[quote]ask anyone who has ever dieted to get into the low bodyfat numbers.
[/quote]Hahhahahahahahahhaha
obviously comming from someone who wasnt following bodybuilding etc in the early 80s to early 90s.
what happened in the 80’s and 90’s doesnt matter to me.
i know from personal experience that not only can i lose more bf on a low to no carb diet, but i can also consume MORE calories and still lose the fat.
oh yeah and just about every other person on this site seems to agree.
i thought the whole idea of this site was to improve our knowledge on these subjects through technology and practical experience?
if we simply followed what every bodybuilder of the past did we would still be using cybergenics and 5000 calorie “mass” gain shakes.
Hmm, generally the mainstream institutions teach and favor knowledge from previous decades. Also, generally, we keep finding out that previous generations were fucktards in their understanding of things.
If you don’t remember, technology was going to be the great savior. It brought things like DDT, nuclear power plants and the television. While I enjoy whacking off to pornos as much as the next man, I don’t think the whole issue was understood when everyone bought into these concepts.
If both sides of the debate can quit beating their respective chests or dicks or whatever they are beating, it might dawn on them that we just don’t fucking know it all yet. The next generation will come along and call us a bunch of stupid fucktards that played with half an idea and got it all wrong.
Our current ideas and recommendations will be such as disco. Thankfully forgotten and hidden away as an embarrassment to society.
Maybe a partial example if you don’t quite follow. In the medical profession, we often apply drugs to solve problems. We don’t give a flying fuck what the underlying problem is, but there is a symptom we can attack.
Of course, the untreated underlying etiology keeps raising new symptoms. We take drug cocktails to keep fighting those nasty symptoms, but somehow we don’t really achieve health. Whoa, big surprise.
So, my personal take, and feel free to call me a stupid fucktard, that seems to be the practice for making those with an opinion relent and agree, is that we need lots of antioxidants, vitamins, minerals, proteins and fats to keep the body healthy. I know these is tedious and boring, but bear with me a moment okay?
EAT SOME FUCKING FOOD THAT GIVES YOU THIS GOOD STUFF.
And, I have to say, the idea that early mankind didn’t have access to refined foods and large quantities of carbohydrates as we do now is a very appealing argument to me. We could however fish, kill other animals and grab the odd fruit and vegetable when we found it – but we always had to work for it.
Maybe the work is more important than the precise composition of the foods if we get away from the hyper-anal consideration of the fastest method of adding a bit of muscle or losing a bit of fat? We just don’t have enough knowledge yet to draw final conclusions.
Damn, I wrote a book. Sorry.
Vroom
I want to say a couple of things:
-
This has been an interesting thread but I’d much rather read debates btwn individuals with a good grasp of the scientific method and of research literature… Having someone on the side of science and someone on the side of “real world” practice (maybe studies are conducted in a fake world?) doesn’t lead to the most productive of threads… “I’m right 'cause your stupid AND 'cause I’m right”.
-
You don’t have to agree with everything you read because it is published in a “scientific” journal; thinking critically is an integral part of science. But if you don’t agree with the conclusions drawn by the authors of a study then present a more plausible explanation for the data.
PDog, thank you for providing your lovely n=1 experimental data, now show the class how you controlled everything to show the difference between a higher carb and a low carb diet. How did you control daily activities, calorie intake (i hope you took your duplicate food intake and had it measured several times to reduce error), what statistics did you use to try and eliminate the effect of chance on the exercise?
But we know exactly what you did, you ate a diet that you think is potentially around a certain number of calories, and then you changed in during a different training period, with different volume of activity, with different cardio volume, and different supplementation program and then decided that this provided an improved fat loss.
also when did I say to follow what they did in the past?
I was just highlighting that througout the extremely high carb era of the 80s, somehow, people magically got lean even with high carbs diets.
Why?
becuase its calories that are most important.
If you look at hte work from cordain et al and even earlier, humans wouldnt have evolved without them starting to eat protein and large quantities of fat (a lot of marrow and the likes).
Before the harvesting of grain, humans would eat whatever they found (more scavengers than hunters), and basically this meant a rather seasonal approach to food intake, whatever they found they could eat, be it veges, greens, tubors, fruits, meat, fat etc.
Just becuase this is what humans found and (current research shows we) evolved on, doesnt mean its the best food for every occasion.
Looking around the relatively recent world, various populations have rather different food choices, ranging from higher carb asain diets, to moderately high polynesian, to the more rich, early european sources that had access to more processed items, also there is a variety of low carb areas that pocket hte world, like the inuit, who live in an environment that doesnt allow a large amount of CHO sources, but they still had time in the summer to get soem fruits. Masai adn similar in africa ate a low carb diet, even tho relatively close tribes would eat higher carb.
What this shows is that humans are rather adaptable to various food supplies, and we needed to be in order to evolve at the rate they have.
“becuase its calories that are most important.”
have you read these?
Wow, thanks for providing that.
Do you believe everything berardi writes?
Now show the research that shows all of it matters (outside of adequate protein intake)
and before you cite the few studies that berardi has referenced
Explain to me what was wrong with his commentary of the Demila study (the police officers one)
and the Agus? (low GI vs high GI one)
:)~
so in essence, berardi is full of shit?
In the two papers mentioned, I dont know what he was doing. Both show a non-statistically significant difference (in the diet side of the demila study, the other side of it is more interesting ie the whey/casien side of things), yet he claims a difference on both.
You can’t look at professional bodybuilders to try to determine what a good diet is. Many of them use drugs to maintain their lbm while they drop their calories to drastic levels.
That being said, do you know of anyone who had success with a high carb diet? I don’t.
Look back through T-Mag. How many high carb diets for fat loss did they print? I don’t remember reading any.
im just trying to figure out your stance here so let me ask another question.
are you saying that a calorie is a calorie is a calorie?
bodybuilders of the 80’s and 90’s eh? Thats usually where I get all my diet & training info…I also get my clothing and hair style from said bodybuilders.
Jeff, I have talked to you before. I havent delt with bbrs since i shifted about 5 years ago, but before then I delt with tehm on a weekly basis for about 8 years, as well as talking to them prior to then 
Amatuer bbrs all thru the 1980s ate high carb (and some of them ate extremely high carb).
About the only piece of research on ‘drug free’ - he won the ARnold the only year it was drug testedhigh class bodybuilders was on was Mike Ashley, who ate a high carbohydrate, high fat (MCT) diet
other research on female bbrs also showed them eating high carb diets
Wow, the results from the Berardi articles aren’t statistically significant? That’s sort of disturbing.
[quote]are you saying that a calorie is a calorie is a calorie? [/quote]Not exactly, there will be some effect other than their caloric value, due to specific roles within the body, in terms of protein and protein balance etc. But in terms of fat loss, you cannot ignore caloric balance, and different diet composition (outside of adequate protein) doesnt appear to make any significant difference.
and Zulu
I cant say all the papers ignore the stats, but for some reason those two he did.
“But in terms of fat loss, you cannot ignore caloric balance”
agreed, that is a given. but you cant ignore insulin either.
I think that the importance that insulin is given by many people here is overated.
For example as far as i know only small amounts of insulin are needed to supress fat burning, these small levels can be elicited with protein, ie a P+F meal may cause an insulin increase high enough to blunt fat burning and cause fat deposition.
Also ASP (acylation stimulating protein) is responsible for fat deposition and is insulin independant.
“That being said, do you know of anyone who had success with a high carb diet? I don’t.”
For fat loss there probably arent any but if you look at what cyco has said throughout this entire thread low carb diets are effective but mainly because they are anorectic and easier to eat lower calories with… Also if you are going to be really stupid and take things to extremes and do a high carb diet and consume no fat then the high fat diet will be better for testosterone production…
I also think that many people here are confusing recomendations for the general populace to lose weight and getting cut/ripped…
Morg i did some thinking about what you were saying with high vs low carb diets and how different people will interpret them differently… You used the sausages vs donouts/rice crisps or something argument… One of the things that stands out to me is that most people dont see the recomended diet as high carb. I think that most people still have a fixation with fat and when ever i talk to people about stuff im kinda intrigued. I mean here the focus is generally on carbs people talk about high and low carb diets… But when i talk with the general public the emphasis is on fat and they talk about high and low fat diets… Also keep in mind that what most people define as fat isnt always actually fat… (I had when she said that fish was low in fat, when really she was saying that it is healthy). Anyway in my experience (all be it quite limited) it is better to have people focus on removing something (fat and remember fat is often misintrepreted as junk food whether it is actually high in fat or not) rather then adding it…
I guess if people had a fixation with carbs and saw things in terms of high and low carb and often misinterpreted carbs for junk food then i would often give people different advice.
[quoteagreed, that is a given. but you cant ignore insulin either. [/quote]but worrying incessently about it thinking its the only matter of when fat is burnt nad when its not is nearly a waste of time. THe body is adapted to store fat from any source it can, because if it couldnt wouldnt have survived this long. (hence ASP and the likes)
There is plenty of research showing that high carb low fat diets reduce fat mass, the same with low carb, high fat diets. Which one anyone uses is a matter of personal preferance and metablolic requirements (what their energy requirements are etc). I dont think an extremely low carb diet is required for anyone, especially if they carb limits allow precious little veges/fruits
Cyco, so please tell me what happens to carbohydrates that are consumed and not burned when your glycogen levels are already saturated.