I have been reading up on the concept of protein cycling, as I figured the body would adapt to a high intake of proteins. Not only that, but a chronic high intake of protein might tax the system with high levels of protein-derived waste products, perhaps even toxic... So, I did find some very interesting information that might be of value (and some information that I rediscovered, but now in a whole different light).
A summary from Lyle McDonald on protein cycling, backed up on
this site, originally from Meso-RX site:
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">There are a number of mechanisms by which the body can adapt to increasing and decreasing protein intakes. Arguably the most important is rates of oxidation, which can increase or decrease rapidly to compensate for increasing and decreasing protein intakes. In addition, rates of protein synthesis and breakdown can be altered, with both typically decreasing with lowered protein intakes, and increasing with raised protein intakes. Finally, the amount of urea produced, which is related to AA oxidation, may be altered.
Although comprehensive data is lacking, it appears that the major adaptations to altered protein intakes take place fairly rapidly, within a number of days. In rats, this may be 3-7 days, in humans 9-12 days or slightly longer.
While more research is needed, it appears the the first proteins lost during protein deprivation are liver and other organ proteins. By the same token, during protein refeeding (or simply high protein feeding) it appears that liver proteins are the first to be synthesized.
With regards to the concept of protein cycling, while the general idea is somewhat logical, in that decreasing protein intake can cause a transient decrease in oxidation and turnover, there is little indication that there will be a net gain in body protein when protein intake is increased again. In the same way that liver proteins are the first lost, they will likely be the first regained. And by the time liver proteins have been rebuilt, rates of oxidation and turnover will have returned to normal, leaving the individual with no net gains.
</div> Thus protein cycling might not be the holy grail for size gains, but perhaps a way to detox and let the body have some time off from the chronic high intake of protein.
Another interesting thing that I found, coupled to the essence of this thread, is extended periods of bulking followed by extended periods of dieting. By extended I mean 2 weeks of each. The logic behind this is explained by the inventor of the idea, Torbjorn Akerfeldt. He calls his approach Anabolic Burst Cycling of Diet and Exercise (ABCDE) (
Link to 4-part article). I let himself explain: <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I'm not talking about going on a "bulking diet" where you overeat for an entire season and then take 12 weeks to cut up--that doesn't work. I'm not talking about one of these ridiculous 10,000-calorie-a-day diets, either. The secret to my system is acute or "whiplash" calorie cycling. You overfeed the body for only two weeks and then diet for two weeks. ... The two-week calorie cycles are based on scientific evidence and empirical data.
In one study by Forbes, et al., entitled the "Hormonal Response to Overfeeding," it was demonstrated that when test subjects started with a maintenance-calorie-intake diet and then went on a nutrition program that provided 1,200 to 1,600 extra calories a day, their blood tests showed a progressive increase in IGF-1, testosterone, and insulin [which doubled in 14 days!], all in concert with an increase in lean body mass. However, the hormone levels peaked and began to decline on day 14 of the high-calorie diet! This is a very important observation. By day 21, the test subjects in this study gained 3-6 lbs of lean body mass and gained a few pounds of bodyfat as well. However, these test subjects did not perform any resistance exercise, and the excess food provided only six percent of energy from protein, and the test subjects were women--we don't know yet, but the testosterone boost could be even greater in men, leading to more muscle accumulation. ...
In a 12-day study conducted by Jebb, et al., reported very recently in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition,7 entitled "Changes in Macronutrient Balance During Over- and Underfeeding Assessed by 12-Day Continuous Whole-Body Calorimetry," it was shown that when male test subjects went from a maintenance-calorie-intake diet to an overfeeding diet [approximately 3,600 total calories a day], within 12 days, they gained 4.38 lbs of lean mass and put on just 2 lbs of fat. The same study showed that when test subjects went on a pretty drastic [around 1,000 calories a day] diet for 12 days, they lost, on average, 4.6 lbs of bodyfat and only 2.4 lbs of lean mass. As you can see, during this short overfeeding period, the amount of lean mass to fat gained was in a ratio greater than 2:1, and in the underfeeding phase, the amount of fat versus muscle lost was 2:1.
Hypothetically, if you were to follow a two-week overfeeding phase with a two-week diet, you would actually gain muscle and lose fat, even if you didn't exercise. Needless to say, if you train with weights and follow a more precise nutrition program, much less use supplements that can enhance the anabolic and anti-catabolic effects of each phase of this diet, you can continue to gain muscle, without getting fat!
...
The macronutrient profile of the diet is not nearly as important as the total-energy intake, but one could logically surmise that consuming a higher protein diet during the bulking phase may stimulate anabolic drive and produce even greater nitrogen retention. In the studies by Forbes and Jebb that I've already mentioned, I believe the results would have been more substantial if the subjects had been consuming more protein. The ratio of macronutrients during the anabolic phase is actually not far from the ordinary, habitual diet most people eat and is actually in concert with Dr. Erasmus' recommendations of 20% protein, 50% carbohydrates, and 30% fat. However, an even higher protein, lower carbohydrate bulking diet may also be effective, but the health aspects concern me a bit here. I have numerous theories, which I'm developing, on how to set up "microcycles," where you consume different macronutrient profiles on different days of the two-week high-calorie and low-calorie phases. But rather than get into all those intricacies at this point, I will simply emphasize that it is very likely a substantial effect will be realized by consuming high quantities of food rich with quality protein [at least one gram per pound of bodyweight per day], carbohydrates, and unsaturated fats.
...
What about the low-calorie phase? ... First of all, let's backtrack a bit and go over why it's so important to have a low-calorie/dieting phase in this program. This dieting phase actually serves two very important purposes. First, we want to strip off what fat will be gained during the two-week bulking phase. This is very important, as bodybuilders want to gain muscle, not fat. A second very important aspect of the dieting phase of this program is to "reprime" your body's enzymes and anabolic hormones. As I've already discussed, testosterone, insulin, and IGF-1 levels start to decline after about two weeks of overfeeding. In order to boost these levels again, you've got to trick the body into thinking it's necessary to store more calories as muscle tissue. ... As you know, fat loss is all but impossible in the presence of elevated insulin levels—a high-carbohydrate diet will severely inhibit fat oxidation. Also, if you followed a high-carbohydrate diet during the low-calorie phase, the accompanying increase in fat oxidation would make you put on a lot of fat during the next bulking phase.
Nevertheless, carbohydrates also have some very important properties during a hypocaloric diet, such as keeping GH and IGF-1 primed. Therefore, it's almost necessary to perform "microcycles" for optimal results.
...
How many calories should somebody eat on the bulking phase and cutting program? ... Take your bodyweight times 12 [to approximate maintenance-calorie intake for an individual who's not extremely active] and add 1,500 calories to this number. ... On the low-calorie phase, I would recommend consuming a number of calories equal to your bodyweight times eight. ... If a bodybuilder is following this recommendation and not gaining weight during the bulking phase, I would recommend increasing calorie intake by 500 calories a day, for a week, and if a substantial weight gain is not realized, I would take it up another 500 calories the next week. If you're working out hard, you should be gaining three pounds a week on the bulking phase.
Likewise, if someone is not losing bodyweight on the low-calorie phase, I would recommend decreasing calorie intake by 300 calories a day, per week.
[Selected references]
G.B. Forbes, et al., "Hormonal Response to Overfeeding," Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 49.4 (1989) : 608-611.
Jebb, et al., "Changes in Macronutrient Balance During Over- and Underfeeding Assessed by 12-Day Continuous Whole-Body Calorimetry," Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 64 (1996) : 259-266.
[For protein cycling info read this
link]
</div>
Ok, so we could extend the 24 hour bulk to 2 weeks and the 24 hour PSMF to 2 weeks to maximize growth and fat loss. We have some options. Going beyond this time scale is not good. Hyperplasia of adipose tissue, insulin resistance, and other evils manifest themselves during the third week of overeating - so overeat 2 weeks tops. Dieting by PSMF is also severly hindered by leptin decrease, causing metabolic slowdown and lack of glucogen stores decreases performance to do heavy work. Lyle McDonald recommends 2 weeks on the PSMF for lean individuals.
Would this be the optimal combination of bulking and cutting? Perhaps? Some would rather walk the middle way and do it one week at a time. Experiment and find your tolerances. 8h/16h or 24h/24h or 1w/1w or 2w/2w?
