Bony to Beastly... A Scam?
Options
Replies
-
I lost a much longer reply earlier - so I'll preemptively TL;DR it.
@ShaneDuquette - I have no issues with your program or the results you advertise. I think many people here really don't understand that very underweight men gain exponentially faster at first than normal weight or heavier individuals. I gained over 60# in my first long bulk and a total of 95# in the last five years. Anyhow, I agree with with Ann that some of the language is a bit suspect (somatotypes and use of metabolism) but you do realize that this forum is full of a bunch of pedantic health nerds? lol
My criticism wasn't about your program but of the OP. Maybe something like your program would actually help him as he doesn't seem to be able to prioritize what's important. He's been on here about 8 years now and has made squat for progress as he's been hyper-focused on everything but the basics.6 -
@ShaneDuquette, I appreciate that you've taken the time to come here and explain some of the material from your site. As an aside, I see that you also have a program for women, "Bony to Bombshell".
My pleasure, AnnPT77! And likewise, thank you for your response. Yeah, we do
I remain skeptical of the timelines for some of your before and afters (not your photos personally, but some of the others), but skepticism doesn't merit that extreme a statement (and I do see the "results not necessarily typical" kind of language on the site, which is standard for nearly all such sites).
Our program includes coaching in our member community, so what we have people do is post before photos and measurements, they post updates as they go through the program, we give feedback and coaching, and then they post after photos. Some people let us share those after photos. In all cases, though, we're seeing them progress in real-time, from multiple angles, and accumulating over several months. It's not just people emailing us progress photos. These are people we've guided through the program. We're very confident they're real.
Plus, because members gain access to our community, they can all browse through these threads. If someone buys our program inspired by, say, EddiB's progress photos, they can go check out his progress thread and see how he progressed from week to week, month to month, what struggles and questions he had, and so on.
We try to go slightly beyond the standard disclaimer to make it obvious that it's not a legal disclaimer, it's something that we actually want people to know and factor into their decisions and expectations. Instead of saying "results not necessarily typical," we try to say stuff more along the lines of, "keep in mind that everyone's results will look a little different. These are just some examples."
I know it might seem exaggerated, but it's not. I gained twenty pounds during my first three months of bulking. I then helped my skinny roommate gain 33 pounds in three months. We promise twenty pounds in five months. We're promising less than we've personally experienced in our own lives.I still feel the same way, though, about the concepts. When someone is selling an expensive program, I expect a level of accuracy and transparency, including at the teaser/advertising level.
After ten years of coaching naturally skinny people, with around 10,000 members so far, we promise what we truly think is realistic for the average member. We also offer a full refund policy, no conditions. If someone feels like we've exaggerated anything, they're free to get a refund at any point.
Our specialty is helping skinny, underweight people who are still fairly new to lifting. Under those circumstances, people can build muscle quite quickly. And, of course, not all of the weight we gain is muscle—there's also gut contents, fat, extra bone density, and so on.
I agree. That's what we do. For instance, in our hardgainer article (last updated on May 20th), we define ectomorph as "someone with a thin bone structure … It’s also worth noting that “ectomorph” isn’t a scientific term, it’s just used colloquially to describe a skinny body type."I understand what you're saying about the term "ectomorph" being a slang term that your intended audience uses. But I think that a site focused on educating people should be more precise about terminology, ("some people call us ectomorphs" or "the slang is ectomorph" for example), rather than just using such a deprecated term prominently without qualification.I feel similarly about the term "metabolism" in your post, with respect to having a fast/slow metabolism. That's an unclarity, an inaccuracy, from a scientific stanpoint: In standard definitions, metabolism would be the life-sustaining biochemical process (most commonly BMR/RMR), not the movement or activity on top of that. Again, I assume you'd say you're using the term the way your intended audience understands it, but I don't think that's the best standard.
I disagree with you here. The definition I think of with metabolism is: "the chemical processes that occur within a living organism in order to maintain life."
BMR only makes up around 60–70% of our metabolism. There's also NEAT, TEF, EAT. Here's a study showing that breakdown:
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Components-of-total-daily-energy-expenditure-TDEEBMRbasal-metabolic-rate_fig1_260397860
Non-exercise activity thermogenesis (NEAT) is a part of our metabolism, it's a scientific term with a clear definition, and it's been heavily studied. When we say that some hardgainers have an adaptive metabolism that makes it harder to gain weight, that's accurate. And when we talk about it in more depth, we do use the precise term: NEAT.
I hear ya. I'm not asking you to recommend us. It's certainly more than a lot of people want to spend.As to my last comment, on price: Your program is an expensive program. We could argue whether it's worth it, or not. I won't. Your pricing is your pricing. If someone responds to your teasers/marketing, and purchases it, it's their judgement whether that was a value purchase, or not.
Again: I apologize for the word "lie", I respect that you've come here to calmly and rationally defend your site and program. I still wouldn't recommend it to someone over free or lower-cost resources, until they've at least tried those methods; but that's their decision, not mine.
I'd just add that it's not just an eBook. The price is higher because we spend a lot of time coaching people through the program. It's not full online coaching, but we do coach people through the program in the member community. Not everyone wants to post their progress photos, not everyone has questions, but we invest a tremendous amount of time into making sure that no question goes unanswered, no member is failing to make progress, and everyone has the help and support they need to achieve the results that we promise.
It's an expensive program because we take customer support extremely seriously, and that takes a lot of our time. That's not worth it to everyone, but it's what I would have wanted, and it's the part of our program that we get the most positive feedback on.
Again, I really appreciate your response 2 -
jseams1234 wrote: »@ShaneDuquette - I have no issues with your program or the results you advertise. I think many people here really don't understand that very underweight men gain exponentially faster at first than normal weight or heavier individuals. I gained over 60# in my first long bulk and a total of 95# in the last five years.
That's awesome, man! 95 pounds!!!!
I know. It can definitely sound crazy. We try to hedge it whenever possible. "We can probably help you build muscle this fast IF you're a skinny guy, underweight, under-muscled." We have programs for intermediate lifters too, and with them, we don't make any promises about rates of weight/muscle gain whatsoever. We just promise that we'll do our best to help them make steady and measurable progress, you know?jseams1234 wrote: »@ShaneDuquette - I have no issues with your program or the results you advertise. I think many people here really don't understand that very underweight men gain exponentially faster at first than normal weight or heavier individuals. I gained over 60# in my first long bulk and a total of 95# in the last five years. Anyhow, I agree with with Ann that some of the language is a bit suspect (somatotypes and use of metabolism) but you do realize that this forum is full of a bunch of pedantic health nerds? lol
I'm a pedantic health nerd myself, so I definitely hear ya on that. "Ectomorph" was the first term I learned that helped me find information tailored to skinny people who were trying to gain weight. I finally found information that was more than "Oh, you're having trouble gaining weight? Just eat more!"
But yeah, I realize it's not a scientific term. We try to mention that as often as possible. For instance, as mentioned above, in a recent article we do say "It’s also worth noting that 'ectomorph' isn’t a scientific term, it’s just used colloquially to describe a skinny body type."
We're trying to meet people where they are and help them progress, you know? Part of that means using terms that skinny guys use colloquially and then teaching them the correct ones. Plus, I don't think using the term ectomorph to describe a naturally thin body type is incorrect. The debunked part of somatotypes is the psychology part, not the part about some people being naturally thin.
And, as mentioned in my response to AnnPT77, I do defend our use of the word metabolism, though. We aren't just using slang. NEAT is highly adaptive, varies from person to person, and can make up a large part of our daily energy expenditure—a large part of our metabolism.
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Components-of-total-daily-energy-expenditure-TDEEBMRbasal-metabolic-rate_fig1_260397860
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15681386/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12468415/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11101470/2 -
ShaneDuquette wrote: »jseams1234 wrote: »@ShaneDuquette - I have no issues with your program or the results you advertise. I think many people here really don't understand that very underweight men gain exponentially faster at first than normal weight or heavier individuals. I gained over 60# in my first long bulk and a total of 95# in the last five years.
That's awesome, man! 95 pounds!!!!
I know. It can definitely sound crazy. We try to hedge it whenever possible. "We can probably help you build muscle this fast IF you're a skinny guy, underweight, under-muscled." We have programs for intermediate lifters too, and with them, we don't make any promises about rates of weight/muscle gain whatsoever. We just promise that we'll do our best to help them make steady and measurable progress, you know?
Thanks, I'll admit that me getting down to 130 (I'm 6'1) was because of a long illness and the subsequent treatment. I had been much bigger previous to that so a bit of my gains were probably muscle memory. However, I spent all of my teen years and into my thirties extremely thin so I fully understand the struggle.
Anyhow, I really like that you showed up and responded to this thread. I really did enjoy the story here: https://bonytobeastly.com/the-tale-of-two-ectomorphs/ and I didn't see anything unreasonable with the progress photos or the information. Nice realistic transformations... much more realistic than what a lot of people around here seem to expect. You would be surprised by how many people new to lifting think that a few years in the gym = the Rock.
3 -
jseams1234 wrote: »I lost a much longer reply earlier - so I'll preemptively TL;DR it.
@ShaneDuquette - I have no issues with your program or the results you advertise. I think many people here really don't understand that very underweight men gain exponentially faster at first than normal weight or heavier individuals. I gained over 60# in my first long bulk and a total of 95# in the last five years. Anyhow, I agree with with Ann that some of the language is a bit suspect (somatotypes and use of metabolism) but you do realize that this forum is full of a bunch of pedantic health nerds? lol
My criticism wasn't about your program but of the OP. Maybe something like your program would actually help him as he doesn't seem to be able to prioritize what's important. He's been on here about 8 years now and has made squat for progress as he's been hyper-focused on everything but the basics.
I actually bought the program a week ago, after you guys told me that it was a scam.
Unfortunately, I spent most of those 8 years trying to figure out what was wrong with my body (would experience pain in my left arm and leg after working out). It wasn't until I went through like 100 physiotherapists that I saw an osteopath who told me that I had a rotated pelvis and scapular dyskinesis. With the help of his prescribed exercises, I was able to alleviate the pain that I experienced after working out.
So in November 2019, I started running StrongLifts + accessory work, but wasn't happy with the results after 6 months of eating and lifting heavy (7 lbs weight gain but little to no muscle gain).
I figured that I wasn't eating enough, wasn't eating right, or wasn't running the right program.
Now that I started the Bony to Beastly program, I'm going to stick with it. Probably going to stop posting on here for the most part as well, since I now have access to a forum with former skinny guys as mentors.3 -
asianambition wrote: »jseams1234 wrote: »I lost a much longer reply earlier - so I'll preemptively TL;DR it.
@ShaneDuquette - I have no issues with your program or the results you advertise. I think many people here really don't understand that very underweight men gain exponentially faster at first than normal weight or heavier individuals. I gained over 60# in my first long bulk and a total of 95# in the last five years. Anyhow, I agree with with Ann that some of the language is a bit suspect (somatotypes and use of metabolism) but you do realize that this forum is full of a bunch of pedantic health nerds? lol
My criticism wasn't about your program but of the OP. Maybe something like your program would actually help him as he doesn't seem to be able to prioritize what's important. He's been on here about 8 years now and has made squat for progress as he's been hyper-focused on everything but the basics.
I actually bought the program a week ago, after you guys told me that it was a scam.
Unfortunately, I spent most of those 8 years trying to figure out what was wrong with my body (would experience pain in my left arm and leg after working out). It wasn't until I went through like 100 physiotherapists that I saw an osteopath who told me that I had a rotated pelvis and scapular dyskinesis. With the help of his prescribed exercises, I was able to alleviate the pain that I experienced after working out.
So in November 2019, I started running StrongLifts + accessory work, but wasn't happy with the results after 6 months of eating and lifting heavy (7 lbs weight gain but little to no muscle gain).
I figured that I wasn't eating enough, wasn't eating right, or wasn't running the right program.
Now that I started the Bony to Beastly program, I'm going to stick with it. Probably going to stop posting on here for the most part as well, since I now have access to a forum with former skinny guys as mentors.
I'd observe that it would be helpful for others if you'd report back, eventually, on this thread. That's true whether you have good results, or not so good results, after several months to years.
Sincerely, I wish you nothing but good results. I hope the program give you everything you're looking for, and I look forward to seeing your review. I love to see people find the path they need, and achieve their goals. Best of wishes!2 -
I have to say that I am positively impressed with @ShaneDuquette 's explanation of his program and of the fact that his material has evolved over time.
People do change their view points as they learn. And that's good. I once believed, for about 4 hours, that Scooby's site was full of bro-science. And while Scooby may be a bro (in a good way); his site is way closer to science than bro science!
So I am glad to hear that your site is evolving even if all the material has yet to be updated to reflect your current views.
That said, when I see a shake and a somatotype (or equivalent info) on page one of a site, I personally choose to move on.
As per your testimony, it appears that doing so is sometimes at my loss! But there is only so much time, and some of the baby does get dumped out together with the bathwater!
Since you appear to be curious, I was partially thinking of rp, but their offerings are substantially more expensive than yours.
That said I would be remiss not to mention that @psuLemon on this site has written a couple of excellent "sticky" posts directly addressing both "hard-gainers" and "programming".
The OP, in previous conversations, appears to have just stuck to 5x5 and to have over-done his surplus. Both of these could be addressed if that's what he wanted.
That said, there is NOTHING wrong with purchasing qualified advice if one can afford to do so and in aid to one's reasonable goals.
I am glad that in spite of my concerns about your offerings based on the initial read of your site, your "in person" discourse offers the likelihood that your actual offering will exceed the expectations established by that first read!3 -
I have to say that I am positively impressed with @ShaneDuquette 's explanation of his program and of the fact that his material has evolved over time.
People do change their view points as they learn. And that's good. I once believed, for about 4 hours, that Scooby's site was full of bro-science. And while Scooby may be a bro (in a good way); his site is way closer to science than bro science!
So I am glad to hear that your site is evolving even if all the material has yet to be updated to reflect your current views.
That said, when I see a shake and a somatotype (or equivalent info) on page one of a site, I personally choose to move on.
As per your testimony, it appears that doing so is sometimes at my loss! But there is only so much time, and some of the baby does get dumped out together with the bathwater!
Since you appear to be curious, I was partially thinking of rp, but their offerings are substantially more expensive than yours.
That said I would be remiss not to mention that @psuLemon on this site has written a couple of excellent "sticky" posts directly addressing both "hard-gainers" and "programming".
The OP, in previous conversations, appears to have just stuck to 5x5 and to have over-done his surplus. Both of these could be addressed if that's what he wanted.
That said, there is NOTHING wrong with purchasing qualified advice if one can afford to do so and in aid to one's reasonable goals.
I am glad that in spite of my concerns about your offerings based on the initial read of your site, your "in person" discourse offers the likelihood that your actual offering will exceed the expectations established by that first read!
I only gained 7 lbs in 6 months of doing 5x5, most of it body fat, so I definitely didn't overdo my surplus. I think where I went wrong was consuming too much fat. Like I'm reading Shane's e-book right now and he says that fat is more likely than carbs to be stored as body fat, so you shouldn't exceed 30% fat a day. However, there were some days where I was eating close to 45% in fat (despite consuming enough protein).2 -
What was your macro breakdown over the whole time period, not just an occasional day?
How many grams per lb of protein were you eating? Total grams of carbs?
How did you conclude that most of your gain was body fat?0 -
asianambition wrote: »I only gained 7 lbs in 6 months of doing 5x5, most of it body fat, so I definitely didn't overdo my surplus. I think where I went wrong was consuming too much fat. Like I'm reading Shane's e-book right now and he says that fat is more likely than carbs to be stored as body fat, so you shouldn't exceed 30% fat a day. However, there were some days where I was eating close to 45% in fat (despite consuming enough protein).
I'm not sure that simple getting carb and fat macros wrong would result in gaining seven pounds of mostly fat. It might be the difference between gaining 80% muscle vs 75% muscle, and that can matter, but I think there's something else going on there, too.
I'd look at protein intake long before looking at carb and fat macros, but since you've already done that, I'd want to run through a list of more important first though: were you lifting hard enough (e.g. enough volume, going close enough to failure), were you consistent with your surplus (did you gain 0 pounds one week, 2 pounds the next?), and were you getting enough good sleep?
We also want to make sure that the training stimulus is sufficient. Is StrongLifts the one that starts with lifting just the barbell? That might not have been enough to stimulate a robust amount of muscle growth. After all, stopping a set five reps shy of failure instead of two reps shy of failure can produce a rather different growth stimulus. So if the weight isn't heavy enough to challenge you, that might cause a problem with muscle growth. I'm not sure how you were approaching it, but even just having a more rigorous training routine geared specifically towards gaining muscle size might solve it. (Although adding accessory lifts to StrongLifts sounds like a reasonable approach.)
If you want to take some videos and post them in the community, we can also take a look at your lifting technique and make sure that you're doing the big compound lifts properlyasianambition wrote: »jseams1234 wrote: »I actually bought the program a week ago, after you guys told me that it was a scam.
That's awesome! We can help you troubleshoot in the community
Let me go check out your thread and we can get to the bottom of it there.2 -
I have to say that I am positively impressed with @ShaneDuquette 's explanation of his program and of the fact that his material has evolved over time.
People do change their view points as they learn. And that's good. I once believed, for about 4 hours, that Scooby's site was full of bro-science. And while Scooby may be a bro (in a good way); his site is way closer to science than bro science!
So I am glad to hear that your site is evolving even if all the material has yet to be updated to reflect your current views.
That said, when I see a shake and a somatotype (or equivalent info) on page one of a site, I personally choose to move on.
As per your testimony, it appears that doing so is sometimes at my loss! But there is only so much time, and some of the baby does get dumped out together with the bathwater!
Since you appear to be curious, I was partially thinking of rp, but their offerings are substantially more expensive than yours.
That said I would be remiss not to mention that @psuLemon on this site has written a couple of excellent "sticky" posts directly addressing both "hard-gainers" and "programming".
The OP, in previous conversations, appears to have just stuck to 5x5 and to have over-done his surplus. Both of these could be addressed if that's what he wanted.
That said, there is NOTHING wrong with purchasing qualified advice if one can afford to do so and in aid to one's reasonable goals.
I am glad that in spite of my concerns about your offerings based on the initial read of your site, your "in person" discourse offers the likelihood that your actual offering will exceed the expectations established by that first read!
Thank you, Pav8888!
Ahaha, yeah, Scooby seems like a genuinely good guy who really does want to help people
Sweet style, too.2 -
What was your macro breakdown over the whole time period, not just an occasional day?
How many grams per lb of protein were you eating? Total grams of carbs?
How did you conclude that most of your gain was body fat?
Yeah, I hear ya. Even just a weird distribution of the calorie surplus might do it. Big difference between gaining 0.5 pounds per week for a month versus gaining 0 pounds for three weeks and then two pounds in one week, even though both add up to two pounds gained per month.2 -
asianambition wrote: »I have to say that I am positively impressed with @ShaneDuquette 's explanation of his program and of the fact that his material has evolved over time.
People do change their view points as they learn. And that's good. I once believed, for about 4 hours, that Scooby's site was full of bro-science. And while Scooby may be a bro (in a good way); his site is way closer to science than bro science!
So I am glad to hear that your site is evolving even if all the material has yet to be updated to reflect your current views.
That said, when I see a shake and a somatotype (or equivalent info) on page one of a site, I personally choose to move on.
As per your testimony, it appears that doing so is sometimes at my loss! But there is only so much time, and some of the baby does get dumped out together with the bathwater!
Since you appear to be curious, I was partially thinking of rp, but their offerings are substantially more expensive than yours.
That said I would be remiss not to mention that @psuLemon on this site has written a couple of excellent "sticky" posts directly addressing both "hard-gainers" and "programming".
The OP, in previous conversations, appears to have just stuck to 5x5 and to have over-done his surplus. Both of these could be addressed if that's what he wanted.
That said, there is NOTHING wrong with purchasing qualified advice if one can afford to do so and in aid to one's reasonable goals.
I am glad that in spite of my concerns about your offerings based on the initial read of your site, your "in person" discourse offers the likelihood that your actual offering will exceed the expectations established by that first read!
I only gained 7 lbs in 6 months of doing 5x5, most of it body fat, so I definitely didn't overdo my surplus. I think where I went wrong was consuming too much fat. Like I'm reading Shane's e-book right now and he says that fat is more likely than carbs to be stored as body fat, so you shouldn't exceed 30% fat a day. However, there were some days where I was eating close to 45% in fat (despite consuming enough protein).
Eating fat has nothing to do with gaining too much fat. You can bulk with 60% of your calories from fat and not become a blob. If anything drove poor gains, it was lack of nutritious foods but more likely, the programming that you chose. A 5x5 program is a beginner program designed for strength, not hypertrophy. It barely crosses the hypertrophy threshold in terms of overall volume. There is also a question of intensity that comes into play as well. So like I recommended in your other threads, choose a program that will driven hypertrophy, drives enough metabolic stress and you train with sufficient intensity.3 -
Eating fat has nothing to do with gaining too much fat. You can bulk with 60% of your calories from fat and not become a blob. If anything drove poor gains, it was lack of nutritious foods but more likely, the programming that you chose. A 5x5 program is a beginner program designed for strength, not hypertrophy. It barely crosses the hypertrophy threshold in terms of overall volume. There is also a question of intensity that comes into play as well. So like I recommended in your other threads, choose a program that will driven hypertrophy, drives enough metabolic stress and you train with sufficient intensity.
I think you're going against the evidence on this one.
Here's one of the recent systematic reviews on macronutrients for gaining muscle:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6680710/
"Sufficient protein (1.6–2.2 g/kg/day) should be consumed with optimal amounts 0.40–0.55 g/kg per meal and distributed evenly throughout the day (3–6 meals) including within 1–2 hours pre- and post-training. Fat should be consumed in moderate amounts (0.5–1.5 g/kg/day). Remaining calories should come from carbohydrates with focus on consuming sufficient amounts (≥3–5 g/kg/day) to support energy demands from resistance exercise."
To quote the lead author on the paper, Eric Helms, PhD, about the ideal fat intake while bulking: "For most people I recommend 20–30% of total calories, but if you prefer higher fat intakes and lower carbs or have good data to show this works better for you, you can go up to 40%."
Is that the most important factor for building muscle? No. But it's still a factor.1 -
Eating fat has nothing to do with gaining too much fat. You can bulk with 60% of your calories from fat and not become a blob. If anything drove poor gains, it was lack of nutritious foods but more likely, the programming that you chose. A 5x5 program is a beginner program designed for strength, not hypertrophy. It barely crosses the hypertrophy threshold in terms of overall volume. There is also a question of intensity that comes into play as well. So like I recommended in your other threads, choose a program that will driven hypertrophy, drives enough metabolic stress and you train with sufficient intensity.
Totally agree with you on StrongLifts, by the way. It's not a hypertrophy program.2 -
@ShaneDuquette wanted to say thanks for popping in and clarifying. I will be honest I did not click the link OP posted to your site but was responding to the OP's comment about gaining a lot in a short period of time, many people come in here thinking they can work for a few months and be 20lbs+ heavier all muscle and there are programs out there that falsely promise that. Hopefully he has much success with your program!
To be honest I have spent a lot of money on fitness books, programs and equipment (all from the same person) ... way more than $200 worth, no direct coaching or anything.2 -
ShaneDuquette wrote: »Eating fat has nothing to do with gaining too much fat. You can bulk with 60% of your calories from fat and not become a blob. If anything drove poor gains, it was lack of nutritious foods but more likely, the programming that you chose. A 5x5 program is a beginner program designed for strength, not hypertrophy. It barely crosses the hypertrophy threshold in terms of overall volume. There is also a question of intensity that comes into play as well. So like I recommended in your other threads, choose a program that will driven hypertrophy, drives enough metabolic stress and you train with sufficient intensity.
I think you're going against the evidence on this one.
Here's one of the recent systematic reviews on macronutrients for gaining muscle:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6680710/
"Sufficient protein (1.6–2.2 g/kg/day) should be consumed with optimal amounts 0.40–0.55 g/kg per meal and distributed evenly throughout the day (3–6 meals) including within 1–2 hours pre- and post-training. Fat should be consumed in moderate amounts (0.5–1.5 g/kg/day). Remaining calories should come from carbohydrates with focus on consuming sufficient amounts (≥3–5 g/kg/day) to support energy demands from resistance exercise."
To quote the lead author on the paper, Eric Helms, PhD, about the ideal fat intake while bulking: "For most people I recommend 20–30% of total calories, but if you prefer higher fat intakes and lower carbs or have good data to show this works better for you, you can go up to 40%."
Is that the most important factor for building muscle? No. But it's still a factor.
Love Eric Helms, but you have to understand there is also a limitation of data. There is zero evidence on bodybuilding/mass building as it relates to ketogenic or low carb diets. Dr. Helms recognizes that. Currently, the only evidence we have on low carb diet is weight loss and endurance athletes (runners/cyclist). We also don't have data on carb threshold (meals or total) in what is optimal for muscle building. Where we do have data is protein. It's why I spread my protein across 3 meals and aim for 25-40g per meal and often focus on higher quality proteins like meats, fish and eggs to maximize MPS.
In the context of the OP, he was focusing on junk food (high fat, high carb, and salty). He wasn't really focusing on nutrient dense foods. As I advised in his other thread about fat, was focus on higher quality foods and get a better lifting program. If the OP still eats crap low fat food and follows a program not beneficial to hypertrophy, he still will not get the results he desires. There are a lot of variables and trying to pinpoint a single one, when it's more multifaceted is the issue.
Side note, I ran my Keto numbers against the fat Dr. Helms recommends and at 1.5g/kg, I hit the top range.2 -
@ShaneDuquette wanted to say thanks for popping in and clarifying. I will be honest I did not click the link OP posted to your site but was responding to the OP's comment about gaining a lot in a short period of time, many people come in here thinking they can work for a few months and be 20lbs+ heavier all muscle and there are programs out there that falsely promise that. Hopefully he has much success with your program!
I think for a lot of skinny guys, it's realistic to gain a lot of muscle in a short period of time. Gaining 20+ pounds in a few months with no visible fat gain is something I've done myself, watched my roommate do, and it's something I've seen hundreds (if not thousands) of people do over the years.
But you're right. It depends on the person, the circumstances, the program. Not everyone can do it. It really depends. Mind you, we do fully guarantee our results and have an unconditional refund policy. If someone feels like we've exaggerated or improperly advertised, they can always, always get their money back.
Me too! I know the fitness industry has its shady parts, but there are some people producing really great content.To be honest I have spent a lot of money on fitness books, programs and equipment (all from the same person) ... way more than $200 worth, no direct coaching or anything.1 -
Love Eric Helms, but you have to understand there is also a limitation of data. There is zero evidence on bodybuilding/mass building as it relates to ketogenic or low carb diets. Dr. Helms recognizes that. Currently, the only evidence we have on low carb diet is weight loss and endurance athletes (runners/cyclist). We also don't have data on carb threshold (meals or total) in what is optimal for muscle building. Where we do have data is protein. It's why I spread my protein across 3 meals and aim for 25-40g per meal and often focus on higher quality proteins like meats, fish and eggs to maximize MPS.
In the context of the OP, he was focusing on junk food (high fat, high carb, and salty). He wasn't really focusing on nutrient dense foods. As I advised in his other thread about fat, was focus on higher quality foods and get a better lifting program. If the OP still eats crap low fat food and follows a program not beneficial to hypertrophy, he still will not get the results he desires. There are a lot of variables and trying to pinpoint a single one, when it's more multifaceted is the issue.
We have some data on keto bulking. Not much, but some.
The main "benefit" of a ketogenic diet is that it suppresses appetite in most people. Is that a problem for most people? No. Most people are trying to lose weight. So that's great. But our specialty is helping naturally skinny guys bulk up, so that's a good reason to avoid ketogenic diets when possible.
For instance, consider this study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29986720
Because the keto participants weren't able to get out of a calorie deficit, they wound up losing 0.7 pounds of muscle by the end of the study. That loss of lean mass may just have been glycogen, but even so, that's not an ideal outcome. During that same timeframe, the high-carb group gained 3 pounds of lean mass.
Dr Brad Schoenfeld conducted a follow-up study and confirmed those findings, saying “when considering this study in context with the body of literature, a general take-home would be that the keto diet is a viable strategy for losing body fat, but would not be ideal if your goals are to maximize strength and hypertrophy.”
https://jissn.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12970-020-00348-7
All of the experts I consulted, including Brad Dieter, PhD, who reviewed that article, said that it seems like bulking on a ketogenic diet, at very best, is neutral. But so far the evidence points to it being worse. And again, it makes it much harder to get into a calorie surplus, which tends to be the hardest part of bulking up for us naturally skinny people.
Now, I'm not arguing that it's impossible to bulk on a ketogenic diet. I'm not even arguing that it's bad to bulk on a ketogenic diet. We've helped a bunch of guys build muscle while doing keto. Like you said, there are many factors to consider. This is just one of them. But we do have research favouring bulking on higher-carb diets.3 -
ShaneDuquette wrote: »Love Eric Helms, but you have to understand there is also a limitation of data. There is zero evidence on bodybuilding/mass building as it relates to ketogenic or low carb diets. Dr. Helms recognizes that. Currently, the only evidence we have on low carb diet is weight loss and endurance athletes (runners/cyclist). We also don't have data on carb threshold (meals or total) in what is optimal for muscle building. Where we do have data is protein. It's why I spread my protein across 3 meals and aim for 25-40g per meal and often focus on higher quality proteins like meats, fish and eggs to maximize MPS.
In the context of the OP, he was focusing on junk food (high fat, high carb, and salty). He wasn't really focusing on nutrient dense foods. As I advised in his other thread about fat, was focus on higher quality foods and get a better lifting program. If the OP still eats crap low fat food and follows a program not beneficial to hypertrophy, he still will not get the results he desires. There are a lot of variables and trying to pinpoint a single one, when it's more multifaceted is the issue.
We have some data on keto bulking. Not much, but some.
The main "benefit" of a ketogenic diet is that it suppresses appetite in most people. Is that a problem for most people? No. Most people are trying to lose weight. So that's great. But our specialty is helping naturally skinny guys bulk up, so that's a good reason to avoid ketogenic diets when possible.
For instance, consider this study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29986720
Because the keto participants weren't able to get out of a calorie deficit, they wound up losing 0.7 pounds of muscle by the end of the study. That loss of lean mass may just have been glycogen, but even so, that's not an ideal outcome. During that same timeframe, the high-carb group gained 3 pounds of lean mass.
Dr Brad Schoenfeld conducted a follow-up study and confirmed those findings, saying “when considering this study in context with the body of literature, a general take-home would be that the keto diet is a viable strategy for losing body fat, but would not be ideal if your goals are to maximize strength and hypertrophy.”
https://jissn.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12970-020-00348-7
All of the experts I consulted, including Brad Dieter, PhD, who reviewed that article, said that it seems like bulking on a ketogenic diet, at very best, is neutral. But so far the evidence points to it being worse. And again, it makes it much harder to get into a calorie surplus, which tends to be the hardest part of bulking up for us naturally skinny people.
Now, I'm not arguing that it's impossible to bulk on a ketogenic diet. I'm not even arguing that it's bad to bulk on a ketogenic diet. We've helped a bunch of guys build muscle while doing keto. Like you said, there are many factors to consider. This is just one of them. But we do have research favouring bulking on higher-carb diets.
Do me a favor and don't link articles to your site, that would be advertising.
Also, i would, in all intents and purposes, suggest that Keto bulks might be suboptimal. There are things like TKD/CKD that might help, but again, little to not data.
Next, i did remember that study on Keto vs traditional. And the appetite suppression did impact their ability. Having said that, if you can overcome that issue, its a non issue. For cutting, Keto has been very good to me, albeit, i may be a bit more low carb since its summer and i want more fruit. For my bulk, i may run TKD as an experiment and will run PHAT or BEAXST (AthleanX). But we will see for TKD, because i do find it difficult at times to keep my calories high on Keto.
Having said all that, it doesn't really apply to the OP. He was at like 30% fat.2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.5K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 392 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 927 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions