# Broser vs Palumbo - battle of the keto diet



## Arnold (May 2, 2009)

*Here's what I wrote in MD magazine in response to BROSER's first Anti-Keto Diet article...the same article that Blechman said was his best work to date!*

*QUESTION:*
In the December issue of MD, Eric Broser wrote an article that listed 7 reasons why a zero carbohydrate diet is bad for bodybuilders. In it, he claimed that low carb diets result in no insulin production, high cortisol, low thyroid, low GH, low IGF-1, a compromised immune system, and impaired gene expression for muscle hypertrophy. What’s the deal with these claims?

*ANSWER:*
I really don’t want this to turn into a bash Eric Broser response because I really like the guy and respect what he’s doing in the industry. However, when people make bold statements like this, I feel they must be held accountable for what they say. Let’s start by addressing the statement, “Without any carbs there will be no insulin!” Eric then goes on to explain that without insulin secretion pre- and post-workout, you won’t transport vital nutrients into muscle cells. Anyone who knows anything about biochemistry will realize this statement is completely ludicrous since glucose is constantly being made in the liver via gluocneogenesis (Remember, 80% of the glucose you use during weight training comes from amino acids). In order to shuttle this glucose into the working muscle cells, insulin in required. Likewise, it's important to understand that in a low insulin environment, GH and IGF-1 levels are elevated. IGF-1 can do everything insulin can do (except store fat); and it does it better!

With regard to the statement that low insulin leads to increased cortisol, I have to remind Mr. Broser that when consuminga high protein/moderate fat/low carb ketogenic diet, cortisol levels will be low (not high) because the brain is feeding on fats. Contrary to what he’s thinking, cortisol levels are much more elevated when on a high protein/moderate carb/low fat because the brain is constantly looking for glucose to feed itself. When blood glucose dips (especially in-between meals), cortisol (a stress hormone) is released and it helps to raise blood sugar by telling the liver to turn amino acids (possibly coming from muscle) into glucose.

Given the fact that we now know that cortisol levels are low when following a high protein/moderate fat/low carb ketogenic diet, Brosers’ statement, “With more cortisol there will be decreased thyroid function” becomes much more relevant to his high protein/moderate carb/low fat diet. However, what he may have meant to say was thatlow insulin levels can decrease T4 (inactive thyroid hormone) to T3 (active thyroid hormone) thus reducing the output of functional thyroid hormone. This is certainly true and it’s why I recommend a weekly insulin-spiking cheat meal once a week!
When addressing Broser’s statement that attempts to correlate elevated cortisol with low levels of GH and IGF-1, I have to, once again, remind him that cortisol will be much higher on a diet where the brain is dependent on glucose (i.e. his high protein/moderate fat/low carb diet). While on high protein/moderate fat/low carb ketogenic diets, insulin levels are low, GH levels are high, and IGF-1 levels are also elevated.

Will the exclusion of carbs pre- and post-workout result in a suppressed immune system? No way! Remember, immune cells are made from protein and fat; therefore, it's insane to think that no pre- or post-workout carbs would have any effect, whatsoever. More likely, the immune system will suffer on a diet that is deficient in essential fatty acids. When Dr Scott Connelly was doing his initial research on burn patients, he found that diets as high as 10,000 calories of carbs per day wouldn't stop patients from withering away and dying of wasting and immune system failure. However, when amino acids and essential fats where added to the IV bags (at a mere 3000 calories) the patients began gaining weight and resisting infection.

Finally, I’d love for Broser to show me one stitch of research that demonstrates that bodybuilders, who follow a high protein/moderate fat/low carb ketogenic diet, have compromised muscle hypertrophy genes. That’s one study I’d like to read. The problem is that it doesn’t exist.


----------



## Arnold (May 2, 2009)

I only posted this because I thought it would start an interesting discussion, I am not taking Dave or Eric's side here, I remain neutral.


----------



## Built (May 2, 2009)

Considering how much time I spend in ketosis, it's reassuring to read that Dave Palumbo doesn't think I've dried up and blown away in the wind. 

That being said, while I find ketosis very comfortable - it does promote satiety for many of us - I think altogether too much emphasis is placed on that word, and on the hyperbole surrounding it. "Zero" carb - I mean, why would you eat that way? It certainly isn't a requirement for ketogenic dieting, and last time I checked, nobody got fat eating some steamed broccoli with their poached chicken breast!  Besides, ketosis isn't behind the fat loss. Reduction of intake is behind weight loss. Retaining muscle ensures FAT loss, and high-protein keto diets, because they reduce the body's reliance on glucose, tend to be muscle sparing.


----------



## juggernaut (May 5, 2009)

Palumbo had a great response, especially in the last paragraph. 
I wonder, does MD even check references, or do they just throw shit to the wind and see what sticks? This is why I dont buy magazines anymore.


----------



## Built (May 5, 2009)

LMAO at throwing shit in the wind to see what sticks!

Jumbo Palumbo does have significant background in this stuff - far more than I do. I seem to recall he got through a few years of med school before figuring out how to make more money than a physician.


----------



## Arnold (May 5, 2009)

yes he did, but I think he said he was just bored and really had no desire to work as a doctor.


----------



## Built (May 5, 2009)

His formal university education in biochem is evident.


----------



## juggernaut (May 6, 2009)

so my point is, what the hell did MD think when hiring gobro bbing writers with absolutely no formal education. I noticed that when I do open a bbing shit mag, I jump right to the research pages. How do these people in this industry continue to do this? Dont they want to be taken seriously? 
Isnt there some type of filter on these things? Or do they not care and give every shit about money only? Where's the integrity?


----------



## juggernaut (May 6, 2009)

Built said:


> LMAO at throwing shit in the wind to see what sticks!


----------



## Built (May 6, 2009)

It's a business, Juggernaut. The mags are a vehicle to sell product, just like how every other magazine is a vehicle to sell product. 

I don't allow fashion magazines into my home for this reason. They make you feel ugly, then sell you makeup to fix it. I'm fine with it being legal to do this - but I ain't buying.

For research, I go straight to the source. Why read MD when you can read pubmed?

<hugs her science degrees lovingly>

So nice to be able to read research.


----------



## Arnold (May 6, 2009)

juggernaut said:


> so my point is, what the hell did MD think when hiring gobro bbing writers with absolutely no formal education. I noticed that when I do open a bbing shit mag, I jump right to the research pages. How do these people in this industry continue to do this? Dont they want to be taken seriously?
> Isnt there some type of filter on these things? Or do they not care and give every shit about money only? Where's the integrity?



YOU REALLY ARE NAIVE.


----------



## juggernaut (May 6, 2009)

Prince said:


> YOU REALLY ARE NAIVE.


thank you.

Ok...I'll bite; Why's that?


----------



## Tank316 (May 6, 2009)

juggernaut said:


> so my point is, what the hell did MD think when hiring gobro bbing writers with absolutely no formal education. I noticed that when I do open a bbing shit mag, I jump right to the research pages. How do these people in this industry continue to do this? Dont they want to be taken seriously?
> Isnt there some type of filter on these things? Or do they not care and give every shit about money only? Where's the integrity?


Great to voice your opinion..
You remind alot of the guy  I sat next to in typing class in high school.


----------



## Tank316 (May 6, 2009)

I read through the entire thread @MD about this whole debate, it was full of info. I think its closed now, not sure. I respect both Dave and Erics views on the topic. They both have some type of *formal education*, again to which i say, I respect!


----------



## juggernaut (May 6, 2009)

Tank316 said:


> Great to voice your opinion..
> You remind alot of the guy  I sat next to in typing class in high school.


----------



## Built (May 6, 2009)

I am unfamiliar with Broser's post-secondary education in this area. Is it comparable to pre-med?


----------



## gopro (May 6, 2009)

Prince, you need to print my response back to Dave.

Interesting side notes:

-Dave Palumbo at one point *asked ME to write *"the definitive book on dieting for fat loss" *with him* several months after HE himself pushed the owner of MD to get me on staff. We did not get around to it because we were both too busy and then we kind of parted ways, which is obvious.
-Steve Blechman, *who lives his life by research and studies*, AND the senior science editor of MD, Robbie Durand, both agree with ME on the topic 
of keto-diets and bodybuilding (especially for naturals).
-Dave is no longer with MD, but I am.

Finally...I have total respect for Dave and our debate was never meant to get personal, although he made it that way. But, I still think he is one of the best minds in the business and since I have sat in his home and talked with him on many occasion, I wish him the best.


----------



## juggernaut (May 6, 2009)

I see no indication that it was made "personal". People move on in life. Maybe he got sick of the bullshit that is ragmag journalism and took it seriously-no wonder he left. 
Dave has credentials...what are yours? I know you went to school for psychology, but how does that make you an authority on biochemistry-Dave's specialty? I'm also interested in this research that shows how muscle hypertrophy is compromised in this particular environment.


----------



## Built (May 6, 2009)

Ah, to be fair, I have no formal background in physiology either. Many of us don't. That's why I'm so appreciative of folks like Lyle and Jumbo who are able to translate formal education in physiology into this arena.


----------



## gopro (May 6, 2009)

juggernaut said:


> I see no indication that it was made "personal". People move on in life. Maybe he got sick of the bullshit that is ragmag journalism and took it seriously-no wonder he left.
> Dave has credentials...what are yours? I know you went to school for psychology, but how does that make you an authority on biochemistry-Dave's specialty? I'm also interested in this research that shows how muscle hypertrophy is compromised in this particular environment.



Please do not speak on something you no nothing about. And I am not saying that in a "asshole" kind of way, but in total truth. Dave DID make a "professional" argument personal. In fact, I was apologized to formally by the owner of MD for allowing Dave's response in the format it was put in. Also, Dave was fired, he did not quit. He was not tired of MD at all...he was forced out, but for many reasons I cannot discuss.

As for credentials and such...Dave's formal education is different than mine, but we have the same level of experience and like I said...HE ASKED ME...not some scientist...not some researcher...not some PhD...but ME to write a book WITH him. That should tell you something about what Dave himself believes about my knowledge and capabilities.

And again...although Dave and I sort of left off on a lousy note in a way...I wish him nothing but the best as I know he does for me as well. I am sure we wish we could go back in time and redo our "discussion."

As for the keto-diet stuff....although NOTHING has proven my thoughts about it more than 20 years experience witnessing the effects of all types of nutritional regimens, I posted an article with references in another thread. It only reinforced everything I already knew. And, I should point out that 1) I never said keto diets do not work, only that they are not optimal, and 2) That I myself have found exceptions, meaning that there are some that do best on keto plans...but they are the minority.


----------



## Built (May 6, 2009)

You know something, I'm going to play devil's advocate with you on that last point gopro. I don't truly think we're the minority - I think there's so little information about low carb/keto diets in the mainstream fitness community, that people like me - who absolutely can NOT diet down on a high carb diet (because it's misery for me) - get turned off and self-select out. You are left with the people who do well on non-keto, higher-carb cutting diets. 

Doubt me? Well, the research on satiety supports my assertion that ketosis improves satiety in the obese through the enhancement of cholecystokinin - and the fatter we are, the better this suppresses postprandial appetite. Dieted down obese may need to consume a higher protein and fat diet forever in order to remain as comfortable as never-obese lean people on a mixed diet. 

Still doubt me? Look around any mall in the USA, and behold the wonder that is a diet that is too high in carbohydrate. The low fat experiment was a DISASTER - it promoted hunger in way too many people, and caused a situation where postprandial satiety may never be normal for most of these people on standard American/Canadian dietary (read: high carb, low fat) recommendations. 

Short story long: fatties can't diet, 'cause it's brutally hard for many of 'em unless we go keto - and the fitness community generally doesn't recommend this so we just don't try.

Why couldn't I? Because it wouldn't WORK? Nonsense. Of course a non-keto diet would have leaned me out - if only I wasn't such a pussy and just sucked up feeling like chewing my goddamned arm off all the time! If discomfort wasn't a problem, I most certainly could have dieted down on the old "oatmeal and whey for breakfast/six meals a day/tons of cardio" paradigm that is the most prevalent in physical culture. 

In fact, I've been run out of town on a rail for eating butter (GASP!) on some of the mainstream boards, especially in my early days in the community, back in 2001-2003.

The point I'll mention to you, Eric, is that this is not an all or nothing plan, and it's not MY keto diet. I didn't invent it. 

Furthermore, I have never eaten a zero carb day in my life - not on Atkins, not on Lyle's "Rapid fat loss" PSMF, not on TKD or CKD. I eat veggies, LOTS of 'em, every day. Ketosis isn't my goal, and I haven't checked for ketones in probably eight years. It just happens when you go low enough and get depleted. Quite in fact, a normal, healthy body goes into and out of ketosis daily - and being in a ketogenic state has various benefits to human health, among them improvements in brain and cardiac function - not to mention the anticancer benefits due to this fuel source. Ketones may be thought of as a less-desirable fuel source by healty bodily tissues, but cancer is noteworthy in its altered mitochondrial function - cancer needs sugar, and without it, fails to thrive. You can easily check this on pubmed. Ketosis is associated with improved outcomes in epileptics and migraineurs (this one is also true in my own case - I had migraines every twenty eight days from the age of 11 until the age of 38. They ended when I did Atkins, and at the time of writing, almost eight years in, have not returned); brain and prostate cancers respond favourably to ketosis, as does satiety. In fact, starvation, which induces the muscle-sparing effect due to ketosis after a few days - is associated with reduced incidence of cancer. Anorexics have many health problems, but cancer rates are reduced, as they are in the survivors of concentration camps and even Celiac - wherein the malabsorption due to GI damage mitigates starvation in spite of feeding - is associated with a reduction in the rate of breast cancer. 

Gahhh I read too much lol - I really need to go back to school. This stuff is just so FASCINATING!

But to sum things up, don't lay keto diets on me - I don't live in ketosis, and I don't think it's important for leaning out. That part comes from the nitrogen-positive state due to the high protein consumption and the insulin resistance that are coincident (and very welcome!) during a cut.


----------



## juggernaut (May 7, 2009)

Built said:


> _*Ketosis is associated with improved outcomes in epileptics and migraineurs (this one is also true in my own case - I had migraines every twenty eight days from the age of 11 until the age of 38. They ended when I did Atkins, and at the time of writing, almost eight years in, have not returned); brain and prostate cancers respond favourably to ketosis, as does satiety.*_


Here's what I know gobro; a) I'm epileptic to the most violent degree. Built suggested to me that I switch over to a higher fat/higher protein diet. Since the day I made the entire switch, not aura (a precursor to a seizure has NOT bothered me). My seizure activity used to be off the charts; in fact, the doctor wanted to do brain surgery on me. I said fuck that. I took matters into my own hands. I listened to something with research, which is why I am such a maven for lab tested results-not BULLSHIT self-modified personal experiences after 20 years. Your theories are mere claims. What may work for you, will not work for me and a ton of fatties out there.
b) when I did the high carb high protein diet, I was never more uncomfortable in my life, and had a gnawing, uncontrollable hunger, added into gasiness and bloated that made me an unsocial motherfucker. I have yet to feel ANY discomfort on this lifestyle diet.
c) I am shredded like a sonofabitch with muscle fullness and hardness that cant be matched while on this high protein/high fat diet. As an added bonus, my strength goes through the roof.

d) My dad has cancer. He switched over to a high protein high fat diet and doing better and enjoying life to the best possible way. He golfs and walks on a daily basis and is active like a madman and has recently taken up strength training. He wasnt this way on the shit high carb diet that swept America.

Take a look around, your minority is fast becoming the norm. Your statement is null.


----------



## Built (May 7, 2009)

That's right, you told me about the epilepsy. I'm really glad the aura phenomenon has settled down. Many brain functions appear to improve in ketosis - even Alzheimer's.


----------



## Arnold (May 7, 2009)

Eric, is MD going back to being a "natural" magazine?


----------



## Balin (May 7, 2009)

These threads drive me crazy.   The argument, er discussion is flawed in that you are comparing apples to oranges.

The arguments that I see are:

Gopro asserts that ketogenic diets are not optimal for *natural body builders *to get lean and maintain LBM.  He cites 20 years real world experience on himself and natural trainees and gave a study to support this view.

Built and Jug assert that ketosis diets is the best way to get lean and maintain LBM.  Both cite anecdotal evidence of why this is true and can produce numerous studies of the *general population* as to why this works.

And both arguments are probably correct in their analysis depending on the subjects/population they are discussing.

I may be over simplifying or reading too much into this but I think that Gopro's opinion is based on individuals who train for contests who typically start at a 10-12% bf level and diet down to a 5-6% bf level.

I think that Built and Jug are talking about individuals who start out as obese and diet down to the 10% bf range.

In order for this discussion to be more meaningful I think we need to agree or even define the specifics of what we are debating here.


----------



## juggernaut (May 7, 2009)

Prince said:


> Eric, is MD going back to being a "natural" magazine?


 I snickered as I saw thumbing through the pages of MD about 4-6 steroid articles. They ARE needed, however, I dont think the magazine will ever go natty again-were they ever?


----------



## juggernaut (May 7, 2009)

Balin said:


> I may be over simplifying or reading too much into this but I think that Gopro's opinion is based on individuals who train for contests who typically start at a 10-12% bf level and diet down to a 5-6% bf level.
> 
> I think that Built and Jug are talking about individuals who start out as obese and diet down to the 10% bf range.
> 
> In order for this discussion to be more meaningful I think we need to agree or even define the specifics of what we are debating here.


youre wrong. It was only after hitting 12% bf that I went down further because of the higher fat and higher protein. Built started seeing better results after doing the same switch.


----------



## Balin (May 7, 2009)

juggernaut said:


> youre wrong. It was only after hitting 12% bf that I went down further because of the higher fat and higher protein. Built started seeing better results after doing the same switch.



How low did you get?


----------



## juggernaut (May 7, 2009)

how low? I measured last contest close to 4%.I was 7% by the end of the following week. But, that was taking a three day break-after that, the carbs and bloating started kicking in and I had to stop. Went back to high protein and high fat and adjusted almost overnight.


----------



## juggernaut (May 7, 2009)

Built said:


> That's right, you told me about the epilepsy. I'm really glad the aura phenomenon has settled down. Many brain functions appear to improve in ketosis - even Alzheimer's.


it was really bad. I was in the middle of opening up my gym and would have to stop because I was getting jittery from the repeated auras. I was spacing out way too much...which to me is like death.


----------



## Balin (May 7, 2009)

juggernaut said:


> how low? I measured last contest close to 4%.I was 7% by the end of the following week. But, that was taking a three day break-after that, the carbs and bloating started kicking in and I had to stop. Went back to high protein and high fat and adjusted almost overnight.



Awesome, I hope to get sub 10 at some point in my life, lol


----------



## Arnold (May 7, 2009)

juggernaut said:


> I snickered as I saw thumbing through the pages of MD about 4-6 steroid articles. They ARE needed, however, I dont think the magazine will ever go natty again-were they ever?



yes, they used to be an all natural bodybuilding magazine, some believe one of the main reasons for letting go of Dave Palumbo and John Romano was because they want to go back in the all natural direction.

why do you always post crap when you have very little knowledge of what you're posting about?


----------



## CowPimp (May 7, 2009)

I don't really think either approach is ideal at all, honestly.  I think both are capable of working.  However, as Built said, some people seem to be far better satiated on a ketogenic diet vs a more moderate approach.  Furthermore, as a result of this, many people are more likely to succeed on a ketogenic diet because they naturally intake fewer calories WITHOUT having to count calories, which is huge.  Most people are not willing to make that time investment.

One could also argue for techniques that don't involve calorie counting on a more moderate approach, and I agree with that.  Portion control is a biggie.  Nonetheless, in the end, it comes down to whichever approach is more feasible for the person to carry out on a regular basis.

With that said, I cannot stand a ketogenic diet.  It doesn't work for me; I couldn't stick to it.  I do like the idea behind nutrient timing, and that seems to work well for myself.  I'm also experimenting with some carbohydrate cycling right now, which is nutrient timing in a little more macro sense than the purely meal by meal basis on which I used it before.  Furthermore, despite all the research, if I don't consume enough carbohydrate, I get HUNGRY.  Seriously, fat and protein never satiate me.  The only meals that ever satiate me are carbohydrate-rich meals, period, and even that doesn't always work unless it's a shit ton of 'em

Furthermore, I will say that a purely ketogenic diet is not conducive to good performance during anaerobic activity.  Sorry to say, but you will have to eat carbohydrate sometimes if you want to maintain performance in the gym, period.

I think Eric said it best at the end of his article.  Try out both approaches.  Both are quite capable of getting you where you need to be.  Whichever one works for you is the bottom line.


----------



## Tank316 (May 7, 2009)

Prince said:


> yes, they used to be an all natural bodybuilding magazine, some believe one of the main reasons for letting go of Dave Palumbo and John Romano was because they want to go back in the all natural direction.
> 
> why do you always post crap when you have very little knowledge of what you're posting about?



I'm sure he has some type of formal education Prince, play nice!


----------



## juggernaut (May 7, 2009)

Prince said:


> yes, they used to be an all natural bodybuilding magazine, some believe one of the main reasons for letting go of Dave Palumbo and John Romano was because they want to go back in the all natural direction.
> 
> why do you always post crap when you have very little knowledge of what you're posting about?


I asked a real question. I thought it was comical and never saw their magazine in its natural state. I really didnt know this.


----------



## juggernaut (May 7, 2009)

Tank316 said:


> I'm sure he has some type of formal education Prince, play nice!


reading, writing and rithmatic. Got all my bases covered.


----------



## Arnold (May 7, 2009)

juggernaut said:


> I asked a real question. I thought it was comical and never saw their magazine in its natural state. I really didnt know this.



yes, it used to be a pretty good magazine, now its pretty much shit, about 300 pages of supplement ads.


----------



## juggernaut (May 7, 2009)

hence my reason for laughing my ass off. 
Quite honestly, MD is one of the worst offenders of tree killers with the thickness of their books. 
I didnt mean to post a smartass remark. I'd never do that.....


----------



## juggernaut (May 7, 2009)

From wikipedia...

"
_*Muscular Development*_ is an American fitness and bodybuilding magazine first published in 1964. It was founded by Bob Hoffman, the owner and founder of the York Barbell Company. Its editor from 1964 to its sale in 1986 was John Grimek. [1] *MD*, as it's known to many of its readers, was previously owned by Twinlab. In 2001 Twinlab sold _Muscular Development_ to Steve Blechman who then resigned from Twinlab.[2] _Muscular Development_ is also currently published in Romania.[1]
_Muscular Development_ focuses on bodybuilding and nutrition science. Among its current or past contributors are Michael Colgan, John Romano, Dan Duchaine, and Mike Mentzer. It was notable for including an ongoing comic strip, Max Rep: Mr. Astrotitan 2206 by illustrator Lyman Dally in the 90's. Max Rep and Quadra Blu were even once featured on the cover. After the sale of the magazine to Blechman it changed to a more "hard-core" bodybuilding magazine and focused less on fitness..."


----------



## gopro (May 7, 2009)

Prince said:


> Eric, is MD going back to being a "natural" magazine?




No, not at all. They just now have some representation of the natural side of the sport.


----------



## gopro (May 7, 2009)

Balin said:


> These threads drive me crazy.   The argument, er discussion is flawed in that you are comparing apples to oranges.
> 
> The arguments that I see are:
> 
> ...



I think you have the best of reading comprehension skills, LOL.

First, my diet approach is LOW CARB, higher fat, higher protein. My diets are never medium or high carb. 

Second, I AM speaking specifically about what is OPTIMUM for DIETING BODYBUILDERS whose goal is a COMBINATION of maximum mass and the lowest bodyfat level. This is the only population I am referring to and the only one I have been referring to since the beginning. Keto diets WILL have you lose more muscle tissue than a "timed" low carb approach...especially if you are natural.

For the general population keto plans work quite well.


----------



## Hench (May 7, 2009)

gopro said:


> I think you have the best of reading comprehension skills, LOL.
> 
> First, my diet approach is LOW CARB, higher fat, higher protein. My diets are never medium or high carb.
> 
> ...



When do you think is the best time to eat the small amount of carbs? Pre and Post workout? Then very low carb the rest of the day?


----------



## Built (May 7, 2009)

Eric, I guarantee that you/your clients will hit ketosis while dieting the way you suggest. 

It's fine, really, you're SUPPOSED to hit ketosis, it's normal, we should all hit it at least once a day (barring festivals! Burp!).

Why are you so afraid of that word?


----------



## RoosterTX (May 7, 2009)

It's been my experience in life that people fear the following (including but not limited to):

a.) Things they don't understand.
b.) Change. Especially if it challenges the beliefs that comprise their general world view.
c.) SPIDERS AND SHARKS!!!

not that I'm accusing anyone of having these types of fears. I'm just saying.


----------



## juggernaut (May 7, 2009)

Balin said:


> Awesome, I hope to get sub 10 at some point in my life, lol


Balin, what BF are you at now?


----------



## Balin (May 7, 2009)

juggernaut said:


> Balin, what BF are you at now?



When I started the PSMF I was 20-22.  I am hoping that by the end of next week I will be around 15% which will be the end of my PSMF run.

The best I have ever done was a 10.9% by a 7 pt caliper method.  Just enough to see the top 2 abs.

My goal for the summer is to hang out in maintenance at around 15% and work on my over all conditioning.  In the fall I may do a quick PSMF again to get to 12 or so then try to put on some mass to fill out this skin.... its not snapping back like it used to, lol.


----------



## Balin (May 7, 2009)

gopro said:


> I think you have the best of reading comprehension skills, LOL.



LOL, thanks man


----------



## Built (May 7, 2009)

Change is really a tough one. Especially when you've believed in what you absolutely KNEW for so long. It can be a very tough nut to crack. I know, I've been through it myself - I was SO SURE it was carbs and not calories that kept me fat. 

It was, of course, ONLY the calories. But I had a long hard chew on that one before I believed it.


----------



## Balin (May 7, 2009)

Built said:


> Change is really a tough one. Especially when you've believed in what you absolutely KNEW for so long. It can be a very tough nut to crack. I know, I've been through it myself - I was SO SURE it was carbs and not calories that kept me fat.
> 
> It was, of course, ONLY the calories. But I had a long hard chew on that one before I believed it.



I am with you there, I still suffer from carb phobia... refeeds get me wound up


----------



## Built (May 7, 2009)

I think a lot of us got hung up on the words "carbohydrate" and "ketosis" - as if either was magical in it's effect on bodyfat - that is to say, allowing the body to bypass the laws of thermodynamics. 

I'm just re-reading the original post: 
"impaired gene expression for muscle hypertrophy."

What exactly does that mean in this context?


----------



## Pirate! (May 7, 2009)

I graduated top of my class from a national top 3 Nutrition BS program with Sports Nutrition as my focus. I can tell you this without any doubt. Carbs play a very important role for sparing muscle during a natural cut. The right carbs at the right time. The key is manage blood sugar such that the body need not produce much insulin for an extended period of time. This shifts metabolic pathways and gene expresion in various ways I'm too lazy to delve into at this point.

Rember, Glut-4 receptors in muscle open in the absence of insulin with the correct stimuli--physical activity. Carbs can be consumed and utilized with benefit without illiciting an inslulin increse that would thow off the ideal enzmatic balance that promotes leaness. A cheat meal throws the enzymes to hell and ruins a good weeks work.


----------



## danzik17 (May 7, 2009)

Pirate! said:


> I graduated top of my class from a national top 3 Nutrition BS program with Sports Nutrition as my focus. I can tell you this without any doubt. Carbs play a very important role for sparing muscle during a natural cut. The right carbs at the right time. The key is manage blood sugar such that the body need not produce much insulin for an extended period of time. This shifts metabolic pathways and gene expresion in various ways I'm too lazy to delve into at this point.
> 
> Rember, Glut-4 receptors in muscle open in the absence of insulin with the correct stimuli--physical activity. Carbs can be consumed and utilized with benefit without illiciting an inslulin increse that would thow off the ideal enzmatic balance that promotes leaness. A cheat meal throws the enzymes to hell and ruins a good weeks work.



That seems to be vilifying cheat meals though which on a cut are fairly important at certain times, at least from everything that I understand.

Whether or not you want to call them cheat meals or refeeds (in my case they're essentially the same thing), those meals are important to stave off metabolic slowdown by upregulating certain hormones.  If I'm incorrect, please feel free to chime in since I'd love to learn more.


----------



## Tank316 (May 7, 2009)

> Carbs play a very important role for sparing muscle during a natural cut. _The right carbs at the right time._


_Not speaking for gopro, but I know that this his thought as well._


----------



## gopro (May 7, 2009)

Built said:


> Eric, I guarantee that you/your clients will hit ketosis while dieting the way you suggest.
> 
> It's fine, really, you're SUPPOSED to hit ketosis, it's normal, we should all hit it at least once a day (barring festivals! Burp!).
> 
> Why are you so afraid of that word?



I guarantee that they do not reach ketosis. And, even so...the point is to not remain in ketosis for any extended period. This is where muscle loss will occur. But Built, it is silly to discuss this with you, because you will not change your view anyway...whether it is based on years and years of experience...studies about muscle loss and extremely low carb diets...or both. Thus, I am not going to discuss this with you anymore and am happy to agree to disagree.


----------



## DIVINITUS (May 7, 2009)

Built said:


> Change is really a tough one. Especially when you've believed in what you absolutely KNEW for so long. It can be a very tough nut to crack. I know, I've been through it myself - I was SO SURE it was carbs and not calories that kept me fat.
> 
> It was, of course, ONLY the calories. But I had a long hard chew on that one before I believed it.



It's funny you bring this up...I was thinking about this subject the other day, since being back here (I haven't been on IM for a couple of years at least) I was surprised to see the almighty calorie is what's most important.  I seem to recall the "calorie is not a calorie" belief was pretty highly regarded when I was last a regular member here.  It's amazing how much changes, on the science side, in bodybuilding or fitness in general.


----------



## gopro (May 7, 2009)

Pirate! said:


> I graduated top of my class from a national top 3 Nutrition BS program with Sports Nutrition as my focus. I can tell you this without any doubt. Carbs play a very important role for sparing muscle during a natural cut. The right carbs at the right time. The key is manage blood sugar such that the body need not produce much insulin for an extended period of time. This shifts metabolic pathways and gene expresion in various ways I'm too lazy to delve into at this point.
> 
> Rember, Glut-4 receptors in muscle open in the absence of insulin with the correct stimuli--physical activity. Carbs can be consumed and utilized with benefit without illiciting an inslulin increse that would thow off the ideal enzmatic balance that promotes leaness. A cheat meal throws the enzymes to hell and ruins a good weeks work.



Exactly...and also it is the TIMING of carbs that are important as well. First thing in the morning after an overnight fast, as well as immediately after training are the ideal times to intake carbs as the body will be "metabolically set" to partition calories towards muscle tissue.

Again, a textbook or study does not have to show me this, as I have tried every way of dieting with myself and others dozens and dozens of times and have witnessed the results. And when you are talking about bodybuilding competition, even the slightest muscle loss will become evident.


----------



## gopro (May 7, 2009)

DIVINITUS said:


> It's funny you bring this up...I was thinking about this subject the other day, since being back here (I haven't been on IM for a couple of years at least) I was surprised to see the almighty calorie is what's most important.  I seem to recall the "calorie is not a calorie" belief was pretty highly regarded when I was last a regular member here.  It's amazing how much changes, on the science side, in bodybuilding or fitness in general.




It is most important according to some here, but not to others, however. A calorie is not a calorie. But, I only mention this to show that there is more than one opinion on this subject....not to get into this neverending debate again


----------



## DIVINITUS (May 7, 2009)

gopro said:


> It is most important according to some here, but not to others, however. A calorie is not a calorie. But, I only mention this to show that there is more than one opinion on this subject....not to get into this neverending debate again



Sorry about that...wasn't trying to start something.  I must say, it's nice to have the people I and others consider to be "heavyweights" on this site, all contributing to this thread.  Gopro, Built, Prince, juggernaut, Cowpimp, Tank...I remember all of your names from a few years ago and it's nice to see a forum with dedication like this.  It makes someone like myself respect your opinions while at the same time researching and working even harder to shape my own.  To me, this thread is a nice snapshot of all of that...

...forgive the ego stroking, detour taking post.  I work nights!!


----------



## gopro (May 7, 2009)

DIVINITUS said:


> Sorry about that...wasn't trying to start something.  I must say, it's nice to have the people I and others consider to be "heavyweights" on this site, all contributing to this thread.  Gopro, Built, Prince, juggernaut, Cowpimp, Tank...I remember all of your names from a few years ago and it's nice to see a forum with dedication like this.  It makes someone like myself respect your opinions while at the same time researching and working even harder to shape my own.  To me, this thread is a nice snapshot of all of that...
> 
> ...forgive the ego stroking, detour taking post.  I work nights!!



No apology necessary at all. I just wanted to point out that opinions on that subject differ quite a bit and is not one-dimensional across the site. Thought it was important to know as you seemed genuinely interested.


----------



## Built (May 7, 2009)

You had your buddy rantorcha do cardio on a zero carb day. Wanna explain how he avoids ketosis doing that?


----------



## gopro (May 8, 2009)

Built said:


> You had your buddy rantorcha do cardio on a zero carb day. Wanna explain how he avoids ketosis doing that?



#1 He is a special case (like I mentioned before...there are minorities), as I know his body and what he needs to get lean.
#2 You will not necessarily be able to reach ketosis in one 24 hour carb-free period.
#3 There is a HUGE difference in being in ketosis for a single day VS. and entire precontest prep period.


----------



## Built (May 8, 2009)

gopro said:


> *I guarantee that they do not reach ketosis.* And, even so...the point is to not remain in ketosis for any extended period. This is where muscle loss will occur. But Built, it is silly to discuss this with you, because you will not change your view anyway...whether it is based on years and years of experience...studies about muscle loss and extremely low carb diets...or both. Thus, I am not going to discuss this with you anymore and am happy to agree to disagree.





Built said:


> You had your buddy rantorcha do cardio on a zero carb day. Wanna explain how he avoids ketosis doing that?





gopro said:


> #1 He is a special case (like I mentioned before...there are minorities), as I know his body and what he needs to get lean.
> #2 You will not necessarily be able to reach ketosis in one 24 hour carb-free period.
> #3 There is a HUGE difference in being in ketosis for a single day VS. and entire precontest prep period.



Okay, so you don't really guarantee it. No worries.


----------



## rantorcha (May 8, 2009)

Built said:


> You had your buddy rantorcha do cardio on a zero carb day. Wanna explain how he avoids ketosis doing that?



SUCH animosity!  So sad...

Good news, though!  I AM ERIC'S BUDDY!!!


----------



## T_man (May 8, 2009)

Mr Dave Palumbo states something about gluconeogenesis for insulin response.
Now this is my question. If the body has reached a state where it's so starved of nutrients that gluconeogensis occurs, wont it convert glucogenic amino acids because it's trying to hold onto what energy it thinks it has, therefore not using glycerol or lactate?
Especially because Fatty acids cannot be converted into glucose in animals with the exception of odd-chain fatty acids, which yield propionyl CoA.

Also, enterring ketosis seems something really hard that people might come near and not really enter, yet doing themselves harm in the process.


----------



## Hench (May 8, 2009)

rantorcha said:


> SUCH animosity!  So sad...
> 
> Good news, though!  I AM ERIC'S BUDDY!!!



Its not animosity, its just a very good discussion that really gets into the finer points of dieting.

 There just isnt any room for half truths or generalisations.


----------



## nkira (May 8, 2009)

How about posting a keto test? Just make him piss on a keto-strip.....post a snap of it.




gopro said:


> #1 He is a special case (like I mentioned before...there are minorities), as I know his body and what he needs to get lean.
> #2 You will not necessarily be able to reach ketosis in one 24 hour carb-free period.
> #3 There is a HUGE difference in being in ketosis for a single day VS. and entire precontest prep period.


----------



## Balin (May 8, 2009)

Built said:


> You had your buddy rantorcha do cardio on a zero carb day. Wanna explain how he avoids ketosis doing that?



I have been googling that question myself and have come across several references in other forums that indicate if your Fat to Protein ratio is small you may not be in ketosis even on a zero carb as glucose is manufactured from the protein.

I don't know how reliable this guy is but here is his link

Low-Carb Diet Tips



> Also,                                       the number of grams of carbohydrates per day is not the only factor                                       determining whether you enter ketosis. Individuals who are eating                                       less than 20 grams of carbohydrates but are consuming exceedingly                                       high amounts of protein may NOT enter ketosis. If protein intake                                       is too high, the body can convert the protein into glucose (through                                       a very inefficient means) and avoid ketosis. Also, certain micronutrients                                       may prevent ketosis. Millard



***** Edited to Add *****

Reading a bit more, from LyleM, it might be that we are splitting hairs between ketosis and excessive protein keeping folks out of deep ketosis.

Sometimes the internet sucks, I bet if we were all at a table splitting a pitcher of beer this would be resolved already, lol


----------



## Built (May 8, 2009)

rantorcha said:


> SUCH animosity!  So sad...
> 
> Good news, though!  I AM ERIC'S BUDDY!!!


Animosity is when I cut someone down by attacking his or her character; bringing something into the argument that isn't there - and I'm not above that, I've done it, here, to trolls and spammers. 

But it's a weak form of argument; the intellectual equivalent of a below-the-belt punch. It's not sporting. 

Animosity would have been if I had said something negative about what kind of a person you are, or what kind of a person Eric is. I didn't do that. 

What I did was to point out a single counter-example to refute Eric's argument.
counter-example - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
*coun???ter???ex???am???ple*
Pronunciation: \kaun-tər-ig-zam-pəl\ Function: noun Date: 1852 
: an example that refutes or disproves a proposition or theory


Moondogg said:


> Its not animosity, its just a very good discussion that really gets into the finer points of dieting.
> 
> There just isnt any room for half truths or generalisations.


See? Moondogg gets it. 



nkira said:


> How about posting a keto test? Just make him piss on a keto-strip.....post a snap of it.



You can certainly do that - although keto strips aren't particularly sensitive to low ketone levels. Ketones are a fuel source, and it is only when they are in excess of what will be burned that they spill over into urine and show up on ketosticks (there will, however, be enough to show up on a more sensitive test, such as blood testing, in a lab). With keto strips, false positives are rare, but false negatives are common. 

Short version: 
keto strip turns purple = definite ketosis. 
Keto strip doesn't turn purple = we can't say for sure. 

I've gone into ketosis an hour after a bicycle ride where I had eaten bagels for breakfast - tested with a keto strip and it did indeed turn purple.

I've also been weeks into a ketogenic diet with under 30g of carb daily and had no ketones showing on the test; typically after exercise, where they've all been burned off as fuel. An hour or two after I'd stop exercising, subsequent tests would indicate the presence of ketones. 

That's why I think we need to stop getting hung up on the word.


----------



## juggernaut (May 8, 2009)

Above all else, I am the true king of animosity. No one can take my title!!!


----------



## gopro (May 8, 2009)

Ok, let me say that I "highly doubt Rantorcha is in ketosis so quickly because first, I used to do the keto stix thing and found that it takes more than 24 hours for most everyone to hit ketosis and second, because it is not that easy for the body to go into full on ketosis."

That said...let's say Rantorcha DOES end up in ketosis after a day. The take home point is that a day or two or three in a row of ketosis is not enough to cause any severe lean tissue loss. It is the extended near zero or zero carb diet (say a normal phase for most...8-16 weeks) that causes the problems for bodybuilders, particularly naturals.


----------



## Built (May 8, 2009)

Interesting. I have never gone that low - and I did Atkins.


----------



## gopro (May 9, 2009)

Built said:


> Interesting. I have never gone that low - and I did Atkins.



Well, no matter. What you are doing for YOURSELF is working quite nicely.


----------



## Built (May 9, 2009)

Thanks. I'm wondering more and more if you have a different definition of low carb or ketogenic than I do, Eric. 

Humour me for a moment here - have you ever done a ketogenic diet yourself? I realize fully well that you came into this as an ectomorph, not a meso-endo like me. I'm just curious if you've ever gotten yourself into ketosis (if for no other reason than curiosity). 

If so, what macros did you run, and what are maintenance calories for you?


----------



## juggernaut (May 9, 2009)

good question


----------



## gopro (May 9, 2009)

Built said:


> Thanks. I'm wondering more and more if you have a different definition of low carb or ketogenic than I do, Eric.
> 
> Humour me for a moment here - have you ever done a ketogenic diet yourself? I realize fully well that you came into this as an ectomorph, not a meso-endo like me. I'm just curious if you've ever gotten yourself into ketosis (if for no other reason than curiosity).
> 
> If so, what macros did you run, and what are maintenance calories for you?



I would NEVER talk about anything (with complete confidence) unless I tried it myself first...that is one of my golden rules of being a coach.

So yes, I have used both an Atkins type diet and also Palumbo's diet, and even one in between that I learned from Dan Duchaine. I have also used various approaches to the diet with many clients of differing body types.


----------



## Built (May 10, 2009)

Okay, cool. I did PSMF (Lyle's "Rapid Fat Loss" for those of you about to ask) for the same reason - I saw people using it successfully and although it seemed incongruous that I could subsist on 50% of my maintenance without discomfort, I felt honour-bound to try it. 

I was floored. 

Getting back to you - when you ran your various keto versions, did you feel comfortable on any of them? Not everybody does.


----------



## juggernaut (May 10, 2009)

Same here. when I was introduced to it and ran it, I was shocked how good I looked and how much of an improvement digestibility went through (no pun intended). However as I reverted back to some carbs, slowly and surely, the bloat and gasiness that come, especially on higher carb day just arent worth it. Plus, after doing the higher fat/protein addition, my auras stopped and that was sealed the deal.


----------



## Built (May 10, 2009)

It's interesting, isn't it? I feel great on keto, you do too. My husband utterly HATES it, but that's because he couldn't have his usual ice cream and chocolate at bedtime LOL! He's got a real sweet tooth. 

As for me, I don't just east low carb for cutting. I eat low carb when I want to maintain my weight and not track. Like right now - I'm injured, and you really can't cut when you're trying to heal an injury. I just stay keto (or close to keto) and I can maintain my weight by feel. One less thing for me to deal with right now, and it can only enhance healing - insulin is pro-inflammatory and I don't need any more inflammation. I just load in the healthy fats and veggies and meat at times like these.

Eric, did you ever feel good on any of the low-carb paradigms you tried on for size? And were your calories ever at maintenance or over, or did you only do this at sub-maintenance? 

The reason I'm so interested in your response to keto is because you are naturally lean - you're not a former fatty like so many of us are. There really aren't that many naturally lean people wandering around out there - fewer still who have actually tried keto as an experiment. I'm very interested to hear how it affected you, and what macros you ran while you did it.


----------



## juggernaut (May 11, 2009)

I feel unreal-and not as bloated. Cant train properly if I have to many carbs running around in the bod. I get all woozy and goofy. Not that that has stopped me before!


----------



## Built (May 11, 2009)

We live in a fascinating time, don't we jugg? I'm so glad there are scientists writing about the physiology of bodybuilding now, and not JUST people selling supplements (although certainly, some do both and sometimes that can be a good thing). I love the recent information that is challenging the old-school dogma. Some of the old stuff is still the best, and some of it needs to be retired. I love these fora for the real-time information sharing they facilitate. You just can't get that in a paper magazine.


----------



## danzik17 (May 11, 2009)

Just another random note:

I had pain in my right leg for years because of a stupid mistake I made squatting when I just started.

A couple of cycles of UD 2.0 and it was GONE!  I'm squatting as heavy/heavier than I was before but pain-free now.  I'm a fan of low carb/keto diets now if for no other reason than glycogen supercompensation which I believe is what finally got my leg to heal.


----------



## gopro (May 11, 2009)

Built said:


> Okay, cool. I did PSMF (Lyle's "Rapid Fat Loss" for those of you about to ask) for the same reason - I saw people using it successfully and although it seemed incongruous that I could subsist on 50% of my maintenance without discomfort, I felt honour-bound to try it.
> 
> I was floored.
> 
> Getting back to you - when you ran your various keto versions, did you feel comfortable on any of them? Not everybody does.



I feel quite comfortable on keto diets! No problem with low blood sugar, and appetite remains under control. That was never a concern after the first few days as my body adjusted.


----------



## gopro (May 11, 2009)

Built said:


> Eric, did you ever feel good on any of the low-carb paradigms you tried on for size? And were your calories ever at maintenance or over, or did you only do this at sub-maintenance?
> 
> The reason I'm so interested in your response to keto is because you are naturally lean - you're not a former fatty like so many of us are. There really aren't that many naturally lean people wandering around out there - fewer still who have actually tried keto as an experiment. I'm very interested to hear how it affected you, and what macros you ran while you did it.



I started each of my keto plans at maintenance level and then slowly, on a weekly basis, either added extra minutes of cardio or (not both) lowered overall calories a bit.

Also, I should point out that while I am naturally SKINNY, I am not naturally lean. I had little to no muscle definition when I started training, even though I weighed 125 lbs at 5'11"!!! Sad!


----------



## Built (May 12, 2009)

Skinny fat or not, at 125 even if you were 20% bodyfat, we're only talking 25 lbs. 

I have 114 whopping pounds of lean mass, I LOST 50 lbs of fat, and I still carry over twenty pounds of fat when I'm LEAN. 

What macros did you run on keto?


----------



## juggernaut (May 12, 2009)

Built said:


> We live in a fascinating time, don't we jugg? I'm so glad there are scientists writing about the physiology of bodybuilding now, and not JUST people selling supplements (although certainly, some do both and sometimes that can be a good thing). I love the recent information that is challenging the old-school dogma. Some of the old stuff is still the best, and some of it needs to be retired. I love these fora for the real-time information sharing they facilitate. You just can't get that in a paper magazine.


I love that there is an educational aspect going on now in bbing, being a former veteran teacher. I love that science has taken realm of what should be studied and analyzed with an electron microscope. Afterall, we are talking about people's health and their safety. You dont wanna mess with those two keys, especially after all the hard work and sacrifice that goes into planning, training and eating. It really is a science.

Also, old school workouts can be very beneficial-there some who really knew what they were talking about. 
We should continue to debunk and challenge everything-it is part of the learning process. I also agree that some of it does need to be retired, or at the very least investigated further before any real theories are born.


----------



## juggernaut (May 12, 2009)

I was tipping the scales at 300 lbs 6 years ago. I came in at my leanest of 188 lbs. I also stand at 6'!"


----------



## gopro (May 12, 2009)

Built said:


> Skinny fat or not, at 125 even if you were 20% bodyfat, we're only talking 25 lbs.
> 
> I have 114 whopping pounds of lean mass, I LOST 50 lbs of fat, and I still carry over twenty pounds of fat when I'm LEAN.
> 
> What macros did you run on keto?



I understand...I was just pointing that out because many people don't realize just how pathetic (LOL) I was when I started. I mean, I was an excellent athlete...baseball, martial arts, football...but just had little to no muscle.

As for the macros, we are talking zero starchy carbs...some fibrous carbs from green veggies and also from almonds, walnuts, and/or natty peanut butter, anywhere from 1.5 to 2 grams protein per lb bodyweight, and about .33 to .5 grams of fat per lb bodyweight.


----------



## Built (May 12, 2009)

Okay, so you weighed about what,  240 at the time, and were running something like this:

*Low end*
360g protein
80g fat
50g carb
2400 calories

*High end*
480g protein
120g fat
50g carb
3200 calories

That look about right for the times you ran it?


----------



## gopro (May 12, 2009)

Built said:


> Okay, so you weighed about what,  240 at the time, and were running something like this:
> 
> *Low end*
> 360g protein
> ...



Actually, fats were a bit higher as I was only counting added EFA's. Also, I do not count fibrous carbs as they go mostly undigested anyway. 

But basically, that is it. And it kept me in ketosis throughout the entire period of the diets each time, although it took almost a week to get me there.

I had no problems with hunger and often felt just fine (but I also feel this way on a timed low carb plan as well) with only tiny cravings. I lost bodyfat quite readily, but also flattened out and lost too much muscle for my liking.


----------



## Built (May 12, 2009)

Eric - thanks for your reply.

Okay, so your calories were more like this:
*Low end*
360g protein
100g fat
50g carb
2500 calories

*High end*
480g protein
150g fat
50g carb
3500 calories

That makes good sense - the high end is just around 14-15x bodyweight, roughly maintenance, and the low end is around 10-11x bodyweight, which you would have dropped to as your cut progressed. 

Cool.

How were you training during this period, and did you do any carbups or refeeds during this period? If so, how often?


----------



## Bradicallyman (May 12, 2009)

I guess I need to read up a bit. I was always under the impression that low carb and keto were basically the same.


----------



## juggernaut (May 12, 2009)

what do you want to know?


----------



## gopro (May 12, 2009)

Built said:


> Eric - thanks for your reply.
> 
> Okay, so your calories were more like this:
> *Low end*
> ...



Yes, that is probably about right on the money.

My training was as it always is...medium to lower volume...high intensity. Cardio would vary from medium/high to medium/low intensity, but overall I do not do nearly the amounts that most competitors engage in.

I tried refeeds twice per week on one diet, once per week on another and never on another.


----------



## Built (May 12, 2009)

I can see how you would have had trouble and possibly lost muscle doing what you did. 

On very low carb diets, training is very, very low volume. 

For example, on Lyle's Rapid fat loss AKA PSMF - which for me is roughly what your "low" macros are - protein at about 2g per pound lean mass (1.5g per pound bodyweight-ish!) fat very low - under 50g for me is LOW - carbs only from green fibrous veggies. Calories for me on this at about 1100 - 1400. I am a category I dieter (leanest category)

Diet is low for 12 days, then a 2-day low fat, modest protein, high-carb refeed. 

This is how I train while doing this (not counting modest, very low-volume dynamic warmup):

Every three days:
*Workout 1*
3x5 squats
3x5 T-bars
3x5 bench

OR 

*Workout 2*
3x5 hang clean and press
3x5 RDL
3x5 weighted chins


It's only 12 days so I treat this as a rest break while I drop fat. It's almost like a deload. 

The only cardio I do on this is, *at most*, an hour of walking throughout the day, and that's optional and recreational, not dedicated and certainly not on a treadmill.

A 2x8-12 full-body tension workout preceeds the carbup. 

At category 1, unless you're assisted you don't do another cycle of PSMF. 

(Category 2 and 3, the "juicier" categories, have their own rules. Please see the book for more)

When I've done keto at maintenance, protein is lower and fat is a LOT higher. Just over a gram of protein per pound LBM, and close to a gram of fat per pound LBM. 

I find my training volume can go up somewhat, but of course, no pumps.

On TKD, where I take in pre and or post workout carbs, training volume is "normal" at maintenance, and of course cut back a bit on a cut. On lower calories, maybe it's different on a higher carb paradigm but on a lower-carb plan, training volume drops as the cut progresses. Cardio duration drops, but cardio intensity increases. 

That's how I do it anyway.

You appear to have done something close to a PSMF with refeeds, but on a lot higher volume. 

I agree, this would have sucked eggs. 

Thanks for sharing that Eric. I can see why you hate this for cutting. I would too.


----------



## gopro (May 12, 2009)

Built said:


> I can see how you would have had trouble and possibly lost muscle doing what you did.
> 
> On very low carb diets, training is very, very low volume.
> 
> ...



Well, all I need to do is add in some well-timed carbs and BOOM the whole story changes (calories the same)!

And I know you will disagree and question this, but there is not a single bodybuilder on this planet that would prepare for competition using the type of program you mention...and with the exception of the high end of genetic superiors, they could not achieve a stage ready physique on such a program.

Also, I do not look at you as anywhere near typical and think YOUR results would not apply to most. Whether you like it or not, you are obviously a genetic superior when it comes to building/maintaining muscle, AND believe it or not, losing bodyfat (once on a program to do so).

Anyway, before this goes in some other nutty direction, I will call it a day on this stuff. Everyone who I do not work with should try all approaches and see what is OPTIMAL for them, depending on their goals.

*Note:* And let me just mention, since this thread was based on a public, but somewhat heated, disagreement that I had with Dave Palumbo...it was based solely on bodybuilders preparing for shows that use similar type workouts (4-6 day splits, sets per bodypart anywhere from 6-20, posing practice...plus cardio--and *Dave* has some people doing 2-plus hours per day!!!).


----------



## Built (May 12, 2009)

There are so many ways to do a so-called "keto" diet. Atkins does VERY high fat, modest protein, very low carb and it works great on very fat people because it induces satiety so well - while you're obese. 

TKD is the ultimate transition for anyone who is working their way back from extreme carbohydrate intolerance - insulin sensitivity increases as we lean out, and TKD lets us get back to the safety and comfort of ketosis while we feed our lifting workouts a little glucose, in some form or another. 

Carb cycling on high and low carb days - say "over a hundred" and "under a hundred" can be ketogenic for some depending on their mass, metabolism and training type. 



gopro said:


> Well, all I need to do is add in some well-timed carbs and BOOM the whole story changes (calories the same)!


Yep. TKD. Targeted Ketogenic Diet. It was my first adventure into carbs after Atkins, and it felt like my "get out of jail free" card. 


gopro said:


> And I know you will disagree and question this, but there is not a single bodybuilder on this planet that would prepare for competition using the type of program you mention...and with the exception of the high end of genetic superiors, they could not achieve a stage ready physique on such a program.
> 
> Also, I do not look at you as anywhere near typical and think YOUR results would not apply to most. Whether you like it or not, you are obviously a genetic superior when it comes to building/maintaining muscle, AND believe it or not, losing bodyfat (once on a program to do so).


This isn't precontest prep - this is "get the flub off in a hurry 'cause you're behind schedule". 

And I used it on Merkaba to lean him out for his first contest - he was behind schedule and we had to lean him out in a hurry. Given the timeline, any other method would have lost him too much muscle. Merkaba's never taken anything stronger than creatine - this was a natural show. 

We started at 223 on May 13, and he went to weigh-in at 201 to compete June 14th. Cutoff for heavyweight was 192 1/4 so he had to move up a class but he did great anyway. 

He came in second in open and forth overall - and he looked really good. There's pix of him here on IMF.


> Anyway, before this goes in some other nutty direction, I will call it a day on this stuff. Everyone who I do not work with should try all approaches and see what is OPTIMAL for them, depending on their goals.
> 
> *Note:* And let me just mention, since this thread was based on a public, but somewhat heated, disagreement that I had with Dave Palumbo...it was based solely on bodybuilders preparing for shows that use similar type workouts (4-6 day splits, sets per bodypart anywhere from 6-20, posing practice...plus cardio--and *Dave* has some people doing 2-plus hours per day!!!).



Not my idea of fun. Yuck. Even Lyle warns against doing this in his "Rapid Fat Loss" book.


----------



## gopro (May 12, 2009)

Again, let me reiterate, that on my diet, ketosis is not reached.

Also, interestingly, you would have been on MY side of the argument with Dave in this case.


----------



## Built (May 12, 2009)

gopro said:


> Again, let me reiterate, that on my diet, ketosis is not reached.


Of course you reach ketosis on your diet - all healthy people have episodes of ketosis, for example, while sleeping:

"During an overnight fast, for instance, glucose levels are maintained through both glycogenolysis and gluconeogenesis, and the liver begins to generate ketone bodies (e.g. acetoacetate, β-hydroxybutyrate) from fatty acids released by adipose tissue (Cahill, 2006)." 1

"...glucose can be made from other things, notably protein. This is a normal process: when you wake up in the morning, between thirty and seventy percent of your blood glucose comes from gluconeogenesis."2​

1 Metabolic profiling of the human response to a glucose challenge reveals distinct axes of insulin sensitivity
Oded Shaham, Ru Wei, Thomas J Wang, Catherine Ricciardi,Gregory D Lewis, Ramachandran S Vasan, Steven A Carr, Ravi Thadhani, Robert E Gerszten, and Vamsi K Mootha

2 Dr. Richard D. Feinman, professor of biochemistry at State University of New York Downstate Medical Center, co-editor-in-chief of the journal Nutrition & Metabolism, and director of the Nutrition and Metabolism Society NMSociety Home Page. 

Ketosis is normal in healthy individuals - even on "ordinary" diets. It is related to the rise in nighttime GH production - in fact, in obesity, this relationship may be impaired due to chronically elevated blood sugar and in spite of sufficient or even excessive secretion of insulin - the overnight GH spike is often suppressed. In fact, one of the tests for growth hormone deficiency is the "max peak" test, wherein fasted individuals are given insulin to induce hypoglycemia, which in turn stimulates the release of GH in healthy normals. 

So, yes, of course you go into ketosis on your diet. Unless you are unwell or on an IV glucose drip in your sleep. 

But it's okay. You're supposed to. 



gopro said:


> Also, interestingly, you would have been on MY side of the argument with Dave in this case.


Sort of. You did basically a PSMF while doing high-rep training. I don't know how Palumbo does it with his clients - I only know how YOUR keto dieting and training were performed - because you told me. I do believe you that you lost mass doing what you did. I would have too. I'm pretty ordinary in this regard. Lyle is quite clear about the importance of NOT doing this:
The Rapid Fat Loss Handbook by Lyle McDonald | BodyRecomposition - The Home of Lyle McDonald
"*Can exercise hurt? *
But can exercise be detrimental to weight or fat loss?  In the case of a crash diet (or any 
extremely large deficit), the answer is a resounding yes.  At least one study has found that 
the addition of a large amount of aerobic activity (roughly 6 hours per week) to a protein 
sparing modified fast increased the drop in metabolic rate that occurred.  It didn’t increase 
weight loss over the length of the study (4 weeks) either.  Basically the caloric burn of the 
exercise led to an adaptive decrease in metabolic rate.  Of course, the exercise also burned 
excess calories so the end result was the same. 

As mentioned above, once you’ve generated a monster daily caloric deficit, burning a few 
hundred more calories through aerobic activity is unlikely to have much of an impact.  I 
should mention that lighter dieters (usually women) often have to add some amount of 
aerobic activity along with a caloric deficit to achieve reasonable weekly fat loss although 
this generally shouldn’t be the case on the rapid fat loss program. 

Weight training hasn’t been studied as extensively in this regards and I’m unaware of any 
studies on interval training in terms of how it might interact with the rapid fat loss 
program such as the one described in this booklet.  Although I’ll make more specific 
comments below, I’ll say this upfront: unless it helps with adherence to the diet, I don’t 
see much of a point in doing anything but the mildest aerobic activity on the crash diet.  
Thirty to forty minutes a few times per week (maybe daily) would be it. 

Related to this, I’ve often seen what seems to be a thermodynamic impossibility, the 
combination of extremely large caloric deficits with an extremely large amount of activity 
(or a very high intensity of activity) often slows down or even stops fat loss completely.  
Yes, I know, it seems impossible but I’ve seen it happen enough times (including in myself) 
to know it happens. 

Basically, if you want to create an extremely large caloric deficit through food restriction, 
you absolutely must not do too much activity (folks who have followed the diet in this 
book have found this out the hard way, by ignoring my recommendations below and 
doing too much activity, they slowed their fat and weight loss).  If you want to do a lot of 
activity, you cannot cut calories too severely.  Again, I know this doesn’t make much 
sense and I’m still trying to pin down the mechanisms of why this happens.  But the 
simple fact is that it does and if you want to avoid problems, you must follow the 
recommendations I’m going to give below in terms of how much exercise you can or 
should do.  
*
Frankly, weight training a maximum of 2-3 times per week is going to be the best form of 
exercise on the rapid fat loss plan*.  A *small amount of low intensity aerobic activity (I 
mean brisk walking), if it helps with diet adherence is acceptable as well. * Intervals are 
inappropriate and should not be done, they simply can’t be recovered from on so few 
calories, especially not if proper weight training is being performed.  I’ll give more specific 
recommendations below. 

Why weight training?  Well, outside of the reasons discussed above, the reason is that we 
want to lose predominantly body fat.  Maintaining (for experienced exercisers) or 
increasing (for beginners) LBM on the rapid fat loss plan is the primary goal and nothing 
will accomplish that more effectively than weight training.  The massive daily caloric 
deficit will take care of the fat loss, more calorie burning activity simply isn’t necessary or 
useful; as discussed above, done in excess it can be detrimental."​
In light of this, although it's a charming thought, I don't think there is anything noteworthy in my bodybuilding genetics. I'm a middle-aged woman who, after being a fat jogger on a low at diet for oooh, twenty or so years, got her butt in gear, read a lot and applied sound scientific principals to obtain completely predictable results. 

Merkaba has a beautiful physique, but he responded to the combination of PSMF and abbreviated training in precisely the way I expected him to - I've seen it before and of course, I've read the book. It's a good read.


----------



## juggernaut (May 13, 2009)

Doesn't ketosis take a maximum of 50g of carbs per day to reach the ketogenic stage? Or am I mistaken?


----------



## Built (May 13, 2009)

As I've mentioned before, the emphasis on the word "ketogenic" is, for this purpose, somewhat overblown. 

All healthy people go through periods of ketosis episodically. I've tested positive for ketones after eating bagels for breakfast - and then going for a 3-hour bike ride around Vancouver. 

If you're talking sustained ketosis, then this too will vary somewhat from person to person, especially depending on their activity level. Near as I can tell, being ketotic isn't important to fat loss - maintaining a deficit while risk-managing muscle does this part. Ketosis does however make this process comfortable for many of us, and the high levels of protein WE eat does much to ensure that we remain in a nitrogen-positive state - provided we keep activity to a minimum.  

Ketosis of course has many neuroprotective and other health benefits - but that's beyond the scope of this particular application.


----------



## Hench (May 13, 2009)

juggernaut said:


> Doesn't ketosis take a maximum of 50g of carbs per day to reach the ketogenic stage? Or am I mistaken?



Differs from person to person, I think 50g is just a guideline. Weight, muscle mass, activity per day ect. all play a role in acheiving keto.


----------



## gopro (May 13, 2009)

Built, you need to stop being so literal and focus more on what my main point is about all of this: reaching a state of ketosis for a couple of hours once in a while will have no effect on loss of lean tissue, but a constant state of ketosis (weeks at a time) WILL cause a loss in muscle for someone looking to drop large amounts of bodyfat. This is why it is not OPTIMAL for contest prep, when the goal is not ONLY to get as lean as possible, but to also RETAIN as much muscle mass as possible. A timed low-medium carb diet will allow one to lose just as much bodyfat (maybe it will take an extra week or two), but also to keep far more muscle mass, which is necessary for the stage. Overall result: BETTER PHYSIQUE.

Yes, I provided research studies as to why this happens, but what proved it to me is *seeing it with my own eyes over and over for the last 20 years.*

Believe it or don't (and we know you don't b/c Lyle is your guru!!). I just want to make sure that _my point_ is not lost.

End scene : )


----------



## Built (May 13, 2009)

gopro said:


> Built, you need to stop being so literal and focus more on what my main point is about all of this: reaching a state of ketosis for a couple of hours once in a while will have no effect on loss of lean tissue, but a constant state of ketosis (weeks at a time) WILL cause a loss in muscle for someone looking to drop large amounts of bodyfat.


First of all, this is the first time I have heard you say that a constant state of ketosis is your definition of a keto diet. Thank you.

And actually, no. Extended ketosis is how the body protects itself from losing muscle during starvation. In fact, the longer you starve, the greater the reliance on free fatty acids for fuel - and this happens even under conditions of total starvation. 

I'm not making this up, I swear!

The body adapts in this way to enhance survival. This trick of metabolism is the basis of how diets such as PSMF work so well for fat loss - and cycling through periods of protein-supplemented starvation, glycogen depletion and then the anabolic benefit of supercompensation forms the basis of UD2.0, which IS ideal for precontest prep. My friend Steve Holt is a natural vegetarian bodybuilder over fifty who uses UD2.0 to prep for his contests, and his results speak for themselves. http://ksteveh.tripod.com/The_Vegetarian_2008_Article.jpg


----------



## nkira (May 13, 2009)

Steve....looks amazing!! It's hard to believe that he is a vegetarian bodybuilder.


----------



## gopro (May 13, 2009)

Built said:


> First of all, this is the first time I have heard you say that a constant state of ketosis is your definition of a keto diet. Thank you.
> 
> And actually, no. Extended ketosis is how the body protects itself from losing muscle during starvation. In fact, the longer you starve, the greater the reliance on free fatty acids for fuel - and this happens even under conditions of total starvation.
> 
> ...



Ok Built..._I am not going to argue this point with you anymore._ There are mechanisms within our body that regulate genes, certain hormones, and nutrient deposition that rely on carbs/ENOUGH insulin to work properly, which in this case means to build/RETAIN muscle mass. You are ignoring these major pieces of the puzzle. And again...you do not have the experience that I have preparing hundreds of athletes for contests/sports where muscle mass and low bodyfat are needed to succeed, and it is only through this experience that theories prove to be reality or not. THIS is where my true belief comes from...not from a book or research studies.


----------



## Built (May 13, 2009)

He's a very cool guy. He lives in Toronto, but I've met him, and spoken with him about this topic. Steve's the real deal. 

He DOES look natural - one of the tipoffs for natty vs assisted is well-capped delts. When you see a guy with delts that look like basketballs - well, put it this way: it's not a sure sign of use, but it's a pretty strong indicator in the sense that a lifter who DOESN'T have them is likely unassisted. You'll see some natty guys with freaky delts, but you'll rarely see an assisted bodybuilder who DOESN'T have freaky delts.


----------



## Hench (May 13, 2009)

gopro said:


> Ok Built..._I am not going to argue this point with you anymore._ There are *mechanisms within our body that regulate genes, certain hormones, and nutrient deposition that rely on carbs/ENOUGH insulin to work properly,* which in this case means to build/RETAIN muscle mass. You are ignoring these major pieces of the puzzle. And again...you do not have the experience that I have preparing hundreds of athletes for contests/sports where muscle mass and low bodyfat are needed to succeed, and it is only through this experience that theories prove to be reality or not. THIS is where my true belief comes from...not from a book or research studies.



Humour us, could you please give a brief explination of what you stated above?


----------



## rantorcha (May 13, 2009)

Are we still on this topic?!  I figured everything that needed to be said would've been said already...more than once.  lol


----------



## Built (May 13, 2009)

Oh good, I'm glad you saw this thread. I thought of you when I saw how you were dieting down. 

How are you feeling?


----------



## gopro (May 13, 2009)

Moondogg said:


> Humour us, could you please give a brief explination of what you stated above?



I already posted an article with references in regard to all of this in that other thread and also posted the articles I wrote about all of this.

And please, please do not think I am trying to be rude in any way to Built. I understand she has her beliefs and she is committed to them. I am perfectly happy to agree to disagree. Besides, none of us has all day to spend on these boards!


----------



## Built (May 13, 2009)

Listen, instead of the studies - they seem to bore you anyway, how about you show us the bodies?

I'd love to see some of your "befores" with ripped to shreds "afters". 

The only one I can offer up is Merkaba - I don't do this professionally. (Oh, and I guess me - but I didn't get contest-lean and I don't compete)


----------



## Hench (May 13, 2009)

gopro said:


> I already posted an article with references in regard to all of this in that other thread and also posted the articles I wrote about all of this.
> 
> And please, please do not think I am trying to be rude in any way to Built. I understand she has her beliefs and she is committed to them. I am perfectly happy to agree to disagree. *Besides, none of us has all day to spend on these boards*!



Im not worried about you being rude to Built, she can handle herself. 

Oh and im a student, which means my life is all about exploring things that I love....such as BB/biology. I have all the time in the world to debate things like this.


----------



## Built (May 13, 2009)

Moondogg said:


> Im not worried about you being rude to Built, she can handle herself.
> 
> Oh and im a student, which means my life is all about exploring things that I love....such as BB/biology. I have all the time in the world to debate things like this.



Oh I know - isn't it just fascinating?


----------



## Hench (May 13, 2009)

Built said:


> Oh I know - isn't it just fascinating?



TOO fascinating. There are times where I would rather be reading than spending time with my friends...which is strange.lol 

In all seriousness I have had to learn to keep my mouth shut about what I have learnt. At the start when I was beginning to get a little bit of knowledge I would take great pleasure in telling everyone how wrong they were about the whole diet/exercise thing. But as you can imagine it didn???t go down too well. I???ve since learned to just nod and agree, even when one my friends tell me with delight how they spent 18minutes on the treadmill today, I no longer turn around and say 'congrats, you???ve just burned off half that can of coke your now drinking'.


----------



## juggernaut (May 13, 2009)

Its interesting: here we have two different views. One is researched based, the other goes by personal experience. Research based is much more cross-sectional, deals with a wider array of people and really gets points hit home. On the other hand of the spectrum, we have the "throw shit into the wind and see what sticks" approach. Or, personal experience.  

I'd go with the research based intelligent answers.


----------



## ZECH (May 13, 2009)

Built said:


> Extended ketosis is how the body protects itself from losing muscle during starvation.



So this is why all the ethiopians have so much muscle mass.


----------



## gopro (May 13, 2009)

Moondogg said:


> Im not worried about you being rude to Built, she can handle herself.
> 
> Oh and im a student, which means my life is all about exploring things that I love....such as BB/biology. I have all the time in the world to debate things like this.



Understood...and I consider myself a student as well. Everyday I look to explore truths!

As for Built, I just wanted to make sure that nobody felt this was getting personal, as I have been down that road and it was not nice.


----------



## gopro (May 13, 2009)

juggernaut said:


> Its interesting: here we have two different views. One is researched based, the other goes by personal experience. Research based is much more cross-sectional, deals with a wider array of people and really gets points hit home. On the other hand of the spectrum, we have the "throw shit into the wind and see what sticks" approach. Or, personal experience.
> 
> I'd go with the research based intelligent answers.



Ummm...but juggernaut...mine is also research based, as well as based on human physiology.

But, if you wish to ignore that, please be my guest! 

Heck, your sig says it all!


----------



## gopro (May 13, 2009)

Built said:


> Listen, instead of the studies - they seem to bore you anyway, how about you show us the bodies?
> 
> I'd love to see some of your "befores" with ripped to shreds "afters".
> 
> The only one I can offer up is Merkaba - I don't do this professionally. (Oh, and I guess me - but I didn't get contest-lean and I don't compete)



And my studies bored you.

As for before and afters...Built, seriously, do you think I have such a desperate need to prove myself to you that I need to dig through pics?

Come on now.

Just end it here peacefully. 

And I know...you DO NOT do this professionally, but I do...for 20 years now. And believe me, if you do not know what you are doing in this business, you will not go very far.


----------



## RoosterTX (May 13, 2009)

dg806 said:


> So this is why all the ethiopians have so much muscle mass.




Ridiculous.


----------



## Hench (May 13, 2009)

RoosterTX said:


> Ridiculous.



Agreed.


----------



## Built (May 13, 2009)

dg806 said:


> So this is why all the ethiopians have so much muscle mass.



It's why they don't die. Remember, said starving Ethiopians didn't start with much muscle mass to begin with. 

I don't make this stuff up, dg - a quick google search will show this to you. 

Eric, why do you keep asking me to "end this"? You claim your results speak for themselves. Okay, cool. Show me.


----------



## ZECH (May 13, 2009)

Built said:


> It's why they don't die. Remember, said starving Ethiopians didn't start with much muscle mass to begin with.
> 
> I don't make this stuff up, dg - a quick google search will show this to you.
> 
> Eric, why do you keep asking me to "end this"? You claim your results speak for themselves. Okay, cool. Show me.



LOL, they die everyday. Point is, you will loose muscle in extended ketosis. If you have none to begin with, you can't loose it can you. To add or keep muscle mass, you have to eat alot of calories, carbs included. You have said it yourself on here many times. I think like the other poster stated, we are comparing apples to oranges. Eric referred to bodybuilders trying to diet for a comp. I agree 100% with him that there is no way in hell that if they did what you are referring to, they would not accomplish much if anything. Now if you are a regular person who cares not if you loose muscle mass, then it will work.


----------



## Built (May 13, 2009)

I gained muscle in my first 8 months of ketosis.


----------



## gopro (May 13, 2009)

Built said:


> It's why they don't die. Remember, said starving Ethiopians didn't start with much muscle mass to begin with.
> 
> I don't make this stuff up, dg - a quick google search will show this to you.
> 
> Eric, why do you keep asking me to "end this"? You claim your results speak for themselves. Okay, cool. Show me.



Yes I do, because it is getting old and is the the point of silliness. I really do not need to prove myself to a moderator of a discussion board. When I was asked for reasoning I gave it and it was dismissed. When I was asked for some studies, I gave them and they were dismissed. So, now I can post a bunch of people I got shredded and what then? You will all of a sudden agree with everything I say? Please, we both know that is not going to happen, so let's stop wasting time and move on. People have enough info to make their own choice about all of this now.


----------



## gopro (May 13, 2009)

Built said:


> I gained muscle in my first 8 months of ketosis.



Do not post up personal experience. It does not count.


----------



## Hench (May 13, 2009)

gopro said:


> Do not post up personal experience. It does not count.



Wow! Im sorry but you cannot say that Built cant talk about personal experience. Your ENTIRE agrument is based on personal experience and that of those you have trained.


----------



## Built (May 13, 2009)

Okay. 

<cancels delts, quads, lats>

Listen, Eric, so far I've posted up peer-reviewed journal articles and direct quotes from McDonald's work (which is based upon peer-reviewed research). I've prepped Merkaba, whose pictures are on this site (his avatar is one) and posted up his starting and ending weight, and his results. I posted up my friend, natural bodybuider Steve Holt as a champion competitive bodybuider who used UD2.0 to prep for contests, and I've posed up my own pics. I do at least TRY to back up MY claims. 

So far you've made a lot of noise about your 20 years of experience. Surely you have SOME clients you would like to show off! I mean hell, my hairdresser has pix of her clients. 

Put it this way - if I were to hire a professional online coach, I'd like something other than "Oh you can trust me, I've done this for 20 years, I don't need to prove anything".  Surely you'd need more than this, too!


----------



## juggernaut (May 13, 2009)

Moondogg said:


> Wow! Im sorry but you cannot say that Built cant talk about personal experience. Your ENTIRE agrument is based on personal experience and that of those you have trained.


----------



## Built (May 13, 2009)

It's okay, I canceled my muscular development that I obtained during those first eight months. 

I'm a lifelong non-keto dieter now.


----------



## juggernaut (May 13, 2009)

gopro said:


> I provided research studies as to why this happens, but what proved it to me is *seeing it with my own eyes over and over for the last 20 years.*
> 
> End scene : )



Sounds like personal conjecture to me...

and what the hell does "End scene " mean?


----------



## juggernaut (May 13, 2009)

is that like: Seacrest OUT!


----------



## Built (May 13, 2009)

I think he just ran out of ways to say he wasn't going to talk about this topic anymore.


----------



## gopro (May 13, 2009)

Built said:


> Okay.
> 
> <cancels delts, quads, lats>
> 
> ...



Exactly...and when a potential client asks me for references and/or pics, he/she will get them (although this is rarely the case anymore)...but like I said, I have nothing to prove to a few people that post on a board. I would be disappointed in myself if I took this any further. The things I have achieved in this industry speaks loudly enough about my knowledge, experience and reputation of which I have *worked my ass of for, and earned*...and am very proud of *AND in which I feel very blessed/grateful for.*

On THIS particular topic...yes, GP is out. Glad that something posted with my name has remained so popular. Thanks Prince


----------



## gopro (May 13, 2009)

Moondogg said:


> Wow! Im sorry but you cannot say that Built cant talk about personal experience. Your ENTIRE agrument is based on personal experience and that of those you have trained.



Wrong...just had to point that out. You are a student...do some research (on what I already posted about)...the role in muscle growth of:

-cortisol
-IGF-1
-myogenin
-akt
-insulin
-carbs

That should give you some answers.

Now, see ya!


----------



## Arnold (May 13, 2009)

One thing that I will say that I think is impressive is Dave Palumbo can produce 100's of national level and top level IFBB PRO bodybuilders he has trained. He is so well known for his successful contest prep he is one trainer that does NOT have to say a word or say a name because its well known that he is a successful trainer of top pros.

I am not doubting your knowledge or abilities in training and contest prep at all Eric, but I do think its fair if asked to give some names of competitors you trained for a show, even if its just an amateur NPC state show where we can go check some pics of them. I would also think you might want to put these before and after pics on your website.


----------



## nkira (May 14, 2009)

That happens to me too.....it's just addictive!!! But it's a positive addiction 



Moondogg said:


> TOO fascinating. There are times where I would rather be reading than spending time with my friends...which is strange.lol


----------



## nkira (May 14, 2009)

Eric, When ever asked for a research, study or before after photos you manage to post a drawn out reply but never post what's actually requested.

If you have trained so many clients, then I don't understand why is it SO hard for you to digg up few pics and just post.Ok, we know you don't go by studies n trials n research but your personal experience, then post some pictures AT LEAST.


Prince, Hope this one _doesn't get locked_ like the other one.


----------



## Hench (May 14, 2009)

gopro said:


> Wrong...just had to point that out. You are a student...do some research (on what I already posted about)...the role in muscle growth of:
> 
> -cortisol
> -IGF-1
> ...




What has any of that got to do with using personal experience? 

As for the list above, I’m not here to do your work for you. I’ve read the research and know what the facts are and I’m afraid they don’t agree with your take on things. You have had a very hard time backing up any of your claims, with your favourite line being that your 20 years of experience conquers all.....sorry but it doesn’t, at least not here. Any rational person would have posted up a few studies (peer reviewed, not ones you have written yourself) and a couple of before and after shots on the first page of this thread and be done with it. Why didn't you? 

You also described how you dieted and trained when you were trying out keto diets. And I think most people came to the conclusion that you were overtraining, so I went and found a good article listing some of the negative effects of overtraining, check it out:

Bodybuilding.com - Eric Broser - Overtrain If You Don't Want To Gain!
Did you see the parts about loss of strength, increased recovery time and muscle loss? Pretty interesting stuff, I sure as hell wouldn’t want to overtrain on a cut.
So you lost more muscle mass than you would have like during keto because your volume was too high for the amount of calories you were taking in. Just thought I would post this, from Lyle's website bodyrecomposition.com:

_''Training for these athletes, therefore, must revolve around the same types of training that they are doing for their sport. As noted above, at least some volume of heavy training should be done while dieting to maintain current strength and muscle mass levels. However, research clearly shows that the volume and frequency of training can be cut back rather significantly.

Reductions in both of up to 2/3rds (so total sets and/or days of training can be reduced) are fine but ONLY if the intensity (weight on the bar) is maintained. So an athlete who was doing 6 sets of 3 in the back squat could conceivably cut back to 2 sets of 3 as long as he keeps the weight on the bar the same. If the intensity is cut back, strength and muscle mass will suffer. Again, some volume of heavy work must be kept in.''
_

And here’s the link if you want to read the full article:

Fat Loss for Athletes: Part 3 | BodyRecomposition - The Home of Lyle McDonald

Sorry I haven’t posted the specific study that he is talking about (I have read it but didn’t note done where it was from) but vie got exams at the minute and can’t take too much time away from studying.

I think it’s fair to say that having your clients use the same volume during a cut as they would during a bulk is incorrect, and will hamper their results in the long run. But that’s between you and your client and is none of my concern. 

Anyway I’m bored of this thread now, you’ve sucked all the fun out of it. 

Have a good day and wish Rantorcha all the best for his upcoming competition.


----------



## Built (May 14, 2009)

Great post, Moondog. See, I've read this so many times: while cutting, reduce training volume and keep the iron on the bar!

Marion wrote about Schwarzenegger's experience with it here:
T-Nation.com | Ripped, Rugged, and Dense

And I blogged about it, here: Got Built? » Keeping it going - the evolutionary process of fat loss

It's how I was able to, at the tender age of forty two and having been soft and fat though 20 years of overtraining, finally lean out enough to have the abs you see in my avatar. 

Kinda makes me think of this old chestnut: 

"The better I train and the better I eat, the better my genetics seem to get!"


----------



## P-funk (May 14, 2009)

reducing volume in a period of caloric deficit is critical to preventing over-training.

Training increases tissue breakdown/trauma.  During a "diet", we are taking in less calories which limits our ability to recover from high amounts of tissue trauma created by high(er) volumes of training which may potentially lead to over-training.  I did a research review on this a few months back.  HERE

Patrick


----------



## gopro (May 14, 2009)

I just want you all to know...I love you guys! You are so much fun!

Now, carry on!


----------



## nkira (May 14, 2009)

That's a nice way to back up your claims....as usual....typical Eric..




gopro said:


> I just want you all to know...I love you guys! You are so much fun!
> 
> Now, carry on!


----------



## Hench (May 14, 2009)

gopro said:


> I just want you all to know...I love you guys! You are so much fun!
> 
> Now, carry on!



You can love me as much as you want....


....but I still think you're full of shit.


----------



## juggernaut (May 14, 2009)

Eric, that's an incredibly professional reply to all of the researched information that we've just received. Way to show professional integrity and respect to your peers.


----------



## nkira (May 14, 2009)

Moondogg said:


> You can love me as much as you want....
> 
> 
> ....but I still think you're full of shit.


----------



## gopro (May 14, 2009)

Awww, they have formed a little anti-gopro gang! Crap, this is terrible for me. Guess I will have to go back to the drawing board again and start my life over. 

Please guys...I posted an article with like 20 article references on this very subject which explains basically everything I have been talking about. You choose to ignore that plus my 20 years of experience and work with hundreds of clients whose main goals are body transformation.

Just lighten up now and either continue the discussion or let it go. Built seems to have all the answers and Moondogg does not want to research hormones and genes which have EVERYTHING to do with why constant-state-keto-diets are detrimental to muscle.  

Listen, its your body(ies) not mine, so if you have it all figured out then I am happy for you! 

I have said all I need to about this subject and am 100% confident in all of it. Shit, I have no stake in what type of diet works best. Dave Palumbo has a huge stake in keto-diets because that is what his whole supplement line is based on, and it is the diet he gives to EVERY SINGLE client. I am only concerned with what works best, which differs somewhat from person to person. Hell, I even tweak my PRRS and FDFS protocols for each individual based on their specific needs, goals, experience, strengths, weaknesses, etc! Cookie cutter I am not.

Anyway, enjoy. See you around the boards!


----------



## gopro (May 14, 2009)

juggernaut said:


> Eric, that's an incredibly professional reply to all of the researched information that we've just received. Way to show professional integrity and respect to your peers.



You are the last person that should use the word respect.


----------



## Hench (May 14, 2009)

gopro said:


> Awww, they have formed a little anti-*bullshit* gang! Crap, this is terrible for me. Guess I will have to go back to the drawing board again and start my life over.



There we go, I fixed that for you.


----------



## juggernaut (May 14, 2009)

We all know about your 20 years...


----------



## juggernaut (May 14, 2009)

gopro said:


> Dave Palumbo has a huge stake in keto-diets because that is what his whole supplement line is based on....


Because the man has an educational background in dealing with WHAT WORKS.


----------



## gopro (May 14, 2009)

Moondogg said:


> There we go, I fixed that for you.



Hey...thanks! Appreciated! 

Again, you guys really are fun! Almost addicting!


----------



## gopro (May 14, 2009)

juggernaut said:


> Because the man has an educational background in dealing with WHAT WORKS.



Uh huh! Yup! So when he gives keto diets and lets his clients do 3 hours of cardio per day and also train with massive volume that is his education coming into play? So, you would agree with that approach?

Juggs...I really want to meet you. Do you ever go to any of the bodybuilding shows like the Arnold or Olympia?


----------



## Bradicallyman (May 14, 2009)

Moondogg said:


> You also described how you dieted and trained when you were trying out keto diets. And I think most people came to the conclusion that you were overtraining, so I went and found a good article listing some of the negative effects of overtraining, check it out:
> 
> Bodybuilding.com - Eric Broser - Overtrain If You Don't Want To Gain!
> Did you see the parts about loss of strength, increased recovery time and muscle loss? Pretty interesting stuff, I sure as hell wouldn???t want to overtrain on a cut.
> So you lost more muscle mass than you would have like during keto because your volume was too high for the amount of calories you were taking in.



Didn't Gopro write that article? Another interesting thread to read!


----------



## nkira (May 14, 2009)

Man...he keeps coming back with that 20 years thing...I think he is obsessed with it.


----------



## Hench (May 14, 2009)

Bradicallyman said:


> Didn't Gopro write that article? Another interesting thread to read!



Yes, it was meant slightly tongue in cheek.


----------



## Bradicallyman (May 14, 2009)

Moondogg said:


> Yes, it was meant slightly tongue in cheek.


ahhh sorry I'm slow lol


----------



## gopro (May 14, 2009)

nkira said:


> Man...he keeps coming back with that 20 years thing...I think he is obsessed with it.



Ok, let me put it this way...

If I wanted to learn to pilot a plane and had the choice between someone that has been successfully piloting planes for the last 20 years...and in fact has been so successful that people seek him/her out to write articles about it, coach others, has a great reputation, etc

VS.

Someone that posts up all kinds of studies on flying, took some courses on it, has a nice handle on all of it, but works as a plumber...

I would choose the first person.


----------



## gopro (May 14, 2009)

Listen guys, this truly has been fun, but I am leaving this THREAD for good, as I really don't have time for what is truly utter nonsense and nothing more than pure negativity...I don't deal with that because it is what you surround yourself with and put out there that comes back to you.

So, go ahead and talk about me behind my back if that makes you happy, or, just send me a PM if you have something to say to me directly.

Oh, and I will also be contributing to other threads when I can, so you can also spew your crap at me there as well.

But as for this one, done for good.

Enjoy!


----------



## P-funk (May 14, 2009)

I am looking over some of the posted research.....did you read the studies or just the abstracts?


patrick


----------



## juggernaut (May 14, 2009)

sorry, Eric. I dont swing that way. Not that there is anything wrong with that.

And yes, I have been to the Arnold. But I dont have much time to really go do the things that I want. I work. 





gopro said:


> Uh huh! Yup! So when he gives keto diets and lets his clients do 3 hours of cardio per day and also train with massive volume that is his education coming into play? So, you would agree with that approach?
> 
> Juggs...I really want to meet you. Do you ever go to any of the bodybuilding shows like the Arnold or Olympia?


----------



## Hench (May 14, 2009)

gopro said:


> Ok, let me put it this way...
> 
> If I wanted to learn to pilot a plane and had the choice between someone that has been successfully piloting planes for the last 20 years...and in fact has been so successful that people seek him/her out to write articles about it, coach others, has a great reputation, etc
> *But refuses to post examples of their work and can have a bad attitude at times*
> ...



Flying is a silly example to use, there is no fear of death from what we are doing. 

Keep trying buddy.


----------



## nkira (May 14, 2009)

Here we go...Back with 20 years again!! Do you have some thing with number 20? Is it numerology? 

I don't understand why it has to be 20, every time that is. Even in your example you couldn't let go of the 20.

I can almost visualize gopro saying....."_my_ preciousss" just like the Gollum.  




gopro said:


> Ok, let me put it this way...
> 
> If I wanted to learn to pilot a plane and had the choice between someone that has been successfully piloting planes for the last 20 years...and in fact has been so successful that people seek him/her out to write articles about it, coach others, has a great reputation, etc
> 
> ...


----------



## juggernaut (May 14, 2009)

nkira said:


> Here we go...Back with 20 years again!! Do you have some thing with number 20? Is it numerology?
> 
> I don't understand why it has to be 20, every time that is. Even in your example you couldn't let go of the 20.



Maybe because 20 is such a pretty, round and curvaceous number


----------



## Hench (May 14, 2009)

Lets not get too personal, there is no need to go down that road. Jugg and Gopro have their own little thing, nobody else need get involved.


----------



## P-funk (May 14, 2009)

*Study #1:*

*Influence of muscle glycogen availability on ERK1/2 and Akt signaling after resistance exercise in human skeletal muscle.*

Andrew Creer, Philip Gallagher, Dustin Slivka, Bozena Jemiolo, William Fink, and Scott Trappe. _J Appl Physiol_ 99: 950-956, 2005.

This is what they concluded:

"In conclusion, the ERK1/2 pathway appears to be unaffected by muscle glycogen content. However, muscle glycogen availability appears to contribute to regulation of the Akt pathway, which may influence cellular growth and adaptation in response to resistance exercise in a low-glycogen state."

Okay, so they are saying that working out with low-glycogen _may_ have a negative influence on growth.

They came to this conclusion after putting the 8-subjects through the following protocol:



> Subjects underwent two trials, a low-carbohydrate (LCHO) and a high-carbohydrate trial (HCHO), based on dietary manipulation throughout the trial. Each experimental trial was separated by 1 wk and took place over a 3-day period. Trials involved two glycogen-depletion protocols in combination with dietary manipulation on days 1 and 2 and an RE trial on day 3. Early in the evening of day 1, subjects performed 60 min of cycling exercise at ~68% of O2 max to reduce muscle glycogen levels. This was followed by 30 min of two-arm cycling exercise to further reduce whole body glycogen stores (19, 42). In the morning of day 2, subjects performed an additional 75 min of cycling at ~68% of O2 max followed by six 1-min maximal sprints separated by 1-min rest intervals. Subjects then performed 30 min of arm-cycling exercise. Early in the morning of day 3, subjects arrived at the laboratory after a 12-h fast and performed three sets of 10 repetitions of bilateral knee extension exercise at 70% of 1 RM separated by a 2-min recovery period.



Does anyone see a problem with this?  How the heck is this indicative of what anyone actually does in their training?  I'll actually back up a second and say that the subjects in the study were experienced male cyclists.  So, there is a potential that they may train with this much volume (endurance training) and frequency, much like a marathoner would.  However, has anyone ever denied the fact that, yes, endurance athletes need increased amounts of carbohydrates to sustain high volumes of aerobic activity?  Even in eat-stop-eat (about intermittent fasting), Brad Pilon says that this is not a program for someone training for a specific endurance event.  This training program has nothing to do with how most of train (which is more like 3-4 days of lifting per week and maybe some cardio thrown in).

Moving on, the resistance training (which was 3 sets of 10 knee extensions) were performed on day 3 of the protocol after the subjects performed 90min of exercise on day one (60min. of cycling followed by 30min. on an upper body ergometer) and then 127min of exercise on day two (75min of cycling, 12min. of sprinting (6max effort 1min. sprints followed by 1min. rest) and then another 30min. on the upper body ergometer bike.

That doesn't make sense to me at all.  The study is performed on endurance athletes and not strength athletes.  They performed an incredibly high amount of work two-days prior to the actual resistance training portion of the test (which the muscle biopsies were taken on day 3 and not the other days) and they try and come to the conclusion about resistance training with low muscle glycogen.  I realize that they need to do something to deplete muscle glycogen in order to see what happens, but that seems a bit excessive, in that people who train in gyms don't do that sort of stuff.  Even in Lyle's UD2.0, there are depletion workouts, but there is also a high carb feeding period and then there are tension workouts, so there is variability.  In addition, his depletion workout recommendations are no where close to being that excessive.

*Study #2*

*Influence of preexercise muscle glycogen content on transcriptional activity of metabolic and myogenic genes in well-trained humans.*

Emmanuel G. Churchley, Vernon G. Coffey, David J. Pedersen, Anthony Shield, Kate A. Carey, David Cameron-Smith, and John A. Hawley. _J Appl Physiol_ 102: 1604-1611, 2007. 

This is what was concluded:

"We conclude that commencing resistance exercise with low muscle glycogen does not enhance the activity of genes implicated in promoting hypertrophy."

The subjects in this study (7 of them) were all males who had been performing regular strength training on an average of 8 years (=/- 5-years).  Unlike the previous study, where there was high and low carb diets taking place, in this article, the subjects at the same amount of carbohydrate (~9g/kg of BW).  The depletion work for this study took place one day prior to the resistance training trial.  For depletion, the subjects performed 1-legged cycling (that leg served as the "experimental" leg, with the lower glycogen content).  The subjects were asked to pedal at ~75% Vo2max with a work to rest ratio of 10min. work to 2min. rest, which the maintained until volitional fatigue at which point power out put was decreased by 10W and the subjects again continued the work to rest protocol until volitional fatigue was reached a second time.  The subjects were then give a 10min. rest period and followed that with 90 second maximal effort 1-leg cycling sprints with 60 seconds rest.  They continued that to volitional fatigue (which was measured by the inability to maintain 70 revolutions/minute.  The subjects followed all this up with 30min. of arm bike pedaling.  After this, the subjects were fed a low-carbohydrate dinner (1g/kg of BW)

The next day, following a 10-12-hour fast, the subjects performed their lifting session, which consisted of 1-legged leg press for 8 sets of 5 reps at ~80% of 1RM.  If the subjects were unable to complete the 5 repetitions in the experimental leg, the weight was lowered by 5% for the following set, until all 8-sets were completed.  The subjects were biopsied prior to the lifting, immediately after the lifting, and again 3 hours later (they rested for 3-hours following the lifting before the biopsy).

The researchers conclusion, posted above, is basically saying that exercising in these conditions is "no bueno" if you are trying to build muscle mass.  

I'd note that, the last time I checked, people trying to build muscle mass weren't diet..since that is what the entire debate is about, right?  Anyway, I digress.

The researchers state later in the article:



> Consequently, low-CHO feeding (~1 g/kg) followed by an overnight fast may have induced a greater atrophy response in the Norm compared with Low leg. Alternately, the down-regulation of atrogin and MuRF transcription in the depleted leg may indicate an acute "fuel-sensing" adaptation response to low substrate availability that suppresses muscle proteolysis. Indeed, short-term fasting (40 h) in healthy subjects has failed to elicit an increase in the transcription of genes regulating muscle-specific atrophy



So maybe this is an adaptive response?  The study that they reference from this statement is, Larsena AE, Tunstalla RJ, Careya KA, Nicholasb G, Kambadurb R, Crowea TC, Cameron-Smitha  D.  *Actions of Short-Term Fasting on Human Skeletal Muscle Myogenic and Atrogenic Gene Expression.* _Ann Nutr Metab_ 2006;50:476-481.  Which concluded:



> Unlike previous observations in catabolic and cachexic diseased states, *short-term fasting (40 h) fails to elicit marked alteration of the genes regulating both muscle-specific protein synthesis or atrophy*. Greater periods of fasting may be required to initiate coordinated inhibition of myogenic and atrogenic gene expression.



The researchers stated:



> Accordingly, it may be that the transcriptional activity of these atrophy genes in the Low leg represents the early stages of skeletal muscle remodeling in response to a novel exercise stimulus or characterizes exercise-induced perturbation following unfamiliar contractile activity (i.e., cycling) in well-trained strength athletes. *Regardless, further work is required to establish the effect of muscle glycogen concentration on the transcriptional activity of atrophy pathways.*



Okay, so now they are saying that there is a possibility that these changes occurred because the subjects may have not been totally familiar with cycling.  How many average joe weight training guys go to the gym and cycle anyway?  7-subjects is hardly an enormous subject pool to get any specific ideas from.  Which is why I bolded the last sentence up there.

I think it is also interesting to note that the control leg (the leg that didn't do the 1-legged cycling) did nothing at all during that period.  At least in the previous study, the individuals trained both legs normally under separate/different carbohydrate intake situations, where as in this study, the control leg just rested completely until it had to perform the leg press in day 2.

patrick


----------



## gopro (May 14, 2009)

Only coming back here to leave this link for those that might find it intriguing:

Dr. John Hawley stops by the MD Research Show to talk about his new study regarding the role of muscle glycogen and its affect on genes for anabolism. 

Professor John Hawley is currently Head of the Exercise Metabolism Research Group and Professor of Exercise Metabolism in the School of Medical Sciences at RMIT Life Sciences. The focus of the Exercise Metabolism Research Group is on aspects of skeletal muscle energy metabolism related to exercise and diabetes, with a particular emphasis on the regulation of carbohydrate and fat metabolism and the mechanisms regulating their use as substrates for muscle during rest and exercise. The use of dietary and exercise interventions in both animal and human models are employed to assess the impact of these perturbations on both whole body metabolism and organ specific sites. In addition, the regulation of muscle membrane excitability and mechanisms of muscle fatigue have been investigated in both healthy and diseased populations. 

Professor Hawley’s research group has established collaborations with international groups such as Karolinska Institute Sweden, the Copenhagen Muscle Research Centre in Denmark, the University of Waterloo in Canada, the Garvan Medical Research Institute Sydney and the Australian Institute of Sport Canberra. The research is supported by The Australian Research Council, GlaxoSmithKline (U.K.), The Australian Sports Commission, and Nestle (Switzerland). 

http://www.musculardevelopment.com/podcasts/rsch_showmar22009.mp3

***This just speaks a bit to what I was referring to about genes. More lengthy research needs to be done, but it does show some interesting evidence. To me, it is only starting to prove what I have discovered in the trenches many years ago. Anyway, take it for what you will...if anything, you science lovers should find it interesting.*


----------



## P-funk (May 14, 2009)

Just listened to the interview.

This is the researcher discussing the second study I talked about above from the research that was posted previously in the old thread.

I don't disagree that carbohydrates are extremely important.  In fact, I hate low-carb eating and I tell people to set their calorie requirements, establish protein requirements, establish fat intake and then the rest of the diet is whatever the hell you want (carbs or whatever...as long as calories are maintained sufficiently and it doesn't matter about 4 meals or 5 meals or 6 meals a day, as research has looked at that as well).

Anyhow, in the interview, Hawley gets grilled a little by the second interviewee and does state:

"This 3-hour window is still not indicative of what may happen after 3-months of time (like I state above, there may be adaptations that take place) so it is hard to extrapolate that.  Also, with the small sample size, not everything was statistically significant, which is a limitation (which I also talked about above)."


My main thing comes back to....when you are dieting (as in trying to lose body fat), you are not worried about putting on muscle.  It doesn't happen.  It can't happen since adequate calories are not being consumed to facilitate growth.  

Not that I am advocating low-carb dieting or ketosis, but isn't the point moot because you are defending someone dieting for a show, which isn't an anabolic period of training anyway?

Anyway, the study is interesting and I do agree that carbohydrates are needed in a diet.  

But, I do not think that eating low-carbs necessarily means you cannot put on muscle size (provided adequate calories are consumed), as the excess calories come from somewhere - either from excess protein which gets turned into glucose when needed or from excess fat, which the body then goes into ketosis as a means of *adapting* to dietary changes and energy output.  So again, it is that adaptation that is the critical part (like he said - a 3-hour window is hardly indicative of what happens long term) and the training that an individual would be doing does not include totally destroying themselves the day prior to lifting in order to deplete glycogen (duh), so things are not totally equal here.

As far as what the gains would be if they did a long term study comparing the two dietary methods, who knows...that would be something they would have to design.

Anyway, take home message:

Eat Carbs, they are good.  Ketosis sucks, it gives me a headache.

Patrick


----------



## Built (May 14, 2009)

Interesting discussion. 

The problem with attempting to build proof on the basis of existing studies is that it doesn't prove your assertion - it only provides fuel for your own research. 

Now, I'm all for using something that works and proving it later. I'm not the first to do this - Newton did the same damned thing with Calculus (some would say Leibniz. These would be Germans - I am a Scot by ancestry and so I'll continue to claim it was Newton). There's a whole branch of mathematics that is concerned with proving the methodology Newton just went ahead and used, despite criticism from his contemporaries. Two hundred years later, Weierstrass, Cauchy and others developed the formal language required - the Real Analysis - to add rigour to the Calculus that came so long before them. 

So yeah, I'm jiggy with "proof by real world observation". Sometimes, it's all we got. 

Thing is, sometimes there's more than one way to get across the river, yanno? Bodybuilders have been getting themselves ripped to shreds for a loooong time, long before we had any studies about Akt pathways, gene expression, or catecholamine-induced overshoots of free fatty acids. For some, they just had such amazing genetics that ANYTHING worked. For others, they happened to hit upon the right combination of parlour tricks in the right sequence, much like the proverbial room full of monkeys with typewriters. Trying to reverse-engineer what worked in these circumstances is fraught with difficulty - not only because the typewriter in question might have been... "enhanced", but the monkey-keyboardist in question ain't talking. 

None of this is of any particular interest to me though, because for some of us, "ordinary" bodybuilder-type diet and training protocols are so miserable as to be unlivable. 

For example, my own board fell out of this problem. You can find a paradigm that is technically perfect on paper, but if I can't stick to it, it ain't optimal FOR ME, now, is it?

Kinda like broccoli - it's only good for you IF YOU EAT IT. 

So while Broser may find as many ways to define and then slag keto diets as he does to say he's "finished with this discussion", his point has been rendered moot by the type of training he did at the time - *hypertrophy relies on a surplus of calories to ensure muscle-growth follows training-induced microtrauma.* While operating under a significant deficit, the best you can hope for is to somehow convince the body to risk-manage existing resources. The strategy changes from that of muscle-growth, to that of muscle-retention. 

Do this while you undereat a little, you'll starve off the fat because the body can't afford NOT to. Drop protein too low and/or overtrain while you do this, and you'll increase the cost of doing muscle. 

Where is that magic point? Ah, now that's the tricky question. It varies. The genetic freaks get a way with a LOT more then the rest of us. Add steroids to the mix and the universe changes. 

But to me, all of this is moot if it's too uncomfortable. I managed to get down to my profile pic without being more than peckish for parts of the day. I didn't overtrain and I didn't feel starved. If I could have kept more muscle on me some other way but felt like crap while I did it, I wouldn't have done it. Kinda nice that I didn't have to. 

Ward doesn't like keto diets because they don't feel comfortable to him. To me, THAT is a very good reason not to do something. 

The fact that Broser doesn't like keto diets for natural bodybuilders because he trained inappropriately on them, and then went on an abstract-hunt to prove his point is simply a flawed methodology. I mean, if you're going to slag something because you tried it, at least try it on the right way! 

It's like durian. You know, the weird looking fruit that stinks like hell, tastes like heaven? Well, that's what I hear because I've never tried one. I'm waiting for someone who loves durian to get a really good one and then share it with me. If I still don't like it, at least I'll know I don't like it. If I pick one up at random and it's rotten, I might think I don't like it when in fact I just don't like rotten durian.

Broser tried a rotten durian. He then went looking for proof that durian isn't healthy for natural bodybuilders. 

Ward just doesn't like fruit.


----------



## Tank316 (May 15, 2009)

Just a quick question?
Whats the fastest way to shuttle nutrients into your system pre/post/intra?


----------



## juggernaut (May 15, 2009)

Tank316 said:


> Just a quick question?
> Whats the fastest way to shuttle nutrients into your system pre/post/intra?


this sounds like a loaded question. Can you offer more details? What are the goals? What type of training? What is the desired and expected outcome?


----------



## Hench (May 15, 2009)

Tank316 said:


> Just a quick question?
> Whats the fastest way to shuttle nutrients into your system pre/post/intra?



John Berardi - Nutrition Articles

Sorry its not a direct link, im studying. Should be some info about it in here.


----------



## ZECH (May 15, 2009)

.





Built said:


> Bodybuilders have been getting themselves ripped to shreds for a loooong time, long before we had any studies about Akt pathways, gene expression, or catecholamine-induced overshoots of free fatty acids. For some, they just had such amazing genetics that ANYTHING worked. For others, they happened to hit upon the right combination of parlour tricks in the right sequence, much like the proverbial room full of monkeys with typewriters. Trying to reverse-engineer what worked in these circumstances is fraught with difficulty - not only because the typewriter in question might have been... "enhanced", but the monkey-keyboardist in question ain't talking.
> 
> *And alot of bodybuilders miss their peak also.This is not a guessing game. Look at Jay Cutler. He missed his timing last year on his diet and it lost him the Olympia. These pros know exactly what to do, it is the timing of it that is important.*
> 
> ...


----------



## P-funk (May 15, 2009)

> Ward doesn't like keto diets because they don't feel comfortable to him. To me, THAT is a very good reason not to do something.





> Ward just doesn't like fruit.



I love me some bananas and apples!!  And I eat a bunch of dried fruit too.

Any-hoo,

I don't like keto-diets because, while they do make me feel like crap, I am not as strong when doing it.  Just as Hawley alluded to in his audio interview, about how much intensity they had to drop for the guys doing the leg press in the study due to them being so fatigued (granted they did that obscene training program one-day prior).  But, when I did do my CKD stuff back in the day, I always felt stronger on Monday, the day after my weekend long re-feed.  I just couldn't maintain that intensity by that time it got to thursday and friday, which was a bummer.  However, I am not (and don't work with) physique competitors, so the info I am giving is more general and not specific to bodybuilding.

But yea, I like my carbs!!  haha

patrick


----------



## gopro (May 15, 2009)

P-funk said:


> Just listened to the interview.
> 
> This is the researcher discussing the second study I talked about above from the research that was posted previously in the old thread.
> 
> ...



Patrick...I am just popping in here to say one quick thing to you because I find you to be somewhat reasonable.

The same mechanisms responsible for hypertrophy are the same that will RETAIN muscle in a calorie deficit. Carbs are needed in either case. Period.


----------



## P-funk (May 15, 2009)

gopro said:


> Patrick...I am just popping in here to say one quick thing to you because I find you to be somewhat reasonable.
> 
> The same mechanisms responsible for hypertrophy are the same that will RETAIN muscle in a calorie deficit. Carbs are needed in either case. Period.



I don't disagree with that (I gave my general diet recommendations above).

I am just saying that the research, while interesting and showing a glimpse into what may come in the future, still needs to address some of those other concerns. And, if people are doing something like UD2.0, where they use periods of high carbs and periods of low-carbs, you would thing the high carb feeding days may load you up enough on glycogen to eliminate the disadvantages shown in this study, which were performed under more "extreme" conditions.

Either way - eat carbs...they rule.

patrick


----------



## gopro (May 15, 2009)

Built said:


> Interesting discussion.
> 
> The problem with attempting to build proof on the basis of existing studies is that it doesn't prove your assertion - it only provides fuel for your own research.
> 
> ...



Built...while I feel you are very intelligent and obviously highly educated, after reading this I now understand that you simply don't have enough knowledge of how the body actually works (the nutrient-hormone-gene-cascade) and you do not have enough experience dealing with athletes and bodybuilders and what it takes to achieve their goals as far as training goes for high level sport and competition. You feel they can prepare using a few basic exercises for low reps every few days and also deny the need for cardio. DO NOT use yourself as the proof of your debate. Go ahead and train enough people over many years using a constant-keto approach and watch your "theory" change. If I put my hand on a hot stove over and over and every time my hand gets burned, that is enough proof to tell me to stop doing it...I do not need research done in a lab to clue me in that extreme heat can burn me.

LONG TERM (AS IN 4-6-8-12 WEEKS) CONSTANT STATE KETO DIETS BURN MUSCLE TISSUE. THIS IS A FUNCTION OF HOW THE BODY WORKS. THIS IS NOT MADE UP...THIS IS HUMAN PHYSIOLOGY. THIS IS HOW WE WERE MADE AND IS APPLICABLE TO THOSE SEEKING THE EXTREMES OF PHYSICAL PERFORMANCE AND PHYSIQUE TRANSFORMATION.

I do not care if YOU or Moon or Jugg feel I am right or wrong...this is nothing personal against anyone...I just want this out there so others who are interested have something to think about other than a singular opinion that has been prevelent on this awesome forum (and yes, I was here in the beginning when this place was being 'built').

I honestly and sincerely wish everyone who was part of this discussion the very best in achieving all of their goals and hold no ill will toward anyone.

Case closed (for me...crap, for like the 10th time)...give me some oatmeal!


----------



## juggernaut (May 15, 2009)

Eric; you have the worst attitude any professional in this industry could have. You have given all of your 20 years experience with personal conjecture. Several people, myself included as well as Prince, have asked you to post examples. you said no and stamped your foot. 
Built has given several good examples, but you have this brospeak bodybuilder laden warrior attitude that is old and needs to retired. Great, you have 20 years experience. Youre a god. However, what research can you give us? is there that much of a mental blockage that you cant offer up proof, other than your 20 years of personal theory?
and finally, you have a really nasty habit of disrespecting everyone on this thread because we have a difference of opinion. Really professional of you to treat the people who made you what you are.


----------



## Built (May 15, 2009)

dg, no, I never once suggested keto diets are superior for muscle growth. I said I enjoyed newbie gains while I dieted on Atkins and remained in keto. I'm quite certain I would have also gained muscle had I dieted some other way - if only I wasn't such a pussy about feeling hungry. I really hate feeling hungry. 

Like Patrick said, of course you're going to be stronger on carbs than off. Gotta love that first workout after a refeed - feels like rocket fuel! Mmmm... pumps...

gopro, your condescending attitude only exceeded by your penchant for hyperbole. You're turning the word ketosis into a sacred cow, and really, it's not that big of a deal here. TKD is a keto diet. CKD is a keto diet. UD2.0 is a keto diet. They all use carbs for the part carbs are good for, and ketosis for the part low carb is good for. 

Ketosis is lovely for appetite control. Risk managing muscle during a deficit is how to elicit fat loss. It's nice that these work so well together in between refeeds. Read a few books by Lyle and you might understand WHY this happens. 

Regarding your "in the trenches" comment, well, okay - show me the bodies. Before I joined here I had never heard of you. Your reputation may precede you elsewhere, but here your reputation is that of someone who pretends to understand physiology at a far higher level than he does, contradicts himself from post to post, and bullies anyone whose opinion differs from his own.


----------



## Gazhole (May 15, 2009)

Jumping in late.

Everybody in this thread is FAT.

Discuss.


----------



## ZECH (May 15, 2009)

If there was any bullying going on, it was because he was ganged up on because of his posts. All three disagreed and would not let it die. How did you expect Eric to act? I think he did a great job considering how his opinions and thoughts were questioned and lambasted.  As far as Eric's reputation goes, he has worked with some of the biggest names and companies in this industry. How do you think that came about? It surely wasn't from his lack of knowledge or experience.


----------



## ZECH (May 15, 2009)

Gazhole said:


> Jumping in late.
> 
> Everybody in this thread is FAT.
> 
> Discuss.


LMAO, I could not stand to be skinny. I like to have weight to throw around when I need it. Wish I had about 25 more.


----------



## danzik17 (May 15, 2009)

Gazhole said:


> Jumping in late.
> 
> Everybody in this thread is FAT.
> 
> Discuss.



Oh screw you buddy.  Now I'm depressed.

I'm going to go dig in a gallon of chocolate ice cream AND ITS ALL YOUR FAULT!


----------



## P-funk (May 15, 2009)

Look, everyone is trying to make this so darn black and white, and it isn't!

For the record, I am not choosing any side, because we just don't know all there is to know!  Just when you think you are correct, science seems to make a fool out of you every time.

Here is what I think so far:

a) Carbs are important (no doubt) and they are protein sparing.

b) Excess calories are needed for hypertrophy

c) It appears that there is potentially some negative effects with regard to anabolism and being in a muscle glycogen depleted state...at least in the short term.

d) In the long term, this is yet to be scene...and, the term "ketosis" implies that the body is burining keto bodies (not eating up muscle necessarily) to help with energy.  That is the adaptation that takes place when the diet changes in such a way.  Ketone bodies are produced to help with energy demands if it was just muscle that was burning during this time, they would probably call it something else.

Again, things aren't black and white.

It is good to have this research to support some of our contentions for why we do what we do.  This is what it means to be evidence based.

patrick


----------



## danzik17 (May 15, 2009)

Fair enough, but it still seems like on a diet like UD 2.0 you get the best of both worlds.

The improved FFA mobilization on a ketogenic diet AND the health/physiological benefits of superglycogenation(is that even a word?) and massive insulin spikes.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Lyle never says that you won't lose muscle during the ketogenic phase of the diet.  One of the main points of the massive refeed is to put your body into an anabolic state to rebuild at least a portion of what you have lost muscle wise.  That's why it's deemed a recomposition diet and not just a fat loss diet.


----------



## P-funk (May 15, 2009)

danzik17 said:


> Fair enough, but it still seems like on a diet like UD 2.0 you get the best of both worlds.
> 
> The improved FFA mobilization on a ketogenic diet AND the health/physiological benefits of superglycogenation(is that even a word?) and massive insulin spikes.
> 
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but Lyle never says that you won't lose muscle during the ketogenic phase of the diet.  One of the main points of the massive refeed is to put your body into an anabolic state to rebuild at least a portion of what you have lost muscle wise.  That's why it's deemed a recomposition diet and not just a fat loss diet.



Yes.  That is correct.

UD2.0 has nothing to do with any of the studies mentioned above because there is a cycle of carbs going on that will not put you into that overly depleted state as the subjects were in.  It has nothing to do with that stuff.  Lyle's stuff is heavily researched and he makes good points for doing it and is very evidence based.

patrick


----------



## juggernaut (May 15, 2009)

danzik17 said:


> Oh screw you buddy.  Now I'm depressed.
> 
> I'm going to go dig in a gallon of chocolate ice cream AND ITS ALL YOUR FAULT!


FU all! I'm having two gallons of butter ripple!! I hate you Gaz!


----------



## juggernaut (May 15, 2009)

dg806 said:


> If there was any bullying going on, it was because he was ganged up on because of his posts. All three disagreed and would not let it die. How did you expect Eric to act? I think he did a great job considering how his opinions and thoughts were questioned and lambasted.  As far as Eric's reputation goes, he has worked with some of the biggest names and companies in this industry. How do you think that came about? It surely wasn't from his lack of knowledge or experience.


How was he bullied? We asked for proof! He did an incredible job, absolutely, of giving 20 years of conjecture. Absolutely, hands down the best job he could. I applaud anything lasting 20 years.  Most cars cant last that long; but Erics professionalism and warrior-like mentality have served him very well. Awesome job. simply stellar.


----------



## nkira (May 15, 2009)

Nice entry...... I wish you'll get migraine for that one!! Hahahaha.....




Gazhole said:


> Jumping in late.
> 
> Everybody in this thread is FAT.
> 
> Discuss.


----------



## P-funk (May 15, 2009)

Are there any studies shown the benefits of ketosis to muscle hypertrophy?  I have not seen any, but then again, I don't really go looking for them either, so there may be some.

It seems like there are a few arguments going on here, and I am having a hard time keeping it straight as to who is saying what or what people are arguing over in general.

I think I need a cliff notes version of this thread.

patrick


----------



## Hench (May 15, 2009)

Main argument: 

''You will lose more muscle mass following a keto diet than you will following a diet with higher carb consumption''


----------



## ZECH (May 15, 2009)

Moondogg said:


> Main argument:
> 
> ''You will lose more muscle mass following a keto diet than you will following a diet with higher carb consumption''



I don't see how this is even an arguement. Someone please answer Tank's question and I think you will have the answer to this statement.
HINT:I just ate a whole plate of rice and hibachi chicken with carrots after my workout.


----------



## juggernaut (May 15, 2009)

dg806 said:


> I don't see how this is even an arguement. Someone please answer Tank's question and I think you will have the answer to this statement.



This should help


----------



## Tank316 (May 15, 2009)

juggernaut said:


> This should help



Ha Ha jugg..
Yes, its a loaded question.
I'm not to worried about it btw.
The google thing made my day though!
And enjoy your two gallons of butter ripple.


----------



## Tank316 (May 15, 2009)

dg806 said:


> I don't see how this is even an arguement. Someone please answer Tank's question and I think you will have the answer to this statement.
> HINT:I just ate a whole plate of rice and hibachi chicken with carrots after my workout.


No worries dg...


----------



## P-funk (May 15, 2009)

dg806 said:


> I don't see how this is even an arguement. Someone please answer Tank's question and I think you will have the answer to this statement.
> HINT:I just ate a whole plate of rice and hibachi chicken with carrots after my workout.



Um, what you are arguing has very little (nothing really) to do with the original argument of this thread.  It is like people are talking about apples and you keep saying ham sandwich....They aren't the same thing.

Patrick


----------



## Hench (May 15, 2009)

P-funk said:


> Um, what you are arguing has very little (nothing really) to do with the original argument of this thread.  It is like people are talking about apples and you keep saying ham sandwich....They aren't the same thing.
> 
> Patrick



I thought the whole insulin response thing was covered in the threat before this?


----------



## P-funk (May 15, 2009)

Moondogg said:


> I thought the whole insulin response thing was covered in the threat before this?



I don't know if it was or it wasn't but the whole "what do you intake after working out to shuttle nutrients" argument has nothing to do with training in a glycogen depleted state or going into ketosis, or eating carbs to support muscular growth.  They are different arguments altogether.  One looks at what happens in one single instance at one specific time of the day and the other is looking at long term changes and what adaptations are taking place.

patrick


----------



## juggernaut (May 15, 2009)

Tank316 said:


> Ha Ha jugg..
> Yes, its a loaded question.
> I'm not to worried about it btw.
> The google thing made my day though!
> And enjoy your two gallons of butter ripple.


Yes, I know I'm a comical genius...no need for applause. 

I didnt ask you to worry...why would you say that to us?

Still dont quite follow why you'd ask this question. Care to define a bit further, so we can shed light?


----------



## Tank316 (May 15, 2009)

Moondogg said:


> I thought the whole insulin response thing was covered in the threat before this?



If it was I missed it, forgive me.


----------



## ZECH (May 15, 2009)

P-funk said:


> Um, what you are arguing has very little (nothing really) to do with the original argument of this thread.  It is like people are talking about apples and you keep saying ham sandwich....They aren't the same thing.
> 
> Patrick



I said the same thing in this thread already. We are not comparing the same things.
But this statement, "''You will lose more muscle mass following a keto diet than you will following a diet with higher carb consumption'' IMO is true.
I can't gain muscle or weight without a shitload of carbs. Did you not basically say the same thing, that it takes excess calories to build muscle?


----------



## P-funk (May 15, 2009)

dg806 said:


> I said the same thing in this thread already. We are not comparing the same things.
> But this statement, "''You will lose more muscle mass following a keto diet than you will following a diet with higher carb consumption'' IMO is true.
> I can't gain muscle or weight without a shitload of carbs. Did you not basically say the same thing, that it takes excess calories to build muscle?



Yes, i did say it takes excess calories to build muscle.

But, you made a statement about post workout nutrition which isn't relevant to the particular debate, which is what I didn't understand.

I also asked if anyone knows any studies looking at ketosis and muscle hypertrophy.  Because you feel that "in your opinion you will lose muscle mass being in ketosis" is not a good enough answer and the fact that "you have to eat a shitload of carbs to gain muscle or weight" is pretty much worthless.  n=1

It is the anecdotal crap that gets people in trouble.  I am looking for the evidence to support such claims or the evidence to at least shed some light on were people have come up with their contentions on diet and exercise for muscle growth.  That is all.

patrick


----------



## juggernaut (May 15, 2009)

P-funk said:


> It is the anecdotal crap that gets people in trouble.  I am looking for the evidence to support such claims or the evidence to at least shed some light on were people have come up with their contentions on diet and exercise for muscle growth.  That is all.
> 
> patrick


Amen Patrick.


----------



## Arnold (May 15, 2009)

P-funk said:


> I also asked if anyone knows any studies looking at ketosis and muscle hypertrophy.  Because you feel that "in your opinion you will lose muscle mass being in ketosis" is not a good enough answer and the fact that "you have to eat a shitload of carbs to gain muscle or weight" is pretty much worthless.  n=1



if in ketosis and you're consuming adequate protein and fat I don't see any good reason why there would be muscle hypertrophy due to the lack of carbs.


----------



## juggernaut (May 15, 2009)

especially with the addition of fats.


----------



## ZECH (May 15, 2009)

ketosis - Doctors Lounge(TM)

MaryAnn RN - Sun Feb 26, 2006 8:33 pm 

Low carb (carbohydrate), high protein diets are the latest dieting craze. However, before you jump on the band wagon, you may want to consider a few things: 

Low carb (ketogenic) diets deplete the healthy glycogen (the storage form of glucose) stores in your muscles and liver. When you deplete glycogen stores, you also dehydrate, often causing the scale to drop significantly in the first week or two of the diet. This is usually interpreted as fat loss when it's actually mostly from dehydration and muscle loss. By the way, this is one of the reasons that low carb diets are so popular at the moment - there is a quick initial, but deceptive drop in scale weight. 

Glycogenesis (formation of glycogen) occurs in the liver and muscles when adequate quantities of carbohydrates are consumed - very little of this happens on a low carb diet. Glycogenolysis (breakdown of glycogen) occurs when glycogen is broken down to form glucose for use as fuel. 

Depletion of muscle glycogen causes you to fatigue easily, and makes exercise and movement uncomfortable. Research indicates that muscle fatigue increases in almost direct proportion to the rate of depletion of muscle glycogen. Bottom line is that you don't feel energetic and you exercise and move less (often without realizing it) which is not good for caloric expenditure and basal metabolic rate (metabolism). 

Depletion of muscle glycogen leads to muscle atrophy (loss of muscle). This happens because muscle glycogen (broken down to glucose) is the fuel of choice for the muscle during movement. There is always a fuel mix, but without muscle glycogen, the muscle fibers that contract, even at rest to maintain muscle tone, contract less when glycogen is not immediately available in the muscle. Depletion of muscle glycogen also causes you to exercise and move less than normal which leads to muscle loss and the inability to maintain adequate muscle tone. 

Also, in the absence of adequate carbohydrate for fuel, the body initially uses protein (muscle) and fat. the initial phase of muscle depletion is rapid, caused by the use of easily accessed muscle protein for direct metabolism or for conversion to glucose (gluconeogenesis) for fuel. Eating excess protein does not prevent this because there is a caloric deficit. 

When Insulin levels are chronically too low as they may be in very low carb diets, catabolism (breakdown) of muscle protein increases, and protein synthesis stops. 

Loss of muscle causes a decrease in your basal metabolic rate (metabolism). Metabolism happens in the muscle. Less muscle and muscle tone means a slower metabolism which means fewer calories burned 24 hours-a-day. 

Some proponents of low carb diets recommend avoiding carbohydrates such as bread, pasta, potatoes, carrots, etc. because of they are high on the glycemic index - causing a sharp rise in Insulin. Certain carbohydrates have always been, and will always be the bad guys: candy, cookies, baked goods with added sugar, sugared drinks, processed / refined white breads, pastas, and rice, and any foods with added sugar. These are not good for health or weight loss. However, carbohydrates such as fruits, vegetables, legumes, whole grain breads and pastas, and brown rice are good for health and weight loss. Just like with proteins and fats, these carbohydrates should be eaten in moderation. Large volumes of any proteins, fats or carbohydrates are not conducive to weight loss and health. 

The effect of high glycemic foods is often exaggerated. It's does matter, but to a smaller degree than is often portrayed. Also, the total glycemic effect of foods is influenced by the quantity of that food that you eat at a sitting. Smaller meals have a lower overall glycemic effect. Also, we usually eat several types of food at the same time, thereby reducing the average glycemic index of the meal, if higher glycemic foods are eaten. Also, glycemic index values can be misleading because they are based on a standard 50 grams of carbohydrate consumed. It wouldn't take much candy bar to get that, but it would take four cups of carrots. Do you usually eat four cups of carrots at a meal? 

Regular exercisers and active people also are less effected by higher glycemic foods because much of the carbohydrate comsumed is immediately used to replenish glycogen stores in the liver and muscle. 
By the way, if you're interested in lowering Insulin levels, there is a great way to do that - exercise and activity. 

Much of the weight loss on a low carb, high protein diet, especially in the first few weeks, is actually because of dehydration and muscle loss. 

The percentage of people that re-gain the weight they've lost with most methods of weight loss is high, but it's even higher with low carb, high protein diets. This is primarily due to three factors: 

1. You have lost muscle. With that comes a slower metabolism which means fewer calories are burned 24 hours-a-day. A loss of muscle during the process of losing weight is almost a guarantee for re-gaining the lost weight, and more. 

2. You re-gain the healthy fluid lost because of glycogen depletion. 

3. It's difficult to maintain that type of diet long-term. 

4. You have not made a change to a long-term healthy lifestyle. 

Eating too much fat is just not healthy. I know you've heard of people whose blood levels of Cholesterol and triglycerides have decreased while on a low carb, high protein diet. This often happens with weight loss, but it doesn't continue when you're on a diet high in fat. There are literally reams of research over decades that clearly indicates that an increase in consumption of animal products and/or saturated fat leads to increased incidence of heart disease, Strokes, gall stones, kidney stones, arthritic symptoms, certain cancers, etc. For example, in comparing countries with varying levels of meat consumption, there is a direct relationship between the volume of meat consumption in a country and the incidence of digestive cancers (stomach, intestines, rectal, etc.). 

Sorry to be so winded, but wanted to answer all of your questions. 

MaryAnn RN


----------



## P-funk (May 15, 2009)

Prince said:


> if in ketosis and you're consuming adequate protein and fat I don't see any good reason why there would be muscle hypertrophy due to the lack of carbs.



If you are eating hypercaloric, wouldn't the be adequate energy to have hypertrophy?

I don't know.  I am not taking any side.  I am merely saying that (a) it isn't as black and white as people are making it out to be and (b) science doesn't seem to have a great answer right now.

I'm just saying.  Everyone is bickering in circles and nothing will ever be solved that way.

patrick


----------



## Built (May 15, 2009)

dg, I see you get your nutrition information from those pillars of nutritional wisdom: doctors. 

I believe it was you that had asked me about a hundred posts ago if I was talking about "prep week" or "precontest diet". I was talking about the actual weeks and months precontest. Hell week isn't a diet - it's a water and glycogen manipulation. If you're still trying to drop fat that last week, you're too fat.


----------



## danzik17 (May 15, 2009)

I also think that the information from that doctor can't apply to us, at least not without further info regarding her study.

Maybe the doctor is assuming that the person is eating a low carb/high protein/high fat diet while sitting on their ass at home because of being "tired".  No duh they're going to lose muscle!  But it's an entirely different story with an athlete or bodybuilder who maintains a specific exercise regimen that compliments whatever diet that they happen to be running at the time.

Not only that, but the doctor refer' back to weight regained on the diet. Has the doctor considered that the person recomposed?  I know this is not the average person's diet, but I haven't lost a single pound on UD2.0, yet I'm (or was before vacation ) leaner than I had ever been.  That's the best kind of fat loss and the scale barely moved.  According to that doctor, I would have "failed" on the diet.


----------



## juggernaut (May 15, 2009)

dg806 said:


> Eating too much fat is just not healthy. I know you've heard of people whose blood levels of Cholesterol and triglycerides have decreased while on a low carb, high protein diet. This often happens with weight loss, but it doesn't continue when you're on a diet high in fat.



hmm...I'm extremely high in fat, eat tons of protein and minimal to no carbs on a prolonged, daily basis...My auras have stopped dead in their tracks, my BP is stellar, I got my cholesterol tested at 140; I'm a goddamn miracle of modern science. 
What value does this post have dg? Other than you asking an RN for help?


----------



## P-funk (May 15, 2009)

Yea, that statement is very vague.  I would love to see where she pulled that from.  The last people I listen to on nutrition stuff are doctors and nurses.  They have no training in that field (exercise too).

patrick


----------



## Built (May 15, 2009)

Put it this way dg - how about you go back to your source for training tips - I'm sure they'll be just as helpful.


----------



## Yanick (May 15, 2009)

P-funk said:


> Yea, that statement is very vague.  I would love to see where she pulled that from.  The last people I listen to on nutrition stuff are doctors and nurses.  They have no training in that field (exercise too).
> 
> patrick



Yeah, well...YOU'RE SHORT!

Honestly though, I don't know about MD's but RN's are taught quiet a bit about diet. It is just diet as it relates to the various pathologies and not so much as it relates to exercise/sports performance/body recomposition. There are a few caveats to the above statement, however.

Firstly, as with any profession, there are good and bad (or knowledgeable/willing and stupid/complacent). An RN I know, who just happens to being finishing up an MS degree (so obviously he must know more than me about everything  ), once jumped in on a conversation I was having with a friend and teaching him about the importance on taking more than 1g of fish oil/day. So I'm telling him how its just a type of fat, not a drug/medicine, and that I take 8-10g/day, that it aids in everything from cardiovascular health to skin health to nutrient partitioning etc. This douche jumps in and says, "Listen man, do you eat steak?" My friend answers, "Yes." The douche then proceeds to explain that he is getting all the fat he needs by eating steak a couple of times a week. I was floored, I do not have the patience with these types of people anymore so I just sort of drifted away.

Second of all, the diet guidelines that are taught in the schools are the same ones that are taught to nutritionists...aka food pyramid (or the slightly improved version called MyPyramid). Basically the same old carb heavy, low fat crap they have been spewing for a long time, except now they are somewhat better at saying, eat whole/unprocessed carbs, lower saturated fat but keep in the mono/polyunsat's etc. I took a nutrition class in college (taught by an RD) for fun and I was taught all of this atrocious crap, cereal with milk is okay in the morning as long as its skim or semi-skim milk etc. So if the person does not take it upon themselves to stay ahead of the research, and this is the case with many people in every field from the medical to the health industry, they wind up making the whole field look stupid.

I was taught a lot of diet stuff as it relates to surgery (clear, full, soft diet), varying pathologies (the MD dx's celiac disease or PKU but the RN actually sits down and teaches by saying eat this, not that etc), side effects of meds (many diuretics lead to loss of potassium which may cause a fatal electrolyte imbalance, so once again the MD _might_ say have some more potassium, but the RN will sit down and teach the client to have a cup of OJ or a banana or some salt substitute etc).

So we are taught quiet a bit about diets, the problems lies in the fact that many feel they are authorities on everything related to health when they are just taught about diets are they relate to the medical field. Hell when I had to perform a teaching exercise in front of my clinical group about diabetes diets, I went in there with the GI/II/GL stuff, portion control, activity, and importance of monitoring etc. My teacher's jaw dropped because we were taught such basics in class (carbs -> glucose -> rise in blood sugar, signs/symptoms, treatment, complications etc) that she was expecting me to come in stumble through a 5 min thing with the patient and be glad to get it over with, instead I went in there and just killed it. The patient said no one had ever spent the time and explained this stuff to her, all she was ever told was eat less sugar or whatever. The professor even took my GI charts and handed them out to other patients because they were so succinct, to the point and easy to understand.

Oh and this thread is one of the best threads to hit this place in a while. We haven't had a good old debate like this in a while. I say lets keep it going, everyone seems to be behaving and I think we can get into some interesting physiology stuff here.


----------



## Hench (May 15, 2009)

Good post.


----------



## P-funk (May 15, 2009)

don't encourage him...his head swells.

thanks yan!

patrick


----------



## Hench (May 15, 2009)

P-funk said:


> don't encourage him...his head swells.
> 
> thanks yan!
> 
> patrick



lol, I had typed 'great post', but then decided that was a bit much.


----------



## Built (May 15, 2009)

Yanick, I don't know you but I think I want to. 

Great post. 

Now - after reading and participating in this thread since its inception, I find myself looking for clarity in the initial argument - that is to say, what is it in particular that we are arguing?

Eric's article, Palumbo's retort and the ensuing debate hinges upon some rather strict physiological definitions, but the diet that underlies these definitions so far remains rather vague. 

We have established that ketosis is normal in healthy humans, and in fact its absence can be thought of as a diseased state. Surely a high-carb diet is not thought of as a ketogenic diet, so we'll relieve ourselves of this pedantic view and proceed. 

We have also established that we are specifically talking about "cutting" diets, that is to say, the deliberate manipulation of diet and training so as to ensure as much fat loss and as little muscle loss as possible.

There are a plethora of diets which can be thought of - for this purpose - as ketogenic:


Complete starvation
Ketogenic epilepsy diet - VERY high in fat, modest protein, very low carb, used in children and some adults to reduce or eliminate epileptic seizures
Atkins induction - not a high protein diet as much as a high fat diet, but not as high as the one used to fight epilepsy
Protein sparing modified fast, Lyle's style (ie his book "rapid fat loss"), with macronutrient mix and refeeds set at specific intervals according to bodyfat, gender and activity level and type
CKD AKA cyclic ketogenic diet, wherein most days are in ketosis, but a period of hours or days is spent on a refeed of low fat, moderate protein and very high starchy carbs and glucose. 
UD2.0, Lyle's love child from his affair with Dan Duschaine's BodyOpus
TKD AKA targeted ketogenic diet - where the only starchy carbs consumed are in the meal before and or immediately after a lifting workout

*Eric*, in the spirit of fairness and good sportsmanship, I am offering you the opportunity to clarify for me, for us, for this thread - hell, for all humanity (I couldn't resist going over the top, I need an echo chamber!) *which of these do you have in mind when you assert that ketogenic diets are not optimal for fat loss for unassisted athletes? *

If I've missed one, tell it to me and I'll tuck it into the list. 

If we're going to argue something, let's at least know exactly what it is so we can argue well.


----------



## P-funk (May 15, 2009)

> Yanick, I don't know you but I think I want to.



Yanick is one of my good friends and one of my old training partners from NYC.  He is a regular poster on my forum and we talk about the finer things in life like mitchondrial density, reciprocal inhibition, and phosphofructokinase.  Truly exciting!

Patrick


----------



## Built (May 15, 2009)

Gaaah I love me a man who knows his way around mitochodrial density... <swoons>


----------



## Marat (May 16, 2009)

Yanick said:


> I took a nutrition class in college (taught by an RD) for fun and I was taught all of this atrocious crap, cereal with milk is okay in the morning as long as its skim or semi-skim milk etc. So if the person does not take it upon themselves to stay ahead of the research, and this is the case with many people in every field from the medical to the health industry, they wind up making the whole field look stupid.



I'd just like to add to this. I'm about to get my R.D credential. My undergrad is from the University of Florida  and would like to mention that we learn very little that would qualify us to give nutrition advice. We spend very little on actual nutrition education, and the time we do is based on MyPyramid type stuff. Aside from my Nutrition major, and despite specializing in Nutritional Science, almost everything I learned was from hours of personal research. If I do spend any time as an R.D,  I couldn't imagine taking the information that we are learning at school and passing it along to clients.


----------



## Built (May 16, 2009)

Okay, that's frightening. 

I had a girlfriend of mine set me up with a diet back in my "fat jogger" days. Low fat, frequent mini-meals, high carb, low protein. I've never felt like such shit in all my life - while dieting my way UP to 170 lbs and jogging 10k 3x a week with her. She was a stick. Her secret? She didn't follow her own advice. Oh and she's bulimic.


----------



## juggernaut (May 16, 2009)

Built said:


> Okay, that's frightening.
> 
> I had a girlfriend of mine set me up with a diet back in my "fat jogger" days. Low fat, frequent mini-meals, high carb, low protein. I've never felt like such shit in all my life - while dieting my way UP to 170 lbs and jogging 10k 3x a week with her. She was a stick. Her secret? She didn't follow her own advice. Oh and she's bulimic.


Same here; I took up jogging, had a high carb/low fat diet-as recommended by a doctor, ballooned up to 300 lbs, also felt like lethargic shit. 
Also, as a side note; I have a 54 year old cardiologist in my gym who drinks Muscle Milk during a workout, gets his routines from M&F, eats donut every morning to "carbup" before a workout...and just the other day, he asked me to write out a diet and compare to what he has been following in M&F. I took Builts advice and registered him online to fitday. I have yet to see one iota of healthy food go into his system. 

And I am going to take advice about my heart-but NOT diet. Most Drs, it seems, know shit about diet.


----------



## Yanick (May 16, 2009)

Moondogg said:


> Good post.



I try to contribute as much as I can. I haven't really read about nutrition, specifically, in so long (its been a few years now) that I don't feel qualified to argue with the big minds because research changes things so frequently that you really need to stay on top of your game or you begin to look foolish.



Built said:


> Yanick, I don't know you but I think I want to.



Well I like horseback rides, classic rock and long walks on the beach on a breezy summer's eve. Oh and I like what Pat stated on the bottom, plus Metallica blaring in my headphones while I crush a 195lb power clean and dump it from my shoulders to scare the shit out of all the cardio bunnies.



P-funk said:


> Yanick is one of my good friends and one of my old training partners from NYC.  He is a regular poster on my forum and we talk about the finer things in life like mitchondrial density, reciprocal inhibition, and phosphofructokinase.  Truly exciting!



Yeah dude and my girl hates you. Says I'd rather read/write on the forum than spend time with her lol.



m11 said:


> I'd just like to add to this. I'm about to get my R.D credential. My undergrad is from the University of Florida  and would like to mention that we learn very little that would qualify us to give nutrition advice. We spend very little on actual nutrition education, and the time we do is based on MyPyramid type stuff. Aside from my Nutrition major, and despite specializing in Nutritional Science, almost everything I learned was from hours of personal research. If I do spend any time as an R.D,  I couldn't imagine taking the information that we are learning at school and passing it along to clients.



Its truly a shame that they pass this type of information off as relevant to the general public. It was fun to get questions wrong on the exams, then bring in research to prove (or atleast shed light on the fact that there is plenty of research going the other way) and get the professor to give me the points. It became so that as soon as I would walk up to her, she would just give me the points because she knew I would make her read like 5-10 abstracts the next day lol.


----------



## juggernaut (May 16, 2009)

funny fuck!


----------



## nkira (May 17, 2009)

....Good one. So you like Nothing Else Matters when your sober?



Yanick said:


> Metallica blaring in my headphones while I crush a 195lb power clean and dump it from my shoulders to scare the shit out of all the cardio bunnies.


----------



## juggernaut (May 17, 2009)

I gotta blast Master of Puppets when I am hitting my peak...people look at me like I am insane.


----------



## nkira (May 17, 2009)

I like linkin park or sometimes evanescence - My Last Breath (Only the blasty guitar part)


----------



## gopro (May 17, 2009)

Hey ya'll...I have not read anything in this thread since I left, but I hope your discussion is going well.

Anyway, just found this little video interesting (but not suprising)...Evan Centopani, who just won the NY Pro yesterday, was once a client of Dave Palumbo (Mr. Keto), but decided to drop him as a coach because he felt the diet was leaving him in good condition, but *flat and small*. That it was holding him back from his potential. Through inside sources I used to hear all the time that even WHILE working with Dave, Evan would sneak some carbs into his diet (secretly) because he always felt like he was burning away muscle without them. *And this is a guy who obviously uses a ton of anabolics and other drugs (as he is an IFBB pro).*

Anyway, it just reflects back to exactly what I have said in this thread. Here is a bit of the interview in case you want to hear about it from HIS mouth (and I know he was just to be nice about it...I know the real story from Robbie over at MD).

Muscular Development Bodybuilding Videos - Evan Centopani - Road to the New York Pro - Words from the Heart

P.S. He is now working with Oscar Arden who uses a good amount of carbs in his diets. Oh, and Evan was fuller than ever last night and hard as rock!


----------



## juggernaut (May 17, 2009)

And again, you gave personal opinion but no true proof. 
BFD you gave us an interview...last time I checked, people like to lie on interviews. So how do we know what he is saying is true? You say from inside resources...Woah...well, lets stop the debate, Eric Borser has inside resources + you know the real story. _Damn_ good call. LEts call it a night.

By the way, didnt you say that you were through with this?



gopro said:


> Hey ya'll...I have not read anything in this thread since I left, but I hope your discussion is going well.
> 
> Anyway, just found this little video interesting (but not suprising)...Evan Centopani, who just won the NY Pro yesterday, was once a client of Dave Palumbo (Mr. Keto), but decided to drop him as a coach because he felt the diet was leaving him in good condition, but *flat and small*. That it was holding him back from his potential. Through inside sources I used to hear all the time that even WHILE working with Dave, Evan would sneak some carbs into his diet (secretly) because he always felt like he was burning away muscle without them. *And this is a guy who obviously uses a ton of anabolics and other drugs (as he is an IFBB pro).*
> 
> ...


----------



## Built (May 17, 2009)

gopro said:


> Hey ya'll...I have not read anything in this thread since I left, but I hope your discussion is going well.


It is.

I requested clarification:


Built said:


> Yanick, I don't know you but I think I want to.
> 
> Great post.
> 
> ...


----------



## juggernaut (May 17, 2009)

pretty much sums it all up; but I can be a wiseass here and say that starvation is worse than a high carb diet.


----------



## Built (May 17, 2009)

LOL - I wanted to provide an exhaustive list. 

Which one do you figure Eric meant - any idea? I can't tell from what he posted in this thread.


----------



## BigPapaPump68 (May 17, 2009)

gopro said:


> Hey ya'll...I have not read anything in this thread since I left, but I hope your discussion is going well.
> 
> Anyway, just found this little video interesting (but not suprising)...Evan Centopani, who just won the NY Pro yesterday, was once a client of Dave Palumbo (Mr. Keto), but decided to drop him as a coach because he felt the diet was leaving him in good condition, but *flat and small*. That it was holding him back from his potential. Through inside sources I used to hear all the time that even WHILE working with Dave, Evan would sneak some carbs into his diet (secretly) because he always felt like he was burning away muscle without them. *And this is a guy who obviously uses a ton of anabolics and other drugs (as he is an IFBB pro).*
> 
> ...



I didn't read this whole thread, but I can tell you from my own personal experience (I used steroids for years) that even when on an extreme cut, I had to eat atleast 35-45 grams of carbs because I felt that I was losing a lot of my lean muscle mass that I had put on.  

There is a video that I will try finding that has Rob Cicherillo, and I can't remember what IFBB pro bodybuilder he was interviewing with after he got done training.  But anyway that guy was 1 week out, and he said that he had to eat carbs in order for his muscles to not look flat during the competition, or something a long those lines.  It was last year when I saw the video on BB.com, I'll find the video, and post it up.


----------



## Built (May 17, 2009)

See, 35-45g carbs is still very much a keto diet. That's why I want clarification.


----------



## juggernaut (May 17, 2009)

Built said:


> LOL - I wanted to provide an exhaustive list.
> 
> Which one do you figure Eric meant - any idea? I can't tell from what he posted in this thread.


i dunno...something about 20 years and a refusal to post photos or names on who he has trained. Its really interesting that Dante (creator of DoggCrapp training) posted an entire paragraph of people that he has trained on a site and yet, eric refuses to cooperate. Why?


----------



## Built (May 17, 2009)

juggernaut said:


> i dunno...something about 20 years and a refusal to post photos or names on who he has trained. Its really interesting that Dante (creator of DoggCrapp training) posted an entire paragraph of people that he has trained on a site and yet, eric refuses to cooperate. Why?



Now, now, it may be that he's not so sure anymore. 

You got that doggcrapp link in your journal - post it up, I'll give it a read.


----------



## juggernaut (May 17, 2009)

Built said:


> Now, now, it may be that he's not so sure anymore.
> 
> You got that doggcrapp link in your journal - post it up, I'll give it a read.


got quite a few; take a looksie...plenty of enticing information about it.


----------



## gopro (May 17, 2009)

juggernaut said:


> And again, you gave personal opinion but no true proof.
> BFD you gave us an interview...last time I checked, people like to lie on interviews. So how do we know what he is saying is true? You say from inside resources...Woah...well, lets stop the debate, Eric Borser has inside resources + you know the real story. _Damn_ good call. LEts call it a night.
> 
> By the way, didnt you say that you were through with this?



Hello my friend! Yes, I am done with this...as in, I have nothing else to say or add. However, I added this interview because it is interesting that even some DRUG-USING bodybuilders have trouble with a keto diet and feel they lose muscle DESPITE the inclusion of steroids, GH, IGF-1, clen, etc.

As far as knowing what he is saying is true AND having inside resources, what you must accept and understand is that I am in a position in this industry that I regularly speak with other pro bodybuilders, supplement company owners, top nutritionists, magazine owners, writers, etc. I speak to Flex Wheeler almost daily and he is so dialed in to what is going on that he is like a human gossip column! You would also be very suprised to know what people like Gregg Valentino have told me about what goes on. As far as Evan specifically I know people that are extremely close to him, and have spoken with him myself.

So, that is what I mean when I say "on the inside."


----------



## gopro (May 17, 2009)

Built said:


> It is.
> 
> I requested clarification:



I am sorry Built, I did not see this until now as I have stopped reading this thread...but came back to see if anyone watched the EC video.

What do I mean? Well, this thread was about me and Dave Palumbo, and OUR specific argument. Thus, it is HIS diet that I am talking about, which is basically medium to high protein, zero starches, small amounts of green vegetables, and high in fats, mostly from salmon, macadamia nut oil, natural PB, and what occurs naturally in meats, etc.

Dave does allow *one *cheat meal per week that can be pretty much all the carbs you want for one sitting.

Hope that clarifies.


----------



## Built (May 17, 2009)

gopro said:


> I am sorry Built, I did not see this until now as I have stopped reading this thread...but came back to see if anyone watched the EC video.
> 
> What do I mean? Well, this thread was about me and Dave Palumbo, and OUR specific argument. Thus, it is HIS diet that I am talking about, which is basically medium to high protein, zero starches, small amounts of green vegetables, and high in fats, mostly from salmon, macadamia nut oil, natural PB, and what occurs naturally in meats, etc.
> 
> ...




Thank you, that helps actually. It does leave me with more questions - would you have a link to something that summarizes this plan and how he integrates it with training, how long he runs it and so on? 

Your approach is to cycle periods of higher and lower carbs I think, right? How high and how low - or am I on the wrong track here?


----------



## juggernaut (May 18, 2009)

Built said:


> Your approach is to cycle periods of higher and lower carbs I think, right? How high and how low - or am I on the wrong track here?


How UD2-ish of Eric to have that thinking.


----------



## juggernaut (May 18, 2009)

gopro said:


> As far as knowing what he is saying is true AND having inside resources, what you must accept and understand is that I am in a position in this industry that I regularly speak with other pro bodybuilders, supplement company owners, top nutritionists, magazine owners, writers, etc. I speak to Flex Wheeler almost daily and he is so dialed in to what is going on that he is like a human gossip column! You would also be very suprised to know what people like Gregg Valentino have told me about what goes on. As far as Evan specifically I know people that are extremely close to him, and have spoken with him myself.
> 
> So, that is what I mean when I say "on the inside."


Oh, so you're a name-throwing gossip columnist. Ok, got it.


----------



## gopro (May 18, 2009)

juggernaut said:


> Oh, so you're a name-throwing gossip columnist. Ok, got it.



Dude, seriously, what is your problem? You have issues bro.


----------



## gopro (May 18, 2009)

Built said:


> Thank you, that helps actually. It does leave me with more questions - would you have a link to something that summarizes this plan and how he integrates it with training, how long he runs it and so on?
> 
> Your approach is to cycle periods of higher and lower carbs I think, right? How high and how low - or am I on the wrong track here?



Hmmm, there used to be a link on the MD boards, but when he was fired it might have been removed, but I will check. As far as how long he runs it...the entire diet...probably anywhere from 12-24 weeks depending on the initial condition of the athlete. With training I don't know how much control he has, but Dave trains like most bodybuilders do in terms of volume and days.

As for my diet...different for each individual. Progresses from week to week depending on how they look. Carbs higher on training days...lower on off/cardio days. Hard to pinpoint for you exactly because each client is different.


----------



## juggernaut (May 18, 2009)

gopro said:


> Dude, seriously, what is your problem? You have issues bro.


I know I have issues. But I dooooont bullshit.


----------



## gopro (May 18, 2009)

juggernaut said:


> I know I have issues. But I dooooont bullshit.



And what am I bullshitting about? Even if you think I am wrong about something I am saying, why does that mean I am bullshitting? If you disagree with my training or dieting methodologies that is fine, but it does not mean that I am bullshitting about anything.

Bro, the negativity you continue to spew is only going to come back to you three-fold. That is how the universe works. So, please try and be more peaceful....for your own sake.


----------



## juggernaut (May 18, 2009)

gopro said:


> And what am I bullshitting about? Even if you think I am wrong about something I am saying, why does that mean I am bullshitting? If you disagree with my training or dieting methodologies that is fine, but it does not mean that I am bullshitting about anything.
> 
> Bro, the negativity you continue to spew is only going to come back to you three-fold. That is how the universe works. So, please try and be more peaceful....for your own sake.


I think that Florida "zen" thing has gone to your head. Bro.


----------



## gopro (May 18, 2009)

juggernaut said:


> I think that Florida "zen" thing has gone to your head. Bro.



Sorry bro, just a personal philosophy. Anyway, I really think you should look inward and try and figure out why you have so much hate, jealousy and negativity inside you.

Or, don't and carry on as is. But I promise it will hold you back.


----------



## Built (May 18, 2009)

gopro said:


> Hmmm, there used to be a link on the MD boards, but when he was fired it might have been removed, but I will check. As far as how long he runs it...the entire diet...probably anywhere from 12-24 weeks depending on the initial condition of the athlete. With training I don't know how much control he has, but Dave trains like most bodybuilders do in terms of volume and days.
> 
> As for my diet...different for each individual. Progresses from week to week depending on how they look. Carbs higher on training days...lower on off/cardio days. Hard to pinpoint for you exactly because each client is different.



Okay, so Palumbo's approach is to keep people in uninterrupted ketosis for periods of up to 24 weeks, where your approach is to cycle keto and non-keto days, coordinated with your clients' training. 

Is that fairly close to the Cole's notes version?


----------



## gopro (May 18, 2009)

Built said:


> Okay, so Palumbo's approach is to keep people in uninterrupted ketosis for periods of up to 24 weeks, where your approach is to cycle keto and non-keto days, coordinated with your clients' training.
> 
> Is that fairly close to the Cole's notes version?



Where are my keto days? There may be some days of very low carbs towards the end of the diet on off days, but 1) It may not result in ketosis, and 2) Even if it does, it is very temporary.


----------



## Built (May 18, 2009)

gopro said:


> Where are my keto days? There may be some days of very low carbs towards the end of the diet on off days, but 1) It may not result in ketosis, and 2) Even if it does, it is very temporary.



The low days - especially with high volume - would put anyone training with any kind of intensity into ketosis until the higher carb day. No worries, we've already established that episodic ketosis is not only normal, it's healthy. The body gets VERY efficient at switching fuel tanks the more we do this, I'm sure you've noticed this yourself and in your clients. The first time I deliberately tried to hit ketosis (because I thought it was important) it took me three days. Now I can go into ketosis in a few hours if I want to. 

The thing is, you aren't putting clients into ketosis as the goal, right? It's just incidental, if it happens it happens, if it doesn't, it doesn't. It's not the specific objective. 

I'm thinking it's kinda like the difference between "occasionally hitting failure" and "always deliberately training to failure".  The former just means you're pushing yourself. The latter will bite you in the ass when your CNS craps out to protect you from hitting muscular fatigue.


----------



## juggernaut (May 18, 2009)

Built said:


> I'm thinking it's kinda like the difference between "occasionally hitting failure" and "always deliberately training to failure".  The former just means you're pushing yourself. The latter will bite you in the ass when your CNS craps out to protect you from hitting muscular fatigue.


I'm sure one of his clients is about to hit the wall, as I have been reading his ongoing log.
Poor guy is damn near starving, has high volume workouts, minimal protein consumption and hes paying to have that done to him.


----------



## Built (May 18, 2009)

Rantorcha is a grown-up and I'm sure nobody's trying to hurt anyone. Running a marathon isn't good for you either, he'll recover. 

I'm sure he'll be glad when it's all done and he has the pictures though.

Now, getting back to Palumbo. So he aims for - and keeps - his clients in ketosis with high volume training and no refeeds, for up to 24 weeks at a time?


----------



## gopro (May 18, 2009)

Built said:


> The low days - especially with high volume - would put anyone training with any kind of intensity into ketosis until the higher carb day. No worries, we've already established that episodic ketosis is not only normal, it's healthy. The body gets VERY efficient at switching fuel tanks the more we do this, I'm sure you've noticed this yourself and in your clients. The first time I deliberately tried to hit ketosis (because I thought it was important) it took me three days. Now I can go into ketosis in a few hours if I want to.
> 
> The thing is, you aren't putting clients into ketosis as the goal, right? It's just incidental, if it happens it happens, if it doesn't, it doesn't. It's not the specific objective.
> 
> I'm thinking it's kinda like the difference between "occasionally hitting failure" and "always deliberately training to failure".  The former just means you're pushing yourself. The latter will bite you in the ass when your CNS craps out to protect you from hitting muscular fatigue.



First of all, I do not consider my training high volume. My clients do maybe 18-20 total sets per workout. Many bodybuilders will almost do that many sets for one large body part.

Second, "low days" only occur on non-training days. 

Third, THE POINT is that episodic ketosis does not result in muscle loss, by chronic ketosis DOES.

Fourth, just because YOU can reach ketosis so easily does not mean everyone does. It take me DAYS of under 50 grams of carbs to even begin to hit ketosis.

Fifth, no "ketosis" is not normally ever the goal unless I feel it necesasary, safe for that particular client (meaning they have incredible propensity for retaining muscle OR is not a bodybuilder). or is on drugs.


----------



## gopro (May 18, 2009)

Built said:


> Rantorcha is a grown-up and I'm sure nobody's trying to hurt anyone. Running a marathon isn't good for you either, he'll recover.
> 
> I'm sure he'll be glad when it's all done and he has the pictures though.
> 
> Now, getting back to Palumbo. So he aims for - and keeps - his clients in ketosis with high volume training and no refeeds, for up to 24 weeks at a time?




As for Palumbo, yes, that is about it.


----------



## Built (May 18, 2009)

gopro said:


> I have NO clue what this post is about.* If *you are trying to infer that Rantorcha's prep is ill-conceived, that once again speaks to your complete lack of experience of prepping competitors and your naivety of what it takes to reach the top levels of bodybuilding competition. But that is not your fault, this is NOT your field.
> 
> As for Palumbo, yes, that is about it.



That wasn't directed to you, Eric, I was responding to Juggernaut:


juggernaut said:


> I'm sure one of his clients is about to hit the wall, as I have been reading his ongoing log.
> Poor guy is damn near starving, has high volume workouts, minimal protein consumption and hes paying to have that done to him.


----------



## gopro (May 18, 2009)

gopro said:


> I have NO clue what this post is about.* If *you are trying to infer that Rantorcha's prep is ill-conceived, that once again speaks to your complete lack of experience of prepping competitors and your naivety of what it takes to reach the top levels of bodybuilding competition. But that is not your fault, this is NOT your field.
> 
> As for Palumbo, yes, that is about it.



Then please allow me to apologize for my response to you, although that was not meant as a personal shot, I assure you.


----------



## Built (May 18, 2009)

gopro said:


> First of all, I do not consider my training high volume. My clients do maybe 18-20 total sets per workout. Many bodybuilders will almost do that many sets for one large body part.


Where did I say you do high volume?



gopro said:


> Second, "low days" only occur on non-training days.



I may have misread Rantorcha's prep - it seemed to me that he was doing cardio on what he called a zero carb day. (I do too, it's the best time to do it - cardio doesn't need carbs, unless it's something like HIIT)

If you do any kind of training on a very low carb day, you'll go into ketosis. You'll burn those ketones as fuel if you do cardio - and you won't test any in a keto strip, but that's because there's none left to burn. Unless you follow up with a carby meal, ketones will generally re-appear in the urine an hour or so afterward, though - however, with a very high water intake, they may be too dilute to be visible on the strip. 


gopro said:


> Third, THE POINT is that episodic ketosis does not result in muscle loss, by chronic ketosis DOES.


Which is why I needed a definition here. [/quote]



gopro said:


> Fourth, just because YOU can reach ketosis so easily does not mean everyone does. It take me DAYS of under 50 grams of carbs to even begin to hit ketosis.



OH, I could give you a workout that would have you in ketosis, lol - a depletion workout or two really speeds things up. But without training, I'd take days at under 50g myself. Hell, I'd take days at under 20g. That's pretty normal, I think. 

WE DO go into ketosis more easily while fat. You're too lean, and too muscular. (Sucks to be you, lol!)  

Seriously, you have less fat to let go of in the first place, and you have so much lean mass, the ketones would burn off before you could measure them.



gopro said:


> Fifth, no "ketosis" is not normally ever the goal unless I feel it necesasary, safe for that particular client (meaning they have incredible propensity for retaining muscle OR is not a bodybuilder). or is on drugs.



This is interesting. What do you see as the benefit of ketosis - not just very low carb, but specifically ketosis - for these people for whom you deliberately set it off. When do you feel it is warranted as a deliberate goal?


----------



## gopro (May 18, 2009)

Built said:


> The low days - *especially with high volume *- would put anyone training with any kind of intensity into ketosis until the higher carb day.



That is where you said high volume.


----------



## Built (May 18, 2009)

Ah, sorry. This wasn't you in particular - it's a general statement.  

Lyle does this, in UD2.0, on the low days. It's done to deplete glycogen.


----------



## gopro (May 18, 2009)

Built said:


> Where did I say you do high volume?
> 
> 
> 
> ...





OH, I could give you a workout that would have you in ketosis, lol - a depletion workout or two really speeds things up. But without training, I'd take days at under 50g myself. Hell, I'd take days at under 20g. That's pretty normal, I think. 

WE DO go into ketosis more easily while fat. You're too lean, and too muscular. (Sucks to be you, lol!)  

Seriously, you have less fat to let go of in the first place, and you have so much lean mass, the ketones would burn off before you could measure them.



This is interesting. What do you see as the benefit of ketosis - not just very low carb, but specifically ketosis - for these people for whom you deliberately set it off. When do you feel it is warranted as a deliberate goal?[/QUOTE]

-Rantorcha does do cardio on zero-carb days, but he is not my "typical" client. He is one of the one's that forces me to go a bit outside the box to get into condition as he is very much an endomorph that retains muscle very well, but also stubbornly hold onto bodyfat. This is why I mention that I do not have a "cookie cutter" approach.

-I can do my normal intense weight training for 3 straight days at 50 grams carbs per day and still not be in ketosis. And I have had many clients like this as well. This is something that varies quite a bit amongst individuals.

-True about ketosis and being "fatter," but I have not always remained this lean. I have only done this in the last few years. I used to bulk with the best of them and still had trouble with ketosis. P.S....I have to work very hard to stay lean...this is no easy task, LOL.

-Ketosis, even when transient is gives you a great opportunity to burn bodyfat because it is physiologically the best state to do so. I do not worry much about muscle loss b/c 1) Again, it is transient, and 2) It is done on non-weight training days.


----------



## Built (May 18, 2009)

Is it the ketosis itself that is doing this?


----------



## gopro (May 18, 2009)

Built said:


> Is it the ketosis itself that is doing this?



It is the ketosis in so much that there is a lack of carbs for fuel, and thus a shift to extreme low levels of insulin, and higher levels of glucagon, growth hormone, catecholamines, and glucocorticoid. This hormonal cascade is an ideal environment for fat loss.


----------



## Arnold (May 18, 2009)

is thread really going anywhere?


----------



## Built (May 18, 2009)

gopro said:


> It is the ketosis in so much that there is a lack of carbs for fuel, and thus a shift to extreme low levels of insulin, and higher levels of glucagon, growth hormone, catecholamines, and glucocorticoid. This hormonal cascade is an ideal environment for fat loss.



Define ideal.


----------



## gopro (May 18, 2009)

Prince said:


> is thread really going anywhere?



No, it is not. Built is trying in some way to discredit me...I can tell by the tone of her questions, LOL.

I do not believe she is trying to "learn anything new."

I believe she is on a witch hunt, and can't seem to just let this go.


----------



## Built (May 18, 2009)

Now that's not very nice. I'm not calling you any names or accusing you of anything. I'm just trying to clear up some of this quandary. 

Getting back to the question, can you define what you mean by "ideal" in this context?


----------



## rantorcha (May 18, 2009)

You are still arguing this??  Jeez woman!  Here...le tme use a couple of these cute little emoticon-thingys to show everyone what I am feeling right now...


----------



## Built (May 18, 2009)

Hey dude. 

Yeah, I honestly never really got a grip on the thesis of Eric's argument. I'm trying to define some terms so I can get some clarity on this. 

How are you feeling? How's posing coming along?


----------



## Hench (May 18, 2009)

gopro said:


> No, it is not. Built is trying in some way to discredit me...I can tell by the tone of her questions, LOL.
> 
> I do not believe she is trying to "learn anything new."
> 
> I believe she is on a witch hunt, and can't seem to just let this go.



Gopro, would I be correct in saying that you are 100% confident in your methods/understanding of body building and human physiology?

If so can you please just answer the questions asked? Its not like you trying to hide anything, there is no witch hunt. Builts just trying to understand the situation better.


----------



## Hench (May 18, 2009)

rantorcha said:


> You are still arguing this??  Jeez woman!  Here...le tme use a couple of these cute little emoticon-thingys to show everyone what I am feeling right now...



Rant I dont know why you and Gopro see this as an argument/witch hunt. If it is just an exchange of questions and answers, back and forth then it can be fun, and a great learning tool for those who are following along.


----------



## gopro (May 18, 2009)

Built said:


> Now that's not very nice. I'm not calling you any names or accusing you of anything. I'm just trying to clear up some of this quandary.
> 
> Getting back to the question, can you define what you mean by "ideal" in this context?



Now, now...I never said you were "name calling" or getting personal...that is different. However, I just do not see the quandry at all.

Ok, let's remove the word "ideal" because for some reason that has thrown you. Let me rephrase that sentence and say:

_It is the ketosis in so much that there is a lack of carbs for fuel, and thus a shift to extreme low levels of insulin, and higher levels of glucagon, growth hormone, catecholamines, and glucocorticoid. This hormonal "cascade" creates an internal envronment wherein the fat burning "machinery" is in full swing and extremely efficient at this purpose._

Please do not ask me to define "full swing."


----------



## Built (May 18, 2009)

What I'm getting at in this context - and thank you for replying - is how is it that this is ideal, and yet not something you would generally try to aim for when dieting down an athlete - you do use it occasionally, at least I think that's what you said. 

What is it that distinguishes between the kind of person for whom this is helpful, and for whom it will cause harm?

I swear I am not being confrontational - I absolutely know that there are some people who feel like GARBAGE on keto. You are one of them. My husband wasn't exactly delighted by the experience either. Jugg and I on the other hand, feel WONDERFUL in ketosis. I'd stay here all the time if it weren't for my damned sweet-tooth!

I'll throw you a bone, maybe this will help shape your answers. My approach hinges upon relative levels of comfort/discomfort. I say with full humility that contest prep isn't the apple of my eye. If I ever get on a stage, I'm sure I'll hire someone to prep me. 

I find contest-prep academically interesting, but that's where my interest in it ends. I've prepped myself (for my profile and avatar shot), and I've prepped merkaba (for his second-place win, and avatar shot) - and two others who were NOT ready to get on a stage and I told them both, but they wanted to do it for themselves and they both looked their best - just too small to be considered. 

The contest thing is the extreme end point of this sport, and it's there to give us all something to cheer for, but for most of us, we're not doing this to get on a stage. Still, it's useful to know anything that helps us achieve OUR goals, even if the stage isn't involved. Most of us in this culture will, in fact, never compete - but what we learn from watching the brave souls who venture onto a stage in their skivvies asking for judgment can do much to narrow the scope of our own personal searches. 

I'm tying to get a handle on how YOU make the determination for who will do well on periods of keto dieting, and who won't. 

Does this help?


----------



## gopro (May 18, 2009)

But Built...I actually said more than once that I feel just fine on keto diets! I can go without carbs for weeks at a time with no refeed and feel good with decent energy! That does not stop me from losing muscle tissue, however. Nor would it stop anyone.

I don't know...maybe we should remove the word keto and just say that extended zero carb diets are detrimental to muscle tissue...and not the "ketosis" itself. It is the lack of carbs/insulin/glycogen (and the resultant physiological enviroment that then manifests) that directly effects the mechanisms involved in muscle hypertrophy/retention...not the presence of ketone bodies.

Also, another MAIN point is that TRANSIENT periods of zero carbs...1-2 days...can be effective for fat loss, but is not enough time for the body to become catabolic to the point of real muscle loss. It is the EXTENDED/CHRONIC zero carb diet (like Palumbo, for example, champions) that is detrimental to the retention of muscle tissue during a diet.

I really don't think it needs to go any further than this.


----------



## Built (May 18, 2009)

I'm fine with that definition - I've never even MET anyone who has done a zero carb diet, much less tried it myself.

I honestly can't see why anyone would do zero carbs on purpose. How boring!

Okay, so how do you decide which of your clients to diet on periods of very low carb, and which not to?


----------



## BigPapaPump68 (May 18, 2009)

gopro said:


> But Built...I actually said more than once that I feel just fine on keto diets! *I can go without carbs for weeks at a time with no refeed and feel good with decent energy!* That does not stop me from losing muscle tissue, however. Nor would it stop anyone.
> 
> I don't know...maybe we should remove the word keto and just say that extended zero carb diets are detrimental to muscle tissue...and not the "ketosis" itself. It is the lack of carbs/insulin/glycogen (and the resultant physiological enviroment that then manifests) that directly effects the mechanisms involved in muscle hypertrophy/retention...not the presence of ketone bodies.
> 
> ...



God bless you.  When I go with no carbs for a week and a half, I want to go insane because my muscles look flat...Or at least that's what my body wants me to think just so i'll go and refeed on a ton of pasta, LOL.


----------



## gopro (May 18, 2009)

Built said:


> I'm fine with that definition - I've never even MET anyone who has done a zero carb diet, much less tried it myself.
> 
> I honestly can't see why anyone would do zero carbs on purpose. How boring!
> 
> Okay, so how do you decide which of your clients to diet on periods of very low carb, and which not to?



Ok, now I need to define "zero-carb." I do not consider green veggies towards carbs. When I say "zero carbs" I mean no starches/fruit...rice, bread, pasta, potatoes, etc.

I decide on my clients first by looking at them and getting a good idea of their body type (which I have become quite good at). Getting a complete info profile on them. And most of all...working with them a bit and "learning their body/metabolism." As I have done this longer and longer I can learn people faster and faster.


----------



## gopro (May 18, 2009)

BigPapaPump68 said:


> God bless you.  When I go with no carbs for a week and a half, I want to go insane because my muscles look flat...Or at least that's what my body wants me to think just so i'll go and refeed on a ton of pasta, LOL.



Well, your body DOES go flat. Glycogen also keeps cells more hydrated. Without much glycogen your cells become "flat." Also, a well-hydrated cell is considered a more "anabolic cell."


----------



## Built (May 18, 2009)

gopro said:


> Well, your body DOES go flat. Glycogen also keeps cells more hydrated.


True dat. I always have to look it up but I think it's something like 3g of water for every 1g of glycogen. The water's bound up with the glycogen though. 


gopro said:


> Without much glycogen your cells become "flat." Also, a well-hydrated cell is considered a more "anabolic cell."


Indeed, hence the reason why salt is such an underappreciated friend to the bodybuilder. 

Surely you've noticed some trends in the clients you've worked with - for instance, I can usually spot which women are going to respond better to higher protein-and-fat than to lower-fat-and-higher-carbs, at least in terms of comfort and satiety. In my generally non-contest prep world, I've noticed nothing works if the individual can't stick to it. 

However, this doesn't speak to the question of "who would win on a stage?"

From a physique-enhancing, "results" perspective, what broad trends have you noted with regard to carb intake and successful cutting?


----------



## Arnold (May 18, 2009)

as far as being flat the only thing that matters in bodybuilding is how you look on stage the day of the show, I assume that DP is having them do a "carb load" the last few days?


----------



## danzik17 (May 18, 2009)

Can definitely speak to the hydration thing....almost to the end of my zero/low carb period but holy crap I always feel thirsty no matter how much I drink of anything.


----------



## Built (May 18, 2009)

You may need salt. Are you salting your food?


----------



## gopro (May 18, 2009)

Prince said:


> as far as being flat the only thing that matters in bodybuilding is how you look on stage the day of the show, I assume that DP is having them do a "carb load" the last few days?



Yes, and many have complained...and I have seen this too...that the body cannot make up for lost ground. There is actual MUSCLE LOSS during the diet, not just temporary flatness. THAT is the point here that I am so desperately trying to get across!!!

And some of his drug-using clients have even seen this...can you imagine naturals?


----------



## gopro (May 18, 2009)

Built said:


> You may need salt. Are you salting your food?



By the way...I have all my competitors salt their food throughout their diet.


----------



## Arnold (May 18, 2009)

gopro said:


> Yes, and many have complained...and I have seen this too...that the body cannot make up for lost ground. There is actual MUSCLE LOSS during the diet, not just temporary flatness. THAT is the point here that I am so desperately trying to get across!!!
> 
> And some of his drug-using clients have even seen this...can you imagine naturals?



the only issue I have is DP has produced so many top notch competitors that placed very well, and even win big shows.


----------



## Built (May 18, 2009)

Eric, doesn't Palumbo use refeeds with his clients?


----------



## P-funk (May 18, 2009)

Why not email Palumbo and get him on here for a discussion?  
Everyone is speculating what he does, why not just get him on here and ask him?

patrick


----------



## Built (May 18, 2009)

There's a thought...


----------



## Arnold (May 18, 2009)

P-funk said:


> Why not email Palumbo and get him on here for a discussion?
> Everyone is speculating what he does, why not just get him on here and ask him?



*I found this:*

The premise of the diet is high protein (about 1- 1 1/2 gram per pound), moderate fat (about 1/2 g per lb) and low low carbs (no direct sources of carbs). During this diet, the brain goes into ketosis (it uses ketone bodies for energy-- fats) and thus the energy requirements by the body can almost all be supplied by fats (which you'll be taking in plenty of). The only activity that uses carbs will be the weight workout which may use 40grams per workout. You will get these 40g indirectly through the foods you'll be eating. As a backup, the cheat meal you'll be having once per week will provide a storehouse of glycogen (glucose) in case of emergency. So, you see, very little gluconeogenesis in the liver will be occurring. If we keep cortisol low (by
restricting STIMULANTS) we'll ensure that muscle is spared!

HAVE YOUR CHEAT MEAL ON THE SAME DAY EVERY WEEK, last meal of the
day so you dont cheat again.

Fiber helps burn fat! Everyone should take fiber 2x per day. Fiber actually helps increase the absorption of calcium.
When following my diet plan (which includes getting your brain into ketosis), there can be NO starchy carbs eaten!

For a 200lb man:

MEAL #1
5 whole eggs (make sure to buy OMEGA-3 EGGS from the supermarket. They contain virtually NO saturated fat and tons of good OMEGA-3 fats); add another 4 egg whites to this (they don?t need to be the Omega-3 ones; you can use liquid egg whites)

MEAL #2
SHAKE: 50g Whey Protein with 1 ? tablespoon of All Natural Peanut butter (no sugar)

MEAL #3
"Lean Protein Meal": 8oz chicken with 1/2-cup cashew nuts (almonds, or walnuts)

MEAL #4
SHAKE: 50g Whey Protein with 1 ? tablespoons of All Natural Peanut butter (no sugar added)

MEAL #5
"Fatty Protein Meal": 8oz Salmon, Swordfish, or RED MEAT with a green salad (no tomatoes, carrots, or red peppers) with 1 tablespoon of Olive Oil or Macadamia nut oil and vinegar

MEAL #6
SHAKE: 50g Whey with 1 ? tablespoon all natural peanut butter or 4 whole (Omega-3) eggs and 4 extra whites

For a 250lb+ man:
Meal 1 6 whole Omega-3 eggs
Meal 2 8oz chicken with 1/2 cup raw almonds
Meal 3 50g whey with 2 tablespoons all natural peanutbutter
Meal 4 8oz salmon with 1 cup asparagus with 1 tablespoon macadamia nut oil
Meal 5 50 g whey with 2 tablespoon PB
Meal 6 6 whole eggs

Remember, it takes 3-4 days to get into a strong ketosis where your brain is using ketone bodies (fats), instead of carbs, for energy. Be patient.

Many times I'll switch to an alternatiing diet where one day it will be protein/fat......then another protein/vegetables (very little fat). The great thing about the body and fat is that ESSENTIAL FATTY ACIDS can be stored in the muscle for several days, up to 2 weeks......therefore, once an adequate storehouse of Essential Fats are built up, the body can be "tortured" a little and it still won't give up muscle (that's assuming you're still taking in adequate protein. Protein can't be stored).

1oz almonds equals 6g carbs (2 of those grams are fiber) and 2oz equals 12g of carbs.

With the beef meal (any fatty protein meal), you should have the green salad with 1 tablespoon of Olive or Mac oil INSTEAD of the nuts. Only eat the nuts with the LEAN PROTEIN MEAL (chicken, turkey, lean fish)

The best fat sources come from the essential fatty acids-- Omega-6 and Omega-3's. Most of us get plenty of Omega-6s from cooking oils, ect..........however the Omega-3's are harder to get. I recommend WHOLE OMEGA-3 EGGS, FaTTY FISHS like SALMON and SWORDFISH and TUNA and MACKEREL, ALMONDS and WALNUTS have some OMEGA-3's (as well as OMEGA-6s). ANother great fat source is MONOUNSATURATES such as EXTRA VIRGIN OLIVE OIL and MACADAMIA NUT OIL.....they aren't essential but they are great for the metabolism (great source of energy) and they are extremely good for your heart.

You're not getting any indirect sources of carbs (just from the 1 spoonful of PB.... you may want to have at least one 1/3cup nuts meal. Remember, Olive or Macadamia nut oil is predominantly a MONOUNSATURATED FAT (good for the heart, but not essential)........ the nuts, and fish oil have the essential fats in them. Also, with regard to FLAX SEED OIL, the OMEGA-3 Fatty Acids found in them (alpha-linolenic acid) has a very poor conversion to DHA and EPA (Essential Omega-3 intermediates) in the HUMAN........therefore, you're much better off taking in FISH OILS (that already contain DHA/EPA) than FLAX SEED OIL.

Once fat loss slows, I always increase cardio first, then I increase the amount of fat burners (clen, Cytomel, lipolyze).........After those other methods are exhausted, only then, do I play with the diet.

Always eat BEFORE lifting........never BETWEEN lifting and cardio.
Artificial Sweetners:
The artificial sweetener itself (eg. aspartame, sucralose) wont cause a problem. It's what some companies complex it with. For example, EQUAL and SPLENDA combine their aspartame and sucrolose with 1g of maltodextrin........whereas, in diet drinks, they don't do that. So, diet drinks are okay, SPLENDA and EQUAL must be used in moderation (STEVIA BALANCE is fine though since they use inulin fiber instead of maltodextrin

Forget using:
-MCT's are a waste when you're dieting. If you're gonna use FATS for an energy source, they might as well serve a function in the body. MCTs are useless. They can only serve as a source of energy!
-Arginine is not going to do anything. It will DO something; just not dramatic.

Cardio:
CARDIO should be performed at a low intensity (under 120bpm heartrate). This will ensure that you use FAT as a fuelsource since as your heartrate increase, carbohydrates begin to become the preferred fuel of choice for the body. When on a low carb diet, you're body will break down muscle and turn that into carbs. Remember, Fat CANNOT be changed into carbs. Therefore, for bodybuilding, the rule of cardio should be LONG DURATION, LOW INTENSITY

never do less than 20 min per session

The BOTTOM LINE is that low intensity cardio (while you might need more of it) ensures that fat is utilized and muscle is spared (especially while on my high protein/moderate fat/low carb diety).

Do you feel the treadmill is better for cardio, or is the bike(stationary or recumbent) just as good? As long as the intensity is LOW, it doesn't matter which piece of equipment you use

Q&A:
Q: Is gluconeogenesis inevitable in your diet?
Dave Palumbo: NO

Q: If so do I need to consume more than 1.5 grams of protein per lb of LBM so as not to lose muscle?
Dave Palumbo: The fat spares the protein....when the brain is in ketosis, the carbohydrate requirements are very very low.

Q: How much (percentage) of my protein intake would be turned into glucose (gluconeogenesis)?
Dave Palumbo: Very little (maybe 10%)

Q: What do you think of submersion in cold water as a means of burning bodyfat (thermogenesis)?
Dave Palumbo: HOCUS POKUS!

Q: How about drinking lots of cold water (I think this was even suggested by Elligton Darden) to help lose bodyfat?
Dave Palumbo: RIDICULOUS

Q: Do you think drinking lots of Green Tea is beneficial to fat loss?
Dave Palumbo: Somewhat helpful.

Q: How much is the ideal dosage of Omega 3 for a 220 lb. individual ?
Dave Palumbo: Try to take in about 9g per day

Q: How many Tbs of peanut butter could I have instead of 1/2 cup of cashewnuts?
Dave Palumbo: 2 tablespoons, two tablespoons of Peanut Butter contains 190 calories and 16 grams of fat (so 1.5 tablespoon equals about 12 grams fat) ...whereas......... 2oz (1/3 cup) almonds (about 40 almonds) = 12g fat

Q: I want to add that if I cant find the omega eggs here locally. Can I use international egg whites and just take an omega supplement?
Dave Palumbo: You can get away with 5 whole eggs (regular ones) once a day........not a big deal. You'll be burning up all that fat anyway.

Q: Whats the max cups # of coffee ( no sugar ) can consume on Dave's diet ?
Dave Palumbo: Try to limit to 2 cups per day.......I realize that towards the end of the diet you may need more to help you get through the day.

Q: If you cook tilapia in macadamon nut oil?do you coun't the oil as your fat for that meal! Depends how much you use.
Dave Palumbo: If you just grease the pan with it, no!

Q: what is the protein,carb and fat ratio for offseason
Dave Palumbo: 50% Protein, 25% fat, 25% carbs

Q: and the ratio for contest prep.
Dave Palumbo:60% protein, 30% fat, 10% carbs


----------



## danzik17 (May 18, 2009)

Built said:


> You may need salt. Are you salting your food?



Should be getting plenty.  The majority of my meals are liberally salted with Sea Salt.


----------



## P-funk (May 18, 2009)

just emailed him.

we'll see what happens!

patrick


----------



## gopro (May 18, 2009)

Prince said:


> the only issue I have is DP has produced so many top notch competitors that placed very well, and even win big shows.



Please Rob, don't get the wrong idea. Dave is without a doubt *one of the greatest minds in this industry*. He has *helped thousands*, and is especially good at dispensing sane and solid information on the proper use and effects of performance enhancing drugs. *I have total respect for him, despite the way we left off.* Shit, we were getting ready to write a book together!

That said...yes, he has successfully dieted down MANY top competitors, but the majority of those are on drugs...a lot of drugs, and this can easily make up for most of the things I discuss about the pitfalls of keto diets. Thus, I base my discussion/thoughts more on those bodybuilders that compete drug free.

But still, it is my opinion that even drug users should keep some well-timed carbs in their diet. To just use Evan Centopani as an example. He won the Nationals on Dave's diet...and he deserved it. However, he won it no where near at his best (same with Mike Liberatore most recently)! Evan was ripped, but very flat. His muscle had no "pop." In the NYC Pro last weekend, he was back to eating carbs and not only was he ripped, but extremely full and vascular! His muscles were pushing hard through the skin. They were not on Dave's diet.

I think Dave should loosen his approach a bit, and look at each person individually...and not just go keto, keto, keto. I think he would be *even MORE successful than he already is!*

But anyway...let me again say, that I think Dave is a brilliant man.


----------



## P-funk (May 18, 2009)

Hopefully he responds to the thread so we can talk about the possibility of him "loosening his approach"!!

If he registers here and starts to comment in this thread, it will slowly work its way up to one of my favorite threads.  I have to admit, the last two or three pages have gotten more into personal attacks and nonsense, so the thread has slipped a little from the top of my list.

Patrick


----------



## gopro (May 18, 2009)

P-funk said:


> Hopefully he responds to the thread so we can talk about the possibility of him "loosening his approach"!!
> 
> If he registers here and starts to comment in this thread, it will slowly work its way up to one of my favorite threads.  I have to admit, the last two or three pages have gotten more into personal attacks and nonsense, so the thread has slipped a little from the top of my list.
> 
> Patrick



Actually, if he comes here it will just end up to be the same "argument" we had over at MD (forum/mag), which I will not repeat. He disagrees with me...I disagree with him. Same sh%t different forum. Thus, I would stay out of it, and let him just say all he wants to.

Regardless, I think its been a cool thread overall, and I was glad to be a part of it. I honestly do not think there is anything else I could say on this topic, however.

Peace.


----------



## Built (May 18, 2009)

P-funk said:


> just emailed him.
> 
> we'll see what happens!
> 
> patrick


I did too lol!


----------



## nkira (May 19, 2009)

And now I am waiting for the climax!!!! Cant wait to see the man himself has to say.

Good call Patrick & Built......


----------



## juggernaut (May 19, 2009)

Agreed. Personal opinions aside, this is a good thread with a ton of interesting views.


----------



## DROS (May 19, 2009)

I am here on Dave's behalf to answer any questions and clear up any misconceptions about his dietary recommendations.

I am not here to get into a pissing match with Eric or to disrespect him in anyway. Dave has the utmost respect for Eric and this is not personal.


----------



## ZECH (May 19, 2009)

Prince said:


> *I found this:*
> 
> 
> Q: and the ratio for contest prep.
> Dave Palumbo:60% protein, 30% fat, 10% carbs



OK, so for a good sized guy getting ready for a comp, say 3k calories per day is still 300g carbs per day. This is not even close to being is ketosis.


----------



## ZECH (May 19, 2009)

DROS said:


> I am here on Dave's behalf to answer any questions and clear up any misconceptions about his dietary recommendations.
> 
> I am not here to get into a pissing match with Eric or to disrespect him in anyway. Dave has the utmost respect for Eric and this is not personal.



Thank you for your time and the respectful comments.


----------



## Built (May 19, 2009)

DROS said:


> I am here on Dave's behalf to answer any questions and clear up any misconceptions about his dietary recommendations.
> 
> I am not here to get into a pissing match with Eric or to disrespect him in anyway. Dave has the utmost respect for Eric and this is not personal.





DROS - thank you so much, and welcome!

This thread really took on a life of its own, for sure. 

Part of the problem was just nailing down the definition of low carb and keto diet - there's a continuum of dieting strategies that can easily fit either or both of these formats. 

Let me start off by saying I'm a big fan of higher fat, very low carb dieting for fat loss - if for no other reason than "it's comfortable!". Low fat, high carb diets make me so hungry I could chew my arm off. 

Broser contends that comfortable or not, barring AAS use, this type of dieting catabolizes lean mass in all but the genetic elite. I use this strategy myself and as a former fatty who was on metformin for insulin resistance by the time I was 38 years old, I'm hardly elite. I'm just a middle aged broad who likes steak and hates starving. (The result of my first and so far only real cut are in my profile pic and my avatar. I'm 14% in those, confirmed by DEXA, 100% natural in those shots. I'm now on HRT)

Broser further contends that Palumbo's clients came in flatter and lost too much muscle on his programme - but we're not at all clear on Palumbo's protocol - only that it is low carb and leans heavily on protein and modestly high healthy fats, with emphasis on fish oil and monos, and only LISS cardio if cardio is used at all. 

Prince returned with the fact that Palumbo has such an incredible track record of successful athletes. 

Palumbo has criticized Broser's article based on inaccuracies pertaining to human physiologic responses to dietary interventions. Broser contends that without an insulin response, muscle will be lost. 

Can you shed some light on Palumbo's methods and offer clarification?


----------



## ZECH (May 19, 2009)

Built said:


> Let me start off by saying I'm a big fan of higher fat, very low carb dieting for fat loss - if for no other reason than "it's comfortable!". Low fat, high carb diets make me so hungry I could chew my arm off.



I just wanted to say that since you are a fan of lyle's, he once said that you could get ripped from table sugar given that calories were in check.


----------



## Built (May 19, 2009)

You bet. I agree completely.


----------



## ZECH (May 19, 2009)

Then if its all about calories, why the fight about carbs?


----------



## Built (May 19, 2009)

dg806 said:


> Then if its all about calories, why the fight about carbs?



Exactly.


----------



## Arnold (May 19, 2009)

dg806 said:


> I just wanted to say that since you are a fan of lyle's, he once said that you could get ripped from table sugar given that calories were in check.



I would argue that, recent science is proving that a calorie is not just a calorie as once thought.


----------



## Built (May 19, 2009)

I am very much looking forward to reading more about this. Robert, you had mentioned something a while back about a study coming out. Any word?


----------



## juggernaut (May 19, 2009)

Prince said:


> as far as being flat the only thing that matters in bodybuilding is how you look on stage the day of the show, I assume that DP is having them do a "carb load" the last few days?


this is the only time where I can truly say that carbs are beneficial. Other than that, if I could stay low carb forever, and compete as a keto bber, I would. But, salt and carbs do have their place. I will stay low carb until I die. I hate the days preceding a show, because I dread how I will feel carbed up.


----------



## gopro (May 19, 2009)

DROS said:


> I am here on Dave's behalf to answer any questions and clear up any misconceptions about his dietary recommendations.
> 
> I am not here to get into a pissing match with Eric or to disrespect him in anyway. Dave has the utmost respect for Eric and this is not personal.



*DROS...not sure who you are but thanks for coming by.

And I think your above comment was awesome. I will say over and over again that THIS IS NOT PERSONAL, just as you mention. I have sat in Dave's home, gone out to dinner with him, and spoken with him more than once about diet and such...I consider him a friend, colleague, and one of the most intelligent people involved in this industry. What happened between us at MD was unfortunate and I only hope he is thriving over at RX Muscle! Experts in this field disagree all the time, and this is nothing new. Give him my best.

*


----------



## Arnold (May 19, 2009)

Built said:


> I am very much looking forward to reading more about this. Robert, you had mentioned something a while back about a study coming out. Any word?



study has not been published.


----------



## gopro (May 19, 2009)

Prince said:


> I would argue that, recent science is proving that a calorie is not just a calorie as once thought.



I would argue that as well.


----------



## P-funk (May 19, 2009)

Some of Lyle's articles on the subject:

Hormonal Responses to a Fast-Food Meal Compared with Nutritionally Comparable Meals of Different Composition - Research Review | BodyRecomposition - The Home of Lyle McDonald

Is a Calorie a Calorie? | BodyRecomposition - The Home of Lyle McDonald

Enjoy,

Patrick


----------



## Arnold (May 19, 2009)

Author Lyle_McDonald - Articles by Lyle_McDonald on Bodybuilding, Diet, Nutrition and Supplements


----------



## DROS (May 19, 2009)

gopro said:


> *DROS...not sure who you are but thanks for coming by.
> 
> And I think your above comment was awesome. I will say over and over again that THIS IS NOT PERSONAL, just as you mention. I have sat in Dave's home, gone out to dinner with him, and spoken with him more than once about diet and such...I consider him a friend, colleague, and one of the most intelligent people involved in this industry. What happened between us at MD was unfortunate and I only hope he is thriving over at RX Muscle! Experts in this field disagree all the time, and this is nothing new. Give him my best.
> 
> *



Thank you Eric. To clarify for you and everyone, I am Dave's assitant (and sitting at his kitchen table right now).  I am very well versed in his diet, supplement, and drug recommendations and have applied his dieting methods to myself and people I advise.

On Dave's behalf, I am sorry if you felt his MD response was personal. Nothing in that Q&A was meant to be more then a debate on diet.

I am here to talk theory, science, and results.  Dave is stuck finishing up a lot of content we gathered at the NY Pro and preparing to leave in a couple days for the Jr. USA.


----------



## DROS (May 19, 2009)

Built said:


> DROS - thank you so much, and welcome!
> 
> This thread really took on a life of its own, for sure.
> 
> ...



I am going to be fair (or at least try)...I have dieting both ways personally and had terrible hunger either way.  I lose fat quickly and easily and I am sure I can get ripped with carbs, but I found that I am able to take in more calories and hold onto more muscle on Dave's diet plan.



Built said:


> Broser contends that comfortable or not, barring AAS use, this type of dieting catabolizes lean mass in all but the genetic elite. I use this strategy myself and as a former fatty who was on metformin for insulin resistance by the time I was 38 years old, I'm hardly elite. I'm just a middle aged broad who likes steak and hates starving. (The result of my first and so far only real cut are in my profile pic and my avatar. I'm 14% in those, confirmed by DEXA, 100% natural in those shots. I'm now on HRT)



I dont know how to intelligently combat this statement...we all lose some muscle on the way to extreme contest condition.  This is true for any diet and I have not seen any proof or even anecdotal evidence that a keto diet provides more muscle loss than a moderate carb diet. My opinion is that 90% of the people that think they lost a ton of muscle just never had as much as they hoped. When you lose 80lbs on the way to a show, instead of realizing you were fat, you say that you lost a lot of muscle.



Built said:


> Broser further contends that Palumbo's clients came in flatter and lost too much muscle on his programme - but we're not at all clear on Palumbo's protocol - only that it is low carb and leans heavily on protein and modestly high healthy fats, with emphasis on fish oil and monos, and only LISS cardio if cardio is used at all.



The "flat" thing drives me nuts.  Someone goes from a bloated 275 to 250 in the first week of the diet and the guy will tell you how flat he is.  Stay on the diet for a few weeks, take in plenty of sodium, and once your body adjusts and water gets re-balanced you will have forgotten about being flat.  Of course you could fill out with glycogen and water, but why is this necessary and what does it have to do with muscle loss.  All it can do is slow fat loss, which is the goal. This is the equivilant to wondering why your max squat dropped after 12 weeks of dieting.  Of course it did, that is part of the sacrifice to get ripped.  You get a little weaker and you flatten out.  It is part of the dieting process.



Built said:


> Prince returned with the fact that Palumbo has such an incredible track record of successful athletes.



Sure does.


Built said:


> Palumbo has criticized Broser's article based on inaccuracies pertaining to human physiologic responses to dietary interventions. Broser contends that without an insulin response, muscle will be lost.
> 
> Can you shed some light on Palumbo's methods and offer clarification?



*Rather than do a homework essay and give all of the tenants of Dave's diet, here is a link to his Q&A answers at RxMuscle.com: DAVE'S Q&A.  Check out the first few entries for his basic diet plans and then read on for tons of clarifications.  

From there I will gladly answer any questions and clarify as I can.*

A few key points:

Dave uses a meal plan and it is designed to be adjusted by him as a coach.  Dont expect to pick this up and use it to perfection with his ability to modify and tweak.
This diet is proven to work for naturals and those using enhancements.
Low intensity cardio every day is integral to the diet.


----------



## Built (May 19, 2009)

Okay, I'll start:

Is there a modification of the plan for naturals, or is it the same assisted or not?

How does the training change from the start of the cut to the end of the cut?


----------



## DROS (May 19, 2009)

Built said:


> Okay, I'll start:
> 
> Is there a modification of the plan for naturals, or is it the same assisted or not?
> 
> How does the training change from the start of the cut to the end of the cut?



The plan starts the same with or without drugs.  Drugs are not a crutch, they are an enhancement to get you to the goal quicker and maybe better.  The modifications for a natural is that you have to diet slower and make more subtle adjustments. You can force an enhanced athlete to take in far lower calories without worrying about muscle loss. In contrast, a natural athlete has to diet for a longer duration and deal with a slower progression of weight loss in order to spare muscle.  So the answer is that the diet starts the same, but Dave needs to start a natural athlete further out from the show.

Weight training never changes.  Intense, heavy, and relatively short durations (45-60min long weight training sessions).


----------



## Built (May 19, 2009)

Does the training volume drop back a bit as the cut progresses? I reduced my own training volume when I did the most successful "real" cut. For instance, for a split that had a 5x5, a 3x8 and a 2-3x12 for a given movement pattern (say, quad-dominant work) I first dropped the 12 rep stuff. Then I reduced the 5x5 to 4x5, then 3x5 - always doing what I could to keep the intensity high and to keep iron on the bar. 

Does this sound in any way familiar, or does Mr. Palumbo prefer to lower the weights a bit in order to keep the volume the same throughout?


----------



## juggernaut (May 20, 2009)

DROS said:


> The "flat" thing drives me nuts.  Someone goes from a bloated 275 to 250 in the first week of the diet and the guy will tell you how flat he is.  Stay on the diet for a few weeks, take in plenty of sodium, and once your body adjusts and water gets re-balanced you will have forgotten about being flat.  Of course you could fill out with glycogen and water, but why is this necessary and what does it have to do with muscle loss.  All it can do is slow fat loss, which is the goal. This is the equivilant to wondering why your max squat dropped after 12 weeks of dieting.  Of course it did, that is part of the sacrifice to get ripped.  You get a little weaker and you flatten out.  It is part of the dieting process.



This particular summary is of great interest to me. Can this happen to anyone who is particularly keto for medical reasons? I have epilepsy and found that a high fat, high protein diet is an outstanding way for me to live. I also compete, and hate the way I feel when adding carbs back into the glycogen loading process. Can this be done without carbing up all the way to the hellweek of a show?


----------



## gopro (May 20, 2009)

DROS said:


> Thank you Eric. To clarify for you and everyone, I am Dave's assitant (and sitting at his kitchen table right now).  I am very well versed in his diet, supplement, and drug recommendations and have applied his dieting methods to myself and people I advise.
> 
> On Dave's behalf, I am sorry if you felt his MD response was personal. Nothing in that Q&A was meant to be more then a debate on diet.
> 
> I am here to talk theory, science, and results.  Dave is stuck finishing up a lot of content we gathered at the NY Pro and preparing to leave in a couple days for the Jr. USA.



Cool stuff DROS! I don't want to rehash the MD thing, and why I felt he made it personal. I know Dave is a good guy, so I am sure I took it in a way he did not mean it.

I already know everything you will say to combat my thoughts, as Dave has already said them. All I will add is that there ARE researchers and research out there that helps explain why muscle loss can occur in the total absence of carbs for an extended period (as well as solid physiological reasons). However, more than that, I base my opinion on my work with clients over the last 20 years or so.

That said...we both know of Dave's success, and I will not debate that. I will not debate my own either. Nothing in extreme bodybuilding is black and white, and perhaps what is optimal falls somewhere in between what Dave and I suggest.

Anyway, I am now taking my leave and will allow you the floor for the remainder to answer the questions (and you will get a lot, LOL) about Dave's approach.


----------



## ZECH (May 20, 2009)

Prince said:


> I would argue that, recent science is proving that a calorie is not just a calorie as once thought.



I have the same thoughts on this, but Built seems to think everything Lyle says is like God speaking and she agreed with the statement. Not saying he isn't a very smart man, just that everyone can't always be right about everything.


----------



## Built (May 20, 2009)

Hm... That's not quite right. I read the science that he draws from, and the conclusions are based upon sound principals. That being said, show me proof of your assertion and I'll be delighted to change my mind. 

Recall, I started with Atkins. Atkins is a strong proponent of the "metabolic advantage" and I believed it - for the first three years I got into this - until I was forced to accept there was no evidence of this metabolic advantage.

I would actually be delighted to read evidence of its existence. It sure as shit FELT like a metabolic advantage. 

I can't tell you how much I wish I had it to do over again. I would have tracked calories - not just carbs - and had a DEXA at the very beginning.


----------



## Built (May 20, 2009)

"They say we're young and we don't know
And won't find out unt-i-i-il we gr <SMASH!>"

Loved that movie.


----------



## ZECH (May 20, 2009)

gopro said:


> And yes, I know...I do not look anywhere near 40 years old!



40 is the new 20!


----------



## juggernaut (May 20, 2009)

can we get back to topic this is stupid


----------



## ZECH (May 20, 2009)

juggernaut said:


> hey Mod, think you need to go over your thread again, because she has in fact sited SEVERAL other sources. Anyway,  these comments are unnecessary.



So you can make unecessary comments, but I can't? I was just pointing out a fact. Oh, I forgot, you ignore facts


----------



## gopro (May 20, 2009)

dg806 said:


> 40 is the new 20!



Hey, did you read the Iron Man article I wrote with that title?


----------



## ZECH (May 20, 2009)

gopro said:


> Hey, did you read the Iron Man article I wrote with that title?



No, I was never able to get a copy. I looked and nobody around here carried it. Do you have any extra copies left?


----------



## tucker01 (May 20, 2009)

You know what... Jugg or any of the Cronies not contributing to any discussion, drop it.  There is a chance for some good learning and the arrogant remarks ruin any chance for an open discussion.


----------



## nkira (May 20, 2009)

I thought you loved movies where things blow up!!!!



Built said:


> "They say we're young and we don't know
> And won't find out unt-i-i-il we gr <SMASH!>"
> 
> Loved that movie.


----------



## nkira (May 20, 2009)

Ok, I agree back to topic.......


----------



## Arnold (May 20, 2009)

juggernaut said:


> can we get back to topic this is stupid



funny coming from you, you're the one that continues to personally attack gopro and post crap here, you're useless to this thread, you should just shut-up and read what is posted here as you obviously have NOTHING constructive or positive to contribute to it!


----------



## Yanick (May 20, 2009)

Okay if the children are done bickering, they can go back to the kiddie table now lol.

I started looking through research now to see what I might have missed in the past year or more that I've neglected this area of interest. As always its muddled up and you can barely ever find a free full text, and I'm broke as hell so don't be expecting me to pay $30 for this crap. So abstracts will have to do to stimulate further discussion.

Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics and Energy Efficiency in Weightloss Diets

I have 1 question from the above article. What does a decreased serum TAG level have to do with regards to fatty acid oxidation/energy balance? I'm unaware of the biochemistry as it relates to this.

I'll see what else I can dig up, this abstract just struck me as interesting (plus it was done in my city, where I had done some clinical rotations so I wanted to pimp it a bit).

Full Text with with a nice overview of some issues that are pertinent to this discussion. Re-iterates some of the stuff from the Lyle McDonald articles Patrick posted.


----------



## gopro (May 20, 2009)

dg806 said:


> No, I was never able to get a copy. I looked and nobody around here carried it. Do you have any extra copies left?



dg...I do not have any copies, but if you want me to email the article to you I will.

Ok...go ahead and discuss the main topic!!


----------



## ZECH (May 20, 2009)

gopro said:


> dg...I do not have any copies, but if you want me to email the article to you I will.
> 
> Ok...go ahead and discuss the main topic!!



If you can, that would be awesome! Thanks


----------



## Yanick (May 20, 2009)

Yanick said:


> Okay if the children are done bickering, they can go back to the kiddie table now lol.
> 
> I started looking through research now to see what I might have missed in the past year or more that I've neglected this area of interest. As always its muddled up and you can barely ever find a free full text, and I'm broke as hell so don't be expecting me to pay $30 for this crap. So abstracts will have to do to stimulate further discussion.
> 
> ...



Full Text of the first paper I posted is available here. Color me stupid.


----------



## Arnold (May 20, 2009)

dg806 said:


> No, I was never able to get a copy. I looked and nobody around here carried it. Do you have any extra copies left?



the article is right on IronMagazine.com! *40 is the New 20*


----------



## Arnold (May 20, 2009)

Built said:


> Hm... That's not quite right. I read the science that he draws from, and the conclusions are based upon sound principals. That being said, show me proof of your assertion and I'll be delighted to change my mind.
> 
> Recall, I started with Atkins. Atkins is a strong proponent of the "metabolic advantage" and I believed it - for the first three years I got into this - until I was forced to accept there was no evidence of this metabolic advantage.
> 
> ...



if a calorie is a calorie why don't you eat carbs?


----------



## Hench (May 20, 2009)

Prince said:


> if a calorie is a calorie why don't you eat carbs?



Because they make her hungry. Protein and fat are much more satiating than carbs.


----------



## tucker01 (May 20, 2009)

Prince said:


> if a calorie is a calorie why don't you eat carbs?




Because when cutting, carbs don't give that satiety affect


----------



## Arnold (May 20, 2009)

Moondogg said:


> Because they make her hungry. Protein and fat are much more satiating than carbs.



oh, I bet there is more reason to it than that.


----------



## Arnold (May 20, 2009)

it's clinically proven that a low carb diet is the fastest and most effective way to lose bodyfat, there have been controlled studies to prove this, and it had nothing to do with satiety.


----------



## Built (May 20, 2009)

Prince said:


> if a calorie is a calorie why don't you eat carbs?



I do eat carbs. Just not a lot of 'em. 

I don't generally eat starches and sugars because they make me hungry. 

No other reason.


----------



## Built (May 20, 2009)

Prince said:


> oh, I bet there is more reason to it than that.





Prince said:


> it's clinically proven that a low carb diet is the fastest and most effective way to lose bodyfat, there have been controlled studies to prove this, and it had nothing to do with satiety.



Robert, I'd be delighted to read anything you have that proves this. 

For the record - I'd eat this way even if it didn't work as well as higher-carb plans because it's so damned comfortable! Every single metric of my health improved when I switched over to reduced carbs and higher fats - and I have the photographs, DEXA scans and blood work to prove it. 

I know, n=1

But n=1 is nice when that 1 is you!


----------



## nkira (May 20, 2009)

Try this.



bricklayer85 said:


> what does a dexa scan do?


----------



## ZECH (May 20, 2009)

Prince said:


> if a calorie is a calorie why don't you eat carbs?



Thanks. Thats the point I was trying to make.


----------



## ZECH (May 20, 2009)

Built said:


> For the record - I'd eat this way even if it didn't work as well as higher-carb plans because it's so damned comfortable! Every single metric of my health improved when I switched over to reduced carbs and higher fats - and I have the photographs, DEXA scans and blood work to prove it.
> 
> I know, n=1
> 
> But n=1 is nice when that 1 is you!



IMO, it seems you are hung up on carbs and ketosis because you are so concerned about fat loss. Now I will agree that a lower carb diet is better for insulin control and health like you mentioned, but you also need to be concerned with what type of carbs you are eating. Brocolli for example is almost half fiber which can be digested and you don't have as many carbs as you think. Those types of carbs will make you hungry. But IMO stuff like rice and pasta are much more filling, but are very high on the glycemic index which can be bad if you need to watch stuff like that. It is very easy to fall into a routine that you are comfortable with. I would be very interested to see what happended in your case if you switch diet plans for say 6 months that included carbs, but still stayed in your calorie range.


----------



## Built (May 20, 2009)

dg806 said:


> IMO, it seems you are hung up on carbs and ketosis because you are so concerned about fat loss. Now I will agree that a lower carb diet is better for insulin control and health like you mentioned, but you also need to be concerned with what type of carbs you are eating. Brocolli for example is almost half fiber which can be digested and you don't have as many carbs as you think. Those types of carbs will make you hungry. But IMO stuff like rice and pasta are much more filling, but are very high on the glycemic index which can be bad if you need to watch stuff like that. It is very easy to fall into a routine that you are comfortable with. I would be very interested to see what happended in your case if you switch diet plans for say 6 months that included carbs, but still stayed in your calorie range.



Dg, you bring up some interesting points with regard to fat loss, and also with regard to satiety.

I am not concerned with fat loss. I have no problem dropping fat. I know how to do it, and I do it every year, after my Christmas bulk. 

Broccoli is something I eat because it helps with satiety. Pasta and rice to me are not satiating - but that's partially because I'm a former fatty, partially because I'm a chick and partially because I have gluten intolerance - at least with regard to the pasta. Broccoli contains soluble and insoluble fibre. Soluble fibre promotes satiety. 

I'll expand upon this last point. In "normal", lean, never-fat individuals, the insulin response that accompanies foods like rice and pasta promotes satiety. In insulin resistant folks (often obese, or dieted-down former fatties), insulin is overproduced and satiety is suppressed. If you're one who feels satiety from "slow" carbs, this seems incongruous. If you're one who feels hungry from "slow" carbs, you can't imagine feeling anything but freakish hunger for the rest of the day if you eat this way. For me, eating anything starchy in the AM turns on appetite for the whole day. It's like saying "Okay, cheat day. Let 'er rip!". 

I feel hungrier on 2500 calories with substantial carb intake, than I do on 1200 calories and <50g total carb intake. 

I was a fat jogger eating low fat, no white ANYTHING, no sugar. I could NOT control my hunger.

It gets more complicated than this. Males and females may respond to different satiety cues. Males often respond well to "volume" - so a diet high in bulky foods, brown rice, slow carbs, veggies, lean protein - is often very satiating for males, particularly if they've never been obese. 

Females - particularly fat, estrogen-dominant females - may be more sensitive to the postprandial satiety that is due to cholecystokinin, which is generated the most by protein and fat and the least by carbohydrate. Oh - the gluten intolerance thing I mentioned above? Turns out that in Celiac, postprandial CCK production is suppressed. Explains why a lot of people lose weight when they ditch grains. 

So… If you're a fat or formerly fat woman with a big ass and you want to feel satiety after your meals, eat protein and fat.

If you are a formerly fat woman with a big ass and you want to feel freakishly hungry all the time, eat a diet that is low in fat, eat only lean protein and eat filling, bulky foods such as brown rice, whole grain pasta and loads of low-fat veggies. Enjoy berating yourself about your lack of willpower every time you cave in and eat walnuts. 

I can't comfortably stay in my maintenance calorie range if I go to a higher-carb diet because I have to pay for it with protein and or fat. Satiety is compromised when I do this. The best I can manage and still feel comfortable is carb-cycling, where I eat a little glucose or glucose polymer (starch) near the workout window. I train at night, so I eat what carbs I must consume near bedtime. And NEVER in the AM.


----------



## DROS (May 20, 2009)

Built said:


> Does the training volume drop back a bit as the cut progresses? I reduced my own training volume when I did the most successful "real" cut. For instance, for a split that had a 5x5, a 3x8 and a 2-3x12 for a given movement pattern (say, quad-dominant work) I first dropped the 12 rep stuff. Then I reduced the 5x5 to 4x5, then 3x5 - always doing what I could to keep the intensity high and to keep iron on the bar.
> 
> Does this sound in any way familiar, or does Mr. Palumbo prefer to lower the weights a bit in order to keep the volume the same throughout?



You will find on Dave's diet plan that you maintain that low end strength, but your endurance goes to hell.  As the diet wears on you need to reduce volume in order to keep the same high intensity day in and day out.  You spend a ton of time buring calories on the treadmill.  When you hit the weights you want to break down the muscles as quick as possible.


----------



## DROS (May 20, 2009)

gopro said:


> Cool stuff DROS! I don't want to rehash the MD thing, and why I felt he made it personal. I know Dave is a good guy, so I am sure I took it in a way he did not mean it.
> 
> I already know everything you will say to combat my thoughts, as Dave has already said them. All I will add is that there ARE researchers and research out there that helps explain why muscle loss can occur in the total absence of carbs for an extended period (as well as solid physiological reasons). However, more than that, I base my opinion on my work with clients over the last 20 years or so.
> 
> ...




Eric has made some great contributions to this discussion and I hope everyone appreciates him coming on here.  

I like what you said above but I would re-phrase it: I think the optimal strategy is different for everyone and your method might work here and his there.  Then a combination of the two might work for a third person.

I want to help explain why Dave's diet works and that is independent of Eric's methods - it is not a competition.  Both can and do work.  I hope that I might say or explain something that could really hit home and help someone find a new way to reach his/her goals.  And I am sure Eric already convinced a few people to try his way.


----------



## DROS (May 20, 2009)

juggernaut said:


> This particular summary is of great interest to me. Can this happen to anyone who is particularly keto for medical reasons? I have epilepsy and found that a high fat, high protein diet is an outstanding way for me to live. I also compete, and hate the way I feel when adding carbs back into the glycogen loading process. Can this be done without carbing up all the way to the hellweek of a show?



We use a very moderate carb-up before a show.  Add about 30g (of course it depends on the person) of rice to each meal on Thursday and Friday and there is your carb up. Nothing crazy and no risk of over-doing it.  And if the person is really sensitive to carbs Dave might start adding them in Friday.

Some people just cant process and utilize carbs effectivly and there is a small space between depleted and spilled over.  In that case the person has to take in very little and rely on supreme conditioning.


----------



## ZECH (May 20, 2009)

Built said:


> Dg, you bring up some interesting points with regard to fat loss, and also with regard to satiety.
> 
> I am not concerned with fat loss. I have no problem dropping fat. I know how to do it, and I do it every year, after my Christmas bulk.
> 
> ...



This was interesting. Even though I have never heard the "formerly fat" therory, I find this thought interesting. Like you said, I suspect it has alot to do with insulin response. Luckily, I don't have that problem. If I gain weight and want to loose some, I just cut back in general, not just carbs.


----------



## Built (May 20, 2009)

DROS said:


> You will find on Dave's diet plan that you maintain that low end strength, but your endurance goes to hell.  As the diet wears on you need to reduce volume in order to keep the same high intensity day in and day out.  You spend a ton of time buring calories on the treadmill.  When you hit the weights you want to break down the muscles as quick as possible.



Very similar to how I do things. The higher rep stuff I just ditch, and try to keep the iron on the bar with the low-rep stuff that doesn't really depend on glycogen. Helps convince the muscle I need it to stick around while I ride out the self-imposed "famine". 

I do like to incorporate a few short bursts of HIIT (about five or six minutes worth of 20:40 work:rest intervals) before some of my steady-state cardio though. Not every time, and not every day, but I liked what happened when I did this twice a week after weights.



DROS said:


> We use a very moderate carb-up before a show.  Add about 30g (of course it depends on the person) of rice to each meal on Thursday and Friday and there is your carb up. Nothing crazy and no risk of over-doing it.  And if the person is really sensitive to carbs Dave might start adding them in Friday.
> 
> Some people just cant process and utilize carbs effectivly and there is a small space between depleted and spilled over.  In that case the person has to take in very little and rely on supreme conditioning.



Ooooh, do I hear you on the spillover. <cries>

What do you think of "shitloading"? I get SUCH wicked pumps the day after a poutine-fest! (Poutine, for those of you who are unfamiliar with my guilty Eastern Canadian pleasure, is a greasy pile of fries topped with cheese curds and what they call bbq sauce - really just a somewhat thin gravy that melts the curds into the fries and creates a tangle of greasy, French-Canadian Heaven!)


----------



## Built (May 20, 2009)

dg806 said:


> This was interesting. Even though I have never heard the "formerly fat" therory, I find this thought interesting. Like you said, I suspect it has alot to do with insulin response. Luckily, I don't have that problem. If I gain weight and want to loose some, I just cut back in general, not just carbs.



Thank you dg - I found it very interesting myself. As I've mentioned many times, as vain as I am, I can NOT deal with freakish hunger. My focus starts at satiety and ends with body composition - not the other way around. I have to at least be able to feel sated for PART of the day or I can't do this. 

With regard to "former fatties", my cursory understanding is that Leptin is involved. Fat cells grow and shrink, but they never leave. Diet down a fatty and leptin drops. When leptin drops, you feel hungry. There's a LOT more to this and I'm only just scratching the surface, but in my mind, it's like the movie Little Shop of Horrors, you know, "FEED ME SEYMOUR"!!! All those hungry fat cells, BEGGING me to feed them. IT'S SO LOUD!!! LOL!


----------



## DROS (May 20, 2009)

Built said:


> Very similar to how I do things. The higher rep stuff I just ditch, and try to keep the iron on the bar with the low-rep stuff that doesn't really depend on glycogen. Helps convince the muscle I need it to stick around while I ride out the self-imposed "famine".
> 
> I do like to incorporate a few short bursts of HIIT (about five or six minutes worth of 20:40 work:rest intervals) before some of my steady-state cardio though. Not every time, and not every day, but I liked what happened when I did this twice a week after weights.
> 
> ...




First of all, that sounds gross

This is like the competitor who says how great he looks the day after a show...he might look great in a tank top, but on stage his glutes arent as tight.  The sodium and influx of calories from "shit loading" will give you a huge pump after a long diet and depleted state, but it will also be short lived and blur some condition.


----------



## Arnold (May 20, 2009)

Built said:


> Robert, I'd be delighted to read anything you have that proves this.
> 
> For the record - I'd eat this way even if it didn't work as well as higher-carb plans because it's so damned comfortable! Every single metric of my health improved when I switched over to reduced carbs and higher fats - and I have the photographs, DEXA scans and blood work to prove it.
> 
> ...



if a calorie is just a calorie I would LOVE to see you replace half of your protein and fats with Hershey's candy bars and report back to us in 2 months, by your assertions there would be NO change in your body composition providing that you can control your appetite and keep your calories the same.


----------



## Hench (May 20, 2009)

Prince said:


> if a calorie is just a calorie I would LOVE to see you replace half of your protein and fats with Hershey's candy bars and report back to us in 2 months, by your assertions there would be NO change in your body composition providing that you can control your appetite and keep your calories the same.



This is silly, its not a real world example.

It has been said all along that minimum protein and fat requirements had to be met first and foremost, before you start playing around with the rest of your calories.


----------



## gopro (May 20, 2009)

Prince said:


> if a calorie is just a calorie I would LOVE to see you replace half of your protein and fats with Hershey's candy bars and report back to us in 2 months, by your assertions there would be NO change in your body composition providing that you can control your appetite and keep your calories the same.



This is absolutely correct, and would give a real world answer to the "is a calorie a calorie" debate.

Of course if your diet is 50% protein (for example), it will likely not make much difference if the remainder is 35% carbs and 15% fats or vice versa...until we go into the land of low single digit bodyfat. But there are many who need to venture here so...


----------



## Arnold (May 20, 2009)

Moondogg said:


> This is silly, its not a real world example.
> 
> It has been said all along that minimum protein and fat requirements had to be met first and foremost, before you start playing around with the rest of your calories.



no, actually it would be a great real world example! 

why wouldn't minimum protein/fat intake be met?


----------



## danzik17 (May 20, 2009)

So here's a question that I've been wondering about for a while and Lyle/Dave seems to have completely opposite viewpoints:

Given the research surrounding the EC stack, what does Dave think of it for fat loss?  I know that Dave is a big proponent of no stimulants since they increase cortisol, so what is his stance on the stack?


----------



## Hench (May 20, 2009)

Prince said:


> no, actually it would be a great real world example!
> 
> why wouldn't minimum protein/fat intake be met?



I suppose they could be met, but this isn't what the discussion is about. We're trying to figure out if very low carbs diets cause excessive muscle loss, how did we get onto chocolate bars?  

Anybody who considers themsevles to be a bodybuilder and follow the lifestyle will not fill the rest of their calories by eating chocolate bars. They would miss out on too many nutrients and their health would suffer because of it.


----------



## Arnold (May 20, 2009)

Moondogg said:


> I suppose they could be met, but this isn't what the discussion is about. We're trying to figure out if very low carbs diets cause excessive muscle loss, how did we get onto chocolate bars?
> 
> Anybody who considers themsevles to be a bodybuilder and follow the lifestyle will not fill the rest of their calories by eating chocolate bars. They would miss out on too many nutrients and their health would suffer because of it.



there has been more going on here besides just the keto debate.

really, I don't see why not, if a calorie is just a calorie and they have met their protein and fats requirements, what is wrong with using candy bars? cheap, good tasting and satisfying calories.


----------



## Hench (May 20, 2009)

Prince said:


> there has been more going on here besides just the keto debate.
> 
> really, I don't see why not, if a calorie is just a calorie and they have met their protein and fats requirements, what is wrong with using candy bars? cheap, good tasting and satisfying calories.



Have a read through this:

What's Inside Chocolate Bars?


----------



## Arnold (May 20, 2009)

Moondogg said:


> Have a read through this:
> 
> What's Inside Chocolate Bars?



okay, I will change it to a all natural, healthy chocolate, would that be better?

btw and this is not bullshit, straight from Tom Plat's mouth at a seminar, he used to train with IFBB Pro bodybuilder Lee Priest, in the off season Lee used pure chocolate (among other calorie rich foods) to get in his necessary daily calorie requirements, however I don't recall him saying anything about Lee eating the chocolate when preparing for a show.


----------



## P-funk (May 20, 2009)

Moondogg said:


> Have a read through this:
> 
> What's Inside Chocolate Bars?



I would like to know what study they got the statement "high fructose corn syrup blocks leptin from reaching the brain" from.  that would be an interesting study to read.

patrick


----------



## Built (May 20, 2009)

P-funk said:


> I would like to know what study they got the statement "high fructose corn syrup blocks leptin from reaching the brain" from.  that would be an interesting study to read.
> 
> patrick





Patrick, I was just writing about this a few weeks ago. See if you can get the full version of this article:

ScienceDirect - Regulatory Peptides : Effects of sucrose, glucose and fructose on peripheral and central appetite signals



> *Effects of sucrose, glucose and fructose on peripheral and central appetite signals *
> Andreas Lindqvist, a, , Annemie Baelemansa and Charlotte Erlanson-Albertssona
> Department of Experimental Medical Science, Lund University, Lund, Sweden
> 
> ...


----------



## Built (May 20, 2009)

Prince said:


> if a calorie is just a calorie I would LOVE to see you replace half of your protein and fats with Hershey's candy bars and report back to us in 2 months, by your assertions there would be NO change in your body composition providing that you can control your appetite and keep your calories the same.


<stamps tiny foot in rage> 
But I CAN'T perform this experiment!!! I'll get too hungry!!! 
<whines like a three year old> 

Seriously, not without some crystal meth to control my appetite. As I mentioned above:


Built said:


> I can't comfortably stay in my maintenance calorie range if I go to a higher-carb diet because I have to pay for it with protein and or fat. Satiety is compromised when I do this.


Besides, please, Robert, show some compassion and at least offer me Lindt.  Hershey's is the worst tasting crap out there.  


gopro said:


> This is absolutely correct, and would give a real world answer to the "is a calorie a calorie" debate.
> 
> Of course if your diet is 50% protein (for example), it will likely not make much difference if the remainder is 35% carbs and 15% fats or vice versa...until we go into the land of low single digit bodyfat. But there are many who need to venture here so...


Eric, I realize you do this for a living, but outside of your highly specialized corner of the industry, there are relatively few who ever bother to do this. 

Most of us just want to look good in a bathing suit. 

A few of us take it farther, and fewer still take it far enough to make it onstage. 

But I hear you - and you won't get an argument from me that eating more carbs might work better for some than for others with regard to satiety, and carbups.

However, even if I could manage my hunger and the ensuing migraines, it would do nothing but give an n=1 deliverable to you, something you have repeatedly said wouldn't count because of my apparently remarkable genetics. 

Furthermore, what are you hoping it would reveal - that I keep MORE muscle doing this? Recall, your concern was that I lose too much muscle because of ketosis. 

*Do you realize you are now arguing that I'd keep MORE muscle if I managed to tolerate cutting-calories on sufficient protein and fat, with the remaining calories coming from chocolate bars?*

Moondogg spotted the logic: 


Moondogg said:


> *We're trying to figure out if very low carbs diets cause excessive muscle loss*, how did we get onto chocolate bars?



Thanks Moondogg.


----------



## gopro (May 20, 2009)

Built said:


> <stamps tiny foot in rage>
> But I CAN'T perform this experiment!!! I'll get too hungry!!!
> <whines like a three year old>
> 
> ...



What I am asserting is quite simple really.

When dieting you must be in a negative caloric balance. If you are a hard training athlete that is required to retain as much muscle mass as possible while losing as much bodyfat as possible you will be able to do this more efficiently with the inclusion of (some) carbs in your diet, especially if timed properly...meal 1, pre-training meal (early on in diet), post training meal. In other words, the eventual fat loss will be the same, but there will be more lean tissue left on the athlete that is utilizing carbs properly.

Also, I am asserting that "a calorie is not a calorie" in the strictest sense. 3000 calories of sweet potato (I won't even go so far as using candy) will bring about a different body composition than 3000 calories of eye of round steak.

It is that simple Built. This conversation was never pointed towards the average sedentary person, but athletes and bodybuilders seeking low and very low bodyfat (10 down to about 3-4%).


----------



## Built (May 20, 2009)

See the muscle-loss thing keeps getting me. I don't see it, not with the kind of training I do to cut. Low volume - toward the end, my leg workouts are 3x5, 3x8 agonist,  3x8 antagonist and my uppers are 3x5, 3x8 pull and 3x5, 3x8 push. You just don't need all that much carb for this type of training - although you know, I usually do take in carb pre and or post workout. 

Not always though. Really depends how hungry I'm feeling. If I'm really hungry, I blow off the carbs and just do more protein and fat - and of course, if I'm doing PSMF, my workouts are 9 sets of 5-8 reps, and that's it. No other training other than some walking. 

Now if I kept calories low and did high volume workouts such as your P/RR/S, I'd need to eat more carbs, I'm sure. Higher rep range work, higher volume, you really need the carbs to top up glycogen stores. Different story. 

I still think I keep more muscle with low volume workouts than I would on higher carb with higher volume workouts. 

What kind of training volume do you use with your female nattys, Eric?


----------



## nkira (May 21, 2009)

Here you go, 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			






Lindt Lindor Milk ones are the BEST!! Love the way they melt in your mouth.....mmmmmm.....

By the end of this thread I hope we get some summary which outlines which diet is good for what, i mean possibly with all the if's & then's.




Built said:


> show some compassion and at least offer me Lindt.  Hershey's is the worst tasting crap out there.


----------



## ZECH (May 21, 2009)

nkira said:


> By the end of this thread I hope we get some summary which outlines which diet is good for what, i mean possibly with all the if's & then's.



I think this is an impossible task. Everyone's body reacts differently to diet and training and what works for one person may not work for the next. You can make generalizations about diet, but I would not venture to specifics. That's why we don't do individualized diets here. We give guidelines and the poster can go from there and dial in what they specifically need.
If you want one on one guiding, you need to contact somone who is willing to work with you. Eric does this.


----------



## ZECH (May 21, 2009)

Built said:


> With regard to "former fatties", my cursory understanding is that Leptin is involved. Fat cells grow and shrink, but they never leave. Diet down a fatty and leptin drops. When leptin drops, you feel hungry.



When Leptin drops, it is a signal to the body that it is going into starvation mode. When that happens, the body slows or all but stops fat loss. How do you raise leptin levels? You eat alot of Carbs, slow and fast burning kinds.


----------



## nkira (May 21, 2009)

Thanks dg for info, but I am already in Builts group & I am doing very well with her advice.

Thanks again.



dg806 said:


> I think this is an impossible task. Everyone's body reacts differently to diet and training and what works for one person may not work for the next. You can make generalizations about diet, but I would not venture to specifics. That's why we don't do individualized diets here. We give guidelines and the poster can go from there and dial in what they specifically need.
> If you want one on one guiding, you need to contact somone who is willing to work with you. Eric does this.


----------



## Built (May 21, 2009)

dg806 said:


> When Leptin drops, it is a signal to the body that it is going into starvation mode. When that happens, the body slows or all but stops fat loss. How do you raise leptin levels? You eat alot of Carbs, slow and fast burning kinds.


The thing is, in former fatties, we don't get satiety from carbs. We get it from protein and fat. Our postprandial satiety after a protein and fat meal is similar to our former postprandial satiety after a mixed meal when we were fat.

The problem is that the satiety signals are impaired. In obesity, not only is the postprandial satiety due to insulin suppressed (in fact, it may be reversed), with insulin resistance comes leptin resistance. We have HIGH leptin while we're fat. We're ravenous anyway when we eat carbs. It's brutally unfair, but the signals don't respond the way they should.  We may have to change the way we eat FOREVER to favour protein and fat in order to maintain the loss - unless we're cool being hungry a lot. Go to a mall sometime. Most aren't.


----------



## nkira (May 21, 2009)

So thats why I can't stop myself after the 1st slice of pizza hut pizza......With chicken or fish or eggs I feel fuller much early.....but with high carbs it's out of my control!!


----------



## Built (May 21, 2009)

nkira said:


> So thats why I can't stop myself after the 1st slice of pizza hut pizza......With chicken or fish or eggs I feel fuller much early.....but with high carbs it's out of my control!!



It's entirely possible. Do all carbs do this - have you had this experience with foods that don't contain gluten?


----------



## P-funk (May 21, 2009)

nkira said:


> So thats why I can't stop myself after the 1st slice of pizza hut pizza......With chicken or fish or eggs I feel fuller much early.....but with high carbs it's out of my control!!



The fasting has really helped me with this!  I have much better control of portions when I eat stuff like that.

patrick


----------



## danzik17 (May 21, 2009)

It could also just be a trigger food for you.  I have the same issue with Olive Garden breadsticks.  Doesn't matter if I'm stuffed full, I like the things SO much that I'll just keep going.


----------



## nkira (May 21, 2009)

Not all carbs do that to me only pizza & burgers.....Could it be the refined flour? Here in India pizza n burger mostly maida flour. I don't feel the same thing with whole wheat bread or oats biscuits. There were time when I could finish a whole medium size pizza & top that up with a personal size pizza gulp that down with 500ml coke.......phew I am glad I am in control now.

*Whats Maida?*---->We get maida (flour) from wheat after the outer layer is removed. Atta is whole wheat flour.
The outer brownish layer is removed from the wheat and the inner white portion is used to make maida flour.
That is the reason whole wheat flour(includes the brown outer layer) is considered healthier than maida flour as it contains fiber which maida flour is missing.
Maida is a refined product of wheat - meaning it is obtained after processing the wheat, which makes it less nutritious. The less a grain or vegetable is processed, the more nutrients it retains.



Built said:


> It's entirely possible. Do all carbs do this - have you had this experience with foods that don't contain gluten?



Thats possible to, I HAVE to control the pizza eating now too but it's not like old times when I JUST could not stop.



danzik17 said:


> It could also just be a trigger food for you.  I have the same issue with Olive Garden breadsticks.  Doesn't matter if I'm stuffed full, I like the things SO much that I'll just keep going.


----------



## jordyb (Jul 12, 2009)

Ok now this is an interesting topic, but i think the third image you pasted is fake .... Mannnn that guy would be holding a record of strongest man on earth....


----------



## stephenpaul6557 (Jul 14, 2009)

Quite interesting! I have heard a few people say that its not safe to go without Carbs. This thread just confirmed what I have been hearing.


----------



## Built (Jul 14, 2009)

stephenpaul6557 said:


> Quite interesting! I have heard a few people say that its not safe to go without Carbs. This thread just confirmed what I have been hearing.



Not "safe"? Howso?


----------



## HOOPIE (Dec 15, 2009)

Man after reading this thread i just want to eat and get fat...LOL


----------



## MCx2 (Dec 15, 2009)

HOOPIE said:


> Man after reading this thread i just want to eat and get fat...LOL



Hah, I'm glad you bumped this thread, work is slow as shit today. I just read the entire thing (minus all the links to studies) and it's chock-full of information. Awesome read if anyone has the time.


----------



## HOOPIE (Dec 15, 2009)

ReproMan said:


> Hah, I'm glad you bumped this thread, work is slow as shit today. I just read the entire thing (minus all the links to studies) and it's chock-full of information. Awesome read if anyone has the time.



Agree it was a good read


----------



## Max-Power (Mar 9, 2010)

Built said:


> Not "safe"? Howso?



Has there been an answer to the "safe"/"not safe" debate of no carb diets?


----------



## Arnold (Mar 9, 2010)

Max-Power said:


> Has there been an answer to the "safe"/"not safe" debate of no carb diets?



as long as you get your veggies and fiber in I don't see any reason why keto diets are not safe, personally they just don't work for me, I need my carbs!


----------



## DaMayor (Mar 9, 2010)

Robert said:


> as long as you get your veggies and fiber in I don't see any reason why keto diets are not safe, personally they just don't work for me, I need my carbs!



So, do they not _work_ for you? Or do you not _like_ them?


----------



## Arnold (Mar 9, 2010)

DaMayor said:


> So, do they not _work_ for you? Or do you not _like_ them?



both.


----------



## DaMayor (Mar 9, 2010)

Well, I don't know of anybody who *loves *the low carb thing.


Except *Built*......That's one fat~lovin' woman, lol.


----------



## ZECH (Mar 9, 2010)

DaMayor said:


> So, do they not _work_ for you? Or do you not _like_ them?



Listen to your body. As you go along, you can tell weather or not it works for you.


----------



## JaketheSnake0413 (Mar 12, 2010)

sounds like Broscience to me!


----------



## lancs (Apr 5, 2010)

Hi Guys..please can anyone help me with a Ketogenic eating plan? there is so much information about it i am just so confused! i'm 149lb and a massive 30% bodyfat! 
the info i found i got that i have to eat 44-55g of fat per meal and 26g of protein that is a 4 meal a day plan.
thanks eveyone id really appreciate any help or advice


----------



## juggernaut (May 5, 2010)

It took me 3 days to read through this thing (again)...what a great thread. I still love keto so screw everyone.


----------



## Arnold (May 5, 2010)

Keto works, but I need my carbs.


----------



## juggernaut (May 5, 2010)

Marianne and I were having this discussion this morning; yes keto works, but there are individuals like yourself that need carbs. But I wonder, is your need psychological, or physiological? I ask because whenever I tried carb rotation, it made me bind up, stay fat, and feel really horrible. After the first few days of keto/PSMF I'm bound with energy and feeling like a machine.


----------



## Arnold (May 5, 2010)

juggernaut said:


> Marianne and I were having this discussion this morning; yes keto works, but there are individuals like yourself that need carbs. But I wonder, is your need psychological, or physiological? I ask because whenever I tried carb rotation, it made me bind up, stay fat, and feel really horrible. After the first few days of keto/PSMF I'm bound with energy and feeling like a machine.



I have always been a little hypoglycemic, if I cut my carbs I get dizzy spells, cannot work-out very long, and just have no energy.


----------



## juggernaut (May 5, 2010)

Ever try carb rotation?


----------



## Arnold (May 5, 2010)

juggernaut said:


> Ever try carb rotation?



when I used keto in the past I had carb days (every 3rd or 4th) to reload, is that what you mean?


----------



## juggernaut (May 5, 2010)

Prince said:


> when I used keto in the past I had carb days (every 3rd or 4th) to reload, is that what you mean?


thats one variation. Marianne's high/low is another. I tried both and I just dont lose the weight I can with PSMF and keto.


----------



## Built (May 5, 2010)

juggernaut said:


> thats one variation. Marianne's high/low is another. I tried both and I just dont lose the weight I can with PSMF and keto.



Of course you don't - you can run a much stronger deficit on PSMF/keto. Curbs hunger better than any other method, and it's muscle-sparing.


----------



## juggernaut (May 6, 2010)

Built said:


> Of course you don't - you can run a much stronger deficit on PSMF/keto. Curbs hunger better than any other method, and it's muscle-sparing.


Agreed. I also notice, as you've said that when I mix proteins together, like red meat with tuna (and 1% cottage cheese), not only is it more satisfying, but damn it fills me up and keeps me satiated longer.


----------



## Built (May 6, 2010)

I have SO got to write that one up. So glad I was able to find documentation to back up my observation.


----------



## juggernaut (May 6, 2010)

Built said:


> I have SO got to write that one up. So glad I was able to find documentation to back up my observation.



Quick Robin, to the Bat-PubMed research machine


----------



## Gazhole (May 6, 2010)

So where does this new fad "Dukan Diet" fit into the keto/PSMF picture?


----------



## juggernaut (May 7, 2010)

Gazhole said:


> So where does this new fad "Dukan Diet" fit into the keto/PSMF picture?



Seems like another derivative of a keto-based dietary regimen. Only this one claims, "The diet comprises 4 "all-you-can-eat" phases and is mainly based on natural proteins." What that means is anyone's guess...but this link is kind of explains further.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/a...fat-cells-revolutionary-weight-loss-plan.html

I'll stick with Lyle and Palumbo,


----------



## Gazhole (May 7, 2010)

Yeah, it doesn't seem very well thought out from what i've read in the papers. Maybe im judging too quickly but this just has "fad" written all over it, lol.


----------



## juggernaut (May 7, 2010)

Gazhole said:


> Yeah, it doesn't seem very well thought out from what i've read in the papers. Maybe im judging too quickly but this just has "fad" written all over it, lol.



definitely.


----------



## omerta2010 (Jun 18, 2010)

smells like


----------



## juggernaut (Jun 22, 2010)

Prince said:


> I only posted this because I thought it would start an interesting discussion, I am not taking Dave or Eric's side here, I remain neutral.



What an understatement!


----------



## Curt James (Jun 22, 2010)

Prince said:


> I recommend a weekly insulin-spiking cheat meal once a week!



Is it Saturday yet? I <3 my cheat meal!

I hate _math_, though. I've been bragging that I've lost 20 lbs. in eleven weeks following a keto diet.

Well, 196.6 - 179.6 = _17_ lbs. D'OH! So, yeah, I suck at math, but I'm still praising keto for a very simple diet to follow and one that has been effective in helping me reach my goal of trimming some excess inches from my waist and some body fat overall.

 *KETO!*


----------



## Built (Jun 22, 2010)

For those of us "bottomless pit" types, there really is nothing that works like keto for appetite control. Good for ladies trying to lean out the leggies, too. No insulin to wake up the alpha 2's.


----------



## juggernaut (Jun 23, 2010)

I have a female client who came to me at 246 lbs and in 7 weeks, she's dropped 27 lbs on the PSMF. She loves the diet and I have to bark at her to do the 2 planned free meals. Apparently, she is writing the entire "journey" (I hate that word) and aims to get it into People magazine. She's already posting it on her blog and this is getting me noticed because she has a huge following.


----------



## danzik17 (Jun 23, 2010)

Built said:


> For those of us "bottomless pit" types, there really is nothing that works like keto for appetite control. Good for ladies trying to lean out the leggies, too. No insulin to wake up the alpha 2's.



+1

SO much harder to control my appetite since I've stopped doing keto style diets.  Will need to go back to them soon.


----------



## Built (Jun 23, 2010)

juggernaut said:


> I have a female client who came to me at 246 lbs and in 7 weeks, she's dropped 27 lbs on the PSMF. She loves the diet and I have to bark at her to do the 2 planned free meals. Apparently, she is writing the entire "journey" (I hate that word) and aims to get it into People magazine. She's already posting it on her blog and this is getting me noticed because she has a huge following.



That's AWESOME!


----------



## gopro (Jun 23, 2010)

Wow, this thread is still going? Pretty cool! Carry on ya'll!


----------



## juggernaut (Jun 23, 2010)

Built said:


> That's AWESOME!


It was rough the first few weeks-she's had a whole life of medifast, optifast, nutrasystem, etc etc...with no losses the way she gets now. She feels great, is off the bp meds, the doc says to keep up the good work, and she tells me last night, she feels like the ugly duckling becoming a swan. If I had a heart, I'd have an emotion or two. I just said hey that's good.


----------



## Built (Jun 23, 2010)

LOL yep, that's you, "heartless bastard". Fucking mainstream bullshit crash diets. What was rough for her for those first few weeks? What part of RFL was it that she found rough after medi/opti/nutra bullshit?


----------



## juggernaut (Jun 23, 2010)

Built said:


> LOL yep, that's you, "heartless bastard". Fucking mainstream bullshit crash diets. What was rough for her for those first few weeks? What part of RFL was it that she found rough after medi/opti/nutra bullshit?



Most of the time it was just finding foods and recipes that she enjoyed. Now, she's a huge fan of cajun shrimp and chicken. It was that, and actually doing the free meals that concerned her so much.


----------



## Built (Jun 23, 2010)

Oh, that "all or nothing" thing. That's a tough one to get people past. One trick I use when cutting hard is a kind of a promise. Suppose I have a free meal coming up in a week. I can't have it until then, right, so I start planning all the stuff I want. When the day comes, even if I find I no longer really want it, I have it anyway, because the "future" me promised the "last week" me that I'd have it - I'd just have to wait a bit. It's a deal between two people, a cheat meal. The person who is willing to wait has to trust the person on the other end of the week to go through with it. I never ever skip out on a planned free meal. If I did, the next time the "future me" promised the "dieting me" the treat in the future, the "dieting me" wouldn't believe it - so the "dieting me" would say "fuck it" and eat the treat NOW. 

You have to trust yourself to go through with your promises. Even when they're to yourself.


----------



## DaMayor (Jun 23, 2010)

Built said:


> Oh, that "all or nothing" thing. That's a tough one to get people past. One trick I use when cutting hard is a kind of a promise. Suppose I have a free meal coming up in a week. I can't have it until then, right, so I start planning all the stuff I want. When the day comes, even if I find I no longer really want it, I have it anyway, because the "future" me promised the "last week" me that I'd have it - I'd just have to wait a bit. It's a deal between two people, a cheat meal. The person who is willing to wait has to trust the person on the other end of the week to go through with it. I never ever skip out on a planned free meal. If I did, the next time the "future me" promised the "dieting me" the treat in the future, the "dieting me" wouldn't believe it - so the "dieting me" would say "fuck it" and eat the treat NOW.
> You have to trust yourself to go through with your promises. Even when they're to yourself.



Nobody loves me like me.....Oh, that's the other forum.

I really didn't/don't worry too much about free meals. I only ate one per week as a Cat3, simply because my appetite was so blunted I really couldn't care less...or when I did, it was still low/no carb, just higher in fat. I try not to get too psyched out about the whole carb thing....why bother? I'll just kust keep eating copious amounts of canned tuna, get a little hydrargyria going, maybe some sweet neurodegeneration..... and work on my abs. Who needs cake anyway, right?


----------



## juggernaut (Jun 23, 2010)

Built said:


> Oh, that "all or nothing" thing. That's a tough one to get people past. One trick I use when cutting hard is a kind of a promise. Suppose I have a free meal coming up in a week. I can't have it until then, right, so I start planning all the stuff I want. When the day comes, even if I find I no longer really want it, I have it anyway, because the "future" me promised the "last week" me that I'd have it - I'd just have to wait a bit. It's a deal between two people, a cheat meal. The person who is willing to wait has to trust the person on the other end of the week to go through with it. I never ever skip out on a planned free meal. If I did, the next time the "future me" promised the "dieting me" the treat in the future, the "dieting me" wouldn't believe it - so the "dieting me" would say "fuck it" and eat the treat NOW.
> 
> You have to trust yourself to go through with your promises. Even when they're to yourself.



True. I do the same thing when I use PSMF. i dont feel I need it, especially since ketogenic dieting works so damn well on me


----------



## juggernaut (Jun 24, 2010)

DaMayor said:


> Nobody loves me like me.....Oh, that's the other forum.
> 
> I really didn't/don't worry too much about free meals. I only ate one per week as a Cat3, simply because my appetite was so blunted I really couldn't care less...or when I did, it was still low/no carb, just higher in fat. I try not to get too psyched out about the whole carb thing....why bother? I'll just kust keep eating copious amounts of canned tuna, get a little hydrargyria going, maybe some sweet neurodegeneration..... and work on my abs. *Who needs cake anyway*, right?



shut up dude...you ever think there wouldnt be as many wars if there were more people eating cake??? HUH?? HUH??!!!!!


----------



## DaMayor (Jun 24, 2010)

juggernaut said:


> shut up dude...you ever think there wouldnt be as many wars if there were more people eating cake??? HUH?? HUH??!!!!!



I'm thinking that would be _peanut butter_.....can't talk trash when your tongue is stuck to the roof of your mouth, lol.


----------



## Curt James (Jun 24, 2010)

juggernaut said:


> I have a female client who came to me at 246 lbs and in 7 weeks, she's dropped 27 lbs on the PSMF. She loves the diet and I have to bark at her to do the 2 planned free meals. *Apparently, she is writing the entire "journey" (I hate that word) and aims to get it into People magazine. She's already posting it on her blog and this is getting me noticed because she has a huge following.*



Excellent. I hope that gets you and *Beyond Nutrition* the positive exposure you deserve.


----------



## juggernaut (Jun 24, 2010)

DaMayor said:


> I'm thinking that would be _peanut butter_.....can't talk trash when your tongue is stuck to the roof of your mouth, lol.



hmmm thats true too. Bring on a Reeses cake!!!


----------



## vortrit (Oct 29, 2010)

sneha123 said:


> Hey,,,, I thought it would start an interesting discussion, I am not taking Dave or Eric's side here, I remain neutral.I only posted this............ Ok by........



Did you have a point?


----------



## juggernaut (Oct 29, 2010)

Seriously WTF was that post for?


----------



## juggernaut (Apr 21, 2011)

danzik17 said:


> +1
> 
> SO much harder to control my appetite since I've stopped doing keto style diets.  Will need to go back to them soon.



Funny you said that. I have a tendency to overeat with carbs and feel that no matter what I did-centering them around the workout helped most, but still felt hungry.


----------



## gopro (Apr 22, 2011)

So funny when I see this thread in my emails once in a while!


----------



## Built (Apr 22, 2011)

Well, you can thank kumkum for the little reminder. I imagine you have a subscription going to this thread? You must have been really watching it!


----------



## gopro (Apr 22, 2011)

Built said:


> Well, you can thank kumkum for the little reminder. I imagine you have a subscription going to this thread? You must have been really watching it!



I guess I subscribed automatically when I posted. Saw it pop up in my email. Funny stuff.


----------

