LeanGains

[HST_Rihad]

Have you ever carb depleted before? Do you know how difficult it is?

Yup, I had hypoglycemia a couple of years ago after a period of SD and coming to work at 75% of 10 reps in squats, bench, deads. Suddenly I started feeling dark circles in front of my eyes and feeling kind of dizzy, and I turned white. Sat down on a bench for about 5 minutes, then thought I was fine to go on with my training, stood up, then thought I wasn't fine just yet, went over to the gym desk, leaned my elbows over the desk as if interested in the nutritional supplements being offered... and next thing I remember is me lying on the floor face up and some dude slapping me on my cheeks.

Had I eaten some potatoes, or some other sort of fast carbs prior to training, this wouldn't have happened.

 

[Jester]

Yup, I had hypoglycemia a couple of years ago after a period of SD and coming to work at 75% of 10 reps in squats, bench, deads. Suddenly I started feeling dark circles in front of my eyes and feeling kind of dizzy, and I turned white. Sat down on a bench for about 5 minutes, then thought I was fine to go on with my training, stood up, then thought I wasn't fine just yet, went over to the gym desk, leaned my elbows over the desk as if interested in the nutritional supplements being offered... and next thing I remember is me lying on the floor face up and some dude slapping me on my cheeks.

Had I eaten some potatoes, or some other sort of fast carbs prior to training, this wouldn't have happened.

You can't prove that statement to be true at all. What you described sounds like a textbook low-BP response to standing up too quickly (or other physical stimulus). Your BP sensors, for whatever reason were disorientated for a moment and as a result, the symptoms you described occurred; drained blood from upper body, dizziness, blurred vision, loss of balance and standing ability.

Frankly, that doesn't sound like a hypoglycemia, especially not with that set of immediate prior circumstances.




And none of the anecdote makes me think carb depletion is something you should be doing in any case. Just go into caloric deficit. Lyle McDonald's Rapid Fat Loss diet sounds much better for you than a deficit based IF protocol.


And again, you aren't 'depleted' after fasting. Muscles store their own glycogen. Speaking preferentially and cutting it simple, liver glycogen is for the brain.

 

[Totentanz]

Being hypoglycemic is not the same as being carb depleted. Going hypo refers to blood sugar levels, not carbs stored in muscle tissue. You can go hypo while still having glycogen in your muscles.

 

[HST_Rihad]

Further, your muscles have glycogen stores as well.

But it cannot be used outside of muscles. Taken from Brad Pilon's Eat-Stop-Eat:

Your muscle cells have the ability to store sugar as something called
‘glycogen’. The interesting thing about this process is that your muscles lack
the ability to pass this stored sugar back into the blood stream. For example
the glycogen stored in your right leg muscles can only be used by your right leg
muscles. It cannot be ‘donated’ to your liver or brain or any other part of your
body. This basic rule goes for all of your muscles.

Then this part:

The other great myth about dieting and fasting is that you will lose your
muscle mass while you diet. This is completely false. Not only does reducing
your caloric intake not cause your metabolism to slow down, it also does not
result in a loss of your hard-earned muscle.

There is one imperative rule that goes along with this statement: you have
to be involved in some sort of resistance exercise, like lifting weights.

Oh my god, I wish I had read this earlier... I didn't think it concerned fasting in general, only caloric restriction, which I didn't have. It's been almost a week since I've started LG fasting. I'm now on SD and just measured my biceps - lost 1 mm!!! No wonder I've been starving mornings until 1-2pm when I finally have a meal. I'm gonna ditch this LG window frame for now, will go back to it coming Monday when I start working out.

 

[gbglifter]

When I Sd'd I ate a bit more at maintenance. However, still in a deficit. I adhered to my window as per usual so that when I started training again I didnt have to go through the first torturing week again of aclimatising to the fasting.

 

[HST_Rihad]

When I Sd'd I ate a bit more at maintenance. However, still in a deficit. I adhered to my window as per usual so that when I started training again I didnt have to go through the first torturing week again of aclimatising to the fasting.

It might be worthwhile to limit fasting window to about 14 hours during SD, just to be safe. Then it would be easy to extend it back to 16 hours.

How long did it take you to stop feeling hungry before your first meal (assuming you were used to eating in the morning before)?

 

[Jester]

Oh my god, I wish I had read this earlier... I didn't think it concerned fasting in general, only caloric restriction, which I didn't have. It's been almost a week since I've started LG fasting. I'm now on SD and just measured my biceps - lost 1 mm!!! No wonder I've been starving mornings until 1-2pm when I finally have a meal. I'm gonna ditch this LG window frame for now, will go back to it coming Monday when I start working out.

Dude, you're being a drama queen.

1mm is statistically insignificant; you can't even prove it was there and not tissue swelling.

You also can't prove it isn't fat loss - aren't you cutting ... ?


And srsly, you're too gullible when it comes to authors on the internet. I don't care if "Brad Pilon" wrote it. Or "Martin". The content and its verification is what is relevant; that's part and parcel of HST's mantra.




The glycogen in your muscles is obviously FOR your muscles. It will assist in preventing catabolism of those muscles, delaying it until either you feed, or you exhaust and start breaking down muscle. But as you aren't doing the Hawaii Iron Man triathlon, that isn't an issue.

 

[HST_Rihad]

I'm about to finish reading Eat-Stop-Eat. From what I've gathered, its lack of a need for calorie counting, nutrient partitioning etc (although you aren't restrained from healthier foods & habits) suits my type better than leangains. In a nutshell, you continue eating the way you normally do (!), then 1 or 2 times per week you stay away from eating for 24 hours, thereby inducing a caloric deficit. Brad himself doesn't call his method a diet. All the usual health bonuses are included:

• Decreased body fat & body weight
• Maintenance of skeletal muscle mass
• Decreased blood glucose levels
• Decreased insulin levels & increased insulin sensitivity
• Increased lipolysis & fat oxidation
• Increased Uncoupling Protein 3 mRNA
• Increased norepinephrine & epinephrine levels
• Increased Glucagon levels
• Increased growth hormone levels.

I can't believe this is so simple. All the best things in the world can and should be explained in only a few words/sentences and should be as simple as possible.

 

[gbglifter]

It took about a week to stop being a cry baby about it. I still get hungry the same Im just not such a pussy about it.

 

[T-man]

I'm about to finish reading Eat-Stop-Eat. From what I've gathered, its lack of a need for calorie counting, nutrient partitioning etc (although you aren't restrained from healthier foods & habits) suits my type better than leangains. In a nutshell, you continue eating the way you normally do (!), then 1 or 2 times per week you stay away from eating for 24 hours, thereby inducing a caloric deficit. Brad himself doesn't call his method a diet. All the usual health bonuses are included:

• Decreased body fat & body weight
• Maintenance of skeletal muscle mass
• Decreased blood glucose levels
• Decreased insulin levels & increased insulin sensitivity
• Increased lipolysis & fat oxidation
• Increased Uncoupling Protein 3 mRNA
• Increased norepinephrine & epinephrine levels
• Increased Glucagon levels
• Increased growth hormone levels.

I can't believe this is so simple. All the best things in the world can and should be explained in only a few words/sentences and should be as simple as possible.

Easier said than done, but go ahead and give it a try. I was doing 36hr fasts from Sat. eve to Mon. morning. It wasn't too bad, but after a few weeks, it got old. I can't imagine 2 24hr fasts would be easier. I just try to keep my calories in check during the weekends now. There is no magic bullet, IMO.

 

[Jester]

I'm about to finish reading Eat-Stop-Eat. From what I've gathered, its lack of a need for calorie counting, nutrient partitioning etc (although you aren't restrained from healthier foods & habits) suits my type better than leangains. In a nutshell, you continue eating the way you normally do (!), then 1 or 2 times per week you stay away from eating for 24 hours, thereby inducing a caloric deficit. Brad himself doesn't call his method a diet. All the usual health bonuses are included:

• Decreased body fat & body weight
• Maintenance of skeletal muscle mass
• Decreased blood glucose levels
• Decreased insulin levels & increased insulin sensitivity
• Increased lipolysis & fat oxidation
• Increased Uncoupling Protein 3 mRNA
• Increased norepinephrine & epinephrine levels
• Increased Glucagon levels
• Increased growth hormone levels.

I can't believe this is so simple. All the best things in the world can and should be explained in only a few words/sentences and should be as simple as possible.

You can't get around caloric intake being what matters for fat loss or muscle gain.

That's what helped Brad, Martin, Bryan, Lyle ... everyone and anyone needed their food to be right.

If you'd just cut less from each portion you'd achieve the same fat loss, without the mind-numbing nausea that comes from 24hr fasting.


Not to mention, your last cycle just worked and now you're straying from it . . .

 

[HST_Rihad]

Easier said than done, but go ahead and give it a try.

I've tried 24 hour fast before for a different purpose (unrelated to fat loss). It can be hard, I know.

I was doing 36hr fasts from Sat. eve to Mon. morning.

Why so much longer than prescribed?

It wasn't too bad, but after a few weeks, it got old.

How do you mean?

I just try to keep my calories in check during the weekends now.

You're missing the good stuff for your health, mind you. Calorie cutting is one of them.

 

[HST_Rihad]

You can't get around caloric intake being what matters for fat loss or muscle gain.

Yes, but this time there's just no need to count anything. We just CUT 2 days off. The obvious advantage over counting + cutting is the favorable health effects of fasting (listed earlier).

If you'd just cut less from each portion you'd achieve the same fat loss, without the mind-numbing nausea that comes from 24hr fasting.

I guess cutting 2 days a week is better because you're still overeating 5 days, if the short-term caloric surplus is important (when protein synthesis is high).

Not to mention, your last cycle just worked and now you're straying from it . . .

It worked, but I've been getting fatter and fatter, I've had enough of this. And quite frankly calorie counting is very unnatural because we weren't devised with that in mind.

 

[T-man]

I've tried 24 hour fast before for a different purpose (unrelated to fat loss). It can be hard, I know.


Why so much longer than prescribed?


How do you mean?


You're missing the good stuff for your health, mind you. Calorie cutting is one of them.

1. to get my weekly deficit to approach 7000
2. I like to eat
3. Would you call a daily 500-700 calorie deficit calorie cutting?

 

[T-man]

Yes, but this time there's just no need to count anything. We just CUT 2 days off. The obvious advantage over counting + cutting is the favorable health effects of fasting (listed earlier).


I guess cutting 2 days a week is better because you're still overeating 5 days, if the short-term caloric surplus is important (when protein synthesis is high).




It worked, but I've been getting fatter and fatter, I've had enough of this. And quite frankly calorie counting is very unnatural because we weren't devised with that in mind.

So, you're getting "fatter and fatter" and you think not counting cals/macros is going to change that? You don't think, sub-consiously, you won't overeat knowing you've got 2 24hr fasts coming up? This has fail written all over it.

No, we weren't "devised" to count calories. Primitive man didn't eat 3 squares a day. Whenverver he did, he gorged, not knowing when the next meal would come. The human body adapted to store the excess engergy ingested as fat to be used in lean times. The body adapted so well, that we all pay for this today when in calorie deficit, which is why our metabolism slows during a cut. If early man had had abundant food, it wouldn't be so hard now to shed fat and keep it off over our lives.

 

[HST_Rihad]

3. Would you call a daily 500-700 calorie deficit calorie cutting?

I meant cutting calories is just one of the health benefits, not the only one.
There's a fine line between daily 500-700 cal deficit, and two 24-hour fasting periods weekly. That way you still get some immediate surplus + opportunity to grow on days you work out.

 

[T-man]

The body needs a calorie surplus to grow. While in a deficit the best I can hope for is to spare LBM by lifting heavy 3-5 rep clusters 3x a week.

 

[HST_Rihad]

I like the concept of Eat Stop Eat, the only thing confusing me is that Brad... hmm... well... if you asked me, I'd say he isn't as muscular as a natural approaching his genetic limits, and at least his abs aren't as lean as Martin's. May it be because his 24-hour fasting is suboptimal and keeping him from reaching his potential?


Some more:

 

[Jester]

I meant cutting calories is just one of the health benefits, not the only one.
There's a fine line between daily 500-700 cal deficit, and two 24-hour fasting periods weekly. That way you still get some immediate surplus + opportunity to grow on days you work out.

Your body will not grow 5 days a week and cut 2 days a week.

This line of thinking displays a lack of understanding of the processes involved, including the timelines associated with those processes. Stop ignoring science.

 

[HST_Rihad]

Your body will not grow 5 days a week and cut 2 days a week.

This line of thinking displays a lack of understanding of the processes involved, including the timelines associated with those processes. Stop ignoring science.

Medicine & physiology are constantly evolving. Yes, some fine folks such as Bryan have tried to assemble the current knowledge into something we can use, but how else is progress in knowledge made than through educated research & experimentation? The rules of how body works aren't written anywhere, we keep determining them based on earlier research, so they're pretty much in the constant state of flux. A few years ago many were frowning at IF in general.