High Carb, Medium/High GI, cutting experiment
- 05-15-2005, 03:18 AM
High Carb, Medium/High GI, cutting experiment
Alright I've been experimenting with High Carb, Medium-High GI foods for cutting, just to see if it's even possible.
and I have to say, it's working amazingly well!
I'm eating small portions of white rice, potatoes, wheat bread, wheat tortillas, skim milk and even some higher GI fruits like oranges.
I've been keeping the fat to almost as low as 0g-5g a meal, 10g at the absolute most, protein around 30g and carbs around 40g.
The reason I am doing this was to see if I could dispel the myth that low GI or even, low carb, is the only way to diet.
But this is working really well. I feeling very strong, vascular and am seeing very slow but steady losses in bodyfat.
I'm averaging about 260g-300g carb a day 30g fat a day and 200g protein a day. Coming to about 2500 cals a day, but I don't feel starved at all for someone @225lbs. I think the extra amount of added insulin per meal is really helping to keep the muscle on, actually.
- 05-15-2005, 05:24 AM
what actual carbs make up the most of your diet? and what type of metabolism would u say that u have (endo ,ecto, meso)?
- 05-15-2005, 06:38 AM
If you look at the third line of my post, you will see the carbs that I am using for this experiment.
Also I am a MAJOR Endormorph, my natural setpoint is around 25% bodyfat if I just ate whatever I wanted.
The funny thing is, the low carb high fat high protein stuff doesn't work for me at all, which is what a lot of so called gurus tout, as far as being an endomorph goes.
I actually need a lot of carbs to keep my metabolism and muscle glycogen up, and low fat as possible, to keep from storing it, since I think my body stores it very easily.
05-15-2005, 11:17 AM
- 6'3" 215 lbs.
- Join Date
- Dec 2004
- Rep Power
- Lv. Percent
This is interesting. I read an article a long time ago where this mag interviewed Mike Mentzer, and he was saying how he was cutting while eating ice-cream and sweets while staying at basal calories. Everybody's different. I've seen these videos of Asians on the Discovery channel, just where they'd be exploring their culture, and you'd see them eating white rice by the pile.
05-15-2005, 11:35 AM
- 6'3" 215 lbs.
- Join Date
- Dec 2004
- Rep Power
- Lv. Percent
Also, the book Advanced Nutrition and Human Metabolism 2004 ed., says that "The conversion of glucose to fatty acids appears to occur only if energy intake exceeds energy expenditure".
BUT it also says, "Diets high in simple carbohydrates and low in fats induce a set of lipogenic enzymes in the liver...Other studies have confirmed that a very low fat/high sugar diet causes an increase in fatty acid synthesis and palmitate-rich, linoleate-poor VLDL triacylglycerols. Furthermore, the effect may be reduced if starch is substituted for the sugar, possibly owing to the slower absorption of starch glucose and lower postprandial insulin response."
05-15-2005, 03:28 PM
You will lost weight if you take in less energy than you expend. That is all there is to it.Originally Posted by TheTom
If you have protein at 1.5g/lb and sufficient EFAs, it probably does not matter much how you split up fat/cho and whether the GI is low or high. I have seen cogent arguments for high GI on a diet, but appetite will be tough to control.
Having said that, partitioning will be affected by your food choices. Also, your overall health, mood, and performance will be greatly affected by food choices.
My most effective diets have been those that combine moderate deficit (say -500Kcal) with a balanced diet and high activity. In fact, the best apparent p-ratio I have ever achieved was from energy intake at resting maintenance Kcal with deficit created entirely by activiity. Gotta be patient though.
05-16-2005, 12:55 PM
Insulin does play a role as an allosteric regulator of protein synthesis pathways, and does blunt cortisol. It also inhibits FFA release and encourages adipocyte uptake and utilization of plasma glucose.
Unfortunately for the first two, the combined presence of cAMP and low concentrations of glycolysis intermediates which frequently occur in caloric deficit are theorized to act as strong allosteric inhibitors to the genes which encode for protein synthesis (among many others).
So what do you get with high insulin levels on a diet? A tendency towards the transformation/storage as fat of the carbs you do eat and muscle breakdown at any time that your liver is not able to supply sufficient glucose for your metabolic needs. Is this what you want?!
05-16-2005, 01:20 PM
Well, you cannot have everything. Fat loss is catabolic by definition. High dietary protein intake (1.5g/lb say) coupled with the right amount of resistance training is going to modulate catabolism.Originally Posted by exnihilo
Pushing glucose into adipose is not going to matter much as long as 24 hour fat balance is negative. It could even help with short term leptin signalling, though that likely would not mean much in the face of decreasing fat mass.
Note that I am not advoicating a high GI fat loss diet, but if you could control appetite, it would likely lead to overall lower plasma insulin for more hours of the day with a given amount of carbs versus a low gi approach. It might be worth a try within a ketogenic framework, but I will leave that experimentation up to others.
05-16-2005, 02:54 PM
Leptin signalling takes a sustained period of refeeding to re-balace.
Having high spikes in insulin is not going to do anything positive for you, it's just going to inhibit lipolysis and encourage triglyceride formation. As for your 24 hour calorie balance, if you are eating very close to maintenance and not engaging in a significant amount of exercise/doing a significant amount of work your liver may be able to smooth out the bumps to a degree, but the more active you are or the more below maintenance you eat, the more detrimental insulin spikes are going to be. Unlike oatmeal, it's the wrong thing to do (tm)
05-19-2005, 12:48 PM
Agreed, a long term energy deficit will lead to a decrease in body mass regardless of macronutrient ratios. A diet that does not result in a lower body mass is almost certainly due to a miscalculation of energy intake and/or expenditure yielding an inadequate deficit.Originally Posted by Oatmeal_King
Additionally there seems to be a general misconception about insulin response to carb intake. The consumption of carbs does not universally promote increased insulin levels. When hypocaloric, glycogen and even blood glucose levels may be partially depleted leading to increased glucose uptake through non-insulin mediated means.
Also agreed. An overall period of energy deficit that includes periods of large energy surplus (and anabolism) must also include periods of larger energy deficit (and catabolism). Increased insulin sensitivity while dieting could well lead to a greater amount of calories stored as fat during the hypercaloric periods. The greater energy deficits will likely result in increased breakdown of lean body tissues (muscle).Originally Posted by Exnihilo
The priority should be to maintain the smallest deficit over the longest period of time. If eating less frequently, moderate size meals of slower digesting foods will help accomplish this. If higher GI carbs are in the diet, smaller more frequent meals would be required to avoid the larger energy surplus/deficit swings.
05-19-2005, 01:08 PM
Well I've been using this Medium-High GI, Low Fat, Very High Protein method for about 2 weeks now and I gotta say, I feel ****in great. I look leaner, thicker and more vascular in the mirror already. The scale says I am down only 3 lbs but the mirror says so much more than that.
Also for those who might of skimmed over this line
"I'm eating small portions of white rice, potatoes, wheat bread, wheat tortillas, skim milk and even some higher GI fruits like oranges."
My insulin isn't totally off the charts, but it is on the high side.
Supplements I'm using are Rebound XT, Ultra Hot, BULK CEE and ON 100% Casien Protein.
05-19-2005, 01:18 PM
I assume you validate this with a glucose monitor?Originally Posted by TheTom
05-19-2005, 01:24 PM
Could be worse, nutritionally. But that would mean you were eating at mcdonalds
05-19-2005, 01:25 PM
I would also like to know how you are measuring your insulin levels. Where I live, a C-peptide test is rather expensive and requires a month turn around due to batch processing.Originally Posted by TheTom
05-19-2005, 01:45 PM
Oh yeah. Nothing like being freshly freaky lean with a crashed BMR, appetite completely whacked in the brain, highly insulin sensitive adipose, and no more goals to remember when you smell a donut. Which leads to....Originally Posted by Nitrox
Or very moderate deficits interspersed with full on breaks eating at maintenance.Originally Posted by Nitrox
Although it requires a lot of patience and an order of magnitude more discipline, the slow and steady approach wins out when you want to make *permanent* body composition changes. On a related (but typically digressive) note, this thread from Lyle's board is interesting:
Sort of turns the conventional increase deficit as you crash metabolism approach on its head.
05-19-2005, 01:48 PM
As alluded to above, I don't think you can safely infer insulin from blood glucose. Too many variables unique to an individual, as well as things like insulinogenic slow/medium speed digesting proteins like lean red meat.Originally Posted by houseman
Anybody got a link to the insulin index for protein sources handy?
05-19-2005, 02:01 PM
Doesn't really turn the conventional approach on it's head, it's long been known that very obese people could lose a great deal of weight very quickly without adversely affecting FFM. There are also metabolic considerations which the amount of fat mass adjusts, which make fat people less prone to FFM loss while dieting (the converse is also true for lean people). This ties in with the whole leptin thing (though leptin is just a "part of the gang", not the kingpin, at least in humans), though there is definately something only semi-quantified by science about unprocessed grains and veggies that makes them "that much better" for weight loss - it's not just the fact that they're low GI, as low GI studies have not conclusively shown results beyond moderate GI, but I can definately tell the difference in the way I was dieting before and now in terms of weight and strength changes.Originally Posted by Oatmeal_King
05-19-2005, 02:07 PM
- 6'3" 215 lbs.
- Join Date
- Dec 2004
- Rep Power
- Lv. Percent
Exactly exnihilo. With some foods it goes beyond the GI and II; in what ways, exactly, remains to be elucidated. With previous diets I never had the cutting success I've had when I incorporated an abundance of vegetables.
05-19-2005, 02:53 PM
The conventional approach as has been promulgated to me is to increase deficits (whether through increased acitivty or caloric restriction) as BMR adjusts downward. This would be suggesting to start out with the highest deficit and decrease as your progress (after accounting for BMR adjustments). All this assuming that lean mass maintenance is the top priority.Originally Posted by exnihilo
That is not what I meant. I had always looked at the ability to easily diet hard when fat as mostly a matter of insulin resistance leading to a sparing of protein, ease of mobilization, etc (as you allude to). Here though they are obliquely dismissing all that and simply suggesting that it is quantifiable and more depending on release rates directly relates to total fat mass.
It makes a lot of sense. One could be on a strict ketogenic diet, eating a lot of saturated fat and using EC chronically; this would induce most of the same metabolic phenomenon present in the very fat. Yet if you are lean you will benefit from the same protein sparing effect due to the rate limiting factor. You could disregard the entire brain/energy state feedback cycle (leptin, etc) and produce a very simple explanation for all the difficulties lean people face getting even leaner.
Now, I am not actually saying cell signalling regardin energy states is not involved, just remarking using Occam's Razor with this research would allow the evolution of a simpler theory that has similar predictive capacity.
Of course, we are getting into observational abstractions at this point.
Most interestingly to me are the numbers!
Assuming there is validity to the study, 20lbs of fat = "safe" deficit of ~600Kcal a day! Every lb of adipose correlating to 30Kcal of deficit per day!
I did not realize you have to be logged in to Lyle's board now, so here is the abstract; never got the full thing:
J Theor Biol. 2005 Mar 7;233(1):1-13. Epub 2004 Dec 8.
A limit on the energy transfer rate from the human fat store in hypophagia.
Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM 87131-1156, USA. email@example.com
limit on the maximum energy transfer rate from the human fat store in hypophagia is deduced from experimental data of underfed subjects maintaining moderate activity levels and is found to have a value of (290+/-25) kJ/kgd. A dietary restriction which exceeds the limited capability of the fat store to compensate for the energy deficiency results in an immediate decrease in the fat free mass (FFM). In cases of a less severe dietary deficiency, the FFM will not be depleted. The transition between these two dietary regions is developed and a criterion to distinguish the regions is defined. An exact mathematical solution for the decrease of the FFM is derived for the case where the fat mass (FM) is in its limited energy transfer mode. The solution shows a steady-state term which is in agreement with conventional ideas, a term indicating a slow decrease of much of the FFM moderated by the limited energy transferred from the fat store, and a final term showing an unprotected rapid decrease of the remaining part of the FFM. The average resting metabolic rate of subjects undergoing hypophagia is shown to decrease linearly as a function of the FFM with a slope of (249+/-25) kJ/kgd. This value disagrees with the results of other observers who have measured metabolic rates of diverse groups. The disagreement is explained in terms of individual metabolic properties as opposed to those of the larger population.
PMID: 15615615 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Anyway, regarding the GI stuff. I think you have misconstrued my position, Ex, if you think I am advocating high GI as I certainly am not.
What the calorie = calorie arguments overlook are:
Increased insulin sensitivity from fiber and MUFA/PUFA dominant fat intake
Vitamin / mineral content
Emotional / psychological state
Fewer "toxins" in the system using unprocessed food choices
And probably more factors, not the least which is just having substrate distributed to the body at a stable pace rather than pulses.
I totally agree regarding the unquantified differences in diet and results and also think it does transcend glycemic response issues. I think we can make some intelligent guesses though and I would look first at the side effect of achieving low gi.
Invariably, it ends up that low gi = unprocessed foods. So, veggies, some fruits, legumes, nuts, a few grains like barley (we all now the list). Yes they are low gi, but also these foods are the most dense sources per calorie of vitamins / minerals, phytonutrients (many of which are "undiscovered"), antioxidants, healthy fats etc.
You mention strength and this is something I have noticed as well. Running a deficit, but still taking 150-200g carbs a day in the form of veggies (ends up being 3-4lbs of roughage) with a starch at breakfast, I have been able to even to easily maintain strength and endurance performance and even make small strength increases!
With the actual mechanisms of CNS and motor unit fatigue so poorly elucidated (as far as I know anyway) at this point, I wonder if maintaining such a rich substrate from veggies and whole grains enhances a rate limiting mechanism in recovery from CNS fatigue. I don't think there are any studies looking at this directly, but my gut tells me there is a link.
When you can't quantify it though, it does make it tougher to argue with people who insist that you would get the same dieting results by eating at McDonald's (and they are out there).
I would like to continue, but I got to get my ass back to work!
05-19-2005, 03:01 PM
You aren't increasing the deficit by continuously lower cals on a diet bro. You have to lower calories to combat the negative feedback loop of the starvation response ("reduced metabolism") which again hasn't been completely explained by clinical science yet but it's obvious it's there. You also have to lower calories because being heavier, you burn more calories doing the things you do every day, and when you lose weight this reduces the load you must bear. Neither one is really huge but taken together they could account probably up to a 30% difference in calories from the start of a diet and the end, if you were to lose ~30lbs/~15% of your bodyweight
Similar Forum Threads
- By blahblah192 in forum Weight LossReplies: 2Last Post: 05-11-2006, 02:02 AM
- By JohnGafnea in forum Weight LossReplies: 8Last Post: 04-02-2003, 08:55 AM