Ketogenic diets DON'T build muscle
Replies
-
Actually it was about information on building muscle on a ketogenic diet. The article I reposted mentions the lean muscle loss. And yes I didn't post that it was due to a hypocaloric diet in the OP.Your post wasn't about mass gains (though the title was), it claims a ketogenic diet caused muscle loss. Which is not the case. Your post also didn't state it referred to a hypocaloric diet.
A ketogenic diet is simply one that meets a ketogenic ratio. If you want to claim this muscle loss only happens when hypocaloric, you should state that. However, the weight of the evidence is still against you.
I'd have to research more on catabolic effect. Let me get back to you on this.Well, Steve Blechman doesn't come out and state quite that, what he says, in summary, is:
He states it's NOT the best for muscle-growth/hypertrophy. That was his claim. He does claim it's catabolic, but very little evidence actually supports that, and Lyle McDonald has repeatedly shown otherwise.Steve Blechman: http://forums.musculardevelopment.com/showthread.php/50949-The-Best-Low-Carb-Ketogenic-Diet-for-Fat-Loss!!
The bottom line is that based on scientific research, low-carb ketogenic diets are not optimal for muscle growth or muscle hypertrophy!! Low-carb ketogenic diets are very effective for fat loss and appetite control. I personally believe that for most bodybuilders some carbohydrates are necessary to hold on to muscle while losing fat during a pre-competition diet. Only through trial and error can you find out exactly how many carbs you need and how frequently they should be consumed.
So going forward, I believe it's safe to say that if someone was looking for muscle hypertrophy (sarcoplasmic) that a ketogenic diet probably isn't the most optimal way to go.The bottom line here is a ketogenic diet is NOT the best for hypertrophy in a healthy individual, and I thoroughly agree with that. There is no doubt that there is a requirement for carbohydrate intake and the subsequent release of insulin and IGF to trigger optimal anabolism. However there is no truth to the claim that the diet itself causes muscle LOSS, nor that you cannot build muscle while on it. You won't build muscle/experience hypertrophy in a hypocaloric state regardless of what kind of diet you're on.
I realize the article made some strong statements and even the evidence of muscle loss was not strong at best. The main intention was to inform those who do ketogenic diets on here and go about the process of hypertrophy, may need to alter their diet to attain the results they want.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness industry for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
So shall we re-title the thread:
Ketogenic diets DO build muscle - but not as efficiently as a high carb diet!0 -
Or Ketogenic diets DON'T OPTIMALLY build muscle
Actually it was about information on building muscle on a ketogenic diet. The article I reposted mentions the lean muscle loss. And yes I didn't post that it was due to a hypocaloric diet in the OP.Your post wasn't about mass gains (though the title was), it claims a ketogenic diet caused muscle loss. Which is not the case. Your post also didn't state it referred to a hypocaloric diet.
A ketogenic diet is simply one that meets a ketogenic ratio. If you want to claim this muscle loss only happens when hypocaloric, you should state that. However, the weight of the evidence is still against you.
I'd have to research more on catabolic effect. Let me get back to you on this.Well, Steve Blechman doesn't come out and state quite that, what he says, in summary, is:
He states it's NOT the best for muscle-growth/hypertrophy. That was his claim. He does claim it's catabolic, but very little evidence actually supports that, and Lyle McDonald has repeatedly shown otherwise.Steve Blechman: http://forums.musculardevelopment.com/showthread.php/50949-The-Best-Low-Carb-Ketogenic-Diet-for-Fat-Loss!!
The bottom line is that based on scientific research, low-carb ketogenic diets are not optimal for muscle growth or muscle hypertrophy!! Low-carb ketogenic diets are very effective for fat loss and appetite control. I personally believe that for most bodybuilders some carbohydrates are necessary to hold on to muscle while losing fat during a pre-competition diet. Only through trial and error can you find out exactly how many carbs you need and how frequently they should be consumed.
So going forward, I believe it's safe to say that if someone was looking for muscle hypertrophy (sarcoplasmic) that a ketogenic diet probably isn't the most optimal way to go.The bottom line here is a ketogenic diet is NOT the best for hypertrophy in a healthy individual, and I thoroughly agree with that. There is no doubt that there is a requirement for carbohydrate intake and the subsequent release of insulin and IGF to trigger optimal anabolism. However there is no truth to the claim that the diet itself causes muscle LOSS, nor that you cannot build muscle while on it. You won't build muscle/experience hypertrophy in a hypocaloric state regardless of what kind of diet you're on.
I realize the article made some strong statements and even the evidence of muscle loss was not strong at best. The main intention was to inform those who do ketogenic diets on here and go about the process of hypertrophy, may need to alter their diet to attain the results they want.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness industry for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
So shall we re-title the thread:
Ketogenic diets DO build muscle - but not as efficiently as a high carb diet!
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness industry for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
it doesn't matter what you think- or how you are doing. 500 calories is completely unsustainable- even for someone in a coma lying on a bed doing NOTHING- much less someone who is weight training.Well uhh... I am... I am tracking my calories accurately... and I have the exact same strength I had on a 3000+ calorie diet, though I expect it won't last too long. I have to point out I was at 30% body fat 3 weeks ago. I am currently at 25%. I was borderline obese.... i had too much energy stored. And yes, I work out hard... I do strength training, and I go until I cannot do a single extra rep.
Edit: From your picture you don't look like you have more than 15% body fat or so, am I right? I imagine suddenly going low calorie would be more harmful for you.
Edit 2: I get adequate rest... I only work out twice a week.
Edit 3: In my current phase, I am not looking to make gains, but lose body fat, on a NORMAL ketogenic diet, I will expect to see some gains. My calories will be in the 3000s.
I'm VERY VERY happy to see you're going to be eating more food.
I'm glad you are eating more. 3000 is a much more reasonable number. Seriously- massive under eating wrecks so much havoc on your body- gains- CNS and hormones.
(Also- kudo's to me- a solid deficit for steady weight loss since April- and I finally pulled 305- I've been under 300 for months- no way this happens on a severely restricted diet)
HAH- thanks- but no- I'm easily sitting at 25% or higher. I'm a fatty mc fatty right now- I just came off my bulk- I've dropped almost 12 solid pounds- but I'm still easily in the mid to high 20's. My baseline - none work days is 1700 (this is a deficit for me) and I eat upwards of 2500 on work out days.
I'd like to point out also - just losing body fat and working out 2 times a week (which is good) will not make you significant gains- which I realize you said you weren't trying to get- but you will hurt yourself long term if you have any aspiration for size or strength. In which case- (if you do) I would highly recommend getting on a solid program and lifting the hell out of it while you have a chance to maximize your newb gains.
He's living proof a ketogenic diet can be healthy, but isn't optimal for hypertrophy. He's also done enough research to still know it's one of the best diets for inactive, overweight and/or diabetic individuals.Lol @ experience trumps advice. YOU HAVE 2 MONTHS OF EXPERIENCE!
I feel like this thread of these two thoughts weren't read as intended- the experience had more to do with him not listening to what experienced lifters were saying- verses him not listening to all the stuff from the keto experts.
But I think that goes back to goals.
If you are just trying to lose weight and you don't care so much about gains- then keto you're heart and liver out.
If you want to actually get some where with your strength and muscle growth- don't bother with keto.One of the major problems with the fitness community is that they try and treat it as though it were a PURE science. Science does indeed play a large role in our diet and training; however, athletes are generally well ahead of the scientific curve because they don't require a peer reviewed study to make discoveries as to what affects their performance and/or physique
the truth is strong with this post.
people have been stressing/changing/adapting/pushing their bodies for hundreds and hundreds of years- if someone who has been training for almost as long as you have been alive is doing it- odds are, there is a good god damn reason he can do what he does and he's worth listening to.0 -
saving to read later0
-
Or Ketogenic diets DON'T OPTIMALLY build muscle
Actually it was about information on building muscle on a ketogenic diet. The article I reposted mentions the lean muscle loss. And yes I didn't post that it was due to a hypocaloric diet in the OP.Your post wasn't about mass gains (though the title was), it claims a ketogenic diet caused muscle loss. Which is not the case. Your post also didn't state it referred to a hypocaloric diet.
A ketogenic diet is simply one that meets a ketogenic ratio. If you want to claim this muscle loss only happens when hypocaloric, you should state that. However, the weight of the evidence is still against you.
I'd have to research more on catabolic effect. Let me get back to you on this.
Yes that's better.
That way anyone reading just the title will not be under the misapprehension that you cannot build muscle on a Keto diet.
Well, Steve Blechman doesn't come out and state quite that, what he says, in summary, is:
He states it's NOT the best for muscle-growth/hypertrophy. That was his claim. He does claim it's catabolic, but very little evidence actually supports that, and Lyle McDonald has repeatedly shown otherwise.Steve Blechman: http://forums.musculardevelopment.com/showthread.php/50949-The-Best-Low-Carb-Ketogenic-Diet-for-Fat-Loss!!
The bottom line is that based on scientific research, low-carb ketogenic diets are not optimal for muscle growth or muscle hypertrophy!! Low-carb ketogenic diets are very effective for fat loss and appetite control. I personally believe that for most bodybuilders some carbohydrates are necessary to hold on to muscle while losing fat during a pre-competition diet. Only through trial and error can you find out exactly how many carbs you need and how frequently they should be consumed.
So going forward, I believe it's safe to say that if someone was looking for muscle hypertrophy (sarcoplasmic) that a ketogenic diet probably isn't the most optimal way to go.The bottom line here is a ketogenic diet is NOT the best for hypertrophy in a healthy individual, and I thoroughly agree with that. There is no doubt that there is a requirement for carbohydrate intake and the subsequent release of insulin and IGF to trigger optimal anabolism. However there is no truth to the claim that the diet itself causes muscle LOSS, nor that you cannot build muscle while on it. You won't build muscle/experience hypertrophy in a hypocaloric state regardless of what kind of diet you're on.
I realize the article made some strong statements and even the evidence of muscle loss was not strong at best. The main intention was to inform those who do ketogenic diets on here and go about the process of hypertrophy, may need to alter their diet to attain the results they want.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness industry for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
So shall we re-title the thread:
Ketogenic diets DO build muscle - but not as efficiently as a high carb diet!
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness industry for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
If you want to actually get some where with your strength and muscle growth- don't bother with keto.
That's overstating it. Just because something isn't optimal doesn't mean it's never worth considering, because there are other pros/cons aside from muscle growth when it comes to choosing a diet. Not to mention, "less than optimal" is squishy and it might mean 95% or it might mean 80% or less of the gains, and even this could vary between individuals. If we're talking 95% of the gains, the pros of a keto diet could make that 5% loss acceptable for some people. There are plenty of keto bodybuilders out there that feel their CKD/TKD is working for them, or otherwise they wouldn't be doing it.
Ultimately I think the problem with this discussion is overstatements and generalizations like this one and people referring only to an SKD when they talk about a keto diet, while ignoring other forms of keto diets. Statements like "don't bother with keto if you ever want to get somewhere with strength" are overblown and inaccurate, just in the same way the title of this post completely overstated the OP's point of "less than optimal gains bulking on keto." I'd agree an SKD isn't optimal for someone trying to bulk or gain strength, but then again I don't know many people that go around trying to bulk on an SKD as they usually realize before long they need some carbs in their diet, be it in the form of a CKD/TKD or just a higher daily carb macro/non-keto diet.0 -
Fair enough.
But I'm already at a disadvantage being a woman- why would I want to waste even more time and energy trying to fight for keto and building muscles when It's already MONTHS of careful dieting and hard work under OPTIMAL conditions.
I guess I just seriously don't understand- if you are serious about training and have big long term goals ( you want to get some where)- why would you pick the way that is proven to not be as effective and it takes longer??? (the exclusion to this would be medical conditions) I don't think it's truly that big of an overstatement.
There maybe time and place for it- but specifically for trying to build size and strength- what's the justification for doing it other than it's cool and a fad and seems like something to do?0 -
I don't really disagree with you and I think that's why most people I see following variants of keto diets aren't trying for maximum muscle gain. The vast majority are using keto diets for fat loss, and I know some people that use it for recomping or very lean bulking as well, as they find it helps them stay lean while making slow and steady progress. I'm sure there are some people out there that decided to dirty bulk on a standard keto diet, but I don't really know any and I doubt it was anywhere close to optimal.
At the end of the day, it's just a tool that you can use if you think it will be helpful for your goals. That certainly doesn't mean it's the right/optimal tool for everyone and every goal though.0 -
Or Ketogenic diets DON'T OPTIMALLY build muscle
Actually it was about information on building muscle on a ketogenic diet. The article I reposted mentions the lean muscle loss. And yes I didn't post that it was due to a hypocaloric diet in the OP.Your post wasn't about mass gains (though the title was), it claims a ketogenic diet caused muscle loss. Which is not the case. Your post also didn't state it referred to a hypocaloric diet.
A ketogenic diet is simply one that meets a ketogenic ratio. If you want to claim this muscle loss only happens when hypocaloric, you should state that. However, the weight of the evidence is still against you.
I'd have to research more on catabolic effect. Let me get back to you on this.
Well, Steve Blechman doesn't come out and state quite that, what he says, in summary, is:
He states it's NOT the best for muscle-growth/hypertrophy. That was his claim. He does claim it's catabolic, but very little evidence actually supports that, and Lyle McDonald has repeatedly shown otherwise.Steve Blechman: http://forums.musculardevelopment.com/showthread.php/50949-The-Best-Low-Carb-Ketogenic-Diet-for-Fat-Loss!!
The bottom line is that based on scientific research, low-carb ketogenic diets are not optimal for muscle growth or muscle hypertrophy!! Low-carb ketogenic diets are very effective for fat loss and appetite control. I personally believe that for most bodybuilders some carbohydrates are necessary to hold on to muscle while losing fat during a pre-competition diet. Only through trial and error can you find out exactly how many carbs you need and how frequently they should be consumed.
So going forward, I believe it's safe to say that if someone was looking for muscle hypertrophy (sarcoplasmic) that a ketogenic diet probably isn't the most optimal way to go.The bottom line here is a ketogenic diet is NOT the best for hypertrophy in a healthy individual, and I thoroughly agree with that. There is no doubt that there is a requirement for carbohydrate intake and the subsequent release of insulin and IGF to trigger optimal anabolism. However there is no truth to the claim that the diet itself causes muscle LOSS, nor that you cannot build muscle while on it. You won't build muscle/experience hypertrophy in a hypocaloric state regardless of what kind of diet you're on.
I realize the article made some strong statements and even the evidence of muscle loss was not strong at best. The main intention was to inform those who do ketogenic diets on here and go about the process of hypertrophy, may need to alter their diet to attain the results they want.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness industry for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
So shall we re-title the thread:
Ketogenic diets DO build muscle - but not as efficiently as a high carb diet!
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness industry for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Yes that's better.
That way anyone reading just the title will not be under the misapprehension that you cannot build muscle on a Keto diet. 0 -
At the end of the day, it's just a tool that you can use if you think it will be helpful for your goals. That certainly doesn't mean it's the right/optimal tool for everyone and every goal though.
YES!0 -
The only things you know you read out of a book because you have zero experience and, as anyone with a high-skill profession can tell you, you can know everything in the world but if you have no experience applying that knowledge than it means nothing. Please, for the love of God, keep your mouth shut and go train for years and years and then come back and read the ridiculous things you have posted in this thread.
This should be at the top of every internet thread on the entire interwebz.0 -
The only reason I would personally ever recommend a keto diet to someone is if they fell-into one of these categories:But I'm already at a disadvantage being a woman- why would I want to waste even more time and energy trying to fight for keto and building muscles when It's already MONTHS of careful dieting and hard work under OPTIMAL conditions.
1. Insulin-resistant, whatever the reason, and needing to get glycaemic control;
2. A Type I diabetic who is NOT insulin-resistant, but needs better glycaemic control;
3. Morbidly obese (even if not insulin-resistant) and not able to exercise intensely (for whatever physical reason), and needing to lose weight for health reasons.
Personally, that's it.
If you're no longer requiring weight loss, and it's about getting bigger/stronger/faster ... I don't know why someone would recommend it either, and I *am* a low-carb advocate (but only under certain conditions).I guess I just seriously don't understand- if you are serious about training and have big long term goals ( you want to get some where)- why would you pick the way that is proven to not be as effective and it takes longer??? (the exclusion to this would be medical conditions) I don't think it's truly that big of an overstatement.
For me personally, once I lost the weight I needed to, and started to train more intensely, I upped my carbohydrate intake to allow for the intense-exercise (especially anaerobic) that I do - and I *AM* a Type I diabetic. I just time my CHO intake to just-prior to exercise to allow good glycaemic control AND the circulating serum glucose I need to push anaerobic.
Without a medical reason, and if you've already lost the necessary fat and are now working on training, there isn't a justification. The only one I can think of is if you legitimately enjoy the lifestyle - but then I hope those folks understand it's not optimal for any athletics that push into the anaerobic. It's *great* for endurance cardio, but not anaerobic workouts.There maybe time and place for it- but specifically for trying to build size and strength- what's the justification for doing it other than it's cool and a fad and seems like something to do?0 -
^^^
werd. up.
(I actually enjoy being a moderate/low carb as well-I'm just not all about making my life harder when it comes to building muscles.
Trying to cut currently-and I do better doing a lower carb- I have a hard time stopping the breads in my day to day life so I just leave them for special occasions LOL0 -
I actually think the ketogenic diet does not build muscle mass slower than the conventional diet. It APPEARS that way because the total mass of the muscle increases with carb intake due to the ever-increasing capacity to store glycogen and subsequent water. PURE MUSCLE GAIN is the same if two atheletes are doing the same type of exercise on the opposing diets. (ketogenic one will have lower body fat though!) All you need is enough protein and increased caloric intake from fats. If you want increased TOTAL mass just to feel better about yourself, more power to you, but that's not pure muscle you're looking at.
Here is an article: http://www.ruled.me/mythbusting-training-on-keto-diet/
which is based on this study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22835211
Look at all these bodybuilders who use the ketogenic diet Oo
https://www.google.com/search?q=ketogenic+bodybuilder&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=Ccx4U42JNMWd7gakwYDACA&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAg&biw=1600&bih=775#facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=EF6EKZa_ShVJ3M%3A;Im3zIBO2uLJ7SM;http%3A%2F%2Flh4.ggpht.com%2F-qUdjTQq-Be8%2FS3mqzu5wkbI%2FAAAAAAAAUWE%2FTsEGTuNgc0w%2FDave_Palumbo_1.jpg.jpg;http%3A%2F%2Fkeleven.com%2Fblog%2Ftag%2Fbodybuilding;384;5120 -
One of the major problems with the fitness community is that they try and treat it as though it were a PURE science. Science does indeed play a large role in our diet and training; however, athletes are generally well ahead of the scientific curve because they don't require a peer reviewed study to make discoveries as to what affects their performance and/or physique. This is why everything you have said thus far is basically invalid, Kanifer.
The only things you know you read out of a book because you have zero experience and, as anyone with a high-skill profession can tell you, you can know everything in the world but if you have no experience applying that knowledge than it means nothing. Please, for the love of God, keep your mouth shut and go train for years and years and then come back and read the ridiculous things you have posted in this thread.
I can appreciate your opinion, but from everything you said, nothing has really proven the ketogenic diet did not work for you, because you did not do a proper ketogenic diet, but a low carb diet with cheat days. What you have made regarding the ketogenic diet is what I would call a misleading discovery based on an ineffective deployment of the ketogenic diet. ANY diet can be done incorrectly and cause bad results.
Edit: According to this keto calculator (http://www.ruled.me/keto-calculator/), you would need ACCORDING TO YOUR LBM weight at 255 pounds (I took the liberty of assuming you have around 40% bodyfat for a total of 426 pounds, correct me if I'm wrong):
20g net carbs 3%
153g protein 21%
246g fat 76%
This would be a very very proper ketogenic diet. Do this consistently for 3 months, without any cheat days and then say the ketogenic diet ruined your muscle gains. If you feel hungry, eat more calories from fat. Increasing the slider from sedentary to very active only pushes up the fat from 246 to 485, protein and carbs stayed the same. The formula for the calculator came from Darthluiggi (w/ supposedly 10 years experience tweaking formulas) at http://www.reddit.com/r/ketogains.0 -
Well uhh... I am... I am tracking my calories accurately... and I have the exact same strength I had on a 3000+ calorie diet, though I expect it won't last too long. I have to point out I was at 30% body fat 3 weeks ago. I am currently at 25%. I was borderline obese.... i had too much energy stored. And yes, I work out hard... I do strength training, and I go until I cannot do a single extra rep.
Edit: From your picture you don't look like you have more than 15% body fat or so, am I right? I imagine suddenly going low calorie would be more harmful for you.
Edit 2: I get adequate rest... I only work out twice a week.
Edit 3: In my current phase, I am not looking to make gains, but lose body fat, on a NORMAL ketogenic diet, I will expect to see some gains. My calories will be in the 3000s.
it doesn't matter what you think- or how you are doing. 500 calories is completely unsustainable- even for someone in a coma lying on a bed doing NOTHING- much less someone who is weight training.
I'm VERY VERY happy to see you're going to be eating more food.
I'm glad you are eating more. 3000 is a much more reasonable number. Seriously- massive under eating wrecks so much havoc on your body- gains- CNS and hormones.
(Also- kudo's to me- a solid deficit for steady weight loss since April- and I finally pulled 305- I've been under 300 for months- no way this happens on a severely restricted diet)
HAH- thanks- but no- I'm easily sitting at 25% or higher. I'm a fatty mc fatty right now- I just came off my bulk- I've dropped almost 12 solid pounds- but I'm still easily in the mid to high 20's. My baseline - none work days is 1700 (this is a deficit for me) and I eat upwards of 2500 on work out days.
Men are a lot more adapted to fasting states than women, therefore, your statement about low calories wrecking the body are more suitable for women than healthy men. Also, you VASTLY underestimate the role that micronutrients play in health. I was at the gym yet again for the full workout I usually do, and did fine, even did a bit more than I usually do. Women are meant (biologically) to bear children whereas men are built to work. So the woman needs a lot more micronutrients and a constant stream of energy. Studies have shown that the benefits of fasting are more numerous in men than in women. Brad Pilon did some experimenting on this.
Edit:I'd like to point out also - just losing body fat and working out 2 times a week (which is good) will not make you significant gains- which I realize you said you weren't trying to get- but you will hurt yourself long term if you have any aspiration for size or strength. In which case- (if you do) I would highly recommend getting on a solid program and lifting the hell out of it while you have a chance to maximize your newb gains.
Nah. I'm doing strength training to the max. According to an accomplished strongman, elliott hulse (605 1RM deadlift during regular training), who has very nice lifts and still has a good bodyfat %age to boot (looks to be 18-23% eyeballing it), max strength lifting is very taxing on the nervous system and shouldn't be done more than once a week. (I'm already doing it twice a week. which is kind of too much, but luckily different exercises, though I think he may have been referring to beginners like me rather than long-standing professionals)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oyf59-dPeXg skip to 1:15 holy crap, is that nice or what. 0 -
I actually think the ketogenic diet does not build muscle mass slower than the conventional diet. It APPEARS that way because the total mass of the muscle increases with carb intake due to the ever-increasing capacity to store glycogen and subsequent water. PURE MUSCLE GAIN is the same if two atheletes are doing the same type of exercise on the opposing diets. (ketogenic one will have lower body fat though!) All you need is enough protein and increased caloric intake from fats. If you want increased TOTAL mass just to feel better about yourself, more power to you, but that's not pure muscle you're looking at.
Here is an article: http://www.ruled.me/mythbusting-training-on-keto-diet/
which is based on this study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22835211
Look at all these bodybuilders who use the ketogenic diet Oo
https://www.google.com/search?q=ketogenic+bodybuilder&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=Ccx4U42JNMWd7gakwYDACA&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAg&biw=1600&bih=775#facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=EF6EKZa_ShVJ3M%3A;Im3zIBO2uLJ7SM;http%3A%2F%2Flh4.ggpht.com%2F-qUdjTQq-Be8%2FS3mqzu5wkbI%2FAAAAAAAAUWE%2FTsEGTuNgc0w%2FDave_Palumbo_1.jpg.jpg;http%3A%2F%2Fkeleven.com%2Fblog%2Ftag%2Fbodybuilding;384;512
strength =/= hypertrophy
30 day trial. You know how much muscle you can build in a month as a natural? SFA.
Beating a dead horse keto man.0 -
I have to respectfully disagree with you here.I actually think the ketogenic diet does not build muscle mass slower than the conventional diet. It APPEARS that way because the total mass of the muscle increases with carb intake due to the ever-increasing capacity to store glycogen and subsequent water. PURE MUSCLE GAIN is the same if two atheletes are doing the same type of exercise on the opposing diets.
What that particular study confirms is that the diet is protein-sparing, and does not cause loss of muscle mass in athletes.
It does not in away conclude that you can BUILD muscle (hypertrophy) as-well on a ketogenic diet as you could on a diet that includes more carbohydrate.
Whether the evidence is clinical or anecdotal - all evidence suggests you CAN build muscle on a ketogenic diet, albeit more-slowly than on a diet that includes more carbohydrate. It's biochemistry. All the wishing and hoping in the world won't change the science.
The other issue is when ketogenic, unless you opt for a TKD - targeted ketogenic diet - or CKD - cyclic ketogenic diet - you don't have enough available glucose (either circulating or in glycogen stores) to fuel ANAEROBIC activity. You can fuel a limited amount, yes, but not enough to power through a serious mass-building workout. That requires anaerobic effort, which lipolysis cannot adequately fuel.
That's exactly why as a ketogenic dieter - who uses the diet to control Type I diabetes - I opt for a TKD and eat normally 45-75g of carbohydrate per day, and sometimes much more. I time the heaviest CHO-intake to be just prior to anaerobic training sessions.
The TKD works very well for glycaemic-control and building a little mass, but I'd likely put on muscle twice as fast if I were to eat more carbohydrate and inject more insulin. I'm also quite sure I'd have worse glycaemic control (either hyper- or hypoglycaemia) so I take what I can get and I'm happy and healthier for it.0 -
I have to respectfully disagree with you here.I actually think the ketogenic diet does not build muscle mass slower than the conventional diet. It APPEARS that way because the total mass of the muscle increases with carb intake due to the ever-increasing capacity to store glycogen and subsequent water. PURE MUSCLE GAIN is the same if two atheletes are doing the same type of exercise on the opposing diets.
What that particular study confirms is that the diet is protein-sparing, and does not cause loss of muscle mass in athletes.
It does not in away conclude that you can BUILD muscle (hypertrophy) as-well on a ketogenic diet as you could on a diet that includes more carbohydrate.
Whether the evidence is clinical or anecdotal - all evidence suggests you CAN build muscle on a ketogenic diet, albeit more-slowly than on a diet that includes more carbohydrate. It's biochemistry. All the wishing and hoping in the world won't change the science.
The other issue is when ketogenic, unless you opt for a TKD - targeted ketogenic diet - or CKD - cyclic ketogenic diet - you don't have enough available glucose (either circulating or in glycogen stores) to fuel ANAEROBIC activity. You can fuel a limited amount, yes, but not enough to power through a serious mass-building workout. That requires anaerobic effort, which lipolysis cannot adequately fuel.
That's exactly why as a ketogenic dieter - who uses the diet to control Type I diabetes - I opt for a TKD and eat normally 45-75g of carbohydrate per day, and sometimes much more. I time the heaviest CHO-intake to be just prior to anaerobic training sessions.
The TKD works very well for glycaemic-control and building a little mass, but I'd likely put on muscle twice as fast if I were to eat more carbohydrate and inject more insulin. I'm also quite sure I'd have worse glycaemic control (either hyper- or hypoglycaemia) so I take what I can get and I'm happy and healthier for it.
TKD is probably unnecessary and a deep constant ketosis would work fine if you actually gave your body a chance to get used to it for a long period of time. Of course it doesn't appear to build as fast.... some people can have up to 10 pounds of glycogen and water in their muscles depending on their total muscle mass, when on high carb diets. It looks to be bigger, but it simply ISN'T. As for your concern about anaerobic activity, check this article from the Journal of the International Society of Sports and Nutrition: http://www.jissn.com/content/1/2/7
Specifically this paragraph:
It has also been claimed that carbohydrate provides the only macronutrient substrate whose stored energy generates ATP non-aerobically. This is not the case, however, since several studies have shown that amino acid catabolism also provides a source of anaerobic energy production [23], Aspartate, for example, can be fermented to succinate or propionate [24]. Interestingly, Ivy et al. [25] and Saunders et al. [26], reported that the addition of protein to a carbohydrate supplement enhanced endurance performance above that which occurred with carbohydrate alone.
and a second one: http://www.jissn.com/content/9/1/34
"Those that reported negative effects of VLCKD on performance were only carried out for a time of up to 15 days [22]; but a longer period of time is necessary in order to induce the keto-adaptation [66]. This process of keto-adaptation seems to require a significant adherence to the dietary restriction of carbohydrate that needs to last at least 10/14 days to produce the positive reported effects. Individuals who intermittently consume carbohydrates during a ketogenic diet reduce their tolerance to exercise [18,19,22,58]. Our data suggest that athletes who underwent a VLCKD with adequate protein intake lost weight and improved body composition without any negative changes in strength and power performance."0 -
You're kidding, right? I've been in ketosis nearly 42 months. I've also studied and researched this more than you can possibly imagine.TKD is probably unnecessary and a deep constant ketosis would work fine if you actually gave your body a chance to get used to it for a long period of time.
What they don't tell you is sources other than glucose last for anywhere from 2 to 15 seconds, tops. When pushing anaerobic for as often and as long as I do, it's simply not possible without glucose, period.Of course it doesn't appear to build as fast.... some people can have up to 10 pounds of glycogen and water in their muscles depending on their total muscle mass, when on high carb diets. It looks to be bigger, but it simply ISN'T. As for your concern about anaerobic activity, check this article from the Journal of the International Society of Sports and Nutrition: http://www.jissn.com/content/1/2/7
Specifically this paragraph:
It has also been claimed that carbohydrate provides the only macronutrient substrate whose stored energy generates ATP non-aerobically. This is not the case, however, since several studies have shown that amino acid catabolism also provides a source of anaerobic energy production [23], Aspartate, for example, can be fermented to succinate or propionate [24]. Interestingly, Ivy et al. [25] and Saunders et al. [26], reported that the addition of protein to a carbohydrate supplement enhanced endurance performance above that which occurred with carbohydrate alone.
You realize that's a study on artistic gymnasts, who by the nature of their sport don't push anaerobic, right?and a second one: http://www.jissn.com/content/9/1/34
"Those that reported negative effects of VLCKD on performance were only carried out for a time of up to 15 days [22]; but a longer period of time is necessary in order to induce the keto-adaptation [66]. This process of keto-adaptation seems to require a significant adherence to the dietary restriction of carbohydrate that needs to last at least 10/14 days to produce the positive reported effects. Individuals who intermittently consume carbohydrates during a ketogenic diet reduce their tolerance to exercise [18,19,22,58]. Our data suggest that athletes who underwent a VLCKD with adequate protein intake lost weight and improved body composition without any negative changes in strength and power performance."
FYI - I have a very-strong educational background in the science we're talking about, and I currently work in the research field ... I'm sorry if I'm rude, but I *do* know what I'm talking about when it comes to anaerobic cellular respiration, and your assumptions based on these articles are simply incorrect.
Please don't spread misinformation. I suggest you do more research and study on the biochemistry involved before extrapolating assumptions from clinical trials you don't understand.0 -
Well uhh... I am... I am tracking my calories accurately... and I have the exact same strength I had on a 3000+ calorie diet, though I expect it won't last too long. I have to point out I was at 30% body fat 3 weeks ago. I am currently at 25%. I was borderline obese.... i had too much energy stored. And yes, I work out hard... I do strength training, and I go until I cannot do a single extra rep.
Edit: From your picture you don't look like you have more than 15% body fat or so, am I right? I imagine suddenly going low calorie would be more harmful for you.
Edit 2: I get adequate rest... I only work out twice a week.
Edit 3: In my current phase, I am not looking to make gains, but lose body fat, on a NORMAL ketogenic diet, I will expect to see some gains. My calories will be in the 3000s.
it doesn't matter what you think- or how you are doing. 500 calories is completely unsustainable- even for someone in a coma lying on a bed doing NOTHING- much less someone who is weight training.
I'm VERY VERY happy to see you're going to be eating more food.
I'm glad you are eating more. 3000 is a much more reasonable number. Seriously- massive under eating wrecks so much havoc on your body- gains- CNS and hormones.
(Also- kudo's to me- a solid deficit for steady weight loss since April- and I finally pulled 305- I've been under 300 for months- no way this happens on a severely restricted diet)
HAH- thanks- but no- I'm easily sitting at 25% or higher. I'm a fatty mc fatty right now- I just came off my bulk- I've dropped almost 12 solid pounds- but I'm still easily in the mid to high 20's. My baseline - none work days is 1700 (this is a deficit for me) and I eat upwards of 2500 on work out days.
Men are a lot more adapted to fasting states than women, therefore, your statement about low calories wrecking the body are more suitable for women than healthy men. Also, you VASTLY underestimate the role that micronutrients play in health. I was at the gym yet again for the full workout I usually do, and did fine, even did a bit more than I usually do. Women are meant (biologically) to bear children whereas men are built to work. So the woman needs a lot more micronutrients and a constant stream of energy. Studies have shown that the benefits of fasting are more numerous in men than in women. Brad Pilon did some experimenting on this.
Edit:I'd like to point out also - just losing body fat and working out 2 times a week (which is good) will not make you significant gains- which I realize you said you weren't trying to get- but you will hurt yourself long term if you have any aspiration for size or strength. In which case- (if you do) I would highly recommend getting on a solid program and lifting the hell out of it while you have a chance to maximize your newb gains.
Nah. I'm doing strength training to the max. According to an accomplished strongman, elliott hulse (605 1RM deadlift during regular training), who has very nice lifts and still has a good bodyfat %age to boot (looks to be 18-23% eyeballing it), max strength lifting is very taxing on the nervous system and shouldn't be done more than once a week. (I'm already doing it twice a week. which is kind of too much, but luckily different exercises, though I think he may have been referring to beginners like me rather than long-standing professionals)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oyf59-dPeXg skip to 1:15 holy crap, is that nice or what.
if you are doing a whole body progressive program- you shouldn't be doing max lifting. You pretty much seem to have no grasp on weight training what so ever and have no idea what you are doing.
you don't understand what you are talking about. It kind of hurts my head.
And no- I do not need a constant stream of energy for my supposed baby making machine. I don't eat till one or two in the afternoon and I function just fine. My vagina hasn't actually fallen out on the floor because I didn't eat yet today.
I have one huge meal at the end of the day and then only 2-3 smaller 2-400 calorie meals earlier. Lots of women IF. and lulz at men being built for work and women for making babies- as if making babies isn't work? are you kidding me? You know the uterus can exert 100 pounds per square inch- and we never train it?? You don't think that's not work?
And you do realize we have a great capacity for recovery and can do more lifts and recover faster to lift sooner then men can? kind of makes me want to say- you'r build to do one thing and that's it- not do ACTUAL work- you know work that takes all day and has to be done day in and day out.
And if you are functioning on an ultra low calorie diet (i.e. less than 1000 calories) and lifting heavy 2 times a week YOU ARE NOT ON A ULTRA LOW CALORIE DIET.
it doesn't work that way.
and you are doing yourself absolutely zero favors and hurting what potential gains you could be making right now as a beginner.0 -
if you are doing a whole body progressive program- you shouldn't be doing max lifting. You pretty much seem to have no grasp on weight training what so ever and have no idea what you are doing.
you don't understand what you are talking about. It kind of hurts my head.
And no- I do not need a constant stream of energy for my supposed baby making machine. I don't eat till one or two in the afternoon and I function just fine. My vagina hasn't actually fallen out on the floor because I didn't eat yet today.
I have one huge meal at the end of the day and then only 2-3 smaller 2-400 calorie meals earlier. Lots of women IF. and lulz at men being built for work and women for making babies- as if making babies isn't work? are you kidding me? You know the uterus can exert 100 pounds per square inch- and we never train it?? You don't think that's not work?
And you do realize we have a great capacity for recovery and can do more lifts and recover faster to lift sooner then men can? kind of makes me want to say- you'r build to do one thing and that's it- not do ACTUAL work- you know work that takes all day and has to be done day in and day out.
And if you are functioning on an ultra low calorie diet (i.e. less than 1000 calories) and lifting heavy 2 times a week YOU ARE NOT ON A ULTRA LOW CALORIE DIET.
it doesn't work that way.
and you are doing yourself absolutely zero favors and hurting what potential gains you could be making right now as a beginner.
I didn't even touch on his horrible lifting routine because it wasn't the subject here. Maxing out deadlifts even once a week is going to bring a quick stall to progress, even for a newbie. Plus as a newb, there are surely form issues that will happen, and you want to fix those when the weights are light, not during a heavy 1 rep attempt.0 -
I have one huge meal at the end of the day and then only 2-3 smaller 2-400 calorie meals earlier. Lots of women IF. and lulz at men being built for work and women for making babies- as if making babies isn't work? are you kidding me? You know the uterus can exert 100 pounds per square inch- and we never train it?? You don't think that's not work?
I for one was disappointed to find there isn't a baby making entry under cardiovascular activity. Probably a good burn.0 -
I didn't even touch on his horrible lifting routine because it wasn't the subject here. Maxing out deadlifts even once a week is going to bring a quick stall to progress, even for a newbie. Plus as a newb, there are surely form issues that will happen, and you want to fix those when the weights are light, not during a heavy 1 rep attempt.
yeah- that whole thing just hurts my brain- and what frustrates me is that it's clear there are several advanced lifters- or intermediate lifters giving him SOLID advice on how to get the most out of his workouts and lifting and he's dismissing it with a flap of a hand because it's an inconvenient truth for him. I just. I can't.
I think it's in there somewhere- but it's unfortunately low burn. Oh well- gotta make the most out of it.I for one was disappointed to find there isn't a baby making entry under cardiovascular activity. Probably a good burn.
While I don't really want babies- I have no problem practicing- and you know- you gotta practice a lot if you want to get any good at anything!!!0 -
Well uhh... I am... I am tracking my calories accurately... and I have the exact same strength I had on a 3000+ calorie diet, though I expect it won't last too long. I have to point out I was at 30% body fat 3 weeks ago. I am currently at 25%. I was borderline obese.... i had too much energy stored. And yes, I work out hard... I do strength training, and I go until I cannot do a single extra rep.
Edit: From your picture you don't look like you have more than 15% body fat or so, am I right? I imagine suddenly going low calorie would be more harmful for you.
Edit 2: I get adequate rest... I only work out twice a week.
Edit 3: In my current phase, I am not looking to make gains, but lose body fat, on a NORMAL ketogenic diet, I will expect to see some gains. My calories will be in the 3000s.
it doesn't matter what you think- or how you are doing. 500 calories is completely unsustainable- even for someone in a coma lying on a bed doing NOTHING- much less someone who is weight training.
I'm VERY VERY happy to see you're going to be eating more food.
I'm glad you are eating more. 3000 is a much more reasonable number. Seriously- massive under eating wrecks so much havoc on your body- gains- CNS and hormones.
(Also- kudo's to me- a solid deficit for steady weight loss since April- and I finally pulled 305- I've been under 300 for months- no way this happens on a severely restricted diet)
HAH- thanks- but no- I'm easily sitting at 25% or higher. I'm a fatty mc fatty right now- I just came off my bulk- I've dropped almost 12 solid pounds- but I'm still easily in the mid to high 20's. My baseline - none work days is 1700 (this is a deficit for me) and I eat upwards of 2500 on work out days.
Men are a lot more adapted to fasting states than women, therefore, your statement about low calories wrecking the body are more suitable for women than healthy men. Also, you VASTLY underestimate the role that micronutrients play in health. I was at the gym yet again for the full workout I usually do, and did fine, even did a bit more than I usually do. Women are meant (biologically) to bear children whereas men are built to work. So the woman needs a lot more micronutrients and a constant stream of energy. Studies have shown that the benefits of fasting are more numerous in men than in women. Brad Pilon did some experimenting on this.
Edit:I'd like to point out also - just losing body fat and working out 2 times a week (which is good) will not make you significant gains- which I realize you said you weren't trying to get- but you will hurt yourself long term if you have any aspiration for size or strength. In which case- (if you do) I would highly recommend getting on a solid program and lifting the hell out of it while you have a chance to maximize your newb gains.
Nah. I'm doing strength training to the max. According to an accomplished strongman, elliott hulse (605 1RM deadlift during regular training), who has very nice lifts and still has a good bodyfat %age to boot (looks to be 18-23% eyeballing it), max strength lifting is very taxing on the nervous system and shouldn't be done more than once a week. (I'm already doing it twice a week. which is kind of too much, but luckily different exercises, though I think he may have been referring to beginners like me rather than long-standing professionals)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oyf59-dPeXg skip to 1:15 holy crap, is that nice or what.
if you are doing a whole body progressive program- you shouldn't be doing max lifting. You pretty much seem to have no grasp on weight training what so ever and have no idea what you are doing.
you don't understand what you are talking about. It kind of hurts my head.
And no- I do not need a constant stream of energy for my supposed baby making machine. I don't eat till one or two in the afternoon and I function just fine. My vagina hasn't actually fallen out on the floor because I didn't eat yet today.
I have one huge meal at the end of the day and then only 2-3 smaller 2-400 calorie meals earlier. Lots of women IF. and lulz at men being built for work and women for making babies- as if making babies isn't work? are you kidding me? You know the uterus can exert 100 pounds per square inch- and we never train it?? You don't think that's not work?
And you do realize we have a great capacity for recovery and can do more lifts and recover faster to lift sooner then men can? kind of makes me want to say- you'r build to do one thing and that's it- not do ACTUAL work- you know work that takes all day and has to be done day in and day out.
And if you are functioning on an ultra low calorie diet (i.e. less than 1000 calories) and lifting heavy 2 times a week YOU ARE NOT ON A ULTRA LOW CALORIE DIET.
it doesn't work that way.
and you are doing yourself absolutely zero favors and hurting what potential gains you could be making right now as a beginner.
When I said fasting, I meant 24-72 hours, lol. ESE style. No offense, but you are not me, you don't know what I am doing, so you cannot say what I am on or not, lol. Just because you can't, doesn't mean I can't.0 -
You're kidding, right? I've been in ketosis nearly 42 months. I've also studied and researched this more than you can possibly imagine.TKD is probably unnecessary and a deep constant ketosis would work fine if you actually gave your body a chance to get used to it for a long period of time.
What they don't tell you is sources other than glucose last for anywhere from 2 to 15 seconds, tops. When pushing anaerobic for as often and as long as I do, it's simply not possible without glucose, period.Of course it doesn't appear to build as fast.... some people can have up to 10 pounds of glycogen and water in their muscles depending on their total muscle mass, when on high carb diets. It looks to be bigger, but it simply ISN'T. As for your concern about anaerobic activity, check this article from the Journal of the International Society of Sports and Nutrition: http://www.jissn.com/content/1/2/7
Specifically this paragraph:
It has also been claimed that carbohydrate provides the only macronutrient substrate whose stored energy generates ATP non-aerobically. This is not the case, however, since several studies have shown that amino acid catabolism also provides a source of anaerobic energy production [23], Aspartate, for example, can be fermented to succinate or propionate [24]. Interestingly, Ivy et al. [25] and Saunders et al. [26], reported that the addition of protein to a carbohydrate supplement enhanced endurance performance above that which occurred with carbohydrate alone.
You realize that's a study on artistic gymnasts, who by the nature of their sport don't push anaerobic, right?and a second one: http://www.jissn.com/content/9/1/34
"Those that reported negative effects of VLCKD on performance were only carried out for a time of up to 15 days [22]; but a longer period of time is necessary in order to induce the keto-adaptation [66]. This process of keto-adaptation seems to require a significant adherence to the dietary restriction of carbohydrate that needs to last at least 10/14 days to produce the positive reported effects. Individuals who intermittently consume carbohydrates during a ketogenic diet reduce their tolerance to exercise [18,19,22,58]. Our data suggest that athletes who underwent a VLCKD with adequate protein intake lost weight and improved body composition without any negative changes in strength and power performance."
FYI - I have a very-strong educational background in the science we're talking about, and I currently work in the research field ... I'm sorry if I'm rude, but I *do* know what I'm talking about when it comes to anaerobic cellular respiration, and your assumptions based on these articles are simply incorrect.
Please don't spread misinformation. I suggest you do more research and study on the biochemistry involved before extrapolating assumptions from clinical trials you don't understand.
That's incorrect. I've done HIIT sprinting while 60+ hour fasted, as in NO FOOD whatsoever, only water.
Edit: 60 hour fasted is a much harsher condition than ketosis, as the body has not yet manufactured enough ketone producing bodies to keep up with high intensity exercise.
You must be doing something wrong if you're in deep ketosis that long and still need carbs. Are you getting enough salt? You need a lot more salt when on a ketogenic diet. Are you sleeping between the hours of 11 P.M. and 6 A.M. at least? Do you get enough micronutrients?0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Well there's always becoming a Beach Body coach.:laugh:I wonder how many other things in life we can do for 2 months via application and become experts.
Okay back ON TOPIC.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness industry for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
Well there's always becoming a Beach Body coach.:laugh:I wonder how many other things in life we can do for 2 months via application and become experts.
Okay back ON TOPIC.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness industry for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
^reported
Oh, wait...sorry...was compulsory reaction.0 -
When I said fasting, I meant 24-72 hours, lol. ESE style. No offense, but you are not me, you don't know what I am doing, so you cannot say what I am on or not, lol. Just because you can't, doesn't mean I can't.
1.) you need to stick to story, because it keeps changing.
2.) I only know what you tell me. (Thus far not impressed)
3.) I've been lifting my whole life- so I think I know a thing or two about this.
4.) you're right- I'm not you- but there is no way you think you can do something I cannot by sheer force of will.
I train for hours a week as a lifter and a dancer- I work 3 jobs. I am training a russian power lifting program (the russians- they know more than you- check their gold medal record in power lifting)-I'm training through one of the toughest dance programs in my field with significant outside work from outside world class artists.
I get less sleep than anyone I know- and I do more things than anyone I know.
You aren't doing something that I could not do.
I know my body- and I know what works. I can function on low calories. And I know I'm busier than you. But I am smart enough to know how it's impacting me and when I need more sleep or more food.
There is no conceivable way you training 1 or 2 times a week think you are achieving something insurmountable on too few calories or doing something bad *kitten*.
Either you are eating more than you think- or you training program is weak sauce. And either way- it's unwise to continue and it's unwise to continue to brag about it.
And I would suggest that you would do wise not imply you have some sort of greater internal strength to press through a fasted work out for days on end and know better than hundreds of years of experience.
Because I'll be honest with you- I highly doubt that you do.
sounds like a perfect fit for him!!!I wonder how many other things in life we can do for 2 months via application and become experts.
Well there's always becoming a Beach Body coach.laugh
Okay back ON TOPIC.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions