[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
pumped340 wrote:
why would that be if you believe high intensity work can be maintained on low carbs?
Intensity CAN be maintained. But doing too much high-intensity work can lead to muscle breakdown.
Why? Because the body will breakdown amino acids to produce glucose (neoglucogenesis) to restore glycogen stores.
NOW… if a perfect low-carbs post-workout strategy is used (0.3g/pound of protein, 0.2g/per pound of glutamine, 0.1g/per pound of glycine) this potential problem can be avoided since the glutamine and glycine will be used to restore muscle glycogen. However if one doesn’t use this strategy there is a risk of breaking down muscle tissue to restore glycogen.
If one would only perform 400m running it wouldn’t be such a big problem, however if strength training is added into the mix then it might become problematic.
Understand this… YES intensity can be maintained once you are fat adapted. YES switching primarily to fat for fuel WILL spare muscle glycogen stores. But if you perform an excessively high amount of high-intensity work you WILL eventually deplete glycogen stores even in a fat adapted state.
So it’s not a matter of maintaining exercise intensity… the body is a marvel at surviving, so it WILL find a way to function. The problem is one of recovery.
BTW, this problem (breaking down muscle tissue) can even occur when on a moderate carbs diet if the amount of high-intensity work is excessive.
Now try to get this into your brain so that you wont misinterpret everything again… EVERY TIME you are dieting down (meaning that you are consuming an energetic deficit) there is a risk of losing muscle tissue (breaking down muscle tissue into amino acids, then producing glucose from the amino acids). This is true regardless of the type of diet you follow.
The reason why I recommend against doing 400m running WHEN DIETING DOWN is to minimize the risk of losing muscle by resorting to neoglucogenesis. I’m not saying that doing high intensity energy systems work while dieting down WILL lead to muscle loss. I’m only saying that the RISK of muscle loss is greater.[/quote]
OK i understand. The reason i asked was because you said IF they are not on low carbs so it appeared you were pointing out low carbs for a reason compared to a diet higher in carbs
[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
pumped340 wrote:
hopefully he understands what im trying to say
This is the kind of comment that will get you banned from my ‘‘guys I give answers to’’ list.[/quote]
sorry that was more as a “hopefully he wont think im misinterpreting it” answer