DiPasquale vs. McDonald on Fat

[quote]gi2eg wrote:
Makes sense.

Do you think muscle glycogen won’t be restored between sets? (unlike ATP as you’ve pointed out)[/quote]

itsthetimman is right. Another thing to remember is that although amino acids can be converted to glucose for energy, fat cannot–it has its own metabolic pathways.

What about lactate produced during the exercise bouts? Can this be converted relatively quickly to glucose?

[quote]IL Cazzo wrote:
The only thing i’ll say is this. Mauro was/is a powerlifer…and was a good one.

Lyle looks like an IT guy.[/quote]

Yeah and I’ve done both low and highER rep work at max effort with great results on the AD.

Yeah, I never seem to be low on carbs…maybe I’m just breaking down a lot of muscle and then easily putting it back on again?

Something doesn’t quite sit right with me either on this one…

Firstly I gotta say this has been a great read. Nice to see some academic debate goin on.

I’ve a slightly different take…

Whats important to remember I think is that there are basic and more advanced versions of the AD and carb cyclical diets. I think many will struggle with 5 low carb days…especially if training. However again it should be noted that poliquin heavily believes in pwo shakes with carbs…And he trains most of his athletes low carb also. I advise on the use of carbs PWO myself and don’t count it towards the overall carbs of the day.

My gut feeling however is that Di Pasquale is a genius…and if I had to bet…well ya get the idea.

OMC

I will note something that I don’t think a lot of people are aware of. It isn’t so much all or nothing with the low-carb/high-carb diets. The body will use a ratio of fuel during moderate exercise that is similar to nutritional intake. That is to say that if you intake 40% carbs, 60% carbs, or 80% carbs, your body will use that ratio of carbs to other fuels during exercise, as that is what is available. The body stores nutrients in ratios similar to what you intake. If you intake 50/50 fat/carbs (not counting protein, obviously), your body will adjust various enzymes and hormones to store and use nutrients in those amounts. However, at extremes (extremely low-carb and extremely high-carb diets, or fat if that’s your thing) fuel storage and usage doesn’t follow this rule as strictly.

With that being said, unless you’re on an almost fat-free diet or ketogenic diet, and unless you are a highly-trained endurance athlete, you will follow the above rule for fuel use and storage. That means that eating 50g of carbs per day and then eating 100g carbs isn’t going to throw you out of your fat-burning mode, and vice versa. Another thing, people freak out about this adaptation period and becoming fat-adapted and eating certain foods during an induction phase. The body will adapt to a specific diet over a 3-14 day period (based on dietary conditions pre and post). This means that if you are on the AD and you eat junk for a couple days, or even a week, you don’t need to go through the induction phase again, just go back to what you were eating and your body will revert back in a couple days time.

Essentially I’m saying that if you aren’t going balls to the wall extremely low carb then there won’t be much difference between 30g and 50g per day of carbs, and typically upwards of 100g for some people. You’ll still get the low-carb benefits from each amount of carbs, but think of it as a continuum, as in “you’ll get 30g/day work of low-carb benefits” vs. “100g/day low-carb benefits.” The benefits won’t be as pronounced, but they’ll be there. This is referring to benefits such as carb-sparing, improved insulin sensitivity, improved sleep and mental clarity, etc. There isn’t an on/off switch in the body to have these low-carb “benefits,” so quit freaking out.

I know the OP is more interested in performance and general “what’s the difference and why” questions, but some of you guys needed to know the above info, and you know who you are.

Rant over.

BTW, check PubMed before flaming me about this. This topic is extensively researched.

[quote]OMC wrote:
My gut feeling however is that Di Pasquale is a genius…and if I had to bet…well ya get the idea.[/quote]

You know–that is my gut impression too. DiPasquale is an extremely knowledgeable man on weight training, nutrition, and endocrine physiology. Just a glance at his accolades in the book, whether they are there to brag or not, are astonishing. I am hard-pressed to dismiss the opinion of a man who has not only a medical degree, but has served as the nutritional director of several major athletic organizations and lectures regularly regarding the subjects that he is writing on. Sheer epistemic reliability favors MD over Lyle who has a bachelors degree in exercise physiology and “20 years of studying human performance”.

Even more specifically, Lyle claims this is an utterly elementary mistake that someone with even a shred of knowledge about human physiology should know. Thus, if wrong, we have to assume that MD is either deliberately ignoring the facts, or he is lying to preserve a cash cow. The obviousness (according to Lyle) of the error makes it even less likely–MD would be risking his professional credibility, not to mention self respect, for some thing like book sales.

[quote]Schwarzenegger wrote:
I will note something that I don’t think a lot of people are aware of. It isn’t so much all or nothing with the low-carb/high-carb diets. The body will use a ratio of fuel during moderate exercise that is similar to nutritional intake. That is to say that if you intake 40% carbs, 60% carbs, or 80% carbs, your body will use that ratio of carbs to other fuels during exercise, as that is what is available. The body stores nutrients in ratios similar to what you intake. If you intake 50/50 fat/carbs (not counting protein, obviously), your body will adjust various enzymes and hormones to store and use nutrients in those amounts. However, at extremes (extremely low-carb and extremely high-carb diets, or fat if that’s your thing) fuel storage and usage doesn’t follow this rule as strictly.

With that being said, unless you’re on an almost fat-free diet or ketogenic diet, and unless you are a highly-trained endurance athlete, you will follow the above rule for fuel use and storage. That means that eating 50g of carbs per day and then eating 100g carbs isn’t going to throw you out of your fat-burning mode, and vice versa. Another thing, people freak out about this adaptation period and becoming fat-adapted and eating certain foods during an induction phase. The body will adapt to a specific diet over a 3-14 day period (based on dietary conditions pre and post). This means that if you are on the AD and you eat junk for a couple days, or even a week, you don’t need to go through the induction phase again, just go back to what you were eating and your body will revert back in a couple days time.

Essentially I’m saying that if you aren’t going balls to the wall extremely low carb then there won’t be much difference between 30g and 50g per day of carbs, and typically upwards of 100g for some people. You’ll still get the low-carb benefits from each amount of carbs, but think of it as a continuum, as in “you’ll get 30g/day work of low-carb benefits” vs. “100g/day low-carb benefits.” The benefits won’t be as pronounced, but they’ll be there. This is referring to benefits such as carb-sparing, improved insulin sensitivity, improved sleep and mental clarity, etc. There isn’t an on/off switch in the body to have these low-carb “benefits,” so quit freaking out.

I know the OP is more interested in performance and general “what’s the difference and why” questions, but some of you guys needed to know the above info, and you know who you are.

Rant over.

BTW, check PubMed before flaming me about this. This topic is extensively researched.[/quote]

That’s a great post man. Bravo.