15 years, would there be a true physiological bound on what I could attain or is reaching one’s “genetic” a bunch of hogwash ?
[quote]Lonnie Lowery wrote:
Hi B-Rock,
I’m going to be tough on you here, so brace yourself, but competing in five weeks would require you to be much leaner than 11%. Your stats indicate that you’re in pretty darn good shape for a fairly heavy guy… but one usually needs to be approaching the mid-low single digits (<5-6%) at five weeks out, IMO. This far into a diet, the body’s self-preservation mechanisms make further leanness tougher and tougher. That is, leaning out isn’t a linear downward process, as it sounds like you’ve already discovered.
But I guess it also depends on whether one is just out for experience vs. competing as a real contender.
It’s hard for me to encourage extreme competitive leanness, as it may have repercussions on one’s metabolism but I also understand the competitive mentality. One approach is to set a contest date 6-12 months out and plan training and eating cycles backward from that date (shooting for a leanness goal 2-3 weeks out and taking the final week or two to adjust and replenish.
[/quote]
Ouch!!! Kidding it didnt hurt that much. This is my first competition and I am not out to take out the number 1 spot. This is probably a personal acheivement thing and I just want to get into respectful condition. I have never got to where I am now as have always been big but never lean. So I am doing well thus far considering.
Any competitions further down the track will require better planning. But hey thats all part of the learning curve right?
marcus,
I’ll PM you as well to be sure you get this.
50 kcal per day isn’t generally enough to impart measurable effects. It’s true that looking only at the “3500kcal = 1 lb. fat” method of energy balance, it shouldn’t matter how fast the deficit occurs - but life and biology are messier than this. Other factors will confound the loss if it’s too drawn out.
I once heard this explained as “the toast catastrophe”, meaning that it’s not realistic to believe that eating or skipping one piece of toast each day could eventually make a person obese or emaciated. Energy balance is important but it’s the beginning, not the end-all-be-all of body composition change.
[quote]marcus_aurelius wrote:
Dr. LL,
I have to ask my question in advance as I’m fairly busy tomorrow. Hopefully, you’ll see it.
If one is dieting, is there any difference between saying having one calorie day below maintainance (ie. 250 kcal deficty) or spreading it evenly say or 5 days ? (ie. 50 kcal deficit MTWThF )
I would think that the first option is better as there is less time for the body to adapt, but I would appreciate your input.
Thanks for being strong enough to be cool about it. I sure understand the personal achievement thing when competing. It’s partly what drove me to compete in 2003 after two half-arsed efforts long ago.
I had to learn the planning lesson over many years; it looks like you’re already being smarter by picking up on all that goes into it. (If only I had the Think Tank long ago…)
Hey, whatever you decide, let me know as things transpire, eh?
LL
[quote]
Ouch!!! Kidding it didnt hurt that much. This is my first competition and I am not out to take out the number 1 spot. This is probably a personal acheivement thing and I just want to get into respectful condition. I have never got to where I am now as have always been big but never lean. So I am doing well thus far considering.
Any competitions further down the track will require better planning. But hey thats all part of the learning curve right?
Since fructose has a negligible effect on blood sugar and insulin, would you consider eating a food that contains predominantly fructose (i.e. certain fruits) in the evening to be consistent with your temporal nutrition recommendations?
Chris,
Well, I never meant Temporal Nutrition to be a meal plan type of recommendation. But even as food for thought, it’s not so much just about insulin or blood sugar swings as it is about muscles failing to optimally receive ingested carbs in the evening. (Plus, I think PM hours are a decent time to ingest healthy fats, when compared to breakfast, as you may know.)
My concern with fructose is that it’s lipogenic in nature. I’ve seen a number of studies showing blood values of triglycerides rise surprisingly after fructose ingestion. By bypassing a rate limiting step in glycolysis (PFK), it tends to flux right through, forming excess pyruvate and ultimately triglyceride.
That’s the biochem. The practicality is that there’s no big problem with eating a little carbohydrate in the PM hours -
just not large amounts. I personally have no problem eating a small apple in the evening or the like (<15-20g CHO per meal).
[quote]ChrisPowers wrote:
Okay, here’s one:
Since fructose has a negligible effect on blood sugar and insulin, would you consider eating a food that contains predominantly fructose (i.e. certain fruits) in the evening to be consistent with your temporal nutrition recommendations?