I havent kept up with Poliquin in a while, but back in the day even he was talking about making sure to eat something before you hit the gym. If you have not eaten in 3 or more hours, and you are going to lift or do intervals, Id at least drink a protein shake or take a big ass handful of BCAAs before and during training then do your post shake too
[quote]PB Andy wrote:
OK, here are some excerpts from Jonny Bowden’s books “Living the Low Carb Life” that I’ve been wanting to post on this discussion (which has taken place in many threads) for awhile:
The problem is, the human body doesn’t really behave like a checking account. It behaves more like a chemistry set. What you put in mixes and bubbles and interacts and creates different results depending not just on the amount you put in, but also the ingredients.
“The metabolic advantage” is simply the theory that food has a hormonal effect on the body, and that certain foods are more likely to trigger hormonal and enzymatic responses that lead to fat gain than others. Certain kinds of foods simply take more energy to deal with than others, and “waste” a bunch of calories in the process.
The truth lies somewhere in between. Calories are not the whole picture, but they are still a major player in the weight-loss game.
Dr. Greene studied three groups of dieters. The first group went on a 1,500-calorie-per-day low-fat diet (1,800 for men). The second group went on an 1,800-calorie low-carb diet (2,100 calories for men). If all calories are created equal, the second group - which consumed more calories - should have weighted a bit more at the end of the study than the first group.
They didn’t. Though both groups lost weight, the low-carb (higher-calorie) group actually lost a little bit more, despite the fact that over the 12-week study they ate an average of 25,000 calories more than the low-fat group.
And that, indeed, was the third group in the study. Low-calorie and low-carb. That group lost the most weight of all.
Moral of the story: calories do count - but they’re not the whole story. Low-carb diets may have a metabolic advantage, but it’s not unlimited. In fact, it’s probably pretty small (200-400 calories, suggest Mike Eades). You can’t eat 12,000 calories a day of fat and protein and think you’re going to lose weight just because you’re on a low-carb diet. You still need to pay attention to calories. But you do have a bit - and I do mean a bit - of wiggle room on low-carb.[/quote]
Also, if you stay on a low carb diet too long, I believe it messes with your lepitin levels and your thyroid as well and then your metabolism will obviously stall, hence the idea of a refeed for glycogen refill and your hormones.
The last meal I ate was at 8 pm last night, I started my workout at 7:30 this morning, doing the ANACONDA Protocol, a whole body idea:
4 sets of 8 pull ups, 4x8 chins, 4x10 bench, 4x10 pushup superset w/ 4x10 cable fly, 4x10 shoulder press, super w/ lat raise, 4 sets of 21’s and 4 sets of walking lunges with a plate held over my head. Done in an hour, minus stretching after. Ate a meal and hour later, 2x shake (Metabolic Drive) and a huge sweet potato. i feel great. Pumped. Makes me feel happy and want to punch people in the face at the same time, if ya know what I mean 
[quote]SkyNett wrote:
And just to add a point. I dislike when someone takes something I said, and extrapolates from that “ommissions” that seem to indicate I don’t know what I’m talking about.
I “omitted” the role of the endocrine system because I’m making a very simple statement about calories in/calories out. If you want to discuss all the variables, the possible down regulation of thyroid hormones, and other hormonal responses, we can do that. But just because I chose to make a simple, focused statement doesn’t mean I’m “making a mistake”, or that I am unaware of any other possible physiological outcomes…[/quote]
Fine, then I dislike when someone shows excessive concern over how their internet persona is perceived. 
(and note that your “omissions” still advanced this discussion productively)
[quote]chillain wrote:
Fine, then I dislike when someone shows excessive concern over how their internet persona is perceived.
(and note that your “omissions” still advanced this discussion productively)
[/quote]
Well, at least some good came of them then… ; )
[quote]PB Andy wrote:
The truth lies somewhere in between. Calories are not the whole picture, but they are still a major player in the weight-loss game.
[/quote]
This - was my point. Have your caloric needs balanced before you blame a specific macro for an inability to lose fat.
[. Makes me feel happy and want to punch people in the face at the same time, if ya know what I mean ;)[/quote]
Like this quote…I can relate hahaha
[quote]MODOK wrote:
I didn’t mean to imply that you “don’t know what you are talking about”. Quite the contrary- you are extremely knowledgable and contribute a tremendous amount to the board. I always enjoy reading your thoughts. If I came off as critical or demeaning I apologize.
[/quote]
Certainly no need to apologize. : )
Yes, I do agree with you. It would be foolish not to recognize that the hormonal response to insulinogenic compounds has some profound effects on fat storage.
If the OP is actually jacked then lowering cals may not be the right choice- maybe dropping oils yeah ,but like people were saying, maybe adding clean carbs a la miyaki and starnes, like a carb cycling approach, using rice n taters, might work.
[quote]MODOK wrote:
[quote]Davinci.v2 wrote:
Modok - For “normal” individuals, where can your point of the importance of the endocrine system be applied? I obviously agree with you, however, it seems as though you’re simply trying to trump everyone elses point. Could you shed some light on it’s important and applications for most of us?[/quote]
LOL. I am not trying to trump anyone or anything. I am simply engaging in a discussion about a topic. The important implications are self-evident. But I could summarize by saying- "Carbohydrates are like the Force. Used correctly, they can cause a powerful hormonal response which will increase your muscle mass and cause you to look better. Use them unwisely and they can cause the opposite effect as well as potentially threaten your health. Obviously we bodybuilders don’t really need to know these things- we are on finite calorie diets and know our macros anyway. If something doesn’t work, we change it. But for the general public (who I assume you mean by “normal”, everyone should know these concepts so that they can correct their diet and hence their hormonal balance if they happen to be a genetically disadvantaged individual in this arena.[/quote]
I didn’t mean to insult you with the trump comment, I just wasn’t sure how your point, (valid though it may be) applied to the average bodybuilder who is not in a diseased or disfunctional state (<-what I meant by average).