Against Glycogen Repletion...

[kp1512]

Quote

what race are you?

Indian.

[NU_nutrition_TS]

Quote

I do also find this makes it hard to take some of your posts serioiusly..... apologies for that, but when you simply base your posts on science that is fine, but when talking about real life experiences its a whole other story. I get told time and time again by the 'older more 'wise' members here this all the time [snore]

The idea that it would take a FULL month to get the adaptations to a low carb diet are dubious too.....

Somewhere in these posts someone said there are " No studies with high fat diet for more than 1-2 weeks?!?! Thats again completely not true

Mmm! Martin, if someone says something works because they have direct personal experience of it [several contributors to the thread about pre-exhaust, for example] you hold up one scientific study as proof that they are all deluded and that your position that is doesn't work is true. If I quote several scientific studies to support my argument you claim it can't be taken seriously because I don't have any personal experience of it. You are one seriously conflicted fella, aren't you?

Do you actually read any of my posts before replying? It was the author of a review of the literature [studies and so forth] who said:

Quote

There are to date no studies that carefully examine the optimum length of this keto-adapataion period, but it is clearly longer than one week and likely well advanced within 3–4 weeks. The process does not appear to happen any faster in highly trained athletes than in overweight or untrained individuals. This adaptation process also appears to require consistent adherence to carbohydrate restriction, as people who intermittently consume carbohydrates while attempting a ketogenic diet report subjectively reduced exercise tolerance.

Which of course is a completely different thing to what you just quoted!

Quote

This isnt aimed at NU btw, but Id agree NU...I do like your posts and alot of the stuff you say with the science...but have you got any pics or stats on your previous level of development? There is an argument WHY that has anything to do with it, but BB \WL etc is one area where I think you get far more credibility if you really have worn the tshirt and paid your dues...especially in the world of the Interweb.

Fair play to you if you dont workout, or havent attained a somewhat higher level of conditioning, but its always good to know what the person has done thats giving the advice (No offence meant here buddy)

KP

No offence taken, KP, but for the reasons I have given in my reply to Martin above, I see no need to be goaded into saying anymore about myself than I have on previous posts on these boards over many months, including my full blood test results. I was never vain enough [or frankly interested] in entering contests or having photos taken so I have none from that era to post [and in any case, I wasn't on this diet then - I was following the same diets as are often quoted here!]. Clearly, personal successes will be passed off as a fluke in any case and many scientific studies [or even anecdotal evidence] will be passed off as dubious if minds are firmly closed to the topic under discussion. I've stated my case you can believe it or not. You can research it further or not. You can try it for yourselves or not. Am I really that bovvered?!

Quote

This is another reason why I generally dont like to yo yo by BG and Insulin levels.....but you cant have ya cake and eat it. :-)

Definitely no cake or steroids!

[kp1512]

Quote

Which of course is a completely different thing to what you just quoted!

No offence taken, KP, but for the reasons I have given in my reply to Martin above, I see no need to be goaded into saying anymore about myself than I have on previous posts on these boards over many months, including my full blood test results. I was never vain enough [or frankly interested] in entering contests or having photos taken so I have none from that era to post [and in any case, I wasn't on this diet then - I was following the same diets as are often quoted here!]. Clearly, personal successes will be passed off as a fluke in any case and many scientific studies [or even anecdotal evidence] will be passed off as dubious if minds are firmly closed to the topic under discussion. I've stated my case you can believe it or not. You can research it further or not. You can try it for yourselves or not. Am I really that bovvered?!

Definitely no cake or steroids!

Hmmm Id have to disagree that taking pictures of yourself is Vain in this context. In fact, to suggest that in the context of this board or posting about yourself, is simply wrong. Taking pictures is about measuring progress. Similar to keeping day to day workout logs, taking measurements, setting goals etc. This is all that is required if you really want tangible gains in this "sport". Pictures are the one thing that can tell you soo much about your level of development over months and years...so much more then even the measuring tape and weighing scales....How may times have you seen people in the gym doing the same old ****e, day in day out....ask if you ask them how there gaining theyll give you a scooby doo look......few of the reasons is because they havent set goals, recorded gains, etc etc

I think the aim of what was asked or said, was to post up your stats at your peak, and if you had, pictures. To me, thats not unreasonable at all.....as I am sure you understand. If you dont want to, thats fine...

KP

[NU_nutrition_TS]

As I said...I don't have any pics or stats from that period [your talking around 15 years ago now!] and posting them up would be pointless in the context of this discussion as I wasn't following a high fat/low carb diet then - quite the opposite in fact!

Oh and please don't misrepresent me...I did not say [for anyone else] that posting pictures of yourself on this board was vain, I said I was not vain enough to have pictures taken of myself [I have always hated having my picture taken]!

[MartinM]

Quote

Mmm! Martin, if someone says something works because they have direct personal experience of it [several contributors to the thread about pre-exhaust, for example] you hold up one scientific study as proof that they are all deluded and that your position that is doesn't work is true. If I quote several scientific studies to support my argument you claim it can't be taken seriously because I don't have any personal experience of it. You are one seriously conflicted fella, aren't you?

Do you actually read any of my posts before replying? It was the author of a review of the literature [studies and so forth] who said:

Which of course is a completely different thing to what you just quoted!

A shame you took offence ot my post and not Kps? I did not mean it as a 'put down' post. You are intellegent and site some good studies, some times too many 'authored posts' which contain errors....

I have read YOU make PERSONAL comments on your beliefs about high fat adaptation which echo what is said in that quote... therefore it is irrelevant whether I was refering to this particular post or not....

Because you don't train or do what you say does not take away from the credibility of your posts completely, I hope you udnerstand i'm not saying that. Its just frustrating when you say 'go zero carb' or there abouts and you can still train full bore with maximum weights in the gym. I know myself, Hail and Meat have all posted that we simply couldnt do it.

However, as I have said in a post recently, your suggest (not paractical) 'approach' might work on some trainers

The difference with the pre-exhaust thread is I have used it and training methods that equate to it. I did not quote any specific studies on the topic of pre-exhuast i dont think, I talked from experience and from a BIOLOGICAL perspective saying that there are multiple ways to achieve the goals that are far more effective.... and that i believed the reason people think the pre-exhuast was working for them was either because of the addition of a novel, isolation exercise for a muscle that may compensate for their technique flaws in the compound movement.

You are talking about diet in relation to training....which you don't do.

AGAIN! I am not saying i dont think you have the right to comment on it because CLEARLY you do. My initial post was more for the benefit of questioning those dubious statements.

[Gareth83]

But speaking from first hand experience Mart, I don't think yourself, James or HTK have actually adopted a high fat, moderate protein diet over a period of longer than 4 weeks without any carb-ups.

So it's hard to say you have first hand experience as such

NU posts some very good points and I'm sure the approach of high fat, moderate protein diets would have equal results to any other diet in the longer term providing one thing. They are iso-calorific.

However NU's arguments are there will be less fat storage on a paleo type diet as compared to carb based diets. Which as we are all aware is probably true from first hand experience of people using carb cycling.

Whether he trains or not doesn't really affect his credibility as such. Not saying that's what you said.

[NU_nutrition_TS]

Well thank you for clearing that up Martin. However, you are still putting words into my mouth that I have not uttered! I have never advised anyone to consume ZERO carbs. I have said quite clearly - in numerous posts - that I DO NOT consume ZERO carbs and that attempting to do so is nigh on impossible. That is being too simplistic with regard to macronutrients. Most whole foods are a combination of two or more macros in varying ratios, aren't they? It would be impossible to eat a balanced diet and have ZERO carbs!

What I have quoted is the often reported [in studies] caveat that there is no requirement in the diet of human beings for carbohydrates. That is a completely different thing.

The *******ized low carb diets that bodybuilders follow [TKD, anabolic diet, carb cycling or whatever - even the Atkins diet] are far more restrictive in carbs [over a short period] than I have ever said to be in the long term! A truly [clinical] ketogenic diet calls for no more than 20g of carbs a day!

I have said, again on numerous posts, that you should aim to keep daily carbs permanently below 100g and preferably between 60g and 80g. I class this as low but not ZERO!

Also, there are plenty of personal photos of Art De Vaney, who practices a similar diet to mine, who is seventy and still weight trains and is involved in athletic pursuits...if you want photographic proof that people can eat and train this way and have a good physique. Or there's Greg Ellis...the same!

[MartinM]

Quote

Well thank you for clearing that up Martin. However, you are still putting words into my mouth that I have not uttered! I have never advised anyone to consume ZERO carbs. I have said quite clearly - in numerous posts - that I DO NOT consume ZERO carbs and that attempting to do so is nigh on impossible. That is being too simplistic with regard to macronutrients. Most whole foods are a combination of two or more macros in varying ratios, aren't they? It would be impossible to eat a balanced diet and have ZERO carbs!

What I have quoted is the often reported [in studies] caveat that there is no requirement in the diet of human beings for carbohydrates. That is a completely different thing.

The *******ized low carb diets that bodybuilders follow [TKD, anablic diet, carb cycling or whatever - even the Atkins diet] are far more restrictive in carbs than I have ever said to be! A truly [clinical] ketogenic diet calls for no more than 20g of carbs a day!

I have said, again on numerous posts, that you should aim to keep daily carbs permanently below 100g and preferably between 60g and 80g. I class this as low but not ZERO!

I class 60g as pretty much zero/no carb days. As you say it is nigh on impossible to get 0g carbs. So my comments still stand. 60g of carbs can just come from consuming only an averagel amount of veg and nuts/seeds. therefore consuming NO 'proper' carb sources.

Try not to get so defensive, stress raises cortisol don't you know... although consuming some carbs would reduce this

Gareth - you're missing several points. most of all i'm saying you dont need to be on it for 4 weeks to have these adaptations. Second, when you say you are SURE that they would have the same effects.... i'm glad you are, because no-one else seems to be you could do a high frequency, high volume program with olympic lifts and sprint training and play sport on a low carb (60g/day) diet could you?

I keep saying, and i'm glad you've included this cavat... it doesnt give him no credibility, in some posts however, the less molecular biology based ones, it does have an impact

[NU_nutrition_TS]

I'm not stressed, but I am deeply confused by your comments! How can 60g be 0g? What branch of mathematics is that? 60 is not even next to zero. 1 to 59 are closer! And what are proper carb sources? You talking about refined sugar and starch? If you are getting your carbs from veg, nuts and seeds etc., those ARE proper carbs! You are making such assertions and claim my credibility is stretched?

[MartinM]

Quote

I'm not stressed! Cortisol is not a particularly bad thing...but carbs in excess are! How can 60g be 0g? And what are proper carb sources? You talking about refined sugar and starch? If you are getting your carbs from veg, nuts and seeds etc., those ARE proper carbs!

Always with the questions that are pointless as you know the answers.

Who said anything about refined sugar?

I used the term proper to make the sentence poignant. Shame you always get confused with those ones.

60g is NO carb to me as I said. Because without being completely stupid and not even eating veg its hard to get any lower than this. It is not 0g but effectively you are not getting any carbs from the WELL known carb sources for the typical population. I.e. the oats that most here eat.

edit - and now that you have edited your post, you have made your point oh so more clear