PDA

View Full Version : Fat loss, then possible fat gain?


Brandon Enos
03-28-2009, 09:43 AM
My goal was to go straight into law enforcement. However, bc of the economy, all the agencies I was going through the hiring processes for have canceled all hiring. So, after some deep soul searching and much deliberating, I have decided to revert to my old goal to join the US Air Force. Right now, I have 30 pounds to lose to be eligible. Ive been working out using heavy lifting, sprints, metabolic conditioning (sleds, sandbags, and stuff), and swimming since I know those will be the best way to help me lose weight much better than running endless miles, plus it will make me look better nekid.

However, at least a few months before I go, Id like to switch to a program with more endurance based workouts similar to what Ill be required to do in basic. This will have the added benefit of being able to do my workout anywhere since I wont need a gym and this is good because me and my friend joining with me already have plans to do a lot of stuff and go a lot of places before we go to basic and wont be able to.

Also, even if I keep my current program until I ship out, I wont be doing anything like my current program once Im in.

Heres my question. I have a fear that once I switch to long runs and huge sets of pushups, pullups, and situps a lot of muscle that wont be needed anymore will disapeer. Not to bad in and of itself, but my fear continues into believing that muscle will become fat. Is any part of that fear accurate? Or will I lose the muscle but since Ill still be keeping active it will just burn off as energy? I dont look like a gorilla or anything, nor would I want to be that big, but I dont want to end up looking like a flabby little marathon runner either...

One idea I had was that once I reach goal weight, drop the barbells and do nothing but sleds, sandbags, cals, and rope work along with maybe cycling sprints and longer runs.

Steven Low
03-28-2009, 10:20 AM
Nope.

If you have the muscle you will keep it unless you don't eat enough to keep it.

Unless you're sedentary... in which case you can eat for the muscle and still not keep it.

Derek Weaver
03-28-2009, 04:10 PM
Like Steven said, you don't magically synthesize muscle into fat or vice versa.

Consider some sort of a blend though of conditioning and lifting, maybe sub maximal, but still heavy enough to encourage maintenance of what you've worked for.

Unless you need to lose muscle for any reason (endurance tests could be a factor depending on how much you're carrying).

Ben Fury
03-29-2009, 11:15 PM
You can't out train a bad diet.

Ditch the sugar, wheat, corn, soy, rice, potatoes and vegetable oil. Eat real food. Avoid packaged junk. If the weight doesn't start coming off satisfactorily, do a weeks food log and post it or PM it and we'll ferret out the offending fatteners.

Scott Clark
03-30-2009, 03:36 PM
You can't out train a bad diet.

Ditch the sugar, wheat, corn, soy, rice, potatoes and vegetable oil. Eat real food. Avoid packaged junk. If the weight doesn't start coming off satisfactorily, do a weeks food log and post it or PM it and we'll ferret out the offending fatteners.

Out of curiosity Ben, what is your strategy for restoring glycogen if all of the above foods are cut out? (no argument for the exclusion of sugar and wheat)

Steven Low
03-30-2009, 08:14 PM
Out of curiosity Ben, what is your strategy for restoring glycogen if all of the above foods are cut out? (no argument for the exclusion of sugar and wheat)
Choco milk. :p

Sweet potatoes are not consider potatoes btw.

Ben Fury
03-30-2009, 09:17 PM
Out of curiosity Ben, what is your strategy for restoring glycogen if all of the above foods are cut out? (no argument for the exclusion of sugar and wheat)

Glycogen is overrated. Get keto-adapted and burn ketones like an Inuit. The Inuit regularly crossed astonishing distances in the Arctic on an almost zero carb diet. The first two weeks of keto-adaptation aren't fun. But after that, you're cruising.

Your body will rip apart proteins for the few absolutely essential tasks it needs glucose for.

See Westman, et al:
Low-carbohydrate nutrition and metabolism
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/reprint/86/2/276

Donald Lee
03-30-2009, 09:34 PM
How much time do you have until Basic?

For the military, as you probably know, the training is mostly aerobic. In order to meet these demands, you need to hypertrophy your slow twitch fibers and make your fast twitch fibers more oxidative. You also need to work on your cardiovascular system, like your heart.

Focusing on conditioning doesn't make your muscles go away. You want to keep your fast twitch muscles and just make them more oxidative. Depending on your abilities and time left, you can continue to strength train while working on conditioning or you can put your strength work in maintenance by lifting just once a week.

Steven Low
03-30-2009, 10:17 PM
Glycogen is overrated. Get keto-adapted and burn ketones like an Inuit. The Inuit regularly crossed astonishing distances in the Arctic on an almost zero carb diet. The first two weeks of keto-adaptation aren't fun. But after that, you're cruising.

Your body will rip apart proteins for the few absolutely essential tasks it needs glucose for.

See Westman, et al:
Low-carbohydrate nutrition and metabolism
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/reprint/86/2/276
Unfortunately, not everyone responds well to ketogenic diets..... just like not everyone responds well to high carb.

Highly dependent on the person's ability to adapt which is why it's a good idea for people to experiment and see which works best for them.

Ben Fury
03-30-2009, 10:50 PM
Unfortunately, not everyone responds well to ketogenic diets..... just like not everyone responds well to high carb.

Highly dependent on the person's ability to adapt which is why it's a good idea for people to experiment and see which works best for them.

Indeed. But he said he's got to drop 30 pounds just to be ELIGIBLE. That means he probably needs to lose closer to 50 pounds of fat to get to a good healthy BF%.

With high carb, he's far more likely to lose a lot of lean mass he'll miss when he needs it most. A ketogenic diet will let him train hard (after he's keto-adapted) while he strips off the fat fast and doesn't feel like he's starving the whole time like he probably would on the equivalent high carb diet.

Then, when he's close to goal weight, he can either lighten up and add back a few carb calories or switch back to whatever style of eating suits him for feeling his best long term.

You're right, keto-adapting feels terrible for some folks and they never feel 100% while they're in ketosis. But it is protein sparing and strips fat like there's no tomorrow. Good for fast adjustments like he's talking about.

Darryl Shaw
03-31-2009, 06:21 AM
Glycogen is overrated. Get keto-adapted and burn ketones like an Inuit. The Inuit regularly crossed astonishing distances in the Arctic on an almost zero carb diet. The first two weeks of keto-adaptation aren't fun. But after that, you're cruising.

Your body will rip apart proteins for the few absolutely essential tasks it needs glucose for.

See Westman, et al:
Low-carbohydrate nutrition and metabolism
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/reprint/86/2/276

Ben,

That review article relates mostly to diabetics and the few paragraphs that deal with athletic performance merely state that submaximal endurance can be maintained on a ketogenic diet. The review failed to provide any evidence that ketogenic diets actually improve performance and clearly acknowledged that anaerobic performance is limited by low muscle glycogen concentrations. It's also worth noting that supplements were required in order to maintain circulatory competence even during submaximal exercise as well as to achieve nitrogen balance.

Low-carbohydrate diets and exercise

Over the past several years, 2 reviews focused on LCKD and
exercise have been published. One of these reviews concluded
that submaximal endurance performance can be sustained despite
the virtual exclusion of carbohydrate from the human diet
(46). The other review addressed the intramuscular enzyme adaptation
that occurs with these diets (47).

Several important issues arise in the consideration of LCKD
studies in general and of exercise studies in particular: 1) the time
allowed for keto-adaptation, 2) the use of electrolyte supplementation,
and 3) the amount of protein intake. To try to examine the
first issue, we can consider the multiple studies comparing lowcarbohydrate
with high-carbohydrate diets to test the hypothesis
that “carbohydrate loading” can enhance physical performance.
None of the studies that support this hypothesis maintained the
LCD for 2 wk (48), and most maintained the LCDs for 7 d
(49). No studies have carefully examined the process or duration
of keto-adaptation, but clinical observation suggests that it probably
takes from 2 to 4 wk for keto-adaptation to occur.

The second issue has to do with the maintenance of adequate
mineral supplementation as long as the ketogenic state is maintained.
One group of investigators provided supplements containing
3–5 g sodium/d and 2–3 g potassium/d and found that
circulatory competence during submaximal exercise was sustained.
These supplements also allowed the subjects to achieve
nitrogen balance, which had not been achieved in studies that did
not use supplements (20).

The third issue affecting physical performance is adequate
protein intake. It is generally accepted that the preservation of
LBM and of physical performance during any degree of energy
restriction occurs when protein is in the range of 1.2 to 1.7 g kg
reference body wt1 d1. The use of the mid-range value of 1.5
g kg1 d1 for adults with reference weights ranging from 60
to 80 kg, this translates into total daily protein intakes of 90 to 120
g/d. When adequate protein intake is expressed in the context of
total daily energy expenditures of 2000 to 3000 kcal/d,15% of
daily energy expenditure should be provided as protein.

Further research on exercising under conditions of LCDs is
needed. These studies may be optimized by careful attention to
the time needed for keto-adaptation, to mineral supplementation,
and to the daily protein dose. Therapeutic use of ketogenic diets
should not limit most forms of physical activity, with the caveat
that anaerobic performance (ie, weight lifting or sprinting) may
be limited by lower-muscle glycogen concentrations.

"Fat adaptation" for athletic performance: the nail in the coffin? (http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/100/1/7?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&author1=burke+lm&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&resourcetype=HWCIT)

http://www.ausport.gov.au/ais/nutrition/research/fat_adaptation

Ben Fury
03-31-2009, 07:29 AM
Ben,
It's also worth noting that supplements were required in order to maintain circulatory competence even during submaximal exercise as well as to achieve nitrogen balance.


Traditional Inuit had access to zero supplements and managed very well.



"Fat adaptation" for athletic performance: the nail in the coffin? (http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/100/1/7?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&author1=burke+lm&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&resourcetype=HWCIT)

http://www.ausport.gov.au/ais/nutrition/research/fat_adaptation

Yes, Burke's pro-carbohydrate views and dismissal of keto-adaptation are not news. I know both strength and distance athletes who are competing while in ketosis who claim that they're unimpaired. I'm less concerned with their competitive status than the state of their health. The thing I like is they all have TG/HDL ratios under 2, showing excellent cardiovascular health and low risk of heart disease. Finishing the very long race of life well is the race I'm most interested in.

Emily Mattes
03-31-2009, 03:59 PM
I have some experience with what you're talking about.

I lost a little less than 20lbs of fat, while building a little bit of muscle. I do competitive Olympic lifting so it was incredibly important to me to maintain or gain my muscle mass over the course of weight loss.

I have done so through an extremely low-carb diet (<50g on rest days, 50g-100g on workout days), somewhat restricting calories (aiming for 1800-2100kcal/day for an 187lbs female, now 171lbs), and being fanatic about my protein intake--I started out getting 1g/lbs and now aim for 1.4-1.5g/lbs. I actually went through a six-week squat cycle and did excellently. I failed to produce a good max squat at the end, but that was due to a new 70-90 hour/week completely derailing my lifting, sleeping, and eating for the last week or so of it rather than the diet.

My lifts are improving and as far as I can tell I haven't lost any muscle mass. I eat sweet potatoes for post-workout carbs, and otherwise the most high-glycemic thing I eat is maybe berries in cottage cheese in the morning. Otherwise it's all green vegetables.

I could probably be getting stronger faster if I was eating a higher number of calories, but for my weight-loss goals I've been extremely pleased with how it's been working out.

George Mounce
03-31-2009, 04:03 PM
I have some experience with what you're talking about.

I lost a little less than 20lbs of fat, while building a little bit of muscle. I do competitive Olympic lifting so it was incredibly important to me to maintain or gain my muscle mass over the course of weight loss.

I have done so through an extremely low-carb diet (<50g on rest days, 50g-100g on workout days), somewhat restricting calories (aiming for 1800-2100kcal/day for an 187lbs female, now 171lbs), and being fanatic about my protein intake--I started out getting 1g/lbs and now aim for 1.4-1.5g/lbs. I actually went through a six-week squat cycle and did excellently. I failed to produce a good max squat at the end, but that was due to a new 70-90 hour/week completely derailing my lifting, sleeping, and eating for the last week or so of it rather than the diet.

My lifts are improving and as far as I can tell I haven't lost any muscle mass. I eat sweet potatoes for post-workout carbs, and otherwise the most high-glycemic thing I eat is maybe berries in cottage cheese in the morning. Otherwise it's all green vegetables.

I could probably be getting stronger faster if I was eating a higher number of calories, but for my weight-loss goals I've been extremely pleased with how it's been working out.

I'm confused are you trying to lose weight or gain it? Muscle as we all know is heavier, so why is weight an issue other than for your competitive weight class? I think you are more worried about body composition, and weight has only to do with your class.

Darryl Shaw
04-01-2009, 05:49 AM
Traditional Inuit had access to zero supplements and managed very well.

I may be wrong but I doubt that Brandon is an Inuit or that he has access to rancid whale or seal blubber or any other traditional Inuit foods therefore he'd need supplements.

Yes, Burke's pro-carbohydrate views and dismissal of keto-adaptation are not news. I know both strength and distance athletes who are competing while in ketosis who claim that they're unimpaired.

Anecdotal evidence is worse than useless. Where are the studies showing that athletic performance is improved or at the very least not impaired in some way by a ketogenic diet?

I'm less concerned with their competitive status than the state of their health. The thing I like is they all have TG/HDL ratios under 2, showing excellent cardiovascular health and low risk of heart disease. Finishing the very long race of life well is the race I'm most interested in.

I guess you're unaware of the longevity of the Japanese on their traditional high carb diet or the low rates of cardiovascular disease, diabetes and diet related cancers throughout Japan, China, Korea, Thailand, Vietnam, Laos, Burma and...... well the whole of South-East Asia really despite their traditional high carb diet? :rolleyes:

Steven Low
04-01-2009, 08:27 AM
Most asians are also carb adapted pretty well... can't say the same for everyone else. Seems like a crapshoot there.

Emily Mattes
04-01-2009, 09:49 AM
I'm confused are you trying to lose weight or gain it? Muscle as we all know is heavier, so why is weight an issue other than for your competitive weight class? I think you are more worried about body composition, and weight has only to do with your class.

I am more worried about body composition right now. I just used weight as shorthand. My approximate body fat has dropped from about 35% to 26% (using a tape measure, so who knows how accurate it is).

I'd like to see if I can get down to the 69kg weight class, but if when there I'm at a level of leanness that is too difficult to maintain without going diet-crazy and sacrificing my workouts, then I will bulk back up to stick around at 75kg.

EDIT: Oh, I think my post was confusing. I have been eating 1800-2000kcal a day, and have dropped from 187 to 171.

Ben Fury
04-01-2009, 09:58 AM
I may be wrong but I doubt that Brandon is an Inuit or that he has access to rancid whale or seal blubber or any other traditional Inuit foods therefore he'd need supplements.


I have seen no evidence that the Inuit have any special adaptations to low carb eating that are peculiar to them. I've also seen no evidence that rancid whale and seal blubber and other Inuit foods provide essential nutrients that are not available in what is commonly sold at the grocery store.



Anecdotal evidence is worse than useless. Where are the studies showing that athletic performance is improved or at the very least not impaired in some way by a ketogenic diet?

No, anecdotal evidence is what we refer to as a case study. It is useful in suggesting further research. NIH is decidedly not very low carb friendly, so the studies that need doing have not been done and are unlikely to be funded soon.




I guess you're unaware of the longevity of the Japanese on their traditional high carb diet or the low rates of cardiovascular disease, diabetes and diet related cancers throughout Japan, China, Korea, Thailand, Vietnam, Laos, Burma and...... well the whole of South-East Asia really despite their traditional high carb diet? :rolleyes:

These areas traditionally consumed considerably less total calories than Americans. Globalizing their results to give Americans a green light to consume excess carbohydrates has resulted in our current epidemic of obesity and Type II diabetes.

Ben Fury
04-01-2009, 10:15 AM
I'd like to see if I can get down to the 69kg weight class, but if when there I'm at a level of leanness that is too difficult to maintain without going diet-crazy and sacrificing my workouts, then I will bulk back up to stick around at 75kg.


Yes, exactly. Shave body fat by reasonable amounts and then see if that's a strong, healthy weight for you. I would expect performance to stay high down into the high teens and start to drop off in the mid teens.

But you find a comfortable BF% for you. Don't let society, fashion or Coach Ben tell you any different from what you feel is your best body composition! A lady friend used to torture herself to be an unhealthy size 2. Now she's a healthy size 5 and has better energy and gets lots of complements. Fighting her natural pear shape just ended up not being worth the struggle. Now she's a fit, healthy pear with a very healthy glow!

Derek Weaver
04-01-2009, 12:11 PM
....

These areas traditionally consumed considerably less total calories than Americans. Globalizing their results to give Americans a green light to consume excess carbohydrates has resulted in our current epidemic of obesity and Type II diabetes.

Isn't this the real point? Excess calories are excess calories. Eat enough protein to spare protein breakdown, eat enough fat to normalize blood glucose and keep hormones in check, eat enough carbs to maintain your lifestyle and/or sport.

This article explains it nicely. http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/nutrition/how-many-carbohdyrates-do-you-need.html

Of all the dietary authorities on the internet I think Lyle makes the most sense in terms of macros only. In terms of sources of food, it's easily Robb Wolf. Combine the two approaches (though viewpoints on what causes what vary significantly. I,e. insulin etc.) and you've got a healthy, lean, successful athlete.

Craig Brown
04-01-2009, 03:34 PM
Given that we are looking at fat loss mainly, my actual experience with ketogenic diets (when Lyle's book first came out) kicked ass. I dumped a lot of blubber and, as Ben suggested, my lifts stayed solid or improved...there was a point where that changed, but that was 30# after I started. Plus, it's actualy fast enough (if you are one of those who can do it) that it is quite fun. This is one of Lyle's main points of both his 'crash' diets and keto diet (his crash diets tend to be keto, actualy, he just doesn't mention it as much). The fat comes off quickly, so you appreciate that what you are doing is working, so you are more willing to keep doing it.

Derek Weaver
04-01-2009, 07:59 PM
He doesn't mention that his crash diets, explicitly Rapid Fat Loss being a PSMF because ketosis doesn't matter as far as fat loss is concerned.

For people who have a lot of weight to lose (men well over 15% bf would fit this group), low carb diets tend to work great, but it's not because they're in ketosis. Their hormone profiles are usually good (insulin is usually screwy though) and the body knows it's not starving.

I've made points in the past that I think a lot of people would do way better with fewer carbs in their diets, as in well under 100 grams. And I stand by that as most people dont' do anything throughout the day except get up, go to work, come home, watch tv and go to sleep. How glycogen demanding is that?

They pretty much just need to hit their protein requirement and EFA's (the premise of RFL from what I understand). After that, there's not a lot of caloric wiggle room in terms of carbs and fats.

Ben Fury
04-01-2009, 09:03 PM
They pretty much just need to hit their protein requirement and EFA's (the premise of RFL from what I understand). After that, there's not a lot of caloric wiggle room in terms of carbs and fats.

Exactly, it's not rocket science after all. None of this dividing the plate in thirds or such nonsense. Just plunk down the right size chunk of protein smack dab in the middle of the plate and eat that first to trigger some satiety. Then eat the veggies or salad you dribbled around the protein. Then if you still feel like you're starving, have seconds on the veggies, or have a small chunk of fat or a piece of fruit. Bang! You're done! Go get a life so you'll be too busy to think about eating for 5 or 6 hours.

Mike ODonnell
04-02-2009, 05:57 AM
It's easier to just go "low" carb for cycles than try and calculate magic "zones"....as most people if given the chance will always greatly underestimate what they are taking in....plus it's also easier to say just not eat any bread, then 1/3 a bagel.

Craig Brown
04-02-2009, 08:48 AM
Mike OD- that's what I do now- drop everything (bread/rice/fruit) except a little dairy and "green" carbs- it's tough to eat at a level where I'm not losing fat if it's there to lose. For maintenace add the fruit back in and everything is good. Abstinence is easier than other forms of self control (for me!).

Darryl Shaw
04-03-2009, 05:41 AM
I may be wrong but I doubt that Brandon is an Inuit or that he has access to rancid whale or seal blubber or any other traditional Inuit foods therefore he'd need supplements.

I have seen no evidence that the Inuit have any special adaptations to low carb eating that are peculiar to them. I've also seen no evidence that rancid whale and seal blubber and other Inuit foods provide essential nutrients that are not available in what is commonly sold at the grocery store.

And yet the review article you cite states that supplements are required on a ketogenic diet...... so which of you is wrong?

Anecdotal evidence is worse than useless. Where are the studies showing that athletic performance is improved or at the very least not impaired in some way by a ketogenic diet?

No, anecdotal evidence is what we refer to as a case study. It is useful in suggesting further research. NIH is decidedly not very low carb friendly, so the studies that need doing have not been done and are unlikely to be funded soon.

No studies? Strange...... I seem to recall posting a link to some studies on fat adaptation and ketogenic diets here (http://www.performancemenu.com/forum/showpost.php?p=54114&postcount=11). If those links aren't working for you I suggest you buy a copy of Clinical Sports Nutrition (3rd edition) where you will find at the end of Chapter 15: Nutritional Strategies To Enhance Fat Oxidation five pages of references citing over 100 studies dealing with the subject.

I guess you're unaware of the longevity of the Japanese on their traditional high carb diet or the low rates of cardiovascular disease, diabetes and diet related cancers throughout Japan, China, Korea, Thailand, Vietnam, Laos, Burma and...... well the whole of South-East Asia really despite their traditional high carb diet?

These areas traditionally consumed considerably less total calories than Americans. Globalizing their results to give Americans a green light to consume excess carbohydrates has resulted in our current epidemic of obesity and Type II diabetes.

Americans did not become the fattest people on Earth by eating too many carbs they got that way by too much of everything.

Ben Fury
04-03-2009, 10:22 AM
And yet the review article you cite states that supplements are required on a ketogenic diet...... so which of you is wrong?

Neither. We are referring to different metabolic states.

Phinney's 1983 cyclist study used sodium/potassium supplementation while the cyclists were undergoing keto-adaptation and continuing to train hard.

The Inuit require no special supplementation since they are already keto-adapted.


No studies?

I did not say "no studies", I said the studies that "need" to be done. i.e. studies in fully keto-adapted individuals. If you are so inclined, please tell me how many of your studies were conducted on individuals who were fully keto-adapted for greater than 4 weeks? Studying non keto-adapted people after tossing them onto a ketogenic diet and then stating they had performance deficits is just a waste of research dollars. Of course they did. That's like saying, "I put diesel in my gasoline engine and it ran terrible." and then concluding that diesel is lousy fuel.

Steven Low
04-03-2009, 10:27 AM
I did not say "no studies", I said the studies that "need" to be done. i.e. studies in fully keto-adapted individuals. If you are so inclined, please tell me how many of your studies were conducted on individuals who were fully keto-adapted for greater than 4 weeks? Studying non keto-adapted people after tossing them onto a ketogenic diet and then stating they had performance deficits is just a waste of research dollars. Of course they did. That's like saying, "I put diesel in my gasoline engine and it ran terrible." and then concluding that diesel is lousy fuel.

This is so true.

For any moderate, low or very low/no carb diet the studies ONLY do it for like 2-3 weeks.

I'm always like WTF? This doesn't give me any useful information AT ALL. Your study is a piece of crap.

Arien Malec
04-03-2009, 11:07 AM
Americans did not become the fattest people on Earth by eating too many carbs they got that way by too much of everything.

This is factually untrue. The absolute amount of protein and fat has barely budged over the years (fat went up a bit for men, down for women, 50 kcal difference either way). The increased caloric intake has been of carbohydrates, and particularly of the processed sort (we've also seen a rather profound switch from sources of sat fat - red meat and whole milk - to PUFAs from vegetable oils).

And as I say every fraking time we jump all over someone's simple question with this silly debate, the anthropological evidence is that humans do just fine with varying macronutrient ratios, just not with crap. Which is what Ben said quite rightly (avoid grains and vegetable oils) before this descended into glycogen reloading and fat adaptation, and all that nonsense.

For the endurance switch, to maintain weight loss, LC/low cal with refeeds (normal calories, higher carb) tends to work best, with refeed timing depending on the %BF (longer intervals the higher the %BF), and where carb-ups should be timed for the peri-exercise period (just pre and w/in 45 minutes post) unless you are glycogen depleted (which you shouldn't strive for if you are doing endurance training) in which case they can go somewhat longer.

For best results, you should not switch 100% of your training for total distance events -- sprinting and intervals should be a strong focus as well. And definitely keep up with the weight training, at least for strength maintenance.

Mike ODonnell
04-03-2009, 12:54 PM
Americans did not become the fattest people on Earth by eating too many carbs they got that way by too much of everything.

While calories did increase.....% fat/protein went down while % carb increased....so Yes, they did become fatter because of excess carb/cal consumption....too bad you can't blame red meat for this one.

http://www.preventivecare.com/shared/FatNYT/carb_graph.gif

Robert Johnson
04-04-2009, 03:39 AM
If people got fatter with an extra 50-100 grams of carbs, why not recommend removing the 'extra' carbs, instead of almost all of them?

I don't understand why grains are labelled as crap.

I know they aren't as nutritious as vegetables, but lots of fat isn't expecially nutritious, either, is it?

---

Is the Asians are adapted to carbs idea proven?

---

As for the oririginal topic -

I wouldn't suggest making major dietary moves away from carbohydrates, which will surely work for military training, whereas a low carb diet might be a big problem for you, in practical or physical terms, also with perhaps having to change from one diet to another when training begins, with associated problems, regardless of whether its better for you in the long run or not. Try it later, if you want.

Darryl Shaw
04-04-2009, 04:37 AM
Neither. We are referring to different metabolic states.

Phinney's 1983 cyclist study used sodium/potassium supplementation while the cyclists were undergoing keto-adaptation and continuing to train hard.

The Inuit require no special supplementation since they are already keto-adapted.

I did not say "no studies", I said the studies that "need" to be done. i.e. studies in fully keto-adapted individuals. If you are so inclined, please tell me how many of your studies were conducted on individuals who were fully keto-adapted for greater than 4 weeks?

Do you actually read the studies you cite? Phinney's study (link (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=524027)) was conducted on athletes who spent "4 weeks on a eucaloric ketogenic diet (EKD) providing 83% of energy as fat, 15% as protein, and less than 3% as carbohydrate.". He concluded that "submaximal endurance performance can be sustained despite the virtual exclusion of carbohydrate from the human diet." That's it, submaximal endurance can be sustained on a ketogenic diet but who cares about submaximal performance? Nowhere did he state that athletic performance was improved by a ketogenic diet indeed he concluded by stating that "anaerobic (ie, weight lifting or sprint) performance is limited by the low muscle glycogen levels induced by a ketogenic diet, and this would strongly discourage its use under most conditions of competitive athletics."

Studying non keto-adapted people after tossing them onto a ketogenic diet and then stating they had performance deficits is just a waste of research dollars. Of course they did. That's like saying, "I put diesel in my gasoline engine and it ran terrible." and then concluding that diesel is lousy fuel.

Good analogy; fat is a lousy fuel for a species that's been adapted to a high carb diet ever since we crawled out of the oceans and headed for the trees.

Darryl Shaw
04-04-2009, 04:48 AM
This is factually untrue. The absolute amount of protein and fat has barely budged over the years (fat went up a bit for men, down for women, 50 kcal difference either way). The increased caloric intake has been of carbohydrates, and particularly of the processed sort (we've also seen a rather profound switch from sources of sat fat - red meat and whole milk - to PUFAs from vegetable oils).

While calories did increase.....% fat/protein went down while % carb increased....so Yes, they did become fatter because of excess carb/cal consumption....too bad you can't blame red meat for this one.

Americans got fat because portion sizes and the availability of cheap high calorie density foods increased while levels of physical activity decreased. There is nothing inherantly obesogenic about carbohydrates, indeed most of the worlds population eats a high carb diet without getting fat, so to single out carbs as the sole cause of Americas epidemic levels of obesity is a gross oversimplification of the problem.

George Mounce
04-04-2009, 05:34 AM
I was thinking:

None of you have defined "high carb", but you all agree on ketogenic as this is an established state of metabolism. What makes a diet "high carb" according to the brains in this discussion? 60%? 70%?

Charts! Thanks MOD, a good chart can go a long way. Unfortunately my current job is chart and statistics hell so I can appreciate a chart.

Darryl got me curious with his comment about high carb so I found some charts to further the discussion: http://www.fao.org/docrep/w8079e/w8079e0g.htm#TopOfPage

Major sources of carbohydrate - world production 1961-1994

http://www.fao.org/docrep/w8079e/w8079e01.gif

Energy from the dominant starch staples, 1990-1992

http://www.fao.org/docrep/w8079e/w8079e01.jpg

Energy from carbohydrate by food group and as a % of total carbohydrate. Food balance data -1964 and 1994

http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d154/wowsyzygy/Energy.jpg

Finally: http://www.fao.org/docrep/w8079e/w8079e0e.htm#TopOfPage

Also since we all like studies, here is one done: Association between dietary changes and mortality rates: Israel 1949 to 1977; a trend-free regression (http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/reprint/34/8/1569.pdf)

Also the WHO disagrees that only the US and Europe are fat and getting fatter (http://www.who.int/dietphysicalactivity/publications/facts/obesity/en/)

The likelihood of developing Type 2 diabetes and hypertension rises steeply with increasing body fatness. Confined to older adults for most of the 20th century, this disease now affects obese children even before puberty. Approximately 85% of people with diabetes are type 2, and of these, 90% are obese or overweight. And this is increasingly becoming a developing world problem. In 1995, the Emerging Market Economies had the highest number of diabetics. If current trends continue, India and the Middle Eastern crescent will have taken over by 2025. Large increases would also be observed in China, Latin America and the Caribbean, and the rest of Asia.

Arien Malec
04-04-2009, 08:36 AM
Americans got fat because portion sizes and the availability of cheap high calorie density foods increased while levels of physical activity decreased. There is nothing inherantly obesogenic about carbohydrates, indeed most of the worlds population eats a high carb diet without getting fat, so to single out carbs as the sole cause of Americas epidemic levels of obesity is a gross oversimplification of the problem.

Darryl -- I don't disagree that healthy diets can be maintained on with a range of macronutrient ratios, including high carb. But you are factually incorrect when you assert that Americans ate more of everything (all the caloric increase was in simple carbohydrates), and that levels of physical exercise decreased (physical exercise increased.

Mike ODonnell
04-04-2009, 08:46 AM
Americans got fat because portion sizes and the availability of cheap high calorie density foods increased while levels of physical activity decreased. There is nothing inherantly obesogenic about carbohydrates, indeed most of the worlds population eats a high carb diet without getting fat, so to single out carbs as the sole cause of Americas epidemic levels of obesity is a gross oversimplification of the problem.

Same beating of a dead horse.....different thread.....

Yes....there is a huge difference between real carbs and processed carbs
Yes....real carbs are not evil
Yes....people eat too much crap
Yes....eating too many calories will make you fat

You just can't say "carbs" and not differentiate between fruits/veg and cereals/pasta.....high carbs....low carbs...who cares....just eat real carbs. Trying to argue one way is inherently better when all carbs are "real", is wasting time over the 1% that matters in overall longevity.

Brandon Enos
04-05-2009, 08:26 AM
Sigh.....this has gotten out of hand and has drifted far from my original question...haha diet is not a problem for me. I've been paleo/primal solid (except for a small cheat when on vacation or the like) since the beginning of January. MLB. Meat, leaves, berries, that’s all I've been eating. Lots of meat, veggies, and fruits. I throw in some nuts, and occasional dairy (in the form of butter or cheese made from raw milk). I've also been IFing on and off for a few weeks at a time. Found that, for me at this time in my life, I can only do it for little spurts of time and keep my sanity.

My original question was centered solely around the fear that if I worked out with weights to much now and developed any extra mass, and then switched to more of an endurance type routine once I entered basic or prior to, excess mass that was not being used (you need less muscle mass to do a pushup at ~180 pounds bw than to bench press a ~350 pounds or more barbell) would end up being stored as body fat.

This question was answered by a few of the 35 posts, so thank you to those who answered it.

Steven Low
04-05-2009, 11:05 AM
Yeah dude, each of the types of body tissues doesn't magically convert to another...

And as long as you eat enough you shouldn't lose muscle mass.

Pretty simple.

Brandon Enos
04-05-2009, 12:11 PM
I dont mind losing the mass at all, my only concern was conversion. But it sounds like as long as Im active and eating clean, Ill burn the muscle for energy and just become lighter/smaller.

Steven Low
04-05-2009, 03:13 PM
I dont mind losing the mass at all, my only concern was conversion. But it sounds like as long as Im active and eating clean, Ill burn the muscle for energy and just become lighter/smaller.
No.

There's no conversion. At all. Ever.

Your body can use it for energy IF you're not eating enough (hence hypocaloric diet). But otherwise, it won't.

Bravo Jones
07-02-2011, 12:56 AM
Usually people take it difficult and in generally it is not easy to lose weight rather than to gain weight and it is a fact.

Jack Alan
03-19-2012, 11:14 PM
Yes it is possible to gain weight after loss fat. to gain fat yo have to eat healthy and protein foods items which increase fat and weight. Take proper rest after eating. Eat meat and fish or egg 3 times in a week.

john arthor
01-02-2013, 09:08 PM
Everyone has his/her own pattern and ways to handle it or do their activities. Focusing on conditioning doesn't make your muscles go away. You want to keep your fast twitch muscles and just make them more oxidative. Depending on your abilities and time left, you can continue to strength train while working on conditioning or you can put your strength work in maintenance by lifting just once a week.