Muscle Glycogen and Growth

<div>
(bluejacket @ Mar. 20 2008,18:38)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Martin Levac @ Mar. 19 2008,20:24)
QUOTE
I thought I could cut by reducing the amount of food I was eating. So that's exactly what I did. After all, that's what everybody was telling me. Would you believe I was eating as little as 600 calories a day and training as much as 90 minutes a day and still I wasn't losing any weight? Any weight, not muscle, not fat, nada. Maybe something was wrong? You bet. But not what you think.
<div>
(Martin Levac @ Mar. 20 2008,17:32)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">

I did not say if I lost or gained muscle. That's an assumption on your part. There is no room for much protein or any other nutrient for that matter. Follow the logic and I did not have enough protein to maintain muscle mass, let alone gain any. Therefore, your assumption is incorrect at best. I lost lean mass if anything. And gained fat if anything.</div>
does that help a little?
see the part in the 1st quote where you say &quot;i didnt lose any wgt, no muscle, no fat etc etc.&quot;

then the 2nd qoute where you get all indignant &quot;i did not say if i lost or gained muscle........your assumption is incorrect!&quot;

hmmmm

i cant really blame you though, if i was in your shoes i would try my best to be as forgetful and obtuse as i could.</div>
Now it's clear what you were referring to.

It appears as though I did specify what I lost (or didn't lose as it were) which means you were not making an assumption. Correction noted. It changes little in the way of conclusions, if any, that can be drawn from my statements however:

Correction in brackets

&quot;[I did not say if I lost or gained muscle. That's an assumption on your part.] There is no room for much protein or any other nutrient for that matter. Follow the logic and I did not have enough protein to maintain muscle mass, let alone gain any. [Therefore, your assumption is incorrect at best.] I lost lean mass if anything. And gained fat if anything.&quot;

The relevant comments remain intact

&quot;There is no room for much protein or any other nutrient for that matter. Follow the logic and I did not have enough protein to maintain muscle mass, let alone gain any. I lost lean mass if anything. And gained fat if anything.&quot;

Which still agrees to a certain extent with the previous statement

&quot;I thought I could cut by reducing the amount of food I was eating. So that's exactly what I did. After all, that's what everybody was telling me. Would you believe I was eating as little as 600 calories a day and training as much as 90 minutes a day and still I wasn't losing any weight? Any weight, not muscle, not fat, nada. Maybe something was wrong? You bet. But not what you think.&quot;


Do you know what we call what you just did? Looking for inconsistencies. Do you know why we do this? To discredit the character. Do you know for what purpose we do this? To summarily dismiss everything else the person said. And do you know why we do all this? Because we fail at making valid arguments ourselves.

Did you fail at making valid arguments yourself, Bluejacket? I think so. Now you're just pulling at straws.
 
At least I got some idea of the difference from amino acid storage and glycogen storage, from within this rather unfriendly thread.  
sad.gif
 The body is smart so when the stores are full, it changes the storage method.

When liver and muscle are fed with glycogen, insulin sensitivity drops and there is neolipogenesis that reformats glucose into glycerol to be stored in fat cells. Glucose oxidation are speeded up and fat is stored (as Aaron put it: High carbohydrates raise insulin, blocks HSL and icnreases LPL causing a net positive lipid balance into the fat cell). The stored glycogen in the liver serves as the main fuel source for the brain and red blood cells.*

For proteins there is a slightly different story. The amino acid stores are filled up until saturated, then insulin sensitivity should drop also. Protein oxidation speeds up, but so does the protein synthesis also. If glycogen stores in the liver are becoming empty and there is no glucose for fueling the brain and red blood cells, gluconeogenesis uses fat and amino acids in the liver to make new glucose. Fat will be the major fuel.

But if both glucose and protein are present in the blood it might be that the cell insulin sensitivity drops before the amino acid store have been filled because the glycogen stores are already filled. Fat is stored and glucose made available from the liver will be the major fuel until stores are becoming depleted.

If we eat fat it is stored (as Aaron put it: High fat raise ASP, blocks HSL, stimulates LPL and causes a net positive lipid balance into the fat cell). From what I have read when chylomicrons appear into circulation it takes 10-15 minutes for them to be stripped of their cargo by LPL (storage of free fatty acids into fat cells and muscle) and phospholipid transfer protein, PLTP (transfer of lipids to HDL). The fat stored inside muscles is used as fuel. Because no other sources of fuel are available, fat becomes the major fuel source.*

*Usually in the cell 60-70% of the energy comes from fat, of which a large amount has been remodeled by neolipogenesis in the liver.
Source: Prof. B. Angelin, Center for metabolism and endocrinology, Karolinska University Hospital, Sweden, and Prof. O. Wiklund, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Sweden.

The winner was protein as fat can be still be used for fuel and protein syntesis can still be propelled. Adding fat to the protein is also a good bet, since it will be used as fuel if there is no other fuels available. However, eating very little fat will accelerate the fat burning. As the study Nutritional regulation of the insulin-like growth factors by Thissen et al points out, protein is important for IGF-I levels, but the total calorie intake is the most important factor to keep IGF-I levels up.

Now, I'll go grab something to eat - all this has made me hungry!  
tounge.gif
 
<div>
(Totentanz @ Mar. 20 2008,17:09)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">...
The only thing I'd be worried about is some poor guy reading all this and trying it out, then getting hugely fat.</div>
The fear of getting fat by eating fat is unfounded. At least, if you go with the carbs/insulin theory. If you go with the eat more/eat less theory, then it's entirely real in our eyes since there's more calories in fat (9/g versus 4/g). A practical comparison below of both theories. I must first establish certain terms to make sure we all agree on what's what.

Grow heavier: To gain weight independently of body composition. Implies the opposite: Grow lighter.
Grow fatter: To gain fat and inevitably weight but mostly it's a change in body composition. Implies the opposite: Grow leaner.

We can make combinations and apply them as we see fit. Let's begin with the conventional wisdom of eating more to grow and eating less to cut. The logic is as follows:

if eat more = grow heavier
then eat less = grow lighter

Here we can put additional arguments in the same form if=then but it gets complicated real quick especially since we have to explain how we stimulate growth of lean muscle tissue by lifting objects. Suffice to say, lifting weights is a given to grow muscle.


Now the carbs/insulin theory. The logic is as follows:

if overeating = grow heavier
andif eating carbs = grow fatter
then overeating carbs = grow heavier and fatter

conversely

if overeating = grow heavier
andif not eating carbs = grow leaner
then overeating and not eating carbs = grow heavier and leaner

In the carbs/insulin theory, there is no need to include lifting data. It already includes a way to gain lean mass and to shed fat mass. We should note that lifting objects means we flex our muscles and they become more sensitive to insulin and allows insulin to do its job more easily of pushing amino acids in there. Therefore, lifting objects will accelerate the rate at which this transformation (from fat to lean and from weak to strong) takes place. This is good for both theories.


Granted, the carbs/insulin theory must be accepted first. That's the difficult part. We must first take care of our fear of growing fat by eating fat or that we won't die of heart disease. Not such an easy task. Then we must accept that eating no carbs will give us enough energy to do a full workout. That's not easy either because it takes a little while to get used to burning fat for energy so we get a little tired in the interim. But once our metabolism gets back to normal, there's plenty of energy to lift anything we want. At least, anything we were able to lift before we cut carbs.

The conventional method is perhaps easier to choose. We know that we'll get fat as we overeat. But we know we'll get lean when we cut so it's alright to grow fat in that case. That's just the way most of us bulk anyway. It's the classic bulk/cut cycle. We now how it works because it's the most common. So perhaps it's easier to choose for that reason. But, and here's the big but, it doesn't work for everybody and not at the same rate. Sure, we can put that on our individual genetic makeup. It's an easy cop-out. It still doesn't explain why some of us grow faster than others and why some just don't grow lean muscle mass at all but instead just grow fatter and fatter. If you think you could put the blame on eating fats, try not eating fats and see how hungry you'll get. Then, try not to empty the fridge.


We have a choice of method. It's up to each of us to figure it out from here.
 
<div>
(nkl @ Mar. 20 2008,20:00)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">At least I got some idea of the difference from amino acid storage and glycogen storage, from within this rather unfriendly thread.
sad.gif
The body is smart so when the stores are full, it changes the storage method.

When liver and muscle are fed with glycogen, insulin sensitivity drops and there is neolipogenesis that reformats glucose into glycerol to be stored in fat cells. Glucose oxidation are speeded up and fat is stored (as Aaron put it: High carbohydrates raise insulin, blocks HSL and icnreases LPL causing a net positive lipid balance into the fat cell). The stored glycogen in the liver serves as the main fuel source for the brain and red blood cells.*

For proteins there is a slightly different story. The amino acid stores are filled up until saturated, then insulin sensitivity should drop also. Protein oxidation speeds up, but so does the protein synthesis also. If glycogen stores in the liver are becoming empty and there is no glucose for fueling the brain and red blood cells, gluconeogenesis uses fat and amino acids in the liver to make new glucose. Fat will be the major fuel.

But if both glucose and protein are present in the blood it might be that the cell insulin sensitivity drops before the amino acid store have been filled because the glycogen stores are already filled. Fat is stored and glucose made available from the liver will be the major fuel until stores are becoming depleted.

If we eat fat it is stored (as Aaron put it: High fat raise ASP, blocks HSL, stimulates LPL and causes a net positive lipid balance into the fat cell). From what I have read when chylomicrons appear into circulation it takes 10-15 minutes for them to be stripped of their cargo by LPL (storage of free fatty acids into fat cells and muscle) and phospholipid transfer protein, PLTP (transfer of lipids to HDL). The fat stored inside muscles is used as fuel. Because no other sources of fuel are available, fat becomes the major fuel source.*

*Usually in the cell 60-70% of the energy comes from fat, of which a large amount has been remodeled by neolipogenesis in the liver.
Source: Prof. B. Angelin, Center for metabolism and endocrinology, Karolinska University Hospital, Sweden, and Prof. O. Wiklund, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Sweden.

The winner was protein as fat can be still be used for fuel and protein syntesis can still be propelled. Adding fat to the protein is also a good bet, since it will be used as fuel if there is no other fuels available. However, eating very little fat will accelerate the fat burning. As the study Nutritional regulation of the insulin-like growth factors by Thissen et al points out, protein is important for IGF-I levels, but the total calorie intake is the most important factor to keep IGF-I levels up.

Now, I'll go grab something to eat - all this has made me hungry!
tounge.gif
</div>
That's a good explanation of how we use fuel. But there's just one problem with that, we can't use it when we don't eat carbs. The metabolic profile is entirely different. When we don't eat carbs, we use fat for 99% of our fuel needs. The few bits that require something else, glucose, can use the same glucose over and over through gluconeogenesis by re-converting lactic acid into glucose in the liver.

A note on the brain. The major part of the brain can use ketone bodies for fuel, a by-product of fatty acid metabolism. Only a small portion of the central nervous system requires glucose. Same goes for the other organs that require glucose. For instance, I learned recently that the lens of the eye uses glucose exclusively for fuel. This could explain why cataracts have become common.


If you could explain what happens when we don't eat carbs, it would clear up a whole lot of misconceptions that's been voiced in this thread.

About ASP (Acylation Stimulating Protein). As Aaron said, it stimulates fat storage. But, Aaron failed to mention that this storage is only intended for daily and overnight needs. The effect of ASP on adipose tissue is far from being that of insulin. Insulin's effect on adipose tissue is so strong that it effectively transforms our adipose tissue from a purse who's job is to hold on to our daily needs to a full fledged savings account where we can't retrieve anything until insulin gets out of the way.

The food that has the greatest effect on insulin is carbs. Take that out, insulin level drops, the fat in the savings account is finally available to other cells, we lose fat. Our adipose tissue finally recovers its original function of a temporary storage organ.

Technically, it is correct to say we can gain fat (at least for a short time, hours or a day) by eating fat but not over the long term (i.e. years, months or even several days). But for the purpose of this discussion, it is more appropriate to say we can't actually grow fat by eating fat. Only by eating carbs can we do that.

I think you'll find that IGF-1 is the least of your worries when you want to grow muscle. Eating carbs affects so many other hormones that it makes IGF-1 look inconsequential in the scheme of things. For instance, it affects GH, testosterone, insulin and as a result of this insulin resistance, cholesterol group, the entire IGF group. Carbs change the metabolic profile so dramatically that nothing seems normal anymore.

If your focus is only on IGF-1, you're missing out on everything else that carbs do. For instance, insulin can do everything it does on its own but IGF-1 or any other IGF can't do a thing without insulin. As cells become more and more resistant to insulin, it takes more and more insulin to speak to them but that also means it takes more and more IGF to speak to them as well.

If I'm not mistaken, cell receptors that can receive IGF group hormones can also receive insulin on its own. So, it seems logical that once cells shut down insulin receptors, they also shut down any other receptor that can take insulin such as those who can receive IGF hormones.

We see that carbs do change the metabolic profile dramatically. At least on the long term.
 
Yikes! I'm sorry I got sucked into reading this thread. I'm just glad I didn't read the whole thing.

What a waste of time.
 
<div>
(Bulldog @ Mar. 20 2008,21:03)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Yikes! I'm sorry I got sucked into reading this thread. I'm just glad I didn't read the whole thing.

What a waste of time.</div>
I guess you wasted your time replying to it as well, huh?
 
Well, I've found it interesting to say the least.
Two things: Where or Who are our examples for this theory in the realm of BB'ing? I'd like to see some reasonable testimonials over this from someone who dropped carbs, bulked and gained muscle while losing or maintaining fat. I'm not being a smartass: I want to see results, which speak louder than words or people selling books.
Second, which diet in your opinion is the ideal closest to? Atkins? Paleo? I'm just being a bit lazy here and want to be certain of just how you prescribe one to eat.
nkl: good observations, and a cool head in the foxhole. Time you got some ratings, even tho they don't mean diddly squat.
wink.gif
 
<div>
(quadancer @ Mar. 20 2008,21:40)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Well, I've found it interesting to say the least.
Two things: Where or Who are our examples for this theory in the realm of BB'ing? I'd like to see some reasonable testimonials over this from someone who dropped carbs, bulked and gained muscle while losing or maintaining fat. I'm not being a smartass: I want to see results, which speak louder than words or people selling books.
Second, which diet in your opinion is the ideal closest to? Atkins? Paleo? I'm just being a bit lazy here and want to be certain of just how you prescribe one to eat.
nkl: good observations, and a cool head in the foxhole. Time you got some ratings, even tho they don't mean diddly squat.
wink.gif
</div>
I know what you mean. I want to see an example myself. I posted a link to a guy named Jeff Volek in another thread ( http://nmsociety.org/index.p....emid=44 ). At the bottom of the page, we can read:

&quot;Dr. Volek does not just write about his research, he actually uses it. In 2000, he won the Indiana state powerlifting championship in the 82.5 kg (181.5 pounds) weight group with the highlight being a 585 pound squat and a 600 pound deadlift.&quot;

While 181.5lbs is not the end of the world for size, 3.3x bodyweight for a deadlift is impressive to say the least. Do you think as an example it's good enough for now? He sells books too so I dunno. He's like Bryan, he's got the brain and brawn.

For the diet, I can only tell you what I eat. I can't recommend anything for various reasons. One is that you may not have access to what I have access to such as lard for example. However there's quite a bit of information on the subject all over the net so it's easy to find if you know to look for &quot;low carb diet&quot;. The basic principle here is low carb, high fat and adequate protein. All low carb diets look the same once we get down to the foods we can eat.

I've done some math on it and I came up with 65%/35% fat/protein by weight which comes out to 80%/20% by calories. Of course, 0 calories from carbs but don't worry about a few grams here and there. I can't avoid the 1g of carbs in eggs when I want the 7g/7g of fat/protein they contain. I don't count calories. I eat as much as I want.
 
Do you know the guy (Dr. Volek) wasn't chemically assisted? Seems like he probably was in which case his altered hormonal profile would skew any conclusions you might be making about the effectiveness of his dietary plan.
 
<div>
(Lol @ Mar. 20 2008,23:53)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Do you know the guy (Dr. Volek) wasn't chemically assisted? Seems like he probably was in which case his altered hormonal profile would skew any conclusions you might be making about the effectiveness of his dietary plan.</div>
Ask him.
 
<div>
(Martin Levac @ Mar. 21 2008,14:37)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">About ASP (Acylation Stimulating Protein). As Aaron said, it stimulates fat storage. But, Aaron failed to mention that this storage is only intended for daily and overnight needs.</div>
Only intended for daily and overnight? So its only intended for 24hr a day involvement, and I failed to say that?

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">The effect of ASP on adipose tissue is far from being that of insulin. </div>

To quote one of the cheif researchers in the area,

Acylation Stimulating Protein (ASP) is a recently described protein found in human plasma that stimulates more effectively than insulin the incorporation of fatty acids into triacylglycerides in human skin fibroblasts and adipocytes.


But that was only 15 years ago, I guess we need to go back 30+ to get the real scoop...

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Insulin's effect on adipose tissue is so strong that it effectively transforms our adipose tissue from a purse who's job is to hold on to our daily needs to a full fledged savings account where we can't retrieve anything until insulin gets out of the way.</div>

Keep repeating it, you may convince somebody.
 
We take T-nation with a grain of salt around here, and this guy is another good reason. I read the article and found that for the most part, he is still in school, still experimenting with this method and things seemed to bias a bit for justification; since he was being interviewed by a BB site. Rather than cite living examples or studies done, he would say some partial-truth blanket statements, like &quot;detrimental effects of fat will generally be seen only in the presence of high carbohydrate which, via insulin, determines the metabolic fate of ingested fat.&quot; Looking at one side of a penny, you can say that Lincoln rules.
I hungered for other anecdotes, testimonials or whatever, and only got this &quot;In our most recent study we've seen several guys lose more than 20 pounds of fat and gain as much as 12 pounds of muscle in a 12 week period.&quot; Anyone here will tell you that we want to know the controls, double-blind, group stats, genders, and workout protocol before we accept his word on it.
He can go write his book if he wants; I'm sure it will sell on the net. I think I can say that as for us, we need a LOT more to be convinced, especially
when you say &quot;gain muscle and lose fat&quot; referring to BB'ers, which in the article is assumed, by it's locale. Other things he says make some sense, but that doesn't give credence enough for science.
We like T-nation or any other site as long as their articles can be backed up with science and mass accreditions. So far we have...him...and you. Send more.
My indirect point is this. EVERYTHING has been tried by the gym rats and competitors at large, and this one fell by the wayside even after being touted as the new &quot;bomb&quot; of BB'ing by all the rags. I remember reading about it before &quot;ketogenic&quot; was a buzzword, although they were talking about the same thing you are. One must wonder why.
 
Jeff is producing some great stuff, but he is also doing some not so great stuff. Then publishes most of his work in the journal Feinman set up fro low carb work...
 
<div>
(quadancer @ Mar. 21 2008,08:22)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">We take T-nation with a grain of salt around here, and this guy is another good reason. I read the article and found that for the most part, he is still in school, still experimenting with this method and things seemed to bias a bit for justification; since he was being interviewed by a BB site. Rather than cite living examples or studies done, he would say some partial-truth blanket statements, like &quot;detrimental effects of fat will generally be seen only in the presence of high carbohydrate which, via insulin, determines the metabolic fate of ingested fat.&quot; Looking at one side of a penny, you can say that Lincoln rules.
I hungered for other anecdotes, testimonials or whatever, and only got this &quot;In our most recent study we've seen several guys lose more than 20 pounds of fat and gain as much as 12 pounds of muscle in a 12 week period.&quot; Anyone here will tell you that we want to know the controls, double-blind, group stats, genders, and workout protocol before we accept his word on it.
He can go write his book if he wants; I'm sure it will sell on the net. I think I can say that as for us, we need a LOT more to be convinced, especially
when you say &quot;gain muscle and lose fat&quot; referring to BB'ers, which in the article is assumed, by it's locale. Other things he says make some sense, but that doesn't give credence enough for science.
We like T-nation or any other site as long as their articles can be backed up with science and mass accreditions. So far we have...him...and you. Send more.
My indirect point is this. EVERYTHING has been tried by the gym rats and competitors at large, and this one fell by the wayside even after being touted as the new &quot;bomb&quot; of BB'ing by all the rags. I remember reading about it before &quot;ketogenic&quot; was a buzzword, although they were talking about the same thing you are. One must wonder why.</div>
I understand that you want proof. I want proof too. But then again, look at all the resistance in this thread. Do you think proof is really what's wanted here? I don't think so. I think what's really wanted here is status quo. And so you ask for proof as an assurance that you can maintain status quo. If you really wanted proof, you would find it. But you won't go get it yourself. Instead, you ask it from me. And if I don't bring it, that's perfect: Status quo is maintained. And if I bring it, that's fine too since you'll just find a way to dismiss it as you just did there. And the way you dismiss it is easy: Find one hole in the theory. The rest of it must also be bogus by extension so why not dismiss all of it while we're at it.


Do you know the name Ancel Keys? He's the primary author of the lipid/heart hypothesis and by extension the fat/obesity hypothesis. He did extensive research on diet, fat and cholesterol. Some of his work is brilliant. But some of his work is rather shoddy, full of assumptions and downright misleading. Yet, we can't just dismiss all of his work because some of it is invalid. That would be short sighted. Even some of his bad work contains completely valid information that we can use. Yet, here we are, you asking for proof and dismissing everything that is brung unless it's backed up by double blind, random, multi part, multi year, peer reviewed research before you will even consider the possibility that it has any value.


What about your current knowledge? If you are so strict about new knowledge, surely you were just as strict with your old knowledge. Where's the research on that? Apply the scientific method to the old knowledge first. You may find that it's not knowledge after all. But then you'll be stuck in never never land. No old knowledge to rely on but no new knowledge coming in to replace it either.


What say you?
 
<div>
(quadancer @ Mar. 21 2008,03:40)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">nkl: good observations, and a cool head in the foxhole. Time you got some ratings, even tho they don't mean diddly squat.  
wink.gif
</div>
Gee, thanks! I'm just trying to be nice. And of course try to sort things out as I go (which also means that I might be wrong on a thing or two)...    
blush.gif
 
smile.gif


I think this forum has proven time and time again to be something extra in the way the members show each other respect, although it can get steamy sometimes ( esp. when trolling is suspected  for example - J-Reps comes to mind). It's not vulgar in any way. It's more like a caring family. Thumbs up!  
smile.gif
 
<div>
(Martin Levac @ Mar. 21 2008,02:37)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">That's a good explanation of how we use fuel. But there's just one problem with that, we can't use it when we don't eat carbs. The metabolic profile is entirely different. When we don't eat carbs, we use fat for 99% of our fuel needs. The few bits that require something else, glucose, can use the same glucose over and over through gluconeogenesis by re-converting lactic acid into glucose in the liver.

A note on the brain. The major part of the brain can use ketone bodies for fuel, a by-product of fatty acid metabolism. Only a small portion of the central nervous system requires glucose. Same goes for the other organs that require glucose. For instance, I learned recently that the lens of the eye uses glucose exclusively for fuel. This could explain why cataracts have become common.

If you could explain what happens when we don't eat carbs, it would clear up a whole lot of misconceptions that's been voiced in this thread.
...
I think you'll find that IGF-1 is the least of your worries when you want to grow muscle. Eating carbs affects so many other hormones that it makes IGF-1 look inconsequential in the scheme of things. For instance, it affects GH, testosterone, insulin and as a result of this insulin resistance, cholesterol group, the entire IGF group. Carbs change the metabolic profile so dramatically that nothing seems normal anymore.

If your focus is only on IGF-1, you're missing out on everything else that carbs do. For instance, insulin can do everything it does on its own but IGF-1 or any other IGF can't do a thing without insulin. As cells become more and more resistant to insulin, it takes more and more insulin to speak to them but that also means it takes more and more IGF to speak to them as well.

If I'm not mistaken, cell receptors that can receive IGF group hormones can also receive insulin on its own. So, it seems logical that once cells shut down insulin receptors, they also shut down any other receptor that can take insulin such as those who can receive IGF hormones.

We see that carbs do change the metabolic profile dramatically. At least on the long term.</div>
I agree on the first. Fat is primary fuel if we do not eat any carbs.

The brain requires adaptation before it can use ketones to a large part. If my memory serves me right it can manage on 75% ketones after some weeks without carbs.

I think I did explain what happen when we eat protein and fat, and also what happens if we happen to ingest carbs and protein.

IGF-I is, besides stimulation from weight training, the most potent growth signal for the cell. Is there any other, more potent signal? Protein also cause an insulin rise that gets IGF-I activated, thus we can get into an anabolic state without carbs. If leptin levels are high it shouldn't be a problem.

From what I have read, the cells seems to do all-right when getting all its fuel from fat, but when doing intense work the muscle cell is limited by the low glycogen stores. Lyle states in his book, The Ketogenic Diet, that <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">on a standard ketogenic diet, with aerobic exercise only, muscle glycogen levels maintain around 70 mmol/kg with about 50 mmol/kg of that in the Type I muscle fibers ... Below 40 mmol/kg, exercise performance is impaired. Total exhaustion during exercise occurs at 15-25 mmol/kg. ... Additionally, when glycogen levels fall too low (about 40 mmol/kg), protein can be used as a fuel source during exercise to a greater degree. ... Even without the consumption of carbohydrates there is some replenishment of muscle glycogen stores following exercise. A few calculations will show that the small amount of glycogen resynthesized during exercise is insufficient to maintain glycogen stores for more than a few workouts. ... Two studies have examined the phenomenon of post-workout glycogen resynthesis. One study using weight training with no carbohydrate given found a resynthesis rate of 1.9 mmol/kg/hour following resistance training with a total of 4 mmol/kg being resynthesized. As 40 mmol/kg of glycogen was depleted during the exercise, this small amount would not sustain exercise performance for long. However, in a second study, 22 mmol/kg was synthesized after training. The major difference between these studies was that subjects in the second study (9) ate a small carbohydrate-containing meal the morning of the training session whereas the subjects in the first did not. The elevation of blood glucose from the pre-workout meal allowed greater glycogen resynthesis to occur following training in the second study. This observation is the basis for the TKD. ... At 70% of maximum weight, both studies found a glycogen depletion rate of roughly 1.3 mmol/kg/repetition or 0.35 mmol/kg/second of work performed.</div> Is there any other evidence, anectdotal or otherwise, that we can do intense training without refilling glycogen in the muscle by eating carbs? Anybody? For a HST scheme it seems unlikely, but on HIT with a week or so between bouts, it might work (but who wants to do HIT?).
*edit: note that this question is perfectly in line with the topic of this thread.
wink.gif
 
An exercise in appreciation of the scientific method.


Eat more, do less (to bulk). Eat less, do more (to cut).

It makes sense, doesn't it? But is it science? No, it's not. It's a hypothesis like any other hypothesis. We accept it because it makes sense. Because it's so obvious, we don't need the science to prove it. We justify not seeking the science behind that statement. Here's another one:

We gain weight by gaining fat. Ergo, don't eat fat and we don't grow fat and we don't gain weight.

It makes a whole lot of sense, doesn't it? But is it science? No, it's not. It's a hypothesis like any other hypothesis. We accept it because it makes sense. Same thing here, we justify not seeking proof of it since it makes sense and anybody who doesn't see it must be blind or stupid or both. Here's another:

Eat carbs to grow fat. Don't eat carbs to grow lean.

It doesn't make sense because it's not as intuitive as &quot;eat fat, grow fat&quot;. Before we accept it, we must look at how it works. If we find that carbs do make us fat, then it makes sense and we accept it. If we find that carbs don't make us fat, then it doesn't make sense and we refuse it. Between all hypotheses, we accept the ones that make sense first. Then we ask for proof of all those that don't make sense. Yet we didn't ask for proof (nor did we get any) for those we believe in now. Here's another:

Eat fat, grow lean.

Now this one not only doesn't make sense but goes contrary to the previous hypothesis &quot;eat fat, grow fat&quot;. But is it science? No, it's not science either. We don't accept it because it doesn't make sense and disagrees with what we've already accepted. We justify not seeking proof, obviously, because it would be a waste of our time to do so since we're certain that no proof can ever be found.


It goes further than that. As we progress, even as we find proof of the contrary hypotheses, we reject them in various ways. Even as we find the science that refutes our current beliefs, we reject it offhand as just another fad. It's only fair that you ask if your current beliefs are as solid as you were led to believe. Of all the hypotheses, once we put them together on the same floor, which ones stick and which ones don't? Apply the scientific method to each.

Eat more, do less (to bulk). Eat less, do more (to cut).
Eat fat, grow fat. Don't eat fat, grow lean.
Eat carbs, grow fat, Don't eat carbs, grow lean.
Eat fat, grow lean.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top