Bulking diet with limited/no carbs - Good Idea?

[RDFinders]

The test I had done was as follows, I am sorry I do not remember the name...

I was told not to eat for the whole day before I came to the clinic. When I arrived I was given a thick sugary nectar to drink. After I drank it I was pricked with a needle and they tested my sugar. This went on for 6 hours. Following this they informed me the results. They said it was autoimmune, I believe.

sounds like they were trying to do a glucose tolerance test, but they should have done blood draws from your vein and not finger sticks for a more precise reading. so if you were >200 mg/dL by 2 hours, not a good sign, esp if it didn't come down to normal reading by hour 4.

[Frosty]

with endurance athletes, increasing carb intake does not decrease their need for protein. what are you basing that on? their recover demands more nutrients than bodybuilding. as far as damage and type of training, that doesn't necessarily mean more protein is needed. weight training does not increase needs that greatly to warrant 1-2 grams per pound of body weight. low rep training modility will produce different results than higher rep or endurance training. when re-feeding the body after training is the discussion not training modilities. i used the endurance athlete to illustrate higher demand for nutrients - period, but bbers always think they are superior in their endeavors. weight lifting does not stress the body to great lengths to require large amounts of protein for nitrogen retention or produce growth.

Yes endurance training puts a lot more strain on many systems in the body and requires more nutrients to make up for it. No disagreement there, and I agree often you find BBers using advice for endurance athletes and taking in ridiculous PWO carbs because of it not realizing weight training requires a huge amount less of carbs. I've often lamented about this.

As far as more carb requiring less protein...if you up the carbs less protein will be used for energy, same as if you upped the fats in a low carb diet you can eat less protein.

The thing is the scientific data on this is confusing....we're seeing info that people that lift weights are actually more efficient at using protein and some are saying athletes need LESS protein because of this. But where are the studies that show highly conditioned athletes and 1g/lb compared to 2g/lb in terms of hypertrophy, recovery, etc using a low carb diet? The answers aren't out there in terms of researchers so the answer is to look for highly qualified coaches that keep excellent records and hear what they have to say as to what produces results. Poliquin is highly qualified and is known to produce results and keeps meticulous records of his clients and what he has them do. So if he says that 2g/lb is better than 1 or 1.5g/lb to gain weight on a low carb diet, that is something I will tend to listen to more than trying to interpolate inadequate research.

[RDFinders]

Yes endurance training puts a lot more strain on many systems in the body and requires more nutrients to make up for it. No disagreement there, and I agree often you find BBers using advice for endurance athletes and taking in ridiculous PWO carbs because of it not realizing weight training requires a huge amount less of carbs. I've often lamented about this.

As far as more carb requiring less protein...if you up the carbs less protein will be used for energy, same as if you upped the fats in a low carb diet you can eat less protein.

The thing is the scientific data on this is confusing....we're seeing info that people that lift weights are actually more efficient at using protein and some are saying athletes need LESS protein because of this. But where are the studies that show highly conditioned athletes and 1g/lb compared to 2g/lb in terms of hypertrophy, recovery, etc using a low carb diet? The answers aren't out there in terms of researchers so the answer is to look for highly qualified coaches that keep excellent records and hear what they have to say as to what produces results. Poliquin is highly qualified and is known to produce results and keeps meticulous records of his clients and what he has them do. So if he says that 2g/lb is better than 1 or 1.5g/lb to gain weight on a low carb diet, that is something I will tend to listen to more than trying to interpolate inadequate research.

carbing up does not decrease protein requirements..period. your explaination makes no sense. as glucose is not used to support amino acid function. while all other macronutrients can be used to support glucose needs. hmmmm.

on the research - no one is interested in what bodybuilders do, so to see well written and well designed studies (with greater than 100 bbers, who are not on steroids) are not going to happen. low carb diets being supplemented with high protein is not going to fill out muscles. the proteins are not going to be converted to glycogen and stored in muscles.

as far as poliquin - that's not research, just what he does with his clients. and using all that protein, just to have some of it turned into glucose for energy is not an efficient means of using a pricey food item. so stick with whomever he is. gluconeogenesis is not effecient in using protein for energy. the body can do it, but doesn't mean it translates into the same energy production and uses the substrates, etc in biochemical processes that carbs do. and carbs are designed just for that - fuel for our muscles.

we can debate this all day. you have your philosophy and it will change when the new trend starts to follow. that happens. and people will be back on the bandwagon with carbs like i said earlier. producing them is more environmentally friendly, in recessionary/depressed economic times they feed more people and our bodies were designed to consume them. the amount is always the subject to debate, not excluding them is the key.

[RDFinders]

carbing up does not decrease protein requirements..period. your explaination makes no sense. as glucose is not used to support amino acid function. while all other macronutrients can be used to support glucose needs. low carb diets being supplemented with high protein is not going to fill out muscles. the proteins are not going to be converted to glycogen and stored in muscles. our bodies need carbs.

on the research end - no one is interested in what bodybuilders do, so to see well written and well designed studies (with greater than 100 bbers, who are not on steroids) are not going to happen. when you understand research design and statistics, you have a great appreciation of how studies are conducted and really understand the results. if a study is poorly designed, it doesn't matter what the outcomes were, the chance of them really happening in the general public or the results being used in a meaningful way is useless.

as far as poliquin - that's not research, just what he does with his clients. and using all that protein, just to have some of it turned into glucose for energy is not an efficient means of using a pricey food item. so stick with whomever he is, it clear you really don't have a true background in the studies of nutrition or you would have your own professional opinion and not piggyback on what someone else said without truly understanding their so-called "rationale" and it stacks up to the biological processes of the body. gluconeogenesis is not effecient in using protein for energy. the body can do it, but doesn't mean it translates into the same energy production and uses the substrates, produces other end products, etc in biochemical processes that carbs do. and carbs are designed just for that - fuel for our muscles.

we can debate this all day. you have your philosophy and it will change when the new trend starts to follow. that happens. and people will be back on the bandwagon with carbs like i said earlier. producing them is more environmentally friendly, in recessionary/depressed economic times they feed more people and our bodies were designed to consume them. the amount is always the subject to debate, not excluding them is the key.

[Frosty]

Fine you win.

[ygbodybuilder10]

i'd say you'll need carbs to put on any noticeable size, even palumbo suggests this.

link for proof

[militantmuscle]

Great posts, RD!

[carob999]

There are nonessential amino acids that are produced indogenously from sources other than dietary protein. Also don't confuse blood glucose for dietary glucose , blood glucose is essential dietary sugar is not.Protein CAN be converted to glucose via gluconeogenesis but here's the good part so can fat ( research the citric acid cycle and the TCA cycle). Also glycogen is not the only source of fuel for working muscle. IMTG's are stored in the muscle, like glycogen, and even when on a "carb" diet are used to fuel your workouts ( up to 60%). Your body at rest uses up to 90% . Yes ,there is a lot of confusion but facts are facts.

[Shawn Bellon]

link for proof

It is true. In the offseason Dave has limited carbs like 30 grams per meal listed in a diet thats been posted.

That guy posting though needs to just eat clean and train. No reason for him to just gain fat. He already looks like he has a belly which is probably why diabetes was mentioned.

[carob999]

Dave says protein and EFA's are required for muscle growth. Carbs are added in the offseason to spare proteins and fats to allow them to be used for growth. He does not say carbs are required for growth.

[freak]

link for proof

you've obviously never taken a look at dave's off-season diet

[militantmuscle]

Take home lesson: Carbs are necessary for maximum growth.

If you are a diabetic, you will have to gauge how much carbs you can eat based on how much insulin you take.

[carob999]

So, I want my money back !!!!!! Dave's wrong you guys are right CARBS ARE REQUIRED !!!!!

[RDFinders]

There are nonessential amino acids that are produced indogenously from sources other than dietary protein. Also don't confuse blood glucose for dietary glucose , blood glucose is essential dietary sugar is not.Protein CAN be converted to glucose via gluconeogenesis but here's the good part so can fat ( research the citric acid cycle and the TCA cycle). Also glycogen is not the only source of fuel for working muscle. IMTG's are stored in the muscle, like glycogen, and even when on a "carb" diet are used to fuel your workouts ( up to 60%). Your body at rest uses up to 90% . Yes ,there is a lot of confusion but facts are facts.

great point on the intramuscular triacylglycerols. but wouldn't you say they make a larger percentage in persons who train for endurance rather than for muscle hypertrophy? these IMTGs allow for glycogen to be spared as an energy source (hence the saying fats being burned in a carbohydrate flame). so when fat is the primary fuel source for energy expenditure due to endurance type training, these IMGTs really kick in and spare glycogen stores (to prevent hypoglycemia and glycogen depletion). so for a bodybuilder, this doesn't become important until contest prep when cardio is on board.

[th_vai]

great point on the intramuscular triacylglycerols. but wouldn't you say they make a larger percentage in persons who train for endurance rather than for muscle hypertrophy? these IMTGs allow for glycogen to be spared as an energy source (hence the saying fats being burned in a carbohydrate flame). so when fat is the primary fuel source for energy expenditure due to endurance type training, these IMGTs really kick in and spare glycogen stores (to prevent hypoglycemia and glycogen depletion). so for a bodybuilder, this doesn't become important until contest prep when cardio is on board.

RD so what would be a proper protein intake to conserve lean muscle?