Is this true? 15 day bulk, 15 day diet?
- Thread starter Jim Mills
- Start date
hyoogeness
New member
Jim Mills said:
I suspect you're dropping water and glycogen during the diet (so you get a larger drop in the first week), but you put it back on in the bulk (so you get a large bump in the first week and slower gains after). I wouldn't worry too much if this second cycle produces better results than before you started.
Moyer
board observer
Yes water, glycogen, and just the amount of food in your gut will probably make around 4lbs of difference. I wouldn't worry about the scale too much until you go through at least a couple of these 2 week cycles.
If you can, weigh yourself after you wake up in the morning and urinate. It should be the lightest you'll be all day so it's the most accurate reading you'll get.
If you can, weigh yourself after you wake up in the morning and urinate. It should be the lightest you'll be all day so it's the most accurate reading you'll get.
Jim Mills
Active member
Well I'm done with this cycle... Very hard to stick with... I'm now at 185 lbs 14% bf and look leaner than I was when I started at 191 lbs... I wasn't sure of my BF then so I'm guessing 16-17%. I'm planing on one more bulk cycle with SD for 3 weeks then start dieting for summer in April. I have my 8 week plan on the dieting thread.... I tried not to cheat through this cycle but after doing it a couple times, I got board.
Mass_69
Well-known member
Good to hear you got some good results. It started getting bored during my 2nd full cycle (full cycle=2 weeks bulk, 2 weeks cut). I must say though, that it has been effective. For me, it's much easier to diet knowing it's only for 2 weeks.
I'm on my final full cycle, and then I'm going back to my everyday training. I think I'm gonna throw a few "extras" into this 3rd cycle and make it interesting again (getting prepared for vacation in Florida on the beach in April
).
Good luck on the 8 week diet, you're a stronger man than me
. I personally wouldn't start dieting until after your SD PCT is complete, as you will need sufficient calories for a good recovery and maintaining PC gains.
I'm on my final full cycle, and then I'm going back to my everyday training. I think I'm gonna throw a few "extras" into this 3rd cycle and make it interesting again (getting prepared for vacation in Florida on the beach in April
).Good luck on the 8 week diet, you're a stronger man than me
. I personally wouldn't start dieting until after your SD PCT is complete, as you will need sufficient calories for a good recovery and maintaining PC gains.
Jim Mills
Active member
Your right, I may wait till I'm in my 2nd full week of PCT before I start.... Should be the 2nd week in April.... I would love to see myself in the 8-9% BF.... I haven't been there since I was 18 years old.... I know I was in my mid 20% BF before I started pumping iron and eating right.
Andrew69
Board Supporter
Bill Philps "tweaked" the original authors numbers to better fit in with what he was trying to sell (EAS products).Spitdeath said:
Akerfedt got pretty pissed as he knew that 14 day bulks and such extreme calorie restriction didnt work.
The problem with Philips interpretation was that after day 12, the hormonal responses were blunted and all the benefits were lost, such that you ended up turning into a lard ass in the last few days.
The science the original diet was based on seems to be sound and the studies are peer reviewed, its just Philips screwed with it and when the people who tried it "tweaked" it further (longer bulks, more extreme cal restriction when cutting), they just ended up being fat bastards.
I did start one cycle, but due my wife getting sick, I had to abandon it one week into the bulk. But after teh first week, my weight spiked nicely, but more importantly, all my lifts were up impressively, leading me to believe the program has merit.
I might just try this again I think.
dertynasty
$Money$
Andrew69 said:
do you have access to the non tweaked version?
dertynasty
$Money$
awesome find bro... now we just need someone to sum up all that nonsense that they could have explained in 1 page lol.
Hbs6
Member
lol yeah, so whats the deal, it seems like it would make sense, if your not playing sport or anything (to deal with the different energy levels), the diet days would be tough but I bet managable, i dunno. I really think i wanna do this after a cut unless somebody can tell me this is all nonsense.
Spitdeath
Member
Hbs6 said:
THE ABCDE DIET ALL IT'S CRACKED UP TO BE?
by Lyle McDonald, B.Sc., CSCS
In the March 1997 issue of Muscle Media 2000, a 'revolutionary'
new diet was unveiled by a Swedish researcher named Tjorbjorn
Akerfeldt. This diet, called the ABCDE diet (which stands for
Anabolic Burst Cycling of Diet and Exercise), purports to use acute
changes in caloric intake (as well as exercise, etc) to manipulate
hormone levels to naturally increase lean body mass without large
scale increases in body fat.
The diet relies on 2 week cycles. The first cycle is a bulking
cycle where an excess of calories is consumed with the goal of gaining
lean body mass (with the acceptance of some fat gain). The second
cycle is a dieting cycle where calories are restricted in order to
force fat loss (with the acceptance of some muscle loss). The goal is
to have more muscle than you started with (and about the same amount
of fat) at the end of each four week period. Additionally, other
suggestions are made for stretching, morning cardio, etc at certain
parts of the cycle.
The four part series of articles is heavily referenced, perhaps
lending scientific credibility to the claims of the author.
Unfortunately, research can be flawed, based on inaccurate models, or
simply taken out of context. Similarly, the wording of the research
can be used to manipulate a reader into believing something that isn't
necessarily correct. Do the studies cited by Akerfeldt stand up to
close scrutiny? In some cases, the answer is yes. In others, the
answer is a resounding no. Rather than look at every study cited in
the article series, let's focus on the major research and largest
errors, regarding the cited research.
The bulking phase
In part 1, Akerfeldt cites the major research he uses to back the
ABCDE diet. First he cites Jebb et. al. (1). Akerfeldt implies that
the same subjects were first overfed and then underfed (which would be
identical to what he suggests in the ABCDE diet). However, close
reading of the Jebb study shows that this is not the case. There were
three subjects who were ONLY overfed. There were three subjects who
were ONLY underfed. One subject was included in both groups and was
first overfed AND then subsequently underfed. This is an important
distinction to be made (one that Akerfeldt did not explicitly make in
the article). Akerfeldt's theoretical basis for the ABCDE diet is
based on two week periods of over and under feeding. Jebb's study did
not examine the effects of 12 days of overfeeding followed by 12 days
of underfeeding in the same subjects. Rather it simply looked at the
effects of over- or under-feeding in general terms. Over 12 days of
overfeeding (1/3 above maintenance levels), the subjects gained an
average of 6.4 pounds of Lean Body Mass (LBM) and 2 pounds of fat.
During underfeeding (2/3 below maintenance), the subjects lost an
average of 4.6 pounds of fat and 2.4 pounds of lean body mass. The
subjects were confined to a metabolic ward and performed cycling as
their only exercise.
The problem with this study is that there is no distinction made
between changes in muscle mass (i.e. actual contractile tissue) vs.
changes in water and glycogen. The researchers do note that protein
oxidation (burning) did not increase during overfeeding and that
nitrogen retention may have been higher due to the inclusion of
exercise. This study wasn't actually looking at LBM/fat mass gains
in the first place, making it understandable (but frustrating) that
techniques were not used to differentiate between changes in
glycogen/water and muscle. Because glycogen and water can easily make
up 5-10 pounds of body weight (depending on the size of the
individual), it's entirely possible that the subjects gained primarily
glycogen and water during overfeeding. It would be expected that
individuals involved in resistance training would gain proportionally
more lean body mass and less fat (and perhaps more of the lean body
mass as actual muscle tissue) but it is not possible to make that
distinction from this study. Additionally, a sample size of 3
subjects is fairly low. However, this is a problem endemic with any
nutritional research. The cost of running the study makes large
numbers of subjects infeasible.
The second major study cited is Forbes et. al. (2) which examined
the hormonal response to overfeeding for 21 days. Thirteen females
were given 1200-1600 calories/day above maintenance for 19 of the 21
days. At the end of the study, the subjects had gained from 6.8 to
12.3 pounds of total body weight with an average of 9.5 pounds. Of
this weight, 4 pounds was lean body mass and 5.5 pounds was fat. The
women did not exercise. Additionally, there were increases in plasma
insulin, testosterone and IGF-1 during overfeeding, all of which would
contribute to increases in LBM. Lean body mass was measured by
Potassium 40 measurement (a very high tech body composition method)
and the researchers imply in the discussion that most of the LBM
gained was actual lean tissue, not simply glycogen and water. As with
all studies, it is unknown if males would receive the same hormonal
boost as women (for example, women get much greater boosts in
testosterone with DHEA or androstene than men do) but it is
interesting nonetheless.
A similar study using resistance training (which would likely
increase gains in LBM and decreased gains in fat) would be nice to
see. Another observation from the study was a trend towards a decrease
in hormone levels into the third week despite a continued increase in
LBM. The researchers were unable to explain this phenomenon but this
hormonal reduction, after two weeks of overfeeding, was the basis for
Akerfeldt's choice of a 2 week overfeeding cycle. Again, a longer
study would be enlightening to see if chronic overfeeding can maintain
the hormonal increase.
The third major study Akerfeldt cites is Ravussin et. al. (3)
commenting that overfeeding can cause LBM gain without any exercise.
The study in question was actually examining the concept of
luxoconsumption, a process quite similar to thermogenesis whereby the
body dissipates excess calories in a fashion that cannot be accounted
for. Five males were overfed for 9 days at 1.6 times their maintenance
needs. The subjects gained an average of 7 pounds with 4 pounds as
fat (the remaining 3 pounds as LBM) as measured by underwater
weighing. It should be noted that most of the weight gain (almost
half) occurred in the first 2 days of overfeeding, highly suggesting
that the gains in LBM were due to changes in muscle glycogen and water
and not actual muscle tissue. Nitrogen balance increased during the
study indicating that more protein was being stored in the body.
Unfortunately, without more accurate measurement methods, it is
impossible to know where the protein was stored.
The final major study cited is Chiang et. al. (4) which
examined nitrogen retention at different calorie levels. Not
surprisingly, as caloric intake went up, nitrogen retention also
increased. This agrees very closely with the first studies described
above and has been well known for years (i.e. nitrogen balance is
correlated to both protein levels and caloric intake).
Overall comments on these 4 studies
The biggest problem with the studies cited is their general lack
of applicability to bodybuilders as well as some basic methodological
problems. First and foremost, only one study (1) used a structured
exercise program (which was cycling). While we can assume rigorous
weight training would shift the ratios of gains towards more muscle
and less fat, it can not be confirmed from these studies.
Additionally, it is impossible to tell whether the gains in Lean Body
Mass (all non-fat tissues) is water and glycogen or actual muscle
tissue. Each gram of carbohydrate stored in the muscle stores an
additional 3 grams of water.
Athletes, such as precontest bodybuilders or endurance athletes,
who perform the standard 3 day period of severe or moderately severe
carbohydrate restriction and then subsequently follow these 3 days
with a very high carbohydrate diet will see major shifts in body
weight and lean body mass over this 6 day period. As much as a 5-7
pound weight loss can be attributed to total glycogen and water
depletion. With glycogen compensation to normal levels, those same
5-7 pounds can be regained. Glycogen supercompensation (at 50-100%
above normal levels) can increase body weight by 10 pounds or more.
The 5-10 pounds gained with glycogen supercompensation may fully
explain the weight gains observed with the overfeeding models (1,2,3)
above. In the Jebb study (1) (which used a cycling model), it is
attractive to assume that the exercise increased nitrogen retention.
However it is equally plausible to argue that the exercise helped
reduce muscle glycogen levels initially but then, during overfeeding,
triggered the same supercompensation of glycogen described above.
Without more accurate methods of measurement (or even a muscle biopsy
to measure glycogen levels to see if they are changing), it is
impossible to know.
Other aspects of the diet
In part II of the article series, Akerfeldt goes into detail about
several other aspects of the ABCDE system including an important
distinction that the overfeeding studies of Jebb, Forbes, Tseng and
Chiang (1,2,3,4) do not discriminate between gains in glycogen, water,
etc. and gains of actual contractile tissue.
In defense of this argument, he cites Deiraz et. al. (5) which
found an increase of only skeletal muscle mass during overfeeding.
This was a major error, one he perhaps thought would go unnoticed. The
study in question used an overfeeding model of 100 days, quite unlike
the 14 day overfeeding Akerfeldt suggests. This is a perfect example
of how cited research can be misused to support one's point of view.
Comparing data of a 100 day overfeeding study to 14 days of
overfeeding cannot be done and detracts from the credibility of the
concept being supported. During less severe long term overfeeding,
such as in Deiraz et.al., and considering in general, the slow rate of
muscle tissue synthesis, it seems much more likely that the gains in
lean body mass observed by Deirz et.al. were actual contractile muscle
tissue rather than short term changes in glycogen and water. Quite
simply, it seems highly unlikely, especially in trained bodybuilders
with significant muscle mass, that a gain of 1-2 pounds of actual
contractile tissue could be realized in a 14 day span. A gain of 1-2
pounds of contractile tissue over a 14 day period may only occur in
beginning weight trainers. More studies are needed to confirm this,
however.
In addition to citing an inapplicable study to defend the argument
that the gains in LBM aren't just glycogen and water, Akerfeldt also
claims that true muscle growth will occur AFTER the muscle cell is
filled with glycogen, amino acids, water, etc. That is, that actual
growth of actin and myosin (the cellular components of contractile
tissue) will occur after such time that the muscle is full of
glycogen, protein, water, etc.. He argues that the cell wants to keep
the relationship between cell volume and the number of nuclei citing
Moss et. al. (6), a study on chickens. Additionally, he claims that
muscle nucleus number is correlated with mitochondrial density, citing
Tseng et. al. (7), a rat study. The problem with both of these
studies is that animal models may or may not be an accurate model of
human muscle growth. For example, animals have frequently been shown
to undergo muscle cell hyperplasia (an increase in muscle fiber
number), a phenomenon which has never been supported in humans (8). In
weight training studies, mitochondrial density has been repeatedly
shown to go down with increases in muscle size (10,11) directly
contradicting the claims of Tseng et. al. (7).
One slight curiosity in the article series occurs in part 2
when Akerfeldt claims that intramuscular triglycerides (which increase
during overfeeding) are a controller of muscle growth, stating
matter-of-factly that "intracellular triglycerides play a very
important role in weight-training-induced muscle growth." Strangely,
especially considering the large number of references for other
claims, he provides no references for this statement.
Stretching during the bulking phase
As part of the overfeeding phase, Akerfeldt suggests extreme
stretching (akin to Parrillo's Fascia Stretching), during training.
This is an attempt to stretch the connective tissue around the muscle
allowing for more potential growth. This is where the studies he's
citing start to get very bad. He claims research showing an increase
in contractile protein with stretching, citing an abstract by Blough
et. al. (11) presented in the supplement to Medicine and Science in
Sports and Exercise. By themselves, abstracts have little validity.
However, a similar study (12) also used the same type of model SID
(stretch induced hypertrophy). In this model, a quail's wing was put
on stretch continuously for 30 days (by attaching a weight to the
wing). This form of SID has been shown repeatedly to stimulate
growth, most likely by increasing tension in the stretched muscle.
This is wholly unlike the type of stretching that is possible in
humans or that Akerfeldt suggests. Stretching for twenty seconds
between your sets of weight training is NOT analogous to putting a
muscle on stretch for 30 solid days. Now, if you want to hang a weight
off your arm for 30 days... Akerfeldt also claims this stretching
should only be performed for 7 days as this is when growth peaks,
citing Winchester et. al. (13). As with the previous studies, the
stretch was applied continuously in quail from one to thirty days
(although it was true that the peak of growth occurred at 7 days).
Again, wholly unlike the type of stretching possible in humans.
In part III, Akerfeldt again brings up the stretching topic,
citing research that heavy stretching can increase local levels of
IGF-1 12 fold (14). As with the earlier stretch models, this study
used a 3 day continuous stretch model in rabbits. It is unknown (but
unlikely) whether the same hormonal response would be seen with only
intermittent stretching during training. Once again, if you want to
hang a weight off your arm for 3 days continuously you might get some
nice growth.
The issue of fat cell hyperplasia
In part III of the series, Akerfeldt really starts reaching,
discussing several questions readers had raised regarding the diet.
The first is in response to a fear voiced on the Usenet newsgroup (an
Internet discussion forum) regarding the potential for fat cell
hyperplasia (an increase in number of fat cells). Akerfeldt dismisses
this claim by citing references, including 2 rat (15,16) and 1 mouse
(17) study. As with previous studies, animals may not make ideal
models for exercising humans. Rats are frequently bred to certain
genetic dispositions (obesity, etc) so that they can be easily
studied. Sadly, humans aren't nearly as accommodating.
Morning cardio
When Akerfeldt starts talking about cardio during the fat loss
phase he makes several mistakes. First, he states that aerobics
should not be done following weight training claiming a drop in
testosterone 20 minutes into training, citing Cumming et. al. (18).
While this study did find a drop in testosterone at the 20 minute
mark, it was with a high intensity cycling model, not weight training.
Interestingly, a second study by the same author examined the hormonal
response to weight training in women, finding an increase in
testosterone both during and 30 minutes after weight training (19).
While it's possible that Akerfeldt simply pasted the wrong reference
into his list (having intended to reference the latter study), it does
not change the fact that the 1987 study (19) found an increase in
testosterone during weight training. Other studies have found the
same testosterone increase from resistance training, both during and
after training (20,21).
It is generally accepted that too much aerobics will cause loss
of muscle especially in athletes with high levels of muscle mass (see
my previous article on "Bodybuilders and aerobics" in Volume 2, Number
4 of Dave's Power Store News). Akerfeldt argues that aerobics will
not cause muscle loss referencing Zuti et. al. (22). This 'study'
reported an increase in lean body mass with dieting plus aerobics.
Two things regarding this citation: First, in detrained individuals
(with little muscle to begin with), aerobics may cause an increase in
lean body mass with caloric restriction. In well trained athletes, a
gain in muscle mass from aerobics is extremely unlikely to occur.
Second, the reference cited is from a professional magazine (The
Physician and Sportsmedicine), not a peer reviewed journal, on top of
being almost 20 years old. Much more current research on dieting and
exercise has accrued since then and we have to wonder why Akerfeldt
didn't examine anything more recent.
Further, Akerfeldt claims that aerobics should be done first
thing in the morning before eating as this will maximize fat
utilization during exercise. While this may be true (aerobics in the
fasted state maximizes fat utilization), several studies (comparing
exercise of different intensity) show that the utilization of fat
during aerobic exercise has little if any impact on fat loss in the
long term. Rather, the overall caloric expenditure during exercise
(and the overall caloric deficit) is the primary determinant of fat
loss (23,24). In fact, interval training (which uses primarily
glycogen and little fat during exercise) has been shown to cause nine
times greater fat loss than low intensity cardio, bringing into
question whether the body's use of fat for fuel during exercise is
necessary for fat loss. (25)
The dieting phase
Strangely, with all of the research and references cited for the
bulking phase, little mention is made of the dieting phase, except for
the Jebb study (1), discussed previously. Akerfeldt suggests a
caloric intake of 8 calories/lb during the two weeks of dieting, in an
attempt to decrease body fat as fast as possible (with the
understanding that some lean body mass/muscle will be lost too). The
problem with this caloric level is that it is far, far too low. For a
200 lb athlete, 8 calories/lb is 1600 calories. This same athlete has
maintenance levels of roughly 12-15 cal/lb (2400-3000 calories) per
day. The body can only handle about a 1000 calorie/day deficit before
metabolic slowdown kicks in (26). If significant amounts of aerobics
are being done (which Akerfeldt suggests both during the dieting and
bulking phase), the 1000 calorie deficit will be surpassed quite
readily, causing the loss of muscle tissue as well as a metabolic
slowdown, causing fat regain during the next bulking phase. As a
general rule, a minimum of 12 cal/lb (or 1000 cal/day) should be used
as a maximum deficit guideline, for any dieting bodybuilder to avoid
muscle loss. This includes not simply the reduction in caloric
intake, but also the increased energy expenditure for any exercise.
Protein cycling:
In part 4 of the series, Akerfeldt discusses the concept of
macro-nutrient cycling, especially short term alterations in protein
intake. Unfortunately, at the time of writing this article, there has
not been time to examine the claims made in part 4 of the ABCDE diet
series. Considering the general lack of accurate citations or the use
of relevant studies throughout the article series, it seems unlikely
that Part 4 of the series suddenly got all the references correct.
Perhaps the topic of protein cycling can be addressed in a future
issue of Dave's Power Store News.
Conclusions
So, is the ABCDE diet a valid approach or more silliness meant to
sell magazines and supplements? While the references and claims for
part 4 were not examined, supplements (some EAS and some not) are
mentioned repeatedly throughout the series, both by Akerfeldt and Bill
Phillips. Conveniently, EAS has just introduced two new versions of
Myoplex Plus that fit in perfectly with the ABCDE approach suggesting
that the diet is more marketing hype than physiological reality.
Unfortunately, few if any of the cited studies have any bearing
for advanced weight training athletes. It would appear logical that
an individual undergoing heavy weight training would gain
proportionally more muscle during an overfeeding phase than someone
not exercising at all. The question is just how quickly can muscle
mass be gained.
Can the lean body mass gained in 2 weeks really comprise a
significant amount of muscle tissue (Akerfeldt comments that perhaps 2
pounds of the gains in LBM during 2 weeks of overfeeding are real as
opposed to glycogen and water)? Considering that advanced athletes
may maximally gain five to six pounds of muscle tissue per year, it
seems unlikely that such a rapid gain in muscle could occur.
The four part series that's gotten everyone saying their ABCs
again, after nearly a twenty or thirty year layoff for many, may be a
valid approach to muscle gain, however, the studies provided to
support Akerfeldt's proposition aren't appropriate in most instances,
for the weight training human. While I don't support this approach to
calorie cycling about the only way you will ever know if it works is
by trying it. In a best case scenario you might, over a period of a
few months to a year of using it, gain 2-6 pounds of actual muscle. In
a worst case you may lose 2-6 pounds of muscle in only a few months,
precious muscle that took you a year to put on.
References available upon request.
ArnoldIsMyIdol
Member
Nice article there.
You might want to check into the "Zigzag" diet advocated by Dr Fred Hatfield. He advocates something similar but over a time frame of days vs weeks.
You might want to check into the "Zigzag" diet advocated by Dr Fred Hatfield. He advocates something similar but over a time frame of days vs weeks.
Ronn38
New member
According to the excerpt I’ve reproduced below (which was embedded in a post-link by dertynasty?), a study was done with 9 trained athletes and Torbjorn got the results he claimed. Lyle's article is an excellent critique, but if Torbjorn moved on to human testing and established his at lest a modicum of viability to his theory--then the points begins to become mot. It seems repeatability is the game afoot, not source research criticism.
Torbjorn's work wasn't published in a peer reviewed journal, granted. However he did present, and as an academic myself who has presented (in the humanities rather than the sciences) I can assure you presenting a paper nets ones some rather vocal and immediate feedback concerning the perceived “quality” of your work. However, the nature of character of this "conference" is not elucidated, so we don’t know if a valid critic would have been possible.
I'd like to hear more about this diet from people who have, and are contemplating using it. If only from a physiological standpoint, those of use over 40 who battle weight as a lifestyle, the 12/12 protocol seems more manageable than a lifetime of Keto (or whatever ones diet of choice).
Let’s keep the discussion open.
Ronn
The researchers: Torbjörn Åkerfeldt, Dan Henrohn and Johan Månsflod at Uppsala University (Institution of Nutrition)
Nine young men with an average of seven years of training experience were put on a carefully monitored diet and exercise program. Six men completed the nine weeks the study took. In that time they put on an average of over 7 kg (about 16 lbs) of lean body mass while losing 1.3 kg (about 3 lbs) of bodyfat. They were also tested on the bench press and single leg leg press. The bench press went up from 116 kg to 131 kg (from 255lbs to 288lbs) and the legpress showed similar improvements. (These exercises were NOT trained during the nine weeks of the study.) Finally the girth of the upper arm increased on average 19%.
Eating:
On overeating phases (12 days): Regular diet + 1500 kcal from good oils, protein powder, a sugarmix that contained creatine and a multivitamin. Ten minutes before every workout they took a disgustingly sweet” sugar drink w creatine (70g carbs) and another one after the workout. A proteindrink was consumed at bed time. Other than that just follow your regular diet.
Cutting phase (12 days): Eat maintenance calories or a modest deficit (10%) with protein drinks 4 times per day. Drink one of these at bed time and the other spread throughout the day.
Training method:
I don´t think the training program was anything unusual. During bulking phase they trained heavy with low reps. NO cardio.
During cutting phases the trained with light weights and high reps. Add to this walking or some mild form of cardio for 40-60 minutes every day.
- Was the study published in a peer review publication?
It was presented and well recieved at the annual conference for doctors in Sweden. I guess this is the place where a lot of new studies are presented to other doctors and stuff
Fredrik Paulun, one of the most respected sports nutritionists in Sweden wrote in a mail:
The ABCDE diet is one of the hottest topics ever published on nutrition and training for bodybuilders. A new study, published by Torbjörn at the Annual doctor´s conference showed very good results from this method.”
A quick translation from one of the study participants:
The researchers were very strict about everything. We went to a lab twice a week for tests. First you had to breath into a mask which measured your metabolism. They also took your temperature to see if the body temperature would rise during the study, and it did. Then you were weighed, measured with calipers and measure tape. Then they measured the amount of fluid in your body by electrodes.
After that you had to jump into a water tank, where you had to breathe a helium mix for five minutes until they weighed you under water (sitting on a small metal construction in the water) to get exact numbers on how much body fat you had. After that there were blood tests and every participant were tested for steroids during the study.
Torbjörn Åkerfeldt himself said in a mail to a forum member:
I have actually never claimed that you should lower the energy intake by more than 10% during the cutting phase. Bill Phillips didn´t believe in this so he changed the information in the article series in MM.
In my study the participants were even allowed to eat maintenance calories during the cutting phase and lost fat nontheless.
I also recommend a 12 day overfeeding cycle and 12 days cutting, and not 14 days + 16 days as BP says.
Torbjorn's work wasn't published in a peer reviewed journal, granted. However he did present, and as an academic myself who has presented (in the humanities rather than the sciences) I can assure you presenting a paper nets ones some rather vocal and immediate feedback concerning the perceived “quality” of your work. However, the nature of character of this "conference" is not elucidated, so we don’t know if a valid critic would have been possible.
I'd like to hear more about this diet from people who have, and are contemplating using it. If only from a physiological standpoint, those of use over 40 who battle weight as a lifestyle, the 12/12 protocol seems more manageable than a lifetime of Keto (or whatever ones diet of choice).
Let’s keep the discussion open.
Ronn
The researchers: Torbjörn Åkerfeldt, Dan Henrohn and Johan Månsflod at Uppsala University (Institution of Nutrition)
Nine young men with an average of seven years of training experience were put on a carefully monitored diet and exercise program. Six men completed the nine weeks the study took. In that time they put on an average of over 7 kg (about 16 lbs) of lean body mass while losing 1.3 kg (about 3 lbs) of bodyfat. They were also tested on the bench press and single leg leg press. The bench press went up from 116 kg to 131 kg (from 255lbs to 288lbs) and the legpress showed similar improvements. (These exercises were NOT trained during the nine weeks of the study.) Finally the girth of the upper arm increased on average 19%.
Eating:
On overeating phases (12 days): Regular diet + 1500 kcal from good oils, protein powder, a sugarmix that contained creatine and a multivitamin. Ten minutes before every workout they took a disgustingly sweet” sugar drink w creatine (70g carbs) and another one after the workout. A proteindrink was consumed at bed time. Other than that just follow your regular diet.
Cutting phase (12 days): Eat maintenance calories or a modest deficit (10%) with protein drinks 4 times per day. Drink one of these at bed time and the other spread throughout the day.
Training method:
I don´t think the training program was anything unusual. During bulking phase they trained heavy with low reps. NO cardio.
During cutting phases the trained with light weights and high reps. Add to this walking or some mild form of cardio for 40-60 minutes every day.
- Was the study published in a peer review publication?
It was presented and well recieved at the annual conference for doctors in Sweden. I guess this is the place where a lot of new studies are presented to other doctors and stuff
Fredrik Paulun, one of the most respected sports nutritionists in Sweden wrote in a mail:
The ABCDE diet is one of the hottest topics ever published on nutrition and training for bodybuilders. A new study, published by Torbjörn at the Annual doctor´s conference showed very good results from this method.”
A quick translation from one of the study participants:
The researchers were very strict about everything. We went to a lab twice a week for tests. First you had to breath into a mask which measured your metabolism. They also took your temperature to see if the body temperature would rise during the study, and it did. Then you were weighed, measured with calipers and measure tape. Then they measured the amount of fluid in your body by electrodes.
After that you had to jump into a water tank, where you had to breathe a helium mix for five minutes until they weighed you under water (sitting on a small metal construction in the water) to get exact numbers on how much body fat you had. After that there were blood tests and every participant were tested for steroids during the study.
Torbjörn Åkerfeldt himself said in a mail to a forum member:
I have actually never claimed that you should lower the energy intake by more than 10% during the cutting phase. Bill Phillips didn´t believe in this so he changed the information in the article series in MM.
In my study the participants were even allowed to eat maintenance calories during the cutting phase and lost fat nontheless.
I also recommend a 12 day overfeeding cycle and 12 days cutting, and not 14 days + 16 days as BP says.
Spitdeath
Member
Well it's not that I was going to say if you look back there is more in the link it is a thread where they are discussing that article there. Lyle says some stuff about it too. Do a search on the hst forums for abcde. There are several people who are trying a different version made by someone at T-mag.I can't remember what it's called somethin 1250 or some ****. Man my memory sucks.Ronn38 said:My mistake spitdeath, I thought it was dertynasty that posted that link.
appologies
Ronn