Started it today, my log is at http://www.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/blog_sports_body_training_performance_bodybuilding_log/regressive_ketogenic_cycle_log
Just wanted to let people here know Im doing this as I havent seen much in the way of useful logs/info on what could well turn out to be a very effective cutting method!
[quote]benmoore wrote:
on what could well turn out to be a very effective cutting method![/quote]
I gotta stop you right there. The reason nobody talks about it is because it’s a stupid, needlessly complex, ineffective, gimmicky diet.
[quote]JMoUCF87 wrote:
benmoore wrote:
on what could well turn out to be a very effective cutting method!
I gotta stop you right there. The reason nobody talks about it is because it’s a stupid, needlessly complex, ineffective, gimmicky diet.[/quote]
Thibs is always someone I have trusted with nutritional advice… anyone else got any input here?
[quote]benmoore wrote:
Thibs is always someone I have trusted with nutritional advice… anyone else got any input here?[/quote]
that’s interesting, because most of his shit is dead wrong. i’m not disagreeing for the sake of disagreement either, it’s just that most everything he writes regarding nutrition is wrong to some degree.
If you want to be more specific, be my guest.
Just calling something out there and not backing it up is just too easy.
[quote]JMoUCF87 wrote:
benmoore wrote:
Thibs is always someone I have trusted with nutritional advice… anyone else got any input here?
that’s interesting, because most of his shit is dead wrong. i’m not disagreeing for the sake of disagreement either, it’s just that most everything he writes regarding nutrition is wrong to some degree.[/quote]
The science seems to work in my head… and I think his thinking with this cutting method is actually somewhat elegant.
However Im willing to accept I could be horribly wrong… why do you think this?
I believe I outlined what was wrong in the discussion of that article. I don’t have the time right now to go through all my problems with his stuff, I’ll address it later tonight though.
[quote]JMoUCF87 wrote:
I believe I outlined what was wrong in the discussion of that article. I don’t have the time right now to go through all my problems with his stuff, I’ll address it later tonight though.[/quote]
Your Post:
"CT, I’m having a hard time seeing the logic behind your diet. If calories are kept the same on all days of the cycle, what effect will shuffling around the macros have on fat loss? Secondly, why would one ever consume 70% fat on a hypocaloric diet, doesn’t that only ensure insufficient protein intake? (you yourself have said that protein requirement go UP on a diet)
Finally, what makes this diet superior to one that has calories set at roughly 10xBW (such as in your regressive ketogenic diet), while providing plenty of protein to spare muscle tissue (say 1.5g/lb. of lean body mass) and the rest of the calories split evenly between fat and carbs?
So, as in your example, for the same 200 lb. individual @ 15% body fat, a diet of ~250g protein, ~120g carbs (mostly around training), and ~50g fat."
Thibs reply:
"1. More high fat days in the beginning to switch the metabolism to utilizing fat for fuel (establishing ketosis). A lot of people have a hard time with low-carbs dieting because their initial fat intake is not high enough (or their protein intake is too high, which leads to neoglucogenesis which makes it very hard to switch to a fat-first metabolism).
When the body is fat-adapted, fat intake can be lowered while still using it as a primary fuel source as long as carbs are not increased. At this point, more protein days are added which will prevent muscle loss (very little muscle loss will occur during the first week of a diet).
Then we gradually add higher carb days to prevent a fat-gain rebound
Furthermore, it has been shown that the metabolic switch that occurs when a diet changes drastically is one of the main reasons for the initial fat loss during a diet.
Not to mention that your ‘‘logic’’ is based on the principle of ‘‘a calorie is a calorie’’. Which is not the case. The same amount of calories from protein, fat or carbs doesn’t have the same metabolic effect. For one thing, protein increases the thermic effect of feeding twice as much as carbs or fat. This means that it will take twice as much energy (calories used by the body) to digest and absorb 500 calories worth of protein than the same amount of carbs or fat."
Just to save people bouncing between threads…
What do you disagree with in Thibs reply?
I’ll address each of Thibs points individually:
[quote]
Thibs reply:
"1. More high fat days in the beginning to switch the metabolism to utilizing fat for fuel (establishing ketosis). A lot of people have a hard time with low-carbs dieting because their initial fat intake is not high enough (or their protein intake is too high, which leads to neoglucogenesis which makes it very hard to switch to a fat-first metabolism).[/quote]
Adding fat doesn’t switch your body to using fat for fuel. Lowering carbs does. Carb intake and fat oxidation are inversely proportional, as carbs come down, fat oxidation goes up.
Secondly, ketogenic diets offer no metabolic advantage over nonketogenic diets of equal protein and calories. The more fat you eat on a ketogenic diet, the slower your rate of fat loss.
Furthermore, you can be in ketosis and not lose an ounce of fat, you can even gain fat. Focusing on “establishing ketosis” is missing the big picture.
Or, you could just do a high protein, moderate-to-low carb and fat diet from the beginning and skip all the complex macro shifting that doesn’t do jack shit.
Not to mention the low protein (30%) + low calories in the first phase of the diet is a great way to lose muscle.
“fat-gain rebound”? From what? The calories are the same throughout the entire diet! You’re not going to gain back a bunch of fat if you’re still eating 11 calories per lb.
LOL! Ok, this one is just stupid. Sorry Thibs, but the ONLY way someone can lose fat is through a caloric deficit.
No amount of “drastic changes” in a diet is going to produce fat loss unless it involves eating less, or moving more. You can play around with macro ratios all you want, but unless you cut calories somewhere, all you’re gonna lose is water & glycogen.
Awesome! That must explain why you aren’t even getting 1g of protein per lb of bodyweight 2-3 days out of the week on your diet! Oh wait…no it doesn’t.
Basically, this diet is garbage. As is most everything else Thibs writes about nutrition.
Well I dont know about for you, but my body deffinately handles carbs different than it handles fat. If I ate half the caloric amount of carbs as I do fat, I would gain it as fat. This has happened to me before.
I did this diet a month or 2 ago and it worked well for me. I even gained some muscle taking HOT-ROX.
Not saying your wrong, but it worked for me to shed some fat quick.
You are forgetting that the body does different things with different types of calories.
Yes, fat and carbohydrates can both be stored as fat. The cool thing, however, is that carbohydrates can also be stored as glycogen. So if you deplete glycogen… then eat carbs… well, your body still needs to fuel itself during that time. Guess where it comes from?
[quote]JMoUCF87 wrote:
I’ll address each of Thibs points individually:
Thibs reply:
"1. More high fat days in the beginning to switch the metabolism to utilizing fat for fuel (establishing ketosis). A lot of people have a hard time with low-carbs dieting because their initial fat intake is not high enough (or their protein intake is too high, which leads to neoglucogenesis which makes it very hard to switch to a fat-first metabolism).
Adding fat doesn’t switch your body to using fat for fuel. Lowering carbs does. Carb intake and fat oxidation are inversely proportional, as carbs come down, fat oxidation goes up.
Secondly, ketogenic diets offer no metabolic advantage over nonketogenic diets of equal protein and calories. The more fat you eat on a ketogenic diet, the slower your rate of fat loss.
Furthermore, you can be in ketosis and not lose an ounce of fat, you can even gain fat. Focusing on “establishing ketosis” is missing the big picture.
Or, you could just do a high protein, moderate-to-low carb and fat diet from the beginning and skip all the complex macro shifting that doesn’t do jack shit.
Not to mention the low protein (30%) + low calories in the first phase of the diet is a great way to lose muscle.
“fat-gain rebound”? From what? The calories are the same throughout the entire diet! You’re not going to gain back a bunch of fat if you’re still eating 11 calories per lb.
Furthermore, it has been shown that the metabolic switch that occurs when a diet changes drastically is one of the main reasons for the initial fat loss during a diet.
LOL! Ok, this one is just stupid. Sorry Thibs, but the ONLY way someone can lose fat is through a caloric deficit.
No amount of “drastic changes” in a diet is going to produce fat loss unless it involves eating less, or moving more. You can play around with macro ratios all you want, but unless you cut calories somewhere, all you’re gonna lose is water & glycogen.
Not to mention that your ‘‘logic’’ is based on the principle of ‘‘a calorie is a calorie’’. Which is not the case. The same amount of calories from protein, fat or carbs doesn’t have the same metabolic effect. For one thing, protein increases the thermic effect of feeding twice as much as carbs or fat. This means that it will take twice as much energy (calories used by the body) to digest and absorb 500 calories worth of protein than the same amount of carbs or fat."
Awesome! That must explain why you aren’t even getting 1g of protein per lb of bodyweight 2-3 days out of the week on your diet! Oh wait…no it doesn’t.
Basically, this diet is garbage. As is most everything else Thibs writes about nutrition.[/quote]
JMoUCF,
Just out of curiosity.
What do you do for a living, are you a profesional strength coach or AT LEAST a “personal trainer”?
Have you proven your nutritional theories time and time againg on thousands of clients? OR let me guess, just on your self?
Just asking, because I have read many of your arguments on here…your theories are not incorrect, but neither are they the only choice when it comes to nutrition.
Reason why I say this, is because I have tried EXACTLY what you harp on about and I lost muscle and little fat.
Following Poliquin’s and Thib’s advice/theories etc, has lead to me making my best progress body composition wise.
GJ
[quote]ksommer wrote:
You are forgetting that the body does different things with different types of calories.
Yes, fat and carbohydrates can both be stored as fat. The cool thing, however, is that carbohydrates can also be stored as glycogen. So if you deplete glycogen… then eat carbs… well, your body still needs to fuel itself during that time. Guess where it comes from?
[/quote]
Lol, ksommer nice to see you again man. If I recall correctly, you suggested someone cut out whey protein shakes to lose fat, because they spike insulin. How’s that workin’ out?
Yes, I am aware that under certain conditions (glycogen depletion) incoming carbohydrates will be used for glycogen resynthesis rather than burned for energy. However, I am of the opinion that things should be as simple as possible, but no simpler.
So why would anyone bother with a diet this complex, when a simpler one will give you the same exact results.
There’s nothing magic about this diet, it’s an unnecessarily complex, and poorly implemented version of a standard CKD.
[quote]Gymjunkie wrote:
JMoUCF,
Just out of curiosity.
What do you do for a living, are you a profesional strength coach or AT LEAST a “personal trainer”?
Have you proven your nutritional theories time and time againg on thousands of clients? OR let me guess, just on your self?
Just asking, because I have read many of your arguments on here…your theories are not incorrect, but neither are they the only choice when it comes to nutrition.
Reason why I say this, is because I have tried EXACTLY what you harp on about and I lost muscle and little fat.
Following Poliquin’s and Thib’s advice/theories etc, has lead to me making my best progress body composition wise.
GJ
[/quote]
The things I “harp on about” aren’t theories any more than the “theory” of gravity or evolution.
A caloric deficit is what causes fat loss. This is a fact supported by science.
Sufficient protein intake combined with intelligent weight training helps to prevent muscle loss. This is also a fact supported by science.
the crap advocated by Poliquin and Thibaudeau (e.g. biosig) has about as much solid evidence behind it as palm reading or astrology.
think about it this way: thousands of people around the world absolutly SWEAR by palm reading/horoscopes/tarot cards…but does that mean they’re right?
[quote]JMoUCF87 wrote:
Gymjunkie wrote:
JMoUCF,
Just out of curiosity.
What do you do for a living, are you a profesional strength coach or AT LEAST a “personal trainer”?
Have you proven your nutritional theories time and time againg on thousands of clients? OR let me guess, just on your self?
Just asking, because I have read many of your arguments on here…your theories are not incorrect, but neither are they the only choice when it comes to nutrition.
Reason why I say this, is because I have tried EXACTLY what you harp on about and I lost muscle and little fat.
Following Poliquin’s and Thib’s advice/theories etc, has lead to me making my best progress body composition wise.
GJ
The things I “harp on about” aren’t theories any more than the “theory” of gravity or evolution.
A caloric deficit is what causes fat loss. This is a fact supported by science.
Sufficient protein intake combined with intelligent weight training helps to prevent muscle loss. This is also a fact supported by science.
the crap advocated by Poliquin and Thibaudeau (e.g. biosig) has about as much solid evidence behind it as palm reading or astrology.
think about it this way: thousands of people around the world absolutly SWEAR by palm reading/horoscopes/tarot cards…but does that mean they’re right?[/quote]
Lol, I see your point. HOWEVER, if I have found something that works…you can’t really argue with proof can you. I have also seen others use diets/training methods that has not work for me, BUT work for them and thus, I did not right them off as BS.
All I am saying is that, what you are saying is 100% correct for many, but not for all.
GJ
[quote]JMoUCF87 wrote:
3. Then we gradually add higher carb days to prevent a fat-gain rebound
“fat-gain rebound”? From what? The calories are the same throughout the entire diet! You’re not going to gain back a bunch of fat if you’re still eating 11 calories per lb.
[/quote]
This is to do with establishing a higher carb intake so the individual may jump back to maintenance immediatly after the 4 week blitz with minimal adverse sides.
From what I interpretted anyway (Thibs mentioned in article about eating normal diet straight after).
I wish Thibs could drop by.
JMoUCF87, I always like your posts. Tend to make me think. (No sarcasm). Nothing else to add to this thread, apart from calories clearly being important in weightloss… I can’t remember who said it, but thermodynamics isn’t just a good idea, it’s the law.
[quote]danchubb wrote:
JMoUCF87, I always like your posts. Tend to make me think. (No sarcasm). Nothing else to add to this thread, apart from calories clearly being important in weightloss… I can’t remember who said it, but thermodynamics isn’t just a good idea, it’s the law. [/quote]
people aren’t really debating this, as a net loss of calories with always produced a weight loss but it the the TYPE of weight lost that this kind of dieting addresses, it is specifically designed to minimise muscle loss, whilst in a reduced calorie state, simply lowering you cals is great if you are not trying to keep as much muscle as humanly possible whilst doing it.
and as for bio sig… every body works differently, some people are more insulin sensitive some arnt, some people are prone to over express cortisol, some arnt, and metabolic rate clear differs from person to person. these are just a few examples. when some one goes for this kind of testing gets the results, it will enable them to make an informed decision based on THEIR OWN SPECIFIC biology. allowing them to make cutting/bulking more efficient, allowign them to for example decide whether low carb aproaches or high carb aproaches are best for them.
if some one is cutting (obviously using reduced cals, see quote above) with a low carb diet but their metabolism is keyed to a carb based diet, they will loose alot of muscle tissue. bio sig helps to address situations like this.
even if some one keeps calories the same but address underlying insulin insensitives their BODY COMPOSITION and general well being will change to a healthier one even if no weight is lost, as the diet is better suited to their body type.
indeed situtations like type 2 diabetes and particuallry pre diabetics can use low carb lifestyles to INCREASE thier insulin sensitivity allowing them to handle high amounts of carbs in the long run.
also, (final rant) CT is a world renowned coach who’s job is to get athletes into the best possible physical condition, he wouldnt get to this level if the strategies he employed didnt work!
Sorry OP for my hijacking rant, it annoys me to see people who do not consider both sides of a situation. I agree reduced calories are needed to loose weight but the type weight lost is subject to individual factors which can be addressed through the type of cutting diet you undertake suited to the individual body.
regarding the RKD it looks like a solid plan for someone suited to the lower carb approach keep us posted it looks really well thought through.