[quote]Professor X wrote:
<<< That same “horrible insulin spike” is what helps push nutrients into growing muscle tissue. It seems you all downplay just how much that plays a role. This makes more sense as a DIETING tool than one anyone should jump on when trying to gain as much muscle as possible.
And yes, it does sound like a bunch of assumptions that completely leave out GENETICS. My goal was not to gain “a little muscle mass”. When I started, the goal was to gain “a whole lot of muscle mass”. Anyone can eat almost any way possible and gain “a little muscle mass”. That doesn’t mean it should be touted as the answer to all gym goals.[/quote]
We’ve had a few exchanges since I’ve been around here and almost always on the same side of an issue. I expect that to continue, but for some reason we are not communicating in this one.
Insulin spikes at the right time ARE essential and it’s that very thing which is one of the hallmarks of low carb/high fat macro cycling. Insulin is under much more direct control when the constant flow of carbs isn’t there to cause constant elevated levels.
You have smaller consistent levels most of the time which keeps you primed for a healthy spike PWO for instance. IT,s effects are enhanced by the fact that the spike truly is one because levels are routinely lower, though certainly not deficient.
I am in no way implying that you’ve made poor choices in your eating habits. Your progress speaks for itself. I don’t know why you are defending yourself as if I were.
I will state without reservation however that it will become common knowledge at some point that for a significant portion of the lifting population and probably for many other athletic endeavors as well, some form of low carb/high fat macro cycling is in fact optimal. Even for gaining a “whole lot of muscle mass”.
I’ll never be as big as you are, no matter what I did, but I sure ain’t after “a little muscle” either and this is definitely working.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I will state without reservation however that it will become common knowledge at some point that for a significant portion of the lifting population and probably for many other athletic endeavors as well, some form of low carb/high fat macro cycling is in fact optimal. Even for gaining a “whole lot of muscle mass”.
[/quote]
I doubt it. I think the pendulum will swing back the other direction before this ever happens.
Aha, I thought it was talking about strength… due to the wording on this thread.
While I’m very comfortable with cyclical diets and their ability to work, having enjoyed my own version of a cyclical diet, I have a hard time considering them “low carb” due to their cyclical nature.
Isn’t the whole point of cyclical diets that they can maximize anabolic response to those ingested carbs? This is where the wording had me scratching my head.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Aha, I thought it was talking about strength… due to the wording on this thread.
While I’m very comfortable with cyclical diets and their ability to work, having enjoyed my own version of a cyclical diet, I have a hard time considering them “low carb” due to their cyclical nature. >>>[/quote]
The lack of naming conventions no doubt isn’t helping discussions like this. Anything lower than average can be considered low I suppose. Plans featuring full fat adaptation are whole different way of “doing” nutrition and maybe I’ve been narrow in restricting to that. Or maybe their should be a different one for diets like the AD.
[quote]vroom wrote:
<<< Isn’t the whole point of cyclical diets that they can maximize anabolic response to those ingested carbs? This is where the wording had me scratching my head.[/quote]
This is mentioned by DiPasquale in the AD book, but I didn’t understand him to be saying that this was the central goal. Carbs aren’t the only way to elicit insulin release either. Whey will do the job just about as well.
The sticky for me is that I do believe this way of eating can be optimal for strength and mass gains for a larger number of people than is commonly accepted.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
Whey will do the job just about as well.
You keep believing that. I will continue to avoid approaching my diet like that so that my lean body mass increases beyond where I am now.[/quote]
I’m going to have to agree with Prof X on that one. I know that whey will give a bit of an insulin hit, but not nearly as much as a sugary or starchy carb would. Unless theres a study that could be posted showing that it gives the same hit on a cyclic diet?
On the other hand, Tiribulus is right because he is gaining muscle while maintaining his body fat percentage, which is really good. Plus I’m on the same diet he’s on, which gives constant energy levels and is really fun to be on… not to mention I gain muscle easily while doing it.
Another thing, all you people who have uncontrollable cravings, try the AD for a month or two and see if it doesn’t go away. There is not a single carb I can’t turn down. I shit you not. Infact, there’s not a single food I can’t turn down. I NEVER feel a craving anymore. Only actual hunger if I haven’t eaten for a couple hours after my schedules eating time.
But Prof X, you are taking a uber defensive stance on this. When you tried the AD or whatever keto diet you did how long did you give it to adapt? I know for me the first month was really really really hard, but now its just smoothe sailing.
But Prof X, you are taking a uber defensive stance on this. When you tried the AD or whatever keto diet you did how long did you give it to adapt? I know for me the first month was really really really hard, but now its just smoothe sailing.[/quote]
I did it for a month and will never do it again. For one, considering what I do for a living (even when I was still in school) I don’t have the luxury of walking around in a mental fog for over a month just so I can “possibly” adapt to this diet some time in the future. I also don’t need to eat that way to see any progress. I also don’t doubt that someone can see some progress by eating that way. That isn’t even the debate. The debate is whether this is optimal and I would have to say, “no, not for most people”.
I actually do combine whey with some simple carbs PWO.
Professor X you wouldn’t possibly adapt. Everybody does. The question is whether, once adapted, one does better on a glucose or lipid based metabolism.
I don’t want this to become a “is too, is not, is too, is not” contest, but I believe it would be optimal for a lot of people. Again, I don’t know what percentage.
There is no irrefutable “proof” at this point one way or the other. It is undeniable that untold multitudes of individuals of built great physiques on a carb based diet. That, however, does not address how they would have done the other way.
Carb based eating is a safe bet, but not necessarily optimal in many cases. I have as much reason to believe this as I do any other thing about nutrition or training. Throw it into the “Things I know are true, but can’t outright prove” articles from a couple months ago.
Everybody has some of those. In my own case, I’m forced to believe that lipid adapted eating definitely accelerated my progress for whatever reason it turns out to be. My experience does not define the rest of the world’s, but I know I’m not unique either.
Shit. I have to go to work and can’t be back here until tonight.
Given the science behind this diet I have no doubt that if adhered to perfectly it is the optimal way to grow.
The problem for me when I ate this way was that my schedule simply didn’t allow for optimal adherence. As a result I came off the AD and now I just focus on eating as much food as I can. I’ve made much greater gains as a result both in my lifts and weight goals then if I hade remained on the AD. When life permits it though I will be back on the AD.
All the best
OMC
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I did it for a month and will never do it again. For one, considering what I do for a living (even when I was still in school) I don’t have the luxury of walking around in a mental fog for over a month just so I can “possibly” adapt to this diet some time in the future.
I also don’t need to eat that way to see any progress. I also don’t doubt that someone can see some progress by eating that way. That isn’t even the debate. The debate is whether this is optimal and I would have to say, “no, not for most people”.[/quote]
If the AD were the optimal way to grow, more bodybuilders would use it. You guys act like no bodybuilders have ever experimented with this diet. The AD is not new. Low-carb diets are not new. People were experimenting with them at least as far back as the 70s.
Long before this site came to be, I belonged to a lowcarb “newsletter.” Guys tried all sorts of things with low-carb dieting. We experimented and reached the conclusion that low-carbs are not optimal for muscle gain. This was back in 1997.
People have learned through trial and error that low-carb diets are superior for fat loss. Higher carb diets are superior for muscle growth.
I think a lot of you are looking for validation. Look, if the AD is helping you gain muscle, great. Why do you so badly need other people to accept your world view?
The truth is that insulin is the most anabolic hormone in the body. All the GH and other hormones high-fat diets create are not at a high enough level to do anything. You will not optimize muscle growth unless you optimize insulin. Eating carbs for 36 hours is not enough.
Charles Poliquin (who I think knows a thing or two and is not afraid of experimenting) has his athletes eat low-carb except around post-workout. Again, insulin is supreme.
Plus, X is huge. To say that he is not doing what is “optimal” is pretty silly. It’s like when guys write articles critiquing some bodybuilder or pro athlete. “If only he would follow my advice, he might be something.” Everyone has something to learn, but when someone has attained certain levels of development, the burden is on us to prove something is superior. Saying, “I think” or “I believe” is not enough to meet that burden.
That said, I’m on the AD and have been losing lots of fat. I’ll likely stay on it, because it’s nice avoiding blood sugar highs and lows; my energy is more stable. But I am not interested in gaining any appreciable amount of muscle. If I were, I would not be eating the AD way.
[quote]AlphaDragon wrote:
King of Vice wrote:
Ok, so they both work the same, but every loves carbs, so why not eat them? If it ain’t broke don’t fix it. Yeah some fatties can’t tolerate carbs, which just takes a little strategic eating. Still no reason to completely avoid one of natures best food groups.
I disagree. Not everyone enjoys carbs.
I personally find myself liking fats and proteins much more than carbs.
I find carbs more of a “necessary evil” when it comes to eating, and rarely do I enjoy them as much as I do eating fat/protein based foods.
AD[/quote]
I left out a word, blow me.
Anyways, you’re fat. Anyone who has been reading here long enough knows that. Why on earth would I want to do what you do? I don’t want to look like you, and I don’t want to perform like you. I’m going to do everything in my power to avoid doing what you do, because you are fat.
The same goes to Dischoss.
That may sound offensive, but it is the truth. Believe me, I’m not trying to start a flame war, I’m just trying to convince you that what you are doing is wrong.
[quote]dhuge67 wrote:
CLaw, why aren’t you interested in gaining muscle?[/quote]
I will soon (6-12 months) start competing in an event with weight classes. I can weigh ~200 and cut weight to 185. This would make more sense to me (for right now). So obviously I’m interested in body comp changes, but not muscle gain for the sake of muscle gain. Plus, while I’m not big by bodybuilding standards, I am big enough for what I need to do.
I do need to drop another 10 pounds of fat and get stronger. (I have only been lifting 100% for 9 months post-injury and have been dieting most of that time; so I haven’t made the strength gains I would have made had I not been focused on losing weight.)
[quote]King of Vice wrote:
I left out a word, blow me.
Anyways, you’re fat. Anyone who has been reading here long enough knows that. Why on earth would I want to do what you do? I don’t want to look like you, and I don’t want to perform like you. I’m going to do everything in my power to avoid doing what you do, because you are fat.
The same goes to Dischoss.
That may sound offensive, but it is the truth. Believe me, I’m not trying to start a flame war, I’m just trying to convince you that what you are doing is wrong.
[/quote]
Son how long have you been here? Oogie says not even 2 weeks.
Who the hell are you to tell them it’s wrong, if whatever they are doing is working for them?
Just another note for why there can be some variation.
Some people, as we all know, worry about fats so much that they generally won’t eat enough to support healthy hormone levels.
Those people, when going to a low carb and high lipid diet, might very well find they start making gains. Their body is thankful for the lipids and puts them to good use.
Anyway, again, I like cyclical diets myself, but there are too many confounding issues to start making conclusions about everything.
[quote]rsg wrote:
King of Vice wrote:
I left out a word, blow me.
Anyways, you’re fat. Anyone who has been reading here long enough knows that. Why on earth would I want to do what you do? I don’t want to look like you, and I don’t want to perform like you. I’m going to do everything in my power to avoid doing what you do, because you are fat.
The same goes to Dischoss.
That may sound offensive, but it is the truth. Believe me, I’m not trying to start a flame war, I’m just trying to convince you that what you are doing is wrong.
Son how long have you been here? Oogie says not even 2 weeks.
Who the hell are you to tell them it’s wrong, if whatever they are doing is working for them?[/quote]
I’ve been reading here since the ban of pro-hormones. Who or what is “Oogie”?
I’ve seen these members pictures, it is not working.
[quote]King of Vice wrote:
I’ve been reading here since the ban of pro-hormones. Who or what is “Oogie”?
I’ve seen these members pictures, it is not working.[/quote]
Oogie is a guy that was infamous for browsing peoples profiles.
I’m sure of seen pics of DH, and he’s was pretty damn big as far as I remember…just because he was carrying fat with the muscle means it’s not working?
[quote]King of Vice wrote:
Ok, so they both work the same, but every loves carbs, so why not eat them? If it ain’t broke don’t fix it. Yeah some fatties can’t tolerate carbs, which just takes a little strategic eating. Still no reason to completely avoid one of natures best food groups. [/quote]
This is where I find myself. The low carb is intruiging but I don’t think it is for me at this point in time.
[quote]King of Vice wrote:
rsg wrote:
King of Vice wrote:
I left out a word, blow me.
Anyways, you’re fat. Anyone who has been reading here long enough knows that. Why on earth would I want to do what you do? I don’t want to look like you, and I don’t want to perform like you. I’m going to do everything in my power to avoid doing what you do, because you are fat.
The same goes to Dischoss.
That may sound offensive, but it is the truth. Believe me, I’m not trying to start a flame war, I’m just trying to convince you that what you are doing is wrong.
Son how long have you been here? Oogie says not even 2 weeks.
Who the hell are you to tell them it’s wrong, if whatever they are doing is working for them?
I’ve been reading here since the ban of pro-hormones. Who or what is “Oogie”?
I’ve seen these members pictures, it is not working.[/quote]
King of Vice you need to chill the fuck out and stop insulting people. Vince Gironda and his trainees looked a hundred times better than most everyone on this website. And what was vince on most of the time? A cyclic keto diet.
Also, go head and post your picture, I want to see how good you look since your right and everyone else is wrong.