BETTER FOR CUTTING/LEANING OUT
- Thread starter rdj6107
- Start date
prld2gr8ns
Idiot Savant
That's pretty much identical to my cutting meal plan. Although I sometimes preferr some fresh pineapple in the AM before my morning workouts. It worked pretty good for me.Blown_SC said:
50joe
Member
I think it depends on your body type.
I did a 40/30/30 type last year in the summer, it worked alright.\
BUT this year i did carb cycling after I read TwinPeak's method, and the pounds just freakin shredded off of me like I couldnt believe. Then again, my friend at the gym can do wonders with his 40/30/30 diet.
Maybe you should try both for a while. Couldn't hurt, and you'd be a better man for it :thumbsup:
I did a 40/30/30 type last year in the summer, it worked alright.\
BUT this year i did carb cycling after I read TwinPeak's method, and the pounds just freakin shredded off of me like I couldnt believe. Then again, my friend at the gym can do wonders with his 40/30/30 diet.
Maybe you should try both for a while. Couldn't hurt, and you'd be a better man for it :thumbsup:
BIGPHILL1984
Member
I am doing a really low carb diet right now(keto), and I am repsonding well to it. Besides being a little tired from the low carbs, I am seeing really good results. But usually I do a 50/20/30 for when I cut because I am highly carb sensitive.
velikimajmun
Board Sponsor
glenihan said:
What's the other 5% :dance:
refrieddreams
Active member
HAHA, my thoughts exzactly. What other macros are there? Alcohol, sugar alc, hmmm.velikimajmun said:
I'm sure its just a math error.
refrieddreams
Active member
Care to elaborate?50joe said:
refrieddreams
Active member
Nahhh not a moron just bad at math....
Aeternitatis
Registered User
Whoa whoa, nothing wrong with arts.
Aeternitatis
Registered User
Sugar alcoholc are naturally occuring compounds that are usually used to replace sugar because they are sweet but have a minimal impact on blood sugar and are usually only partially digesting thus resulting in a lower caloric content. Too much will give you the shits.Beelzebub said:
On a side note a sugar alcohol called xylitol is very good for your teeth.
Aeternitatis
Registered User
Not even close. Splenda is synthetic. Sure, they make you think it's all natural, and sure, Splenda starts off as sugar, but in the end Splenda is totally man-made. Sugar alcohols are naturally occuring. Xylitol for example is produced endogenously in small amounts and can be manufactured through the fermentation of a particular type of tree. I forget exactly which now, I wrote an article on it some time ago. Here: Invalid Link Removed And no, I did not plagiarize xylitol.org (as one forum member would like to believe), that website didn't even exist when I wrote the article.
refrieddreams
Active member
Splenda is a sugar substitute, and sugar alcohol is an entirely different macros. It is not lower calorie at all, actully it's a tiny bit higher. It does however have a lower GI effect on blood sugar (less insulin response).
Glycerin is the most used these days.
Glycerin is the most used these days.
Aeternitatis
Registered User
Are you sure about that? I would think that since it is only partially digested and some is past unused then in the end the calorie content would be lower.refrieddreams said:
refrieddreams
Active member
Tha actuall calorie conten is 4.9 per gram (if memory serves) however what your body does with it is a diiferent situation.
Like fiber, fiber yet a carbohydrate that yields 4 calaories per gram, is treated different as your body has to burn caloried just to proccess it.
Get it? Or am not making ane sense?
Like fiber, fiber yet a carbohydrate that yields 4 calaories per gram, is treated different as your body has to burn caloried just to proccess it.
Get it? Or am not making ane sense?
Nitrox
Board Supporter
Calorie content does vary with each type though. I cant remember which was which but the range was something like 2.9-4.7 cal/g. Sorbitol, maltitol, and the xylitol are common sugar alcohols.
While they may have less impact on blood glucose than comparable non-zero calorie sweeteners they are non necessarily good choices. As mentioned they can act as laxatives (a lot for some ppl).
Anyone know how these are metabolised in the body? Fructose is usually lower GI than a lot of starchy foods yet it is not the most desirable carb source. Additionally, their alcohol properties may lead to other drawbacks.
While they may have less impact on blood glucose than comparable non-zero calorie sweeteners they are non necessarily good choices. As mentioned they can act as laxatives (a lot for some ppl).
Anyone know how these are metabolised in the body? Fructose is usually lower GI than a lot of starchy foods yet it is not the most desirable carb source. Additionally, their alcohol properties may lead to other drawbacks.
refrieddreams
Active member
I know a guy that couldn't start his car that had a breathaliser (sp) on it after eating a protein bar. HAHA, that was funny I saw him for 30 mins outside my store just blowing in that damn thing.
Aeternitatis
Registered User
Yeah, this was what I was getting at. Sort of like Olestra. It had a caloric value but since it pretty much escaped digestion, it had no caloric value inside the body.refrieddreams said: