Can you build muscle in a low carb diet?

2»

Replies

  • misnomer1
    misnomer1 Posts: 648 Member
    edited September 2017
    Mark Bell and Layne Norton.....when them two dudes speak, I shut up and listen! Dr. Norton can seem like a pompous *kitten* at times, but it is really passion speaking. Most of the time.

    Anyway, carbs are important. For most. But not the biggest part of the equation. Building muscle requires - going to keep this very basic and bottom-line - four things:

    1. adherence
    2. caloric surplus
    3. resistance training
    4. recovery

    So, find a program that works for you and follow it / stick to it. If you do not do this then everything else is pointless. Thus, this is my #1.

    To build muscles - and that is your specific question - you need to feed the machine. So, you need to eat. My #2.

    My #3 is that you then need to pound the heck out of your muscles. Whatever that means for you. You are talking about building muscles? That *can* mean different things to different folks. There is building muscles like Arnold (straight up huge) or there is building muscles like Rob Lipsett (big-ish but very aesthetic) or there is "toned". So, whatever that might mean to you....and that is for you to define.....you will need to follow the appropriate program.

    And, naturally, you need to allow your body to recover. So, if that means 10 hours of sleep, for you, then that is what you need to do. If that means three days no training for that body part, then that is what you need.

    Make sense?

    So, no where in there was "carbs". That would | could be in my #2. It is going to be different for everyone. I knew a dude when I was at another gym....45yo Army dude and he was pretty big, pretty dang strong and pretty dang fit...but he told me that if he ate more than 100g of Carbs then he would blow up (translation - gain body fat like crazy). We are all different.

    What works for you?

    Mark bell uses steroids. He admits it all the time. So, I would not pay much heed to his opinions about ketogenic diet and muscle building.
  • ninerbuff
    ninerbuff Posts: 45,866 Member
    Read about the golden era diet, they seemed to have done low carbs, but how did they build the muscles


    people love to throw around the term calorie surplus but have 0 training in being an actual personal trainer.

    i can tell you that the single, most effective, and powerful way to increase muscle mass is to get your sleep under control.. why?

    while youre sleeping, you release something called "human growth hormone" which is when your body repairs itself and grows your muscle.

    if you want some tips on getting better sleep, feel free to message me :)
    While rest is important, you can't just build muscle just because your hormone levels are higher WITHOUT supplying enough calories to build more tissue. Also, HGH isn't only responsible for growth, but fat burning at rest where it's more prevalent for muscle definition.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

    9285851.png

  • donkey9512
    donkey9512 Posts: 60 Member
    edited September 2017
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    Ketogenesis refers to the creation of ketone in the liver that occurs when the body is desperate for energy due to low carbohydrate availability. The body has complex sensing mechanisms that respond to energy availability and body weight. For example, mTOR is a powerful signaling pathway that responds to changes in energy, nutrients, and growth factors. Nutrients and growth factors activate mTOR, which promotes muscle protein synthesis. Energy deprivation and ketosis suppresses the pathway. When the body is well fed and growing, mTOR is "turned on;" conversely, when energy (most strongly affected by glucose availability to the cell) is low, mTOR is "turned off." Bodybuilders are most interested in activating mTOR in muscle, as well as turning it off in fat tissue. Unfortunately, the natural signals are generally not tissue-specific, meaning that what increases muscle-building also tends to promote fat gain; the opposite is also true, to increase fat loss, one risks increasing muscle loss. This may account for some degree of the association of muscle loss during dieting. Ketogenic diets restrict carbohydrate intake to 10 to 20 grams per day.



    Will following a ketogenic diet reduce muscle gains or promote muscle loss? Sadly, it appears this may be the case, particularly for drug-free bodybuilders. Ketogenic diets cause much lower blood insulin levels than normal. High levels of insulin activate the mTOR pathway and increases muscle growth. Studies in children on ketogenic diets have shown that they experience growth impairments in height and mass.



    Very low-carbohydrate diets increase muscle loss in drug-free bodybuilders. The loss of anabolic/anti-catabolic signaling from reduced insulin concentrations, along with increased thyroid hormone activity (a catabolic hormone), and reduced resting testosterone levels, combine to promote muscle loss and inhibit muscle gains.




    In recent professional bodybuilding shows, some athletes failed to reach former levels of competitiveness. No names will be mentioned out of respect for the efforts and frustration these men endured. Some of these athletes followed a ketogenic plan. Even for drug-enhanced bodybuilders, a ketogenic diet may produce a minor but significant deficit that can mean the difference between winning and losing.



    When dieting, people seek the fastest and most effective way to lose fat. For athletes and bodybuilders, ketogenic dieting is counterproductive. Muscle loss is too high a price to pay for reduced fat.



    References



    Adam-Perrot A, Clifton P, et al. Low-carbohydrate diets: nutritional and physiological aspects. Obes Rev, 2006 Feb;7(1):49-58.



    Bolster DR, Jefferson LS, et al. Regulation of protein synthesis associated with skeletal muscle hypertrophy by insulin-, amino acid- and exercise-induced signalling. Proc Nutr Soc, 2004 May;63(2):351-6.



    Langfort JL, Zarzeczny R, et al. The effect of low-carbohydrate diet on the pattern of hormonal changes during incremental, graded exercise in young men. Int J Sport Nutr Exerc Metab, 2001 Jun;11(2):248-57.



    Matsakas A, Patel K. Intracellular signalling pathways regulating the adaptation of skeletal muscle to exercise and nutritional changes. Histol Histopathol, 2009 Feb;24(2):209-22.



    McCarthy JJ, Esser KA. Anabolic and catabolic pathways regulating skeletal muscle mass. Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care, 2010 May;13(3):230-5.



    McDaniel SS, Rensing NR, et al. The ketogenic diet inhibits the mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) pathway. Epilepsia, 2011 Mar;52(3):e7-e11.



    Neal EG, Chaffe HM, et al. Growth of children on classical and medium-chain triglyceride ketogenic diets. Pediatrics, 2008 Aug;122(2):e334-40.

    Weinheimer EM, Sands LP, et al. A systematic review of the separate and combined effects of energy restriction and exercise on fat-free mass in middle-aged and older adults: implications for sarcopenic obesity. Nutr Rev, 2010 Jul;68(7):375-88.

    Reprint from Muscular Development.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

    9285851.png

    Thanks for quoting that insightful, well researched article. I am relieved that I don't have to go all keto and give up my spaghetti in order to get ripped! Ok, ok, maybe just eat a little bit less of everything)
  • Gallowmere1984
    Gallowmere1984 Posts: 6,626 Member
    misnomer1 wrote: »
    Mark Bell and Layne Norton.....when them two dudes speak, I shut up and listen! Dr. Norton can seem like a pompous *kitten* at times, but it is really passion speaking. Most of the time.

    Anyway, carbs are important. For most. But not the biggest part of the equation. Building muscle requires - going to keep this very basic and bottom-line - four things:

    1. adherence
    2. caloric surplus
    3. resistance training
    4. recovery

    So, find a program that works for you and follow it / stick to it. If you do not do this then everything else is pointless. Thus, this is my #1.

    To build muscles - and that is your specific question - you need to feed the machine. So, you need to eat. My #2.

    My #3 is that you then need to pound the heck out of your muscles. Whatever that means for you. You are talking about building muscles? That *can* mean different things to different folks. There is building muscles like Arnold (straight up huge) or there is building muscles like Rob Lipsett (big-ish but very aesthetic) or there is "toned". So, whatever that might mean to you....and that is for you to define.....you will need to follow the appropriate program.

    And, naturally, you need to allow your body to recover. So, if that means 10 hours of sleep, for you, then that is what you need to do. If that means three days no training for that body part, then that is what you need.

    Make sense?

    So, no where in there was "carbs". That would | could be in my #2. It is going to be different for everyone. I knew a dude when I was at another gym....45yo Army dude and he was pretty big, pretty dang strong and pretty dang fit...but he told me that if he ate more than 100g of Carbs then he would blow up (translation - gain body fat like crazy). We are all different.

    What works for you?

    Mark bell uses steroids. He admits it all the time. So, I would not pay much heed to his opinions about ketogenic diet and muscle building.

    Mark does use gear, but quite a lot of the more prolific guys who have come through SuperTraining over the years and agree with most of what he says, do not. Spend some time listening to all of the back episodes of his Powercast, and you'll pretty quickly ditch this silly *kitten* "dude uses steroids so his advice is void" crap.

    Even listening to the old interactions between he and Silent Mike was telling. Mike always took a high carb IIFYM approach, and never once did I hear Mark try to convince him to go all "war on carbs".

    Mark deals with a lot of extremely fat powerlifters often; this is a group of people who can benefit from low-carb dieting, just as a morbidly obese couch jockey can.
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 19,349 Member
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    Yes, but it is best to become fat adapted first (i.e. transition skeletal muscles to primarily using fat for energy rather than glucose) and then make sure to get both plenty of protein and plenty of fat. When fat adapted, most of your energy will come from fat, not glucose. As long as you get sufficient protein, a fat adapted person should get just as much muscle gain from a protein and fat-based diet as a 'normal' person on a protein and carb-based diet.

    Get enough energy to power muscles (fat or glucose, depending upon your specific body and whether you are fat adapted) and additional whole proteins in order to provide amino acids to create new muscle tissue.

    The only confounding factor is that unlike muscles, your brain and central nervous system cannot directly oxidize fat for energy. You will still need some glucose, though ketones will also fuel your brain. We all need around 120g-130g per day of glucose without ketones. Ketones reduce that amount by approx. 10% per 1 mmol/l of blood ketones. In order to get that glucose, you can consume some small amounts of glucose and remain in ketosis while consuming additional protein to convert to glucose via gluconeogenesis - this happens at 58% efficiency.

    Yes, you can do it, but become fat adapted first. Next, be sure to eat sufficient protein to have both have glucose to power your brain (supplemental to whatever small amount of carbs you eat) and enough to build muscle. Finally, get enough fat in your diet to fuel skeletal muscles.
    Not according to study above. INSULIN levels do matter in muscle hypertrophy for signaling mTOR.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

    9285851.png


    I didn't read the study yet and won't have a chance until later, but your description sounds like this study was done on people who are NOT fat adapted. And of course that is the result I would expect in such case.

    To expand on that, here is the part that is different with those who are fat adapted:
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    When the body is well fed and growing, mTOR is "turned on;" conversely, when energy (most strongly affected by glucose availability to the cell) is low, mTOR is "turned off."

    Last time I was tested (4/14/17), 93% of my resting energy comes from fat and not glucose. This is because I am fat adapted, therefore I get most of my energy from fat and not glucose. Those of us who are fat adapted mostly use fat for energy, so the idea that energy is "strongly affected by glucose availability" is not true for us. Again, I haven't had a chance to read the study yet, but it sounds like they used test subjects who primarily use glucose for energy in skeletal muscles.

    An error made by all researchers up until the mid-1990's, and probably is still made by some researchers even today, is that they will test low carb dieters who are new to low carb without providing sufficient time to become fat adapted before using them as research subjects.

    Looking at my 2 VO2max tests, which start with sitting measurements (but not considered RMR level test) - showed about same %.

    Unless you've just eaten a meal with very little fat in it to use (which you aren't supposed to be doing the CO2 test after eating for that reason), any body is around that % of fat as energy source. You were not special in that regard.

    The only place it's different for you, if by fat-adapted you mean ketones produced, is your brain and that smallish energy source being not glucose as it might normally be.

    But only 93% - you weren't that different there then.

    This misnomer that your body is sitting around the vast majority of the day burning glucose as primary energy source - where does that even come from!

    If you start with that incorrect foundation - then you can build this shaky wall that by using keytones you aren't using carbs anymore.

    Go do a VO2max test and see how the carb usage ramps up as intensity ramps up just like everyone else. Except for what your brain is using different of course.
    And while it is a bigger metabolically active organ, it's not the biggest.
  • AnvilHead
    AnvilHead Posts: 18,514 Member
    Last time I was tested (4/14/17), 93% of my resting energy comes from fat and not glucose...
    Congratulations on being just like everybody else.

    ...This is because I am fat adapted, therefore I get most of my energy from fat and not glucose...
    No, it's because fat is the primary substrate used while at rest. Just like everybody else. Regardless of the macro composition of your diet.
  • T1DCarnivoreRunner
    T1DCarnivoreRunner Posts: 11,415 Member
    heybales wrote: »
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    Yes, but it is best to become fat adapted first (i.e. transition skeletal muscles to primarily using fat for energy rather than glucose) and then make sure to get both plenty of protein and plenty of fat. When fat adapted, most of your energy will come from fat, not glucose. As long as you get sufficient protein, a fat adapted person should get just as much muscle gain from a protein and fat-based diet as a 'normal' person on a protein and carb-based diet.

    Get enough energy to power muscles (fat or glucose, depending upon your specific body and whether you are fat adapted) and additional whole proteins in order to provide amino acids to create new muscle tissue.

    The only confounding factor is that unlike muscles, your brain and central nervous system cannot directly oxidize fat for energy. You will still need some glucose, though ketones will also fuel your brain. We all need around 120g-130g per day of glucose without ketones. Ketones reduce that amount by approx. 10% per 1 mmol/l of blood ketones. In order to get that glucose, you can consume some small amounts of glucose and remain in ketosis while consuming additional protein to convert to glucose via gluconeogenesis - this happens at 58% efficiency.

    Yes, you can do it, but become fat adapted first. Next, be sure to eat sufficient protein to have both have glucose to power your brain (supplemental to whatever small amount of carbs you eat) and enough to build muscle. Finally, get enough fat in your diet to fuel skeletal muscles.
    Not according to study above. INSULIN levels do matter in muscle hypertrophy for signaling mTOR.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

    9285851.png


    I didn't read the study yet and won't have a chance until later, but your description sounds like this study was done on people who are NOT fat adapted. And of course that is the result I would expect in such case.

    To expand on that, here is the part that is different with those who are fat adapted:
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    When the body is well fed and growing, mTOR is "turned on;" conversely, when energy (most strongly affected by glucose availability to the cell) is low, mTOR is "turned off."

    Last time I was tested (4/14/17), 93% of my resting energy comes from fat and not glucose. This is because I am fat adapted, therefore I get most of my energy from fat and not glucose. Those of us who are fat adapted mostly use fat for energy, so the idea that energy is "strongly affected by glucose availability" is not true for us. Again, I haven't had a chance to read the study yet, but it sounds like they used test subjects who primarily use glucose for energy in skeletal muscles.

    An error made by all researchers up until the mid-1990's, and probably is still made by some researchers even today, is that they will test low carb dieters who are new to low carb without providing sufficient time to become fat adapted before using them as research subjects.

    Looking at my 2 VO2max tests, which start with sitting measurements (but not considered RMR level test) - showed about same %.

    Unless you've just eaten a meal with very little fat in it to use (which you aren't supposed to be doing the CO2 test after eating for that reason), any body is around that % of fat as energy source. You were not special in that regard.

    The only place it's different for you, if by fat-adapted you mean ketones produced, is your brain and that smallish energy source being not glucose as it might normally be.

    But only 93% - you weren't that different there then.

    This misnomer that your body is sitting around the vast majority of the day burning glucose as primary energy source - where does that even come from!

    If you start with that incorrect foundation - then you can build this shaky wall that by using keytones you aren't using carbs anymore.

    Go do a VO2max test and see how the carb usage ramps up as intensity ramps up just like everyone else. Except for what your brain is using different of course.
    And while it is a bigger metabolically active organ, it's not the biggest.

    I did a VO2Max also. If everyone is the same, then why would RER even be tested?

    Here is another interesting factor: I manage BG manually as a type 1 diabetic. If I use glucose for exercise, BG should decrease unless I add glucose (happens in one of 4 ways, not all of which are directly controllable). Since I use a CGM, I can see what is happening during exercise with glucose. This is somethong else that tells me whether I am primarily fueling activity with glucose or fat.
  • sijomial
    sijomial Posts: 19,149 Member
    edited September 2017
    heybales wrote: »
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    Yes, but it is best to become fat adapted first (i.e. transition skeletal muscles to primarily using fat for energy rather than glucose) and then make sure to get both plenty of protein and plenty of fat. When fat adapted, most of your energy will come from fat, not glucose. As long as you get sufficient protein, a fat adapted person should get just as much muscle gain from a protein and fat-based diet as a 'normal' person on a protein and carb-based diet.

    Get enough energy to power muscles (fat or glucose, depending upon your specific body and whether you are fat adapted) and additional whole proteins in order to provide amino acids to create new muscle tissue.

    The only confounding factor is that unlike muscles, your brain and central nervous system cannot directly oxidize fat for energy. You will still need some glucose, though ketones will also fuel your brain. We all need around 120g-130g per day of glucose without ketones. Ketones reduce that amount by approx. 10% per 1 mmol/l of blood ketones. In order to get that glucose, you can consume some small amounts of glucose and remain in ketosis while consuming additional protein to convert to glucose via gluconeogenesis - this happens at 58% efficiency.

    Yes, you can do it, but become fat adapted first. Next, be sure to eat sufficient protein to have both have glucose to power your brain (supplemental to whatever small amount of carbs you eat) and enough to build muscle. Finally, get enough fat in your diet to fuel skeletal muscles.
    Not according to study above. INSULIN levels do matter in muscle hypertrophy for signaling mTOR.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

    9285851.png


    I didn't read the study yet and won't have a chance until later, but your description sounds like this study was done on people who are NOT fat adapted. And of course that is the result I would expect in such case.

    To expand on that, here is the part that is different with those who are fat adapted:
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    When the body is well fed and growing, mTOR is "turned on;" conversely, when energy (most strongly affected by glucose availability to the cell) is low, mTOR is "turned off."

    Last time I was tested (4/14/17), 93% of my resting energy comes from fat and not glucose. This is because I am fat adapted, therefore I get most of my energy from fat and not glucose. Those of us who are fat adapted mostly use fat for energy, so the idea that energy is "strongly affected by glucose availability" is not true for us. Again, I haven't had a chance to read the study yet, but it sounds like they used test subjects who primarily use glucose for energy in skeletal muscles.

    An error made by all researchers up until the mid-1990's, and probably is still made by some researchers even today, is that they will test low carb dieters who are new to low carb without providing sufficient time to become fat adapted before using them as research subjects.

    Looking at my 2 VO2max tests, which start with sitting measurements (but not considered RMR level test) - showed about same %.

    Unless you've just eaten a meal with very little fat in it to use (which you aren't supposed to be doing the CO2 test after eating for that reason), any body is around that % of fat as energy source. You were not special in that regard.

    The only place it's different for you, if by fat-adapted you mean ketones produced, is your brain and that smallish energy source being not glucose as it might normally be.

    But only 93% - you weren't that different there then.

    This misnomer that your body is sitting around the vast majority of the day burning glucose as primary energy source - where does that even come from!

    If you start with that incorrect foundation - then you can build this shaky wall that by using keytones you aren't using carbs anymore.

    Go do a VO2max test and see how the carb usage ramps up as intensity ramps up just like everyone else. Except for what your brain is using different of course.
    And while it is a bigger metabolically active organ, it's not the biggest.

    I did a VO2Max also. If everyone is the same, then why would RER even be tested?

    Here is another interesting factor: I manage BG manually as a type 1 diabetic. If I use glucose for exercise, BG should decrease unless I add glucose (happens in one of 4 ways, not all of which are directly controllable). Since I use a CGM, I can see what is happening during exercise with glucose. This is somethong else that tells me whether I am primarily fueling activity with glucose or fat.

    Everybody is the same in that at rest the vast majority of fuel being used comes from fat. Your resting fuel use is simply not unusual.

    Of course people's RER varies during exercise and between different people - it's measured during a proper VO2 max test by the ratio of carbon dioxide to oxygen in the gas you breathe out.
    In a ramp test it starts with majority of fat being used, as intensity increases carb use takes over as the major fuel up to the point you switch from aerobic to anaerobic metabolism as you get to maximal effort. (RER value of 1.15 and over can be used to assess if the effort was maximal.)

    For endurance athletes the ratio of the fuel substrate being used at different heart rates is useful ('ish) information.
    For example I could plod along all day long at 130bpm using about a 50/50 split of carbs and fat.
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 19,349 Member
    edited September 2017
    heybales wrote: »
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    Yes, but it is best to become fat adapted first (i.e. transition skeletal muscles to primarily using fat for energy rather than glucose) and then make sure to get both plenty of protein and plenty of fat. When fat adapted, most of your energy will come from fat, not glucose. As long as you get sufficient protein, a fat adapted person should get just as much muscle gain from a protein and fat-based diet as a 'normal' person on a protein and carb-based diet.

    Get enough energy to power muscles (fat or glucose, depending upon your specific body and whether you are fat adapted) and additional whole proteins in order to provide amino acids to create new muscle tissue.

    The only confounding factor is that unlike muscles, your brain and central nervous system cannot directly oxidize fat for energy. You will still need some glucose, though ketones will also fuel your brain. We all need around 120g-130g per day of glucose without ketones. Ketones reduce that amount by approx. 10% per 1 mmol/l of blood ketones. In order to get that glucose, you can consume some small amounts of glucose and remain in ketosis while consuming additional protein to convert to glucose via gluconeogenesis - this happens at 58% efficiency.

    Yes, you can do it, but become fat adapted first. Next, be sure to eat sufficient protein to have both have glucose to power your brain (supplemental to whatever small amount of carbs you eat) and enough to build muscle. Finally, get enough fat in your diet to fuel skeletal muscles.
    Not according to study above. INSULIN levels do matter in muscle hypertrophy for signaling mTOR.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

    9285851.png


    I didn't read the study yet and won't have a chance until later, but your description sounds like this study was done on people who are NOT fat adapted. And of course that is the result I would expect in such case.

    To expand on that, here is the part that is different with those who are fat adapted:
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    When the body is well fed and growing, mTOR is "turned on;" conversely, when energy (most strongly affected by glucose availability to the cell) is low, mTOR is "turned off."

    Last time I was tested (4/14/17), 93% of my resting energy comes from fat and not glucose. This is because I am fat adapted, therefore I get most of my energy from fat and not glucose. Those of us who are fat adapted mostly use fat for energy, so the idea that energy is "strongly affected by glucose availability" is not true for us. Again, I haven't had a chance to read the study yet, but it sounds like they used test subjects who primarily use glucose for energy in skeletal muscles.

    An error made by all researchers up until the mid-1990's, and probably is still made by some researchers even today, is that they will test low carb dieters who are new to low carb without providing sufficient time to become fat adapted before using them as research subjects.

    Looking at my 2 VO2max tests, which start with sitting measurements (but not considered RMR level test) - showed about same %.

    Unless you've just eaten a meal with very little fat in it to use (which you aren't supposed to be doing the CO2 test after eating for that reason), any body is around that % of fat as energy source. You were not special in that regard.

    The only place it's different for you, if by fat-adapted you mean ketones produced, is your brain and that smallish energy source being not glucose as it might normally be.

    But only 93% - you weren't that different there then.

    This misnomer that your body is sitting around the vast majority of the day burning glucose as primary energy source - where does that even come from!

    If you start with that incorrect foundation - then you can build this shaky wall that by using keytones you aren't using carbs anymore.

    Go do a VO2max test and see how the carb usage ramps up as intensity ramps up just like everyone else. Except for what your brain is using different of course.
    And while it is a bigger metabolically active organ, it's not the biggest.

    I did a VO2Max also. If everyone is the same, then why would RER even be tested?

    Here is another interesting factor: I manage BG manually as a type 1 diabetic. If I use glucose for exercise, BG should decrease unless I add glucose (happens in one of 4 ways, not all of which are directly controllable). Since I use a CGM, I can see what is happening during exercise with glucose. This is somethong else that tells me whether I am primarily fueling activity with glucose or fat.

    Well, RQ isn't tested - it's computed from the test results - VCO2/VO2. May not be what you meant.

    Everyone is pretty much the same at rest. At rest without any food processing going on should also show below a certain level, so quick confirmation if you came in fasted or still processing some food eaten - which would throw off the whole test. The tech's I dealt with said they always have to deal with that with afternoon tests where the people forget proper procedure and didn't want to attempt max effort that long fasted.

    Since you are "fat-adapted" that likely will help the initial 30 min of aerobic exercise regarding carb:fat ratio of energy source.

    Since it usually takes that long for body to move to the ratio it'll hold at for a long while, vast majority are higher carb usage at the start then they'll end up at later (one reason for typical warning to 1st-time marathoners not to go out too quick from excitement).

    But it also takes a bit for the body to switch from blood glucose to mainly that stored in the muscles for usage only by the muscles. IIRC from 10-45 min depending on elevated insulin and training.
    Slow-start endurance training can improve that response for switch-over.
    And your eating method does too, don't recall how much shorter, but supposed to be an improvement.
    I know my 18 hr fasted 2 hr rides show that up, I'm still shocked I have that much energy at the end.

    But since those carb stores can't be put back into the bloodstream for use elsewhere, BG measurement won't show up it's happening.
    If you could get a good handle on rate of BG usage at start of a pace/intensity you will keep, that'll probably be close to continued usage, and when you see the BG usage drop, you know it's switching on over.
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 40,087 Member
    Read about the golden era diet, they seemed to have done low carbs, but how did they build the muscles

    Yes, but it is sub-optimal...but then again, I guess it depends on what you mean by building muscle. If you're looking for maximal results as per your genetics then carbs are pretty important...if you're looking to develop a pretty good physique and aren't worried about maximal or most efficient results then I don't think you have anything to worry about.
  • As someone who did a low carb diet for several years the following pros and cons from my personal experience (Note: I no longer follow a low carb diet but I was a zealot for a long time).

    Pros:
    * Lost weight easily when strictly followed with minimal tracking.
    * Decreased Hungers / Cravings
    * Less overall decision making (more black and white choices).

    Cons:
    * Long term adherence proved difficult
    * Borderline disordered binge eating pattern established
    * Impaired anaaerboic capacity
    * Slightly impaired aerobic capacity (it is possible this was attributable to a very low calorie level rather than low carb specifically but I'm not sure).
  • ent3rsandman
    ent3rsandman Posts: 170 Member
    filbo132 wrote: »
    Just eat your carbs, they are freaking good. I never understood why they get such a bad rap.

    Damn right they are! It's a shame that they've become the nutritional boogeyman as of late.
  • LiftHeavyThings27105
    LiftHeavyThings27105 Posts: 2,104 Member
    I think that this is going to depend for each person.

    I tend to gain more 'water weight' when I have a higher carb intake. Now, is that a good thing or a bad thing? Not likely either. Or, yes! It all depends on the goal. And your perspective!

    I tend to do better on higher fats | lower carbs. No, not talking ketogenic diet (have not tried that so have no idea how I would fare on that......not sure that I will try it but not dead set against it....I do play with the idea every now and again).

    I also have not been training for the last six weeks (medical condition that is just not healing the right way) so I have been playing with nutrition. Not sure how I am going to fare on higher fats | lower carbs when it comes time for dead lifts and squats days......

    I will be honest....I played with lower | higher carbs both the day before and the day of Dead Lifts and Squats days.....for me, made a difference. Stronger with higher carbs. Maybe a bit of a mental thing, maybe not. No matter. STRONGER with higher carbs.

    I will play with the higher fats once I get back to training in the darn gym. Gonna give it some time....not gonna do it for three workouts and then scrap it.

    I do not think that carbs get a bad wrap, per-se. I think that people respond to carbs differently. It is like me and milk.....love it, just cant drink it. Well, I can.....nuff said! :smiley:
  • jamesakrobinson
    jamesakrobinson Posts: 2,151 Member
    My personal experience is that I can continue to make progress (gains) in full ketosis for about 2 months but then my workouts really start to suffer.
    I have always found the best results for my own body has been very high intensity and lower reps. My workouts are usually about an hour long plus or minus 15 minutes. After a couple of of months in ketosis I hit the wall really hard about half an hour in... feeling almost faint and hypoglycemic. I tried BCAAs during my workout but it knocked me out of keytosis... (although it did let me finish my workout)

    The solution that seems to work best for me personally is to go hard core keto at the beginning of the spring, and stay in ketosis until I start to have trouble finishing my workouts (usually a little over 2 months) then add in BCAAs intraworkout fat a few more weeks, then I start to add carbs back in.

    I go into IIFYM for the rest of the year and usually get a bit lax through the Christmas holidays, then repeat starting in the spring.

    As with everything YMMV but I definitely get consistent results and stay fairly lean... and the pump you get when you carb back up the first couple times makes you feel huge! :D
  • GerlaineGerry
    GerlaineGerry Posts: 14 Member
    Protein, carbs, creatine and bcaa!!!
  • ninerbuff
    ninerbuff Posts: 45,866 Member
    filbo132 wrote: »
    Just eat your carbs, they are freaking good. I never understood why they get such a bad rap.
    Because people like Lustig and Taubes condemned them and got a bunch of people to start following them. Especially Taubes since he's a journalist.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

    9285851.png

  • ninerbuff
    ninerbuff Posts: 45,866 Member
    filbo132 wrote: »
    filbo132 wrote: »
    Just eat your carbs, they are freaking good. I never understood why they get such a bad rap.

    Damn right they are! It's a shame that they've become the nutritional boogeyman as of late.

    Once you understand that it's all about calories in vs calories out, there is no need to cut carbs out unless:
    A) You have health issues with carbs
    B ) You lack discipline whenever you eat carbs and you don't want to work on your discipline
    C) You actually enjoy eating only fatty foods
    Quoted for truth.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

    9285851.png