Carb Cycling

MeekMeals

I know that I've seen a post before about "carb cycling". So instead of looking back through thousands of posts, I'm just going to put it back out there.

For those who are or have ever carb cycled, did you like it, did you get good results from it, how long did you do it and are you still doing it?

Thanks!
T

cutelashawn

bump i would like to know too

CrimsonHellkite

In my opinion, carb cycling is the most promising fat loss concept around. With carb cycling it appears you get the rapid fat loss of a low-carb diet and the ability to drop your bodyfat to a very low level without cannibalizing muscle mass or without the many other drawbacks associated with a low-carb diet. Carb cycling is an advanced technique requiring true dedication, its not for the casual person trying to lose a few pounds. Carb cycling is appropriate if you can answer yes to any 2 of these:

you are over 18 years old
you are in perfect health
you currently have 6-pack abs (under 10% bodyfat)
you are a competing bodybuilder or model who needs to get down to 3-6% bodyfat.
you have very strong willpower and don't need cheat meals

MeekMeals

In my opinion, carb cycling is the most promising fat loss concept around. With carb cycling it appears you get the rapid fat loss of a low-carb diet and the ability to drop your bodyfat to a very low level without cannibalizing muscle mass or without the many other drawbacks associated with a low-carb diet. Carb cycling is an advanced technique requiring true dedication, its not for the casual person trying to lose a few pounds. Carb cycling is appropriate if you can answer yes to any 2 of these:

you are over 18 years old
you are in perfect health
you currently have 6-pack abs (under 10% bodyfat)
you are a competing bodybuilder or model who needs to get down to 3-6% bodyfat.
you have very strong willpower and don't need cheat meals

Cool, I have two "easily"... LOL! But seriously, I do....

beernutz

Bodybuilders frequently use one of two different carb cycling diets: a CKD (cyclical ketogenic diet) or a TKD (targeted ketogenic diet). Reports are typically good from what I've read. I did a pretty strict CKD for over 6 months several years ago and went from over 26% body fat to 14% while in my 40s. I looked and felt as great as I ever have in my life as I was also doing three weight workouts per week (with lots of squats and deadlifts) and running regularly. However, the CKD was just too hard for me to maintain indefinitely because it was a disruption to my entire family's eating habits. Everything kind of revolved around me and my carb up days.

Because I'm lazy I'm just going to copy a comparison of each I found elsewhere:

Main difference between TKD and CKD:

In TKD, small amounts of carbs are used before, during and/or after exercise to provide muscle glycogen. This way, you increase your performance because you replenish the glycogen stores without causing major insulin/blood glucose swings. It is well known that anaerobic activity tends to lower insulin levels. You consume 25-50 grams of carbs about 30-60 minutes before, or immediately after training.

You will return to ketosis a few hours later. Fat intake should be avoided when taking in carbs via the chosen source.

In CKD large amounts of carbohydrates are introduced for short periods. Usually you carb-up on the weekends for anywhere from 12-36 hours. This is like 5 or 6 days of a strict ketogenic diet, followed by 1-2 day(s) of carb-up. Dan Duchaine recommends 16g carbs per kg lbm during the first 24 hours, and 9g/kg lbm the second 24 hours. On the first day, carb calories make up 70% of daily caloric consumption, protein 15% and fat 15%. On the second day, carbs make up 60%, protein 20% and fat 20%.

TateFTW

I follow a carb cycling plan based on my training. If I'm training on a given day I'll eat carbs and avoid fats on the day (this is most days, as I prepare for military life), then on rest days I'll go low carb with lots of eggs, salads, beef, chicken, and reduced fat cheese. On training days I usually have subway for lunch, which is about 4 hours before training. I wish it was more like 1-2 hours, but this is what my schedule is for now. After training I'll have plenty of carbs with some protein.

I always avoid fat when I take in carbs, because the insulin response from carbs makes your body store more of the fat.

I always avoid carbs after 9:00, which has NOTHING to do with fat storing, and everything to do with the fact that an insulin spike reduces the bodies ability to produce human growth hormone, which helps my body repair itself at night.

If I were more worried about cutting fat, I'd avoid carbs all the time excpet before and after training, but cutting fat is not nearly as important to me as increasing performance.

MeekMeals

Beernutz and Tate:

Thank! My ultimate goal is definitely to lower my body fat % and to become leaner and more defined from my weight training and if the scale goes down I'll like that too. I'm thinking about giving it a try. Someone typed up a plan for me (like what exactly to eat) which hits all my macros. This will be easier for me in the beginning, I think... We'll see how it goes

TateFTW

Good luck! Remember, whenever you use a strict plan, you have to stick to it right to see if it works. If you decide to make a change, only make one at a time so you can see how that specific change affects your results. Strict dieting is all about controlled experimentation.

mynameisuntz

Anyone saying carb cycling is the best in any fashion is too easily deceived by the scale, and forgets that a single carb = 3-5g water. The fluctuations in water weight alone will show people losing pounds over the course of a couple days.

Unless you're insulin resistant and partaking in heavy training, there's really zero need or benefit to carb cycling. Zero.

mynameisnutz

Unless you're insulin resistant and partaking in heavy training, there's really zero need or benefit to carb cycling. Zero.

Not true. Telling myself that I'm "carb cycling" makes me feel less guilty when I eat an entire pizza by myself on long endurance workout days.

mynameisuntz

Not true. Telling myself that I'm "carb cycling" makes me feel less guilty when I eat an entire pizza by myself on long endurance workout days.

Hey, I hear if it fits your macros, it's all fair game.

But that just sounds like some kind of nonsensical BS!

mynameisnutz

Hey, I hear if it fits your macros, it's all fair game.

But that just sounds like some kind of nonsensical BS!

Yep, you got me. I've actually never even uttered the words "carb cycling." And I've definitely never felt guilty for eating a whole pizza.

beernutz

Anyone saying carb cycling is the best in any fashion is too easily deceived by the scale, and forgets that a single carb = 3-5g water. The fluctuations in water weight alone will show people losing pounds over the course of a couple days.

Unless you're insulin resistant and partaking in heavy training, there's really zero need or benefit to carb cycling. Zero.

That is your opinion, do you have evidence to back it up? Have you ever actually done carb cycling?

For the record, I don't believe anyone responding to this thread said carb cycling was the best at anything so why you chose to attack that straw man is a bit of a mystery.

mynameisuntz

That is your opinion, do you have evidence to back it up? Have you ever actually done carb cycling?

For the record, I don't believe anyone responding to this thread said carb cycling was the best at anything so why you chose to attack that straw man is a bit of a mystery.

What is with people not understanding how scientific debate works? YOU make the claim, YOU back it up. I am taking the stance of the null hypothesis, which means the independent variable (carb cycling) has no added effect on the dependent variable (body composition) compared to other similar diets ASSUMING the person is not insulin resistant or diabetic or something. Anyone who goes against the null hypothesis, which you'll see in a moment, is the one who must provide evidence. That's how science works.

Funny how I wasn't even directing that comment towards anyone, yet after taking a quick gander at the thread, found this comment within a few posts:

In my opinion, carb cycling is the most promising fat loss concept around.

sh0ck

Ultimately it has come down to that no one has provided proof of anything. Some people say this works, other people say something else works. I just don't see enough literary backing in a lot of the arguments on these forums and it kind of feels like the blind leading the blind. I believe there are studies out there that have been done but I haven't seen them (and personally, I haven't really looked).


I heard this thing once. I read this thing on the internet. My dad told me this. I tried this and it worked.

beernutz

That is your opinion, do you have evidence to back it up? Have you ever actually done carb cycling?

For the record, I don't believe anyone responding to this thread said carb cycling was the best at anything so why you chose to attack that straw man is a bit of a mystery.

What is with people not understanding how scientific debate works? YOU make the claim, YOU back it up. I am taking the stance of the null hypothesis, which means the independent variable (carb cycling) has no added effect on the dependent variable (body composition) compared to other similar diets ASSUMING the person is not insulin resistant or diabetic or something. Anyone who goes against the null hypothesis, which you'll see in a moment, is the one who must provide evidence. That's how science works.

Funny how I wasn't even directing that comment towards anyone, yet after taking a quick gander at the thread, found this comment within a few posts:

In my opinion, carb cycling is the most promising fat loss concept around.

What is it with YOU and hypocritical posting? YOU made the claim that carb cycling was NOT the best in any fashion. All I asked was for you to provide some evidence to support your claim, just as you seem to love to ask everyone else to do. Otherwise you = hypocrite.

mynameisuntz

What is it with YOU and hypocritical posting? YOU made the claim that carb cycling was NOT the best in any fashion. All I asked was for you to provide some evidence to support your claim, just as you seem to love to ask everyone else to do. Otherwise you = hypocrite.

Let me teach you how science works:

Behind every hypothesis is the null hypothesis. This, for simplistic purposes, implies the status quo. When you make the hypothesis that carb cycling is the optimum diet, the null hypothesis is "carb cycling is not the optimum diet," and taking it one step further, the universal null hypothesis regarding diets is: there IS NO optimum diet.

If you want to prove the null hypothesis wrong, YOU have the prove it. As I am on the side of the null hypothesis, I do NOT have the prove it. Similarly the null hypothesis regarding the existence of unicorns would be, "unicorns do not exist." Someone who supports that null hypothesis does NOT have to prove that unicorns don't exist, but someone who challenges the null hypothesis DOES have to prove that unicorns exist.

Making a claim that goes against the null hypothesis implies THAT person has to provide the evidence. I am siding with the null hypothesis by saying a carb cycling-based diet is not THE best diet.

sh0ck

What is it with YOU and hypocritical posting? YOU made the claim that carb cycling was NOT the best in any fashion. All I asked was for you to provide some evidence to support your claim, just as you seem to love to ask everyone else to do. Otherwise you = hypocrite.

Let me teach you how science works:

Behind every hypothesis is the null hypothesis. This, for simplistic purposes, implies the status quo. When you make the hypothesis that carb cycling is the optimum diet, the null hypothesis is "carb cycling is not the optimum diet," and taking it one step further, the universal null hypothesis regarding diets is: there IS NO optimum diet.

If you want to prove the null hypothesis wrong, YOU have the prove it. As I am on the side of the null hypothesis, I do NOT have the prove it. Similarly the null hypothesis regarding the existence of unicorns would be, "unicorns do not exist." Someone who supports that null hypothesis does NOT have to prove that unicorns don't exist, but someone who challenges the null hypothesis DOES have to prove that unicorns exist.

Making a claim that goes against the null hypothesis implies THAT person has to provide the evidence. I am siding with the null hypothesis by saying a carb cycling-based diet is not THE best diet.

You make a valid point.

mynameisuntz

You make a valid point.

Well thanks, but I owe it all to my statistics and research courses!

Realize that the null hypothesis can be proven wrong, but in this particular field, it's tough to prove it wrong from a universal perspective. But it can be done. If I made the hypothesis, "a high protein diet is superior to a low protein diet in regards to body recomposition," I would say that's something I can defend pretty well through research. And if I make that claim (which I have), I am the one who has to find evidence to support it. The counter side does NOT have to find evidence to prove my stance wrong.

Thus, those claiming carb cycling is optimal must prove it. I don't have to prove they're wrong; they have to prove they're right.

mynameisnutz

What is it with YOU and hypocritical posting? YOU made the claim that carb cycling was NOT the best in any fashion. All I asked was for you to provide some evidence to support your claim, just as you seem to love to ask everyone else to do. Otherwise you = hypocrite.

Let me see if I can simplify this for you.

Scientifically, the simplest, most logical statement that you can make regarding diet is "there is no optimum diet." This is the starting point.

From here, you can make a statement contrary to this, but you have to prove why what you are saying is true.

Do you see why this is? Otherwise, replace "Carb cycling is the most promising fat loss concept around" with "My 8000 calorie marshmallow and fudge diet is the most promising fat loss concept around." It is not up to YOU to prove that 8000 calories of marshmallows and fudge are not better than "there is no optimum diet." It's up to ME to prove that what I just said is true.

sh0ck

You make a valid point.

Well thanks, but I owe it all to my statistics and research courses!

Realize that the null hypothesis can be proven wrong, but in this particular field, it's tough to prove it wrong from a universal perspective. But it can be done. If I made the hypothesis, "a high protein diet is superior to a low protein diet in regards to body recomposition," I would say that's something I can defend pretty well through research. And if I make that claim (which I have), I am the one who has to find evidence to support it. The counter side does NOT have to find evidence to prove my stance wrong.

Thus, those claiming carb cycling is optimal must prove it. I don't have to prove they're wrong; they have to prove they're right.

I am completely agreeing with you. It's a breath of fresh air to see others with that scientific mindset.

I have my M.S. in Statistics and am currently a statistician at a rehab hospital.

mynameisuntz

I am completely agreeing with you. It's a breath of fresh air to see others with that scientific mindset.

I have my M.S. in Statistics and am currently a statistician at a rehab hospital.

Hot damn I'm preaching to the choir. Your experience surely outweighs mine as I'm still just a lowly holder of a BA! Preparing for the GRE to get back to grad school as we speak.

brit49

Read later, good post

beernutz

What is it with YOU and hypocritical posting? YOU made the claim that carb cycling was NOT the best in any fashion. All I asked was for you to provide some evidence to support your claim, just as you seem to love to ask everyone else to do. Otherwise you = hypocrite.

Let me teach you how science works:

Behind every hypothesis is the null hypothesis. This, for simplistic purposes, implies the status quo. When you make the hypothesis that carb cycling is the optimum diet, the null hypothesis is "carb cycling is not the optimum diet," and taking it one step further, the universal null hypothesis regarding diets is: there IS NO optimum diet.

If you want to prove the null hypothesis wrong, YOU have the prove it. As I am on the side of the null hypothesis, I do NOT have the prove it. Similarly the null hypothesis regarding the existence of unicorns would be, "unicorns do not exist." Someone who supports that null hypothesis does NOT have to prove that unicorns don't exist, but someone who challenges the null hypothesis DOES have to prove that unicorns exist.

Making a claim that goes against the null hypothesis implies THAT person has to provide the evidence. I am siding with the null hypothesis by saying a carb cycling-based diet is not THE best diet.

You both misunderstand the application of the null hypothesis in this situation and exhibit a childishly condescending attitude.

If I for example made the claim, that "Porche 911 is not the best car for off-roading", that is easily provable by me by providing evidence that a better car exists for that purpose. Similarly, your claim is that "Carb loading is not the best approach to fat loss" should be easily provable by you by providing a single counter example of one that is the same or better. All I asked was for you to provide some evidence that validates your claim.

mynameisuntz

You both misunderstand the application of the null hypothesis in this situation and exhibit a childishly condescending attitude.

If I for example made the claim, that "Porche 911 is not the best car for off-roading", that is easily provable by me by providing evidence that a better car exists for that purpose. Similarly, your claim is that "Carb loading is not the best approach to fat loss" should be easily provable by you by providing a single counter example of one that is the same or better. All I asked was for you to provide some evidence that validates your claim.

Then look up the definition of the word:

"The null hypothesis typically corresponds to a general or default position. For example, the null hypothesis might be that there is no relationship between two measured phenomena, or that a potential treatment has no effect."

The general or default position is that the potential treatment (carb cycling) has no added benefits to fat loss/body composition: the independent variable (carb cycling) has no added effect on dependent variable (fat loss/body composition).

It doesn't matter how easily provable something is. That's irrelevant to the null hypothesis. What is relevant is who makes the claim that goes against the null hypothesis, or default position, as it is that person's responsibility to provide evidence. Those standing by the null hypothesis do not provide counter evidence.

Furthermore - I have never come across a study that compares carb cycling to a diet that is comparable in macronutrients. Until that study comes, the claims revolving around carb cycling can't be verified.