** AutoKal Nutrient Partitioners Deathmatch **

for sure, i believe i have it on my work computer.

it was a super small excerpt in the discussion section that was like 3 sentences.

i dont know how your diet was or how you set it up, so i cant comment on what my opinions would be toward why they didnt work.
 
ssbackwards said:
for sure, i believe i have it on my work computer.

it was a super small excerpt in the discussion section that was like 3 sentences.

i dont know how your diet was or how you set it up, so i cant comment on what my opinions would be toward why they didnt work.
Click to expand...

any of the setups I tried "worked" to an extent, but comparing it to non carb restricted or carb cycling the results weren't particularly any better at either fat loss rate or muscle retention. Not particularly worse, but not particularly better either.
 
the thing is the studies dont show an advantage of one over the other that would be anything significvant.

to use 3 lbs is significant to them, not so much.

but ill look now
 
ssbackwards said:
the thing is the studies dont show an advantage of one over the other that would be anything significvant.

to use 3 lbs is significant to them, not so much.

but ill look now
Click to expand...

for most studies its just a statistically significant difference which if say in an 8 week trial the overall weight loss was 10lbs, a half pound difference I believe would be enough to be significant (so long as the standard deviation wasn't too high). I wish I hadn't slept through so many probability and statistics classes.
 
EasyEJL said:
for most studies its just a statistically significant difference which if say in an 8 week trial the overall weight loss was 10lbs, a half pound difference I believe would be enough to be significant (so long as the standard deviation wasn't too high). I wish I hadn't slept through so many probability and statistics classes.
Click to expand...

i failed stats 3x. so bad at math.

significance i believe is significant at <.05..

even more statistically significant the lower you go i believe... .01 or .001.

not sure but i remember those being important and always used when looking into significance of something.

im looking for the article. i know i have read it.
 
"They observed that when a 1,000-kcal ketogenic diet (10 g of carbohydrates/day) was fed for 10 days, their seven male subjects lost an average of 600 g/day, of which 97% was fat."
Invalid Link Removed

obviously you would increase the carb amount to correlate with the % oif carbs taken in...

heres a different study, cals were higher....
Invalid Link Removed

"After 9 weeks on the 30-g, 60-g, and 104-g carbohydrate diets, weight loss was 16.2, 12.8, and 11.9 kilograms and fat accounted for 95%, 84%, and 75% of the weight loss, respectively."
 
ssbackwards said:
"They observed that when a 1,000-kcal ketogenic diet (10 g of carbohydrates/day) was fed for 10 days, their seven male subjects lost an average of 600 g/day, of which 97% was fat."
Invalid Link Removed

obviously you would increase the carb amount to correlate with the % oif carbs taken in...

heres a different study, cals were higher....
Invalid Link Removed

"After 9 weeks on the 30-g, 60-g, and 104-g carbohydrate diets, weight loss was 16.2, 12.8, and 11.9 kilograms and fat accounted for 95%, 84%, and 75% of the weight loss, respectively."
Click to expand...

on that first study, I can't find full text without paying $75 for it.

In 1965, Benoit et al. published the first systematic study of the effect of a very-low-carbohydrate (ketogenic) diet on composition of weight loss [Invalid Link Removed]. They observed that when a 1,000-kcal ketogenic diet (10 g of carbohydrates/day) was fed for 10 days, their seven male subjects lost an average of 600 g/day, of which 97% was fat
Click to expand...

But another study done not long after had vastly different results.

Invalid Link Removed

the second study was done with only 9 men, and 1 dropped out so its not exactly great. but even in it, although the lowest carb group lost the most, the results of % lost are wishy washy. they discarded one of 3 men in the lowest carb group "Experimental error in density measurement at 9th week of weight reduction for subject Cl. Averages for C subgroup based on only C2 and C3." which is a somewhat classical way to twist a study to look the way you want it. not saying thats the case, but with such a small sample group to have 2 out of 9 results ending up being discarded its hard to count it for much.
 
Genetics play a role. For example if a first relative has diabetes the risk is that much higher for pancreatic beta cell dysfunction Also we can go back and forth. It comes down to what's easier for the dieter and more convenient. I still personally see better results with my dieting techniques (lower carb) on my clients. In beginning stages of dieting sometime caloric reduction is enough to fix adipocyte dysfunction and the incretin hormones help tremendously
 
For me.....with protein remaining consistently around 175 grams/day..........

2,500 k/cal with <50 grams of carbs/day = Lean and Mean
2,500 k/cal with >125 grams of carbs/day = Fat and Sloppy

Just the way it is for me and it's either instant gratification or instant whale bloat.
 
ssbackwards said:
Genetics play a role. For example if a first relative has diabetes the risk is that much higher for pancreatic beta cell dysfunction Also we can go back and forth. It comes down to what's easier for the dieter and more convenient. I still personally see better results with my dieting techniques (lower carb) on my clients. In beginning stages of dieting sometime caloric reduction is enough to fix adipocyte dysfunction and the incretin hormones help tremendously
Click to expand...
lower carbs seem to fix everything. Though I think our definition of low carb might be a bit skewed now that we are mostly a sedentary society. I feel our carbs should be around 150g or so a day for the average person exercising 3x a week (like doing walking twice and maybe some type of sport once. Basically, your standard "active" person). And this is for maintaining. Health wise with oxidative stress, glucose fluctations etc. it would be good too keep it low. If you were trying to lose i'd take it even further. Also, if you are trying to gain, I feel that there is a threshold at the amount of fat and protein the body can actually ingest (due to limitations in the digestive process, also bolous doses of either protein or fat most time results in a quick trip to the toilet) so the other fuel sources, so long as they come from nutrient carrying carbs such as sweet potatoes or low fructose fruit SHOULD be added to enhance the diet.
I've always wondered if the body actually could shift fast enough from ketosis to proper glycogen synthesis on a TKD or even CKD to make ketosis even a target phase to enter. Plus, insulin sensitivity tanks in ketosis.... i donno. I like my mixed diet + refeeds for workouts. Works well for me when I'm bulking... cutting on the other hand... I have to cut cals in half....
 
Whacked said:
For me.....with protein remaining consistently around 175 grams/day..........

2,500 k/cal with <50 grams of carbs/day = Lean and Mean
2,500 k/cal with >125 grams of carbs/day = Fat and Sloppy

Just the way it is for me and it's either instant gratification or instant whale bloat.
Click to expand...

Also a good point as to limiting the protein intake as well to find the "Optimal" dose. One of my theories to just get my fats from good sources while getting in a BCAA+EAA mix every 3-4 hours to spike protein synthesis. Limiting protein to around .8g/LBM. That way there is very low risk of gluconeogenesis and the body won't have to work to convert too many amino acids into other usable subtrate.
 
Good point. I've stated on this board countless times that the protein intake "needs" are so exaggerated these days! I speculate the supp industry has much to do with this! ($$$$) ..... ;)
 
Nail on head!!

mattrag said:
lower carbs seem to fix everything. Though I think our definition of low carb might be a bit skewed now that we are mostly a sedentary society. I feel our carbs should be around 150g or so a day for the average person exercising 3x a week (like doing walking twice and maybe some type of sport once. Basically, your standard "active" person). And this is for maintaining. Health wise with oxidative stress, glucose fluctations etc. it would be good too keep it low. If you were trying to lose i'd take it even further. Also, if you are trying to gain, I feel that there is a threshold at the amount of fat and protein the body can actually ingest (due to limitations in the digestive process, also bolous doses of either protein or fat most time results in a quick trip to the toilet) so the other fuel sources, so long as they come from nutrient carrying carbs such as sweet potatoes or low fructose fruit SHOULD be added to enhance the diet.
I've always wondered if the body actually could shift fast enough from ketosis to proper glycogen synthesis on a TKD or even CKD to make ketosis even a target phase to enter. Plus, insulin sensitivity tanks in ketosis.... i donno. I like my mixed diet + refeeds for workouts. Works well for me when I'm bulking... cutting on the other hand... I have to cut cals in half....
Click to expand...
 
I must agree with whacked on his carb intake levels...the difference between 50-125 grams is night and day with me. Hate it...but oh well...what can ya do?
 
if i got over about 170 carbs a day i see a huge difference.

i try and keep carbs less thn 50 per day every day except refeed or cheat meal. i only eat 2x a day though so its fairly easy.

protein intakes are greatly exaggerated, however, if its a lower carb diet, you may want to put it higher, not because its better then fat but because simply eating all that fat can make someone sick. most fat i think i ever had in a day was like 230g (dieting day 3400cals) i didnt like how i felt eating all of it. so i subbed with protein and felt much better.

protein also needs to be increased in super intense endurance exercise and post surgerys.

i feel the need that to go over 300g protein 350 TOPS is a mute point and unneccessary, doesnt mean i dont do it. **** man i love chicken i love turkey. so **** it , im going to eat it.
 
Whacked said:
For me.....with protein remaining consistently around 175 grams/day..........

2,500 k/cal with <50 grams of carbs/day = Lean and Mean
2,500 k/cal with >125 grams of carbs/day = Fat and Sloppy

Just the way it is for me and it's either instant gratification or instant whale bloat.
Click to expand...
So you eat 175protein a day, and around 180g of fat?
 
I probably don't belong posting on this thread ..but I have a quick question regarding the recompadrol..
It has fat burning effects ..correct?
Would adding a fat burner to it be advised such as Lean extreme or Alpha T2 or TTA-500.
Also how about A combo of TTA-500 and Raspberry ketones?
 
WPD111 said:
I probably don't belong posting on this thread ..but I have a quick question regarding the recompadrol..
It has fat burning effects ..correct?
Would adding a fat burner to it be advised such as Lean extreme or Alpha T2 or TTA-500.
Also how about A combo of TTA-500 and Raspberry ketones?
Click to expand...

Go for it, I ran Recomp with Lean Xtreme before with great results but
just so you know, EBF (the brand that makes recompadrol) just came out with
their new fat burner which is meant to be stacked with Recompardol, I have 2 bottles
coming in, we are talking about it right these days, Invalid Link Removed
 
AutoKal47 said:
Go for it, I ran Recomp with Lean Xtreme before with great results but
just so you know, EBF (the brand that makes recompadrol) just came out with
their new fat burner which is meant to be stacked with Recompardol, I have 2 bottles
coming in, we are talking about it right these days,

looks like it's only available from one online retailer ,however they are out of Recompadrol ..bummer ..I wanted to order together and save shipping..
Click to expand...
 
Subbed Up.

Big (BIG) Recomapdrol fan, but use all the compounds individually also. Took Recompadrol both pre-contest and off-season, and it was solid, not amazing and not worthless, but somewhere in between. Slin Sane was decent as well, best taken pre-workout.
 
mkretz said:
how do u guys feel about slinshot? anyone tried it?
Click to expand...

You'll let us know with your upcoming log right?

;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top