PDA

View Full Version : Awesome Article by Lyle Mcdonald



ArchAngel777
10-05-2006, 02:49 PM
CLICK (http://www.mindandmuscle.net/mindandmuscle/magpage.php?artID=35&pageNum=1)

I thought it was pretty interesting... Sorry if this is a repost, but I didn't see it anywhere posted on here. It is a relatively new article (5/5/06) of his.

Vapour Trails
10-05-2006, 03:14 PM
Yes, it was a good article.

Also worth reading is "Very low carbohydrate diets and Fat Loss: The Fat truth" on the same site. It describes how good low carb diets are for losing lard and clearly presents 'a calorie is not a calorie'.

Holto
10-05-2006, 04:59 PM
Yes, it was a good article.

Also worth reading is "Very low carbohydrate diets and Fat Loss: The Fat truth" on the same site. It describes how good low carb diets are for losing lard and clearly presents 'a calorie is not a calorie'.

You keep posting this garbage.

The low carb group lost either WATER or BONE. If they didn't you can bet your ass they would have measured body composition.

What were their body fat %'s before and after?

Oh I forgot their medical clinic can't affort a caliper. Not to mention how expensive it is to conduct the testing. It takes allmost 5 minutes.

Built
10-05-2006, 05:08 PM
Playing Devil's advocate, I started my original weight loss on a low carb diet (under 50g a day for most of a year, lost 35 lbs), and cut to 14% last summer on a fairly low carb diet (carb cycled).

Average macros for the month of July, 2005:
Total: 1972
Fat: 81 726 38%
Sat: 21 191 10%
Poly: 17 156 8%
Mono: 29 263 14%
Carbs: 137 454 24%
Fiber: 23 0 0%
Protein: 183 732 38%

Carbs went up to about 150g, down to about 60g

I'm a middle-aged woman, and my bone density was more than two standard deviations HIGHER than normal - for a woman of TWENTY.

So I'd kinda argue the "losing bone" comment. If I lost 35 lbs of water, all I can say is "WOW, was I ever BLOATED!"

ddegroff
10-05-2006, 05:26 PM
Good article, really backs up what we preach here.

Now I'm gonna sit back and watch the fire works.

Vapour Trails
10-05-2006, 06:55 PM
You keep posting this garbage.

The low carb group lost either WATER or BONE. If they didn't you can bet your ass they would have measured body composition.

What were their body fat %'s before and after?

Oh I forgot their medical clinic can't affort a caliper. Not to mention how expensive it is to conduct the testing. It takes allmost 5 minutes.

Argue with the guy who wrote the article, not me. It's his conclusion, but you know more right? What degree to you hold again? Bone loss? Yeah right.

Davidelmo
10-05-2006, 08:19 PM
Playing Devil's advocate, I started my original weight loss on a low carb diet (under 50g a day for most of a year, lost 35 lbs), and cut to 14% last summer on a fairly low carb diet (carb cycled).

Average macros for the month of July, 2005:
Total: 1972
Fat: 81 726 38%
Sat: 21 191 10%
Poly: 17 156 8%
Mono: 29 263 14%
Carbs: 137 454 24%
Fiber: 23 0 0%
Protein: 183 732 38%

Carbs went up to about 150g, down to about 60g

I'm a middle-aged woman, and my bone density was more than two standard deviations HIGHER than normal - for a woman of TWENTY.

So I'd kinda argue the "losing bone" comment. If I lost 35 lbs of water, all I can say is "WOW, was I ever BLOATED!"


The bone density is from the fact you list heavy things 4x a week. To be honest, I doubt it has much to do with carb intake.

Plus, that same article states that you should take 30g creatine for 2 weeks :bang:

Also that article didn't mention anywhere that the subjects were involved in weight training.

There are so many flaws in that article (low carb dieting) it's not even funny. It's dressed up to sound scientific but most of it is complete BS.

Davidelmo
10-05-2006, 08:20 PM
Argue with the guy who wrote the article, not me. It's his conclusion, but you know more right? What degree to you hold again? Bone loss? Yeah right.

You know that bone is a dynamic substance that is constantly made and broken down, right? Bone mass can easily be gained or lost.

Holto
10-05-2006, 08:24 PM
Playing Devil's advocate, I started my original weight loss on a low carb diet (under 50g a day for most of a year, lost 35 lbs), and cut to 14% last summer on a fairly low carb diet (carb cycled).

Average macros for the month of July, 2005:
Total: 1972
Fat: 81 726 38%
Sat: 21 191 10%
Poly: 17 156 8%
Mono: 29 263 14%
Carbs: 137 454 24%
Fiber: 23 0 0%
Protein: 183 732 38%

Carbs went up to about 150g, down to about 60g

I'm a middle-aged woman, and my bone density was more than two standard deviations HIGHER than normal - for a woman of TWENTY.

So I'd kinda argue the "losing bone" comment. If I lost 35 lbs of water, all I can say is "WOW, was I ever BLOATED!"


My argument is you can't claim greater fat loss from data where the subjects bodyfat was not assessed. They could have lost any other type of tissue(s) and we wouldn't know because they are only going by bodyweight.

The only reason I can see to go by bodyweight (ie: cost is not the issue) is to make a misrepresentation.

ArchAngel777
10-06-2006, 02:00 PM
My argument is you can't claim greater fat loss from data where the subjects bodyfat was not assessed. They could have lost any other type of tissue(s) and we wouldn't know because they are only going by bodyweight.

The only reason I can see to go by bodyweight (ie: cost is not the issue) is to make a misrepresentation.

Yep, totally agree....

Built
10-06-2006, 02:09 PM
As I understand these things, inducing IR through low carb intake combined with protein and fat sufficient to support LBM is ideal for fat loss.

For me, it's all about the comfort. If I hadn't been told to do Atkins by my doctor, I never would have known how easy it would be to manage my appetite on lower carbs.

Holto
10-06-2006, 02:20 PM
As I understand these things, inducing IR through low carb intake combined with protein and fat sufficient to support LBM is ideal for fat loss.

Causes the myocytes to shift to FFA's for fuel. Natures way of contending with obesity. (According to Lyle)

All I'm ever saying is that a lb of fat is 3500 calories. Those calories can only leave the body as heat or kinetic energy. If someone is to claim more rapid fat loss from a low carb diet they need to explain it thermodynamically.

Phyics is all laws supported by hard data.

Biology is all theories supported by interpretations.

As I undertand it all biological systems are bound by the laws of physics.

Built
10-06-2006, 02:42 PM
Holto - here's my reasoning: (and I trust the laws of thermodynamics, don't worry) If the muscle is spared, you'll lose those calories from stored fat, not catabolized muscle.

That's what I see as the benefit.

Create a deficit of 3500 cals, you'll drop 3500 cals of stored energy. I'd prefer to see it come from a pound of fat, than a half a pound of fat and two pounds of muscle.

;)

Eszekial
10-06-2006, 03:19 PM
The thing about lyle is, he keeps in mind normal human mess ups, and doesn't tell you that's what he's doing.

Holto
10-06-2006, 03:56 PM
If the muscle is spared, you'll lose those calories from stored fat, not catabolized muscle.

What is the correlation between low carb and sparing muscle?

Built
10-06-2006, 03:58 PM
As I understand it, high.

Holto
10-06-2006, 05:48 PM
What is the mechanism?

ArchAngel777
10-06-2006, 07:16 PM
What is the mechanism?

I don't know... But possibly more protein and fats as a result? Your calories have to come from somewhere and instead of lowering fats, you can lower carbs and increase fats/protein.

I am nearly 100% convinced about low carbs. I certainly think it works. Take for instance this scenario (my understanding is limited, so if I am wrong, well, then I am wrong!) Lyle and others will contend that your body will use protein for energy if there are no carbohydrates. So, in theory at some point, Carbs and Protein are interchangable when it comes to energy. Carbs can only be used for energy or for storage, where as protein can be used for all three (energy, building muscle, storage). In addition to that, the body has to work harder (I believe) to convert extra protein to glucose in addition to the thermal affect of digesting protein (if dealing with solid foods).

This is a PURELY HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION: So lets say you eat 800 calories of protein a day and presume that 15% of that is burned up just from the digestion process and then we can presume that another 10% is used in converting it to glucose.

800 X .85 = 680

680 X .90 = 612

612 / 4 = 153 grams of glucose

Now lets say you eat 800 calories of carbohydrates. As far as I am aware, the digestion process for carbohydrates is much easier in addition to the convertion of glucose. So, lets just presume 5% for digestion and another 5% to convert to glucose.

800 X .95 = 760

760 X .95 = 722

722 / 4 = 180.5 grams of glucose

Unless I am severely mistaken here, you cannot have a carbohydrate supply the building blocks for muscle. So any wasted carbs will go to fat storage, I would presume.

So, based on this above (I know, it is hypothetical, unproven and the numbers could be bogus) I would say it is better to ingest protein because 1) You can eat more, 2) It takes longer to digest, and 3) Because the protein can go towards building the muscle and any excess can be used to convert itself to glucose.

There, that is my take on it. However, I do realize the importance of carbs around a workout. It is my understanding that without carbs you will never fill your glycogen stores, which would be optimal for energy during a workout. I believe protein is only converted to glucose when the body needs it and by that time it is often too late, which is why I think carbs around your workout (slightly before and after) is probably the ideal way to train.

Holto
10-08-2006, 12:38 PM
However, I do realize the importance of carbs around a workout. It is my understanding that without carbs you will never fill your glycogen stores, which would be optimal for energy during a workout.

This is my #1 reason why I am against low carb diets for athletes.

There is nothing (natural) that will prevent loss of LBM more effectively than having productive workouts.


This is my #2 reason:


Wondering what your advice would be to someone who can lose bodyfat, but only to a certain extent? What do you do when the loses grind to a halt, despite low cal diets and stimulants?

I started cutting at the very beginning of January at 202 lbs. In the first 5 weeks I lost about 10 pounds and everything was going along nicely, I was pleased. Now in the past 3-4 weeks I've barely lost a pound and I'm not seeing visually any progress either. I'm eating about 2200-2400 cals on workout days and about 2000 on rest days. I'm taking EC twice a day (16mg E,200mg C). Working out every second day with a upper/lower split.

This is the same scenario I run into everytime I try cutting - I see progress up until a certain point, then I hit a brick wall and my body refuses to shed bodyfat and I give up and start bulking again. It's really frustrating. I told myself that this time I was finally going to get where I wanted to be (12-14%bf) , but it seems nothing helps after a certain point. I'm thinking now about PSMF for about 2 weeks straight, basically pure starvation, because genetically I think I suck for leaness.

Quite often people that are using low carb diets don't understand the basics of weight loss. This is a guy who brags about his formal education and I admit he knows some things about the body inside and out.

Someone who is focussing on an energy deficit doesn't hit plateaus, ever. I lost 83lbs consecutively. Anyone that has ever followed a diet I designed has had the same success.

One thing I want to point out.

In any study where the low carb group is losing more fat, because they are losing less LBM (as theorized above) than the high carb group, it's impossible that they also lose more weight.

Losing significant LBM is accompanied by rapid (read: drastic) weight loss. A lb of LMB only yields ~600 calories when catabolized.

If the high carb group is even losing a small percentage more LBM than the low carb group they are losing more tissue weight. Enough to more than compensate for the water weight lost during the induction into low carbs.

I also know at least three women that were diagnosed with osteoporosis after following various drastic diets. Some low carb some an infamous Dr in the GTA.

These women I just referred to don't lift. Most women that don't lift start losing bone density around age 30. I have never seen a low carb study where the participants engaged in resistance training. For this reason bone loss is very possible in all the data we have.

Built
10-08-2006, 03:20 PM
Well ... you say you're against low carb diets for athletes, but low-rep training isn't particularly glycogen-dependent, and that's the one that works best on a cut anyway. And you said yourself the women who lost bone mass weren't lifting.

I wasn't an athlete until I low carbed. I tried for years to be fit on higher carbs, and I couldn't make it work. It wasn't until I learned this little trick of appetite suppression that I was able to make it all work.

Holto
10-09-2006, 02:53 PM
Well ... you say you're against low carb diets for athletes, but low-rep training isn't particularly glycogen-dependent, and that's the one that works best on a cut anyway. And you said yourself the women who lost bone mass weren't lifting.

I wasn't an athlete until I low carbed. I tried for years to be fit on higher carbs, and I couldn't make it work. It wasn't until I learned this little trick of appetite suppression that I was able to make it all work.

If your health hadn't degenerated to the point of you being on Metformin I imagine you could have lost weight without having to avoid carbs.

The part I bolded typifies my position. Someone who has never cut before is going to turn their whole diet upside down to go low carb and then change thier training to fit thier diet. This is alot of complication and frustration when they simply could have eaten a little less.

Davidelmo
10-09-2006, 02:59 PM
Plus a lot of people get the wrong idea - "I can binge on tons of junkfood but as long as there's no carbs, I can lose weight."

Built
10-09-2006, 03:11 PM
If your health hadn't degenerated to the point of you being on Metformin I imagine you could have lost weight without having to avoid carbs.
I could have done it WITH carbs, even ill. I just would have felt like garbage doing it. On lower carbs, it's a LOT more comfortable.




The part I bolded typifies my position. Someone who has never cut before is going to turn their whole diet upside down to go low carb and then change thier training to fit thier diet. This is alot of complication and frustration when they simply could have eaten a little less.
??

Cutting is low reps, heavy, and fewer calories.

How would this turn someone's life upside down on lower carbs?