Optimal Cutting/Bulking PSMF/IF

Discussion in 'Diet & Nutrition' started by nkl, May 29, 2008.

  1. quadancer

    quadancer New Member

    I'll have to give that a more careful reread later. It seemed as though we were talking about constant p intake and now we're shifting to cycling? Okay, this looks good, although I can't understand it where he says the AA pool regulates PS and you lose PS ability on a constant intake. I thought there were other factors (many) that regulated or affected PS.
    I recall one of our members mentioning a report from a doctor who said steroid users weren't dying from the steroids, but from liver failure from excess protein consumption. (I assume that means constant). I occurs to me that cycling may have other benefits as well, giving the liver a break here and there. The increased oxydation would eliminate some of the toxins?
    I think this is serious stuff, especially for us older lifters closer to the stone... [​IMG]
     
  2. nkl

    nkl Member

    A higher oxidation is an attempt to get rid of excess protein. As with all substances, too much too long, is not good for you. The body tries to compensate to the best of its abilities. We want bigger muscles and the body wants to keep homeostasis. We simply need to stay ahead of the adaptations, as long as we do not harm ourselves. By releasing pressure, the body gets its break.

    Upregulated PS is affected from total caloric intake too, besides amino acid concentration. Torbjorn Akerfeldt says that "the research indicates that overall energy [calorie] intake has a much greater effect on nitrogen balance [associated with muscle gain] than protein intake does." (Reference: E.B. Oddoye, et al., "Nitrogen Balance Studies in Humans: Long-Term Effect of High Nitrogen Intake on Nitrogen Accretion," J. Nutr. 109.3 (1979) : 363-377.) PS is also affected by exercise and hormone influence. As long as there is freely available AAs the PS machinery can build proteins. When oxidation is too high, this limits the AA availability. The body protein thus becomes more vulnerable to missed meals or infrequent meals.

    In my world, protein cycling is a good thing. Either that or go for chronic low non-anabolic levels of proteins that make oxidation stay at bay. Growth would suffer, but we would be safe and sound.
     
  3. beingisbeing

    beingisbeing New Member

    So I'm full throttle on this diet boys! I'm liking it. I'll probably start a log.

    For what its worth, Lyle McDonald seems to poo poo the notion that high protein intake is dangerous for the kidneys. I'll link you to it later.

    I posted yesterday, it seems to have vanished. Ah well...
     
  4. nkl

    nkl Member

    Here is a graph showing the impact of nutrient ratio on resting testosterone (testosterone increase PS).  This is from 17 days. The subjects had lifted weights for ~5 years.

    What is interesting, besides that saturated and monounsaturated fats is good for higher test, the lower the percent energy that comes from protein, the higher the test. The study points to the ratio between nutrients. If we up both carbs and fat (not at the same time), the ratio changes. We do not need to lower the intake of protein. As we cycle our way through different nutrients we will both get high fat and high carbs. If we also cycle protein this may also have an impact on testosterone production.

    As testosterone is a steroid hormone, the time course of its effect have a prolonged effect. If we do protein cycling, we first prime the PS machinery when protein intake is lower (not too low, though), and then chock it with sudden increases of amino acid availability.

    Edit: Forgot to include the reference: testosterone and cortisol in relationship to dietary nutrients and resistance exercise - Volek et al
     
  5. quadancer

    quadancer New Member

    Esscuze those of us in jeans and t-shirts, but is this showing the results of increasing individual macros at a time, or what? It would appear that we should eat fats, very little protein unless accompanied by carbs. But that's looking at it as a static graph: there is no timeline guide here.
    Also, I'm familiar with nm/dl measurements. How does that compare or simply, what is the nmol/l? I don't often measure these things, you know? [​IMG]
     
  6. nkl

    nkl Member

    More on the topic, showing that fat intake is positive for growth and excessive protein intake is negative for growth (at least a chronic high intake):
    <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Int J Sports Med. 2004 Nov;25(8):627-33.
    Relationship between diet and serum anabolic hormone responses to heavy-resistance exercise in men.
    Sallinen J, Pakarinen A, Ahtiainen J, Kraemer WJ, Volek JS, Häkkinen K.

    Relationship between dietary intake and serum anabolic hormone concentrations of testosterone (T), free testosterone (FT), and growth hormone were examined at rest as well as after the heavy-resistance exercise (HRE) in 8 strength athletes (SA) and 10 physically active non-athletes (NA). In the first part of the study serum basal anabolic hormone concentrations and dietary intake were examined in the total group of subjects. In the second part of the study a subgroup of 5 SA and 5 NA performed the high volume and high intensity HRE. Dietary intake was registered by dietary diaries for 4 days preceding the loading day. Significant correlations were observed between serum basal T and fat (E%: r = 0.55, p &lt; 0.05, g/kg: r = 0.65, p &lt; 0.01) and protein intake (E%: r = - 0.77, p &lt; 0.001, g/kg: r = - 0.68, p &lt; 0.01) in the total group of subjects. However, when the two groups were examined separately the significant relationships between serum basal T and dietary fat and protein could be noticed in SA only (fat g/kg: SA r = 0.77, p &lt; 0.05; in NA r = 0.44, n.s., protein g/kg: SA r = - 0.84, p &lt; 0.05; in NA r = 0.27, n.s.). Both serum T and FT responses to HRE were correlated with fat (E%: r = 0.85, p &lt; 0.01 and r = 0.73, p &lt; 0.05, g/kg: r = 0.72, p &lt; 0.05 and r = 0.77, p &lt; 0.01) and protein (E%: r = - 0.81, p &lt; 0.01 and r = - 0.69, p &lt; 0.05, g/kg: r = - 0.86, p &lt; 0.01 and r = - 0.65, p &lt; 0.05). The results suggest the possible role of diet leading to alterations in serum T and FT during prolonged strength training, and that diets with insufficient fat and/or excessive protein may compromise the anabolic hormonal environment over a training program.</div>
     
  7. nkl

    nkl Member

    <div>
    (quadancer @ Jun. 05 2008,1:32)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Esscuze those of us in jeans and t-shirts, but is this showing the results of increasing individual macros at a time, or what? It would appear that we should eat fats, very little protein unless accompanied by carbs. But that's looking at it as a static graph: there is no timeline guide here.
    Also, I'm familiar with nm/dl measurements. How does that compare or simply, what is the nmol/l? I don't often measure these things, you know?  [​IMG]</div>
    Increasing individual macros at a time? No. These results are from a consecutive 17 days of a particular macronutrient ratio. Each one of the subjects recorded their own diet. Before the subjects did their weekly bout of training, they had their blood drawn and analysed. They did 4 bouts total. Any deficiency/saturation would probably become evident during this time span. Hormone regulation would also depend on negative feedback, so this would also come into play (e.g., serum cholesterol used for steroid production).

    Tech speak: nmol/l mean nanomole per liter (nano is a 1000 times less than milli). We usually se this as mmol (millimole), where mole is defined as &quot;the amount of a substance that contains as many elementary entities (atoms, ions, molecules, or free radicals) as there are atoms in 0.4 oz (12 grams) of pure carbon-12, i.e. equivalent to Avogadro's number (6.023 × 10^23) of elementary entities; the amount of a chemical compound having a mass in grams equal to its molecular weight.&quot; (citation form Answers.com)

    I don't often measure these things, either...  [​IMG]
     
  8. nkl

    nkl Member

    For completeness and for easy reference (this has been posted in other threads)...

    A short summary with an added UD2.0 twist: <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Lyle have a book out there called The Rapid Fat Loss Handbook, that outline a modified PSMF for crash dieting. It would be optimal for cutting if you combine it with the following:
    ABCDE talks about micro cycles, for example protein cycling (to reduce excessive protein oxidation). Here is my modified verison of it:
    2 weeks of bulking with a protein intake of 2 grams/kg, then 2 weeks of Lyle's PSFM with cycled protein (3+ grams/kg for 3 1/2 days, then a slow decrease to 1 grams/kg over 3 1/2 days, then begin again). 1 gram/kg is not ultra low. If you are a 220 lbs lifter, that is still 100 grams of protein. All the time lifting heavy [vanilla HST] to stimulate PS and get the hormones flowing.

    If you throw in a carb re-feed at the end of the first week on the PSMF, during the low-protein days, you counteract falling metabolism, making the cutting more effective, while preserving protein. The carb re-feed could be 4 h, 12 h, or 24 h. It is like putting UD2.0 into the mix.

    Phew. We end up with ABCDE-PSMF-UD2.0 with protein cycling while on HST. How hard could it be?  [​IMG]
    </div>The UD2.0 twist to the 2 weeks of cutting is primarily for performance leverage when lifting weigths, to counteract complete glucogen depletion during 2nd week on ABCDE. We do want to lift the weigths!

    And on the foundation of calorie cycling for packing on lean mass and shedding fat: <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Actually the problem is, that if you are only eating maintenance calories, you will grow very very slowly. If you up your calories you both gain muscle and fat. Then to become lean you must perform some kind of dieting to loose the gained fat. This is the basis of calorie cycling. That we all know. Nothing new. But then it is a matter of how long each cycle should be. 6 months bulking followed by 6 months cutting are perhaps normal, but is it effective? As you yourself hinted at, will the body adapt to certain levels of caloric intake? We all know that constant dieting will slow the metabolism down. Constant bulking is unhealthy. You risk develop insulin resistivity and high blood pressure. You may gain so much fat that adipose tissue undergo hyperplasia and you develop obesity.

    So, what is a more sensible approach to stay ahead of adaptations? Shorter cycles. The intermittent fasting (IF) idea is the shortest of them all. Eat 12-24 hours, then fast 12-24 hours. Will it work? Probably. ABCDE diet proposes 2 weeks bulking followed by 2 weeks cutting. Will it work? Most probably.

    Any other diet idea [with the goal of packing on lean mass and shedding fat] will be based on the same premises. You may adjust the length of a phase to achive different results. Doing more bulking will eventually make you fat, while doing more cutting will eventually get you ripped but not very musclular. Balance these phases out is the key, while using all the advantages weight lifting can get you.

    Then, if you start out with, for example 15% BF, how will you make it drop off while packing on muscle? Most would argue to diet down to 10% BF and then bulk to 12-13%, and then diet down to 10% again. Bulking up to 20-25% BF just to grow big and muscular will make it so much harder on you (and you probably won't be so impressed with the reflection in the mirror either). The lean mass you have gained will be hidden from view. Surely not the best way to go. </div>
    And what to do when doing a SD: <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I think during the SD it's best to eat maintenance, because the lack of workouts will not do well with the P-ratio (either bulking or cutting). </div>
    To sum up thinking:
    A full 2 week/2 week cycle might be a bit excessive, but however workable if we throw in UD2.0. But to make this even more practical I propose that we shorten the cycle to a 1week/1week cycle. Why? You will not need the UD2.0 twist. With the UD2.0 twist, after 5-6 days of PSMF, while doing HST, you will be glucogen depleted and your metabolism have begun to slow down (leptin levels at 50%). A short UD2.0 carb up on day 7 may not boost your metabolism enough so the next week would not be fully optimal (you are no longer so far ahead of the adaptations). On the 1w/1w cycle you continue cutting the full week and then hit your bulking week instead of the UD2.0 carb up. Your metabolism will be forced to go up from a steady supply of energy. I think it makes more sense.

    So, for optimal (and practical) cutting/bulking PSMF/IF we have a time span of 1-7 days bulking, cycled with 1-7 days of cutting. Any longer than that and some things may no longer be optimal (or practical). Any shorter and the cutting/bulking will be blurred into a 'far-in-between-meals-type-o-thing'. Surely it works to some extent, but is it optimal? In the end, you yourself will find out what length of the cycle will work best for you (both optimal and practical).  [​IMG]
     
  9. quadancer

    quadancer New Member

    Good time for Dan's opinion. It seems viable, as did the 24/24 proposal. Mentally, these would certainly be easier due to the time limit; I like the idea of the &quot;upcoming reward&quot; of carbs in a bearable future.
    Have you given any thought as to the mesocycles of HST with this? It would seem to me that optimal would be cutting the first week and carbing up the second, since that's where the maxes are. Do it backwards and you might not GET those maxes.
    <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">ABCDE talks about micro cycles, for example protein cycling (to reduce excessive protein oxidation). Here is my modified verison of it:
    2 weeks of bulking with a protein intake of 2 grams/kg, then 2 weeks of Lyle's PSFM with cycled protein (3+ grams/kg for 3 1/2 days, then a slow decrease to 1 grams/kg over 3 1/2 days, then begin again).</div>
    I can see this wired into the weekly adventure also: the question being wether to do the protein cycle as a week or a half-week. It seems to me that with the stimulation of the fast + w.o. we signal growth, but with the bulk + w.o. we hit anabolism: but where is the upcycle of proteins more important; in the fast or the rebuild? I guess I'm still confused, but I'm saving pertinent text from this to try and reason it out.
    It would be nice if we had some type of comparison graph for the 24/24 and the 7/7. Just when you had me convinced the 24 was the shizzit... [​IMG]
     
  10. nkl

    nkl Member

    <div>
    (quadancer @ Jun. 09 2008,12:40)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Good time for Dan's opinion. It seems viable, as did the 24/24 proposal. Mentally, these would certainly be easier due to the time limit; I like the idea of the &quot;upcoming reward&quot; of carbs in a bearable future.</div>It would be nice to have some critique (good or bad).

    <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Have you given any thought as to the mesocycles of HST with this? It would seem to me that optimal would be cutting the first week and carbing up the second, since that's where the maxes are. Do it backwards and you might not GET those maxes.</div>Yes. I have been thinking about this during the day. A 2w/2w cycle would not go well with HST's 2w cycles. But a 1w/1w cycle could be doable, just as you describe it. When the weigths are lower, early in the progression, PSMF and weight lifting is possible, but when the weights become heavy, any energy and glucogen depletion will take its toll on the lifting (With 24h/24h this wouldn't be a problem at all). The HST/1w/1w mesocycle would continue 6-8 weeks and then during SD we eat maintenance 1-2 weeks before we begin anew.

    <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"> <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">ABCDE talks about micro cycles, for example protein cycling (to reduce excessive protein oxidation). Here is my modified verison of it:
    2 weeks of bulking with a protein intake of 2 grams/kg, then 2 weeks of Lyle's PSFM with cycled protein (3+ grams/kg for 3 1/2 days, then a slow decrease to 1 grams/kg over 3 1/2 days, then begin again).</div>
    I can see this wired into the weekly adventure also: the question being wether to do the protein cycle as a week or a half-week. It seems to me that with the stimulation of the fast + w.o. we signal growth, but with the bulk + w.o. we hit anabolism: but where is the upcycle of proteins more important; in the fast or the rebuild? I guess I'm still confused, but I'm saving pertinent text from this to try and reason it out. </div>Protein cycling with an interval of 7 days would fit the 1w/1w cycle, during both bulk and cut. I think it doesn't matter during which cycle it is more important. The most important thing here is that we stimulate PS as much as possible and never let PS settle within 'normal' efficiency, i.e., we force the syntesized protein to be larger than the breakdown - all the time. During bulking it is important to grow new tissue, and during cutting it is important to hold on to the new tissue. From a health standpoint it might be a good thing to cycle meat and vegetable protein too (relevant discussion in previous posts), for example during the low protein part on the bulking week.
    From the graphs I have seen it takes 3 days before protein oxidation adjust to intake. Chocking the PS machinery with high protein will take 3 days to adjust to, then we slowly release the gas, and let the machine slow down oxidation for 3 days. Then we hit the gas again and accelerate.

    <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">It would be nice if we had some type of comparison graph for the 24/24 and the 7/7. Just when you had me convinced the 24 was the shizzit... [​IMG]</div>That would be nice. 24/24 is a nice idea, but so are 1w/1w. I might try to make a comparison graph, but that would be a conjecture, although it would be illustrative of what might happen during the cycle. I would love if someone would have already done the studies for us, including presenting a comparison graph.
     
  11. Ruthenian

    Ruthenian New Member

    Would you find it difficult to change your calorie intake so dramatically from one week to the next?  I have been doing 2w bulk/2w cut lately to maintain body weight while cutting some fat (slowly).  As I am incrementing once per week with mesocycles of 4 weeks, I don't run into the two week mesocycle restriction you would have with vanilla HST.

    I tried one week cycles and found the ramp up on the bulking weeks difficult - frankly, I was afraid an instant jump to higher calorie would pack on too much fat before my metabolism adjusted.  Perhaps some kind of calorie ramp up with the protein, but then you lose a good part of the bulking week to lower calories.  

    Once I reach targe BF, I am looking at 4w bulk/2w cut mesocycle.  As you note, this would not work so well with 2w mesocycles, but you can work it out on extended cycles.
     
  12. quadancer

    quadancer New Member

    I see your reasoning ruth, but what immediately springs to mind is the 16/8 IF. I had no trouble at all inhaling near a day's worth of eating in 8 hrs...and some of that was just blah stuff like veggies. I'm just not sure it would be that much of a problem, but OTOH, the stomach stretch might be a factor over a week or more.

    Rabbit trail: This from DrPierre:
    <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">As far as metabolism is concerned, I have no evidence other than the fat melted away when I removed grains and replaced with tons of veggies.</div> Obviously the difference being cals here, but it occurred to me that cycling also the carbs between veggies for the fasting feed week and grains on the bulk week? Maybe there's something there as an assist.
     
  13. beingisbeing

    beingisbeing New Member

    aw just try the 24/24...everyone's doing it! [​IMG]
     
  14. quadancer

    quadancer New Member

    'cuz it's easier to just talk about stuff than do it... [​IMG]
     
  15. beingisbeing

    beingisbeing New Member

    lol. very fine point.
     
  16. Ruthenian

    Ruthenian New Member

    <div>
    (quadancer @ Jun. 09 2008,1:31)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I see your reasoning ruth, but what immediately springs to mind is the 16/8 IF. I had no trouble at all inhaling near a day's worth of eating in 8 hrs...and some of that was just blah stuff like veggies. I'm just not sure it would be that much of a problem, but OTOH, the stomach stretch might be a factor over a week or more.</div>
    The issue is not so much can your stomach handle it physically, but whether your metabolism can adjust quickly enough to prevent initial excessive fat storage.  If you are only cutting for a week, even one day of excessive fat could be significant.  On an IF protocol, even though you concentrate calories in a specific time window, my understanding is that your daily intake doesn't fluctuate that much.  Thus, this wouldn't be an issue.  (On a 24/24 approach, there simply wouldn't be enough time for such a slowdown to occur)

    I now suspect that your metabolism would not slow down that much after only a week, but nkl does appear to feel there will be some metabolic slowdown. I guess a trial run is the only way to find out.  For me, the 2w/2w seems to fit better.  Then again, my family situation means that I largely stick to traditional cutting approaches: simply less calories and nothing like a PSMF.  I did find Lyle's book interesting, though.

    Great discussion, regardless.
     
  17. beingisbeing

    beingisbeing New Member

    I've been trying to probe Lyle's site for his &quot;real take &quot; on IF. The impression I get is he likes it for practicality and ease of application, but isn't necessarily impressed by its 'calorie partitioning' effects. Its worth note as well that when he mentions recomp approaches, its always his own UD2.0


    I couldn't get him to comment on the 24/24 approach. I'll nag him again.


    (I think he may have mentioned alan aragon's culking, which in my estimation is nothing other than Michael Colgan's approach (lose no more than .5 lb a week, and you can actually hope to gain &lt; 10 lbs a year at the same time, depending on conditioning, training, etc.) Safer, more stable and long term health oriented, but damn thats a philosophy for the patient.
     
  18. nkl

    nkl Member

    I am not sure how much of a slowdown of metabolism you get from only one (or two) weeks of cutting, but I do not think it is very much at the end of the first week, although leptin and T3 levels plummet rapidly (see a previous post in this thread). But, usually during regular diets, the fat loss stalls after a couple of weeks. But we don't want to go there. So what can we do about it?

    First solution: I have been fiddling around with the graph thing and when I was experimenting with cycling nutrients on a every other day basis a familiar pattern emerged... Hey! This could be a 24/24 PSMF/IF too! So, then I began pondering if 24/24 IF could be incorporated into the mesocycle of a 1w/1w or even a 2w/2w (here I go again...). Why? (oh no! Not more ramblings!  [​IMG] ) Well, although Lyle may not have high opinion of the partitioning effect of IF, we can moderate glucogen storage levels on a daily basis and thus prevent gluconeogenesis to some extent (while bulking). That is the main trouble with a 1w/1w approach - you gain fat, then loose fat. Using the 24/24 PSMF/IF, the fat gain may be a little less while gaining (that is the premise of leangains). Bulking on 24/24 for one week and cutting on 24/24 the next. It doesn't have to be harder than that.

    Second solution: Hm, shorten your cycle... For example, say 3 1/2 day/3 1/2 day - same as protein cycling. Not too long, not too short. Feast from wednesday noon to saturday evening (the second and third workout), then cut from sunday morning to wednesday noon (before workout). Sounds nice, doesn't it?  [​IMG]

    Edit: After having thougth more about it, I'm still not sure if it is optimal to bulk on a 24/24 if we don't adjust the PSMF to become a regular low carb day - but this really blurs the lines and it becomes a normal bulk. So, I have to admit I am still puzzled by this dilemma. Perhaps it is better to follow either a regular 24/24 or a 3,5d/3,5d (solution 2), 1w/1w, or a full blown 2w/2w and don't complicate things (yeah, right - that is soo not me - never fully satisfied with my ideas, am I? No one said it would be easy - it's many parameters to keep track of while conjuring up something that is supposed to hold its own forte).
     
  19. quadancer

    quadancer New Member

    Well, you are reinventing the wheel, are you not? It's just important to know the spokes are true, the tire is on straight and the rubber hits the road. After all that, you put the spinners on and the dayglow sidewall treatment.
    Sometimes simplest is best but you just put up the problems of the 24/24 in a sense: some may find it hard to bulk on it and some to cut. Like Ruthenian, the switchover may be difficult for most.
    Years back, the MuscleNow crowd debated what we called &quot;Minibulking&quot;, doing a 1w/1w bulk/cut. Nothing got decided, but a couple guys claimed success with it, so don't give up. The PSMF wasn't around back then. I was thinking of just doing that until I liked the mirror image, then bulk. I have doubts about bulking with this as I've not heard more than 2 people speak up for it. The notion of a better anabolic state from constant feeding just seems more probable to me, but that may be residual mindset from habit.
     
  20. beingisbeing

    beingisbeing New Member

    while we're still speculating:

    I've been wondering. Say the current caloric proportions that I'm alternating work succesfully as a cut. Then I stabilize for a few weeks. Then I decide I want to bulk.

    Where would I add calories? I wonder if there is an upper limit to the W/O day? Meaning, if I'm already eating slightly above maintenance on work out days, and half maintenance on non workout days, I wonder, keeping non Sworkout days stable (at half maint) where the upper limit of benefit is in increasing W/O day calories?

    What would be the difference in going from 3000, to say 3500, as opposed to staying at 3000 on W/O days, and adding 500 to non W/O days?

    And then again, would I drop cardio? Maybe droping cardio and increasing from half maintenance to maybe 10% under would be enough to put me in slow bulk, keeping everything else stable (carb distribution around W/O, caloric levels, etc).

    Lot of fun stuff to play with!

    Sometimes I wish I was the type to take short cuts and still be able to look myself in the eyes. A shot of DECA would make all of this SO moot lol

    Integrity and hard work are the REAL man's androgens [​IMG]

    (nothing against steroid users. I'm just too much of a narcissist to 'use assistance.' this is its own fault, and perhaps a bit delusional).
     

Share This Page