Martin Levac
New Member
@nk1
I'd be more concerned about having enough building blocks for growth than enough energy to lift the bar. We grow in between bouts but only lift the bar for a short time. Fat contains building blocks. Proteins too. Carbs don't. Carbs inhibit the absorbtion of building blocks regardless of how much they contain themselves.
About IGF-1. It can do nothing without insulin. As cells become resistant to insulin, it's only natural that IGF-1 will have a harder time doing its job. We grow resistant over time. But the rate and amplitude depends on how much insulin we have in the blood. That, in turn, depends on how much carbs we eat.
We draw conclusions based on a carbohydrate metabolism. So when we flex muscles and we see insulin resistance drop, we think lifting weights is all we need to do for insulin and IGF-1 to do their job. The problem is we start we a high resistance because of the carbs. Once we take carbs out, insulin levels drop and as a result, resistance drops. Then, when we lift the bar again, resistance drops but from a much lower baseline than in a carbohydrate metabolism. So the ending resistance level is much lower and allows insulin and IGF-1 to do their job much more easily.
You say IGF-1 is the most potent anabolic agent (I'd say it's testosterone but that's not the point I'm trying to make here). I say IGF-1's potency is only made obvious by the diminished potency of all other anabolic agents because of the presence of carbs and the surplus levels of insulin in the blood and the high insulin resistance of lean tissue. It has become the most potent because all the other agents have been neutered. This is partly what I mean when I say carbs change the metabolic profile dramatically. Everything you see now is based on an abnormal metabolism. Therefore, any conclusion you draw is incorrect.
On another note. I read here that there are two kinds of IGF-1. The one produced in the cells as we flex muscles and the one produced elsewhere (I think it was the liver but I'm not sure). The point is that only the one produced in the cell as we flex muscles can be used effectively for growth. The one produced outside has little to no effect on growth for some reason. This tells me IGF-1 isn't as potent as we think. It also tells me that our perspective is narrow if all we look at is IGF-1 for growth. We conclude that only when flexing muscles can we stimulate growth and so don't consider other forms of stimuli. Such as diet. And so we dismiss diet as a potential growth stimulus.
In practice, that's precisely what happens. We see it so often. "Why don't I grow?" To which we reply "Eat more" It's all we can reply with because it's all we know about it. We've never delved deeper than "Eat more, grow bigger" That's the extent of our knowledge on the subject. Had we seriously considered diet as a strong anabolic agent, we'd also, by extension, considered it a potential catabolic agent if something were absent from our diet (which we somehow figured: Protein) or present (which we have yet to even consider: Carbs).
If your focus is only on IGF-1 because all other agents have been neutered yet you consider this environment normal, then you can't see that carbs is a catabolic agent because as you see it, it makes IGF-1 more potent. So your logic is that carbs is an anabolic agent. It can't be farther from the truth.
I'd be more concerned about having enough building blocks for growth than enough energy to lift the bar. We grow in between bouts but only lift the bar for a short time. Fat contains building blocks. Proteins too. Carbs don't. Carbs inhibit the absorbtion of building blocks regardless of how much they contain themselves.
About IGF-1. It can do nothing without insulin. As cells become resistant to insulin, it's only natural that IGF-1 will have a harder time doing its job. We grow resistant over time. But the rate and amplitude depends on how much insulin we have in the blood. That, in turn, depends on how much carbs we eat.
We draw conclusions based on a carbohydrate metabolism. So when we flex muscles and we see insulin resistance drop, we think lifting weights is all we need to do for insulin and IGF-1 to do their job. The problem is we start we a high resistance because of the carbs. Once we take carbs out, insulin levels drop and as a result, resistance drops. Then, when we lift the bar again, resistance drops but from a much lower baseline than in a carbohydrate metabolism. So the ending resistance level is much lower and allows insulin and IGF-1 to do their job much more easily.
You say IGF-1 is the most potent anabolic agent (I'd say it's testosterone but that's not the point I'm trying to make here). I say IGF-1's potency is only made obvious by the diminished potency of all other anabolic agents because of the presence of carbs and the surplus levels of insulin in the blood and the high insulin resistance of lean tissue. It has become the most potent because all the other agents have been neutered. This is partly what I mean when I say carbs change the metabolic profile dramatically. Everything you see now is based on an abnormal metabolism. Therefore, any conclusion you draw is incorrect.
On another note. I read here that there are two kinds of IGF-1. The one produced in the cells as we flex muscles and the one produced elsewhere (I think it was the liver but I'm not sure). The point is that only the one produced in the cell as we flex muscles can be used effectively for growth. The one produced outside has little to no effect on growth for some reason. This tells me IGF-1 isn't as potent as we think. It also tells me that our perspective is narrow if all we look at is IGF-1 for growth. We conclude that only when flexing muscles can we stimulate growth and so don't consider other forms of stimuli. Such as diet. And so we dismiss diet as a potential growth stimulus.
In practice, that's precisely what happens. We see it so often. "Why don't I grow?" To which we reply "Eat more" It's all we can reply with because it's all we know about it. We've never delved deeper than "Eat more, grow bigger" That's the extent of our knowledge on the subject. Had we seriously considered diet as a strong anabolic agent, we'd also, by extension, considered it a potential catabolic agent if something were absent from our diet (which we somehow figured: Protein) or present (which we have yet to even consider: Carbs).
If your focus is only on IGF-1 because all other agents have been neutered yet you consider this environment normal, then you can't see that carbs is a catabolic agent because as you see it, it makes IGF-1 more potent. So your logic is that carbs is an anabolic agent. It can't be farther from the truth.
