how many carbs should you eat while dieting?

[tbombz]

the difference in physiques between high fat/low card and high carb/low fat is around a single pound of difference in muscle mass over 4 months.

if you hate eating one way - who cares if that is the only difference in physiques at the end of 4 months of dieting  

studies prove this  

also you are stronger with more carbs. so carbs for the win imo.

you just said that only calories and protien matter and debate about anything else was nonsense

then you just advocated a higher carb lower fat diet


thats a conflict

[Fatpanda]

you just said that only calories and protien matter and debate about anything else was nonsense

then you just advocated a higher carb lower fat diet


thats a conflict

in terms of bodycomposition - calories and protein are all that matter.

if you class approx 1 lb of muscle mass over 4 months of dieting, while strength goes to shit worth it then stick to your high fat diet. ( hell i can't remember the exact ammount of muscle, it may not even be a pound)

personally i'd take the pound less of muscle, to keep more strength, have more energy, and enjoy my daily meals more.

[wavelength]

on paper... zero fat high carb and zero carb high fat...both work pretty much evenly..
however in the real world zero carb gets faster fat loss....zero fat keeps muscles fuller...

But you could adjust your total intake on a low fat diet (always need some EFAs) to the same rate of weight loss than on a low carb diet. Body composition in the end should be roughly the same. It's a convenience factor on which diet you can maintain a certain rate of weight loss easier.

I agree that keto diets would have to be examined separately, since they represent an extreme. For me they didn't work simply because I can't maintain strength in the gym. In this case I agree that there is a strong dependence on genetics.

also on paper .... al those supplements you say are worthless... well there are tons of papers, peer reviewed studies and such, t prove that alot of those supplements are actually benefical.     but in the real world most of the time the benefits turn out to be too small to even be noticeable.

watch your mouth or you'll never get a supp contract

[G o a t b o y]

you just said that only calories and protien matter and debate about anything else was nonsense

then you just advocated a higher carb lower fat diet


thats a conflict

He didn't contradict himself at all.  BIG PICTURE, the only thing that matters in fat loss/body composition is calories and protein.  That doesn't mean that one method might not be 2% more effective than the other (assuming you can stick with it), but big picture you'll get esentially the same results either way, so doing a diet you can stick with and not feel like total shit all the time is probably the way to go.

[tbombz]

in terms of bodycomposition - calories and protein are all that matter.

if you class approx 1 lb of muscle mass over 4 months of dieting, while strength goes to shit worth it then stick to your high fat diet. ( hell i can't remember the exact ammount of muscle, it may not even be a pound)

personally i'd take the pound less of muscle, to keep more strength, have more energy, and enjoy my daily meals more.

are you implying a high fat zero carb diet will keep more muscle, but a high carb diet with low fat will keep more strength?

[Fatpanda]

But you could adjust your total intake on a low fat diet (always need some EFAs) to the same rate of weight loss than on a low carb diet. Body composition in the end should be roughly the same.   It's a convenience factor on which diet you can maintain a certain rate of weight loss easier.

I agree that keto diets would have to be examined separately, since they represent an extreme. For me they didn't work simply because I can't maintain strength in the gym. In this case I agree that there is a strong dependence on genetics.

watch your mouth or you'll never get a supp contract

exactly

[calfzilla]

in terms of bodycomposition - calories and protein are all that matter.

if you class approx 1 lb of muscle mass over 4 months of dieting, while strength goes to shit worth it then stick to your high fat diet. ( hell i can't remember the exact ammount of muscle, it may not even be a pound)

personally i'd take the pound less of muscle, to keep more strength, have more energy, and enjoy my daily meals more.

I have seen your pics, I think you enjoy your daily meals enough as it is.  



   Sorry FP, couldn't resist.  I'm a fat fuck too.  

[Fatpanda]

are you implying a high fat zero carb diet will keep more muscle, but a high carb diet with low fat will keep more strength?

i'm not implying - i'm stating the facts science backs.

if you don't believe me do a pubmed search for metabolic ward studies.

[tbombz]

watch your mouth or you'll never get a supp contract

some of them do work very well though!!!!!!!!!!!!    

[Fatpanda]

I have seen your pics, I think you enjoy your daily meals enough as it is.  



   Sorry FP, couldn't resist.  I'm a fat fuck too.  

 

[tbombz]

i'm not implying - i'm stating the facts science backs.

if you don't believe me do a pubmed search for metabolic ward studies.

well i recall things like what your saying... however those are done on regular people...not working out, not with high protein intake, and not with drugs.

as we both know, this discussion is on people who workout intensly and seriously, intake sufficient protien, and are also on drugs.


muscle loss isnt going to happen on any diet, regardless of carb or fat intake, if there is sufficient protein for the total calories consumed. (less calories needs more protein)

[Go 4 It]

I noticed keto works if you up the fats alot...almost like Atkins style..like a ratio of 60% protein 40% fat trace carbs. Did this energy was good, strength was good, looked leaner, and fuller.

[lovemonkey]

insulin is released in response to all carbs (except veggies). even so caqlled "good carbs" like oatmeal, brown ricee, whole wheat bread, sweet potatoe...etc.   they all still make your body release insulin.

when insulin is present in the body at levels above what is normal, your body doesnt burn fat.

BUT the amount of time insulin is released in response to a meal is nto that long. so eating carbs doesnt mean your body doesnt burn fat, because eatign carbs doesnt mean insulin is raised all day.


high glycemic, faster digesting carbs would be superior to slower digesting carbs when dieting, beause the faster a carb digests, the higher it gets insulin, the quicker the carbs are stuffed into muscle, and the faster insulin levels fall back down to a level where fat loss is possible. not only that, but fast carbs cause such a high raise in insulin, the it causes a touch of hypoglycemia....which means you get a consequential big fall in insulin, down below what is normally ..which causes a a big gh release and lots of fat loss.

That's what I suggested; it would be better to ingest low GI carbs because then you keep your insulin levels low. It's true that a certain amount of carbs requires a certain amount of insulin generally in order to be absorbed, but what we want here is long time low insulin levels which we achieve with low GI. Not that I think it matters very much anyway, in the end it mostly boils down to overall caloric intake anyhow so...

[tbombz]

That's what I suggested; it would be better to ingest low GI carbs because then you keep your insulin levels low. It's true that a certain amount of carbs requires a certain amount of insulin generally in order to be absorbed, but what we want here is long time low insulin levels which we achieve with low GI. Not that I think it matters very much anyway, in the end it mostly boils down to overall caloric intake anyhow so...

no, im saying the opposite. high gi carbs are best for dieting. read the post again.

[G o a t b o y]

muscle loss isnt going to happen on any diet, regardless of carb or fat intake, if there is sufficient protein for the total calories consumed. (less calories needs more protein)

Muscle loss happens on every hypocaloric diet, you homo.  The best you can hope for is to minimize the muscle loss to fat loss ratio.  Even on gear (which give you a huge advantage in maintaining muscle while dieting) you'll still lose a little.

You should really stop trying to give advice around here.

[Fatpanda]

well i recall things like what your saying... however those are done on regular people...not working out, not with high protein intake, and not with drugs.

as we both know, this discussion is on people who workout intensly and seriously, intake sufficient protien, and are also on drugs.


muscle loss isnt going to happen on any diet, regardless of carb or fat intake, if there is sufficient protein for the total calories consumed. (less calories needs more protein)

tell that to luke wood  

seriously though, this is where we disagree strongly - i.e. how studies on regular people can be applied to gear takers.

i accept most studies are 100% applicable to gear users - only gear users generally get more benefit if its fat loss/muscle loss/gain etc/strength etc. ( obviously not so much the health factors)

i know you feel somewhat differently and take most/some things with a pinch of salt if its not done on gear users.

[tbombz]

Muscle loss happens on every hypocaloric diet, you homo.  The best you can hope for is to minimize the muscle loss to fat loss ratio.  Even on gear (which give you a huge advantage in maintaining muscle while dieting) you'll still lose a little.

You should really stop trying to give advice around here.

thats not true at all.


there is no link between lipolysis and protein synthesis which would dictate that muscle loss is inevitable.

even a true natural doesnt have to lose muscle on a diet.

with high protien intake, there is no way the body will eat into muscle tissue for energy...because any time your body goes catabolic and starts using the process of gluconeogensis to produce glucose from amino acids.... you will have a bunch of protein available from food youve eaten for your bod to use instead of using muscle tissue

[G o a t b o y]

with high protien intake, there is no way the body will eat into muscle tissue for energy...because any time your body goes catabolic and starts using the process of gluconeogensis to produce glucose from amino acids.... you will have a bunch of protein available from food youve eaten for your bod to use instead of using muscle tissue

A hypocaloric diet, by definition, contains fewer calories than the body needs for daily energy requirements.  Even if it's 100% protein, when it runs out (and it will, otherwise you're not hypocaloric), it needs to turn to body tissues (fat & muscle) for its needs.  Some of the shortfall will be made up by burning fat, and some will be made up by striping amino acids from muscle to convert to glucose.  Obviously, the "best" diet is the one that pushes the body to burn more fat and less muscle, but there's no way to get 100% fat loss, 0% muscle loss. The body doesn't work that way.

[lovemonkey]

no, im saying the opposite. high gi carbs are best for dieting. read the post again.

My response was directed at the first part of your post.

[tbombz]

A hypocaloric diet, by definition, contains fewer calories than the body needs for daily energy requirements.  Even if it's 100% protein, when it runs out (and it will, otherwise you're not hypocaloric), it needs to turn to body tissues (fat & muscle) for its needs.  Some of the shortfall will be made up by burning fat, and some will be made up by striping amino acids from muscle to convert to glucose.  Obviously, the "best" diet is the one that pushes the body to burn more fat and less muscle, but there's no way to get 100% fat loss, 0% muscle loss. The body doesn't work that way.

your looking at it totally wrong.

the body right now is using up energy. it comes from glycogen and fat.

to lose fat, consume less carbs and fat than what it will use.

when no food energy is available (carbs or fats) the body starts dipping into fat stores, and also starts to convert amino acids to glucose. the body converts amino cids to glucose very slowly, and also doesnt need very much at all, since when you are in an energy defecit, insulin levels are very low, and the body is then depending onfat for about 80% of its energy needs.

the prrotein you eat is barely knicked at all by glucoenogensis.

[lovemonkey]

your looking at it totally wrong.

the body right now is using up energy. it comes from glycogen and fat.

to lose fat, consume less carbs and fat than what it will use.

when no food energy is available (carbs or fats) the body starts dipping into fat stores, and also starts to convert amino acids to glucose. the body converts amino cids to glucose very slowly, and also doesnt need very much at all, since when you are in an energy defecit, insulin levels are very low, and the body is then depending onfat for about 80% of its energy needs.

the prrotein you eat is barely knicked at all by glucoenogensis.

Partially true, there's also a glucose reserve in the liver.

[tbombz]

Partially true, there's also a glucose reserve in the liver.

maybe. could also be fructose though,m depending on what youve eaten. fructose would be unable to give any usable energy to muscle

[Bobby]

i don't believe you have to lose muscle to burn fat.

[lovemonkey]

Why do you people care if you lose a pound of muscle or not? It's quite obvious from all the transformation/diet progress pics that you look way more muscular with lower bodyfat anyhow. You have to royally fuck up your diet to lose too much muscle. You're discussing minuscule differences in diet here which in the end doesn't change the outcome a diddly squat.

[Stormspirit]

ive lost a good amount of muscle but i don't care.