Muscle Glycogen and Growth

<div>
(Martin Levac @ Mar. 20 2008,14:37)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(scientific muscle @ Mar. 20 2008,06:25)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"> <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">The conclusions were that without carbs, and by extension without insulin, it was impossible to accumulate fat.</div>
So you are saying if I don't eat carbs, but I eat a crap-load of protein and fat, that I won't gain any fat because I won't be producing any insulin?
rock.gif


Well if that is true I just found the secret to gaining huge amounts of lean mass with ZERO fat gain!  WIN!  Oh...wait, its not true.
sad.gif
</div>
Read the research. Make up your mind after. Now, you're set to never read the research because you believe it's impossible so any research that shows otherwise must be wrong.</div>
What research? I am not diabetic by the way, so using research on diabetics doesn't apply.
 
<div>
(bluejacket @ Mar. 20 2008,11:57)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">600 cals a day though is really not much.....especially in light of whats being claimed.

600 cals a day, up to 90 minutes of cardio, no fat loss, no muscle loss, no general wgt loss of any kind?

it seems martin is claiming that carbs are the culprit. ok.....thats 150g of carbs, MAX. even 150 of the worst kind of evil, processed, refined carbs out there doing there insulin to fat dance still adds up to a serious cal deficit.

no room left for protein or fat intake yet no muscle loss of any kind. thats pretty amazing. even if the intake wasnt 100% carb the protein intake will be very very low and fat (at 9cals per gram) intake would have to be practically non-existant. this just doesnt seem possible in the real world.....and even in martins examples pro/fat are what is needed for muscle maint/growth.........yet this example defies that as well.

avg. person maint. cal level comes in around bw x 12-14. thats an average so obviously folks come in above an below that but for the sake of discussion lets look at what we are talking about.
avg. small sized man would come in around 150lbs or basically @2000 cals for maint. even at the low low end of bw x 10 for maint. a small man would need @ 1500 cals a day to maintain. lets go ridiculous low end of bw x 6-7 and you get @ 1000.....

we are talking about 600 calories! with 90 min of cardio. even if you just walked slowly around the block for 90 minutes your going to burn 150cals.

carbs might be evil but they are not magic. they can certainly make some peoples body do crazy things (with-in reason) but maint on 600 cals (of any macro make up) for longer then a day seems pretty impossible.</div>
They certainly appeared magic to me. Until I understood why I wasn't losing any fat or any weight for that matter. It's all about insulin resistance. That's the dominant factor for fat accumulation and fat loss. Once we put that variable in the equation, it all makes sense. Why people can't lose fat even if they eat just a little carbs. Why people seem to grow fatter even if they eat just a little food every day. Why people seem to gain fat so easily when they only took a bite out of that cake.


Do you mean to say I'm lying about my personal experience? That's weak.
 
<div>
(scientific muscle @ Mar. 20 2008,15:00)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(Martin Levac @ Mar. 20 2008,14:37)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(scientific muscle @ Mar. 20 2008,06:25)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"> <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">The conclusions were that without carbs, and by extension without insulin, it was impossible to accumulate fat.</div>
So you are saying if I don't eat carbs, but I eat a crap-load of protein and fat, that I won't gain any fat because I won't be producing any insulin?
rock.gif


Well if that is true I just found the secret to gaining huge amounts of lean mass with ZERO fat gain! WIN! Oh...wait, its not true.
sad.gif
</div>
Read the research. Make up your mind after. Now, you're set to never read the research because you believe it's impossible so any research that shows otherwise must be wrong.</div>
What research? I am not diabetic by the way, so using research on diabetics doesn't apply.</div>
The research on diabetes is relevant to this discussion because it involves insulin and insulin is the dominating factor in fat accumulation and a strong factor in amino acids uptake by lean tissue. Whatever research can shed light on how insulin works, or stops working for that matter, brings us closer to a full understanding of why we fail or succeed in putting on new muscle.

Insulin is an anabolic agent.
 
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">It's all about insulin resistance. That's the dominant factor for fat accumulation and fat loss.</div>

No, that is weak. The dominant factor is calories in vs calories out. Insulin resistance, if anything, is one of the details.

You really need to avoid using research models that deal with people who have physiological disorders and people who do not train and attempt to apply those to the general population of weight lifters.

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Do you mean to say I'm lying about my personal experience? That's weak.</div>

Or else you are mistaken. Insulin resistance cannot violate the laws of physics. Unless you are creating matter and energy out of nothingness, then it is impossible that you did not lose weight. Unless you are talking about ONE DAY where you consumed only 600 calories and did not lose weight, then maybe, especially if that day was preceded by a very high calorie day.
But as it stands right now, you are throwing the credibility of your entire argument into question with your insistence that you failed to lose weight on a 600 calorie diet. Not only that, but it is an insult to the intelligence of the members of this board. You have an opportunity right now to backpedal and either admit that you were exaggerating or admit that you might have been mistaken. Otherwise I don't think anyone here with even half a brain will be able to take anything you say seriously.

Nonsense for the lose.
 
<div>
(nkl @ Mar. 20 2008,09:35)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">...
It makes sense. If a person accustomed to eating &quot;very little&quot; then eats a lot all of a sudden, I once believed they stored that extra energy for harsher times, since they eat above maintenance. But if they eat above maintenance all the time, wouldn't their metabolism shift into a higher gear? Well, there seems to be a limit. For a already fat person with very little lean mass, their resting metabolism wouldn't require so many calories to begin with. If they then eat 1000 calories extra per week they still would keep adding pounds over time. They wouldn't lose weight, that's for sure.
...</div>
For the already fat person with very little lean mass. Why would he gain weight over time? Why wouldn't he lose weight?

Don't you think his body would try to put on muscle if he has so little lean mass to begin with? Don't you think he would lose the fat if he has so much of it to begin with?

You said it yourself. &quot;wouldn't their metabolism shift in to a high gear?&quot; If it can shift gears, it can do so either way. High gear and low gear. All depending on how many calories go in and how many go out.

As we eat more, expenditure goes up. As we eat less, expenditure goes down. As we expend more, hunger goes up. As we expend less, hunger goes down. Hunger is the primary mechanism that determines caloric intake. Anything that affects hunger affects caloric intake. If we expend energy, hunger will be proportional to the calories we expend.

It also works with foods.

Do you think it's normal to go to bed hungry? Maybe it's something you ate. Did you expend more energy between dinner and bedtime? What did you eat at dinner? If it's a pile of sugar in the form of rice or potatoes, it's no wonder you're still hungry. So you eat more. Until you're not hungry anymore. So you eat more sugar.
 
<div>
(Totentanz @ Mar. 20 2008,15:28)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"> <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">It's all about insulin resistance. That's the dominant factor for fat accumulation and fat loss.</div>

No, that is weak. The dominant factor is calories in vs calories out. Insulin resistance, if anything, is one of the details.

You really need to avoid using research models that deal with people who have physiological disorders and people who do not train and attempt to apply those to the general population of weight lifters.

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Do you mean to say I'm lying about my personal experience? That's weak.</div>

Or else you are mistaken. Insulin resistance cannot violate the laws of physics. Unless you are creating matter and energy out of nothingness, then it is impossible that you did not lose weight. Unless you are talking about ONE DAY where you consumed only 600 calories and did not lose weight, then maybe, especially if that day was preceded by a very high calorie day.
But as it stands right now, you are throwing the credibility of your entire argument into question with your insistence that you failed to lose weight on a 600 calorie diet. Not only that, but it is an insult to the intelligence of the members of this board. You have an opportunity right now to backpedal and either admit that you were exaggerating or admit that you might have been mistaken. Otherwise I don't think anyone here with even half a brain will be able to take anything you say seriously.

Nonsense for the lose.</div>
Weak? You mean I bring in something relevant and you think it's weak? Maybe it's because you've never looked at the data before. Who knows.

Avoid using research models? What do you think Bryan et al looked at? That's all there is, research models. We all produce insulin therefore any research on insulin applies to us all. Even diabetics type 1. Even lifters. Even diabetic lifters.

&quot;Or else I'm mistaken&quot; The end result is the same: The information that comes from me is unreliable and can be summarily dismissed without a second thought.

Insulin resistance violates the laws of thermodynamics as you see them. But they obey the laws just the same. It's how you see the laws that skews your point of view on insulin. You think thermodynamics are inviolate and they apply to our entire metabolism equally. They don't.

Fat cells don't become resistant to insulin until later. Much later. The liver goes first. Then lean tissue including muscles. That's not a violation of thermodynamics. It's an application of it.


I'd have lost more weight on zero calorie. The culprit, as Bluejacket said, is the carbs. If I don't eat any, insulin level drops, fat can be mobilized, I lose weight. If I eat even just a little bit, insulin level rises, fat is trapped, I lose no weight.

I didn't do a thing to my credibility. But you certainly said I was either lying or mistaken. It's you who doesn't believe me. It's you who insists. You continue to think up all kinds of ways to rationalize how 600 calories can work according to your knowledge base. But you do so under the pretense that I'm lying or mistaken.

Don't presume to know what other members of this board are insulted with. I trust people to think for themselves. If you think people with only half a brain are reading this, of course I wouldn't expect them to take me seriously. Although for those with a full brain, that's another matter altogether.
 
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I'd have lost more weight on zero calorie. The culprit, as Bluejacket said, is the carbs. If I don't eat any, insulin level drops, fat can be mobilized, I lose weight. If I eat even just a little bit, insulin level rises, fat is trapped, I lose no weight.</div>

SO WRONG.
You are grossly misinformed.
 
<div>
(Totentanz @ Mar. 20 2008,16:17)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Okay, well we're pretty much done here then.</div>
Who's we? Speak for yourself.
 
<div>
(Totentanz @ Mar. 20 2008,16:17)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Okay, well we're pretty much done here then.</div>
Yeah.
 
<div>
(scientific muscle @ Mar. 20 2008,16:39)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"> <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I'd have lost more weight on zero calorie. The culprit, as Bluejacket said, is the carbs. If I don't eat any, insulin level drops, fat can be mobilized, I lose weight. If I eat even just a little bit, insulin level rises, fat is trapped, I lose no weight.</div>

SO WRONG.
You are grossly misinformed.</div>
From my point of view, it's you who's misinformed. Therefore I disagree with your statement. I've already shown why I now think you're misinformed but you have yet to show me without a doubt how misinformed I am.
 
ok, i think im about done here as well........

on a final note how do you account for the lack of muscle loss on your &quot;magic&quot; 600 cal no loss diet. youve spent countless posts pushing your &quot;subtract the carbs&quot; from the equation and all you need is fat packed meat (protein) to gain/maint. your muscle mass. if thats the case then how did you not lose any lbm when dieting on only 600 cals which must have been mostly (if not all) carb since it was your main example of how carbs are sooo evil and kept you from losing any wgt at all......

as i mentioned in my orig. post there simply is no room for much (if any) protein in your example let alone fat. even if folks were buying into the &quot;carbs make you fat even if you just think about them&quot; stuff, how do you account for a virtual protein and fat free diet, just 600cals of carbs (give or take), 90 min. of cardio, and no muscle loss whatsoever. at least with the carb=fat angle you could say your wgt sstayed the same due to muscle loss and fat gain.

so why bother with all this fat and protein nonsense. youve obviously discovered how to maint. your wgt. and not lose an once of muscle (or fat) all by eating 600cals in carbs and avoiding pro/fat alltogether.

so......?

as for the calling you a liar..... please..... i havent heard nonsense like that since i was on the playground in fourth grade. if thats what you need for an escape hatch when people call you out on the silly things you post and then feel compelled to defend to the death....then so be it.
last time we &quot;disagreed&quot; you complained about your rating falling and then disappeard for a month or so......
 
Dude, if you eat even just a little bit of carbs....then you'll get no fat loss, no matter how large the caloric deficit.
It doesn't matter that millions of people have lost fat while eating high-carb, low fat diets.  All that matters is one book that martin levac read , he's discovered a new gospel.
 
Guys, I hate to play the troll card, but it kind of looks that way. I'd suggest not bothering at all with this. The only thing I'd be worried about is some poor guy reading all this and trying it out, then getting hugely fat.
 
<div>
(bluejacket @ Mar. 20 2008,16:57)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">ok, i think im about done here as well........

on a final note how do you account for the lack of muscle loss on your &quot;magic&quot; 600 cal no loss diet. youve spent countless posts pushing your &quot;subtract the carbs&quot; from the equation and all you need is fat packed meat (protein) to gain/maint. your muscle mass. if thats the case then how did you not lose any lbm when dieting on only 600 cals which must have been mostly (if not all) carb since it was your main example of how carbs are sooo evil and kept you from losing any wgt at all......

as i mentioned in my orig. post there simply is no room for much (if any) protein in your example let alone fat. even if folks were buying into the &quot;carbs make you fat even if you just think about them&quot; stuff, how do you account for a virtual protein and fat free diet, just 600cals of carbs (give or take), 90 min. of cardio, and no muscle loss whatsoever. at least with the carb=fat angle you could say your wgt sstayed the same due to muscle loss and fat gain.

so why bother with all this fat and protein nonsense. youve obviously discovered how to maint. your wgt. and not lose an once of muscle (or fat) all by eating 600cals in carbs and avoiding pro/fat alltogether.

so......?

as for the calling you a liar..... please..... i havent heard nonsense like that since i was on the playground in fourth grade. if thats what you need for an escape hatch when people call you out on the silly things you post and then feel compelled to defend to the death....then so be it.
last time we &quot;disagreed&quot; you complained about your rating falling and then disappeard for a month or so......</div>
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.

At the time, I didn't know up from down. Only with my recent knowledge did I begin to understand why I wasn't losing any weight. I tried to do exactly like everybody said: Eat less, do more. At first, it appeared to work. When I was bulking, I was eating quite a bit of calories and growing fat all the while. So when I cut calories, it worked for about a month. Then progress stopped dead and I stayed there for about two months. I cut calories even further down to 600 calories. Still no progress. Some days I would gain a couple of pounds. I really did not know why it didn't work even though I was doing exactly as I was told.

With newly acquired knowledge, I now know why I quickly lost the weight I lost when I first cut calories. I stopped eating rice. Rice is starch and it converts into glucose. Which in turn drives insulin and traps fat into adipose tissue. So when I cut rice from my diet, insulin dropped and let fat out of adipose tissue. It's that simple. There is, however, another reason I dropped weight so quickly. Water. The first thing that goes on a low carb diet is the water retained by glycogen. Once the glycogen is gone, there is no need to retain that water so I lost maybe 5 lbs of water in the first few days. Incidentally, I also lost about 5 lbs in 5 days when I truly cut all carbs from my diet later one when I understood how it all worked.

And the only reasonable explanation you guys can give me is I am lying or mistaken? Get real.

You assume that my maintenance is around 600 calories. That's absurd. You said it yourself and I concur: There is no room for enough protein. In fact, there is no room for enough nutrient of any kind. I was killing myself by losing lean mass and gaining fat. The heart is a muscle. I was losing mass there as well. The prospect, if you haven't looked at it yet, is a heart attack. Think on this and come back when you figure out a way to eat 600 calories and not lose lean mass.

As for your other comments on my credibility. Well, like I said, since you don't believe me, anything I say from then on is summarily dismissed as invalid without a second thought. It's not what I say, it's how you see it. Change the way you see it and what I say doesn't change but it becomes valid once more. The alternative is that I change what I say to satisfy your views. That's a losing proposition for both of us. I explained it already. If I change what I say, you won't believe me anyway because I'd be contradicting myself. There is no exit from this impasse on my side. The only exit is on your side.
 
<div>
(Totentanz @ Mar. 20 2008,17:09)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Guys, I hate to play the troll card, but it kind of looks that way. I'd suggest not bothering at all with this. 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 troll card? Last I looked, trolls accused others of lying, made personal attacks, changed the subject, couldn't make an argument stick and tried to pull others to his cause but most famously and most deviously played the troll card themselves as a last resort when they couldn't extricate themselves from the mess they created.
 
<div>
(Martin Levac @ Mar. 19 2008,20:24)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="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>
hmmmm?

its like claiming you were misquoted........in your own autobiography.


good luck and good night
 
<div>
(bluejacket @ Mar. 20 2008,18:14)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(Martin Levac @ Mar. 19 2008,20:24)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="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>
hmmmm?

its like claiming you were misquoted........in your own autobiography.


good luck and good night</div>
I don't get it. The quote in your post is of a statement in its own right. But your comment seems to indicate a comparison of some sort between that quote and something else. We see the quote but where's the other side of your comparison?
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top