Because the man has an educational background in dealing with WHAT WORKS.
-
Hello, this board in now turned off and no new posting.
Please REGISTER at Anabolic Steroid Forums, and become a member of our NEW community!
-
Check Out IronMag Labs® KSM-66 Max - Recovery and Anabolic Growth Complex
Broser vs Palumbo - battle of the keto diet
- Thread starter Arnold
- Start date
- Status
There we go, I fixed that for you.
Hey...thanks! Appreciated!
Again, you guys really are fun! Almost addicting!
Uh huh! Yup! So when he gives keto diets and lets his clients do 3 hours of cardio per day and also train with massive volume that is his education coming into play? So, you would agree with that approach?
Juggs...I really want to meet you. Do you ever go to any of the bodybuilding shows like the Arnold or Olympia?
Bradicallyman
Registered
Didn't Gopro write that article? Another interesting thread to read!
Bradicallyman
Registered
ahhh sorry I'm slow lolYes, it was meant slightly tongue in cheek.
Ok, let me put it this way...
If I wanted to learn to pilot a plane and had the choice between someone that has been successfully piloting planes for the last 20 years...and in fact has been so successful that people seek him/her out to write articles about it, coach others, has a great reputation, etc
VS.
Someone that posts up all kinds of studies on flying, took some courses on it, has a nice handle on all of it, but works as a plumber...
I would choose the first person.
Listen guys, this truly has been fun, but I am leaving this THREAD for good, as I really don't have time for what is truly utter nonsense and nothing more than pure negativity...I don't deal with that because it is what you surround yourself with and put out there that comes back to you.
So, go ahead and talk about me behind my back if that makes you happy, or, just send me a PM if you have something to say to me directly.
Oh, and I will also be contributing to other threads when I can, so you can also spew your crap at me there as well.
But as for this one, done for good.
Enjoy!
So, go ahead and talk about me behind my back if that makes you happy, or, just send me a PM if you have something to say to me directly.
Oh, and I will also be contributing to other threads when I can, so you can also spew your crap at me there as well.
But as for this one, done for good.
Enjoy!
sorry, Eric. I dont swing that way. Not that there is anything wrong with that.
And yes, I have been to the Arnold. But I dont have much time to really go do the things that I want. I work.
And yes, I have been to the Arnold. But I dont have much time to really go do the things that I want. I work.
Flying is a silly example to use, there is no fear of death from what we are doing.
Keep trying buddy.
Here we go...Back with 20 years again!! Do you have some thing with number 20? Is it numerology?
I don't understand why it has to be 20, every time that is. Even in your example you couldn't let go of the 20.
I can almost visualize gopro saying....."my preciousss" just like the Gollum.
I don't understand why it has to be 20, every time that is. Even in your example you couldn't let go of the 20.
I can almost visualize gopro saying....."my preciousss" just like the Gollum.
Maybe because 20 is such a pretty, round and curvaceous number
Study #1:
Influence of muscle glycogen availability on ERK1/2 and Akt signaling after resistance exercise in human skeletal muscle.
Andrew Creer, Philip Gallagher, Dustin Slivka, Bozena Jemiolo, William Fink, and Scott Trappe. J Appl Physiol 99: 950-956, 2005.
This is what they concluded:
"In conclusion, the ERK1/2 pathway appears to be unaffected by muscle glycogen content. However, muscle glycogen availability appears to contribute to regulation of the Akt pathway, which may influence cellular growth and adaptation in response to resistance exercise in a low-glycogen state."
Okay, so they are saying that working out with low-glycogen may have a negative influence on growth.
They came to this conclusion after putting the 8-subjects through the following protocol:
Does anyone see a problem with this? How the heck is this indicative of what anyone actually does in their training? I'll actually back up a second and say that the subjects in the study were experienced male cyclists. So, there is a potential that they may train with this much volume (endurance training) and frequency, much like a marathoner would. However, has anyone ever denied the fact that, yes, endurance athletes need increased amounts of carbohydrates to sustain high volumes of aerobic activity? Even in eat-stop-eat (about intermittent fasting), Brad Pilon says that this is not a program for someone training for a specific endurance event. This training program has nothing to do with how most of train (which is more like 3-4 days of lifting per week and maybe some cardio thrown in).
Moving on, the resistance training (which was 3 sets of 10 knee extensions) were performed on day 3 of the protocol after the subjects performed 90min of exercise on day one (60min. of cycling followed by 30min. on an upper body ergometer) and then 127min of exercise on day two (75min of cycling, 12min. of sprinting (6max effort 1min. sprints followed by 1min. rest) and then another 30min. on the upper body ergometer bike.
That doesn't make sense to me at all. The study is performed on endurance athletes and not strength athletes. They performed an incredibly high amount of work two-days prior to the actual resistance training portion of the test (which the muscle biopsies were taken on day 3 and not the other days) and they try and come to the conclusion about resistance training with low muscle glycogen. I realize that they need to do something to deplete muscle glycogen in order to see what happens, but that seems a bit excessive, in that people who train in gyms don't do that sort of stuff. Even in Lyle's UD2.0, there are depletion workouts, but there is also a high carb feeding period and then there are tension workouts, so there is variability. In addition, his depletion workout recommendations are no where close to being that excessive.
Study #2
Influence of preexercise muscle glycogen content on transcriptional activity of metabolic and myogenic genes in well-trained humans.
Emmanuel G. Churchley, Vernon G. Coffey, David J. Pedersen, Anthony Shield, Kate A. Carey, David Cameron-Smith, and John A. Hawley. J Appl Physiol 102: 1604-1611, 2007.
This is what was concluded:
"We conclude that commencing resistance exercise with low muscle glycogen does not enhance the activity of genes implicated in promoting hypertrophy."
The subjects in this study (7 of them) were all males who had been performing regular strength training on an average of 8 years (=/- 5-years). Unlike the previous study, where there was high and low carb diets taking place, in this article, the subjects at the same amount of carbohydrate (~9g/kg of BW). The depletion work for this study took place one day prior to the resistance training trial. For depletion, the subjects performed 1-legged cycling (that leg served as the "experimental" leg, with the lower glycogen content). The subjects were asked to pedal at ~75% Vo2max with a work to rest ratio of 10min. work to 2min. rest, which the maintained until volitional fatigue at which point power out put was decreased by 10W and the subjects again continued the work to rest protocol until volitional fatigue was reached a second time. The subjects were then give a 10min. rest period and followed that with 90 second maximal effort 1-leg cycling sprints with 60 seconds rest. They continued that to volitional fatigue (which was measured by the inability to maintain 70 revolutions/minute. The subjects followed all this up with 30min. of arm bike pedaling. After this, the subjects were fed a low-carbohydrate dinner (1g/kg of BW)
The next day, following a 10-12-hour fast, the subjects performed their lifting session, which consisted of 1-legged leg press for 8 sets of 5 reps at ~80% of 1RM. If the subjects were unable to complete the 5 repetitions in the experimental leg, the weight was lowered by 5% for the following set, until all 8-sets were completed. The subjects were biopsied prior to the lifting, immediately after the lifting, and again 3 hours later (they rested for 3-hours following the lifting before the biopsy).
The researchers conclusion, posted above, is basically saying that exercising in these conditions is "no bueno" if you are trying to build muscle mass.
I'd note that, the last time I checked, people trying to build muscle mass weren't diet..since that is what the entire debate is about, right? Anyway, I digress.
The researchers state later in the article:
So maybe this is an adaptive response? The study that they reference from this statement is, Larsena AE, Tunstalla RJ, Careya KA, Nicholasb G, Kambadurb R, Crowea TC, Cameron-Smitha D. Actions of Short-Term Fasting on Human Skeletal Muscle Myogenic and Atrogenic Gene Expression. Ann Nutr Metab 2006;50:476-481. Which concluded:
The researchers stated:
Okay, so now they are saying that there is a possibility that these changes occurred because the subjects may have not been totally familiar with cycling. How many average joe weight training guys go to the gym and cycle anyway? 7-subjects is hardly an enormous subject pool to get any specific ideas from. Which is why I bolded the last sentence up there.
I think it is also interesting to note that the control leg (the leg that didn't do the 1-legged cycling) did nothing at all during that period. At least in the previous study, the individuals trained both legs normally under separate/different carbohydrate intake situations, where as in this study, the control leg just rested completely until it had to perform the leg press in day 2.
patrick
Influence of muscle glycogen availability on ERK1/2 and Akt signaling after resistance exercise in human skeletal muscle.
Andrew Creer, Philip Gallagher, Dustin Slivka, Bozena Jemiolo, William Fink, and Scott Trappe. J Appl Physiol 99: 950-956, 2005.
This is what they concluded:
"In conclusion, the ERK1/2 pathway appears to be unaffected by muscle glycogen content. However, muscle glycogen availability appears to contribute to regulation of the Akt pathway, which may influence cellular growth and adaptation in response to resistance exercise in a low-glycogen state."
Okay, so they are saying that working out with low-glycogen may have a negative influence on growth.
They came to this conclusion after putting the 8-subjects through the following protocol:
Does anyone see a problem with this? How the heck is this indicative of what anyone actually does in their training? I'll actually back up a second and say that the subjects in the study were experienced male cyclists. So, there is a potential that they may train with this much volume (endurance training) and frequency, much like a marathoner would. However, has anyone ever denied the fact that, yes, endurance athletes need increased amounts of carbohydrates to sustain high volumes of aerobic activity? Even in eat-stop-eat (about intermittent fasting), Brad Pilon says that this is not a program for someone training for a specific endurance event. This training program has nothing to do with how most of train (which is more like 3-4 days of lifting per week and maybe some cardio thrown in).
Moving on, the resistance training (which was 3 sets of 10 knee extensions) were performed on day 3 of the protocol after the subjects performed 90min of exercise on day one (60min. of cycling followed by 30min. on an upper body ergometer) and then 127min of exercise on day two (75min of cycling, 12min. of sprinting (6max effort 1min. sprints followed by 1min. rest) and then another 30min. on the upper body ergometer bike.
That doesn't make sense to me at all. The study is performed on endurance athletes and not strength athletes. They performed an incredibly high amount of work two-days prior to the actual resistance training portion of the test (which the muscle biopsies were taken on day 3 and not the other days) and they try and come to the conclusion about resistance training with low muscle glycogen. I realize that they need to do something to deplete muscle glycogen in order to see what happens, but that seems a bit excessive, in that people who train in gyms don't do that sort of stuff. Even in Lyle's UD2.0, there are depletion workouts, but there is also a high carb feeding period and then there are tension workouts, so there is variability. In addition, his depletion workout recommendations are no where close to being that excessive.
Study #2
Influence of preexercise muscle glycogen content on transcriptional activity of metabolic and myogenic genes in well-trained humans.
Emmanuel G. Churchley, Vernon G. Coffey, David J. Pedersen, Anthony Shield, Kate A. Carey, David Cameron-Smith, and John A. Hawley. J Appl Physiol 102: 1604-1611, 2007.
This is what was concluded:
"We conclude that commencing resistance exercise with low muscle glycogen does not enhance the activity of genes implicated in promoting hypertrophy."
The subjects in this study (7 of them) were all males who had been performing regular strength training on an average of 8 years (=/- 5-years). Unlike the previous study, where there was high and low carb diets taking place, in this article, the subjects at the same amount of carbohydrate (~9g/kg of BW). The depletion work for this study took place one day prior to the resistance training trial. For depletion, the subjects performed 1-legged cycling (that leg served as the "experimental" leg, with the lower glycogen content). The subjects were asked to pedal at ~75% Vo2max with a work to rest ratio of 10min. work to 2min. rest, which the maintained until volitional fatigue at which point power out put was decreased by 10W and the subjects again continued the work to rest protocol until volitional fatigue was reached a second time. The subjects were then give a 10min. rest period and followed that with 90 second maximal effort 1-leg cycling sprints with 60 seconds rest. They continued that to volitional fatigue (which was measured by the inability to maintain 70 revolutions/minute. The subjects followed all this up with 30min. of arm bike pedaling. After this, the subjects were fed a low-carbohydrate dinner (1g/kg of BW)
The next day, following a 10-12-hour fast, the subjects performed their lifting session, which consisted of 1-legged leg press for 8 sets of 5 reps at ~80% of 1RM. If the subjects were unable to complete the 5 repetitions in the experimental leg, the weight was lowered by 5% for the following set, until all 8-sets were completed. The subjects were biopsied prior to the lifting, immediately after the lifting, and again 3 hours later (they rested for 3-hours following the lifting before the biopsy).
The researchers conclusion, posted above, is basically saying that exercising in these conditions is "no bueno" if you are trying to build muscle mass.
I'd note that, the last time I checked, people trying to build muscle mass weren't diet..since that is what the entire debate is about, right? Anyway, I digress.
The researchers state later in the article:
So maybe this is an adaptive response? The study that they reference from this statement is, Larsena AE, Tunstalla RJ, Careya KA, Nicholasb G, Kambadurb R, Crowea TC, Cameron-Smitha D. Actions of Short-Term Fasting on Human Skeletal Muscle Myogenic and Atrogenic Gene Expression. Ann Nutr Metab 2006;50:476-481. Which concluded:
The researchers stated:
Okay, so now they are saying that there is a possibility that these changes occurred because the subjects may have not been totally familiar with cycling. How many average joe weight training guys go to the gym and cycle anyway? 7-subjects is hardly an enormous subject pool to get any specific ideas from. Which is why I bolded the last sentence up there.
I think it is also interesting to note that the control leg (the leg that didn't do the 1-legged cycling) did nothing at all during that period. At least in the previous study, the individuals trained both legs normally under separate/different carbohydrate intake situations, where as in this study, the control leg just rested completely until it had to perform the leg press in day 2.
patrick
Only coming back here to leave this link for those that might find it intriguing:
Dr. John Hawley stops by the MD Research Show to talk about his new study regarding the role of muscle glycogen and its affect on genes for anabolism.
Professor John Hawley is currently Head of the Exercise Metabolism Research Group and Professor of Exercise Metabolism in the School of Medical Sciences at RMIT Life Sciences. The focus of the Exercise Metabolism Research Group is on aspects of skeletal muscle energy metabolism related to exercise and diabetes, with a particular emphasis on the regulation of carbohydrate and fat metabolism and the mechanisms regulating their use as substrates for muscle during rest and exercise. The use of dietary and exercise interventions in both animal and human models are employed to assess the impact of these perturbations on both whole body metabolism and organ specific sites. In addition, the regulation of muscle membrane excitability and mechanisms of muscle fatigue have been investigated in both healthy and diseased populations.
Professor Hawley’s research group has established collaborations with international groups such as Karolinska Institute Sweden, the Copenhagen Muscle Research Centre in Denmark, the University of Waterloo in Canada, the Garvan Medical Research Institute Sydney and the Australian Institute of Sport Canberra. The research is supported by The Australian Research Council, GlaxoSmithKline (U.K.), The Australian Sports Commission, and Nestle (Switzerland).
http://www.musculardevelopment.com/podcasts/rsch_showmar22009.mp3
**This just speaks a bit to what I was referring to about genes. More lengthy research needs to be done, but it does show some interesting evidence. To me, it is only starting to prove what I have discovered in the trenches many years ago. Anyway, take it for what you will...if anything, you science lovers should find it interesting.
Dr. John Hawley stops by the MD Research Show to talk about his new study regarding the role of muscle glycogen and its affect on genes for anabolism.
Professor John Hawley is currently Head of the Exercise Metabolism Research Group and Professor of Exercise Metabolism in the School of Medical Sciences at RMIT Life Sciences. The focus of the Exercise Metabolism Research Group is on aspects of skeletal muscle energy metabolism related to exercise and diabetes, with a particular emphasis on the regulation of carbohydrate and fat metabolism and the mechanisms regulating their use as substrates for muscle during rest and exercise. The use of dietary and exercise interventions in both animal and human models are employed to assess the impact of these perturbations on both whole body metabolism and organ specific sites. In addition, the regulation of muscle membrane excitability and mechanisms of muscle fatigue have been investigated in both healthy and diseased populations.
Professor Hawley’s research group has established collaborations with international groups such as Karolinska Institute Sweden, the Copenhagen Muscle Research Centre in Denmark, the University of Waterloo in Canada, the Garvan Medical Research Institute Sydney and the Australian Institute of Sport Canberra. The research is supported by The Australian Research Council, GlaxoSmithKline (U.K.), The Australian Sports Commission, and Nestle (Switzerland).
http://www.musculardevelopment.com/podcasts/rsch_showmar22009.mp3
**This just speaks a bit to what I was referring to about genes. More lengthy research needs to be done, but it does show some interesting evidence. To me, it is only starting to prove what I have discovered in the trenches many years ago. Anyway, take it for what you will...if anything, you science lovers should find it interesting.
Just listened to the interview.
This is the researcher discussing the second study I talked about above from the research that was posted previously in the old thread.
I don't disagree that carbohydrates are extremely important. In fact, I hate low-carb eating and I tell people to set their calorie requirements, establish protein requirements, establish fat intake and then the rest of the diet is whatever the hell you want (carbs or whatever...as long as calories are maintained sufficiently and it doesn't matter about 4 meals or 5 meals or 6 meals a day, as research has looked at that as well).
Anyhow, in the interview, Hawley gets grilled a little by the second interviewee and does state:
"This 3-hour window is still not indicative of what may happen after 3-months of time (like I state above, there may be adaptations that take place) so it is hard to extrapolate that. Also, with the small sample size, not everything was statistically significant, which is a limitation (which I also talked about above)."
My main thing comes back to....when you are dieting (as in trying to lose body fat), you are not worried about putting on muscle. It doesn't happen. It can't happen since adequate calories are not being consumed to facilitate growth.
Not that I am advocating low-carb dieting or ketosis, but isn't the point moot because you are defending someone dieting for a show, which isn't an anabolic period of training anyway?
Anyway, the study is interesting and I do agree that carbohydrates are needed in a diet.
But, I do not think that eating low-carbs necessarily means you cannot put on muscle size (provided adequate calories are consumed), as the excess calories come from somewhere - either from excess protein which gets turned into glucose when needed or from excess fat, which the body then goes into ketosis as a means of adapting to dietary changes and energy output. So again, it is that adaptation that is the critical part (like he said - a 3-hour window is hardly indicative of what happens long term) and the training that an individual would be doing does not include totally destroying themselves the day prior to lifting in order to deplete glycogen (duh), so things are not totally equal here.
As far as what the gains would be if they did a long term study comparing the two dietary methods, who knows...that would be something they would have to design.
Anyway, take home message:
Eat Carbs, they are good. Ketosis sucks, it gives me a headache.
Patrick
This is the researcher discussing the second study I talked about above from the research that was posted previously in the old thread.
I don't disagree that carbohydrates are extremely important. In fact, I hate low-carb eating and I tell people to set their calorie requirements, establish protein requirements, establish fat intake and then the rest of the diet is whatever the hell you want (carbs or whatever...as long as calories are maintained sufficiently and it doesn't matter about 4 meals or 5 meals or 6 meals a day, as research has looked at that as well).
Anyhow, in the interview, Hawley gets grilled a little by the second interviewee and does state:
"This 3-hour window is still not indicative of what may happen after 3-months of time (like I state above, there may be adaptations that take place) so it is hard to extrapolate that. Also, with the small sample size, not everything was statistically significant, which is a limitation (which I also talked about above)."
My main thing comes back to....when you are dieting (as in trying to lose body fat), you are not worried about putting on muscle. It doesn't happen. It can't happen since adequate calories are not being consumed to facilitate growth.
Not that I am advocating low-carb dieting or ketosis, but isn't the point moot because you are defending someone dieting for a show, which isn't an anabolic period of training anyway?
Anyway, the study is interesting and I do agree that carbohydrates are needed in a diet.
But, I do not think that eating low-carbs necessarily means you cannot put on muscle size (provided adequate calories are consumed), as the excess calories come from somewhere - either from excess protein which gets turned into glucose when needed or from excess fat, which the body then goes into ketosis as a means of adapting to dietary changes and energy output. So again, it is that adaptation that is the critical part (like he said - a 3-hour window is hardly indicative of what happens long term) and the training that an individual would be doing does not include totally destroying themselves the day prior to lifting in order to deplete glycogen (duh), so things are not totally equal here.
As far as what the gains would be if they did a long term study comparing the two dietary methods, who knows...that would be something they would have to design.
Anyway, take home message:
Eat Carbs, they are good. Ketosis sucks, it gives me a headache.
Patrick
Interesting discussion.
The problem with attempting to build proof on the basis of existing studies is that it doesn't prove your assertion - it only provides fuel for your own research.
Now, I'm all for using something that works and proving it later. I'm not the first to do this - Newton did the same damned thing with Calculus (some would say Leibniz. These would be Germans - I am a Scot by ancestry and so I'll continue to claim it was Newton). There's a whole branch of mathematics that is concerned with proving the methodology Newton just went ahead and used, despite criticism from his contemporaries. Two hundred years later, Weierstrass, Cauchy and others developed the formal language required - the Real Analysis - to add rigour to the Calculus that came so long before them.
So yeah, I'm jiggy with "proof by real world observation". Sometimes, it's all we got.
Thing is, sometimes there's more than one way to get across the river, yanno? Bodybuilders have been getting themselves ripped to shreds for a loooong time, long before we had any studies about Akt pathways, gene expression, or catecholamine-induced overshoots of free fatty acids. For some, they just had such amazing genetics that ANYTHING worked. For others, they happened to hit upon the right combination of parlour tricks in the right sequence, much like the proverbial room full of monkeys with typewriters. Trying to reverse-engineer what worked in these circumstances is fraught with difficulty - not only because the typewriter in question might have been... "enhanced", but the monkey-keyboardist in question ain't talking.
None of this is of any particular interest to me though, because for some of us, "ordinary" bodybuilder-type diet and training protocols are so miserable as to be unlivable.
For example, my own board fell out of this problem. You can find a paradigm that is technically perfect on paper, but if I can't stick to it, it ain't optimal FOR ME, now, is it?
Kinda like broccoli - it's only good for you IF YOU EAT IT.
So while Broser may find as many ways to define and then slag keto diets as he does to say he's "finished with this discussion", his point has been rendered moot by the type of training he did at the time - hypertrophy relies on a surplus of calories to ensure muscle-growth follows training-induced microtrauma. While operating under a significant deficit, the best you can hope for is to somehow convince the body to risk-manage existing resources. The strategy changes from that of muscle-growth, to that of muscle-retention.
Do this while you undereat a little, you'll starve off the fat because the body can't afford NOT to. Drop protein too low and/or overtrain while you do this, and you'll increase the cost of doing muscle.
Where is that magic point? Ah, now that's the tricky question. It varies. The genetic freaks get a way with a LOT more then the rest of us. Add steroids to the mix and the universe changes.
But to me, all of this is moot if it's too uncomfortable. I managed to get down to my profile pic without being more than peckish for parts of the day. I didn't overtrain and I didn't feel starved. If I could have kept more muscle on me some other way but felt like crap while I did it, I wouldn't have done it. Kinda nice that I didn't have to.
Ward doesn't like keto diets because they don't feel comfortable to him. To me, THAT is a very good reason not to do something.
The fact that Broser doesn't like keto diets for natural bodybuilders because he trained inappropriately on them, and then went on an abstract-hunt to prove his point is simply a flawed methodology. I mean, if you're going to slag something because you tried it, at least try it on the right way!
It's like durian. You know, the weird looking fruit that stinks like hell, tastes like heaven? Well, that's what I hear because I've never tried one. I'm waiting for someone who loves durian to get a really good one and then share it with me. If I still don't like it, at least I'll know I don't like it. If I pick one up at random and it's rotten, I might think I don't like it when in fact I just don't like rotten durian.
Broser tried a rotten durian. He then went looking for proof that durian isn't healthy for natural bodybuilders.
Ward just doesn't like fruit.
The problem with attempting to build proof on the basis of existing studies is that it doesn't prove your assertion - it only provides fuel for your own research.
Now, I'm all for using something that works and proving it later. I'm not the first to do this - Newton did the same damned thing with Calculus (some would say Leibniz. These would be Germans - I am a Scot by ancestry and so I'll continue to claim it was Newton). There's a whole branch of mathematics that is concerned with proving the methodology Newton just went ahead and used, despite criticism from his contemporaries. Two hundred years later, Weierstrass, Cauchy and others developed the formal language required - the Real Analysis - to add rigour to the Calculus that came so long before them.
So yeah, I'm jiggy with "proof by real world observation". Sometimes, it's all we got.
Thing is, sometimes there's more than one way to get across the river, yanno? Bodybuilders have been getting themselves ripped to shreds for a loooong time, long before we had any studies about Akt pathways, gene expression, or catecholamine-induced overshoots of free fatty acids. For some, they just had such amazing genetics that ANYTHING worked. For others, they happened to hit upon the right combination of parlour tricks in the right sequence, much like the proverbial room full of monkeys with typewriters. Trying to reverse-engineer what worked in these circumstances is fraught with difficulty - not only because the typewriter in question might have been... "enhanced", but the monkey-keyboardist in question ain't talking.
None of this is of any particular interest to me though, because for some of us, "ordinary" bodybuilder-type diet and training protocols are so miserable as to be unlivable.
For example, my own board fell out of this problem. You can find a paradigm that is technically perfect on paper, but if I can't stick to it, it ain't optimal FOR ME, now, is it?
Kinda like broccoli - it's only good for you IF YOU EAT IT.
So while Broser may find as many ways to define and then slag keto diets as he does to say he's "finished with this discussion", his point has been rendered moot by the type of training he did at the time - hypertrophy relies on a surplus of calories to ensure muscle-growth follows training-induced microtrauma. While operating under a significant deficit, the best you can hope for is to somehow convince the body to risk-manage existing resources. The strategy changes from that of muscle-growth, to that of muscle-retention.
Do this while you undereat a little, you'll starve off the fat because the body can't afford NOT to. Drop protein too low and/or overtrain while you do this, and you'll increase the cost of doing muscle.
Where is that magic point? Ah, now that's the tricky question. It varies. The genetic freaks get a way with a LOT more then the rest of us. Add steroids to the mix and the universe changes.
But to me, all of this is moot if it's too uncomfortable. I managed to get down to my profile pic without being more than peckish for parts of the day. I didn't overtrain and I didn't feel starved. If I could have kept more muscle on me some other way but felt like crap while I did it, I wouldn't have done it. Kinda nice that I didn't have to.
Ward doesn't like keto diets because they don't feel comfortable to him. To me, THAT is a very good reason not to do something.
The fact that Broser doesn't like keto diets for natural bodybuilders because he trained inappropriately on them, and then went on an abstract-hunt to prove his point is simply a flawed methodology. I mean, if you're going to slag something because you tried it, at least try it on the right way!
It's like durian. You know, the weird looking fruit that stinks like hell, tastes like heaven? Well, that's what I hear because I've never tried one. I'm waiting for someone who loves durian to get a really good one and then share it with me. If I still don't like it, at least I'll know I don't like it. If I pick one up at random and it's rotten, I might think I don't like it when in fact I just don't like rotten durian.
Broser tried a rotten durian. He then went looking for proof that durian isn't healthy for natural bodybuilders.
Ward just doesn't like fruit.
this sounds like a loaded question. Can you offer more details? What are the goals? What type of training? What is the desired and expected outcome?
John Berardi - Nutrition Articles
Sorry its not a direct link, im studying. Should be some info about it in here.
I love me some bananas and apples!! And I eat a bunch of dried fruit too.
Any-hoo,
I don't like keto-diets because, while they do make me feel like crap, I am not as strong when doing it. Just as Hawley alluded to in his audio interview, about how much intensity they had to drop for the guys doing the leg press in the study due to them being so fatigued (granted they did that obscene training program one-day prior). But, when I did do my CKD stuff back in the day, I always felt stronger on Monday, the day after my weekend long re-feed. I just couldn't maintain that intensity by that time it got to thursday and friday, which was a bummer. However, I am not (and don't work with) physique competitors, so the info I am giving is more general and not specific to bodybuilding.
But yea, I like my carbs!! haha
patrick
Patrick...I am just popping in here to say one quick thing to you because I find you to be somewhat reasonable.
The same mechanisms responsible for hypertrophy are the same that will RETAIN muscle in a calorie deficit. Carbs are needed in either case. Period.
I don't disagree with that (I gave my general diet recommendations above).
I am just saying that the research, while interesting and showing a glimpse into what may come in the future, still needs to address some of those other concerns. And, if people are doing something like UD2.0, where they use periods of high carbs and periods of low-carbs, you would thing the high carb feeding days may load you up enough on glycogen to eliminate the disadvantages shown in this study, which were performed under more "extreme" conditions.
Either way - eat carbs...they rule.
patrick
Interesting discussion.
The problem with attempting to build proof on the basis of existing studies is that it doesn't prove your assertion - it only provides fuel for your own research.
Now, I'm all for using something that works and proving it later. I'm not the first to do this - Newton did the same damned thing with Calculus (some would say Leibniz. These would be Germans - I am a Scot by ancestry and so I'll continue to claim it was Newton). There's a whole branch of mathematics that is concerned with proving the methodology Newton just went ahead and used, despite criticism from his contemporaries. Two hundred years later, Weierstrass, Cauchy and others developed the formal language required - the Real Analysis - to add rigour to the Calculus that came so long before them.
So yeah, I'm jiggy with "proof by real world observation". Sometimes, it's all we got.
Thing is, sometimes there's more than one way to get across the river, yanno? Bodybuilders have been getting themselves ripped to shreds for a loooong time, long before we had any studies about Akt pathways, gene expression, or catecholamine-induced overshoots of free fatty acids. For some, they just had such amazing genetics that ANYTHING worked. For others, they happened to hit upon the right combination of parlour tricks in the right sequence, much like the proverbial room full of monkeys with typewriters. Trying to reverse-engineer what worked in these circumstances is fraught with difficulty - not only because the typewriter in question might have been... "enhanced", but the monkey-keyboardist in question ain't talking.
None of this is of any particular interest to me though, because for some of us, "ordinary" bodybuilder-type diet and training protocols are so miserable as to be unlivable.
For example, my own board fell out of this problem. You can find a paradigm that is technically perfect on paper, but if I can't stick to it, it ain't optimal FOR ME, now, is it?
Kinda like broccoli - it's only good for you IF YOU EAT IT.
So while Broser may find as many ways to define and then slag keto diets as he does to say he's "finished with this discussion", his point has been rendered moot by the type of training he did at the time - hypertrophy relies on a surplus of calories to ensure muscle-growth follows training-induced microtrauma. While operating under a significant deficit, the best you can hope for is to somehow convince the body to risk-manage existing resources. The strategy changes from that of muscle-growth, to that of muscle-retention.
Do this while you undereat a little, you'll starve off the fat because the body can't afford NOT to. Drop protein too low and/or overtrain while you do this, and you'll increase the cost of doing muscle.
Where is that magic point? Ah, now that's the tricky question. It varies. The genetic freaks get a way with a LOT more then the rest of us. Add steroids to the mix and the universe changes.
But to me, all of this is moot if it's too uncomfortable. I managed to get down to my profile pic without being more than peckish for parts of the day. I didn't overtrain and I didn't feel starved. If I could have kept more muscle on me some other way but felt like crap while I did it, I wouldn't have done it. Kinda nice that I didn't have to.
Ward doesn't like keto diets because they don't feel comfortable to him. To me, THAT is a very good reason not to do something.
The fact that Broser doesn't like keto diets for natural bodybuilders because he trained inappropriately on them, and then went on an abstract-hunt to prove his point is simply a flawed methodology. I mean, if you're going to slag something because you tried it, at least try it on the right way!
It's like durian. You know, the weird looking fruit that stinks like hell, tastes like heaven? Well, that's what I hear because I've never tried one. I'm waiting for someone who loves durian to get a really good one and then share it with me. If I still don't like it, at least I'll know I don't like it. If I pick one up at random and it's rotten, I might think I don't like it when in fact I just don't like rotten durian.
Broser tried a rotten durian. He then went looking for proof that durian isn't healthy for natural bodybuilders.
Ward just doesn't like fruit.
Built...while I feel you are very intelligent and obviously highly educated, after reading this I now understand that you simply don't have enough knowledge of how the body actually works (the nutrient-hormone-gene-cascade) and you do not have enough experience dealing with athletes and bodybuilders and what it takes to achieve their goals as far as training goes for high level sport and competition. You feel they can prepare using a few basic exercises for low reps every few days and also deny the need for cardio. DO NOT use yourself as the proof of your debate. Go ahead and train enough people over many years using a constant-keto approach and watch your "theory" change. If I put my hand on a hot stove over and over and every time my hand gets burned, that is enough proof to tell me to stop doing it...I do not need research done in a lab to clue me in that extreme heat can burn me.
LONG TERM (AS IN 4-6-8-12 WEEKS) CONSTANT STATE KETO DIETS BURN MUSCLE TISSUE. THIS IS A FUNCTION OF HOW THE BODY WORKS. THIS IS NOT MADE UP...THIS IS HUMAN PHYSIOLOGY. THIS IS HOW WE WERE MADE AND IS APPLICABLE TO THOSE SEEKING THE EXTREMES OF PHYSICAL PERFORMANCE AND PHYSIQUE TRANSFORMATION.
I do not care if YOU or Moon or Jugg feel I am right or wrong...this is nothing personal against anyone...I just want this out there so others who are interested have something to think about other than a singular opinion that has been prevelent on this awesome forum (and yes, I was here in the beginning when this place was being 'built').
I honestly and sincerely wish everyone who was part of this discussion the very best in achieving all of their goals and hold no ill will toward anyone.
Case closed (for me...crap, for like the 10th time)...give me some oatmeal!
Eric; you have the worst attitude any professional in this industry could have. You have given all of your 20 years experience with personal conjecture. Several people, myself included as well as Prince, have asked you to post examples. you said no and stamped your foot.
Built has given several good examples, but you have this brospeak bodybuilder laden warrior attitude that is old and needs to retired. Great, you have 20 years experience. Youre a god. However, what research can you give us? is there that much of a mental blockage that you cant offer up proof, other than your 20 years of personal theory?
and finally, you have a really nasty habit of disrespecting everyone on this thread because we have a difference of opinion. Really professional of you to treat the people who made you what you are.
Built has given several good examples, but you have this brospeak bodybuilder laden warrior attitude that is old and needs to retired. Great, you have 20 years experience. Youre a god. However, what research can you give us? is there that much of a mental blockage that you cant offer up proof, other than your 20 years of personal theory?
and finally, you have a really nasty habit of disrespecting everyone on this thread because we have a difference of opinion. Really professional of you to treat the people who made you what you are.
dg, no, I never once suggested keto diets are superior for muscle growth. I said I enjoyed newbie gains while I dieted on Atkins and remained in keto. I'm quite certain I would have also gained muscle had I dieted some other way - if only I wasn't such a pussy about feeling hungry. I really hate feeling hungry.
Like Patrick said, of course you're going to be stronger on carbs than off. Gotta love that first workout after a refeed - feels like rocket fuel! Mmmm... pumps...
gopro, your condescending attitude only exceeded by your penchant for hyperbole. You're turning the word ketosis into a sacred cow, and really, it's not that big of a deal here. TKD is a keto diet. CKD is a keto diet. UD2.0 is a keto diet. They all use carbs for the part carbs are good for, and ketosis for the part low carb is good for.
Ketosis is lovely for appetite control. Risk managing muscle during a deficit is how to elicit fat loss. It's nice that these work so well together in between refeeds. Read a few books by Lyle and you might understand WHY this happens.
Regarding your "in the trenches" comment, well, okay - show me the bodies. Before I joined here I had never heard of you. Your reputation may precede you elsewhere, but here your reputation is that of someone who pretends to understand physiology at a far higher level than he does, contradicts himself from post to post, and bullies anyone whose opinion differs from his own.
Like Patrick said, of course you're going to be stronger on carbs than off. Gotta love that first workout after a refeed - feels like rocket fuel! Mmmm... pumps...
gopro, your condescending attitude only exceeded by your penchant for hyperbole. You're turning the word ketosis into a sacred cow, and really, it's not that big of a deal here. TKD is a keto diet. CKD is a keto diet. UD2.0 is a keto diet. They all use carbs for the part carbs are good for, and ketosis for the part low carb is good for.
Ketosis is lovely for appetite control. Risk managing muscle during a deficit is how to elicit fat loss. It's nice that these work so well together in between refeeds. Read a few books by Lyle and you might understand WHY this happens.
Regarding your "in the trenches" comment, well, okay - show me the bodies. Before I joined here I had never heard of you. Your reputation may precede you elsewhere, but here your reputation is that of someone who pretends to understand physiology at a far higher level than he does, contradicts himself from post to post, and bullies anyone whose opinion differs from his own.
- Status
