Coach Thib's Nutrition Log/Thoughts

thank you

Ok, I’m officially starting the Velocity Diet today.

For the past 3 days I essentially eased into it by reducing my meals to 2 (breakfast and evening meal) along with two pulses, from 4-5 solid meals a day.

I’m not a superhero or any different than the average person who wants to lose fat. In fact, in many regards, I’m worse: I have a very bad relationship with food developed during a childhood of emotional eating.

I’m someone who eats for emotional support and out of boredom. And the fact that I do train a lot and am quite active (weight training session pretty much daily right now, golf 3-4 times a week and walking at least 10 000 steps a day, most of the time wearing a weight vest, and doing some conditioning here and there) allows me to avoid the visual/aesthetics of eating crap

When I “turn it on” and decide to dedicate myself to proper eating and making all the efforts to get as lean as possible I’m like a machine. BUT it’s kinda hard for me to get there without a strong incentive (not merely a goal, but a goal that will have repercussions if I don’t achieve it. Like planning a business photoshoot).

It is especially hard for me to transition to a somewhat strict way of eating when I’m eating anything I want, mostly for pleasure.

Doing it cold turkey doesn’t work for me. This is why I gave myself a few days to adjust and decided to only start when I felt ready.

And that’s today.

I will provide you with weight updates, and maybe even a picture here and there (I HATE posting pics). I will provide two different body weights:

  • Upon waking up
  • Before the solid meal

The reason for this is that I find that on a diet like the Velocity Diet (or intermittent fasting) my body weight fluctuates a lot during the day. And the morning weight will be heavily impacted by my solid meal.

Providing two different weights will help understand what’s going on a bit better. For example, this morning I was 207lbs upon waking, for a 210lbs weight at bedtime yesterday, but I’m 203lbs right now (and still have a few hours before my solid meal) because I had an intense range session focusing on maximum distance with the driver in very hot weather and then had a deadlift workout (I would normally do the opposite, but fatherhood sometimes come with surprises).

So I have not fully rehydrated yet and my glycogen stores are fairly low.



I believe that the worse time to start a “diet” is on a Monday.

I don’t know why but people have this impression that they should start their diet when the week start. And if they fail to get on board on that first day (which happens to most… many, including myself need a transition) they get the “I’ll start over next Monday” mindset kick in, because in their mind you need to start your diet on a Monday.

And then they proceed to eat like crap for the whole week because in their mind, next Monday they start over so better enjoy life while you can!

If you take out this Start of diet = Monday connection, it’s much easier to keep trying to do better the day after you did a less than perfect diet initiation.


CT, any specific reason you chose the Velocity Diet over other methods(calorie restriction, vertical diet, etc, etc)?

It’s the way my brain is wired.

Some people can’t do extreme and others can’t do moderate.

I’m the latest type.

Any “balanced” diet is doomed to fail for me. The more extreme it is, oddly, the better it works.

I’m also wired for very short (3-6 weeks) but very intense fat loss phases.

Lastly, I need to be excited by a concept to want to do it and stick with it. Just eating “normally” but with less calories doesn’t do it for me.


@Tim_Patterson and I had been discussing Protein Pulsing recently, and I was curious as to your thoughts on pulse spacing.

I read your Pulse Feast article and saw that it lines up pretty well with the V-Diet, except that you opt for ‘pulses’ 4-5 hours apart (and they were Mag-10 when written) and have less Pulses throughout the day. I don’t want this to come off as me saying “b b but you said…” because I know it annoys you (it would annoy me too), I just want to know your current thoughts. Do you think there are different applications for the V-Diet vs the Pulse Feast?

Lastly, thank you for making this log; I’m sure it’s a pain to not only log food, but to answer all of our nitty gritty questions. Getting a glimpse into your methods is a learning experience that carries value beyond measure.

For comparison (for others):
V-Diet 4.0:

Pulse Feast:

The best image I can give you is having two training programs based on the same principles but that are slightly different in applications.

And, I’m not gonna lie, the Pulse feast approach was:

  1. My first application of a theoretical concept that had not been tested in real life before. It worked really well, but it was still the first iteration.

  2. The Pulse feast has. slightly different objective: fixing the limitations of intermittent fasting while keeping the spirit alive. I had been a big fan of the original intermittent fasting approach, which was first published in T Nation (The Warrior’s diet series). It always worked well with my psychological profile, made me feel awesome and productive during the day and get lean while having the freedom to eat (within reason) what I wanted. BUT it never worked to build muscle. The Pulse Feast’s objective was to fix that. And I theorized (key word) that casein hydrolysate (Mag-10) would work better because of its super rapid absorption. But I found that it often led to reactive hypoglycemia due to the very high leucine content and fast absorption.


Do you think the Pulse Feast could work effectively as a substitute to the V-Diet if Mag-10 were changed out for Metabolic Drive? I mean, we’re only talking the difference between 2 and 4 pulses a day (and a larger HSM +supps), but some of us (me) don’t have space to bring 3 full shakers to work with us :sweat_smile:

Between you and Tim, I’m becoming convinced that I should follow in your footsteps - although I’m not sure if I’d rather follow the V-Diet or alter the Pulse Feast to have Metabolic Drive instead of Mag-10… The small HSM in V-Diet is a bit of a turn-off, but I’m in it for the Feast! I think it would fit in well with lifestyle and mental hurdles of dieting for me.

Well, one thing I told Tim is that unless you are someone with an eating disorder (of the binge eating type) it will be very hard to eat too much in that one solid meal. Of course, if you make that meal pizza, ice cream, pastries and other fast food you can kill your fat loss, but that’s not what I’m talking about.

I personally like the Warrior’s diet approach of structuring your meal in a way that will prevent you from binging out on crap, but still allow to have some if you want.

  • Start with a solid protein food (at least 6-8oz, ideally more)
  • Then have a decent portion of veggies
  • Third is your main carb source for the meal, either starchy carbs (rice, potatoes, yams…) or fruits
  • Then, after that, if you are still hungry you can have some pleasure foods

Obviously steps 1-3 must be of normal/decent portions otherwise it defeats the purpose.

That structure, along with the Metabolic Drive pulsing (which is more filling than Mag-10 was), Flameout and Superfood, you should not be hungry enough to abuse pleasure foods at your meal.


Hi Chris, I read that most of the time you don´t track or weigh your food, but when you track because you are on a strict diet or preparing for a shoot etc.

-do you always weigh your protein cooked or raw, regardless if you eat lean chicken breast or lean sirloin or fattier cuts like beef shanks, ribeye whatever (on carnivore for example)?



Went over your recent article “The Bulking Diet: Necessary or Nonsense?”. It raises the question of fighting the up hill battle or the path of least resistance for us in our mid 40’s. I hit my genetic potential in late 20’s and averaged 205lbs at around 10-15% body fat at 6’ 2”. The 30’s were rough with car accidents, surgeries, kids, etc and mid 40’s leaves me around 160 and still in that 10-15% body fat. Try to bulk or just take lean and ripped which is way easier? Bulking now is so much harder!

One thing I always say is that bulking is a young man’s game.

There are a few things that come with aging (hormonal balance changes, systemic inflammation, anabolic resistance and lower insulin sensitivity, for example) that make “bulking” a lot less effective (meaning that it will not contribute as much to added muscle and will lead to more fat gain than in younger populations).

Not to mention that bulking, especially if using processed foods or a very large surplus, can lead to higher blood pressure, poor lipid profile, and worse insulin sensitivity. Things that will hit an older population a lot harder.

Finally, a caloric surplus (especially if its large) can speed up cellular aging via a constant mTOR activation due to insulin.

It is my belief (read my Eternal Warrior article) that as you get older you should focus more on leanness than “getting hyouge”. That doesn’t mean not focusing on lifting, quite the contrary. But focus on improving overall function (strength, power, endurance, resistance, mobility, etc.) not just building muscle.

It does require a mental shift which isn’t always fun to do and, to be honest, most can’t do it.


Honestly, I don’t think it matters much FOR ME as long as I do it the same way every time.

But to be totally honest even when dieting down I don’t always weigh my food. I’m a repetitive eater: I always eat the same things day-in and day-out when I diet down, so it is very easy for me to adjust my intake even without measuring it.

With most people I do recommend logging in your food when dieting down. Especially if you have variation in your diet.

I’m not gonna lie, it’s just a huge annoyance for me. It isn’t for everyone and honestly, if you can measure and log in your food intake when dieting down without it impacting your motivation, it will be very beneficial. But for ME the drawback surpasses the benefits. I will normally do it for the first 1-2 weeks. But after that I’m pretty accurate with estimating measurements. And really, since daily caloric expenditure varies WIDELY from day to day, even if you seemingly do the same things, I question the benefit of being accurate to the gram or calorie with your food intake. Being “in the proper ballpark” is likely enough.

Anyway, back to your question, in theory it would be better to weigh your food cooked as even two pieces of meat of the same raw weight can be different once cooked due to slightly different water content.


  1. If you are anal about hitting your exact macros and calories (which I am not… again… ballpark) then it can mean having to either throw away some of the cooked food or having to cook some more after the fact.

  2. While there are some minor differences in water content between pieces of the same meat, that difference is very likely insignificant. For example, let’s say that you have two 200g pieces of tenderloin. When they are cooked one might be 175g and the other one 182g. Worrying about the 15kcals, 1.5g or fat and 1.3g of protein difference is a borderline mental disorder.

  3. And even then, the caloric/nutrient content given on the label or chart is an estimation for that type of meat and cut. It’s an average. In reality, the pieces you buy from the grocery will be off in calories, fat and protein by several percent compared to the label. IMHO this makes it even more pointless to be precise to the gram since you don’t even know the exact nutrient content of that specific piece.

  4. The food labels (either on the package or online charts) for meats are calculated (estimated, really) from RAW weight. While the actual protein, fat, and caloric content might vary slightly once cooked, it is insignificant.

For those reasons, when I weigh my food, I weigh it raw.


thanks for your response. I never expected such a detailed and precised answer. I appreciate you! thank you!

I watched a few other videos on this topic and did research on google because there are two different claims

Claim one

always track your protein like chicken raw, because during the cooking process it evaporates water. Use the nutrition facts from raw weight

Claim 2

when possible base off of cooked weight with meat. Way too many variables with uncooked as water content varies so much, so you can never be certain of end weight. Weigh it after cooling and use nutrition facts from references for cooked weight

Ethan Chlebowski, a famous YouTuber inspired me to do a test.

I cooked two identical chicken breasts at the same time, with a temperature thermometer to an internal temperature 155, both 100g, from two different brands. Everything was exactly the same, temperature before cooking, NO SALT (which makes a hell of a difference in the end depending when and how much you salt) etc.

One chicken breast lost 12% water

The other breast lost 20% water

Like I said, both breast weighed 100g RAW before cooking

When I track these measurements into my calorie counting app, then obviously, they don’t match and when I log in breast one cooked weight and then breast two cooked weight, I will get two different numbers, different calories, protein, fat because one lost 12% and the other 20%

Basically everything you said makes perfect sense, as always! At the end of the day consistency matters I think. I was just interested what you personally do.

I appreciate taking you time

CT, just listened to the DeFranco podcast you did awhile back, “how to get fit after 40”. Really good stuff and more solid common sense that cuts through a lot of the junk out there. Thanks again for sharing as much as you do, everyone willing to listen and absorb the info is better off for it. Young bucks should listen to it as well, especially the nutrition info. Get it right early and it’s easier to maintain.

Hi @Christian_Thibaudeau ,

regarding your recent Instagram reel:

Christian Thibaudeau shared a post on Instagram: "Just because an approach is “better” it doesn’t mean that it will deliver the best results. The mental/psychological aspect is so often neglected by those who love to engage in years long debates on...

I have a question please.

Why is it “better” to eat carbs and fats on it´s own and not fats and carbs together when calories in calories out is all that matters at the end of the day?

And no, I´m not talking about french fries or cake, I talk about oatmeal with almond or peanut butter or a “complete” meal like chicken, rice, veggies and olive oil or avocado etc.

From what I understand and heard is that its more optimal if you have some fats with carbs, for example a serving of white rice with a tablespoon of coconut oil, because fat slows down the process how fast glucose goes into the bloodstream and therefore there are less blood sugar swings and the insulin level is nice and steady!?

I would really appreciate if you can elaborate on this topic because I want to learn more.

Thank you very much

Ok, first calories in vs calories out being the ONLY thing that matters is completely false. I know it is a popular thing to say and makes it easy to sell diet services as you essentially tell them that they can eat whatever they want, but it is incorrect.

Other factors matter although it does all come down to caloric balance WHEN IT COMES TO WEIGHT GAIN OR LOSS… which is NOT the only important thing with diet… what about health? When it comes to health, food selection matters a lot. I actually wrote an article about that.

But even from a body composition standpoint other factors matter,

For example, a lower insulin level overall leads to a faster metabolic rate (or more specifically a higher insulin level leads to a slower metabolic rate). I recommend that you look up the work of Dr. Ben Bikman on the subject. He is a specialist in metabolic health, as in his job is doing research on metabolism.

It does NOT go against the calories in vs calories out theory, BUT if you slow down metabolic rate (by often having high insulin levels) your calories out decrease so it is harder to be in a deficit.

And that’s just one example.

As for your specific question, do a search about the Randle cycle.

Professor Bart Kay did a short video on it (and a more complex one too).

Essentially when the cells are filled with sugar the cell becomes inefficient at utilizing fat for fuel and vice versa (when it’s filled with fats, it is inefficient at using carbs for fuel) and that can lead to some issues (like either fat accumulation/high blood lipids or high blood sugar).

Furthermore, having both high fats and sugar in the bloodstream is what can lead to cholesterol issues. There is no such thing as “bad” cholesterol (even LDL cholesterol). Cholesterol becomes BAD when it becomes damaged by sugar/glucose through a process called “glycation”.

The damaged cholesterol molecule is incapable of delivering the fat to its destination properly and can get “stuck” in the arteries, which can become plaque.

But fat/cholesterol without the presence of a high level of sugar at the same time is not an issue.


thank you so much Christian for the detailed response. Thats very interesting

What´s the title of the article? I want to read it.

I appreciate you. Thank you very much for sharin your knowledge

How would you approach this from a health perspective for the 1A/3 that has found he functions much better mentally with carbs 2-4 times per day?

If you address that in the article you just posted, then thank you, I will read when I have the chance