Thanks Andersons - I am not really afraid of carbs, but just figured I would try it to see what would happen. Specifically, I was/am doing “Metabolic Surge” by Nick Nilsson w meal plans by John Berardi.
I used a body gem to determine my caloric needs and also used Benedict Harris and came up w similar #s.
I was doing 3 lifting days and 3-4 HIIT days.
DAY 6 (After 5 days of pro & fat) I would eat ALL Protein - No carbs or fat.
DAY 7 (All Fruit - Nothing else for my carb up)
Following week was more balanced w carbs coming from oats, etc.
Basically a 12 day plan repeated -
Pro & Fat (Low carb except the veg)5 days
ALl Pro, ALL fruit - 2 Days
Pro, Carb, Fat - 5 Days.
I came up w 1,700ish w the author of this program who powerlifts (much more energy expended than me) and he is 210 LB and he is able to cut and maintain mass while doing this on this amount of calories.
Are you familkiar w Metabolic Surge?[/quote]
No, I am not.
However, the name “Metabolic Surge” is rather amusing to me given that 1700 calories are being consumed by a 210 lb man. That is not exactly a surging metabolism to me.
In any case, I bet the plan did not include 8 hours of physical labor per day.
When you are sedentary, and abruptly start working like that, you burn BOATLOADS of calories. If you continued to do the same work, you’d burn fewer calories over time, but you’d still burn a heck of a lot more than sitting on your butt all day! Think about it!
Once again, I’d estimate you’d be initially burning some 2400 calories just from the activity.
It is all very well to read books, but you’ve got to use your head. The author wasn’t thinking you’d increase your exercise by 8 hours per day. All that work requires energy.
[quote] It is leaving me too tired w the manual labor thrown in, so I don’t know if I should add carbs and skip the low carb 5 day phase or keep the macronutrient principles but just eat MORE food to compensate for labor cals burned.
I am 5’8" , 180-190 LBs and would like to be 170 and reach 9-10% BF.
I thought the manual labor would be a good calorie burner and way to shock my system into something diff from gym workouts, but it is leaving me feel fried & weak for my workouts.
Given the above info do you/anyone have any recs?[/quote]
I do not see the need for low carb days when working construction like this.
I am not such a fan of shocking the body. When you don’t know what you’re doing, you can just as easily shock it into a NEGATIVE adaptation (that you don’t want) instead of a positive one.
I think the manual labor is a good thing. It will increase your physical fitness and energy expenditure, and you should sleep like a baby. BUT it’s not a good time to be following a diet that does not account for your energy expenditure.
I would eat a large breakfast with plenty of protein, low-GI carbs, and some fat. I’d carry an easy-to-eat midmorning snack. I’d eat a big lunch and hopefully a mid-afternoon snack. I’d eat the best clean foods possible, but you can’t munch on veggies all day while working construction. You could skip the starchy carbs in your evening meal and eat lots of veggies then.
I don’t see the need for any additional gym workouts at this time, either. If you adapt so you’re not so tired after a day’s construction work, you can add some lifting back in.
[quote]This is like a 28 day type deal, where I would go back to more “normal eating” for a rest period for a few weeks, then repeat as the author realizes it is short term over training/under feeding but assures me that for only 4 weeks I can’t really do metabolic damage/starvation mode and also re: the low calories his belief is that adipose tissue is inactive and therefore does not need to be fed. Also, it isn’t total low carb like Atkins etc, the low carb/hi fat basically is a 5 day deal then you eat more carbs for a week etc
I do not know the details or reasoning of the plan in the book, so I will not attempt to critique it.
But YOU ARE NOT FOLLOWING THE PLAN. You are adding a massive amount of brand-new energy expenditure without increasing any of the nutrients you are using.
MAYBE the plan in the book is just overreaching, but with your modification it is now starvation.
You should realize that if an author concedes his plan is short-term overtraining, then you’d better not modify it to include even more training.
High energy expenditure + very low calories = metabolic damage. And the greater the deficit and “shock to the body,” the faster you’ll damage your metabolism. Yes, I think you CAN damage your metabolism in 4 weeks of starvation. A friend of mine just recently did so, in about 3-4 weeks of starvation dieting that followed a month or two of regular dieting.