Yeah, cause carbs 'switch on' insulin, which 'switches off' cortisol, a stress hormone that is catabolic.Originally posted by mdhan
We all know that carbs(especially simple) is effective in avoiding catabolism of muscle tissue.
What is more potent at anti-catabolism, is the weight training itself and calories. Which is why when you stop training you eventually lose muscle and when you drop calories too low you eventually lose muscle.
If calories are in surplus, yes. If you're in a calorie deficit, the hormonal impact high GI carbs have doesn't have the same effect. They'll make you want to eat more, but if you resist, you can still drop weight using them, only you'll feel more uncomfortable with hunger pangs and sugar cravings.We are also aware of the fact that carbs(again, especially simple) are like dbl-edged swords in that they can also cause fat storage.
Which makes very little difference if you're in calorie surplus.That's why some people's diet contains at least one meal that contains very low to no carbs.
Fat has calories. Calories prevent catabolism. Albeit, it don't have the same hormonal impact as carbs (in fact, it stimulates release of neither insulin or glucagon, but does stimulate bile release in the stomch and fat lipases for digestion, which doesn't nothing for switching off catabolism).My question is, does fat actually inhibit muscle catabolism at all? That is, do they act fast enough?
So the answer is, carbs inhibit catabolism in the short term (ie once they stimualte insulin secretion) but fat doesn't. It's cause of this why carbs are recommended post train cause they switch the catabolism off quicker. Of course, protein synthesis is elevated for 36 hours after training, so carbs aren't essential post w/o, but they do help and do have a noticable effect on recovery and performance.
So, net breakdown/synthesis is decided overall by calories and not macronutrients.
Thus, eat more cals than you burn to add weight, burn more cals than you eat to lose weight. It really is that simple.
No, cause like i said earlier, net synthesis/breakdown is decided by overall calories. Of course, carbs somewhere in the diet, whether they be in the form of carb loads or if you're doing isocaloric diet from every meal, are always beneficial since insulin is the most anabolic hormone in the body and drives up IGF-1 for further anabolism. The glycogen from stored carbs also aids lifting performance and strength gains. If you're getting stronger and eating more than you burn then you'll grow.From what I understand, digestion of fat is rather slow, and the conversion of fat to ketone bodies(for muscles and the brain)is even slower.
I ask this question partly because some people even avoid carbs postworkout. IF fat is indeed "not fast enough" in avoiding catabolism, wouldn't a carbless postworkout shake essentially be a waste?
The reason people avoid carbs post w/o is for a few reasons:
1. they may want to stay in ketosis (if that's the type of diet they're currently practising).
2. They may be wanting to ensure no further cravings.
3. They may be wanting to take advantage of the negible hGH increase that comes from training.
It is possible to add muscle without using carbs post w/o. The bodybuilders NHE plan uses this method, with periodical carb loads, just like the cutting NHE plan. In fact, they're much the same diet, but guess the difference? The bodybuilders plan uses more fat and protein on the downcycle and more carbs on the upcycle.
What does that mean?
Answer: More calories.
And so you can grow.