where do i begin?
I dont buy the insulin-argument. Sure, insulin will turn carbs into fat, but 90% of your dietary fat is stored in your body anyway, right? Healthwise it might be a difference since carbs are stored as saturated fat, but energywise it doesnt really matter.
I know that high-fat diet makes you satuated and remove cravings, but my question is what makes a PF-diet more efficent (effective?) than a PC-diet, given that the total kcal and protein-intake remains the same. Thermodynamically I just cant see how its possible, the first law of TD can`t be broken. That is, energy output subtracted energy input equals the loss of stored energy in the control volume (the body). This stored energy can come from glycogen, fat or protein (muscles). So, the only thing that can make a PF-diet superior is less loss of muscle.
Btw, I think the most important reason the Atkins diet has proved so effective, is that people just eat less on it. I know that when I go keto, its hard to consume more than 2000 kcal, whereas if I can eat carbs I easily can kill of 4000 kcal! Its no magic formula, just calories spent versus calories consumed (after all, these people are just after loss of weight, with no concern if the weight is muscle, fat or water).
Regarding John Berardi, I found an old post by him on the forum (from 13/11/00):
"Hey all, Ive got a bone to pick…I havent been on the forum lately b/c Ive been working on some things that you all will appreciate when done, but I gotta say something about this low carb dieting fad that’s running rampant. I keep getting emails about and keep reading posts on this and other forums about the anabolic diet, the cyclic ketogenic diet, Poliquin and Serrano’s diets. All of these diets share the same principles (essentially). And when I say this, Im not referring to the fact that they all make you hungry all the time, the fact that they all make you pissed off all the time, the fact that they make you feel like shit all the time, or the fact that they essentially ensure that you probably will lose muscle and the fact that you certainly dont gain muscle while on them. Oh wait a minute…yes I am referring to all that!
Now let me clarify before you take out your rocks and stone me for heresy. These diets are fine for a month or so. Maybe even two months after you’ve gotten fatter than you should have and then need to lean out. But guys are following them indefinately. And they are trying to make them a lifestyle. I have BIG issues with that.
First, although these diets are offered up by “experts”, I can assure you that there is little to no scientific data to support them for use in the long term. There is especially no data to support claims of anticatabolism and anabolism, etc. In addition, taking 50-100 g of glutamine per day is also completely theoretical and downright physiologically scary. Please dont make me out to be too conservative here b/c Im anything but that. There is nothing conservative about trying to help guys see that these diets are too extreme and might not help put on any muscle at all. My goal is to show people that muscle gain is contingent on adequate carbs, plenty of protein, and lots of good fats.
What I am contending is that these low carb diets may be counterproductive but at the very least, may not offer any advantage over a more sane approach like 40%p, 30%c, and 30%f. Now, in my book, if they offer no benefit over a diet that does have carbs in it, they are a huge failure because of the suffering that low carb dieting entails.
My point is that readers of t-mag and other pubs seem to be brainwashed that low carb dieting is the only way to get big, or is it ripped, or is it both? See what I mean? People think these diets can get them big or ripped or both. Which is it? I contend that they wont get you big. And I contend that although they may help you lose fat in the short run (1 month or so), they are counterproductive if followed long term. So basically why not trying an eating program that is effective over the long haul? This way you dont have to low carb diet away the fat…go nuts while doing this…rebound afterwards and pig out on carbs…get fat again…and repeat the cycle. Im talking about a lifestyle diet that is gradually shifted during mass phases and diet phases, but universally follows sound eating principles.
Or you could just keep feeling like shit, low carb dieting, feeling guilty cause you cant stick to it for months on end, etc.
God, I feel like the “Stop the Insanity” chick! But I do think people are being misled with the low carb diets and need a better approach."
Now this argument has shifted in a third direction. It started with the simple question of “why do low carb diets work - and I’m not talking about keto diets.” Then it moved to a discussion between restricted carb diets and keto diets. And now, it’s moved to a discussion of whether low carb dieting is the answer to gain mass or should be used as a lifetime strategy.
Berardi’s whole focus (it seems) is on insulin management, which he says is done by manipulating carbohydrate intake, right? He says right out that insulin is a double edged sword…it is highly anabolic AND can make you fat.
Nobody that I know of has ever claimed that low/no carb diets are good for building mass and strength. The most popular carb restricted diet aimed at gaining mass that I know of is Dipasquale’s Anabolic Diet, and the guy uses weekend carb ups to provide an ‘anabolic rebound effect.’ To me, the only difference between Dipasquale’s diet, which was considered radical, and Berardi’s diets is timing…The Anabolic Diet is p+f all week and p+c on weekends - Berardi is p+f and p+c meals placed strategically within one day. Both diets center around insulin management. Neither state that eating no carbs for long periods of time is going to be a good long-term approach or that it’ll gain mass. They both take advantage of carbs, just at different times.
I’m an idiot. I totally missed the “not talking about keto diets here” line.
Here is a good one:
Dont reply if you have no clue what you are talking about. This is intended to be in general and not focused at any individual.
Lyle McDonald provides the answer to your question in his new book “Ultimate Diet 2.0”
Ok, Im not trying to become the new NeilG or anything. Its just that thermodynamics are my main subject in university, and I`m really curious how low-carbing can yield better results than say low-fat diets without messing with the first law of thermodynamics.