Gaining Muscle and Bodyweight Exercises

Primate said:

********** But how about people who need to lose fat?

So long as you are in caloric deficit you will lose fat. The main reason to avoid fat if wanting a caloric deficit is merely due to the fact that fat is a very dense calorie food, thus you have to eat less than you otherwise might. If anything, a higher fat component in your diet can benefit fat loss by conditioning your body to use fat instead of sugar for fuel.

This is the common sense approach. Unfortunately, common sense is somewhat wrong in this case.

There is more to fat loss than calories. Read the other threads that Ido and Jason comment on a lot, and you will find references to good studies that have shown people to gain weight on a 2000 calorie, high carb diet and then maintain or lose weight with a 2500 calorie high fat diet. That's a 25% increase in calories, yet the people gained no weight and in some cases lost weight.

How could this be? Why is god mocking us so?! Well... in a nut shell, heaven is boring. So here we are, largely unaware that the rate of nutrient absorption is just as important as total calories, and perhaps more so.

Consider the following scenario:

You eat a serving of cereal with milk, a banana and a cup of 99% fat free yogurt. A doctor would probably tell you this is a perfect breakfast. What he has missed is that you just consumed 80-100 grams of fast-digesting carbohydrates. That's 320-400 Kcalories, not including whatever fat and protein you just consumed. Your body will digest that breakfast in less than two hours. Let's stop and do some math. We will be conservative and assume this meal takes 2 hours to digest and absorb. 320 kcals in 2 hours = 160 kcals per hour going into the blood. You're driving to work and then you sit down at your desk for a few hours. How many calories do you need for that hour? Hmm... I wonder. We'll use me for this example, since I'm a big guy and need more calories than nearly all of you. This should make a powerful example. If I exercise 1-3x a week, I need 3129 calories. Divide that by 24 hours and I need 130 calories per hour. 160 calories is 23% more than I need for that hour. I wonder... where will those extra 30 calories go? If they stay in the blood, my blood pressure goes up and eventually I will have a stroke or heart attack. My body will protect me by producing insulin, and putting the excess into my fat cells. Yay me! At 9 calories per gram, I just put on 3.3g of fat in one hour. That's 6.6g in two hours.

6.6g of fat gained? Bah, no problem. Right? But... it's only been 2 hours and if this pattern continues and I eat 7 more times at this caloric range per meal, even though I haven't eaten my caloric requirement I'll have put on 52.8g of fat in one day. In 10 days I will have gained 1 pound of fat. In one month I will have gained 3 lbs of fat.

IN ONE YEAR, EATING WHAT THE AVERAGE DOCTOR OR DIETICIAN WOULD ROLL OVER AND DIE HAPPY TO HEAR, I WILL GAIN 36 POUNDS OF FAT. Unbelievable! But wait, wouldn't that increase in weight mean I burn more calories? Not if it's all fat! Fat is NOT active tissue. It just sits there and makes you float in the pool.

You NEED fat, and plenty of it, because it slows down digestion. It also helps with hunger since you stay full longer due to the slower digestion. Your body absorbs more nutrients into the tissues because the fat prevents the insulin spike that occurs when too much nutrition is in the blood at any one time. Yes, that's right, you can insulin spike off of whey and other fast digesting carbs when taken alone.

If you're eating too many calories but are absorbing the energy slowly you can accumulate less fat on more calories even when you over-eat when compared to a fast-digesting diet.

Ingesting fat also causes the levels of fat-digesting enzymes to skyrocket, especially when your diet is slow-digesting. Insulin causes these fat digesting enzyme levels to drop. That's bad.

I know, that's long. The story is to point out that even ME, a really big guy, will get fat on what looks like a good diet when I am eating no more food than I need. To figure out how you need to eat to gain muscle, you need to make sure you have slow-digesting meals with plenty of fat at all times except for right after workouts, and you need to be eating enough to where your total calories are over your maintenance calorie levels for whatever your weight is by about 200-300 kcals. That's it! You can figure out the particulars from there.

slizzardman said:

Primate said:

********** But how about people who need to lose fat?

So long as you are in caloric deficit you will lose fat. The main reason to avoid fat if wanting a caloric deficit is merely due to the fact that fat is a very dense calorie food, thus you have to eat less than you otherwise might. If anything, a higher fat component in your diet can benefit fat loss by conditioning your body to use fat instead of sugar for fuel.

This is the common sense approach. Unfortunately, common sense is somewhat wrong in this case.

There is more to fat loss than calories. Read the other threads that Ido and Jason comment on a lot, and you will find references to good studies that have shown people to gain weight on a 2000 calorie, high carb diet and then maintain or lose weight with a 2500 calorie high fat diet. That's a 25% increase in calories, yet the people gained no weight and in some cases lost weight.

How could this be? Why is god mocking us so?! Well... in a nut shell, heaven is boring. So here we are, largely unaware that the rate of nutrient absorption is just as important as total calories, and perhaps more so.

Consider the following scenario:

You eat a serving of cereal with milk, a banana and a cup of 99% fat free yogurt. A doctor would probably tell you this is a perfect breakfast. What he has missed is that you just consumed 80-100 grams of fast-digesting carbohydrates. That's 320-400 Kcalories, not including whatever fat and protein you just consumed. Your body will digest that breakfast in less than two hours. Let's stop and do some math. We will be conservative and assume this meal takes 2 hours to digest and absorb. 320 kcals in 2 hours = 160 kcals per hour going into the blood. You're driving to work and then you sit down at your desk for a few hours. How many calories do you need for that hour? Hmm... I wonder. We'll use me for this example, since I'm a big guy and need more calories than nearly all of you. This should make a powerful example. If I exercise 1-3x a week, I need 3129 calories. Divide that by 24 hours and I need 130 calories per hour. 160 calories is 23% more than I need for that hour. I wonder... where will those extra 30 calories go? If they stay in the blood, my blood pressure goes up and eventually I will have a stroke or heart attack. My body will protect me by producing insulin, and putting the excess into my fat cells. Yay me! At 9 calories per gram, I just put on 3.3g of fat in one hour. That's 6.6g in two hours.

6.6g of fat gained? Bah, no problem. Right? But... it's only been 2 hours and if this pattern continues and I eat 7 more times at this caloric range per meal, even though I haven't eaten my caloric requirement I'll have put on 52.8g of fat in one day. In 10 days I will have gained 1 pound of fat. In one month I will have gained 3 lbs of fat.

IN ONE YEAR, EATING WHAT THE AVERAGE DOCTOR OR DIETICIAN WOULD ROLL OVER AND DIE HAPPY TO HEAR, I WILL GAIN 36 POUNDS OF FAT. Unbelievable! But wait, wouldn't that increase in weight mean I burn more calories? Not if it's all fat! Fat is NOT active tissue. It just sits there and makes you float in the pool.

You NEED fat, and plenty of it, because it slows down digestion. It also helps with hunger since you stay full longer due to the slower digestion. Your body absorbs more nutrients into the tissues because the fat prevents the insulin spike that occurs when too much nutrition is in the blood at any one time. Yes, that's right, you can insulin spike off of whey and other fast digesting carbs when taken alone.

If you're eating too many calories but are absorbing the energy slowly you can accumulate less fat on more calories even when you over-eat when compared to a fast-digesting diet.

Ingesting fat also causes the levels of fat-digesting enzymes to skyrocket, especially when your diet is slow-digesting. Insulin causes these fat digesting enzyme levels to drop. That's bad.

I know, that's long. The story is to point out that even ME, a really big guy, will get fat on what looks like a good diet when I am eating no more food than I need. To figure out how you need to eat to gain muscle, you need to make sure you have slow-digesting meals with plenty of fat at all times except for right after workouts, and you need to be eating enough to where your total calories are over your maintenance calorie levels for whatever your weight is by about 200-300 kcals. That's it! You can figure out the particulars from there.

*********** thanks very much for your input. Here comes crazy question- If 50% OF MY FAT intake was MCT's how would my body fare considering i am working out 4-6x per week at 1-2 hours per workout. In other words if i took most of my fat in MCT's

how would this change anything? In addition does the 45-55% carb intake(that you recommended) change at all for those who want to lose weight.

Brandon

slizzardman said:

There is more to fat loss than calories. Read the other threads that Ido and Jason comment on a lot, and you will find references to good studies that have shown people to gain weight on a 2000 calorie, high carb diet and then maintain or lose weight with a 2500 calorie high fat diet. That's a 25% increase in calories, yet the people gained no weight and in some cases lost weight.

Can you give me a link to the threads or the studies?

Consider the following scenario:

You eat a serving of cereal with milk, a banana and a cup of 99% fat free yogurt. A doctor would probably tell you this is a perfect breakfast. What he has missed is that you just consumed 80-100 grams of fast-digesting carbohydrates. That's 320-400 Kcalories, not including whatever fat and protein you just consumed. Your body will digest that breakfast in less than two hours. Let's stop and do some math. We will be conservative and assume this meal takes 2 hours to digest and absorb. 320 kcals in 2 hours = 160 kcals per hour going into the blood. You're driving to work and then you sit down at your desk for a few hours. How many calories do you need for that hour? Hmm... I wonder. We'll use me for this example, since I'm a big guy and need more calories than nearly all of you. This should make a powerful example. If I exercise 1-3x a week, I need 3129 calories. Divide that by 24 hours and I need 130 calories per hour. 160 calories is 23% more than I need for that hour. I wonder... where will those extra 30 calories go? If they stay in the blood, my blood pressure goes up and eventually I will have a stroke or heart attack. My body will protect me by producing insulin, and putting the excess into my fat cells. Yay me! At 9 calories per gram, I just put on 3.3g of fat in one hour. That's 6.6g in two hours.

6.6g of fat gained? Bah, no problem. Right? But... it's only been 2 hours and if this pattern continues and I eat 7 more times at this caloric range per meal, even though I haven't eaten my caloric requirement I'll have put on 52.8g of fat in one day. In 10 days I will have gained 1 pound of fat. In one month I will have gained 3 lbs of fat.

I know your just simplifying the math because you can't just take the total and divide by 24 since energy expenditure will not be uniform throughout the day. But let's just go with the math and say that during the two hours the meal was digesting you were 30 cals over each hour. You're right that the extra calories will go into storage, this is the post-prandial stage. But after the post-prandial stage you will not be digesting and storing and enter the post-absorptive stage until the next meal. During this stage you will be in net caloric deficit, so now the extra calories from the post-prandial stage will be burned. For this reason, eating your meal will not cause weight gain even if you total caloric intake over any time frame (day, week, year) is negative.

IN ONE YEAR, EATING WHAT THE AVERAGE DOCTOR OR DIETICIAN WOULD ROLL OVER AND DIE HAPPY TO HEAR, I WILL GAIN 36 POUNDS OF FAT. Unbelievable! But wait, wouldn't that increase in weight mean I burn more calories? Not if it's all fat! Fat is NOT active tissue. It just sits there and makes you float in the pool.

This simply isn't true. Fat burns calories, just not as much as muscle.

trianglechoke7 said:

slizzardman said:

There is more to fat loss than calories. Read the other threads that Ido and Jason comment on a lot, and you will find references to good studies that have shown people to gain weight on a 2000 calorie, high carb diet and then maintain or lose weight with a 2500 calorie high fat diet. That's a 25% increase in calories, yet the people gained no weight and in some cases lost weight.

Can you give me a link to the threads or the studies?

I am going to have to disagree with you there Slizz. Although I have not seen the studies you are referring to, there is probably something else going on, in the way they were set up for example. In don't think there is any properly conducted research backing up this hypothesis, meaning that is was done in a metabolic ward, over a longer period, taking into account water loss/retention etc.

As long as the calories and protein intake are equal, the differences in fat loss tend to be minimal/negligible and highly variable between high fat and high carb diets. I know that this goes against the current low carb fetish and what Taubes said in GCBC, but that's why a lot of smart researchers take issue with it (think Lyle McDonald, Alan Aragon, Martin Berkan, Anthony Colpo, etc).

That being said, in real life higher fat diets tend to work better for most people and are healthier for a variety of reasons. But it's not because of a "metabolic advantage" that fat has over carbs.

LukasM said:

trianglechoke7 said:

slizzardman said:

There is more to fat loss than calories. Read the other threads that Ido and Jason comment on a lot, and you will find references to good studies that have shown people to gain weight on a 2000 calorie, high carb diet and then maintain or lose weight with a 2500 calorie high fat diet. That's a 25% increase in calories, yet the people gained no weight and in some cases lost weight.

Can you give me a link to the threads or the studies?

I am going to have to disagree with you there Slizz. Although I have not seen the studies you are referring to, there is probably something else going on, in the way they were set up for example. In don't think there is any properly conducted research backing up this hypothesis, meaning that is was done in a metabolic ward, over a longer period, taking into account water loss/retention etc.

As long as the calories and protein intake are equal, the differences in fat loss tend to be minimal/negligible and highly variable between high fat and high carb diets. I know that this goes against the current low carb fetish and what Taubes said in GCBC, but that's why a lot of smart researchers take issue with it (think Lyle McDonald, Alan Aragon, Martin Berkan, Anthony Colpo, etc).

That being said, in real life higher fat diets tend to work better for most people and are healthier for a variety of reasons. But it's not because of a "metabolic advantage" that fat has over carbs.

To be fair, there is a lot of controversy over diets in the academic community. Leading dieticians continue to claim that a 150 lb man only needs 62g of protein in their diet. Ask Gregor how he would feel if he only had that amount of protein every day. I can't claim anything about the research study quality for the various studies at the moment, as I simply don't have time to check, but I know for sure that there ARE quality studies that have replicated the results. The metabolic processes behind the results seem to be fairly well understood, and most importantly there are a LOT of people walking around as living examples of how well this works. You have to be a fool to ignore evidence that walks around on two feet the same as you do. You definitely have not done extensive research, because there are multiple studies of at least 12 weeks. The water retention factor is discussed candidly. I don't know who anyone but Lyle McDonald is, and to be quite honest I haven't been impressed by him. Ido outright seems to think he's a bit of a bum, and while I try to moderate my reactions, what I have read so far by Lyle makes me tend to agree with Ido. I have only read what he has to say about supplements, and I laughed out loud several times. When I have time I will look into these other people's work and more of Lyle's.

There's a lot of controversy over how athletes should be exercising too. We still don't even fully understand how hypertrophy is elicited. If we waited for scientific studies from metabolic centers to confirm the results of what leading strength coaches recommend, we'd all be weak. There comes a time when you have to look around you, see what is working, and make a decision about who to emulate.

To truly prove causality, you have to have these studies. To see something is working and apply the results to yourself, you do not. Obviously we can not claim that a low carb high protein and fat diet IS going to cause fat loss and muscle gain. What we CAN claim is that this has worked for untold tens of thousands of people just within Poliquin's strength circle. It is working for me too. It works for Ido. It works for everyone I have ever known who stuck with it.

You need to do more research. Water loss is absolutely a large part of the short term effect of a low/very low carb and higher protein and fat diet, but that's only the first few weeks. After that, weight loss is nearly 100% body fat, and there is often a GAIN in muscle mass. This is without a calorie deficit in many, many cases. You can only lose water weight for a short period of time before you reach a new point of equilibrium. After that, weight loss is all body tissue.

This does NOT mean that you must adhere to these dietary guidelines to drop unwanted weight. More or less even fat and carbs with protein bringing up the rear works well too(35/40/25, 40/40/20, etc) provided that most of the carbs are natural, lower glycemic and unprocessed. You do NOT get AS lean with this diet easily, or drop weight as quickly, but it's still an excellent choice.

The massive advantage of the higher protein/fat and lower carb diet is that you don't get hungry as often and it keeps your insulin resistance lower than other dietary options. You also lose weight much faster and it's easier to maintain 7-8% body fat.

There are multiple dietary paths that will take you to the same place. It's all about what will be the best option for YOU. It is important to your success as a person to take an unbiased look at things that work in all aspects of life, learn everything you can about them, and then make an informed decision about what will be in your best interests. This often requires ongoing study of many things, from diet to sales technique. The more motivated you are to just learn, do research on your own, and experiment with things that are safe in your own life, the more successful you will become in all aspects this attitude is applied towards.

This is a very interesting discussion. I have to echo Slizzardman's sentiment, science will only take you so far. My simple proof of this for myself is just the amount of changes in what science has told me is right nutritionally over the course of my life. When science settles on the facts then it can be trusted. Now its just one factor in the decision process. There is only so much time in the day, so unless one is a professional nutritional scientist, there is only so much we can know about current research.

Another factor is much information is biased. You always have to ask, who is making more money based on the results of this study. Bias is very very hard to eliminate from nutrition, due to is highly variable and complex nature, and that there are so many industries behind it.

I value this forum very highly for the zeal shown by members in debating this topic. It has helped me in evaluating my own food regimen.

I try to keep things simple, i don't count calories, and for the most part make what i consider to be healthy easy to prepare food. I always noticed in my slight body that i really do better with more protein and less carbs. For 15 years i was a vegetarian, for moral and health reasons, but also because it kept me 'light'.

Hitting my mid 40's i noticed that i didn't feel 'light' like i once did, in addition felt weak and un-energetic. This was a clue to me that something was wrong with my diet. First i tried various supplements, which didn't really help. After about a year of giving the matter careful thought i decided to slowly introduce meat into my diet and begin eliminating grains. I'm not 100% grain free yet but doing pretty good I notice a world of difference. Most importantly i don't feel heavy or bloated and have more general energy.

On the negative side, my digestion is not the best, i am taking digestive enzymes (maybe i need more). The basic issue being nothing comes out 'solid'. I don't know if anyone has any experience with this but if so, i'd be interested to know how long term vegetarians manage with switching back to eating meat.

slizzardman said:

I can't claim anything about the research study quality for the various studies at the moment, as I simply don't have time to check, but I know for sure that there ARE quality studies that have replicated the results. The metabolic processes behind the results seem to be fairly well understood, and most importantly there are a LOT of people walking around as living examples of how well this works. You have to be a fool to ignore evidence that walks around on two feet the same as you do. You definitely have not done extensive research, because there are multiple studies of at least 12 weeks.

Slizz,

Like most people you seem to be confusing two separate issues - the results these diets have when applied in real life, and the scientific explanation why this is the case.

Again, I would like to see one of those multiple studies you are mentioning that proves that there is a significant metabolic advantage for certain carb/fat ratios, with equal calories and protein. Good luck finding one that was properly conducted. If you want to save some time you should read the meta-analysis done by Colpo, he took a look at most of them in "The Fat Loss Bible". I mentioned him earlier, I am sure you have heard of his incredibly well researched book "The Great Cholesterol Con"? While I don't like him personally after his over-the-top exchange with Eades (http://www.anthonycolpo.com/The_Great_E ... art_1.html), he sure as hell knows his facts and presents logical arguments. And for the record, I also think Lyle McDonald is a #$%*, albeit a very smart one.

What I also think you misunderstand is that I am not advocating a high carb diet. I am pretty much Paleo myself, with some exceptions like pastured cream, butter, and ghee. Generally low carb (lots of non-starchy veggies), with the occasional sweet potatoes/yams/raisins after workouts. But I do this for the health benefits, better satiety, constant energy levels, etc, not because I believe it is better for body composition. The high carb approach is way too successful in bodybuilding circles for me to be this naive.

At the end of the day, it's all going to come down to energy balance. If you have absolutely no problem with diet compliance, you'll do just as well on high carb/low fat. If you are like most people, high fat/low carb will be easier.

PS: Don't even think about mentioning the Kekwick and Pawan study.... :twisted:

" Slizz, LucasM

LukasM said:

And for the record, I also think Lyle McDonald is a @#$*, albeit a very smart one.

Can you say why you both have reservations about the man? I'm new to all this and as you know its a jungle of information/misinformation out there. Having read his web articles he comes off as fairly well balanced.

This for example is a very reasonable sounding disscusion of 'How Many Do You Need'

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/nutrition/how-many-carbohydrates-do-you-need.html

Colpo on the other hand looks shady to me, but again that's based on what i can easily find on the web, ie highly argumentative articles (as Lucas sited already), spam reviews all over the web, over the top claims etc.

Mr Brady said:

" Slizz, LucasM

LukasM said:

And for the record, I also think Lyle McDonald is a dick, albeit a very smart one.

Can you say why you both have reservations about the man? I'm new to all this and as you know its a jungle of information/misinformation out there. Having read his web articles he comes off as fairly well balanced. Colpo on the other hand looks shady to me, but again that's based on what i can easily find on the web, ie highly argumentative, spam reviews all over the web, over the top claims etc.

If you read his forum from time to time you'll get a good view of his personality. He doesn't leave it at having a different opinion but likes to badmouth, insult and make fun of other researchers and scientist in a rather childish manner. The recent fall-out with Mark Rippetoe is a good example of this.

If you learn how to see through that BS, he still has lots of good info.

LukasM said:

slizzardman said:

I can't claim anything about the research study quality for the various studies at the moment, as I simply don't have time to check, but I know for sure that there ARE quality studies that have replicated the results. The metabolic processes behind the results seem to be fairly well understood, and most importantly there are a LOT of people walking around as living examples of how well this works. You have to be a fool to ignore evidence that walks around on two feet the same as you do. You definitely have not done extensive research, because there are multiple studies of at least 12 weeks.

Slizz,

Like most people you seem to be confusing two separate issues - the results these diets have when applied in real life, and the scientific explanation why this is the case.

Again, I would like to see one of those multiple studies you are mentioning that proves that there is a significant metabolic advantage for certain carb/fat ratios, with equal calories and protein. Good luck finding one that was properly conducted. If you want to save some time you should read the meta-analysis done by Colpo, he took a look at most of them in "The Fat Loss Bible". I mentioned him earlier, I am sure you have heard of his incredibly well researched book "The Great Cholesterol Con"? While I don't like him personally after his over-the-top exchange with Eades (http://www.anthonycolpo.com/The_Great_E ... art_1.html), he sure as hell knows his facts and presents logical arguments. And for the record, I also think Lyle McDonald is a #$%*, albeit a very smart one.

What I also think you misunderstand is that I am not advocating a high carb diet. I am pretty much Paleo myself, with some exceptions like pastured cream, butter, and ghee. Generally low carb (lots of non-starchy veggies), with the occasional sweet potatoes/yams/raisins after workouts. But I do this for the health benefits, better satiety, constant energy levels, etc, not because I believe it is better for body composition. The high carb approach is way too successful in bodybuilding circles for me to be this naive.

At the end of the day, it's all going to come down to energy balance. If you have absolutely no problem with diet compliance, you'll do just as well on high carb/low fat. If you are like most people, high fat/low carb will be easier.

PS: Don't even think about mentioning the Kekwick and Pawan study.... :twisted:

Maybe I'm writing things the wrong way if I sound confused.

I'm well aware that there is little to no scientific evidence regarding specific caloric ratios when directly compared with each other, because that type of research typically doesn't make anyone any money.

There IS research out there that has looked at samples of people who go on a certain diet, say high fat high protein. There is good research out there that documents what the effects are for various diets. We don't need a single study that throws every group we can think of together for comparison. It would be nice and much easier to say "Look here, this is what happened" if there was something like that. There isn't, so we need to take a look at what each study's results are, compare the control groups, take into account whatever differences and confounding variables there might be, and look at the experimental groups' results when compared to their respective controls. Take into account exercise, and you can see trends. It's certainly not perfect, but you can definitely make some well-founded hypotheses from that comparison and test them for yourself with your diet to see what works for you personally. Cuts down on a lot of confusion, at least to my mind.

I am not a paleo fanatic, I just look at research and see what's there. Paleo is too strict in some senses, as Robb Wolf is quick to mention. The basic concept of eating natural foods in the least processed state possible runs common in every highly successful nutritional program. As it stands, I do appear to be migrating towards a paleo-ish diet. I have been high carbs for years and did very well on it. I'm feeling better now, so for me more moderate carbs for the most part works well. When I feel a little depleted I have a high carb day once or twice in that week and I'm good to go for at least a few more weeks. I look better and feel better, which means a lot to me.

I promise you, I'll get those links up when I can. I am typing my noted from the seminars and it's going to be a book by the time I'm done. I have 31 pages of notes and each page is becoming 2 when I type single spaced lol!

As far as high carbs go, bodybuilders don't worry about putting on extra fat when they are on bulking cycles. They all do it. That's the price you pay when trying to add the most muscle possible. The cutting cycles are nearly all protein and fat. Veggies only, except for post workout, are the only carbs you will see. In a very real way, many bodybuilders have been way ahead of the curve nutritionally when it comes to fat loss. To attribute that to a high carb diet shows a fair amount of ignorance towards the nutritional cycles bodybuilders use. I think you just didn't think about that stuff when you posted, because you write well and are pretty well informed! I appreciate your additions to the conversation.

PS: As far as metabolic advantages go, high protein &high fat has two things going for it. First, our bodies spend 20 calories on every 100 calories of protein it digests, for a .8 net calorie intake for each gross calorie of protein. You can't deny that isn't a metabolic advantage over carbs, which have a .9 and fats which have a .98 net calorie count. Fat's metabolic advantage is not in the energy spent on digestion, but in the up-regulation of fat-processing enzymes and the down-regulation of fat storage enzymes and hormones. That's very well researched and as close to a fact as anything in nutrition is.

Mr Brady

I try to keep things simple, i don't count calories, and for the most part make what i consider to be healthy easy to prepare food. I always noticed in my slight body that i really do better with more protein and less carbs. For 15 years i was a vegetarian, for moral and health reasons, but also because it kept me 'light'.

Hitting my mid 40's i noticed that i didn't feel 'light' like i once did, in addition felt weak and un-energetic. This was a clue to me that something was wrong with my diet. First i tried various supplements, which didn't really help. After about a year of giving the matter careful thought i decided to slowly introduce meat into my diet and begin eliminating grains. I'm not 100% grain free yet but doing pretty good I notice a world of difference. Most importantly i don't feel heavy or bloated and have more general energy.

On the negative side, my digestion is not the best, i am taking digestive enzymes (maybe i need more). The basic issue being nothing comes out 'solid'. I don't know if anyone has any experience with this but if so, i'd be interested to know how long term vegetarians manage with switching back to eating meat.

This is very interesting, because iam also vegetarian for 7 years, mostly for ethic and moral reasons. Of course I need protein so I take supplements beside eggs, milk etc, and I am 38. So far I know Jack Lalanne was a vegetarian and then switch back to lean meats, so read what he have to say about that. For me, I feel great, my health is great, and right now a have no plans to switch back and if that anytime comes into question (that must be some kind of serious message from ...), only fish maybe and nothing else.

Lekman said:

This is very interesting, because iam also vegetarian for 7 years, mostly for ethic and moral reasons. Of course I need protein so I take supplements beside eggs, milk etc, and I am 38. So far I know Jack Lalanne was a vegetarian and then switch back to lean meats, so read what he have to say about that. For me, I feel great, my health is great, and right now a have no plans to switch back and if that anytime comes into question (that must be some kind of serious message from ...), only fish maybe and nothing else.

And don't let anyone tell you otherwise! Stay with it, i felt wonderful for many years as have many others.

However it does seem to happen for some that after many many years, the body stops thriving. I've know a number of vegetarians who were quite happy have the same occurance. Its not that meat is tempting us back because of weak will power. I really never had a problem with that nor the folks i know who have added meat. Its more this sense that something isn't thriving like it was.

If that doesn't happen then why change whats working!

In any case, we're lucky to have plenty of organic free range meat here, which for me, solves the moral problem.

And don't let anyone tell you otherwise! Stay with it, i felt wonderful for many years as have many others.

Thank you for your support, and I am sorry because of your health problems, maybe you missed something that your body need when we talk about food, but anyway I wish you a excellent health and best of luck, and here is a link to very interesting interview with Jack Lalanne

http://www.shareguide.com/LaLanne.html

He was strict vegetarian for 6 years and then he start to eat meat because of Mr. America contest so it that time everybody was saying him that he had to eat meat to build muscle, but now he eat only fish and egg whites and lots of raw vegetables, no milk and nothing from a cow.

By the way he was born 1914 and he is still alive and practice every morning. I agree with him that the key point to health is exercising ( the exercise is king, nutrition is queen )

slizzardman said:

LukasM said:

slizzardman said:

I can't claim anything about the research study quality for the various studies at the moment, as I simply don't have time to check, but I know for sure that there ARE quality studies that have replicated the results. The metabolic processes behind the results seem to be fairly well understood, and most importantly there are a LOT of people walking around as living examples of how well this works. You have to be a fool to ignore evidence that walks around on two feet the same as you do. You definitely have not done extensive research, because there are multiple studies of at least 12 weeks.

Slizz,

Like most people you seem to be confusing two separate issues - the results these diets have when applied in real life, and the scientific explanation why this is the case.

Again, I would like to see one of those multiple studies you are mentioning that proves that there is a significant metabolic advantage for certain carb/fat ratios, with equal calories and protein. Good luck finding one that was properly conducted. If you want to save some time you should read the meta-analysis done by Colpo, he took a look at most of them in "The Fat Loss Bible". I mentioned him earlier, I am sure you have heard of his incredibly well researched book "The Great Cholesterol Con"? While I don't like him personally after his over-the-top exchange with Eades (http://www.anthonycolpo.com/The_Great_E ... art_1.html), he sure as hell knows his facts and presents logical arguments. And for the record, I also think Lyle McDonald is a #$%*, albeit a very smart one.

What I also think you misunderstand is that I am not advocating a high carb diet. I am pretty much Paleo myself, with some exceptions like pastured cream, butter, and ghee. Generally low carb (lots of non-starchy veggies), with the occasional sweet potatoes/yams/raisins after workouts. But I do this for the health benefits, better satiety, constant energy levels, etc, not because I believe it is better for body composition. The high carb approach is way too successful in bodybuilding circles for me to be this naive.

At the end of the day, it's all going to come down to energy balance. If you have absolutely no problem with diet compliance, you'll do just as well on high carb/low fat. If you are like most people, high fat/low carb will be easier.

PS: Don't even think about mentioning the Kekwick and Pawan study.... :twisted:

Maybe I'm writing things the wrong way if I sound confused.

I'm well aware that there is little to no scientific evidence regarding specific caloric ratios when directly compared with each other, because that type of research typically doesn't make anyone any money.

There IS research out there that has looked at samples of people who go on a certain diet, say high fat high protein. There is good research out there that documents what the effects are for various diets. We don't need a single study that throws every group we can think of together for comparison. It would be nice and much easier to say "Look here, this is what happened" if there was something like that. There isn't, so we need to take a look at what each study's results are, compare the control groups, take into account whatever differences and confounding variables there might be, and look at the experimental groups' results when compared to their respective controls. Take into account exercise, and you can see trends. It's certainly not perfect, but you can definitely make some well-founded hypotheses from that comparison and test them for yourself with your diet to see what works for you personally. Cuts down on a lot of confusion, at least to my mind.

I am not a paleo fanatic, I just look at research and see what's there. Paleo is too strict in some senses, as Robb Wolf is quick to mention. The basic concept of eating natural foods in the least processed state possible runs common in every highly successful nutritional program. As it stands, I do appear to be migrating towards a paleo-ish diet. I have been high carbs for years and did very well on it. I'm feeling better now, so for me more moderate carbs for the most part works well. When I feel a little depleted I have a high carb day once or twice in that week and I'm good to go for at least a few more weeks. I look better and feel better, which means a lot to me.

I promise you, I'll get those links up when I can. I am typing my noted from the seminars and it's going to be a book by the time I'm done. I have 31 pages of notes and each page is becoming 2 when I type single spaced lol!

As far as high carbs go, bodybuilders don't worry about putting on extra fat when they are on bulking cycles. They all do it. That's the price you pay when trying to add the most muscle possible. The cutting cycles are nearly all protein and fat. Veggies only, except for post workout, are the only carbs you will see. In a very real way, many bodybuilders have been way ahead of the curve nutritionally when it comes to fat loss. To attribute that to a high carb diet shows a fair amount of ignorance towards the nutritional cycles bodybuilders use. I think you just didn't think about that stuff when you posted, because you write well and are pretty well informed! I appreciate your additions to the conversation.

PS: As far as metabolic advantages go, high protein &high fat has two things going for it. First, our bodies spend 20 calories on every 100 calories of protein it digests, for a .8 net calorie intake for each gross calorie of protein. You can't deny that isn't a metabolic advantage over carbs, which have a .9 and fats which have a .98 net calorie count. Fat's metabolic advantage is not in the energy spent on digestion, but in the up-regulation of fat-processing enzymes and the down-regulation of fat storage enzymes and hormones. That's very well researched and as close to a fact as anything in nutrition is.

**********Thanks for the analysis. What do you think of 50-60% of the fat that one consumes coming from medium chain tryglycerides (coconut oil)?

Brandon Green

Brandon, there's a ton of research out there on everything you ask here.

MCT are a good energy source for the body according to a lot of good science. You have to remember that we don't even know how muscles work, scientifically speaking, so pretty much everything in sports science is a "best guess" when looked at from an academic point of view.

Personally, I like having lots of saturated fat and protein in my diet, along with whatever carbs I need. If I decide to shed bodyfat I'll drop down to 50g carbs on non-workout days, but in general I just eat what makes me feel good. Just so happens that I feel good eating a lot of beef, with all the fat still on it.