Posted: 6/20/2010 11:39:02 PM EDT
|
It is impossible to promote protein synthesis without the existence of Insulin, and which means without carbohydrates, it is impossible to add muscle mass.
Found on Wikipedia. Is this saying what I think it's saying? That there is no way to add muscle mass without carbs. I find this hard to believe as I have limited myself to 10 or less grams of carb per day for the last 12 months and feel that I have added considerable mass. I know that most of the definition I'm showing now can't just be from cutting. |
| Well the body needs fuel to build the muscle so that has to come from somewhere. The body would prefer to burn fat and carbs for fuel but the body being as amazing as it is has ways of turning protein into energy through another cycle(s). But yea I don't agree with such low carb intake as it's much easier to use for energy than protein. |
|
Quoted:
Well the body needs fuel to build the muscle so that has to come from somewhere. The body would prefer to burn fat and carbs for fuel but the body being as amazing as it is has ways of turning protein into energy through another cycle(s). But yea I don't agree with such low carb intake as it's much easier to use for energy than protein. I don't really limit fat so I'm pretty sure that's my body's primary fuel. With that said I've lost over 80 lbs in ketosis while putting on a lot of muscle weight. |
|
Weight-loss still comes down to calories in vs out. Even if fats make up your primary fuel what kinds of fats are you eating? The down side to ketosis diets is that they can be high in all sorts of fats, even then we don't know what a lot of healthy fats will do to the general population over long periods. Plus, the high intake of protein puts extra work on the kidneys.
EDIT: spelling |
|
Quoted: Weight-loss still comes down to calories in vs out. Even if fats make up your primary fuel what kinds of fats are you eating? The down side to ketosis diets is that they can be high in all sorts of fats, even then we don't know what a lot of healthy fats will do to the general population over long periods. Plus, the high intake of protein puts extra work on the kidneys. EDIT: spelling 1. No, it's more complicated than that. Carbs also get insulin involved which slows fat loss....so in vs out is a simple rule to live by, it's not the end all be all truth. 2. We do know what high healthy fats do- look at the many cultures around the world that eat high fat and you can see easily 3. true about high protein |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Weight-loss still comes down to calories in vs out. Even if fats make up your primary fuel what kinds of fats are you eating? The down side to ketosis diets is that they can be high in all sorts of fats, even then we don't know what a lot of healthy fats will do to the general population over long periods. Plus, the high intake of protein puts extra work on the kidneys. EDIT: spelling 1. No, it's more complicated than that. Carbs also get insulin involved which slows fat loss....so in vs out is a simple rule to live by, it's not the end all be all truth. 2. We do know what high healthy fats do- look at the many cultures around the world that eat high fat and you can see easily 3. true about high protein To losing weight in vs out is the end truth. Carbs may slow fat used for energy to a degree but if the body needs energy it will get it and (in simple terms) you also need some carbs to get the ball rolling. If there was no energy production in the body, you'd be dead. Anybody who ate only carbs, only fat, or only protein but the calories were less than what they burned would lose weight. The how is where it differs and to what health consequences of doing so. I've also done it cutting some extra weight leading up to competition, eating largely carbs but maintaining an energy deficit. Besides the Inuits who live in the extreme northern climates I can't think of any other populations that survive on very high fat intakes. Particularly, the foods they do eat are not nearly the same as we would in the US or in other countries. Going high protein and high fat here is very different unless you're getting almost entirely organic/free range/wild food. They haven't proven to live any longer than most of the world. |
|
False. Your body will even use amino acids from your muscles if it needs to in order to repair. Sounds like a paradox, but your body jumps to protein consumption much earlier than you think. When it comes to energy consumption, your body has many options available for survival. If you have enough energy to facilitate repair of your muscles (which is essentially what mass building is), it will happen provided that you also have the aminos on hand. Why you would cut your carb intake so low unless you were cutting, though, is beyond me. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Weight-loss still comes down to calories in vs out. Even if fats make up your primary fuel what kinds of fats are you eating? The down side to ketosis diets is that they can be high in all sorts of fats, even then we don't know what a lot of healthy fats will do to the general population over long periods. Plus, the high intake of protein puts extra work on the kidneys. EDIT: spelling 1. No, it's more complicated than that. Carbs also get insulin involved which slows fat loss....so in vs out is a simple rule to live by, it's not the end all be all truth. 2. We do know what high healthy fats do- look at the many cultures around the world that eat high fat and you can see easily 3. true about high protein To losing weight in vs out is the end truth. Carbs may slow fat used for energy to a degree but if the body needs energy it will get it and (in simple terms) you also need some carbs to get the ball rolling. If there was no energy production in the body, you'd be dead. Anybody who ate only carbs, only fat, or only protein but the calories were less than what they burned would lose weight. The how is where it differs and to what health consequences of doing so. I've also done it cutting some extra weight leading up to competition, eating largely carbs but maintaining an energy deficit. Besides the Inuits who live in the extreme northern climates I can't think of any other populations that survive on very high fat intakes. Particularly, the foods they do eat are not nearly the same as we would in the US or in other countries. Going high protein and high fat here is very different unless you're getting almost entirely organic/free range/wild food. They haven't proven to live any longer than most of the world. Spiking insulin caused by sugar intake causes your body to store fat...thus making losing weight harder, so even if in a slight calorie deficit you may still not lose weight. Conversely, limiting sugar while in a slight deficit OR even a slight surplus will help to lose the weight. I'm not advocating going on a carbless diet..only limiting carbs to veggies and some fruit. |
|
Quoted:
False. Your body will even use amino acids from your muscles if it needs to in order to repair. Sounds like a paradox, but your body jumps to protein consumption much earlier than you think. When it comes to energy consumption, your body has many options available for survival. If you have enough energy to facilitate repair of your muscles (which is essentially what mass building is), it will happen provided that you also have the aminos on hand. Why you would cut your carb intake so low unless you were cutting, though, is beyond me. I am cutting. 6 months ago I was a certified fat ass. I had gotten so out of shape it was embarrasing. I don't plan on sticking with this diet forever but I still need to lose another 30 lbs or so of fat. Once I get to that point I'll shake the diet up and start taking in more carbs. |