I heard this discussion on a podcast with the guy that wrote the Primal Blueprint diet Mark Sisson, he was saying most elite athletes aren't willing to experiment with it due to the fact they have so much at stake if their performance decreases, most of these athletes have gotten to a high level with whatever nutritional protocol they have been using, it's very hard for someone to scrap their current nutritional program and try something completely different, especially with big money at stake, he also said it could be months until they start seeing the real benefits. I get what he was saying. Its a big gamble, for these athletes so theres not much data out there. For me I was doing a local show, for no prize money, it's not the end of the world if I don't get the best results and don't win my show, not much at stake here, especially because I compete for fun, also I'm interested in trying different nutritional tactics and seeing how I react to them, for me it worked and I won my show, but I'm not an elite athlete, and men's physique is definitely not an endurance sport so who knows..
mark dreamed up a bunch of "reasons" -- it's easy to do when you have protein powders to sell. how about this one: "elite athletes have all the money in the world behind them so they can hire the smartest trainers who have been able to develop the best training programs after experimenting on countless lower-level athletes."
makes sense, huh?
anyway, nothing against you, just can't stand that guy. actually i think it's cool that you made the switch and are willing to give advice. if peak power is really affected, then lifting should be affected as well. have you noticed any difference in performance? especially as the week goes on and (presumably) your glycogen levels are nearly finished? (i think you eat carbs one day a week, iirc)
oddly i've heard several anecdotes from forumers, saying no difference in performance, despite virtually every "scientific" source i've read saying this shouldn't be possible.
