[quote]B rocK wrote:
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.[/quote]
Not sure i agree with this, or why you wrote it, but even if it is true, is it worse than just following something because you want to?
[quote]Avocado wrote:
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[/quote]
Standing ovation
The bottom line here is you should provide constructive feedback and support for the fellow members rather than antagonizing them. Experimenting with different combination of macronutrients, calories, diets, etc is HEALTHY and I applaud anyone that thinks outside the box wrt diets. Might as well be proactive and give something a shot to see if it works. Look at Jared from Subway, shit! Look at the Beast Evolves…different strokes for different folks. Can’t we all just get along?
JMo your conventional dieting approach might work for the average person, but likely won’t get results as quickly as any CKD or Thib’s Regressive Keto Cycle…are you being paid by the USDA to share your knowledge with the bodybuilding community or something? My BMI is over 25, should I be ascared?
[quote]phatkins187 wrote:
Avocado wrote:
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
Standing ovation
The bottom line here is you should provide constructive feedback and support for the fellow members rather than antagonizing them. Experimenting with different combination of macronutrients, calories, diets, etc is HEALTHY and I applaud anyone that thinks outside the box wrt diets. Might as well be proactive and give something a shot to see if it works. Look at Jared from Subway, shit! Look at the Beast Evolves…different strokes for different folks. Can’t we all just get along?
JMo your conventional dieting approach might work for the average person, but likely won’t get results as quickly as any CKD or Thib’s Regressive Keto Cycle…are you being paid by the USDA to share your knowledge with the bodybuilding community or something? My BMI is over 25, should I be ascared?[/quote]
He is likely a baker or grain farmer. I wonder if he buys the “soy is good for you” science that’s in the same book as his “just lower the cals and keep the protein high” science.
Basically the dude [Jmoblah87] is advocating weight watchers or the zone. he uses all their same back up.
-chris
Holy crap.
Would like to also add to what avocado said:
This diet and its macros are REALLY easy to work out and anyone who struggles at all with the math and food prep probably has no buisness trying to hack appart other peoples opinions.
On an unrelated note: Tanita scales are pissing me off - epic water/glycogen loss means that bodyfat is actually appearing HIGHER! Although monday after the “carb up” should give a reading closer to what I can expect if were on normal macros.
[quote]benmoore wrote:
Holy crap.
Would like to also add to what avocado said:
This diet and its macros are REALLY easy to work out and anyone who struggles at all with the math and food prep probably has no buisness trying to hack appart other peoples opinions.
On an unrelated note: Tanita scales are pissing me off - epic water/glycogen loss means that bodyfat is actually appearing HIGHER! Although monday after the “carb up” should give a reading closer to what I can expect if were on normal macros.[/quote]
LOL. Tanita fail. that EI testing BS does not work. do not even look at a tanita scale for the next month, or ever. it is total BS and not even close to correct. Either go get a real BF%check with DEXA, electro-calipers or displacement or dont worry about BF% at all. Just take your waist ad other measurements and compare at the end of the month.
I should make a world wide anti tanita PSA.
-chris
I’m with you on the anti-Tanita agenda. If I was a less informed person, that little machine would have me believing I’m carrying around 56 pounds of fat.
[quote]esk221 wrote:
I’m with you on the anti-Tanita agenda. If I was a less informed person, that little machine would have me believing I’m carrying around 56 pounds of fat.[/quote]
Seems to be a good way to track hydration levels at least.
nope. not really. what the fuck does hyration matter any how. so long as your body is getting enough salt and water it will hydrate what it needs and piss the rest. the hydration in your muscles is a different story but still cannot be explained through means of a tanita.
-chris
[quote]esk221 wrote:
This a good thread.[/quote]
Butter on your popcorn, my good man?
[quote]esk221 wrote:
I’m with you on the anti-Tanita agenda. If I was a less informed person, that little machine would have me believing I’m carrying around 56 pounds of fat.[/quote]
It ain’t baby fat, Fatty Fatterson!
I’m sorry but I had to jump in on this. JMoUCF87 is 100% correct on everything he has said. As long as protein is high enough, calories are low enough, and the person is doing weight training, your body doesn’t care one bit what the rest of the calories are made up from.
Also, people do protein sparing modified fast’s all the time. This is a diet made up of only protein. These people’s body’s do not magically start eating protein. Protein is the most important nutrient in the body (other than water plus the fats and other substances making up our internal organs) and must be spared above all others.
The reason for this is that without protein in our bodies (i.e. muscles) we wouldn’t be able to walk, run, lift weights… or from an evolutionary standpoint… pickup a stick and kill an animal or try to get away from a predator.
It’s almost obvious when you think about it that there is no way in hell our bodies would evolve to burn this nutrient which is the most important factor in whether we get our next meal or not.
Please think things through before you take someone’s word for it.
[quote]Bizmark wrote:
I’m sorry but I had to jump in on this. JMoUCF87 is 100% correct on everything he has said. As long as protein is high enough, calories are low enough, and the person is doing weight training, your body doesn’t care one bit what the rest of the calories are made up from.
Also, people do protein sparing modified fast’s all the time. This is a diet made up of only protein. These people’s body’s do not magically start eating protein. Protein is the most important nutrient in the body (other than water plus the fats and other substances making up our internal organs) and must be spared above all others.
The reason for this is that without protein in our bodies (i.e. muscles) we wouldn’t be able to walk, run, lift weights… or from an evolutionary standpoint… pickup a stick and kill an animal or try to get away from a predator.
It’s almost obvious when you think about it that there is no way in hell our bodies would evolve to burn this nutrient which is the most important factor in whether we get our next meal or not.
Please think things through before you take someone’s word for it.
[/quote]
Are you suggesting there is no such thing as protein/muscle catabolism occurring in our bodies?
[quote]toocul4u wrote:
Bizmark wrote:
I’m sorry but I had to jump in on this. JMoUCF87 is 100% correct on everything he has said. As long as protein is high enough, calories are low enough, and the person is doing weight training, your body doesn’t care one bit what the rest of the calories are made up from.
Also, people do protein sparing modified fast’s all the time. This is a diet made up of only protein. These people’s body’s do not magically start eating protein. Protein is the most important nutrient in the body (other than water plus the fats and other substances making up our internal organs) and must be spared above all others.
The reason for this is that without protein in our bodies (i.e. muscles) we wouldn’t be able to walk, run, lift weights… or from an evolutionary standpoint… pickup a stick and kill an animal or try to get away from a predator.
It’s almost obvious when you think about it that there is no way in hell our bodies would evolve to burn this nutrient which is the most important factor in whether we get our next meal or not.
Please think things through before you take someone’s word for it.
Are you suggesting there is no such thing as protein/muscle catabolism occurring in our bodies?
[/quote]
This should be interesting.
oh boy here we go, ding ding ROUND 2 lol
gentlemen choose your weapons, grab your popcorn, this is could take a while!
[quote]Bizmark wrote:
I’m sorry but I had to jump in on this. JMoUCF87 is 100% correct on everything he has said. As long as protein is high enough, calories are low enough, and the person is doing weight training, your body doesn’t care one bit what the rest of the calories are made up from.
Also, people do protein sparing modified fast’s all the time. This is a diet made up of only protein. These people’s body’s do not magically start eating protein. Protein is the most important nutrient in the body (other than water plus the fats and other substances making up our internal organs) and must be spared above all others.
The reason for this is that without protein in our bodies (i.e. muscles) we wouldn’t be able to walk, run, lift weights… or from an evolutionary standpoint… pickup a stick and kill an animal or try to get away from a predator.
It’s almost obvious when you think about it that there is no way in hell our bodies would evolve to burn this nutrient which is the most important factor in whether we get our next meal or not.
Please think things through before you take someone’s word for it.
[/quote]
Um, yes your body does care where the other calories come from. I have tried the typical low fat, moderate carb, mod-high pro approach when dieting once and lost EVERYTHING, both muscle and fat. As I have said, this may work for some, but NOT ALL.
My simple argument is that there is NO one and only answer. Everybody will respond differently to different macro nutrient ratios. I once believed the same crap, as long as in a calorie deficit, you will lose fat, bla bla. Sorry, didn’t work for me…I finally found that I have major issues with insulin and hence why I respon best to low carbs, both when gaining muscle and losing fat. Your diet is dictated by your hormonal profile.
Not that I want to get into an argument about this, BUT at the moment, I eat under 30g carbs a day and am gaining muscle, whilst losing fat! This is obviously due to choosing the right type of training for me.
I try and stay away from the forums, but when this dude JMo jumps in telling everyone HOW IT IS…it makes me wonder. He probably thinks he knows everything, about everything and thats the end of it.
Anyway,
GJ
I think that this is pretty much fundamentally true. With your low carb vs your low fat diet gymjunkie, were the calories the same? Grams of protein the same? So, were you (for arguements sake) on 2500 cals, 250g protein, 150g fat and 30g carbs for the low carb, compared to 2500 cals 250g protein, 30g fat and 307g carbs?
Was your training the same both times? Did you alter any variables at all? Sleep different? Supplements different?
Sure, people do respond differently to some degree but I don’t believe that it would be SUCH a dramatic difference as to preclude one diet entirely and have the other act like magic.
I think that this is pretty much fundamentally true. With your low carb vs your low fat diet gymjunkie, were the calories the same? Grams of protein the same? So, were you (for arguements sake) on 2500 cals, 250g protein, 150g fat and 30g carbs for the low carb, compared to 2500 cals 250g protein, 30g fat and 307g carbs?
Was your training the same both times? Did you alter any variables at all? Sleep different? Supplements different?
Sure, people do respond differently to some degree but I don’t believe that it would be SUCH a dramatic difference as to preclude one diet entirely and have the other act like magic.
[quote]danchubb wrote:
As long as protein is high enough, calories are low enough
I think that this is pretty much fundamentally true. With your low carb vs your low fat diet gymjunkie, were the calories the same? Grams of protein the same? So, were you (for arguements sake) on 2500 cals, 250g protein, 150g fat and 30g carbs for the low carb, compared to 2500 cals 250g protein, 30g fat and 307g carbs?
Was your training the same both times? Did you alter any variables at all? Sleep different? Supplements different?
Sure, people do respond differently to some degree but I don’t believe that it would be SUCH a dramatic difference as to preclude one diet entirely and have the other act like magic. [/quote]
Yes, the MAIN change was the different macro ratio. I.e I ate the same amount of CALORIES when dieting. On low carb, I took in higher fats and both times I ate 1.5g/lb of protein. When on lower carbs, I did not lose anywhere near the same amount of muscle or and strength, compared to when of low fat, moderate carbs energy intake. As I have mentioned, some people respond far better than others to low carbs, due to perhaps not been as insulin sensitive…
A simple test, that many(Poliquin) have suggested, is to wake up have a BIG high carb breakfast and see if you full of energy or not. Do the same, but with a higher protein, higher fat brekfast and compare. I personally would fall right back off to sleep after the high carbs, but after a meat and nuts breakfast, am full on energy and destroy in the gym an hour later(6am).
I have since learned far more, about food choice, i.e eating more higher quality meat, veggies etc, fixing certain deficencies I had, re zinc, mag etc and am currenly making the best progress of my life.
GJ
[quote]Bizmark wrote:
As long as protein is high enough, calories are low enough, and the person is doing weight training, your body doesn’t care one bit what the rest of the calories are made up from.
[/quote]
False.
That’s an interesting result; as a complete polar opposite I’ve heard of people who can ‘flip flop’ their macros whenever they feel like (within reason) to either high carb or high fat.