No Carbs... Someone Please Help Educate Me

I see your point exactly Jason and it is a very good one. I don't know what issue could be in the long term and you bring up very good possible issues that could be run into. The hormone reasons are exactly why I leave ketosis occasionally to refuel. Tim Ferris wrote a nice point about how keto eventually lowers selenium stores. Hopefully the multivitamins and minerals will keep some of the issues at bay.

For the most part I prefer it because it is way simplier. I don't do well with sugar at all. I have some truly epic horror stories and even fruit sugar is funny to me. (A couple grapes quickly turning into a bag and several plumbs LOL). I guess I will just have to wait and see what happens but it is better for it to happen later than let sugar run my life now as it has in the past.

Just from personal experience sugar can really play havoc with some peoples systems. It runs in my family, and i have a real hard time with fresh fruit and mostly avoid it for that reason.

In fact exercise is one of the ways that i've found to deal with the problem.

Haha I am almost happy to know I'm not the only one who is so sensitive that he can't even have fruit. How does exercise help?

For me fresh fruit is the worst offender. It doesn't always happen either, but i get a very spaced out feeling, like some wires are crossed.

I have little problem with fruit juice, even if its 100% pure. I don't understand how these things work at all. Aspartame and stevia also do it to me.

Exercise gets my head straight when in happens. Its also been shown to help help with depression.

I asked about the paleo diet to a friend, she is a nutricionist and said that's diet is too extreme, lacks in a lot of important nutrients (that's should be why they use a lot of multivitamins) and that a long term it will result in what Jason said in his posts above. I personally follow a diet that consists in a lot of vegetables, green leafy ones, dark greens, various kind of fruits, brown rice, black and brown beans, milk, various kind of teas, black coffee, natural fruit juices, various kind of nuts, sweet potato and whey protein + multivitamin (to replace meat, i'm vegetarian), basically it. I done two blood tests this year and is all right with me, and I don't have any kind of the problems that "paleo people" claim that you'll have if not follow the paleo diet, as lack of energy, bad body composition (my BF is around 8-10%), etc. And I'm pretty strong (full front lever, straddle planche, free handstands, one arm elbow lever, one arm chins, hspu, etc).

The "Middle Way" (Buddha's teachings) seems to be in everything in this life, also in nutrition huh?

That is interesting Mr. Brady. Especially the fruit juice part. Then again, now we have unlimited access to the stuff unlike before. Nature had its own limits on sugar.

While I can't agree that anything is lacking from a paleo diet, it does show that even if we don't agree on anyone diet, if you're eating real foods that man didn't create in a factory, you're usually doing better than the average joe.

Nice write up, Jason!

That's pretty much how it is... just because something works doesn't mean it is sustainable for an extended period of time without negative effects. It also does not mean you are getting the best results from your training.

Philip: If you have unlimited veggies with meals I am willing to bet you are way over 50g of carbs, which is a good thing by the way.

Does anyone actually know what a moderate carb diet is? It is 5g of carbs per kg of bw. For me that's 450+g per day. That's moderate, not high. Low carb is usually under 2-2.5g per kg of bw, which typically gets rounded off to under 200g per day.

My buddy and I are discussing this thread right now while I play Tales of Symphonia, and I have to say that there's one very important point that continually seems to be forgotton or misunderstood:

Your body will get the sugar it needs. It will make it from your muscle, it will tear up the protein you eat. It does not care where the sugar comes from, it will make it. Sugar can not be made from fatty acids, which means your protein stores (your body tissues) WILL be sacrificed. Your body can make 200g of sugar PER DAY at baseline metabolism. That's without adapting to a low-carb diet, which will cause MORE than that to be generated if your body needs it. What that means for you, basically, is that since your body's GOING to get that much sugar one way or the other no matter what, you should try not to drop below 200g of carbs in your diet. Those carbs should be coming from veggies and root vegetables and sweet potato-type food (if you need more than that based on your activity) or some other non-grain source. Buckwheat is great.

So, get the carbs you need and then get the protein you need. I will suggest that you interpret the g/kg as being for whey protein and then de-rating for less efficient foods. Example: If you need 1g/kg of whey, that would be 98g of whey protein at my weight. That's 196g of meat protein or 294g of plant protein to get the same effect in the body. Maybe you can start seeing, now, why meat and animal sources of protein are rather helpful for building muscle.

If you get the carbs you need, your body will not need to use protein as a fuel source for sugar production. That means you just need to take care of protein turnover each day, and after that the calories can come from whatever (hopefully healthy) sources you like. Doesn't matter if it's extra carbs or extra fat or extra protein. IF your body is getting what it needs to sustain activity levels in terms of specific macronutrients, THEN you will get superior results. Gauge what you need to consume based on your activity. There will always be a rather large part of your calories that lies outside these numbers and that's where you get to pick what food sources you use, it can be 100% fat for all I care.

Ah it seems like I'm doing more a fat adaption thing than hardcore keto which I am fine with. Jason and Slizz both make me realize that maybe it isn't keto that is making me feel awesome but instead the lack of dietary sugar. I will up my veggies (and occasional sweet potato) so I don't have to scavage sugar from anywhere else (lowering cortisol) and just fill in the rest. Thanks guys!

Ok so I've learned from this:

1) I went way overboard on the whole no carb thing.

2) Just watch what types of carbs I eat.

Anyway, I've partially given up trying to get all this right... getting exactly this amount of one thing and exactly this amount of something else. I seem to be doing pretty well (BF of maybe 10% and decent energy) just eating how I normally do. I've however tried to cut out all bread as much as possible, cut out cereal, sugar, caffeine, and sweet stuff mostly.

I still don't get why whole wheat bread or something similar is so bad compared to say a potato. Is it the glycemic load or the anti-nutrients, or both? Or something else?

I suppose pasta is also generally considered "bad"?

slizzardman said:

Their (Eskimos) biggest issue is actually strokes, the extremely high levels of omega 3 fatty acids seem to cause leaky arteries or veins over time, and a disproportionately high percentage die in upper middle age (mid 40's to 60) of related complications. It's kind of strange, at first, but it makes sense. The blood just becomes so thin that it starts leaking out of the vessels.

How much do you know on the subject? I'm currently megadosing on omega 3's for mental health reasons, but it will hopefully only last a year or so.

Also, are you studying nutrition or something similar?

I'm not a big believer in getting overly obsessive with diet, though i truly appreciate those who spend the time to find out more and keep putting their ideas out there.

With wheat, just see what happens if you go about a month without any. I noticed a big difference, now i have a little in the form of Pizza my wife makes every weekend, and that's it. There has been a massive change in my digestion, and that i can tell in a very simple way that i need not describe.

If you are taking Fish Oil for mental health reasons. Make sure you find a fish oil that contains Axanthin. Krill oil is good, or i buy one that has Ananthin added as well as CoQ10.

slizzardman said:

Your body will get the sugar it needs. It will make it from your muscle, it will tear up the protein you eat. It does not care where the sugar comes from, it will make it. Sugar can not be made from fatty acids, which means your protein stores (your body tissues) WILL be sacrificed. Your body can make 200g of sugar PER DAY at baseline metabolism. That's without adapting to a low-carb diet, which will cause MORE than that to be generated if your body needs it. What that means for you, basically, is that since your body's GOING to get that much sugar one way or the other no matter what, you should try not to drop below 200g of carbs in your diet.

I am convinced you know alot more about nutrition than I do and i surely do not want to question or argue your information, as I am deeply grateful for the amount of knowledge you share with us.

However, based on my very own and therefore subjective experience, 200 gr of carbs is too much for me. I have been very closely monitoring my daily calorie and macronutrient intake since five oder six years (bit of a hobby, I guess ).

In the last year, I have come to the conclusion, that I tend to put on bodyfat when my daily intake of carbs exeed the 200 gr. mark, without regards to the daily calorie intake.

I have even tried Leangains for a while, which is basically intermittend fasting combined with carb cycling of ca. 300 gr. on training days and come to the conclusion, that even under those parameters a higher carb intake will lead to higher bodyfat.

I have read a bit on "carb intolerance" and I think that may be the diagnosis. Despite beeing very active all my life (basically skateboarding all day from 14 to 17 + reguarly kayaking , then bodybuilding and collegiate rowing) I never undershot a Bf of ca. 15 %. Now after graduating, I find myself much leaner due to a low-carb diet despite actually being a lot less active.

While I am naturally drawn to a more balanced diet, thus slightly more carbs, as a overall balanced nutrition seems more healthy by common sense, I just can't seem to make it work for me.

There you have it. I think part of the overall message is there is no such thing as one diet to rule them all.

The advice gives a person so good ideas on where to experiment to dial in what there best diet is at the moment.

I agree. I've been going very low carb (usually less than 70-90g a day, sometimes less than 30g) for a while, and I've noticed my endurance has been worse off. It may be coincidence, but it seems to happen whenever I go that low. Trying 200g for a few weeks might be worthwhile.

Does anyone know of a good website that we could use to calculate the carb content of various vegetables and fruits?

You all are pretty lucky. If I go near 100 without earning it I usally gain something. Which is funny because your body is supposed to need that much at least.

Patrick I just put the name of the food and carb amount in good. Like carb amount brocolli. I usually don't even have to look at a webpage to see. Though if you want one specific one that might need some searching.

Cole said it: There's no one diet that applies to everyone, and performance does not always equal looks!

You always have to find what works for you. I am experimenting with extremely high intakes of kefir, buckwheat, and veggies with some extra milk protein put in, and so far I have gone from 204-ish to 215-217 since the Seminar. Some of that is fat, due to a terrible amount of sweets over the past month (and a solid kilo of candy this past Saturday) but people at they gym are noticing that my muscles are getting huger. I am getting noticeably leaner just in the past two days now that I am eating 100% clean again.

I've personally thrived on all kinds of diets, but I did notice that my best fat loss was on a lower carb diet.

There are so many hormones and genetic factors that can influence this stuff that some guys, like Rower, simply may not do well with lots of carbs even if they are getting them all from vegetable sources. Other people, probably more like me, can handle carbs much better regardless of source.

I will say that even so, the 100% natural diet for me works much better than a mixture of veggies and processed carbs. This is all pretty preliminary, but having lots of buckwheat and various sweet potato fleshes is working out very well for me and buckwheat tastes very very good. It's better than oatmeal, by far, in my opinion and it is both gluten-free and quite alkalizing.

Millet, for those who like it or have access, is also gluten-free and alkalizing. It's even better when you sprout it. I will be experimenting with this shortly, I have never actually had millet.

Patrick Smith said:

Does anyone know of a good website that we could use to calculate the carb content of various vegetables and fruits?

www.nutritiondata.self.com

see if this serves: http://swole.me/

Donar said:

Does anyone know of a good website that we could use to calculate the carb content of various vegetables and fruits?

http://www.wolframalpha.com

nbrunskill said:

mattk said:

That's right. I'd define "low carb" as a dietary strategy who's main focus is avoiding starchy carbohydrates of any sort because of their effect on blood sugar and fat storage.

Do you know what your blood sugar (fasting glucose) level is?

Are you having trouble with storing too much fat (do you have a high bf%)?

If the answer to these questions is "NO" (or "I don't know, I've never been tested"), then why on earth would you want to address a problem that you don't even have?

For my part, my bf% is quite acceptable and my fasting glucose is well below any level that I need to be concerned about. I don't think I'm going to stop doing what seems to work (no matter what I read).

slizzardman said:

so far I have gone from 204-ish to 215-217 since the Seminar. Some of that is fat, due to a terrible amount of sweets over the past month (and a solid kilo of candy this past Saturday) but people at they gym are noticing that my muscles are getting huger. I am getting noticeably leaner just in the past two days now that I am eating 100% clean again.

Slizz, I'd strongly suggest that, as you seem very interested in muscle gain, that you get accurate bodyfat tests done periodically (hydro, bod pod, DXA, etc). I'm not sure if you can rely on some guys in the gym saying your muslces are getting huger.

Muslce just simply isn't built that fast. You might be surprised what you see from a bod pod comparison.

But just for reference, natural bodybuilder Dave Goodin claims that he has added 30 lbs. of muslce in 20 years (see the video below at around :30-1:15). Sure, he's only 5' 7" and you are 6' 2", but the differences won't be much for you. Steve Reeves claims he "only" added 35 lbs. of muslce in his entire career (I'll let you look him up if you don't know who he is). These guys are "maxed out" in terms of natural muscle they can add. MAXED OUT ADDING 30-35 LBS. Think about that for a second. Look at those guys. Ask yourself the hard questions of where you really are.

Anyway, just some unsolicited advice that is probably worth what you paid for it.

r2473 said:

slizzardman said:

so far I have gone from 204-ish to 215-217 since the Seminar. Some of that is fat, due to a terrible amount of sweets over the past month (and a solid kilo of candy this past Saturday) but people at they gym are noticing that my muscles are getting huger. I am getting noticeably leaner just in the past two days now that I am eating 100% clean again.

Slizz, I'd strongly suggest that, as you seem very interested in muscle gain, that you get accurate bodyfat tests done periodically (hydro, bod pod, DXA, etc). I'm not sure if you can rely on some guys in the gym saying your muslces are getting huger.

Muslce just simply isn't built that fast. You might be surprised what you see from a bod pod comparison.

But just for reference, natural bodybuilder Dave Goodin claims that he has added 30 lbs. of muslce in 20 years (see the video below at around :30-1:15). Sure, he's only 5' 7" and you are 6' 2", but the differences won't be much for you. Steve Reeves claims he "only" added 35 lbs. of muslce in his entire career (I'll let you look him up if you don't know who he is). These guys are "maxed out" in terms of natural muscle they can add. MAXED OUT ADDING 30-35 LBS. Think about that for a second. Look at those guys. Ask yourself the hard questions of where you really are.

Anyway, just some unsolicited advice that is probably worth what you paid for it.

Lol, I agree the advice is worth what I paid for it. I have taken caliper measurements and my % has stayed at or below 10.7%. Waist measurements, judged by belt notches used in the same pair of pants and identical brands of underwear ( no shirts tucked in) are the same and sometimes even smaller, including straight out of the wash when the pants are shrunk.

I am a rather meticulous individual when it comes to not skewing my results, but there are plenty of people who saw the change from end of May to September. I was 10.7% as measured by Jeff@CFST via 12 site testing with medical calipers at the end of May, and I was substantially leaner with the same or slightly higher bodyweight in September. It's not just me talking. I will post pics soon, perhaps a video. The heaviest I have ever been was 232 at 12%, which puts me at a lower lean mass than Reeves at his best, which was 225-ish at 7% or so. 225-230 at 7-9% is my long term goal, which should be doable in 18 months or so without an enormous amount of effort.

I had about a 7 to 8 lb lean gain in that time, which was about 5 weeks, which was pretty reasonable actually. Especially when you consider that I have had more lean mass than that in the past. That's about 1.5 lbs per week, which is in line with the theoretical maximum accumulation rate. Considering that my diet was based around providing the necessary nutrients at the right times for this precise result it is not unreasonable to think that I achieved such a gain. It helps to have had the mass in the past, it always comes back easier a third time than it does the first time. What I described is pretty much exactly what happened.

Even my girlfriend, who is a doctor and is not an idiot when it comes to this sort of thing, is a bit puzzled at how I am able to put it on like this. I am just following the rules laid down by our common physiological limits. Nothing more, nothing less.

I don't know what else to tell you, I don't blame you for being skeptical. I would be too, if I wasn't me.

I would love to get tested on a regular basis, but I can not afford to do so. I can't even afford to get all the food I need sometimes, much less buy things or pay for the regular hormone tests and bodyfat tests that would be awesome to post up once a month. If we want to put together a donation fund that is 100% open book and can only be used to pay for specific tests, I am more than willing to take the tests on a monthly basis (or twice a month, if we can raise the money).

Realistically, right now I am probably back up to that 10.7-ish% or maybe slightly lower, but not below 10. I was 204lbs when Jeff measured me and I am 219 now. You do the math. That's a 13-ish lb lean gain in about 3 months. Right about 1 to 1.1 lbs a week. That, my friend, is not impossible. You simply have to follow the rules, and it does require a bit of structure. It is hard for me to get someone to do what I suggest, but when they do they are like duuuuuude, this is crazy! I didn't know it could be this easy to get bigger and stronger.

You are welcome to disagree and I do not want you to change anything you are doing if you are happy with your results as is, that is always rule #1: Be happy with what you are doing and the results you are getting.

I share what I do so that if others would like to try and get similar results they will know what to do. I am not going to pretend it isn't somewhat strict, but it does work.

Poliquin gets substantially better results than I do, but he's using a ton of supplements and intravenous vitamins. I'm using protein, glucose powder, kre-alkalyn and vegetables. I'm doing pretty good for what I'm using and so will anyone who follows the same protocol, adjusted for individual bodyweight.

You may also be familiar with Chad Waterbury, who regularly performs a similar transformation with his clients and uses far inferior nutritional timing. He goes for 10 lbs lean gain and 10 lbs fat loss in 10-12 weeks. He also points out that you can't lose quite so much fat once you get pretty lean if you expect to be putting on or keeping your muscle, but for people who are 15% or higher it is very reasonable even with his older-school (comparatively) nutritional timing.

If you have followed my posts you will see that my focus is not on fat loss, for precisely this reason. All I have to do is not put ON any more fat and I will be able to reach my goals just by packing on 10 more lbs of lean mass. If that takes a year or 18 months, no problemo! That's totally acceptable and very easy to do now that I understand what is happening in my body.

Reeves best was probably when he won Mr. America in 1950. Reported to be 213 @ 8% or ~196 LBM. You are claiming 219 @ 10.7% or ~196 LBM.

Of course you are 1" taller (6' 2" compared to 6' 1" for Reeves). But Reeves was also Mr. America.

Look at post #8 on this link (this isn't exactly where I got my Reeves measurements from, but I did get them from the same guy who is making the post). Now of course you can't believe everything you read on a internet message board. Perhaps Reeves was more like 225 @ 7% as you say.

http://muscleandbrawn.com/forums/classi ... roids.html

In the end, it really doesn't matter. I just wanted to put your claims into a bit of perspective. The video I linked to has multi-title winner and long time bodybuilding professional Dave Goodin, saying from his own lips that he has only gained 30 lbs. of actual muscle in his entire career. If you look at his contest stats, they bear out his rather "unspectacular" claim. But recall, his "unspectaular" gains were enough to win many professional titles.

Reeves gained about 35 lbs. of actual muscle over his entire career if you look at his stats from his Mr. America win in 1950. By the way, Reg Park is the same height as Reeves, but a bit larger structure (he's a monster). He apparantly managed to put on close to 40 lbs. of actual muscle and seems to have carried right around 200 LBM.

My intention isn't to necessarily dispute any of you claims. I only want to put your claims into perspective by putting them into the context of well known professional bodybuilders (legends of the sport that are still remembered 60 years later) and their stats. Your claim puts you pretty close to legends of the sport. I'm not saying that this isn't the case, but I'm a bit skeptical. I'm even more skeptical that you can put on 10 more pounds of muscle as that would for sure put you above both Reeves and even Park. To my knowledge, no natural has ever surpassed Park even to this day (equalizing for height). Even Arnie didn't surpass Park by a lot (considering his self-confessed high levels of drug use. Of course the drugs in Arnies day ain't what they are now).

I will be posting pics from earlier today so you can see what I look like as of noon. I weighed in at 218, but that is a bit dehydrated and underfed.

No need to post pics for my benefit. As I said, I just wanted to put your self-reported stats in the context of what some of the greatest natural bodybuilders in history have been able to achieve. If you think you are pretty close to those guys (and will surpass them in a year to 18 months), I'm totally fine with that.

Well on second thought, I would like to see your pics. Why not.

Not for your benefit. If I make a claim I should be willing and able to back it up, period. Here they are. Like I said, not super ripped but between 10 and 11% is visibly accurate. Sorry about the pants, didn't wear shorts in 38 degree weather.

Relaxed:

Flexed: