<div>
(Bryan Haycock @ Feb. 22 2008,18:52)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(Martin Levac @ Feb. 07 2008,05:16)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(Bryan Haycock @ Feb. 06 2008,17:05)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I'm not so sure his problem was one of lacking references so much as misinterpreting the research.
It is my understanding that a low energy state within the cell (i.e. low glycogen and/or high metabolic demand) increases AMPK activity which has a negative effect on Akt>mTOR>etc. The end result would be a decrease in protein synthesis and overall cellular hypertrophy.
The effects of putting metabolic pressure on a muscle cell to switch from glycogen to fat for fuel also alters signaling pathways which can reduce hypertrophy signaling pathway activity.
This is the underlying reason why building muscle while dieting (cutting carbs) is so difficult.
-bryan</div>
OK. A genuine question this time.
When you say dieting, what do you mean exactly? You say cutting carbs but do you also imply a caloric deficit? Or low fat too? How about the scenario below, would that constitute dieting?
zero carbs / high fat / reg protein / caloric surplus</div>
When you cut carbs (or burn an excess amount) the body responds as if there is a caloric deficit even if total calories are sufficient. Fat does not produce the same hormonal/signaling environment as carbohydrates, and thus is not as helpful for hypertrophy.
It is my belief that trying to cut body fat and increase muscle mass is a losing proposition. In order to cut body fat significantly you must create a caloric deficit. This inhibits anabolic signaling. So all the hard work pretty much goes towards keeping what you have instead of producing more mass.
In order to grow you must provide "sufficient" carbohydrates to optimize the environment within your body. A "sufficient" amount will differ from one individual to another.</div>
Is it your belief that we must create a caloric deficit? Or do you have research that either proves or disproves this theory?
While you and I can read about that hypothesis everywhere, that we must cut calories to cut body fat, it's just that, a hypothesis. It's never been proven. It's been debunked many times though. The name of this hypothesis is the Positive Caloric Balance Hypothesis.
In short, to grow fat we must eat more or do less. To grow lean we must eat less or do more. That's what you believe, yes? That's what I believed as well. Note the past tense. Now I don't believe anything I read about diet until I see the research behind it. There is literally no research that proves the hypothesis. Not a single paper. It's all been a Big Fat Lie.
Our current thinking of hypertrophy training is skewed by the abnormal metabolic profile we've been accustomed to because of the high carb diet. I say abnormal because a high carb diet is abnormal to humans. We didn't survive these millenias on sugar and starch. We ate meat. Fat meat.
The "optimized environment" you speak of is bogus. Consider the following. A child grows because of growth hormone. Carbohydrates inhibit GH and we grow shorter, weaker and fatter than otherwise. Now tell me how eating carbohydrates as an adult changes this mechanism. I'll tell you, it doesn't. The mechanism is the same: We continue to grow shorter, weaker and fatter than otherwise.
At first, I didn't believe it either that we could cut fat and grow muscle simultaneously. Now, I know better. It's not about caloric quantity, it's about caloric quality. It's not how much. It's what. It's all about the carbs. As we cut carbs, we also cut the ability to store fat in adipose tissue. But there's a whole lot more going on on the muscle tissue side. It becomes more insulin sensitive as a result of the reduction of glucose in the blood and the subsequent reduction of insulin in the blood too. It works this way because of the previous high insulin resistance that occurred because of the high carb diet in the first place. Had we not eaten the carbs, the metabolic environment would be much different to begin with and we'd be looking at it from a very different perspective indeed.
We would consider a low carb, high fat diet normal. And we would consider a high carb, low fat diet as absurd.
Consider the amount of protein BB'ers eat to grow. Protein and carbs don't do the same thing when ingested. One shoots blood glucose skyward, the other shoots amino acid skyward. One drive fat into fat cells, the other drive amino acid into muscle cells. They both work with insulin but one works better than the other at pushing amino acids into muscle cells. Extend this logic by taking out carbs altogether and only eating fat and protein. No amount of fat gets pushed into fat cells so we don't grow fat ever.
Bryan, I think you should doubt and question your belief instead of simply accepting the hypothesis as fact. Doubt is, after all, the fundamental principle of the scientific method.
Gary Taubes wrote a book, Good Calories Bad Calories. Check it out if you really want to understand how it all works. I'm sure you will find it useful for hypertrophy training.