- Joined
- Feb 7, 2013
- Messages
- 2,111
- Reaction score
- 590
- Points
- 113
Does your coaches protocol differ from mike Arnold's ?
what have you seen in the way of progress?
do you have a proffered protocol over the others?
-
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
HUmalin -r (insuline) Experience
- Thread starter jay_steel
- Start date
Does your coaches protocol differ from mike Arnold's ?
what have you seen in the way of progress?
do you have a proffered protocol over the others?
longworthb
Banned Member
So u purposely go hypo before bed?
Standard Donkey
Registered
I go hypo, eat my post workout meal and pass out.. literally. (more than enough carbs to cover the insulin, especially considering I have 30g carbs 45 minutes pre-workout, and drink 80g carbs during my workout).. nothing will drain you like going hypo. The meal brings me back from hypo within minutes... but i still get insanely tired
longworthb
Banned Member
Be careful is all i can say man. And what made u want to iv
Standard Donkey
Registered
1. yes. 2. size gains, strength gains, insane recovery gains, and endurance gains. 3. i like mike Arnold's because it lets me drink more shakes lol..
Standard Donkey
Registered
just to try it
Second injection..
Started with BS at 102...
With 30 mins it dropped to 42 this was at 6:08. Right before my gym time... I felt GREAT though at 42 no weird feelings one bit so I was a bit shocked it was that low. Slammed karbolyn and a Protein shake and waited.
615 its at 57 so I noticed its increasing so I felt great like amped up. So i went to go lift... Felt great no feeling of hypo at all sipping on karbolyn and bcaa
652 its at 85
finished my training at 730 and tested at 74, slammed my protein, no karbolyn because dinner was about ready.
Ate sweet potato fries and turkey meatloaf thats made with oats instead of bread with a ton of veggies in side... (MY FAV)
840 BS 90
Felt great and relaxed watched some tv and then went to go play some games and started to feel HUNGRY again so i felt i was time for my last meal of the day. This was at like 10 15... This one hit me faster I started to feel the hypo coming on but nothing crazy just that slight head feeling. Made 1 cup of oats, 1 scoop of whey and few scoops of greek yogurt blended it up drank it and I was fine. After that there was no more feeling. I didnt get my BS though at 10:15 i wish i would have, but my buddys were yelling at me on skype to get back in the game... So i was rushing..
Day 2 summery
Was able to keep my BS in normal range and aloud it to drop a bit for feeding, Ive been told by many people that to many people freak out and dont let it drop enough and feed to fast and get fat from it. Every thing I have done so far is IM, i think i will try subq next this friday. Only reason why i have not tried subq yet is because logically IM should hit harder faster and be done faster. I dont want to wait around until midnight when I have to work checking my BS... Firday with no work on sat will be perfect...Pumps are insane, I have put on 4-5lbs just this week and its not fat i can tell you that. I am much harder and leaner as well. I started at 202 and I am at 207 this morning. Remember I am also on NO AAS... So these gains are strictly due to diet, slin forcing food into my body, but diet...HGH is still to fresh to make a difference just got back on HGH 4iu a day, but thinking of going to 8iu on M W F.
I am feeling great again my rebound from my show was rough, finally got back to my fighting weight and I hope to add on another 7-8 lbs with out AAS. Then when I go back to blasting if I can do that, perhaps a 230 scale will be in my favor. If I can make 230 before my diet I think I will be looking like a BEAST at middle weight. I plan on doing my local show at LHW and then a big LA show next year at MW. the LA show is around 3-4 weeks after this show. This way I dont cut water for my local show just go to go, and get shredded for the MW.
All and all the only down side to this is my fingers are FUCKING Tender by the end of the day.
Started with BS at 102...
With 30 mins it dropped to 42 this was at 6:08. Right before my gym time... I felt GREAT though at 42 no weird feelings one bit so I was a bit shocked it was that low. Slammed karbolyn and a Protein shake and waited.
615 its at 57 so I noticed its increasing so I felt great like amped up. So i went to go lift... Felt great no feeling of hypo at all sipping on karbolyn and bcaa
652 its at 85
finished my training at 730 and tested at 74, slammed my protein, no karbolyn because dinner was about ready.
Ate sweet potato fries and turkey meatloaf thats made with oats instead of bread with a ton of veggies in side... (MY FAV)
840 BS 90
Felt great and relaxed watched some tv and then went to go play some games and started to feel HUNGRY again so i felt i was time for my last meal of the day. This was at like 10 15... This one hit me faster I started to feel the hypo coming on but nothing crazy just that slight head feeling. Made 1 cup of oats, 1 scoop of whey and few scoops of greek yogurt blended it up drank it and I was fine. After that there was no more feeling. I didnt get my BS though at 10:15 i wish i would have, but my buddys were yelling at me on skype to get back in the game... So i was rushing..
Day 2 summery
Was able to keep my BS in normal range and aloud it to drop a bit for feeding, Ive been told by many people that to many people freak out and dont let it drop enough and feed to fast and get fat from it. Every thing I have done so far is IM, i think i will try subq next this friday. Only reason why i have not tried subq yet is because logically IM should hit harder faster and be done faster. I dont want to wait around until midnight when I have to work checking my BS... Firday with no work on sat will be perfect...Pumps are insane, I have put on 4-5lbs just this week and its not fat i can tell you that. I am much harder and leaner as well. I started at 202 and I am at 207 this morning. Remember I am also on NO AAS... So these gains are strictly due to diet, slin forcing food into my body, but diet...HGH is still to fresh to make a difference just got back on HGH 4iu a day, but thinking of going to 8iu on M W F.
I am feeling great again my rebound from my show was rough, finally got back to my fighting weight and I hope to add on another 7-8 lbs with out AAS. Then when I go back to blasting if I can do that, perhaps a 230 scale will be in my favor. If I can make 230 before my diet I think I will be looking like a BEAST at middle weight. I plan on doing my local show at LHW and then a big LA show next year at MW. the LA show is around 3-4 weeks after this show. This way I dont cut water for my local show just go to go, and get shredded for the MW.
All and all the only down side to this is my fingers are FUCKING Tender by the end of the day.
keith1569
Registered
damn bro, idk much about all this but am learning, it soudns like though you need to be sipping on some bcaa,karbolyn creatine and stuff from before your shot and through a while so you dont have it drop so low..
IDK but sounds like you need to dial in how many carbs you need throughout to kep from feeling hypo like u said at like 10pm.
Could be that i havent seen others post their BS levels on slin but its kinda freaky to see it drop like that
IDK but sounds like you need to dial in how many carbs you need throughout to kep from feeling hypo like u said at like 10pm.
Could be that i havent seen others post their BS levels on slin but its kinda freaky to see it drop like that
this is all experimental to my body. When it went that low, I never once felt hypo at all or bad. Actually was shocked it was low because i was so fired up for the gym. Friday now I will sip on karbolyn for the 30 mins and retest to see improvement. The feeling at 10 pm the last one, it wasnt like a hypo that your thinking when i say i felt it coming on. It wasnt getting hot flashes, blurry vision, or any thing like that. Its all man I am HUNGRY out of no where and your body just tell you its time to eat. I am sure if i was in a place where i couldnt eat then yeah, I would have been in trouble. But the thing is you dont want to eat prematurely because then you run the risk of getting fat. One of my buddies from another forum (who is a monster literally 260 ripped) Told me your body will tell you when to eat. Listen to your body and only eat when it tells you to.
I dont think its as bad as most people are making it out to be if your eating your carbs. Yes if your irresponsible it can get really bad.
I dont think its as bad as most people are making it out to be if your eating your carbs. Yes if your irresponsible it can get really bad.
Jay Steel:
The problem with humulin-r is that is can peek twice and take up to 6.5 hours to clear. Humalog is a much better option.
I'm not going to slam you for doing 15ius the first go around, but you need to be careful and 99.9% of guys DO NOT check their blood sugar with a glucose meter so I'll give you props for that.
The problem with humulin-r is that is can peek twice and take up to 6.5 hours to clear. Humalog is a much better option.
I'm not going to slam you for doing 15ius the first go around, but you need to be careful and 99.9% of guys DO NOT check their blood sugar with a glucose meter so I'll give you props for that.
Yeah, I plan on swapping over to log soon... I notice the two different spikes thats why i take it prework out vice post so i know its done before i go to sleep. Week days i dont ever leave my house after the gym unless its to take the dogs to play and i will pack a snack and glucose pills. It would be nice to go to Humalog so if any one is thinking about it... I would go Humalog because i can tell you that you will be sitting in your house waiting for it to slam you again if you take it around when i take it. So if your young and like to go out i would say not to.. For me i dont really go any where during the week so its not a big deal and my diet really covers my basis on being enough carbs for slin.
if you use a blood glucose meter, are using humalog and are taking in all of your carbs around training, sure it might work, but what is it you're trying to accomplish getting bigger or smaller (diet)?
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2013
- Messages
- 2,111
- Reaction score
- 590
- Points
- 113
I have no personal experience with slin, I am gathering info and have read alot. I am not ready to make a run with slin yet...
If I do decide to use slin, getting bigger would be my goal.
I was thinking of running the Mike Arnolds protocol as a dry run so to speak, and add the humalog once I was comfortable with the process. Does that make sense?
I don't know his protocol, but he seems to know what he's talking about.
Just keep in mind that no matter what you do, you're going to add some fat on.
Good luck, and nice job on not jumping into this and doing a lot of homework, be safe not sorry.
I am taking this day off of the slin. I have to much running around to do (going fishing tomorrow) so i wont have time to manage my carb intake. If i had humalog i would run it, but i wont be at my home for most of the day and wont put my self in that danger of not having carbs accessible.
But this is 5 days since i started and i have to say i am impressed with the response by body has had with not being on AAS.
I look much fuller, larger, tighter, and harder then ever. I look better right now then i was when I was running a gram of test, deca, and drol. I can not wait for inthe future to add those in the mix and see what happens to gains. I woke up at 206 this morning and went to bed at 207. Normally I drop 3lbs in the AM so I am hoping to be close to 210 by tonight. Pump is just as full as it was the day i was in the gym.
But this is 5 days since i started and i have to say i am impressed with the response by body has had with not being on AAS.
I look much fuller, larger, tighter, and harder then ever. I look better right now then i was when I was running a gram of test, deca, and drol. I can not wait for inthe future to add those in the mix and see what happens to gains. I woke up at 206 this morning and went to bed at 207. Normally I drop 3lbs in the AM so I am hoping to be close to 210 by tonight. Pump is just as full as it was the day i was in the gym.
dirtwarrior
Registered
Can it be used to loose fat while maintaining muscle? If so what protocol should be used?
dirtwarrior
Registered
Found this on the net
This is going to be a long answer because, frankly, there is a lot of misinformation and misunderstanding about insulin and, as usual, I got a lot to say.
This is because, in a lot of ways, insulin is a schizophrenic hormone. Depending on what folks read (e.g. bodybuilding literature), they will be told that insulin is great, it?s the most anabolic hormone in the body, it?s key to getting big. And if you read other stuff (a lot of mainstream dieting literature), you?ll hear that insulin is the devil, it makes you fat and ruins your health. Who?s right? Well, everybody?sort of.
As the question above states, it?s best to think of insulin as a generalized storage hormone rather than being good or bad; and what it does, as always, depends on the context. I should mention that insulin not only affects peripheral tissues such as the liver, muscle and fat cell; it also has central effects in the brain. I discuss this in Bodyweight Regulation: Part 1 and that series of articles.
When elevated (and I?d note here that while carbohydrate has the primary effect on raising insulin, protein also raises insulin; as well, the combination of protein and carbohydrate raises insulin more than either alone), insulin pushes nutrients into cells. So insulin stimulates glycogen storage in the liver, it also enhances glycogen storage in skeletal muscle. And while insulin isn?t that critically involved in protein synthesis per se, it does decrease protein breakdown; as discussed in The Protein Book, this is important for maximal increases in muscle mass. So far so good.
But insulin also is involved in fat storage which is where it gets its ?bad? characterization. Insulin activates an enzyme called lipoprotein lipase which is involved in breaking fatty acids off of chylomicrons for storage. However, this isn?t the only important step in fat storage.
Contrary to popular belief (espoused by people still reading literature from the 1970′s), insulin is neither the only nor single most important hormone involved in fat storage. Rather, a little compound called acylation stimulation protein (ASP) has been described as ?the most potent stimulator of fat storage in the fat cell?. And ASP levels can go up without an increase in insulin (although insulin plays a role).
As another effect of insulin on body-fat levels, and this is discussed in some detail in The Stubborn Fat Solution, insulin drastically inhibits lipolysis (fat mobilization) from fat cells. Even fasting insulin levels inhibit lipolysis by up to 50%, even small increases essentially turn off lipolysis completely. Some could easily interpret this as meaning that ?eating carbs stops fat loss?. Or it might lead them to conclude that a carbohydrate based diet would make fat loss impossible.
Tangentially I?d note, and one weird little study supports this, that spiking insulin (and letting it crash back down) might be superior for fat loss than the standard strategy of trying to keep insulin low but stable all day long. The reason is that even tiny amounts of insulin block lipolysis, if you keep insulin low but stable all day, you are effectively impairing lipolysis. But the study in question showed that blood fatty acid levels came back up much faster when insulin was spiked (which crashed blood glucose back down, lowering insulin). The drawback, mind you, is that rapidly falling blood glucose tends to make people hungry and calorie control would be nearly impossible with this strategy. And, as you?ll see below, in a hypocaloric situation, it probably doesn?t matter a bit.
Anyhow, despite the sometimes seen mentality that you must ?cut carbs to get lean?, four decades of practical experience (and endless clinical research) show that that is simply not the case: bodybuilders (well, some bodybuilders) have gotten plenty lean on carb-based diets (of course, others have failed miserably) so it?s obviously not as simple as many would make it. That?s because whether a high-carb, moderate-carb, or low-carb diet is most appropriate for someone depends on the circumstances; a topic I discuss in Comparing the Diets.
Which brings me the long way around to the first question above. What is happening in terms of fat loss on a diet that is hypocaloric (below maintenance levels, that is the person is burning more calories than they are consuming) but contains sufficient protein and essential fatty acids but with say 100 grams of carbohydrate? Don?t the carbs prevent fat loss by
This is going to be a long answer because, frankly, there is a lot of misinformation and misunderstanding about insulin and, as usual, I got a lot to say.
This is because, in a lot of ways, insulin is a schizophrenic hormone. Depending on what folks read (e.g. bodybuilding literature), they will be told that insulin is great, it?s the most anabolic hormone in the body, it?s key to getting big. And if you read other stuff (a lot of mainstream dieting literature), you?ll hear that insulin is the devil, it makes you fat and ruins your health. Who?s right? Well, everybody?sort of.
As the question above states, it?s best to think of insulin as a generalized storage hormone rather than being good or bad; and what it does, as always, depends on the context. I should mention that insulin not only affects peripheral tissues such as the liver, muscle and fat cell; it also has central effects in the brain. I discuss this in Bodyweight Regulation: Part 1 and that series of articles.
When elevated (and I?d note here that while carbohydrate has the primary effect on raising insulin, protein also raises insulin; as well, the combination of protein and carbohydrate raises insulin more than either alone), insulin pushes nutrients into cells. So insulin stimulates glycogen storage in the liver, it also enhances glycogen storage in skeletal muscle. And while insulin isn?t that critically involved in protein synthesis per se, it does decrease protein breakdown; as discussed in The Protein Book, this is important for maximal increases in muscle mass. So far so good.
But insulin also is involved in fat storage which is where it gets its ?bad? characterization. Insulin activates an enzyme called lipoprotein lipase which is involved in breaking fatty acids off of chylomicrons for storage. However, this isn?t the only important step in fat storage.
Contrary to popular belief (espoused by people still reading literature from the 1970′s), insulin is neither the only nor single most important hormone involved in fat storage. Rather, a little compound called acylation stimulation protein (ASP) has been described as ?the most potent stimulator of fat storage in the fat cell?. And ASP levels can go up without an increase in insulin (although insulin plays a role).
As another effect of insulin on body-fat levels, and this is discussed in some detail in The Stubborn Fat Solution, insulin drastically inhibits lipolysis (fat mobilization) from fat cells. Even fasting insulin levels inhibit lipolysis by up to 50%, even small increases essentially turn off lipolysis completely. Some could easily interpret this as meaning that ?eating carbs stops fat loss?. Or it might lead them to conclude that a carbohydrate based diet would make fat loss impossible.
Tangentially I?d note, and one weird little study supports this, that spiking insulin (and letting it crash back down) might be superior for fat loss than the standard strategy of trying to keep insulin low but stable all day long. The reason is that even tiny amounts of insulin block lipolysis, if you keep insulin low but stable all day, you are effectively impairing lipolysis. But the study in question showed that blood fatty acid levels came back up much faster when insulin was spiked (which crashed blood glucose back down, lowering insulin). The drawback, mind you, is that rapidly falling blood glucose tends to make people hungry and calorie control would be nearly impossible with this strategy. And, as you?ll see below, in a hypocaloric situation, it probably doesn?t matter a bit.
Anyhow, despite the sometimes seen mentality that you must ?cut carbs to get lean?, four decades of practical experience (and endless clinical research) show that that is simply not the case: bodybuilders (well, some bodybuilders) have gotten plenty lean on carb-based diets (of course, others have failed miserably) so it?s obviously not as simple as many would make it. That?s because whether a high-carb, moderate-carb, or low-carb diet is most appropriate for someone depends on the circumstances; a topic I discuss in Comparing the Diets.
Which brings me the long way around to the first question above. What is happening in terms of fat loss on a diet that is hypocaloric (below maintenance levels, that is the person is burning more calories than they are consuming) but contains sufficient protein and essential fatty acids but with say 100 grams of carbohydrate? Don?t the carbs prevent fat loss by
dirtwarrior
Registered
raising insulin? What?s going on?
To understand what?s going on, I need to explain two terms which are the post-prandial and post-absorptive phases.
Post-prandial phase: this is just a technical term for ?after you?ve eaten a meal?. In this situation, nutrients are being absorbed and digested from the gut and released into the bloodstream, a whole host of hormones are being released (depending on the macronutrient content of the meal) and the body will generally be in an anabolic state (meaning that more nutrients are being stored than are being released from storage).
Post-absorptive stage: This is what happens between post-prandial phases. Eventually what you?ve eaten has all been digested, absorbed and either burned for energy or stored in various tissues. When this happens, hormone levels change an the body starts shifting to an overall catabolic state (I?m using this term generally here to indicate that the body is releasing more nutrients from storage than are being stored).
So throughout the day, the body is shifting between the post-prandial phase and the post-absorptive phase as you eat, that food gets digested and absorbed, and the body starts to draw on stored nutrients (hopefully stored fat in fat cells).
And when you lower caloric intake, over a 24 hour period, the body will end up spending relatively more time in the post-absorptive (remember: body burning stored nutrients) than post-prandial (remember: body storing ingested nutrients) phase. This is simply a consequence of having less nutrients coming in relative to what?s being burned.
On a diet, meals are smaller (or activity is higher, or both) so any given meal will only maintain an anabolic state for so long (and that time period will be shorter than if the person were eating more) before the body shifts back to burning stored nutrients. So even in the face of dietary carbohydrate intake, the body still will tap into stored fat; hence fat loss.
I?d note that theoretically this might mean that eating less frequently would improve fat loss, since the body would spend more time between meals in the post-absorptive stage. Of course, this is probably offset by each meal being larger and therefore taking longer to digest and I tend to doubt it matters in the long-run. Some interesting research into intermittent fasting suggests that there is more to it than that but that?s another topic for another day.
And this brings me to the second part of the above question, the glycemic index (GI) and insulin. Which requires another long explanation. The GI was developed back in the 80′s to help with diabetic meal planning. Basically it involves feeding folks a fixed amount of a reference carbohydrate (studies have typically used either 50 grams or 100 grams of digestible carbs and while glucose was the original test food, they now use white bread) with blood glucose being measured over a several hour period. The glucose response to the reference food is defined as having a GI of 100.
Then, whatever food was being tested (again either 50 or 100 grams of digestible carbs were given) and blood glucose was measured, researchers compared the blood glucose response of the test food to the reference food. If the blood glucose response was say, 80% of the reference food, the test food was given a GI of 80. If the blood glucose response was 120% of the test food, that?s a GI of 120. You get the idea. And lower GI values basically meant that the test food was generating a smaller blood glucose response than the reference food.
GI is far from perfect, there is massive individual variability, many foods will show a different GI depending how you cook them and, as soon as you start mixing foods or adding things like protein, fiber and fat, GI changes (almost always going down). So GI in and of itself ends up not saying very much in the big scheme of things. An additional confound is training. As I discuss in the research review The Influence of the Subjects? Training State on the Glycemic Index, people who are better aerobically trained show a lower GI response than those who are less well trained.
Now, it was always pretty much assumed that the GI was indicative of the insulin response and that lower GI foods caused a lower insulin response than higher GI foods; this is part of where dieters originally got fixated on the issue. However, it looks like it?s not quite that simple. While there was some brief interest in an Insulin Index (II) which measured the insulin response to foods in the same way GI does, research seems to have stopped as soon as it started.
As well as I discuss this in detail in the research review article Different Glycemic Indexes of Breakfast Cereals Are Not Due to Glucose Entry into Blood but to Glucose Removal by Tissue there is some evidence that low GI foods are low GI because they generate a fast initial insulin response.
That is, it?s important to realize that the blood glucose response of a food is determined by both its rate of digestion and entry into the bloodstream as well as the rate of glucose storage in tissues such as muscle. And it looks like low GI foods are not necessarily digesting more slowly but that a fast initial insulin response is clearing more blood glucose. To quote from the summary of that research article:
?Bran cereal has a low GI because a more rapid insulin-mediated increase in tissue glucose uptake attenuates the increase in blood glucose concentration, despite a similar rate of glucose entry into the blood.?
In this regards, I?d note that adding protein to carbs has been known to lower the GI for a couple of decades. However, it?s also been established that adding protein to carbs increases the insulin response. Which is consistent with the conclusions of the paper above, by increasing insulin, protein lowers blood glucose levels giving a lower effective GI. Just not for the reason that most people think. And I daresay that most of the ?insulin is evil? people are going to argue that eating more protein hurts fat loss, yes protein increases the insulin response to carbs. While increasing the insulin response. Go figure.
Which is a long way of saying that I don?t think the GI and insulin response matter much (although see my final comments below). If there is much effect of GI on fat loss, it?s more likely to be mediated through food intake and fullness as lower GI foods generally make people feel fuller and often cause decreased food intake. As I discuss in detail in Is a Calorie a Calorie, this is the typical confound in these types of studies: certain food types often make people spontaneously eat less, causing fat and weight loss and people confuse the food itself with the reduction in food intake that it causes.
It?s also worth noting that a 2006 review paper titled Glycaemix Index Effects on Fuel Partitioning in Humans examined this issue and concluded that:
?Apparently, the glycaemic index-induced serum insulin differences are not sufficient in magnitude and/or duration to modify fuel oxidation.?
Basically, at least outside of the absolute extremes (where it?s possible that some of this stuff might matter), it just doesn?t really seem to matter much outside of any influence on food intake (e.g. if a certain food keeps you fuller and you eat less, it?s good for fat loss; if it doesn?t, it?s not). Basically:
The GI doesn?t truly indicate the insulin response in the first place, if it does it appears that low-GI foods may be generating a faster initial insulin response in the first place, and none of this seems to meaningfully impact on fuel utilization anyhow. Certainly any tiny differences in GI between brown and white rice are going to be utterly irrelevant for 99% of cases.
Now, to wrap this up, I?d note that most studies done on this topic are drawing conclusions from average responses and emerging evidence suggests that it?s a bit more complicated than this. In the article Insulin Sensitivity and Fat Loss, I detail some recent work suggesting that the insulin sensitivity of a given individual interacts with diet; the punchline of that article is that individuals who are insulin resistant (and/or show a pronounced early insulin response to food intake) seem to get superior results from a lower GI/lower-carbohydrate diet. In contrast, individuals with high insulin sensitivity show superior results on a carb-based diet. Which is something I?ve observed for the last 15 years since writing my first book The Ketogenic Diet.
Ok, I know that was long but, as noted initially, there?s a lot of confusion over insulin and I have a lot to say on the topic. Hopefully I answered your question.
On which note, if you?d like to submit a question for the Q&A, please email me at: questions@bodyrecomposition.com. Due to the volume of responses, I can?t guarantee a personal response so please check the site to see if I?ve answered it.
To understand what?s going on, I need to explain two terms which are the post-prandial and post-absorptive phases.
Post-prandial phase: this is just a technical term for ?after you?ve eaten a meal?. In this situation, nutrients are being absorbed and digested from the gut and released into the bloodstream, a whole host of hormones are being released (depending on the macronutrient content of the meal) and the body will generally be in an anabolic state (meaning that more nutrients are being stored than are being released from storage).
Post-absorptive stage: This is what happens between post-prandial phases. Eventually what you?ve eaten has all been digested, absorbed and either burned for energy or stored in various tissues. When this happens, hormone levels change an the body starts shifting to an overall catabolic state (I?m using this term generally here to indicate that the body is releasing more nutrients from storage than are being stored).
So throughout the day, the body is shifting between the post-prandial phase and the post-absorptive phase as you eat, that food gets digested and absorbed, and the body starts to draw on stored nutrients (hopefully stored fat in fat cells).
And when you lower caloric intake, over a 24 hour period, the body will end up spending relatively more time in the post-absorptive (remember: body burning stored nutrients) than post-prandial (remember: body storing ingested nutrients) phase. This is simply a consequence of having less nutrients coming in relative to what?s being burned.
On a diet, meals are smaller (or activity is higher, or both) so any given meal will only maintain an anabolic state for so long (and that time period will be shorter than if the person were eating more) before the body shifts back to burning stored nutrients. So even in the face of dietary carbohydrate intake, the body still will tap into stored fat; hence fat loss.
I?d note that theoretically this might mean that eating less frequently would improve fat loss, since the body would spend more time between meals in the post-absorptive stage. Of course, this is probably offset by each meal being larger and therefore taking longer to digest and I tend to doubt it matters in the long-run. Some interesting research into intermittent fasting suggests that there is more to it than that but that?s another topic for another day.
And this brings me to the second part of the above question, the glycemic index (GI) and insulin. Which requires another long explanation. The GI was developed back in the 80′s to help with diabetic meal planning. Basically it involves feeding folks a fixed amount of a reference carbohydrate (studies have typically used either 50 grams or 100 grams of digestible carbs and while glucose was the original test food, they now use white bread) with blood glucose being measured over a several hour period. The glucose response to the reference food is defined as having a GI of 100.
Then, whatever food was being tested (again either 50 or 100 grams of digestible carbs were given) and blood glucose was measured, researchers compared the blood glucose response of the test food to the reference food. If the blood glucose response was say, 80% of the reference food, the test food was given a GI of 80. If the blood glucose response was 120% of the test food, that?s a GI of 120. You get the idea. And lower GI values basically meant that the test food was generating a smaller blood glucose response than the reference food.
GI is far from perfect, there is massive individual variability, many foods will show a different GI depending how you cook them and, as soon as you start mixing foods or adding things like protein, fiber and fat, GI changes (almost always going down). So GI in and of itself ends up not saying very much in the big scheme of things. An additional confound is training. As I discuss in the research review The Influence of the Subjects? Training State on the Glycemic Index, people who are better aerobically trained show a lower GI response than those who are less well trained.
Now, it was always pretty much assumed that the GI was indicative of the insulin response and that lower GI foods caused a lower insulin response than higher GI foods; this is part of where dieters originally got fixated on the issue. However, it looks like it?s not quite that simple. While there was some brief interest in an Insulin Index (II) which measured the insulin response to foods in the same way GI does, research seems to have stopped as soon as it started.
As well as I discuss this in detail in the research review article Different Glycemic Indexes of Breakfast Cereals Are Not Due to Glucose Entry into Blood but to Glucose Removal by Tissue there is some evidence that low GI foods are low GI because they generate a fast initial insulin response.
That is, it?s important to realize that the blood glucose response of a food is determined by both its rate of digestion and entry into the bloodstream as well as the rate of glucose storage in tissues such as muscle. And it looks like low GI foods are not necessarily digesting more slowly but that a fast initial insulin response is clearing more blood glucose. To quote from the summary of that research article:
?Bran cereal has a low GI because a more rapid insulin-mediated increase in tissue glucose uptake attenuates the increase in blood glucose concentration, despite a similar rate of glucose entry into the blood.?
In this regards, I?d note that adding protein to carbs has been known to lower the GI for a couple of decades. However, it?s also been established that adding protein to carbs increases the insulin response. Which is consistent with the conclusions of the paper above, by increasing insulin, protein lowers blood glucose levels giving a lower effective GI. Just not for the reason that most people think. And I daresay that most of the ?insulin is evil? people are going to argue that eating more protein hurts fat loss, yes protein increases the insulin response to carbs. While increasing the insulin response. Go figure.
Which is a long way of saying that I don?t think the GI and insulin response matter much (although see my final comments below). If there is much effect of GI on fat loss, it?s more likely to be mediated through food intake and fullness as lower GI foods generally make people feel fuller and often cause decreased food intake. As I discuss in detail in Is a Calorie a Calorie, this is the typical confound in these types of studies: certain food types often make people spontaneously eat less, causing fat and weight loss and people confuse the food itself with the reduction in food intake that it causes.
It?s also worth noting that a 2006 review paper titled Glycaemix Index Effects on Fuel Partitioning in Humans examined this issue and concluded that:
?Apparently, the glycaemic index-induced serum insulin differences are not sufficient in magnitude and/or duration to modify fuel oxidation.?
Basically, at least outside of the absolute extremes (where it?s possible that some of this stuff might matter), it just doesn?t really seem to matter much outside of any influence on food intake (e.g. if a certain food keeps you fuller and you eat less, it?s good for fat loss; if it doesn?t, it?s not). Basically:
The GI doesn?t truly indicate the insulin response in the first place, if it does it appears that low-GI foods may be generating a faster initial insulin response in the first place, and none of this seems to meaningfully impact on fuel utilization anyhow. Certainly any tiny differences in GI between brown and white rice are going to be utterly irrelevant for 99% of cases.
Now, to wrap this up, I?d note that most studies done on this topic are drawing conclusions from average responses and emerging evidence suggests that it?s a bit more complicated than this. In the article Insulin Sensitivity and Fat Loss, I detail some recent work suggesting that the insulin sensitivity of a given individual interacts with diet; the punchline of that article is that individuals who are insulin resistant (and/or show a pronounced early insulin response to food intake) seem to get superior results from a lower GI/lower-carbohydrate diet. In contrast, individuals with high insulin sensitivity show superior results on a carb-based diet. Which is something I?ve observed for the last 15 years since writing my first book The Ketogenic Diet.
Ok, I know that was long but, as noted initially, there?s a lot of confusion over insulin and I have a lot to say on the topic. Hopefully I answered your question.
On which note, if you?d like to submit a question for the Q&A, please email me at: questions@bodyrecomposition.com. Due to the volume of responses, I can?t guarantee a personal response so please check the site to see if I?ve answered it.
dirtwarrior
Registered
and also this
Insulin Sensitivity and Fat Loss
Over the years, bodybuilding nutrition has divided itself into three fairly distinct categories (I?m going to leave out the ones I consider voodoo nonsense) which are high-carb/low-fat, moderate carb/moderate fat, and low-carbohydrate. Low carb-diets can be further subdivided into high or low fat as well as cyclical or non-cyclical. I discuss each in more detail in Comparing the Diets.
In theory, you can make arguments for or against any of these approaches in terms of superiority. In the real world, it?s not quite that simple. You can always find folks (and this is true whether they are bodybuilders or just general dieters) who either succeeded staggeringly well or failed miserably on one or another approaches.
Before going on, I want to mention that protein recommendations tend not to vary that significantly between diets and most of the arguments tend to revolve around the varying proportions of carbohydrate and fats in the diet and that?s what I?ll be focusing on here. Simply, I don?t consider low-protein fat loss diets in the equation at all for the simple fact that they don?t work for anybody but the extremely obese. Any dieting bodybuilder or athlete needs 1-1.5 g/lb lean body mass of protein on a diet. Possibly more under certain circumstances.
My general experience has been that individuals who respond very well to high-carbohydrate/lower fat diets tend to do very poorly on low-carb/higher-fat diets. They feel terrible (low energy and a mental fog that never goes away), don?t seem to lean out very effectively and it just doesn?t work.
This cuts both ways: folks who don?t respond well to higher carbs do better by lowering carbs and increasing dietary fat. Sometimes that means a moderate carb/moderate fat diet, sometimes it means a full blown ketogenic diet. I should also note that some people seem to do just as well on one diet as another.
Some of this may simply be related to adherence although this tends to be less of an issue in bodybuilders (who take obsessiveness to a new level). Carb-based diets make some people hungry even if they follow all the ?rules?; so they eat more and don?t lose fat effectively. For many of those people, reducing carb intake allows better calorie control in the long-term. People who hate moderation tend to like cyclical ketogenic diets, they can handle no-carbs during the week and massive carb-ups on the weekend; moderate carbs drive them crazy.
But how does all of the above help the neophyte dieter looking to diet down. Put differently, how can someone know ahead of the fact what diet might be optimal for them? Current research is starting to explore a link between diet and genetics and suggesting biological differences in how people respond to diet; that might explain some of the real-world results I described above.
With regards to fat intake, studies have identified what researches call low and high-fat phenotypes (phenotype is just a technical word for the interaction between your genetics and your environment) (1). Some people appear to be better able to increase fat burning in response to higher fat intakes; they stay lean in the face of such an intake. Others, however, do no such thing. Other aspects of metabolism and appetite were associated with being either a high- or low-fat phenotype.
Unfortunately, no practical way of determining which one you might be ever came around. It was also never exclusively determined if the effect was due to inherent biology or simply adaptation to a habitual diet. But the point still stands, biologically, some people seem better able to increase fat oxidation in response to higher fat intakes than others. I think this goes part of the way to explaining the response (good or bad) to high-fat ketogenic diets. People who upregulate fat oxidation well tend to thrive on them; people who don?t just get bloated and don?t lose fat well.
More recently, an interaction between diet effectiveness and both insulin sensitivity and insulin secretion after a meal has been proposed (2). Noting that all of the research to date has been on obese individuals (not dieting bodybuilders), I still think it explains some of what is going on. As well as allowing us to predict ahead of time which diet someone might do best on.
A Very Brief Primer on Insulin Secretion and Sensitivity
To understand the research I want to talk about next, I need to briefly discuss two different but somewhat related aspects of insulin metabolism: insulin sensitivity/resistance and insulin secretion.
As I imagine all of the readers of this know, insulin is a storage hormone released in response to eating with carbohydrates having the largest impact on insulin secretion, protein having the second greatest and fat having little to no impact on insulin secretion. Insulin sensitivity refers to how well or poorly the body responds to the hormone insulin. Individuals who are insulin resistant tend to have higher baseline insulin levels because the body is releasing more in response to try and overcome the resistance.
And while a great majority of insulin resistance is determined by lifestyle (training and diet play a huge role, as does body fatness), so do genetics. At the same bodyfat level, insulin sensitivity can vary nearly 10 fold for genetic reasons. So it?s possible that even lean athletes and bodybuilders could have some degree of genetic insulin resistant (I?ll talk about how to determine this at the end of the article). As it turns out, individuals also differ in how much or how little insulin they release following a standardized meal; some people release more insulin than others in response to a meal. While this can be related to baseline insulin sensitivity, it doesn?t have to be.
It turns out that both issue relate to fat/weight gain or loss (2). In contrast to what is
Insulin Sensitivity and Fat Loss
Over the years, bodybuilding nutrition has divided itself into three fairly distinct categories (I?m going to leave out the ones I consider voodoo nonsense) which are high-carb/low-fat, moderate carb/moderate fat, and low-carbohydrate. Low carb-diets can be further subdivided into high or low fat as well as cyclical or non-cyclical. I discuss each in more detail in Comparing the Diets.
In theory, you can make arguments for or against any of these approaches in terms of superiority. In the real world, it?s not quite that simple. You can always find folks (and this is true whether they are bodybuilders or just general dieters) who either succeeded staggeringly well or failed miserably on one or another approaches.
Before going on, I want to mention that protein recommendations tend not to vary that significantly between diets and most of the arguments tend to revolve around the varying proportions of carbohydrate and fats in the diet and that?s what I?ll be focusing on here. Simply, I don?t consider low-protein fat loss diets in the equation at all for the simple fact that they don?t work for anybody but the extremely obese. Any dieting bodybuilder or athlete needs 1-1.5 g/lb lean body mass of protein on a diet. Possibly more under certain circumstances.
My general experience has been that individuals who respond very well to high-carbohydrate/lower fat diets tend to do very poorly on low-carb/higher-fat diets. They feel terrible (low energy and a mental fog that never goes away), don?t seem to lean out very effectively and it just doesn?t work.
This cuts both ways: folks who don?t respond well to higher carbs do better by lowering carbs and increasing dietary fat. Sometimes that means a moderate carb/moderate fat diet, sometimes it means a full blown ketogenic diet. I should also note that some people seem to do just as well on one diet as another.
Some of this may simply be related to adherence although this tends to be less of an issue in bodybuilders (who take obsessiveness to a new level). Carb-based diets make some people hungry even if they follow all the ?rules?; so they eat more and don?t lose fat effectively. For many of those people, reducing carb intake allows better calorie control in the long-term. People who hate moderation tend to like cyclical ketogenic diets, they can handle no-carbs during the week and massive carb-ups on the weekend; moderate carbs drive them crazy.
But how does all of the above help the neophyte dieter looking to diet down. Put differently, how can someone know ahead of the fact what diet might be optimal for them? Current research is starting to explore a link between diet and genetics and suggesting biological differences in how people respond to diet; that might explain some of the real-world results I described above.
With regards to fat intake, studies have identified what researches call low and high-fat phenotypes (phenotype is just a technical word for the interaction between your genetics and your environment) (1). Some people appear to be better able to increase fat burning in response to higher fat intakes; they stay lean in the face of such an intake. Others, however, do no such thing. Other aspects of metabolism and appetite were associated with being either a high- or low-fat phenotype.
Unfortunately, no practical way of determining which one you might be ever came around. It was also never exclusively determined if the effect was due to inherent biology or simply adaptation to a habitual diet. But the point still stands, biologically, some people seem better able to increase fat oxidation in response to higher fat intakes than others. I think this goes part of the way to explaining the response (good or bad) to high-fat ketogenic diets. People who upregulate fat oxidation well tend to thrive on them; people who don?t just get bloated and don?t lose fat well.
More recently, an interaction between diet effectiveness and both insulin sensitivity and insulin secretion after a meal has been proposed (2). Noting that all of the research to date has been on obese individuals (not dieting bodybuilders), I still think it explains some of what is going on. As well as allowing us to predict ahead of time which diet someone might do best on.
A Very Brief Primer on Insulin Secretion and Sensitivity
To understand the research I want to talk about next, I need to briefly discuss two different but somewhat related aspects of insulin metabolism: insulin sensitivity/resistance and insulin secretion.
As I imagine all of the readers of this know, insulin is a storage hormone released in response to eating with carbohydrates having the largest impact on insulin secretion, protein having the second greatest and fat having little to no impact on insulin secretion. Insulin sensitivity refers to how well or poorly the body responds to the hormone insulin. Individuals who are insulin resistant tend to have higher baseline insulin levels because the body is releasing more in response to try and overcome the resistance.
And while a great majority of insulin resistance is determined by lifestyle (training and diet play a huge role, as does body fatness), so do genetics. At the same bodyfat level, insulin sensitivity can vary nearly 10 fold for genetic reasons. So it?s possible that even lean athletes and bodybuilders could have some degree of genetic insulin resistant (I?ll talk about how to determine this at the end of the article). As it turns out, individuals also differ in how much or how little insulin they release following a standardized meal; some people release more insulin than others in response to a meal. While this can be related to baseline insulin sensitivity, it doesn?t have to be.
It turns out that both issue relate to fat/weight gain or loss (2). In contrast to what is
dirtwarrior
Registered
generally believed, good overall insulin sensitivity tends to correlate with weight/fat gain and insulin resistance is thought to be an adaptation to prevent further fat/weight gain. However, some research suggests that a tendency to release too much insulin in response to feeding may predispose people towards weight/fat gain. One huge confound in all of this, mind you, is that high insulin secretion tends to make people eat more. Studies of diabetics find that decreasing insulin secretion with drugs tends to cause a spontaneously lower food intake (2).
The Impact of Insulin Sensitivity or Insulin Secretion on Response to Different Diets
While the research is in its infancy, there have been studies examining the weight loss response relative to either insulin sensitivity or insulin secretion. For the most part, no major difference in terms of weight loss has been found in subjects with different insulin sensitivities (2). However, at least one study found that the specific diet given interacted with baseline insulin sensitivity to determine the magnitude of weight loss (3). In that study, obese women with either high or low insulin sensitivity were placed on either a high carb (60% carb, 20% fat) or low carb (40% carb, 40% fat) diets.
So there were four groups: high carb/insulin sensitive, high carb/insulin resistant, low carb/insulin sensitive, low carb/insulin resistant. The results were intriguing: insulin sensitive women on the high carb diet lost nearly double the weight as insulin sensitive women on the low-carb diet. Similarly, insulin resistant women lost twice the weight on the low-carb diet as on the high carb diet. Unfortunately, it?s not clear what caused the divergent results. The researchers mentioned a gene called FOXC2 which is involved in energy expenditure and found that it was upregulated in the individuals who responded best to diet; further research into this topic is needed (3).
Even less data relates to insulin secretion status and diet although a recent study suggests that it may (4). In that study, subjects were given either a high glycemic load (60% carbs, 20% protein, 20% fat) or a low GL diet (40% carbs, 30% protein, 30% fat diet) and weight loss was examined relative to baseline insulin secretion. In that study, subjects with high insulin secretion lost more weight on the low glycemic load diet while subjects in the low insulin secretion group lost slightly more on the high glycemic load diet.
Getting to the Point
Overall, I think the limited data available on both high and low fat phenotypes as well as how individuals with differing baseline insulin sensitivity/secretion respond to diets supports the observations occurring in the real world in terms of both subjective feelings on a given diet as well as the weight/fat loss response. So how can we put this to use?
Unfortunately, there?s no easy way to see if you?re a high or low fat phenotype so I?ll focus on insulin sensitivity. There are a lot of complicated and impractical ways to determine insulin sensitivity and insulin secretion. All involve blood work and looking at either baseline insulin or blood glucose or how insulin changes in response to a meal.
However, in practice, there are signs as to whether you have good insulin sensitivity or not and possibly whether you over-secrete insulin. Here?s two very simple questions to ask yourself regarding your response to diet.
On high-carbohydrate intakes, do you find yourself getting pumped and full or sloppy and bloated? If the former, you have good insulin sensitivity; if the latter, you don?t.
When you eat a large carbohydrate meal, do you find that you have steady and stable energy levels or do you get an energy crash/sleep and get hungry about an hour later? If the former, you probably have normal/low levels of insulin secretion; if the latter, you probably tend to over-secrete insulin which is causing blood glucose to crash which is making you sleepy and hungry.
I consider it most likely that superior bodybuilders couple excellent insulin sensitivity with low insulin secretion in response to a meal. This would tend to explain why bodybuilders have often gravitated towards high carb/low-fat diets and been successful on them.
At the same time, mediocre bodybuilders frequently get less than stellar results from that same diet. Lowering carbs and increasing dietary fat seems to be more effective in that case some of the low-carb bulking strategies out there probably work better for those individuals. The same goes for fat loss. Cyclical low-carb diets such as my Ultimate Diet 2.0 or the more generic cyclical ktogenic diet (CKD) described in my first book The Ketogenic Diet allow such individuals to briefly enjoy the benefits of heightened muscular insulin sensitivity.
Putting it Into Practice
If you have good insulin sensitivity and low insulin secretion, odds are you will do well with a traditional bodybuilding type of diet which means high protein, highish carbs and low fat. Let?s say you?re consuming 1 g/lb of protein at 12 cal/lb. That?s 33% protein. If you go to 1.5 g/lb, that?s 50% protein. That leaves you with 50-67% of your calories to allocate between fat and carbohydrate. 15-20% dietary fat is about the lower limit as it becomes impossible to get sufficient essential fatty acids below that intake level. So, at 1 g/lb, your diet will be roughly 33% protein, 47-52% carbs (call it 45-50%) and 15-20% fat. If protein goes to 50% of the total, carbs should come down to 35% of the total with 15% fat.
If you?re not insulin sensitive and/or have high insulin secretion, a diet lower in carbs and higher in fat (don?t forget that protein can raise insulin as well) is a better choice. Assuming, again, 40% protein, a good starting place might be 40% protein, 20-30% carbs and 20-30% fat. A further shift to a near ketogenic (or cyclical ketogenic) diet may be necessary, 40% protein, 10-20% carbs and the remainder fat may be the most effective. If protein is set higher, up to 50% protein, carbs would be set at 10-20% with the remainder (20-30%) coming from dietary fat.
Summing Up
Hopefully the above has given you some insight into choosing what might be an optimal fat loss diet without having to go through so much tedious trial and error. However, please don?t treat the above as more than a starting point. Adjustments to diet in terms of calories or nutrient intake should always be based on real world fat loss. You should be tracking your fat loss every 2 weeks (4 at the most); if you?re not losing at a reasonable rate (1-1.5 lbs fat loss/week), you need to adjust something.
Bio: Lyle McDonald received his BS in physiology from UCLA in 1993 and has been obsessed with all aspects of human performance (training, nutrition, supplements) since then. He has written extensively about fat loss, especially low carbohydrate dieting. He is currently working on a book covering all aspects of protein nutrition for athletes as well as an approach to getting rid of stubborn bodyfat. His website is http://www.bodyrecomposition and his books can be ordered there by clicking on the store link.
The Impact of Insulin Sensitivity or Insulin Secretion on Response to Different Diets
While the research is in its infancy, there have been studies examining the weight loss response relative to either insulin sensitivity or insulin secretion. For the most part, no major difference in terms of weight loss has been found in subjects with different insulin sensitivities (2). However, at least one study found that the specific diet given interacted with baseline insulin sensitivity to determine the magnitude of weight loss (3). In that study, obese women with either high or low insulin sensitivity were placed on either a high carb (60% carb, 20% fat) or low carb (40% carb, 40% fat) diets.
So there were four groups: high carb/insulin sensitive, high carb/insulin resistant, low carb/insulin sensitive, low carb/insulin resistant. The results were intriguing: insulin sensitive women on the high carb diet lost nearly double the weight as insulin sensitive women on the low-carb diet. Similarly, insulin resistant women lost twice the weight on the low-carb diet as on the high carb diet. Unfortunately, it?s not clear what caused the divergent results. The researchers mentioned a gene called FOXC2 which is involved in energy expenditure and found that it was upregulated in the individuals who responded best to diet; further research into this topic is needed (3).
Even less data relates to insulin secretion status and diet although a recent study suggests that it may (4). In that study, subjects were given either a high glycemic load (60% carbs, 20% protein, 20% fat) or a low GL diet (40% carbs, 30% protein, 30% fat diet) and weight loss was examined relative to baseline insulin secretion. In that study, subjects with high insulin secretion lost more weight on the low glycemic load diet while subjects in the low insulin secretion group lost slightly more on the high glycemic load diet.
Getting to the Point
Overall, I think the limited data available on both high and low fat phenotypes as well as how individuals with differing baseline insulin sensitivity/secretion respond to diets supports the observations occurring in the real world in terms of both subjective feelings on a given diet as well as the weight/fat loss response. So how can we put this to use?
Unfortunately, there?s no easy way to see if you?re a high or low fat phenotype so I?ll focus on insulin sensitivity. There are a lot of complicated and impractical ways to determine insulin sensitivity and insulin secretion. All involve blood work and looking at either baseline insulin or blood glucose or how insulin changes in response to a meal.
However, in practice, there are signs as to whether you have good insulin sensitivity or not and possibly whether you over-secrete insulin. Here?s two very simple questions to ask yourself regarding your response to diet.
On high-carbohydrate intakes, do you find yourself getting pumped and full or sloppy and bloated? If the former, you have good insulin sensitivity; if the latter, you don?t.
When you eat a large carbohydrate meal, do you find that you have steady and stable energy levels or do you get an energy crash/sleep and get hungry about an hour later? If the former, you probably have normal/low levels of insulin secretion; if the latter, you probably tend to over-secrete insulin which is causing blood glucose to crash which is making you sleepy and hungry.
I consider it most likely that superior bodybuilders couple excellent insulin sensitivity with low insulin secretion in response to a meal. This would tend to explain why bodybuilders have often gravitated towards high carb/low-fat diets and been successful on them.
At the same time, mediocre bodybuilders frequently get less than stellar results from that same diet. Lowering carbs and increasing dietary fat seems to be more effective in that case some of the low-carb bulking strategies out there probably work better for those individuals. The same goes for fat loss. Cyclical low-carb diets such as my Ultimate Diet 2.0 or the more generic cyclical ktogenic diet (CKD) described in my first book The Ketogenic Diet allow such individuals to briefly enjoy the benefits of heightened muscular insulin sensitivity.
Putting it Into Practice
If you have good insulin sensitivity and low insulin secretion, odds are you will do well with a traditional bodybuilding type of diet which means high protein, highish carbs and low fat. Let?s say you?re consuming 1 g/lb of protein at 12 cal/lb. That?s 33% protein. If you go to 1.5 g/lb, that?s 50% protein. That leaves you with 50-67% of your calories to allocate between fat and carbohydrate. 15-20% dietary fat is about the lower limit as it becomes impossible to get sufficient essential fatty acids below that intake level. So, at 1 g/lb, your diet will be roughly 33% protein, 47-52% carbs (call it 45-50%) and 15-20% fat. If protein goes to 50% of the total, carbs should come down to 35% of the total with 15% fat.
If you?re not insulin sensitive and/or have high insulin secretion, a diet lower in carbs and higher in fat (don?t forget that protein can raise insulin as well) is a better choice. Assuming, again, 40% protein, a good starting place might be 40% protein, 20-30% carbs and 20-30% fat. A further shift to a near ketogenic (or cyclical ketogenic) diet may be necessary, 40% protein, 10-20% carbs and the remainder fat may be the most effective. If protein is set higher, up to 50% protein, carbs would be set at 10-20% with the remainder (20-30%) coming from dietary fat.
Summing Up
Hopefully the above has given you some insight into choosing what might be an optimal fat loss diet without having to go through so much tedious trial and error. However, please don?t treat the above as more than a starting point. Adjustments to diet in terms of calories or nutrient intake should always be based on real world fat loss. You should be tracking your fat loss every 2 weeks (4 at the most); if you?re not losing at a reasonable rate (1-1.5 lbs fat loss/week), you need to adjust something.
Bio: Lyle McDonald received his BS in physiology from UCLA in 1993 and has been obsessed with all aspects of human performance (training, nutrition, supplements) since then. He has written extensively about fat loss, especially low carbohydrate dieting. He is currently working on a book covering all aspects of protein nutrition for athletes as well as an approach to getting rid of stubborn bodyfat. His website is http://www.bodyrecomposition and his books can be ordered there by clicking on the store link.
dirtwarrior
Registered
Not sure what the stuff I posted means can someone put it into easy terms?
from talking to allot of people that have used and ran it to be lean and ran it to bulk. Most of the ones that ran it to bulk never ran their blood sugar so they would eat constantly when they did not have to. For example, if i wanted to get the befits of my slin and my BS is spiked I should not be eating, I want it to fall with in normal range or slightly below to really cram that carbs and protein in. I have talked to guys that would eat junk and non stop thus getting fat. Where guys that tested there BS found there range would actually let it drop pretty low before they start feeling any hypo. For me mine dropped to 47 and I did not feel a thing. This is the time where I want to feed and feed. After this feed my BS rose to normal ranges (which is what I want and maintained there for about an hour and a half before it started to lower again.
A friend of mine took his slin 15 iu BS was 105 and slammed a karbalyn, bcaa, protein and ect and his BS hit over 200. I believe that is when you start to really put on the fat. This is why I believe it is so important to data log it to get the best gains. Its a like a race car you have to get your air to fuel ratio perfect for the car to get peak performance and i believe thats how it is with slin. People that get on it with no meters and just stuff their face will get fat. But if you stay with in your macros and eat when you need to by the lowering of BS then you should stay lean.
I got my protocol down i think now. Pre insulin BS 97 15iu 30 min prior to the gym Post 10 min injection 88. Drink Protein and take creatine. Sip on 50mg of Karbolyn get to the gym. 30 mins after injection BS 84. Train while sipping on Karbolyn still the same one I was sipping on before and sip on BCAA. hour and half of training BS is 74. Drink protein and go home. Prepare dinner and eat dinner. BS 10 min after dinner 85. Before bed cup of oats and two scoops of whey. BS never fell below 74 that I know of.
Currently now 210lbs.
only thing changed is I took 3000 hcg on friday and will do 1000 hcg mon and thurs, until my wife is prego.
Currently now 210lbs.
only thing changed is I took 3000 hcg on friday and will do 1000 hcg mon and thurs, until my wife is prego.
just in case anyone skips to this page - yeah its been said 100x 15iu first time? after all the research i completed i would shit my pants thinking about that. i started at 2iu and worked my way up. now i can comfortably do 30iu a day split between two doses, although i dont touch pre workout slin use with a 10 foot pole. sounds like youre getting your shit dialed in tho.
--question to you that's not necessarily beneficial: why are you using slin only pre work out? why not have an additional dose >= 4 hours apart? im curious more than anything im not recommending this.
--question to you that's not necessarily beneficial: why are you using slin only pre work out? why not have an additional dose >= 4 hours apart? im curious more than anything im not recommending this.
OldSchoolLifter
Banned Member
Because the half life of humalin r is much longer than humalog and will be actively in his system working, for a solid 3 hours or more post workout.
So not only is he benefiting from it pre workout, building back up the muscle fibers as he breaks them down, he's also getting the post workout benefits in one go.
Though I prefer humalog, humalin r will provide near the same results. You just need to be a bit more cautious.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk 2
