Article: Shredding Serious Fat Without Losing Muscle
- Thread starter Admin
- Start date
JD261985
Banned
Why is he saying he gained 4 pounds of muscle while cutting 3 percent bf without mentioning his use of steroids. ****ing pathetic. He speaks for his metabolism along with the drugs he used to get ripped. Naturals should never take advice from these guys. Their natural metabolism is probably non existent
wiseman
Active Member
Increased insulin will shuttle the fats to be stored rather than burned. Studies have shown this.
max d
Active Member
Doesn't eating fats with carbs minimize the insulin spike? And as far as hormones go you wouldn't want to be spiking insulin all day due to the crashes and its effects on the body, just after workouts. Last and most importantly, if your at a deficit then the whole solo carb thing in the big picture shouldn't matter at all because your body won't be adding fat or muscle.
wiseman
Active Member
Spinning insulin is good in the morning and after workout ecause it's very anabolic. You're right that the fat will lower the GI of the Neal but the fat will still attach its self to the insulin. Idk but I saw good results keep fats and carbs away from each other.
JD261985
Banned
You should in fact eat healthy fats with carbs especially fats with lots of omega 3's like almonds, walnuts, MCT oil. It will lower the Insulin spike. Bottom line you are not going to burn fat and gain muscle without steroids and if you are natural you WILL lose some muscle in a cut. Anyone who tells you different is simply in denial or trying to sell you something
fueledpassion
Well-known member
Research what insulin does and how fats metabolize.
Substantial carbs = strong insulin response
Strong insulin response = turn off lypolysis
Turn off lypolysis = fat does not get used for energy
This ultimately leads to dietary fat going straight to the fat cells and the carbs u just ate get shuttled into the muscle and liver. So yes, too much of both at the same time guarantees fat storage one way or another.
fueledpassion
Well-known member
Thats just not true man. U might not see gains like he did but u cant call his advice null and void just because u cant do it urself in a natty state. The roid card is gettin old man thats never the way to progress. I've made more gains with physiological hormone levels than I have with 1.5g of androgens in my system - all because training and diet ARE so much better now than they used to be.
Once u leave this board and all the broscience of carbless diets and natty guys do this, dont do that..etc etc..you'll see that alot of techniques that the pro's and amatuers use are universal and sound under any hormonal environment.
Nutrient timing and training dictate hormonal environment. Study insulin and macro nutrient metabolism and you'll see that this advice is sound under any circumstances, not just the "roid users".
fueledpassion
Well-known member
Yes, but fats have no interaction with insulin and they do not influence the size of the insulin pulse. They are converted rather easily (albeit slowly) to fatty acid droplets and since insulin shuts off all catabolic activity in the body (I.e. lypolysis, gluconeogenesis, proteolysis etc) dietary fats are not able to be used as energy. Insulin does not pull fats into places, it pulls glucose into places which, if eating too many carbs, inevitably it will put those carbs into fat cells AFTER the glucose has filled the liver glycogen and the remaining has been converted to fatty acid droplets. This also requires energy to do.
This is why eating fats and carbs together is not a good idea to do often.
I'm not referring to u but there are A TON of members on this board who do not understand how the body metabolizes foods at all and then get upset when someone like this author dispels their understanding...
max d
Active Member
If your in a deficit none of the dietary fat will be stored, which was the whole point of the article since it was about getting shredded. Im sure if your eating over maintanence there is some benefit, especially around workouts, of not eating fats but from what I have read and experienced it doesnt make a major difference. Do you have research to back up that it is materially beneficial to split macros?
fueledpassion
Well-known member
Well, there is plenty of research backing up success of low fat diets and weight loss. That doesn't mean that high fat diets dont work though. I can find it though. John Parillo has endless study references indicating such though.
And yes, ur right about caloric deficit.
max d
Active Member
I found a round table with layne norton, alaln aragon, and some other top guys in the field and they all say that seperating macros does not make a difference.
Invalid Link Removed
here is the summary of a study done: A study conducted by Golay and colleagues compared a diet with equal macronutrient content and substrate percentages; that differed only in how the substrates were consumed (mixed diet vs. food combining). The results were no difference in weight loss. Here are the exact results reported by the researchers. “Results: There was no significant difference in the amount of weight loss in response to dissociated (6.2 +/- 0.6 kg) or balanced (7.5 +/- 0.4 kg) diets. Furthermore, significant decreases in total body fat and waist-to-hip circumference ratio were seen in both groups, and the magnitude of the changes did not vary as a function of the diet composition. Fasting plasma glucose, insulin, total cholesterol and triacylglycerol concentrations decreased significantly and similarly in patients receiving both diets. Both systolic and diastolic blood pressure values decreased significantly in patients eating balanced diets. The results of this study show that both diets achieved similar weight loss. Total fat weight loss was higher in balanced diets, although differences did not reach statistical significance. Total lean body mass was identically spared in both groups. CONCLUSION: In summary at identical energy intake and similar substrate composition, the dissociated (or 'food combining') diet did not bring any additional loss in weight and body fat”. Actually looks like a slight increase in fat loss with mixed diet (balanced diet). We have tons of anecdotal evidence that denies the need for food combining. We have evolved on a mixed diet. With all of that said food combining may be beneficial regarding calorie control. Once you eliminate an entire macronutrient from a meal this can go a long way in decreasing total caloric intake. If this is what you need to do to control energy intake feel free to do so.
max d
Active Member
My disagreement with you isn't over high vs low fat diets but your statement about mixing macros leading to stored fat... Calories in general over maintenance lead stored fat.
fueledpassion
Well-known member
Right, but the body doesnt regulate its metabolism on a 24hr basis, it does it on an immediate basis. So while u are right that total calories in any given period matters most for weight loss, the body only needs a certain amount at that time for the required bodily functions.
For instance, lets say mid-day, meal #3n no super high need for glycogen.
You decide to eat 100g carbs and 50g fats and a little protein at that meal. Lets also say a hefty amount of those fats are saturated, too.
So after eating those carbs, this fully saturates the muscle and liver with glycogen, meanwhile a buttload of insulin is in the bloodstream, WHICH SHUTS OFF FAT METABOLISM. At this point, the body must use the carbs from the blood as its primary source of energy. No catabolic activity such as lypolysis can occur at this point because insulin is present and active. Yet, you also have 50g of fat currently being digested. Where does it go?
Do u think it gets used as energy? Or does it get stored as body fat first?
Now it might be that within 24hrs u get into a net negative on calories, later burning some fat calories that were earlier put in. This is why I have a problem with keto diets though because its constantly spinning the wheels by putting fat away then turning around and burning it up.
I prefer high carb dieting because its less efficient and tends to raise metabolism considerably more, allowing the body's BMR to eventually be raised. This in turn requires a less extreme calorie deficit to get good results.
This link basically calls out that high carb diets lead to less fat metabolism. While it doesnt expand on this subject, I can tell u its because of the effects of insulin during carbohydrate feeding. This supports the idea of reducing fat intake when eating carbs..
Invalid Link Removed
I like this article, which does a better job of explaining the key role of insulin in fat and carb mstabolism.
Invalid Link Removed
For instance, lets say mid-day, meal #3n no super high need for glycogen.
You decide to eat 100g carbs and 50g fats and a little protein at that meal. Lets also say a hefty amount of those fats are saturated, too.
So after eating those carbs, this fully saturates the muscle and liver with glycogen, meanwhile a buttload of insulin is in the bloodstream, WHICH SHUTS OFF FAT METABOLISM. At this point, the body must use the carbs from the blood as its primary source of energy. No catabolic activity such as lypolysis can occur at this point because insulin is present and active. Yet, you also have 50g of fat currently being digested. Where does it go?
Do u think it gets used as energy? Or does it get stored as body fat first?
Now it might be that within 24hrs u get into a net negative on calories, later burning some fat calories that were earlier put in. This is why I have a problem with keto diets though because its constantly spinning the wheels by putting fat away then turning around and burning it up.
I prefer high carb dieting because its less efficient and tends to raise metabolism considerably more, allowing the body's BMR to eventually be raised. This in turn requires a less extreme calorie deficit to get good results.
This link basically calls out that high carb diets lead to less fat metabolism. While it doesnt expand on this subject, I can tell u its because of the effects of insulin during carbohydrate feeding. This supports the idea of reducing fat intake when eating carbs..
Invalid Link Removed
I like this article, which does a better job of explaining the key role of insulin in fat and carb mstabolism.
Invalid Link Removed
Mcconneje
Member
I get so tired of people dismissing big, ripped guys as being on 'roids. To the limits of heredity, anyone who is devoted, disciplined, and SMART enough can do it. I tell my clients that the most important part of their body in reaching their physical girls is their BRAIN. One has to train hard, but also train and eat smart. This is one of only two sites like this I follow, precisely because you guys give good, scientific, no gimmicks advice. Thanks.
IRONPOPE
Active Member
i just dont see the science behind WE NEED carbs. I eat no carbs as i am cutting but plenty protien and my gym power has gone up.. not down and i see no ill effects. The body can use protien for fuel when there are no carbs available and the good thing is that there is no insulin spike and fat burning is not shut off. IF you can eat a bunch of sugar and lean out while doing it.... more power to you.
fueledpassion
Well-known member
Yeah thats true. Proteolysis and gluconeogenesis happens at an increased rate when carbs are depleted. But it really depends on a few things whether or not this is helpful to ur goals.
Two questions u have to address before moving forward on a carbless diet.
1) Are u willing to sacrifice muscle mass
2) Are u willing to take anti-catabolic/MPS enhancing drugs to reduce muscle wasting?
If yes to either of those or both, then forge ahead! If no to both, then reconsider the protocol.
j4ever41
Active Member
the aas card does get old, but truth is truth, as he mentioned he put on 4lbs of lbm in 1 month while cutting, im sure his diet was on point but other things were in play as well, I do think that he does offer good advice for even those that train natty, but you will not have the same results natty.