toocul4u, great posts, the only one who actually had studies to back what most of us have been saying, so now we have some personal experience AND studies on our side
any more theories akin to gravity you’d like to discuss mr jmoufc87? i think you owe mr Thibs an appology
[quote]toocul4u wrote:
http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/88/4/1617[/quote]
hooray for ad libitum feeding! neither did they account for differences in protein intake either.
honestly, how are a couple of uncontrolled, poorly designed studies going to “prove” anything?
[quote]toocul4u wrote:
Once again, the LC group eats more protein that the LF group. so much for controlling variables, eh?
There’s also the whole issue of self reported food intake (read: utter garbage)
It must be fun to form a hypothesis, then construct a study in such a way that it’s sure to proves my hypothesis correct! That’s how science is done after all, right?
volek and kraemer are both idiots.
[quote]brian.m wrote:
toocul4u, great posts, the only one who actually had studies to back what most of us have been saying, so now we have some personal experience AND studies on our side[/quote]
too bad both those studies are utter garbage and fall completely flat under even the most rudimentary critical analysis.
[quote]brian.m wrote:
any more theories akin to gravity you’d like to discuss mr jmoufc87? i think you owe mr Thibs an appology[/quote]
yes. it’s a theory I borrowed from Alan Aragon, it’s called “The Theory of Internet Forum Debate”, and it goes something like this:
Forum Retard: “Physiological process X = Y because of Z.”
Logical Thinker: “Oh really? Show me the research evidence.”
Forum Retard: “It’s true because [insert guru’s name here] said so.”
Logical Thinker: “Mr [guru]'s opinion is irrelevant to the discussion. Show me the objective scientific evidence, not subjective opinion or testimony.”
Forum Retard: “Do you have half-n00dz pics you can show me please? Who have you trained bro?”
while this all may be true…its really all we have to go off of…and it helps that it agrees alongside the personal experience already shared…i’m starting to wonder what exactly would be good enough for you? while you yourself have provided zero proof, anectdotal or not, or anything really, except making cheap shots at people much more educated than yourself
(i’m not one to typically hug nut, but seriously, you havnt given anyone any reason to believe you, that macro content doesnt play any role in body composition and size manipulation)
[quote]brian.m wrote:
while this all may be true…its really all we have to go off of…and it helps that it agrees alongside the personal experience already shared…i’m starting to wonder what exactly would be good enough for you? while you yourself have provided zero proof, anectdotal or not, or anything really, except making cheap shots at people much more educated than yourself
(i’m not one to typically hug nut, but seriously, you havnt given anyone any reason to believe you, that macro content doesnt play any role in body composition and size manipulation)[/quote]
i was going to type something similar; but you beat me to it Brian.
this thread is like a school ground argument where the one kid can only say “because!”
This is getting off topic. I never said differing macronutrient amounts have zero effect on fat loss (as research has shown that some do better on lower carbs while others do better on lower fat).
What I did say was this: arbitrarily shuffling around macronuteient levels, while keeping overall calories the same (which is the Regressive Keto Diet in a nutshell), will make no appreciable difference in fat loss.
This topic is getting off course. The OP asked about the Regressive Ketogenic Diet. I answered by saying it is: (1) overly complex, and (2) less effective than a diet of equal caloric intake that actually provides sufficient protein to avoid excessive muscle loss
the RKD fails on both accounts. Furthermore, the rational given behind the diet (i.e. establishing ketosis quickly) is inherently flawed. Hence, why I believe it is a stupid diet.
[quote]JMoUCF87 wrote:
This is getting off topic. I never said differing macronutrient amounts have zero effect on fat loss (as research has shown that some do better on lower carbs while others do better on lower fat).
What I did say was this: arbitrarily shuffling around macronuteient levels, while keeping overall calories the same (which is the Regressive Keto Diet in a nutshell), will make no appreciable difference in fat loss.
This topic is getting off course. The OP asked about the Regressive Ketogenic Diet. I answered by saying it is: (1) overly complex, and (2) less effective than a diet of equal caloric intake that actually provides sufficient protein to avoid excessive muscle loss
the RKD fails on both accounts. Furthermore, the rational given behind the diet (i.e. establishing ketosis quickly) is inherently flawed. Hence, why I believe it is a stupid diet.[/quote]
this has indeed gotten off topic. you constantly talk in circles, and discount reviewed scientific research, and other experts, because you want to. that’s not good enouth, pretty weak dude
One thing Im curious of is: what is sufficient protein? Why is 1g per lb the magic standard?
[quote]benmoore wrote:
One thing Im curious of is: what is sufficient protein? Why is 1g per lb the magic standard?[/quote]
protein is the macronutrient that has shown to be of greatest use in preventing muscle loss on a diet. A fantastic way to lose muscle is to under eat, while not eating enough protein (h…sounds like a certain diet I know…)
1g/lb is the “magic standard” because numerous studies have demonstrated that by eating around that amount is “optimal” under most circumstances (if you’re bulking you can eat a little less, if your dieting you may need more depending on a lot of factors including current BF%, training volume, type of training, size of deficit, etc.)
[quote]JMoUCF87 wrote:
benmoore wrote:
One thing Im curious of is: what is sufficient protein? Why is 1g per lb the magic standard?
protein is the macronutrient that has shown to be of greatest use in preventing muscle loss on a diet. A fantastic way to lose muscle is to under eat, while not eating enough protein (h…sounds like a certain diet I know…)
1g/lb is the “magic standard” because numerous studies have demonstrated that by eating around that amount is “optimal” under most circumstances (if you’re bulking you can eat a little less, if your dieting you may need more depending on a lot of factors including current BF%, training volume, type of training, size of deficit, etc.)[/quote]
What happens when protein becomes the primary fuel source when calories, carbs and fats are dropped low?
In terms of real numbers… Im eating about 182g protein a day for type 1 days vs. 220g if it were 1g per lb bodyweight. Plenty of casien sources and meats throughout day so the flow of aminos is constant. Is that really such a major difference?
[quote]benmoore wrote:
What happens when protein becomes the primary fuel source when calories, carbs and fats are dropped low?
[/quote]
Is this rhetorical? Because I’m not trying to be a dick when I say the answer is blatantly obvious.
[quote]esk221 wrote:
benmoore wrote:
What happens when protein becomes the primary fuel source when calories, carbs and fats are dropped low?
Is this rhetorical? Because I’m not trying to be a dick when I say the answer is blatantly obvious. [/quote]
It partially rhetorical… I know what thibs says, i know what a lot of experts say, I know what I believe.
I just want to know what this other fellah has to say on it.
[quote]benmoore wrote:
What happens when protein becomes the primary fuel source when calories, carbs and fats are dropped low?
In terms of real numbers… Im eating about 182g protein a day for type 1 days vs. 220g if it were 1g per lb bodyweight. Plenty of casien sources and meats throughout day so the flow of aminos is constant. Is that really such a major difference?[/quote]
Protein almost NEVER becomes the primary fuel source.
Here’s why: fat is your bodies way of storing energy it does not need at the moment, for use in the future (when food might be scarce). We evolved this adaptation in order to survive in times of famine.
Bearing that in mind, what makes you think that the body would hold on to fat (remember, fat exists to provide energy for survival) while breaking down lean tissue?It makes no sense.
Unless you’re dieting down to the EXTREMES of bodyfat (i.e. mid to low single digits) the body will always burn more fat than protein, because that’s what fat is for, remember? even under the worst possible conditions muscle loss won’t exceed fat loss (but it might match it).
The any muscle tissue loss that might be occur on a diet can be alleviated by eating sufficient protein (which, by itself stimulates protein synthesis) and weight training, which provides the “signal” to the body to hold on to muscle tissue.
Stop making this more complicated than it needs to be.
[quote]JMoUCF87 wrote:
What I did say was this: arbitrarily shuffling around macronuteient levels, while keeping overall calories the same (which is the Regressive Keto Diet in a nutshell), will make no appreciable difference in fat loss.
[/quote]
[quote]toocul4u wrote:
JMoUCF87 wrote:
What I did say was this: arbitrarily shuffling around macronuteient levels, while keeping overall calories the same (which is the Regressive Keto Diet in a nutshell), will make no appreciable difference in fat loss.
Thanks for finding all these papers for us, backing up all the anecdotes, the majority of this guys arguements really dont have much to stand on, especially when some of these papers are published in Nature, one of the top biological journals!
scientific studies have also proven that people looking for scientific studies within a short span of time with limited knowledge of said subject are more susceptible to following advice if scientific studies say so.
Touché! lol, that is also true!
If this thread goes on any longer like this it will only be a bitching match that has been repeated in almost every single thread this guy (JMoUCF87) has posted in!
it just gets to me that everything MUST be an argument with this guy, why cant people just have an open discussion around here anymore with out people getting all up in arms, everything deserves debate, with out the forcing views on people,
my reply earlier was illustrating a point, that nothing is ever simple in biology, if people choose to believe it is inst then fine, thats cool, but dont force it on people and argue EVERY SINGLE point that doesnt agree with yours.
JMoUCF87, if you read this please try to approach everything with an open mind, you are definitely correct about the calorie deficit, but please bare in mind there is a bigger picture, if you choose to implement it then great, if not, also great.
case in point, i am clearly from the heavily from the scientific camp here, i think there are deeper issues than calorie in calorie out, BUT i still see your side to the topic, i agree with you on some of it, as do most people here, leave it at that!
LOLrus in the sun. This thread is like a mid-morning game of “Battle Penis.”
Any how,I am just on my last week [4] of the RKD, which I tried on a lark because I have to lose fat down to 88kg from 95kg.
It’s very much like any old carb cycling such as radical diet or anabolic or TKD.
So far its worked just fine as stated. I’ve gone from 95.5kg down to 91.5kg in the 3 weeks and all lifts [snatch, CJ, squat etc.] have gone up over the course of the month. strength was never low. so 4 solid kg’s of fat loss is good enough for me. given that the variable were NO cardio apart from the pre-WO skipping i have done for ages. Only high intensity %, low volume OL and accessory. I imagine if i had copped some extra interval training along the way the fat loss would have been far greater, but im in no hurry and im keen to keen the muscle/strength up.
According to surface BF test it’s all fat that peaced out. No DEXA. According to my keto strips I get into ketosis each monday after about 8 hours of of high fat/mod pro/low carb. It seems to correlate with my shake full of BCAA’s quite well.
In regard to the mighty debate regarding overly complex and no different from simple protein flooding and cal restriction:
It’s fuck all complexity. you have three days, they have three different macro amounts. pretty easy stuff just like regular carb cycling which i have 40 y/o female clients figuring out everyday.
The different days are great because they keep you from getting bored. Like being mormon and having 3 wives; a skinny, medium and a chubby, It’s a good variety. Easy to do mentally to because you still have the opportunity to cop some tasty carbs, not that i give a fuck but some do.
those carbs are targeted such that you also get the “carb up” effect from even the lowish amounts. You wouldn’t get this from constant moderate carb intake with low cal. the carb up effect is great when you have a big day at the gym or a meet the next day. plus you look way jacked after the carb days too, which beats looking flat for 1 whole month.
So i’d say IMHO and the opinion of a bunch of science I’m not willing to look for [just like JmoUCF87 isnt willing to present us with “the science”] that the macro shuffling is a great option for keeping muscle loss at a low and fat loss fairly high.
The high fat days are essential for keeping your hormones strong and maintaining the muscle. high fat is very muscle sparring. several nutritional scientists and coaches such as Dr. Berardi, Dr. Lowery et al are highly supportive of high fats and moderate protein on fat loss diets. I see this macro cycling shit work all day long for my athletes and me so that is how i roll, in congruence with the science of experts.
As for this diet being the same in effect as a general low cal/high protein diet: I’m not so sure. Both Fat and carbs come in mad handy. You need fat to maximize hormones and get all those awesome fat-sol vitamins in. That shit is so essential to keeping your performance up in sports. Even the conservative guys at the NSCA recommend keeping an athletes fat above 30% to optimize sports performance.
As for carbs, when applied to a low carb environment they have a great effect on giving you that boost in glyco for the next couple days of harder training. If they were randomly present at about 20-30% of your diet i am positive that they would not be converted half as easy into glycogen for muscle use. no body on a regular carb diet can get a carb load effect.
As for protein, it never really goes lower than .7-.8g/lb which is fine for only three days max and one day only near the end. I mean i gained muscle on the get shredded diet last year and that has you at .7g/lb for 2 weeks. It’s the high fat that spares the muscle loss and facilitates new growth due to the awesome hormone levels you can maintain from high fat intake.
So basically i think that the RKD i as good as any and worth a try. The get shredded diet might be more effective but less fun. I prefer to go with the experience of field tested advice of other coaches over the pseudo-scientific pontification of a 20 year old dude on the internet who has no rep or background in the making-people-strong business. And he wont even drag up that old calorie balancing science article because he knows that it has more holes than a DVDA film. What’s he busy doing, play WOW?
Naw dude. I think you need to try some shit out before you say it’s wrong.
-chris
This a good thread.