Bro vs Keto - battle of the diets

nkira · 05-20-2009, 11:11 AM

Ok, I agree back to topic.......

**Prince** · 05-20-2009, 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by juggernaut

can we get back to topic this is stupid

funny coming from you, you're the one that continues to personally attack gopro and post crap here, you're useless to this thread, you should just shut-up and read what is posted here as you obviously have NOTHING constructive or positive to contribute to it!

Yanick · 05-20-2009, 11:29 AM

Okay if the children are done bickering, they can go back to the kiddie table now lol.

I started looking through research now to see what I might have missed in the past year or more that I've neglected this area of interest. As always its muddled up and you can barely ever find a free full text, and I'm broke as hell so don't be expecting me to pay $30 for this crap. So abstracts will have to do to stimulate further discussion.

Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics and Energy Efficiency in Weightloss Diets

I have 1 question from the above article. What does a decreased serum TAG level have to do with regards to fatty acid oxidation/energy balance? I'm unaware of the biochemistry as it relates to this.

I'll see what else I can dig up, this abstract just struck me as interesting (plus it was done in my city, where I had done some clinical rotations so I wanted to pimp it a bit).

Full Text with with a nice overview of some issues that are pertinent to this discussion. Re-iterates some of the stuff from the Lyle McDonald articles Patrick posted.

gopro · 05-20-2009, 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dg806

No, I was never able to get a copy. I looked and nobody around here carried it. Do you have any extra copies left?

dg...I do not have any copies, but if you want me to email the article to you I will.

Ok...go ahead and discuss the main topic!!

**dg806** · 05-20-2009, 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gopro

dg...I do not have any copies, but if you want me to email the article to you I will.

Ok...go ahead and discuss the main topic!!

If you can, that would be awesome! Thanks

Yanick · 05-20-2009, 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yanick

Okay if the children are done bickering, they can go back to the kiddie table now lol.

I started looking through research now to see what I might have missed in the past year or more that I've neglected this area of interest. As always its muddled up and you can barely ever find a free full text, and I'm broke as hell so don't be expecting me to pay $30 for this crap. So abstracts will have to do to stimulate further discussion.

Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics and Energy Efficiency in Weightloss Diets

I have 1 question from the above article. What does a decreased serum TAG level have to do with regards to fatty acid oxidation/energy balance? I'm unaware of the biochemistry as it relates to this. EDIT; TAG=Triglyceride for all intents and purposes. Still don't understand if lower serum TAG is a good or bad thing in relation to dieting as we don't know if the TG's were taken up by muscle/liver (for energy production) or fat (for storage).

I'll see what else I can dig up, this abstract just struck me as interesting (plus it was done in my city, where I had done some clinical rotations so I wanted to pimp it a bit).

Full Text with with a nice overview of some issues that are pertinent to this discussion. Re-iterates some of the stuff from the Lyle McDonald articles Patrick posted.

Full Text of the first paper I posted is available here. Color me stupid.

**Prince** · 05-20-2009, 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dg806

No, I was never able to get a copy. I looked and nobody around here carried it. Do you have any extra copies left?

the article is right on IronMagazine.com! 40 is the New 20

**Prince** · 05-20-2009, 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Built

Hm... That's not quite right. I read the science that he draws from, and the conclusions are based upon sound principals. That being said, show me proof of your assertion and I'll be delighted to change my mind.

Recall, I started with Atkins. Atkins is a strong proponent of the "metabolic advantage" and I believed it - for the first three years I got into this - until I was forced to accept there was no evidence of this metabolic advantage.

I would actually be delighted to read evidence of its existence. It sure as shit FELT like a metabolic advantage.

I can't tell you how much I wish I had it to do over again. I would have tracked calories - not just carbs - and had a DEXA at the very beginning.

if a calorie is a calorie why don't you eat carbs?

Moondogg · 05-20-2009, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prince

if a calorie is a calorie why don't you eat carbs?

Because they make her hungry. Protein and fat are much more satiating than carbs.

**IainDaniel** · 05-20-2009, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prince

if a calorie is a calorie why don't you eat carbs?

Because when cutting, carbs don't give that satiety affect

**Prince** · 05-20-2009, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Moondogg

Because they make her hungry. Protein and fat are much more satiating than carbs.

oh, I bet there is more reason to it than that.

**Prince** · 05-20-2009, 12:49 PM

it's clinically proven that a low carb diet is the fastest and most effective way to lose bodyfat, there have been controlled studies to prove this, and it had nothing to do with satiety.

**Built** · 05-20-2009, 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prince

if a calorie is a calorie why don't you eat carbs?

I do eat carbs. Just not a lot of 'em.

I don't generally eat starches and sugars because they make me hungry.

No other reason.

**Built** · 05-20-2009, 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prince

oh, I bet there is more reason to it than that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prince

it's clinically proven that a low carb diet is the fastest and most effective way to lose bodyfat, there have been controlled studies to prove this, and it had nothing to do with satiety.

Robert, I'd be delighted to read anything you have that proves this.

For the record - I'd eat this way even if it didn't work as well as higher-carb plans because it's so damned comfortable! Every single metric of my health improved when I switched over to reduced carbs and higher fats - and I have the photographs, DEXA scans and blood work to prove it.

I know, n=1

But n=1 is nice when that 1 is you!

nkira · 05-20-2009, 01:19 PM

Try this (DEXA Scan).

Quote:

Originally Posted by bricklayer85

what does a dexa scan do?

**dg806** · 05-20-2009, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prince

if a calorie is a calorie why don't you eat carbs?

Thanks. Thats the point I was trying to make.

**dg806** · 05-20-2009, 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Built

For the record - I'd eat this way even if it didn't work as well as higher-carb plans because it's so damned comfortable! Every single metric of my health improved when I switched over to reduced carbs and higher fats - and I have the photographs, DEXA scans and blood work to prove it.

I know, n=1

But n=1 is nice when that 1 is you!

IMO, it seems you are hung up on carbs and ketosis because you are so concerned about fat loss. Now I will agree that a lower carb diet is better for insulin control and health like you mentioned, but you also need to be concerned with what type of carbs you are eating. Brocolli for example is almost half fiber which can be digested and you don't have as many carbs as you think. Those types of carbs will make you hungry. But IMO stuff like rice and pasta are much more filling, but are very high on the glycemic index which can be bad if you need to watch stuff like that. It is very easy to fall into a routine that you are comfortable with. I would be very interested to see what happended in your case if you switch diet plans for say 6 months that included carbs, but still stayed in your calorie range.

**Built** · 05-20-2009, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dg806

IMO, it seems you are hung up on carbs and ketosis because you are so concerned about fat loss. Now I will agree that a lower carb diet is better for insulin control and health like you mentioned, but you also need to be concerned with what type of carbs you are eating. Brocolli for example is almost half fiber which can be digested and you don't have as many carbs as you think. Those types of carbs will make you hungry. But IMO stuff like rice and pasta are much more filling, but are very high on the glycemic index which can be bad if you need to watch stuff like that. It is very easy to fall into a routine that you are comfortable with. I would be very interested to see what happended in your case if you switch diet plans for say 6 months that included carbs, but still stayed in your calorie range.

Dg, you bring up some interesting points with regard to fat loss, and also with regard to satiety.

I am not concerned with fat loss. I have no problem dropping fat. I know how to do it, and I do it every year, after my Christmas bulk.

Broccoli is something I eat because it helps with satiety. Pasta and rice to me are not satiating - but that's partially because I'm a former fatty, partially because I'm a chick and partially because I have gluten intolerance - at least with regard to the pasta. Broccoli contains soluble and insoluble fibre. Soluble fibre promotes satiety.

I'll expand upon this last point. In "normal", lean, never-fat individuals, the insulin response that accompanies foods like rice and pasta promotes satiety. In insulin resistant folks (often obese, or dieted-down former fatties), insulin is overproduced and satiety is suppressed. If you're one who feels satiety from "slow" carbs, this seems incongruous. If you're one who feels hungry from "slow" carbs, you can't imagine feeling anything but freakish hunger for the rest of the day if you eat this way. For me, eating anything starchy in the AM turns on appetite for the whole day. It's like saying "Okay, cheat day. Let 'er rip!".

I feel hungrier on 2500 calories with substantial carb intake, than I do on 1200 calories and <50g total carb intake.

I was a fat jogger eating low fat, no white ANYTHING, no sugar. I could NOT control my hunger.

It gets more complicated than this. Males and females may respond to different satiety cues. Males often respond well to "volume" - so a diet high in bulky foods, brown rice, slow carbs, veggies, lean protein - is often very satiating for males, particularly if they've never been obese.

Females - particularly fat, estrogen-dominant females - may be more sensitive to the postprandial satiety that is due to cholecystokinin, which is generated the most by protein and fat and the least by carbohydrate. Oh - the gluten intolerance thing I mentioned above? Turns out that in Celiac, postprandial CCK production is suppressed. Explains why a lot of people lose weight when they ditch grains.

So… If you're a fat or formerly fat woman with a big ass and you want to feel satiety after your meals, eat protein and fat.

If you are a formerly fat woman with a big ass and you want to feel freakishly hungry all the time, eat a diet that is low in fat, eat only lean protein and eat filling, bulky foods such as brown rice, whole grain pasta and loads of low-fat veggies. Enjoy berating yourself about your lack of willpower every time you cave in and eat walnuts.

I can't comfortably stay in my maintenance calorie range if I go to a higher-carb diet because I have to pay for it with protein and or fat. Satiety is compromised when I do this. The best I can manage and still feel comfortable is carb-cycling, where I eat a little glucose or glucose polymer (starch) near the workout window. I train at night, so I eat what carbs I must consume near bedtime. And NEVER in the AM.

DROS · 05-20-2009, 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Built

Does the training volume drop back a bit as the cut progresses? I reduced my own training volume when I did the most successful "real" cut. For instance, for a split that had a 5x5, a 3x8 and a 2-3x12 for a given movement pattern (say, quad-dominant work) I first dropped the 12 rep stuff. Then I reduced the 5x5 to 4x5, then 3x5 - always doing what I could to keep the intensity high and to keep iron on the bar.

Does this sound in any way familiar, or does Mr. Palumbo prefer to lower the weights a bit in order to keep the volume the same throughout?

You will find on Dave's diet plan that you maintain that low end strength, but your endurance goes to hell. As the diet wears on you need to reduce volume in order to keep the same high intensity day in and day out. You spend a ton of time buring calories on the treadmill. When you hit the weights you want to break down the muscles as quick as possible.

DROS · 05-20-2009, 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gopro

Cool stuff DROS! I don't want to rehash the MD thing, and why I felt he made it personal. I know Dave is a good guy, so I am sure I took it in a way he did not mean it.

I already know everything you will say to combat my thoughts, as Dave has already said them. All I will add is that there ARE researchers and research out there that helps explain why muscle loss can occur in the total absence of carbs for an extended period (as well as solid physiological reasons). However, more than that, I base my opinion on my work with clients over the last 20 years or so.

That said...we both know of Dave's success, and I will not debate that. I will not debate my own either. Nothing in extreme bodybuilding is black and white, and perhaps what is optimal falls somewhere in between what Dave and I suggest.

Anyway, I am now taking my leave and will allow you the floor for the remainder to answer the questions (and you will get a lot, LOL) about Dave's approach.

Eric has made some great contributions to this discussion and I hope everyone appreciates him coming on here.

I like what you said above but I would re-phrase it: I think the optimal strategy is different for everyone and your method might work here and his there. Then a combination of the two might work for a third person.

I want to help explain why Dave's diet works and that is independent of Eric's methods - it is not a competition. Both can and do work. I hope that I might say or explain something that could really hit home and help someone find a new way to reach his/her goals. And I am sure Eric already convinced a few people to try his way.

DROS · 05-20-2009, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by juggernaut

This particular summary is of great interest to me. Can this happen to anyone who is particularly keto for medical reasons? I have epilepsy and found that a high fat, high protein diet is an outstanding way for me to live. I also compete, and hate the way I feel when adding carbs back into the glycogen loading process. Can this be done without carbing up all the way to the hellweek of a show?

We use a very moderate carb-up before a show. Add about 30g (of course it depends on the person) of rice to each meal on Thursday and Friday and there is your carb up. Nothing crazy and no risk of over-doing it. And if the person is really sensitive to carbs Dave might start adding them in Friday.

Some people just cant process and utilize carbs effectivly and there is a small space between depleted and spilled over. In that case the person has to take in very little and rely on supreme conditioning.

**dg806** · 05-20-2009, 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Built

Dg, you bring up some interesting points with regard to fat loss, and also with regard to satiety.

I am not concerned with fat loss. I have no problem dropping fat. I know how to do it, and I do it every year, after my Christmas bulk.

Broccoli is something I eat because it helps with satiety. Pasta and rice to me are not satiating - but that's partially because I'm a former fatty, partially because I'm a chick and partially because I have gluten intolerance - at least with regard to the pasta. Broccoli contains soluble and insoluble fibre. Soluble fibre promotes satiety.

I'll expand upon this last point. In "normal", lean, never-fat individuals, the insulin response that accompanies foods like rice and pasta promotes satiety. In insulin resistant folks (often obese, or dieted-down former fatties), insulin is overproduced and satiety is suppressed. If you're one who feels satiety from "slow" carbs, this seems incongruous. If you're one who feels hungry from "slow" carbs, you can't imagine feeling anything but freakish hunger for the rest of the day if you eat this way. For me, eating anything starchy in the AM turns on appetite for the whole day. It's like saying "Okay, cheat day. Let 'er rip!".

I feel hungrier on 2500 calories with substantial carb intake, than I do on 1200 calories and <50g total carb intake.

I was a fat jogger eating low fat, no white ANYTHING, no sugar. I could NOT control my hunger.

It gets more complicated than this. Males and females may respond to different satiety cues. Males often respond well to "volume" - so a diet high in bulky foods, brown rice, slow carbs, veggies, lean protein - is often very satiating for males, particularly if they've never been obese.

Females - particularly fat, estrogen-dominant females - may be more sensitive to the postprandial satiety that is due to cholecystokinin, which is generated the most by protein and fat and the least by carbohydrate. Oh - the gluten intolerance thing I mentioned above? Turns out that in Celiac, postprandial CCK production is suppressed. Explains why a lot of people lose weight when they ditch grains.

So… If you're a fat or formerly fat woman with a big ass and you want to feel satiety after your meals, eat protein and fat.

If you are a formerly fat woman with a big ass and you want to feel freakishly hungry all the time, eat a diet that is low in fat, eat only lean protein and eat filling, bulky foods such as brown rice, whole grain pasta and loads of low-fat veggies. Enjoy berating yourself about your lack of willpower every time you cave in and eat walnuts.

I can't comfortably stay in my maintenance calorie range if I go to a higher-carb diet because I have to pay for it with protein and or fat. Satiety is compromised when I do this. The best I can manage and still feel comfortable is carb-cycling, where I eat a little glucose or glucose polymer (starch) near the workout window. I train at night, so I eat what carbs I must consume near bedtime. And NEVER in the AM.

This was interesting. Even though I have never heard the "formerly fat" therory, I find this thought interesting. Like you said, I suspect it has alot to do with insulin response. Luckily, I don't have that problem. If I gain weight and want to loose some, I just cut back in general, not just carbs.

**Built** · 05-20-2009, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DROS

You will find on Dave's diet plan that you maintain that low end strength, but your endurance goes to hell. As the diet wears on you need to reduce volume in order to keep the same high intensity day in and day out. You spend a ton of time buring calories on the treadmill. When you hit the weights you want to break down the muscles as quick as possible.

Very similar to how I do things. The higher rep stuff I just ditch, and try to keep the iron on the bar with the low-rep stuff that doesn't really depend on glycogen. Helps convince the muscle I need it to stick around while I ride out the self-imposed "famine".

I do like to incorporate a few short bursts of HIIT (about five or six minutes worth of 20:40 work:rest intervals) before some of my steady-state cardio though. Not every time, and not every day, but I liked what happened when I did this twice a week after weights.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DROS

We use a very moderate carb-up before a show. Add about 30g (of course it depends on the person) of rice to each meal on Thursday and Friday and there is your carb up. Nothing crazy and no risk of over-doing it. And if the person is really sensitive to carbs Dave might start adding them in Friday.

Some people just cant process and utilize carbs effectivly and there is a small space between depleted and spilled over. In that case the person has to take in very little and rely on supreme conditioning.

Ooooh, do I hear you on the spillover. <cries>

What do you think of "shitloading"? I get SUCH wicked pumps the day after a poutine-fest! (Poutine, for those of you who are unfamiliar with my guilty Eastern Canadian pleasure, is a greasy pile of fries topped with cheese curds and what they call bbq sauce - really just a somewhat thin gravy that melts the curds into the fries and creates a tangle of greasy, French-Canadian Heaven!)

**Built** · 05-20-2009, 03:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dg806

This was interesting. Even though I have never heard the "formerly fat" therory, I find this thought interesting. Like you said, I suspect it has alot to do with insulin response. Luckily, I don't have that problem. If I gain weight and want to loose some, I just cut back in general, not just carbs.

Thank you dg - I found it very interesting myself. As I've mentioned many times, as vain as I am, I can NOT deal with freakish hunger. My focus starts at satiety and ends with body composition - not the other way around. I have to at least be able to feel sated for PART of the day or I can't do this.

With regard to "former fatties", my cursory understanding is that Leptin is involved. Fat cells grow and shrink, but they never leave. Diet down a fatty and leptin drops. When leptin drops, you feel hungry. There's a LOT more to this and I'm only just scratching the surface, but in my mind, it's like the movie Little Shop of Horrors, you know, "FEED ME SEYMOUR"!!! All those hungry fat cells, BEGGING me to feed them. IT'S SO LOUD!!! LOL!

DROS · 05-20-2009, 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Built

Very similar to how I do things. The higher rep stuff I just ditch, and try to keep the iron on the bar with the low-rep stuff that doesn't really depend on glycogen. Helps convince the muscle I need it to stick around while I ride out the self-imposed "famine".

I do like to incorporate a few short bursts of HIIT (about five or six minutes worth of 20:40 work:rest intervals) before some of my steady-state cardio though. Not every time, and not every day, but I liked what happened when I did this twice a week after weights.

Ooooh, do I hear you on the spillover. <cries>

What do you think of "shitloading"? I get SUCH wicked pumps the day after a poutine-fest! (Poutine, for those of you who are unfamiliar with my guilty Eastern Canadian pleasure, is a greasy pile of fries topped with cheese curds and what they call bbq sauce - really just a somewhat thin gravy that melts the curds into the fries and creates a tangle of greasy, French-Canadian Heaven!)

First of all, that sounds gross

This is like the competitor who says how great he looks the day after a show...he might look great in a tank top, but on stage his glutes arent as tight. The sodium and influx of calories from "shit loading" will give you a huge pump after a long diet and depleted state, but it will also be short lived and blur some condition.

**Prince** · 05-20-2009, 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Built

Robert, I'd be delighted to read anything you have that proves this.

For the record - I'd eat this way even if it didn't work as well as higher-carb plans because it's so damned comfortable! Every single metric of my health improved when I switched over to reduced carbs and higher fats - and I have the photographs, DEXA scans and blood work to prove it.

I know, n=1

But n=1 is nice when that 1 is you!

if a calorie is just a calorie I would LOVE to see you replace half of your protein and fats with Hershey's candy bars and report back to us in 2 months, by your assertions there would be NO change in your body composition providing that you can control your appetite and keep your calories the same.

Moondogg · 05-20-2009, 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prince

if a calorie is just a calorie I would LOVE to see you replace half of your protein and fats with Hershey's candy bars and report back to us in 2 months, by your assertions there would be NO change in your body composition providing that you can control your appetite and keep your calories the same.

This is silly, its not a real world example.

It has been said all along that minimum protein and fat requirements had to be met first and foremost, before you start playing around with the rest of your calories.

gopro · 05-20-2009, 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prince

if a calorie is just a calorie I would LOVE to see you replace half of your protein and fats with Hershey's candy bars and report back to us in 2 months, by your assertions there would be NO change in your body composition providing that you can control your appetite and keep your calories the same.

This is absolutely correct, and would give a real world answer to the "is a calorie a calorie" debate.

Of course if your diet is 50% protein (for example), it will likely not make much difference if the remainder is 35% carbs and 15% fats or vice versa...until we go into the land of low single digit bodyfat. But there are many who need to venture here so...

**Prince** · 05-20-2009, 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Moondogg

This is silly, its not a real world example.

It has been said all along that minimum protein and fat requirements had to be met first and foremost, before you start playing around with the rest of your calories.

no, actually it would be a great real world example!

why wouldn't minimum protein/fat intake be met?

danzik17 · 05-20-2009, 06:25 PM

So here's a question that I've been wondering about for a while and Lyle/Dave seems to have completely opposite viewpoints:

Given the research surrounding the EC stack, what does Dave think of it for fat loss? I know that Dave is a big proponent of no stimulants since they increase cortisol, so what is his stance on the stack?

05-20-2009, 11:29 AM	#333
Yanick Amor Fati Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 4,231	Okay if the children are done bickering, they can go back to the kiddie table now lol. I started looking through research now to see what I might have missed in the past year or more that I've neglected this area of interest. As always its muddled up and you can barely ever find a free full text, and I'm broke as hell so don't be expecting me to pay $30 for this crap. So abstracts will have to do to stimulate further discussion. Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics and Energy Efficiency in Weightloss Diets I have 1 question from the above article. What does a decreased serum TAG level have to do with regards to fatty acid oxidation/energy balance? I'm unaware of the biochemistry as it relates to this. I'll see what else I can dig up, this abstract just struck me as interesting (plus it was done in my city, where I had done some clinical rotations so I wanted to pimp it a bit). Full Text with with a nice overview of some issues that are pertinent to this discussion. Re-iterates some of the stuff from the Lyle McDonald articles Patrick posted. "The greatest obstacle to knowledge is not ignorance but the illusion of knowledge." -Barry Marshall, Nobel Laureate Last edited by Yanick : 05-20-2009 at 11:54 AM.

05-20-2009, 12:49 PM	#342
Prince IronMagLabs Owner Administrator Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Colorado Posts: 37,396 Photos: 356	it's clinically proven that a low carb diet is the fastest and most effective way to lose bodyfat, there have been controlled studies to prove this, and it had nothing to do with satiety. BOARD SPONSORS: MassNutrition.com - Discount Supplement Superstore IronMagLabs.com - Bodybuilding Nutrition AlltheWhey.com - Bulk Protein Powders & Supplements CEMProducts.com - Research Chemicals & Supplements MusclesProd.com - Steroids, Bodybuilding & Training Blog Maximizer.com - Maximum Strength for Maximum Performance MikeGetsRipped.com - The Original 'Get Ripped' Blog ProteinRoutine.com - Experiments in Healthy Living Follow on Twitter Join Facebook Group Befriend on Myspace

05-20-2009, 06:25 PM	#360
danzik17 Gender: MALE Elite Member Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Connecticut Posts: 3,072	So here's a question that I've been wondering about for a while and Lyle/Dave seems to have completely opposite viewpoints: Given the research surrounding the EC stack, what does Dave think of it for fat loss? I know that Dave is a big proponent of no stimulants since they increase cortisol, so what is his stance on the stack? Ron Paul 2012 Journal: danzik17's Log - 4-6 Week Strength/Bulk Journal: Sub 10% by April <old>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode