The 6 foods that work.. 8 week trial (with pics)

[bezoe]

Im tying to get the "feather" vastus lateralis too bro (maybe not the striated glute lol) and Im sure this will be only one of many many diet experiements I will attempt in my endeavors

 

[AustrianOakJr]

It's the rate at which it enters the bloodstream. Ice cream etc exerts a higher insulin response compared to say broccoli and sweet potato

So? If insulin is spiked faster and higher now, conversely it falls lower and faster as the sugar is processed. So you are theoretically storing more up front (its actually much more complicated than just insulin) but burning more as blood sugar levels fall. As opposed to a steadier and more linear release of insulin which will process the sugar over a longer period of time. As long as calories are equal in both examples, the net storage is the same. The problem that most people have is understanding that fat is CONTINUOUSLY being stored and burned. Simultaneously. Its NET storage at the end of the day, week, month, year, etc that give us the appearance of being leaner or fatter. Insulin is not the enemy. Its my opinion that the more time we can spend with elevated insulin levels while still burning bodyfat, the more lean mass we will hold. Insulin is a highly anabolic hormone.

 

[AustrianOakJr]

Correct.. hence the word "trial". I can only dream of being so lucky... Ive counted calories to a "t" while eating poptarts and became a fatass. I have to disagree with all carbs are created equal.. high GI stuff has too much impact on insulin, which, when chronically elevated can blunt receptors and cause insulin resistance, otherwise know as type II diabtes. And not saying you necessarily become "diabteic" but a person can have more propensity to store fat and reluctancy to burn it as fuel.

If we are talking about the general, McDonalds eating fat-ass public.....YES, I would agree with you. But we are talking about athletes who's bodies are primed for optimum nutrient partitioning.

Insulin sensitivity has much more to do with body composition than glycemic index of particular foods you eat. As you lean out, the body becomes MUCH more efficient at stabilizing blood sugar levels regardless of food choice.

And dont discredit me as some kind of genetic freak that can eat anything he wants. I am naturally a giant fat-ass. If you showed you what I looked like 3 years ago, you wouldnt believe its the same person. If anyone is pre-dispositioned to store fat......I am.

 

[CJ_Xfit89]

There is truth to that bruz!
If we can maintain a higher BG level while dieting, less muscle loss and more fat loss. Decrease in appetite and increase in fat burning. Keeping protein intake high'ish is best then to help with TEF

 

[bezoe]

So? If insulin is spiked faster and higher now, that means it falls equally lower and faster as the sugar is processed. So you are theoretically storing more up front (its actually much more complicated than just insulin) but burning more as blood sugar levels fall. As opposed to a steadier and more linear release of insulin which will process the sugar over a longer period of time. As long as calories are equal in both examples, the net storage is the same. The problem that most people have is understanding that fat is CONTINUOUSLY being stored and burned. Simultaneously. Its NET storage at the end of the day, week, month, year, etc that give us the appearance of being leaner or fatter. Insulin is not the enemy. Its my opinion that the more time we can spend with elevated insulin levels while still burning bodyfat, the more lean mass we will hold. Insulin is a highly anabolic hormone.

Hyperinsulinemia is toxic. Youre obviously doing something right but your facts are a little convoluted.

 

[CJ_Xfit89]

Hyperinsulinemia is toxic. Youre obviously doing something right but your facts are a little convoluted.

He is on the right track but loses the idea of simple v complex carbs
Insulin is the mother of being anabolic. Keep insulin low, burn fat
Make it high, store fat

 

[bezoe]

Not only makes you store fat but causes peripheral neuropathy over time. I know it's anabolic but constant surges in blood levels are unhealthy. To be honest, Im a proponent of VERY low carb and HIGH fat diet. Thats what my body likes. This is only a trial and im surprised as sh*t that im not getting fat on all these carbs. And no i will not continue it forever.

 

[mattrag]

Not only makes you store fat but causes peripheral neuropathy over time. I know it's anabolic but constant surges in blood levels are unhealthy. To be honest, Im a proponent of VERY low carb and HIGH fat diet. Thats what my body likes. This is only a trial and im surprised as sh*t that im not getting fat on all these carbs. And no i will not continue it forever.

Ive noticed this too, was low carb, high protein, mod-high fat, then switched over to low fat. Body comp was GREAT, but my joints were beat up, mood was horrible, constant blood sugar swings, and my liver values were so f'd up the lady thought I WAS on roids....Also, my White blood cell count was halved from the reading prior on the higher fat diet. Also, this past time after switching back to a higher fat diet my liver values were cut in half and my WBC went up a bit. Not where they were b4, but definitely not in the danger zone of being too low.

 

[bezoe]

Ive noticed this too, was low carb, high protein, mod-high fat, then switched over to low fat. Body comp was GREAT, but my joints were beat up, mood was horrible, constant blood sugar swings, and my liver values were so f'd up the lady thought I WAS on roids....Also, my White blood cell count was halved from the reading prior on the higher fat diet. Also, this past time after switching back to a higher fat diet my liver values were cut in half and my WBC went up a bit. Not where they were b4, but definitely not in the danger zone of being too low.

This corresponds exactly with all the new literature ive been reading. I like the glycogen storage and the full muscles with high carb but the bloat and noticible effects suck.. not to mention everything instrinsic you just stated about lipid profile and WBC count. I will likely only use this diet in the 6-8 weeks leading up to a contest. I will probably only continue it another week or two.

 

[AustrianOakJr]

Hyperinsulinemia is toxic. Youre obviously doing something right but your facts are a little convoluted.

No, I think my facts are right on the money. You are referencing hyperinsulinemia which is condition prevalent in much of the general public.......who are NOT athletes......and are constantly eating more than they are using for fuel. People become desensitized to insulin only after they have packed on excessive bodyfat and they are very inactive. If you are in a calorie deficit and you are a glycogen-using/sparing athlete you dont have to worry about hyperinsulinemia.

He is on the right track but loses the idea of simple v complex carbs
Insulin is the mother of being anabolic. Keep insulin low, burn fat
Make it high, store fat

I have a very firm grasp on the idea of complex and simple carbs. However you are oversimplifying the fat burn/storage explanation. The issue is vastly more complex than most of the bro's at the local Golds are willing to dive into.

Not only makes you store fat but causes peripheral neuropathy over time. I know it's anabolic but constant surges in blood levels are unhealthy. To be honest, Im a proponent of VERY low carb and HIGH fat diet. Thats what my body likes. This is only a trial and im surprised as sh*t that im not getting fat on all these carbs. And no i will not continue it forever.

An athlete that is acclimated to carbs will not experience "surges" in insulin from any normal sized meal. If we are talking about 30-50g of carbs in a given meal......it doesnt make a bean-hill worth of difference if those carbs come from pop rocks or oatmeal. The amount of sugar is relatively small.....and those that are accustomed to carbs will process both with very little insulin.

Carbs are incredibly important to proper metabolism, especially for an athlete who uses glycogen storage day in and day out. Glucose is the fuel that drives the engine of cellular metabolism. Ketones will provide energy, but only in the absence of carbs because glucose is the body's preferred fuel source. Sure, without carbs, your body will use more (dietary) fat for fuel but it also is more likely to use protein (muscle) for fuel as well. Your body is starving for glucose though. This is probably the reason why you are so (over) carb sensitive. As you become more sensitive you store more bodyfat.....your metabolic rate slows. Adipsin starts rapidly turning carbs into bodyfat and that bodyfat is held onto due to an ever-decreasing metabolic rate. Metabolism is damaged by energy sparing mechanisms driven by other hormones like leptin (which are elevated in carb-starven athletes). Its a bad cycle driven by this fear that carbs are the enemy......especially those nasty "dirty" carbs. Because you starve your body of glucose you become better at storing fat (from overeating carbs) and worse at losing it.

The body only needs a relatively small amount of fat to be balanced hormonally. Obviously a moderate amount of protein is needed for repair and maintenance of muscle tissue, but beyond that......FUEL that body. We are performance athletes! We need the high test. Give the body the fuel it desires.

In all honesty, I think you have stumbled upon something that will change your training.....CARBS. If its working, dont go back. Keep fueling the fire. The cool thing is that once you have re-acclimated yourself to the carbs, you can start building that metabolism. Feed it a little more, and a little more. 10g increments every week and before you know it you'll be consuming many more calories than before while continuing to lose bodyfat.

Ive been throwing gas on the fire (working on increasing carbs over time) for a while now.....and my "low" carb diet days start at over 300g per day.

 

[JajaNe20]

^ This, I can second these statements. Well individualization is a key factor here, majority of points Aus states are correct.

 

[bezoe]

No, I think my facts are right on the money. You are referencing hyperinsulinemia which is condition prevalent in much of the general public.......who are NOT athletes......and are constantly eating more than they are using for fuel. People become desensitized to insulin only after they have packed on excessive bodyfat and they are very inactive. If you are in a calorie deficit and you are a glycogen-using/sparing athlete you dont have to worry about hyperinsulinemia.



I have a very firm grasp on the idea of complex and simple carbs. However you are oversimplifying the fat burn/storage explanation. The issue is vastly more complex than most of the bro's at the local Golds are willing to dive into.



An athlete that is acclimated to carbs will not experience "surges" in insulin from any normal sized meal. If we are talking about 30-50g of carbs in a given meal......it doesnt make a bean-hill worth of difference if those carbs come from pop rocks or oatmeal. The amount of sugar is relatively small.....and those that are accustomed to carbs will process both with very little insulin.

Carbs are incredibly important to proper metabolism, especially for an athlete who uses glycogen storage day in and day out. Glucose is the fuel that drives the engine of cellular metabolism. Ketones will provide energy, but only in the absence of carbs because glucose is the body's preferred fuel source. Sure, without carbs, your body will use more (dietary) fat for fuel but it also is more likely to use protein (muscle) for fuel as well. Your body is starving for glucose though. This is probably the reason why you are so (over) carb sensitive. As you become more sensitive you store more bodyfat.....your metabolic rate slows. Adipsin starts rapidly turning carbs into bodyfat and that bodyfat is held onto due to an ever-decreasing metabolic rate. Metabolism is damaged by energy sparing mechanisms driven by other hormones like leptin (which are elevated in carb-starven athletes). Its a bad cycle driven by this fear that carbs are the enemy......especially those nasty "dirty" carbs. Because you starve your body of glucose you become better at storing fat (from overeating carbs) and worse at losing it.

The body only needs a relatively small amount of fat to be balanced hormonally. Obviously a moderate amount of protein is needed for repair and maintenance of muscle tissue, but beyond that......FUEL that body. We are performance athletes! We need the high test. Give the body the fuel it desires.

In all honesty, I think you have stumbled upon something that will change your training.....CARBS. If its working, dont go back. Keep fueling the fire. The cool thing is that once you have re-acclimated yourself to the carbs, you can start building that metabolism. Feed it a little more, and a little more. 10g increments every week and before you know it you'll be consuming many more calories than before while continuing to lose bodyfat.

Ive been throwing gas on the fire (working on increasing carbs over time) for a while now.....and my "low" carb diet days start at over 300g per day.

Ill consider it but I would wanna do some bloodwork for lipid assay, immunocellular levels, liver values, FBG and possibly hormone levels. You eat grains too? I dont know, I just feel so much better on high fat.. constant energy. I dont rely on ketones, i rely on carbs- but very few of them because im not an endurance athelete constantly using glycogen. And I have to cycle them, with refeeds every 3 days. Yea carbs are a primary source of energy but you always have gluconeogenesis. As I said before, I ate high carbs for 2 years before (from various sources like you recommend) and put on quite a bit of fat. I have several natural bodybuilder friends who all do low carb. I think there is no end all be all approach to this, otherwise everybody would be aware of it. Some people fare better with carbs, some dont.

 

[CJ_Xfit89]

Its a note a one size fits all...
Certain diets can be carb dense. Athletes who need the carbs and actually utilize them, eat them like runners. I believe bb'rers get better results on a CKD and results show that

 

[Rodja]

Its a note a one size fits all...
Certain diets can be carb dense. Athletes who need the carbs and actually utilize them, eat them like runners. I believe bb'rers get better results on a CKD and results show that

I'm with this. When I was fighting, I went through an insane amount of carbs daily (800-1000g/day), but I maybe eat 150g now that I mainly just lift and occasionally train. While lifting does burn a lot of calories, it doesn't demand nearly as much glucose as endurance-type training.

 

[CJ_Xfit89]

I'm just adopting your views rodja lol
But it is true. If you need them, physically, eat em'

Most ppl can operate on ketone bodies but have a refeed once a week

 

[AustrianOakJr]

Ill consider it but I would wanna do some bloodwork for lipid assay, immunocellular levels, liver values, FBG and possibly hormone levels. You eat grains too? I dont know, I just feel so much better on high fat.. constant energy. I dont rely on ketones, i rely on carbs- but very few of them because im not an endurance athelete constantly using glycogen. And I have to cycle them, with refeeds every 3 days. Yea carbs are a primary source of energy but you always have gluconeogenesis. As I said before, I ate high carbs for 2 years before (from various sources like you recommend) and put on quite a bit of fat. I have several natural bodybuilder friends who all do low carb. I think there is no end all be all approach to this, otherwise everybody would be aware of it. Some people fare better with carbs, some dont.

No there isnt a be-all approach. And yes, some do better with higher ratios of fat. Sure. I wont argue that. You made it sound like you avoided carbs like the plague. This may be an over-generalization, but many of the elite natural pros that I know all run pretty moderate to high carbs. Once your body has adapted and been trained to spare glycogen, you use a tremendous amount during a workout, especially a good, high rep legs session. And you are more apt to burn fat for fuel doing normal, low-intensity daily chores. This is pretty much the premise that HIIT cardio operates on. Use the glycogen for cardio and burn fat during the day. Low to moderate intensity running/jogging should use very little glycogen.

If you got fat eating carbs its simply because your overall calories were too high. Granted if you are coming out of a low carb diet and switching to moderate/high carbs it may take a while for your body to become less carb sensitive. BUt i believe if you slowly ramp them up you can achieve higher calorie intake over a high fat/low carb diet. Obviously, everyone is different but this has been my experience with a good majority of bodybuilders.

Its a note a one size fits all...
Certain diets can be carb dense. Athletes who need the carbs and actually utilize them, eat them like runners. I believe bb'rers get better results on a CKD and results show that

I dont know that results necessarily show that. Im sure for every CKD'er you know with an impressive physique, I could show you a pic of a high-carb shredded freak show.

Probably the biggest high carb, pop tart eating freak I know is Alberto Nunez. This guy DIETS on 500+g of carbs. He weighs 158ish lbs.

Invalid Link Removed

Invalid Link Removed

 

[rochabp]

lol i hate to ruin the moment but his underwear is all messed up in 2nd pic

lol

 

[AustrianOakJr]

lol i hate to ruin the moment but his underwear is all messed up in 2nd pic

lol

He he he. Yea, I think the rule is that if you have lines ethced into your ass so deep you can see them from outer space.......you can wear your undies any way you like.

 

[rochabp]

lol

...ima go do squats

 

[Rodja]

He he he. Yea, I think the rule is that if you have lines ethced into your ass so deep you can see them from outer space.......you can wear your undies any way you like.

Your view, however, is skewed to one particular circumstance, which is just aesthetics and you're using elite competitors as your evidence. We all know that certain people are genetically pre-disposed to being shredded and very muscular. You can't use them as fair comparisons for the general populations since they do not have these advantages.

This has been said many, many times before, but an essential carbohydrate does not exist. There are, however, essential fats and amino acids.

 

[mattrag]

Your view, however, is skewed to one particular circumstance, which is just aesthetics and you're using elite competitors as your evidence. We all know that certain people are genetically pre-disposed to being shredded and very muscular. You can't use them as fair comparisons for the general populations since they do not have these advantages.

This has been said many, many times before, but an essential carbohydrate does not exist. There are, however, essential fats and amino acids.

Very true. For most you have to eat around 1g protein per pound, eat healthy fats and earn your carbs.
Some lucky people though need to eat loads of carbs just to keep weight up, or activity up. Some can run just on little carbs and just need enough for their activity levels and their own bodies usage of fuel.

 

[AustrianOakJr]

Your view, however, is skewed to one particular circumstance, which is just aesthetics and you're using elite competitors as your evidence. We all know that certain people are genetically pre-disposed to being shredded and very muscular. You can't use them as fair comparisons for the general populations since they do not have these advantages.

I wasnt using the pics as evidence for anything. THe pic was posted in reply to Runner70 who said "I believe bb'rers get better results on a CKD and results show that". He was implying that bb'ers achieve better results running CKD. And while its ridiculous to post pics of any one person as evidence for a particular diet being "the" diet, its equally ridiculous to make blanket statements that the "evidence" shows bb'ers get better results on CKD. Thats all. Ive already stated my opinion and the scientific explanation of why I think carbs are a bodybuilders best friend. If you care to look beyond the pics you will say paragraphs upon paragraphs explaining my position.

This has been said many, many times before, but an essential carbohydrate does not exist. There are, however, essential fats and amino acids.

Fuel is ESSENTIAL for a car to run also. And the race car in my garage WILL will run on old 87 octane that I siphoned out of my lawn mower. But if I want it to perform I run it on 110 leaded.

Very true. For most you have to eat around 1g protein per pound, eat healthy fats and earn your carbs.
Some lucky people though need to eat loads of carbs just to keep weight up, or activity up. Some can run just on little carbs and just need enough for their activity levels and their own bodies usage of fuel.

I agree.....and ive never stated anything different. Everyone has to find their "sweet spot" for carbs/fat ratios. THat said, I think waaaay to many people assume they are "carb sensitive" without allowing time to really push the limits of their tolerance for high test fuel.

 

[AaronJP1]

Egg whites, tuna, oatmeal, brown rice & sweet potato, baked chicken breast, banana.

Banana kind of surprised me cause I hear some people say it's 50/50 with those....

 

[AaronJP1]

Good to have you brother

Mine too. Ive been high fat and low low carb for awhile now and just cant seem to get past this plateau.

We will reveal whether or not this diet works for everyone as claimed. I get fat on too many carbs, but my theory is that when i was eating carbs i was eating the wrong ones, the wrong amount, and at the wrong times. Pulcinella claims that with these specific foods, and no outside junk thrown in, bodyfat will decrease.

Carbs should be complex and first in AM & pre & post work out correct?

What's the right or wrong amount?

 

[CJ_Xfit89]

Depending on goals.
Brekky is a definite.
Pre workout is a gray area. I could have a 2oz chicken and 1 egg and I'll be running and run at 75%+ but;

Post w/o is vital. Need carbs 30-120 minutes after workout to shuttle glycogen into muscles to repair them. Small amounts along with BCAA whether a supplement or whole food ie protein source will allow for recovery

If you are cutting, drop the carbs, if gaining then add them in

 

[Rodja]

Depending on goals.
Brekky is a definite.
Pre workout is a gray area. I could have a 2oz chicken and 1 egg and I'll be running and run at 75%+ but;

Post w/o is vital. Need carbs 30-120 minutes after workout to shuttle glycogen into muscles to repair them. Small amounts along with BCAA whether a supplement or whole food ie protein source will allow for recovery

If you are cutting, drop the carbs, if gaining then add them in

Glycogen synthesis, like protein synthesis, is an ongoing process and the idea that you need carbs after a training session is a bit inaccurate. It's more about overall amounts than specifics regarding the timing.

 

[Rodja]

I wasnt using the pics as evidence for anything. THe pic was posted in reply to Runner70 who said "I believe bb'rers get better results on a CKD and results show that". He was implying that bb'ers achieve better results running CKD. And while its ridiculous to post pics of any one person as evidence for a particular diet being "the" diet, its equally ridiculous to make blanket statements that the "evidence" shows bb'ers get better results on CKD. Thats all. Ive already stated my opinion and the scientific explanation of why I think carbs are a bodybuilders best friend. If you care to look beyond the pics you will say paragraphs upon paragraphs explaining my position.
Fuel is ESSENTIAL for a car to run also. And the race car in my garage WILL will run on old 87 octane that I siphoned out of my lawn mower. But if I want it to perform I run it on 110 leaded.

I agree.....and ive never stated anything different. Everyone has to find their "sweet spot" for carbs/fat ratios. THat said, I think waaaay to many people assume they are "carb sensitive" without allowing time to really push the limits of their tolerance for high test fuel.

I haven't seen any actual scientific backing of why carbs are a BB'ers best friend. You're mainly stating your opinion based upon your personal experiences.

While we're on the topic of fuel, fats (specifically triglycerides) provide far more ATP than glycogen or glucose. Hell, intra-muscular triglycerides are always going to be the first source of fuel burned during any training.

BB'ers are not athletes in the traditional sense in that their performance is only secondary to their primary purpose, which is an abstract shape. If you ask, 15 people about nutrition, you'll get 15 different answers. Grains, which are pretty much GE crap, are one of the primary reasons for the obesity epidemic in this country. Yes, people overeat, but their food selection plays heavily into this. It's pretty damn hard to get fat off of a diet of flesh and produce.

 

[CJ_Xfit89]

I always looked at it from a point in time stance...
I am still learning and give what "I know" whether it be right or wrong, I like to have input and if I'm wrong, I swallow my pride, learn more and digress as much info as possible.
Thanks RODJA

 

[Rodja]

I always looked at it from a point in time stance...
I am still learning and give what "I know" whether it be right or wrong, I like to have input and if I'm wrong, I swallow my pride, learn more and digress as much info as possible.
Thanks RODJA

A lot of the reason for reason for this thinking is due to a dude that pretty much holds my academic future in his hands, Dr. John Ivy. His research is the basis for most of the post-training "window," but it's a little skewed in that they used endurance athletes and they were fasted.

 

[CJ_Xfit89]

A lot of the reason for reason for this thinking is due to a dude that pretty much holds my academic future in his hands, Dr. John Ivy. His research is the basis for most of the post-training "window," but it's a little skewed in that they used endurance athletes and they were fasted.

will give it a look into.
Thanks

 

[AustrianOakJr]

I haven't seen any actual scientific backing of why carbs are a BB'ers best friend. You're mainly stating your opinion based upon your personal experiences.

Carbs are incredibly important to proper metabolism, especially for an athlete who uses glycogen storage day in and day out. Glucose is the fuel that drives the engine of cellular metabolism. Ketones will provide energy, but only in the absence of carbs because glucose is the body's preferred fuel source. Sure, without carbs, your body will use more (dietary) fat for fuel but it also is more likely to use protein (muscle) for fuel as well. Your body is starving for glucose though. This is probably the reason why you are so (over) carb sensitive. As you become more sensitive you store more bodyfat.....your metabolic rate slows. Adipsin starts rapidly turning carbs into bodyfat and that bodyfat is held onto due to an ever-decreasing metabolic rate. Metabolism is damaged by energy sparing mechanisms driven by other hormones like leptin (which are elevated in carb-starven athletes). Its a bad cycle driven by this fear that carbs are the enemy......especially those nasty "dirty" carbs. Because you starve your body of glucose you become better at storing fat (from overeating carbs) and worse at losing it.

I could go on and continue with what I have quoted above ^ but to be honest, I really cant believe that this is news to people. Im simply regurgitating information that I have learned from some of the best in the business......like Dr. Joe, Layne Norton, the 3DMuscleJourney crew, etc, etc. These guys are the elite (or at least trainers of the elite) and have done the research. If you take the time to read some of their research and data, its pretty convincing that carbohydrates are the most anabolic of the three macro-nutrients.....sparing muscle, providing high quality fuel on demand, and maintaining metabolic and hormonal health.

While we're on the topic of fuel, fats (specifically triglycerides) provide far more ATP than glycogen or glucose. Hell, intra-muscular triglycerides are always going to be the first source of fuel burned during any training.

IMTS is a topic that has a lot of research left to be done on it. I have never read or heard that they are the FIRST fuel source. In fact that contradicts everything I have read. Regardless of whether its a first or last fuel source......its a small fuel source compared to glycogen, meaning that it is a small percentage of total fuel used while glycogen is available. Furthermore, IMTS's are not restocked or replenished in the same way as carbohydrate storage, so simply eating more fats does not "load" the stores like carbs do. So, your implication that we should eat more fats because IMTS's are a good fuel source is not good science.

BB'ers are not athletes in the traditional sense in that their performance is only secondary to their primary purpose, which is an abstract shape. If you ask, 15 people about nutrition, you'll get 15 different answers. Grains, which are pretty much GE crap, are one of the primary reasons for the obesity epidemic in this country. Yes, people overeat, but their food selection plays heavily into this. It's pretty damn hard to get fat off of a diet of flesh and produce.

BB'ers are athletes who's "shape" is a direct result of their performance in the gym. Just because we are not judged on our gym performance directly doesnt mean that our efforts in the gym are any less valid than any other athlete.

Food selection plays a role in the obesity epidemic only because huge amounts of calories are available for very little money. This is the crux of the issue. Yes, insulin resistance and blah, blah, blah......I agree, all of that is pieces to the puzzle. But people keep bringing this up in a discussion surrounding athletes. The general public does not weigh their food to the gram on a food scale. The general public does not go to the gym and burn 900 calories in an hour deadlifting and squatting. These factors change the discussion dramatically.

 

[Rodja]

I could go on and continue with what I have quoted above ^ but to be honest, I really cant believe that this is news to people. Im simply regurgitating information that I have learned from some of the best in the business......like Dr. Joe, Layne Norton, the 3DMuscleJourney crew, etc, etc. These guys are the elite (or at least trainers of the elite) and have done the research. If you take the time to read some of their research and data, its pretty convincing that carbohydrates are the most anabolic of the three macro-nutrients.....sparing muscle, providing high quality fuel on demand, and maintaining metabolic and hormonal health.

I have no idea where you pulled that last statement from, but to classify macros by their potential anabolic activity is just absurd. There is absolutely no way to possibly rank them. Carbs may be the most important in your opinion, but that is just an opinion. BTW, total appeal to authority fallacy.

IMTS is a topic that has a lot of research left to be done on it. I have never read or heard that they are the FIRST fuel source. In fact that contradicts everything I have read. Regardless of whether its a first or last fuel source......its a small fuel source compared to glycogen, meaning that it is a small percentage of total fuel used while glycogen is available. Furthermore, IMTS's are not restocked or replenished in the same way as carbohydrate storage, so simply eating more fats does not "load" the stores like carbs do. So, your implication that we should eat more fats because IMTS's are a good fuel source is not good science.

Uhh...no, I never once made that implication. At no point did I say anything about fat loading or that higher fat intake=higher IMTG; that's fallacy number 2 for you (straw man). Athletes have a higher amount of them (it's the athletes paradox that they have more IMTG compared to sedentary people) and it is the first source of fuel used by the body. It's not a tremendous amount that is stored, but you get far more ATP from a triglyceride than glycogen/glucose.

BB'ers are athletes who's "shape" is a direct result of their performance in the gym. Just because we are not judged on our gym performance directly doesnt mean that our efforts in the gym are any less valid than any other athlete.

Food selection plays a role in the obesity epidemic only because huge amounts of calories are available for very little money. This is the crux of the issue. Yes, insulin resistance and blah, blah, blah......I agree, all of that is pieces to the puzzle. But people keep bringing this up in a discussion surrounding athletes. The general public does not weigh their food to the gram on a food scale. The general public does not go to the gym and burn 900 calories in an hour deadlifting and squatting. These factors change the discussion dramatically.

The gym performance of a BB'er is irrelevant. You can lose 50% of your strength, but it doesn't matter as long as the aesthetics are still present. Sorry, but that does not qualify you as an athlete.

 

[CJ_Xfit89]

If you wanna look good naked drop carbs and focus on high nutritional fats and protein sources.

You want athletic performance- eat your effing yam!!!

Better yet man, eat like a caveman, then see how you look feel and perform Austrian.

 

[Vengeance187]

Once your body has adapted and been trained to spare glycogen, you use a tremendous amount during a workout, especially a good, high rep legs session.

He doesn't do high reps. lol
He'll shrink.(he's weird like that I guess 8^P)

To sum it all up, you can't go wrong with a "balanced diet". I've always understood(since ancient times XD) a "balanced diet" to mean equal amounts of fat, carbs and protien(33.3% each). I've seen studies that show that each high fat(for obvious reasons/cholesterol, triglycerides, etc.) high protein(for catabolism/renal reasons) and high carbs(insulin resistance/sugar crystals cause damage to blood vessels/cardiovascular disease, etc.) are bad for you. Too much means too much for a reason. That's why it's not called "just enough".

The only diet that's guaranteed to work well for everyone(except for steroid users who use less fat for hormones) is equal amounts of fat, carbs, and protein. The most recent research is starting to support this. You're all right to some degree. Each one is needed for optimal anabolism, even carbs; even though they're not essential, they're very anabolic.

 

[AustrianOakJr]

I have no idea where you pulled that last statement from, but to classify macros by their potential anabolic activity is just absurd. There is absolutely no way to possibly rank them. Carbs may be the most important in your opinion, but that is just an opinion. BTW, total appeal to authority fallacy.

OF COURSE THIS IS MY OPINION. What do you want? A doctoral thesis?

You ask where "I pulled" my statement from but then knock me down for appealing to authority. Hmmmm.....are we here to debate a topic or are we trying to knock each other's ego down. I dont have any desire to engage in a discussion with someone who isnt willing to entertain the possibility of learning from it. Im certainly open but I wont go down the road of high school debate rules or absurd comments like the ones you just dropped because your feelings are hurt.

MY OPINION is that carbs are obviously not the ONLY nutrient needed for anabolism but their contribution to overal growth is more substantial than the other major macro-nutrients. Leave them out and you leave growth on the table. Thats what is meant by the statement. I could tell you where I "pulled" it from, but I dont want my "appeal to authority" to be a roadblock to your understanding.

Uhh...no, I never once made that implication. At no point did I say anything about fat loading or that higher fat intake=higher IMTG; that's fallacy number 2 for you (straw man). Athletes have a higher amount of them (it's the athletes paradox that they have more IMTG compared to sedentary people) and it is the first source of fuel used by the body. It's not a tremendous amount that is stored, but you get far more ATP from a triglyceride than glycogen/glucose.

If that wasnt the point of your statement, then what was? You were bringing it up to support your opinion that carbs are not the best fuel to fuel your workouts with. But even if I grant you the fact (which it is far from it) that IMTG's are a primary fuel source, they are not influenced by diet (that we know of, anyways). So whatever point your are trying to make to support a particular kind of diet is moot. For all we know, IMTG's could be created by overages on carbohydrates.

The gym performance of a BB'er is irrelevant. You can lose 50% of your strength, but it doesn't matter as long as the aesthetics are still present. Sorry, but that does not qualify you as an athlete.

YOu cant really be serious here, right? DO you think that if you lost 50% of your strength you would still look the same? Perhaps thats why you dont have an avatar?<-- sorry shameless dig, but I couldnt resist . I get on stage and win championships because I bust my ass in the gym. I progressively overload my musculature so that it has to constantly adapt and overcome. Much of the reason I continue to grow is due to my diet which supports optimal performance in the gym. This sub-section of the discussion is going to be ridiculous if you cant agree with that.

If you wanna look good naked drop carbs and focus on high nutritional fats and protein sources.

You want athletic performance- eat your effing yam!!!

Better yet man, eat like a caveman, then see how you look feel and perform Austrian.

Cavemen ate what they did because they had to. Its most likely that they starved for long periods of time. Should I do that in order to appeal my "evolved" ability to store calories for future use? I dont really get the whole "this is the way our ancestors ate" thing. Im a bodybuilder living in 2011 and I have access to science and data to figure out the best way to fuel athletic performance. Are meat and nuts good? Yes. Im not debating that. Are they they best singular foods to achieve the physique we desire.....I dont think so.

He doesn't do high reps. lol
He'll shrink.(he's weird like that I guess 8^P)

To sum it all up, you can't go wrong with a "balanced diet". I've always understood(since ancient times XD) a "balanced diet" to mean equal amounts of fat, carbs and protien(33.3% each). I've seen studies that show that each high fat(for obvious reasons/cholesterol, triglycerides, etc.) high protein(for catabolism/renal reasons) and high carbs(insulin resistance/sugar crystals cause damage to blood vessels/cardiovascular disease, etc.) are bad for you. Too much means too much for a reason. That's why it's not called "just enough".

The only diet that's guaranteed to work well for everyone(except for steroid users who use less fat for hormones) is equal amounts of fat, carbs, and protein. The most recent research is starting to support this. You're all right to some degree. Each one is needed for optimal anabolism, even carbs; even though they're not essential, they're very anabolic.

I would agree with you. A BALANCED DIET is key. Leave any one ingredient out and your performance will suffer. Whether I am balanced at 33% of all nutrients or if I favor a little more protein or carbs or fat......is individual. I favor carbs. And I dont debate the fact that some people favor fats. But to disregard carbs as the ultimate fuel for gym performance, and ultimately a key nutrient for a great physique, is where I will take up the debate.

 

[CJ_Xfit89]

What's wrong with plant matter? The katarvans?(sp?)

 

[Rodja]

OF COURSE THIS IS MY OPINION. What do you want? A doctoral thesis?

You ask where "I pulled" my statement from but then knock me down for appealing to authority. Hmmmm.....are we here to debate a topic or are we trying to knock each other's ego down. I dont have any desire to engage in a discussion with someone who isnt willing to entertain the possibility of learning from it. Im certainly open but I wont go down the road of high school debate rules or absurd comments like the ones you just dropped because your feelings are hurt.

MY OPINION is that carbs are obviously not the ONLY nutrient needed for anabolism but their contribution to overal growth is more substantial than the other major macro-nutrients. Leave them out and you leave growth on the table. Thats what is meant by the statement. I could tell you where I "pulled" it from, but I dont want my "appeal to authority" to be a roadblock to your understanding.

You spew out science, yet have not posted ANY citations to support your cause. If you're going to argue, at least learn how to do it.

If that wasnt the point of your statement, then what was? You were bringing it up to support your opinion that carbs are not the best fuel to fuel your workouts with. But even if I grant you the fact (which it is far from it) that IMTG's are a primary fuel source, they are not influenced by diet (that we know of, anyways). So whatever point your are trying to make to support a particular kind of diet is moot. For all we know, IMTG's could be created by overages on carbohydrates.

You're really all over the place here. I stated the fact that triglycerides provide far more ATP than glycogen/glucose and that IMTG are the first sources of fuel. That is all I said, yet you twisted and straw manned by words to support your side. At no point have I said which source is superior because this is entirely situational and is both foolish and arrogant to think that way. I notice how you conveniently ignored my statement about grains being genetically engineered crap. Care to address the fact that oats/brown rice, commonly recommended BB'ing grains, are both highly acidic, genetically engineered, and inflammatory?

YOu cant really be serious here, right? DO you think that if you lost 50% of your strength you would still look the same? Perhaps thats why you dont have an avatar?<-- sorry shameless dig, but I couldnt resist . I get on stage and win championships because I bust my ass in the gym. I progressively overload my musculature so that it has to constantly adapt and overcome. Much of the reason I continue to grow is due to my diet which supports optimal performance in the gym. This sub-section of the discussion is going to be ridiculous if you cant agree with that.

It was a freaking arbitrary number; the point still remains, however. I notice that you make no argument about strength and that is my entire point of this premise. To a physique competitor, how much they can bench or pull is 100% irrelevant, which is the reason they are not performance-based. The reason I don't have an avatar of myself is that I would much rather support my BJJ lineage than throw up an avatar of my physique.

All that you have truly done is make a false dilemma here (fallacy number 3 for you) when it really is a more complicated and complex issue.

 

[Vengeance187]

I favor carbs.

Sure, but how much worse or better would you be doing at 40% carbs than 33%? You'd still be doing very well health wise and performance/aesthetic wise on a diet of all equal parts; is my point. Health wise being the most important...

 

[Vengeance187]

What's wrong with plant matter? The katarvans?(sp?)

What plants were around in the winter? 8^P

I stated the fact that triglycerides provide far more ATP than glycogen/glucose and that IMTG are the first sources of fuel. That is all I said, yet you twisted and straw manned by words to support your side. At no point have I said which source is superior because this is entirely situational and is both foolish and arrogant to think that way.

You absolutely made it sound like some kind of argument against carbs, otherwise, why did you bring it up? Just some random statement?

I notice how you conveniently ignored my statement about grains being genetically engineered crap. Care to address the fact that oats/brown rice, commonly recommended BB'ing grains, are both highly acidic, genetically engineered, and inflammatory?

What does acidic and inflammatory have to do with anything(the genetically engineered part is understandable, but you can buy non-gmo)? Most meats/dairy/eggs are acidic and inflammatory. Do you just not eat those? Are you vegan? You're just supposed to balance them out with anti-inflammatory foods(fish oil being the best)...You make a moot point.

 

[Rodja]

You absolutely made it sound like some kind of argument against carbs, otherwise, why did you bring it up? Just some random statement?What does acidic and inflammatory have to do with anything(the genetically engineered part is understandable, but you can buy non-gmo)? Most meats/dairy/eggs are acidic and inflammatory. Do you just not eat those? Are you vegan? You're just supposed to balance them out with anti-inflammatory foods(fish oil being the best)...You make a moot point.

I was pointing out the role and importance of triglycerides in providing energy. G for g, a triglyceride is going to provide a hell of a lot more ATP than glycogen/glucose.

Systemic inflammation is never a good thing and eating foods that are highly acidic and not counterbalancing them with alkalinic produce leads to metabolic acidosis, which can lead to hypercalciuria, hypercortisolemia, GH resistance, etc (Wiederkehr et al, Swiss Med Wkly. 10:127-132, 2001). If someone was to eat hundreds of grams of brown rice or oats, which are both far more acidic than flesh or eggs, you would have to eat well over a dozen servings of produce to even approach a neutral PRAL and that's just from the grains and not taking into account the protein cinsumption. Another interesting fact is that while a high protein diet is acid forming, the high protein diet also seems to counteract some of its own acid loading potential (Remer et al, Eur J Nut. 40(5): 214-20, 2001). Fish oil, while a good anti-inflammatory, is not going to begin to cover the inflammation from a high-grain diet (I am not vegan/vegetarian), especially is that person has sub-clinical allergies to grains/dairy, and a high amount of protein as well. There is only one source of complex carbs that is alkalinic and that is the potato. Since there is no GMO labeling in the US, it is impossible to know whether or not the grains/potatoes you're eating are GMO.

 

[AustrianOakJr]

You spew out science, yet have not posted ANY citations to support your cause. If you're going to argue, at least learn how to do it..

Neither have you. This is a discussion board. Not a research paper. When I write research papers I write with citations. When i am on a message forum I am speaking off the top of my head from information I have read and learned from others in the past. If anyone wishes to check out what I have to say, google is a great tool.

I tell you who I learn from and where my information comes from, but I am "appealing to authority". The people who I have mentioned are the elite in this sport. They have phd's in various nutrional and exercise sciences. I was tutored underneith them using the principles I have outlined and have met a lot of success in the world of natural bodybuilding. If you look at my bio on cabergolean.com you can see I transformed my physique from a fat couch potato to a professional bodybuilder in three years. I understand that this certainly doesnt mean that my methods are the only ones that work .....or even NECESSARILY mean that my methods are the best. But I think that I can say that I have picked up a few things along the way and im not a bumbling fool who happened to get in shape by accident.

BTW, I havent noticed any citations from you either. So what? If I am truly interested in learning from this conversation, im gonna do some reading on your point of view. And I have. And I have learned. Isnt that what this is all about? Or are we just running our mouths like a bunch of narcissistic bodybuilders?

You're really all over the place here. I stated the fact that triglycerides provide far more ATP than glycogen/glucose and that IMTG are the first sources of fuel. That is all I said, yet you twisted and straw manned by words to support your side. At no point have I said which source is superior because this is entirely situational and is both foolish and arrogant to think that way. I notice how you conveniently ignored my statement about grains being genetically engineered crap. Care to address the fact that oats/brown rice, commonly recommended BB'ing grains, are both highly acidic, genetically engineered, and inflammatory?..

Judging by the "reps" (whatever they are) i have received via PM for this conversation, I would guess that SOME people are following my line of thought so I dont see how im "all over the place". Forgive me if I misinterpreted your initial arguement regarding intra-muscular triglycerides. I was making an assumption as to where you were going with mentioning IMTG. I still dont understand your point. Obviously, fats provide more energy than carbs. But that is on a gram per gram basis. They are 9 calories per gram as opposed to 4. To say that we derive a greater percentage of our energy for high intensity exercise (ie.heavy weight lifting) from IMTG's is flat out false. So whatever point you are trying to make about IMTG's is irrelevent to the carb/fat conversation.

As for the grain question......so what? They are acid. OK? So? Processed? OK? So are pop tarts and frozen yogurt. Yet I eat them all the time. Just about everything we eat is genetically engineered in some fashion.....most of it derivitives of corn in some way or another. I wouldnt base my entire diet on oatmeal. I wouldnt base my entire diet on brocolli. I wouldnt base an entire diet on any one food. So as long as we have overall balance on the micro-nutritional side of the equation we are going to do quite well regarless of the fact that might eat a particular food that is more basic or acidic.

My entire point in my initial post that started this whole thing is that there is no need to pay attention to these minor, minute details of diet. Hit your dang numbers every day and train like an animal in the gym and you will meet success. Thats it. It seems like people try to waaaaay over-complicate the issue.

It was a freaking arbitrary number; the point still remains, however. I notice that you make no argument about strength and that is my entire point of this premise. To a physique competitor, how much they can bench or pull is 100% irrelevant, which is the reason they are not performance-based. The reason I don't have an avatar of myself is that I would much rather support my BJJ lineage than throw up an avatar of my physique.

All that you have truly done is make a false dilemma here (fallacy number 3 for you) when it really is a more complicated and complex issue.

Physique follows strength. As a bodybuilder I continually try to make strength gains in much the same way a powerlifter trains. Is a powerlifter not an athlete? The difference is that I have other areas of focus BESIDES strength gains. I have to look at body composition in light of my strength gains. Obviously, this adds an extra element. But gym performance is hardly irrelevant as a bodybuilder.

I guess I have a hard time understanding how you can see otherwise.

False dilemma? What was the discussion about again? Yes, we are really arguing over something fairly minute. The discussion started with a question as to why the OP is restricting himself to certain "magical" foods recommended by Dave Pulcinella. I was simply stating that there is no magic to any one group of foods. Some how it evolved into a carb/fat- which is better debate. In which my opinion is that carbs should be favored for maximum performance in the gym and overall anabolism. Thats it. As I see it, thats the discussion. Not really a false dilemma.....just a minor point in the grand scheme of life.

Sure, but how much worse or better would you be doing at 40% carbs than 33%? You'd still be doing very well health wise and performance/aesthetic wise on a diet of all equal parts; is my point. Health wise being the most important...

I agree. 40% or 30% - not going to make a huge difference for most until you get down to fine tuning your physique.

 

[Rodja]

Neither have you. This is a discussion board. Not a research paper. When I write research papers I write with citations. When i am on a message forum I am speaking off the top of my head from information I have read and learned from others in the past. If anyone wishes to check out what I have to say, google is a great tool.

I tell you who I learn from and where my information comes from, but I am "appealing to authority". The people who I have mentioned are the elite in this sport. They have phd's in various nutrional and exercise sciences. I was tutored underneith them using the principles I have outlined and have met a lot of success in the world of natural bodybuilding. If you look at my bio on cabergolean.com you can see I transformed my physique from a fat couch potato to a professional bodybuilder in three years. I understand that this certainly doesnt mean that my methods are the only ones that work .....or even NECESSARILY mean that my methods are the best. But I think that I can say that I have picked up a few things along the way and im not a bumbling fool who happened to get in shape by accident.

BTW, I havent noticed any citations from you either. So what? If I am truly interested in learning from this conversation, im gonna do some reading on your point of view. And I have. And I have learned. Isnt that what this is all about? Or are we just running our mouths like a bunch of narcissistic bodybuilders?

I am familiar with the people that you cited earlier, especially Dr. Norton, whom I cited in several papers for my M.Ed., but to just throw out names is not really helping your argument.

Judging by the "reps" (whatever they are) i have received via PM for this conversation, I would guess that SOME people are following my line of thought so I dont see how im "all over the place". Forgive me if I misinterpreted your initial arguement regarding intra-muscular triglycerides. I was making an assumption as to where you were going with mentioning IMTG. I still dont understand your point. Obviously, fats provide more energy than carbs. But that is on a gram per gram basis. They are 9 calories per gram as opposed to 4. To say that we derive a greater percentage of our energy for high intensity exercise (ie.heavy weight lifting) from IMTG's is flat out false. So whatever point you are trying to make about IMTG's is irrelevent to the carb/fat conversation.

As for the grain question......so what? They are acid. OK? So? Processed? OK? So are pop tarts and frozen yogurt. Yet I eat them all the time. Just about everything we eat is genetically engineered in some fashion.....most of it derivitives of corn in some way or another. I wouldnt base my entire diet on oatmeal. I wouldnt base my entire diet on brocolli. I wouldnt base an entire diet on any one food. So as long as we have overall balance on the micro-nutritional side of the equation we are going to do quite well regarless of the fact that might eat a particular food that is more basic or acidic.

My entire point in my initial post that started this whole thing is that there is no need to pay attention to these minor, minute details of diet. Hit your dang numbers every day and train like an animal in the gym and you will meet success. Thats it. It seems like people try to waaaaay over-complicate the issue.

Who gives a damn about reps received? I'll ignore yet another fallacy on your end. I NEVER once said that IMTGs are the primary fuel during highly-anaerobic activity, so, once again, quit adding things to my argument to strengthen yours.

Your second paragraph here is just an epic facepalm...

Physique follows strength. As a bodybuilder I continually try to make strength gains in much the same way a powerlifter trains. Is a powerlifter not an athlete? The difference is that I have other areas of focus BESIDES strength gains. I have to look at body composition in light of my strength gains. Obviously, this adds an extra element. But gym performance is hardly irrelevant as a bodybuilder.

BB'ing and PL'ing are completely separate and there is a way to objectively measure a PL'ers performance unlike a BB'er. I have seen very, very few BB'ers that actually train for true strength in addition to aesthetics (the aforementioned Norton and also Stan Efferding are examples) and remain competitive in both. As I've said several times, the amount of weight that is lifted by a BB'er is inconsequential; there isn't a ME round in a BB'ing competition.

False dilemma? What was the discussion about again? Yes, we are really arguing over something fairly minute. The discussion started with a question as to why the OP is restricting himself to certain "magical" foods recommended by Dave Pulcinella. I was simply stating that there is no magic to any one group of foods. Some how it evolved into a carb/fat- which is better debate. In which my opinion is that carbs should be favored for maximum performance in the gym and overall anabolism. Thats it. As I see it, thats the discussion. Not really a false dilemma.....just a minor point in the grand scheme of life.

The premise of that there are magic foods is absurd and the video fo Pulcinella makes no sense, especially since he uses brown rice and sweet potatoes interchangeably. You are entitled to your opinion just like everyone else, but there are so many factors that play into substrate preference. I used to be a high-carb advocate, but have since changed to the high-fat side after looking at the research. There is still a high amount of resistance to fats based upon the outlandish research from the 50's and there is an even higher amount of dogma surrounded saturated fats.

 

[AustrianOakJr]

I am familiar with the people that you cited earlier, especially Dr. Norton, whom I cited in several papers for my M.Ed., but to just throw out names is not really helping your argument..

Ok, so dont ask where i get my information from and I wont tell you.

Who gives a damn about reps received? I'll ignore yet another fallacy on your end. I NEVER once said that IMTGs are the primary fuel during highly-anaerobic activity, so, once again, quit adding things to my argument to strengthen yours. ..

Can we agree then that your point regarding IMTG's is......well.....POINTLESS? Its very obvious that gram per gram, fats provide more energy. Was that your only point? Because it sounded like you were trying to take it elsewhere and then stopped.

BB'ing and PL'ing are completely separate and there is a way to objectively measure a PL'ers performance unlike a BB'er. I have seen very, very few BB'ers that actually train for true strength in addition to aesthetics (the aforementioned Norton and also Stan Efferding are examples) and remain competitive in both. As I've said several times, the amount of weight that is lifted by a BB'er is inconsequential; there isn't a ME round in a BB'ing competition. ..

The amount of weight lifted is most definitely consequential to physique. We either overload with more weight or reps with the same weight.....we do MORE work and create larger muscles. That seems like a basic premise to the sport. If we arent fueling our bodies properly we wont make progress in strength. If we dont make progress in strength its very hard to progress in hypertrophy. I feel like im taking crazy pills.

The premise of that there are magic foods is absurd

So we can agree on this then? GREAT!

 

[Rodja]

Ok, so dont ask where i get my information from and I wont tell you.
Can we agree then that your point regarding IMTG's is......well.....POINTLESS? Its very obvious that gram per gram, fats provide more energy. Was that your only point? Because it sounded like you were trying to take it elsewhere and then stopped.
The amount of weight lifted is most definitely consequential to physique. We either overload with more weight or reps with the same weight.....we do MORE work and create larger muscles. That seems like a basic premise to the sport. If we arent fueling our bodies properly we wont make progress in strength. If we dont make progress in strength its very hard to progress in hypertrophy. I feel like im taking crazy pills.

You're really good at spinning my words because you have done it every single time you respond to my posts. The number of fallacious arguments increases with every response and it's not even worth addressing you anymore.

 

[JudoJosh]

I am always late to these parties

Ahh well opcorn:

 

[AustrianOakJr]

You're really good at spinning my words because you have done it every single time you respond to my posts. The number of fallacious arguments increases with every response and it's not even worth addressing you anymore.

Well, at least im good at something.

 

[BigGunn]

Very interesting debate. I would go insane if I ever followed my diet this closely!!

 

[BigRigg]

getting heated in here, i was gonna toss up my opinion but its no where near as high of caliber as rodja and arrminian lol

 

[AustrianOakJr]

getting heated in here, i was gonna toss up my opinion but its no where near as high of caliber as rodja and arrminian lol

I dont get heated about this kind of stuff so sorry if my posts came off that way. I try to make use of the emoticons cause I know that my very direct language might indicate im stewing over my keyboard. Truth is I really enjoy this type of dicsussion because it makes me think. I learn something every time I engage in something like this and that makes me a better bodybuilder. Lots of very good points on all sides of the discussion.

And never be afraid to share your opinion. The only time you should be afraid is if you take it personally that someone disagrees or you are not open minded enough to change your opinion in light of new evidence or new understanding of the old evidence.

 

[BigRigg]

in terms of carbs i try to stik with low glycemic carbs or fibous carbs and i enjoy my fruits and veggies. in terms of fats i like PB and avacados