[quote]realpeanutbutter wrote:
I’d say you’re right. It depends on goals as well. CHO is highly necessary for cell growth but not necessarily respiration. Before agriculture what were our CHO sources? plants, primarily, which ADers get plenty of (I hope).
Since muscle glycogen is in such low concentration (1%) in the muscle mass it is feasible that it can be replaced by other areas like the liver etc. and metabolism of veggies.
The CHO loads are key for growth but not necessarily performance. There are strong guys that don’t get very many CHO in. fatty acid oxidation can compensate for tons of energy.
Not many people concerned with training do much atkins. Most people who are interested in growth don’t typically look at weight loss diets.
Long and short: load when you need to. It could be after each training session or each week or each month, depending on your goals.
-chris
Tiribulus wrote:
Everything I’ve read by those who are in a position to know a hell of a lot more about these things than I do says that anaerobic work is fueled exclusively by glycogen and not having enough of it will result in a dramatically decreased capacity for weight training.
That is THE principle that separates cyclical diets from straight keto diets like Atkins.
Without proper reloads leptin/insulin levels (among many other things) come into play and your body sees itself as starving and begins utilizing aminos regardless of how much fat is there which is why there are no muscular Atkins proponents.
Others can explain in greater and better detail than I can. Look, I’m not telling anybody what to do and I have plenty left to learn, but I’m just relaying what has been said by those who are true authorities in these areas.
[/quote]
A couple of points, IMHO:
Theories are nothing more than ideas about the physical world. The don’t really exist except to explain cause and effect in terms of language so we can all understand. They can be dead wrong and stlll correctly explain a result. Until a result proves a theory wrong… it is correct. Arguing theory (what I read, what I heard…etc) does not change the results, but it does give one a history of understanding allowing you or me today to begin with more knowledge than our forefathers.
How does this apply? As an example, it several takes several months even years to get to point where you are truly a fat burner with all of the effects of such. You would then be able to max a lift - or begin an 8 week program to find your max and compare this result with a previous max you had under a different eating method - not including the possible effects of training alone. So now compare this to a high carb diet, moderate carb diet, low fat/low carb diet and you talking years/a decade of personal research. These threads and supporting literature allow you to start at a later point, taking the results of others as your own.
My now 11 years of this eating pattern is my recorded knowledge of myself, and those whos bodies act as mine does can have similiar results. We develop our theories from our results - reading something to the contrary and holding it as truth in the face of concrete results is worthless.
I think the problem with application of Atkins is in the audience and emphasis: people on Atkins are usually trying to lose weight. The common misheld belief deeply brainwashed among the commoners is that low fat is the way to go. I believe these two ideas combine to set up a failure: they don’t eat enough fat to sustain them!
Ths leads me to the last idea of the day:
Once I tried a cyclical diet based on low carb… one day of high fat followed by one of low to moderate. Always low carb and mod/high protein.
You tend to feel weak at times and performance drops off somewhat but you burn bodyfat like a furnace. If anyone wants to try it, for even a week, I’d like to hear of your results. Once you’ve turned over to a fat burner is the best time to implement this cycle - two weeks is a good goal. Ask if you’d like an example.
My $.02…
SK