Started by powersnake, March 9, 2008 · 9 Replies · 9,406 Views
Hello,
I really like gymnastics training, and I admire gymnasts for their abilities.
As far as I know, most of gymnasts never heard about 'diet', and most of them even don't eat enough to be in a positive caloric balance.
Still, every gymnast I've seen is musuclar.
So my question is how does their body build all this muscle mass even tough it does not have enough nutrients (proteins for example)?
Thanking you in anticipation, Snir.
Hi Snir,
Welcome to the forum.
Since the evidence suggests that gymnasts do get enough protein/nutrients to build and maintain their physique/performance, it stands to reason that having a positive caloric balance is not necessarily the key?
If it helps get the ball rolling - I am not a gymnast, but I have personally built muscle/strength while on a reduced caloric balance (including some intermittent fasting) while losing body fat. This is with a reduced carb diet, with adequate (not high) protein intake and at least 60% calories coming from fat. Blood tests suggest that I have lessened my risk of cardiovascular disease as well (which was the main point of my research).
I read a lot of current/recent literature to back up my nutritional beliefs, enough to trust my health to them, but I wasn't expecting to be explaining it in detail to anybody, and would probably do a poor job.
On a basic level, if humans evolved only to get (and stay) strong/fast when there was plenty of food available ...we probably wouldn't be around today!?
Hopefully Ido, Robb or someone else with the relevant background can explain this all a lot more eloquently than I. If there's no joy in a day or two, bump the thread, and I'll try and dig out some info for you.
Cheers,
George.
I remember an interview with Jordan Jovchev (sp?) in which the interviewer asked "what is your nutrition like?" Jordan was dumbfounded by the question. With a little prompting (changing the question to "what do you eat?") jordan responded "I like chicken...and soup..."
I think the bodybuilding approach and mindset has somewhat poisoned and misguided our whole approach to an aesthetic physique. Huge amounts of food may not be necessary to reach an optimum for a gymnast, sprinter or similar athlete AND if the individual is lean they will sport a very impressive physique. Smart, progressive training mixed with a paleo based diet sliced and diced into Zone or cyclic low carb proportions yields amazing results.
Thank you for your answers.
Just one small question about paleo diet.
I read about it (information from another thread), and I understand that it's very good diet for cutting.
So my question is if it is possible to gain weight with this kind of diet, and if so, it would probably be lean mass, right?
If you increase you healthy fats and increase how much you are eating then you should be able to gain quality mass....more calories over whatever your maintance calories are then you will gain.
casey
Basic paleo eating and hard gymnastics training will yield a very impressive physique, both in terms of form and function.
How Harcore Should We Go?
Robb I try and follow a paleo diet, but I do still eat some bread (now only about 1 slice per day sometimes 2), eat minimum dairy and a few other non-paleo things. M y question is are you advocating a full scale paleo diet or just cutting back on your grains, dairy, legumes?
Yours in Paleo,
Ed
P.S I have great succsess by majorly cutting down on my grains and stuff, no real fat gain, better concentration at school (I still don't do my work though :roll: ) etc.
Hi Ed,
I'm not Robb (I'd love to hear the expert answer, Robb) though I would say it's on a sliding scale. The cleaner your diet, the better the results. I have heard it said that the difference between 100% and 90% compliance is negligible. I couldn't say whether this means that for one or two meals a week you fill your boots, or whether you should stay 90% clean for all meals. Probably the same result ultimately. The main thing IMO is to watch Effective Carbohydrate Content both on a per-meal and daily basis.
ECC would be the amount of total carbs in a food, minus the fibre - the amount of carbohydrate that makes it into your body. The levels given in Drs. Eades' book should be below 10g per meal and 5g per snack with a daily total of 40g. So if you go to the wire, that's 3 meals and 2 snacks. I'm pretty sure this is correct, but I have lent the book out to a friend and cannot check.
I vaguely recall a slice of white bread is around 15g ECC, so you are very naughty! 
Cheers,
George.
Ha, I described my current diet as quite a good paleo, except for a bowl of ice cream after dinner...every day. Obviously I was laughed at. How hardcore you go depends on how important it is for you to achieve an extremely high standard of performance. A strict paleo-zone diet is not fun, and requires a lot of discipline. So much so, that I've done strict zone, or non measured paleo (plus ice cream). But never both, I'm just not that bothered about being that good.
George said:Hi Ed,I'm not Robb (I'd love to hear the expert answer, Robb) though I would say it's on a sliding scale. The cleaner your diet, the better the results. I have heard it said that the difference between 100% and 90% compliance is negligible. I couldn't say whether this means that for one or two meals a week you fill your boots, or whether you should stay 90% clean for all meals. Probably the same result ultimately. The main thing IMO is to watch Effective Carbohydrate Content both on a per-meal and daily basis.
ECC would be the amount of total carbs in a food, minus the fibre - the amount of carbohydrate that makes it into your body. The levels given in Drs. Eades' book should be below 10g per meal and 5g per snack with a daily total of 40g. So if you go to the wire, that's 3 meals and 2 snacks. I'm pretty sure this is correct, but I have lent the book out to a friend and cannot check.
I vaguely recall a slice of white bread is around 15g ECC, so you are very naughty!
Cheers,
George.
thats funny the Doctor's book and the anabolic diet seem to preach almost the same approach