# Do Carbs make us fat?



## benki11 (Sep 17, 2010)

I know general thinking is that caloric surplus makes you fat not ,Carbs !?

but I been on 26% bf mostly last 4 years but then I started cuting carbs down mostly I keep them under 120 a day and

they come mostly from Fruits and Vegies bit bread

in morning and with some other stuff I went down to 12 % BF !

So ok maybe I am wrong in thinking that I lost bf because of carbs but because I don t overeat anymore,so

would that mean if I eat just icecream and sweets and chocolate all day with some protein shakes I can still stay lean (maintaining calories at 2500)?!?!

I mean that what I understood when people say not carbs but calories surplus makes you fat


----------



## Sionnach (Apr 19, 2010)

Carbs spike insulin, insulin inhibits fat burning. By keeping insulin under control you keep fat under control.


----------



## DutchTony (Sep 25, 2011)

Carbs spike insulin, insulin inhibits fat burning. By keeping insulin under control you keep fat under control.


----------



## Proteincarb (Oct 12, 2010)

I switched from bulking with mostly carbs to good fats now and noticed I feel better and leaner while bulking


----------



## Fat (Jan 2, 2010)

No they don't.


----------



## benki11 (Sep 17, 2010)

Fat said:


> No they don't.


Ok so I can eat just sweets ,chocolate and icecream all day long with few protein shakes and if I am in calories deficit I ll be lean as

Anyone else in gym?

Would realy love to do it for a change , and visit some takeaways (njum)


----------



## Ukmeathead (Dec 4, 2010)

benki11 said:


> Ok so I can eat just sweets ,chocolate and icecream all day long with few protein shakes and if I am in calories deficit I ll be lean as
> 
> Anyone else in gym?
> 
> Would realy love to do it for a change , and visit some takeaways (njum)


That made me LOL nice comeback question hehe


----------



## Malibu (May 13, 2010)

benki11 said:


> Ok so I can eat just sweets ,chocolate and icecream all day long with few protein shakes and if I am in calories deficit I ll be lean as
> 
> Anyone else in gym?
> 
> Would realy love to do it for a change , and visit some takeaways (njum)


Not quite.

Aslong as you hit 1.2g/lb protein and 0.45g/lb fats, you can eat whatever you want for your remaining calories


----------



## benki11 (Sep 17, 2010)

Malibu said:


> Not quite.
> 
> Aslong as you hit 1.2g/lb protein and 0.45g/lb fats, you can eat whatever you want for your remaining calories


Well of course I would hit 1.2 g/ kg with protein shakes and 0.45 g/kg of fat choclade and icecream are loaded with fat

And takeaways can't miss those numbers so you reckon I try and I would still be lean and keep my bf low with calories maintained


----------



## Dazza (Aug 7, 2010)

Like anything if you eat it to excess of course you will.

So long as i go moderate and throw in some good fats, then im usually good to go.


----------



## IronMaiden (Mar 31, 2010)

I like this post alot. I get what your trying to say. There's always general rules but everything seems a little foggy sometimes.

Iv stuck to my protein goals and cal deficit for a month now, lost so much muscle and done what people say... Tried 40/40/20 and other splits and still same results.. I just don't lose body fat unless I do cardio a hell of alot... Otherwise diet is just making me weak skinny and smaller...


----------



## Huntingground (Jan 10, 2010)

I don't count calories, I count carbs. I eat as many calories from Protein and Fats as I want. I believe that cals don't make you fat, carbs do.


----------



## IronMaiden (Mar 31, 2010)

Huntingground said:


> I don't count calories, I count carbs. I eat as many calories from Protein and Fats as I want. I believe that cals don't make you fat, carbs do.


For some reason I might believe you


----------



## Gary29 (Aug 21, 2011)

IronMaiden said:


> I like this post alot. I get what your trying to say. There's always general rules but everything seems a little foggy sometimes.
> 
> Iv stuck to my protein goals and cal deficit for a month now, lost so much muscle and done what people say... Tried 40/40/20 and other splits and still same results.. I just don't lose body fat unless I do cardio a hell of alot... Otherwise diet is just making me weak skinny and smaller...


Same as me mate.


----------



## Mockett (Jun 26, 2012)

if you have the time watch this






But if you cant be bothered this is a shortened version of it


----------



## Ricky12345 (Jun 13, 2012)

Same as hunting ground


----------



## IronMaiden (Mar 31, 2010)

Huntingground said:


> I don't count calories, I count carbs. I eat as many calories from Protein and Fats as I want. I believe that cals don't make you fat, carbs do.


So how many carbs would you have? Or do you just time them.. In morning .. Before and after trainin? Thanks


----------



## Jay.32 (Dec 12, 2008)

DutchTony said:


> Carbs spike insulin, insulin inhibits fat burning. By keeping insulin under control you keep fat under control.


YOU CAN SAY THAT AGAIN


----------



## defdaz (Nov 11, 2007)

Nutrition is never completely straight-forward unfortunately.

Carbs are handled differently depending on your state (whether you're in the fed state - muscles and liver full of glycogen, or fasted or in-between), the quantity consumed, the GI index of the carbs (and the rest of the meal combined), your insulin sensitivity, your metabolism (i.e. how you handle excess carbs - do you have lots of brown fat to help keep you at your 'set point' or are you doomed to store it as fat) and so on.

Think of it this way: eat a lot of simple carbs. Influx of glucose causes a massive insulin response. Quickly the excess glucose is shunted whereever possible (fat stores, liver, muscles - you're screwed if the liver and muscles are already full lol). Insulin levels drop and blood sugar returns to normal. A lot of the energy will now be stored as fat. Happy days. Sure that fat can be accessed and used but only at a low rate (takes a while to ramp up, especially if still in the fed state with plenty of gylcogen).

Ideally if you are dieting you never want to consume so much carbs or fast releasing carbs that you get a large insulin response - fat burning reduces massively while insulin levels are high or glycogen levels in the liver are high.

If you're going to eat a lot of carbs make sure you're in the fastest state first and try to consume low GI complex carbs or eat them with fatty / high protein meals to help lower the GI index of the meal overall. Keep the insulin response as low as possible and don't go so crazy that you're storing fat rather than burning it.

Easy.


----------



## Andy 67 (May 2, 2012)

rippedgreg said:


> Carbs spike insulin, insulin inhibits fat burning. By keeping insulin under control you keep fat under control.


Protein spikes insulin, and insulin drives amino acids into muscle cells.

Excess calories causes fat gain & calorie deficit will cause fat loss.

Some people do better on low carbs & some do worse, but when low, high & moderate carb weight loss diets are compared for reasonable sample sizes under experimental conditions, no macro mix comes out any better or worse than any other.


----------



## defdaz (Nov 11, 2007)

Andy 67 said:


> Protein spikes insulin, and insulin drives amino acids into muscle cells.
> 
> Excess calories causes fat gain & calorie deficit will cause fat loss.
> 
> Some people do better on low carbs & some do worse, but when low, high & moderate carb weight loss diets are compared for reasonable sample sizes under experimental conditions, no macro mix comes out any better or worse than any other.


Yeah that's a good point, insulin is very anabolic but if all it's shuttling is glucose well... meh. Better to get a nice insulin bulge off a load of protein and a bit of carbs.

I don't think that last point is true, there are lots of conflicting studies, some showing better results from high protein or low carb, some not.


----------



## Huntingground (Jan 10, 2010)

IronMaiden said:


> So how many carbs would you have? Or do you just time them.. In morning .. Before and after trainin? Thanks


Bulking = 400g a day from potatoes, rice, wholemeal pasta etc. No simple carbs/sugars/sh1te.

Cutting (Keto style) = less than 20g a day.

I haven't done timed carbs so I'm sure somebody else will help with that.

If you are interested in reading:-

The Diet Delusion - Gary Taubes

The Great Cholesterol Con - Malcolm Kendrick


----------



## benki11 (Sep 17, 2010)

I realy think carbs play roll in getting fat ,maybe that's is the reason obesity started with agriculture !

When men where hunters and gatherers there where less fat people around !!


----------



## Matt 1 (May 8, 2010)

consuming more calories than you burn makes you fat


----------



## Barman (Feb 29, 2012)

killah said:


> I switched from bulking with mostly carbs to good fats now and noticed I feel better and leaner while bulking


total agree im dieting atm im on very low carbs going between 30-80 grams of carbs but i really put up my good fats i have more energy cause of it


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

No, carbs in a general sense don't make you fat beyond a simple energy balance equation, but sugar might especially when combined with an imbalance of other micronutrients and genetic factors, and there are other elements to lifestyle and nutrition as a whole which may negatively alter (in respect of the desire to keep lean) the way your body stores and handles carbs.

Not sure where to start, as this is a huge subject, but lets kick off with insulin and insulin sensitivity... be ready for a long post guys  . Poor insulin sensitivity (either from genetic causes, lack of activity, prolonged positive calorie balance or high levels of saturated fat or sugar - or more commonly a combination of those factors) can cause your body to utilize carbs less efficiently for energy and store them more readily in adipose tissue, but in a person with normal health there is no special danger associated with insulin as often claimed - 100g of cooked beef results in a greater total elevation in insulin than 100g of white pasta for example, yet no issue here because insulin on its own just isn't the fat storage devil many think it is.

In a healthy individual who excercises in fact there is less storage of excess carbs as body fat due to insulin action than there is from an equal amount of dietary fat stored via non insulin action... in the postprandial state after a meal, excess carbs will be both stored as bodyfat and as glycogen, whereas excess dietary fat can only ever be stored as body fat. In respect of this though, the direction the excess carbs will take and how they might play a part in displacement of other macros towards fat storage is dependent upon your activity levels, baseline insulin sensitivity, and calorie balance... activity promotes the ability of glycogen stores to 'supersaturate' and hold a higher total quantity of excess glucose as glycogen... this is due to exercise stimulated upregulatory changes both in the cellular enzyme AMPK (which regulates energy provision for muscular activity), and changes in GLUT4 transporters in the muscle... GLUT4 are the little transport molecules within various cells which collect glucose from the outside edge of the cell and take it into the cell, and when a person is very active these transporters translocate and move to the surface of the cell in readiness for glucose... this means that in this circumstance glucose can enter the cell with less action from insulin, and this results in greater insulin sensitivity, less overall insulin secreted and lower fat storage compared to an inactive state.

Another factor is that different simple sugars, and combinations thereof, have different effects upon the storage and mobilisation of body fat... fructose, glucose, galactose (the three main simple units of dietary carbs) each have very different effects upon insulin and insulin sensitivity... fructose for example cannot be transported into a cell via GLUT4 transporters, and requires either GLUT2 or GLUT5 transport... fat cells do not contain GLUT2 or GLUT5, and muscle cells contain no GLUT2 and only a tiny amount of GLUT5... but the liver contains a bucketful of GLUT2 (the main fructose transporter), and so will readily suck up fructose... the problem caused here is that because only really the liver can use this fructose that is where all of it goes, and it can very quickly overfill the livers glycogen storage capability... as soon as this happens the liver has no room either for glucose or fructose to store as glycogen, and so rather than handle any further influx of carbs in a balanced way, the liver begins to convert the excess fructose and glucose into triglycerides to facilitate an alternate form of energy storage... and this combination of full liver glycogen stores and increased hepatic triglyceride synthesis causes the liver to almost panic and to defend itself against elevated blood glucose (which it doesn't want because this causes a shift towards carbolic acidosis in the blood and can't handle itself because its own glucose store is saturated or beyond the point where signalling changes in the same way), and its defense mechanism is to cause the pancreas to ramp up elevations in insulin to drive blood glucose levels down to a normal level again... and if this process is continuous or frequently repeated then the frequent high elevations in plasma insulin at times of inactivity that result from the whole process cause a deregulation of insulin receptors in cells (especially muscle cells). This again causes more and more insulin to be secreted from the pancreas... this then inhibits fat burning and fat turnover as the excessively elevated insulin reduces (it doesn't totally block like often claimed) levels of a fat burning enzyme (hormone sensitive lipase) and promotes fat storage in adipose cells by simultaneously and proportionately elevating a separate but related fat storage enzyme (called lipoprotein lipase) - a definite double whammy against leanness.

Another thing to consider (this time in favor of carbs for leanness) is that storing energy is a process which itself costs energy... and carbs and especially amino acids cost more kcals to store than dietary fat does because they both need to go through a greater degree of conversion/processing to get there... dietary fat is pretty much ready for immediate storage.

The equation doesn't stop there though - sensitivty to both insulin and levels of hormones and enzymes (especially acylting stimulating protein and lipoprotein lipase) which facilitate fat gain and storage of triglycerides, free fatty acids, cholesterols and chylomicrons are all influenced by the dietary fatty acids you eat - a diet high in long chain saturated fats and with a polyunsaturated fat intake high in omega 6 fats but low in omega 3 fats significantly shifts the sensitivities here towards greater fat storage, so the combintion of this with high sugar intake promotes greater fat storage not due to anything negative that the carbs are doing but due to a simple imbalance of nutrients that impact the process... yet most people only focus on the role the carbs play and forget about the rest.

Another thing so often overlooked (particularly in the information dispensed by people trying to make profit promoting low carb diets) is that all of the factors mentioned above are significantly influenced in magnitude of effect in individuals who carry certain gene polymorphisms...

This is pasted from another thread:

*FABP2 Ala54Thr (A54T) Polymorphism*

The FABP2 gene encodes the intestinal form of fatty acid binding protein2 (FABP2). FABP2 protein is found in small intestine epithelial cells where it strongly influences fat absorption. Variations in DNA or polymorphisms in the gene result in greater binding of the fatty acids (released in the intestine from dietary fat consumption) which in turn results in higher absorption of fat. *One such polymorphism, Ala54Thr, has been found to be associated with obesity. Multiple clinical research studies have indicated that individuals with the Thr54 form of the protein show increased absorption and/or processing of dietary fatty acids by the intestine. The Thr54 variant has been associated with elevated BMI and body fat, increased abdominal fat, and obesity and higher LEPTIN levels. *Homozygotes for 54Thr/Thr variant show increased levels of postprandial triglycerides and increased levels of 14-18-carbon fatty acids compared with the 54Ala/Ala form of the protein.

*PPARG Pro12Ala (P12A) Polymorphism*

Peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-gamma (PPARG) protein is abundantly expressed in fat cells and plays a key role in the formation of fat cells. It is crucial to lipid (fat) metabolism. Polymorphisms in this gene that are responsible for expression of variant forms of the protein have been associated with the development of type 2 diabetes. The variant form of the protein (Ala12) is associated with a decreased binding affinity to its target genes and thus with a reduction in its ability to regulate the expression of these target genes. Pro12Ala polymorphism was the most studied, in individuals with the 12Pro/Pro form of the protein were more affected by the amount of fat in the diet and had a direct association between higher BMI and the amount of fat intake as opposed to the Ala12 carriers. These findings clearly indicated that 12Pro/Ala carrier individuals are more sensitive to the amount of fat in the diet. *Clinical studies consistently show that Pro12 allele is the high-risk allele and 12Pro/Pro subjects are more sensitive to the amount of fat in the diet, more resistant to weight loss and at increased risk of diabetes. The evidence of gene-diet interaction is strong.*

*ADRB2 Arg16Gly (R16E) and Gln27Glu (Q27E) Polymorphisms*

The beta-2 adrenergic receptor (ADRB2) gene product ADRB2 protein is expressed in fat cells. This receptor protein is involved in the mobilization of fat from the fat cells for energy in response to hormones called catecholamines. Several polymorphisms of this gene that result in amino acid changes have been identified. The two main well-characterized polymorphisms Arg16Gly and Gln27Glu are the most common in Caucasians. The recent obesity gene map shows association between variants in the ADRB2 gene and obesity, with most of the positive findings involving the Arg16Gly or Gln27Glu polymorphisms. Multiple studies show association between Glu27 and Gly16 allele carriers and abdominal and central obesity. 27Gln/Gln was found to be a risk genetic profile in studies involving overfeeding of identical twins where higher weight gain and subcutaneous fat were observed compared to those with the Glu27 allele. *Results from association studies suggest that the Glu27 allele is associated with an increased risk of obesity, abdominal obesity and obesity when adhering to a high carbohydrate diet.*

*ADRB3 Trp64Arg (R64W) Polymorphism*

The beta-3 adrenergic receptor (ADRB3) protein is expressed in visceral adipose tissue and the fat depot where it is involved in the regulation of fat breakdown (lipolysis). Laboratory studies on isolated fat cells (adipocytes) show that the Trp64Arg polymorphism in the gene results in reduced lipolysis in response to a specific agonist in cells carrying the Arg64 allele. Multiple clinical studies showed that Arg64 variant on the ADRB3 gene is strongly associated with increased BMI. Women with the Arg64 variant lost less weight through diet and exercise. ADRB3 Arg64 carriers experienced greater loss of fat mass and trunk fat following of supervised aerobic exercise training compared to non-carriers.

*ADRB2 Arg16Gly (R16E) and ADRB3 Trp64Arg (R64W) Polymorphisms and Exercise*

A number of studies have investigated the role of ADRB 2 and 3 polymorphisms on the risk of developing obesity and assessed the effect of physical activity on this risk. In a case-control study it was observed that the effect of the ADRB3 variant on obesity changes depending on the recreational physical activity levels. An increased obesity risk among carriers of the mutation (Arg64) was dramatically diminished when subjects had recreational energy expenditure levels higher than the median, the higher risk of obesity among carriers of the ADRB3 variant (Arg64) may be altered by moderate levels of physical activity.

.....

Perhaps the most relevant thing with those genes above (and others, those are just the main ones of over thirty genes that have been identified to result in definite and meaningful individual differences in response to macro balance) is that if you have the worst combination of genes for handling carbs then on a high carb diet you are far more likely to struggle to lose bodyfat if you eat them in a kcal deficit, and will lose more tissue to the required energy value from from muscle and glycogen turnover... however, if you have the combination that shafts you for dietary fat, you are equally far better at cutting with carbs than if you lowered them and replaced them with fats. The effects here are significant too, in that according to the A-Z study, matching the right diet to your genes results in a 2.5 times greater rate of fat loss and corresponding lean tissue preservation than compared to using the diet least appropriate for your genes.

Some really unlucky people are cursed with having both sets of negative genes and can therefore only really stand a chance f controlling body fat with a high protein diet, and so there is a legitimate case to be made for a genetic basis for obesity in some individuals, but these are estimated to be only very few. The estimated figures for the population of the USA where genetic data collection in this area is best apparently suggests that around 46% of the population are best off avoiding excessive carbs, 42% are best off avoiding excessive dietary fats, and 12% of people either are really lucky and should have no genetic problem with any macro balance, or are basically destined to battle fat storage all their lives whatever the diet they follow.

One very last comment about carbs and 'being fat' worth mentioning is a very very common mistake people mke when analyzing their dietary responses to nutrient... carbs when stored as glycgen increase storage f water - 1g of glycogen reguires just under 4g of water to be held with it. When people drop carbs they lose this water, and it can give an appearance of suddenly becoming slightly leaner, and of course also results in a measurable loss of weight... these effects are so often misinterpreted as fat loss and in many peoples minds erroneously fuel the idea that carbs were keeping them fat. Most guys and gals who have cut to very low bodyfat levels understand this fluid retnetion issue, but most people don't realise quite what is going on here.

So, what's my advice overall? (if anyone has manged to read this far and gives a damn :lol: ):

Eat carbs around exercise and when liver glycogen stores are low (in the fasted state)

Largely avoid common sugar/sucrose and HFCS (high fructose corn syrup) which contains an excessively high amount of fructose compared to natural carbs (the low levels of fructose in fruit and veg is fine)

Keep your body as mobile for as long as possible each day (not even necessarily exercise, just walk about and be generally active as much as possible)

Ensure omega 3 fats are no less than one quarter of your total polyunsaturated fat intake

Avoid combining saturated fats with sucrose in large quantities

Maintain tight calorie control for your desired body composition

Perhaps the best thing of all though is contact a gene testing company and spend a few hundred quid on a buccal cell gene screening for the relevant genes... this would tell you pretty conclusively which dietary approach would make body composition control most easy for you. Next best option to that, and much more realistic, is take few months to experiment... if you are methodical and un biased by dietary ideology in the way you think about it and do things you will fairly quickly figure out what your individual dietary sensitivities are in respect of macros and bodyfat turnover.


----------



## MattGriff (Aug 21, 2012)

No they do not - not in the sense you are talking about anyway.

As touched on there is an insulin response, higher with a higher GI carb but this is also dependant on various other things.

As is always the case with nutrition there is no perfect answer for you, different protein requirements from training, different carb requirements to replenish glycogen and so on will occur in each of us based upon experience, body composition, muscle type and so on.


----------



## Andy 67 (May 2, 2012)

defdaz said:


> I don't think that last point is true, there are lots of conflicting studies, some showing better results from high protein or low carb, some not.


Exactly my point. You get conflicting studies, because some people do really well on high carbs & some better on low carbs. If your sample size isn't big enough, you get an answer that depends on the individuals you are experimenting on.

You also have the confounding variable of fat intake, because some people need a lot of fat in their diet to keep their hormones optimised & others can cope with much lower levels.

The conflicting anecdotal evidence you get on a discussion thread like this ("I do great on high carbs", "I can't go below 10% fat without keto", "I bulk on keto", "low fat is best for weight me") just shows what an individual thing it can be.


----------



## Huntingground (Jan 10, 2010)

klach79 said:


> So you are reducing calories via carb reduction, that's why you loose weight but metabolic problems are often a long term problem for people who keto for too long
> 
> And Gary Taubes? feel free to take advice of a middle aged dough boy if you like but he has been called out and debunked quite a few times now.


Comedy. I actually have tested the above on my body, with cals way above my RMR and still lost weight. Not a wide-ranging study with only one person but, fck it, that one person was me and it worked 

I would rather listen to Taubes (world famous author) than some random off the internet..........


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

anab0lic said:


> Lets take a closer look at how we tap into our fat stores shall we?
> 
> A key step is removing the fatty acid from the glycerol backbone aka lipolysis. This is achieved via the enzyme hormone-sensitive lipase. Although many factors stimulate the activity of HSL, fat breakdown is PRIMARILY controlled by he single hormone that INHIBITS its activity. And that hormone is insulin. In other words, insulin is the primary 'gatekeeper' of body fat. If your insulin levels are consistently high, fat usage is effectively blocked.
> 
> ...


Yes but in a kcal deficit, even if you pretty much eat nothing other than highly insulinic foods like carbs and amino acids, because its a kcal deficit there is no possible way to have permanently elevated insulin levels unless you pancreas and liver are diseased... in a kcal deficit the only times insulin is elevated to the point of limiting HSL is postprandially when the carbs begin to significantly elevate glucose in your blood stream... and at this point your calorie balance is temporarily positive anyway because you've just eaten so there's not any fat loss to block anyway!

What this means IN REAL TERMS NOT THEORETICAL ONES is that you may well inhibit fat loss and store fat postprandially after eating big feed of carbs, but the overall balance is redressed in the times of fast between feedings... beyond the fact that carbs divert a degree of energy balance to raising and lowering the (finite) glycogen storage system rather than body fat, any differential effects caused by carbs that negatively impact this process beyond are related to other factors (activity, dietary fatty acid balance, genetics etc) and make carbs no less detrimental to fat loss on a cut than energy equivalent food of any other type.


----------



## benki11 (Sep 17, 2010)

So if extra calories make you fat not carbs,why there is Keito and so many other carbs reduction diet Around why just people dont simply eat less calories and lose weight ,why there is so many studies and articles over the net,schools all around,why people grade foods in good ,bad and ugly , why no junk food!

Because according to most lads around here it s simply " if you consume more calories then you need you ll get fat if less you ll loose weight no metter what you eat"

And why obesity is such a huge problem these days and to cure it; it's so simple!!?


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

benki11 said:


> So if extra calories make you fat not carbs,why there is Keito and so many other carbs reduction diet Around why just people dont simply eat less calories and lose weight ,why there is so many studies and articles over the net,schools all around,why people grade foods in good ,bad and ugly , why no junk food!
> 
> Because according to most lads around here it s simply " if you consume more calories then you need you ll get fat if less you ll loose weight no metter what you eat"
> 
> And why obesity is such a huge problem these days and to cure it; it's so simple!!?


There are many diets round because as indicated in my first post in this thread individuals do respond somewhat differently, and no one single diet is optimum for all... also psychological preference (and bias against certain approaches) makes people set themselves up to succeed or fail.

Keto is an interesting diet, and for those with pre existing insulin insenstivity issues and problems with carbs it works well... and for most people it does in the short term, but long term studies (six months plus) show it to be no more effective than higher carb diets when averaged over a group of people compared to an isocaloric more carb friendly diet

The main obstabcles to diet success are actully less exciting scientifically than many people think - inaccurate mesurements of calorie intake and energy expenditure, and far lower adherence to diet than people admit.

In the general population obesity is combination of processed foods which contain balances of sugars and fats which are unnatural (but the issue here is the micronutrient combinations not the individual micronutrients themselves), and horribly low levels of activity... we now don't actually eat a huge amount more than we used to in human history, but on average people are far far less active, and the difference is enough to cause obesity... remember it only takes 50kcals above maintenance each day (irrelevant of macros) to add 10lbs of fat over a year... so eat 50kcals extra a day for ten years and thats enough to make a ten year old obese, or take a lean twenty year old and slowly make him or her obese.

Calorie balance is a tight equation, and is always the prime factor in body fat management... other things do affect it which I hope my long post the page back identified, but never forget about kcal balance... successful low carb dieters all control kcals too, either deliberately or through naturally having good habits.


----------



## IronMaiden (Mar 31, 2010)

Lol... Lots of good posts here but I think my brain is worse now!

U gotta look at it in general then I guess adapt it for u after experimenting


----------



## Huntingground (Jan 10, 2010)

Of course I am a random off the internet. Taubes isn't though 

I stated in my original post "&#8230;I believe that cals don't make you fat, carbs do." No facts or hard statements here, just what I believe. I then mentioned my own life study, albeit it is not very scientific, no controls etc.

You then stated "So you are reducing calories via carb reduction&#8230;..And Gary Taubes? feel free to take advice of a middle aged dough boy if you like but he has been called out and debunked quite a few times now."

Massive assumption in the first line and 100% incorrect assumption at that. You then rubbish a famous author. Just remind me , which international best sellers have you written?

That is why your posts above are comical. You regurgitate "facts" and rip into famous authors. I just post actual physical experiences which I have gone through.

Instead of trying to come across as superior, please share your actual experiences and not some study which you have just found on the internet.


----------



## Huntingground (Jan 10, 2010)

klach79 said:


> ...I would rather listen to someone who trains bodybuilding champions like Scott Abel


How long have you been training Scott?? :thumb:


----------



## Thunderstruck (Sep 20, 2010)

Awesome thread this one.

I personally find carbs make me gain weight very quick but that because ive ruined my body with simple carbs and have a self distruct button with them.


----------



## reza85 (Jan 11, 2009)

The number one current strength coach in the world says carbs make you fat so who am I do disagree ?

Ok carbs dont make you fat directly, but poor insulin sensitivity does.


----------



## Huntingground (Jan 10, 2010)

reza85 said:


> The number one current strength coach in the world says carbs make you fat so who am I do disagree ?
> 
> Ok carbs dont make you fat directly, but poor insulin sensitivity does.


Who is that, reza? S&C coach??


----------



## reza85 (Jan 11, 2009)

Charles poliquin, others do also like DR Mario Pisqualli < LOL dont know how to spell his name but he is a DR and a power lifer (old school)


----------



## Dazza (Aug 7, 2010)

I've been dieting for a good 10 months now, and one thing i've learned is that when carrying more fat, a keto style diet worked better.

Yet when i found myself leaning out, i found myself having to switch to a regular low carb diet, and if anything im losing fat faster the leaner im getting.

Just goes to show, how insulin plays a major role in fat loss/gain.


----------



## Huntingground (Jan 10, 2010)

Dazzza said:


> I've been dieting for a good 10 months now, and one thing i've learned is that when carrying more fat, a keto style diet worked better.
> 
> Yet when i found myself leaning out, i found myself having to switch to a regular low carb diet, and if anything im losing fat faster the leaner im getting.
> 
> Just goes to show, how insulin plays a major role in fat loss/gain.


Dazzza, thanks for real life experiences. Very refreshing!!


----------



## Tasty (Aug 28, 2007)

I'm dieting right now, I must be taking in 3k+ calories a day and leaning out fast. I feel like I'm eating more than I was when bulking, just my carbs are a lot lower. Not saying its easy but it's certainly not low calorie.


----------



## Andy 67 (May 2, 2012)

Huntingground said:


> You then rubbish a famous author. Just remind me , which international best sellers have you written?


David Icke is a famous author - doesn't make him right :tongue:

Taubes isn't a nutritionist. He's a physicist & science journalist. To be fair, his books on diet contain some very good points - a lot of fat people *are* fat because they pig out on refined carbs. But it really isn't as simple as that.

One reason that a diet high in carbs is bad for weight control is not because the carbs themselves are bad, but because large amounts of refined carbs suppresses leptin. Leptin is the hormone that tells you when you are full, and background levels of leptin signal to the body how much fat it is carrying - so by interfering with it, refined carbs tend to lead to overeating (more calories in), and also the feedback mechanism that ramps up your metabolic rate in response to increased bodyfat.

But if you are an active, lean, healthy individual who eats well, the problems that sedentary fat people have with sugar & refined starch are pretty much irrelevant.


----------



## Dazza (Aug 7, 2010)

Huntingground said:


> Dazzza, thanks for real life experiences. Very refreshing!!


Certainly food for thought isn't it, i certainly won't be doing it again make no mistake.

But on the upside im now sh1t hot at recomp, i've really knocked macro's down to 1800kcals yet im still leaning/maintaining if not gaining a bit.

Granted im on cycle, and taking a ton of supps but still goes to show what can be achieved, once you set your mind to it.

Or in my case i had no flaming choice lol.


----------



## Huntingground (Jan 10, 2010)

Great to see that the real life experiences mentioned above mirror mine!!!


----------



## Huntingground (Jan 10, 2010)

klach79 said:


> If you bothered to read the whole thread you would see that I had already shared my experience you self righteous ****


Haahaa, tantrums and name calling on the internet. Seems to happen on the internet when the person has been blown away in a discussion and has nowhere left to go. Well done. 

"Carbs don't make you fat, calories do. I have done keto diets before and gained plenty of fat on them." - obviously no clue about diet and keto. Check out the other experiences above, you may learn something!!


----------



## Huntingground (Jan 10, 2010)

OK, new day, new start, let's agree to disagree. :beer:

There are two camps in this area :- "A calorie is a calorie" camp and "All calories are not the same" camp. You believe in the first one, I believe in the second. There are so many studies and conflicting info out there that there is no one unified answer at the moment. In the fullness of time, the answer will be revealed as probably lying somewhere between the two anyhow..................


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

OK, since people are talking bout real experiences, I my as well throw mine down. I've done loads of diet plans over the last few years, mostly lean bulking but a few cutting diets too, and about a year ago when I got rid of all my tatty old workout diaries I decided to summarize them for future reference... am not going to put them all down but will try and show the different effects between keto cutting and lean bulking and my favoured diet (which equates to something of a cross between the Zone Diet, the Mediterranean diet and a Paleo approach... I call it the iso diet though because macros are all fairly equal and isocaloricly matched) for cutting and lean bulking. There were a couple of other diets I tried too that were interesting like a very low fat cutting diet and a high protein cutting diet, but both of those were abandoned due to me just not getting on with them at all in respect of food choices. I also had one other keto attempt for a lean bulk with a slightly higher energy intake but that was abandoned due to a bout of illness.

Since I tend to have done pretty much all my diet experiments in approx 3 month blocks it makes for a roughly decent comparison, although the keto cutting diet is a week shorter. The diets don't compare exactly because calorie balance isn't equal for like diets (keto lean bulk has a lower kcal excess than the iso diet for example). Ill discuss some of the subjective pros and cons I found afterwards

*13 weeks straight keto - cutting diet.*

Energy intake estimated as 500kcal deficit.

Total body weight change over 13 weeks -6.6kg (-14.5lbs)

Estimated change in lean mass (inc glycogen and fluids) -3.5kg (-7.7lbs)

Estimated change in fat mass -3.1kg (-6.8lbs)

*14 weeks iso diet* - cutting diet.*

Energy intake estimated as 500kcal deficit.

Total body weight change over 14 weeks -5.3kg (-11.7lbs)

Estimated change in lean mass (inc glycogen and fluids) -2kg (-4.4lbs)

Estimated change in fat mass -3.3kg (-7.3lbs)

*14 weeks straight keto - lean bulk.*

Energy intake estimated as 100kcal excess.

Total body weight change over 13 weeks +1.1kg (2.4lbs)

Estimated change in lean mass (inc glycogen and fluids) +0.6kg (+1.3lbs)

Estimated change in fat mass +0.5kg (+1.1lbs)

*14 weeks iso diet - lean bulk.*

Energy intake estimated as 160kcal excess.

Total body weight change over 14 weeks +1.8kg (+4lbs)

Estimated change in lean mass (inc glycogen and fluids) +1kg (+2.2lbs)

Estimated change in fat mass +0.8kg (+1.8lbs)

Basically, if you factor out the differences in kcal balance and durations where different, it shows fat loss to be pretty much exactly the same on both the cutting diets, with the only differential being greater lean tissue loss on keto... but this was as expected due to glycogen and fluid loss. Unfortunately no way of telling whether lean muscle changes actually differed as the change in fluid balance in keto is also of unknown quantity.

Similarly, in the lean bulk attempts fat gain equates to calories equally for both diets when you do the maths - the difference between around 200-250g carbs per day on the iso and 50g carbs per day on keto did not for me show any advantage to reducing the addition of body fat.

Now while the two diets were fairly similar in raw results, it was more qualitative things that benefited the iso-diet for me over keto - on keto each time I've done it I get four side effects that last way beyond the difficult first week of lethargy and irritability typical to when adapting to fat; heart burn/acid reflux (constant but especially after each high fat meal), constipation (and piles after about week two), migraines (normally get them about once every six months, but each time on keto about three per fortnight), and most of the time depression (this could possibly have been conicidence as I suffer PTSD and depression anyway, but it seemed to always flair up far worse each time on keto and drop off when keto ceased). I also noticed that when doing 5x5 routine on keto I tended to lose reps off the last two sets compared to normal diet (kcals controlled but macros not other than a minimum protein intake) and the same routine.

The only negative for me with the iso-diet was with a greater selection of carby foods available to chose from there was more temptation to eat junk and exceed the calorie control I was trying to follow so tightly... in this respect keto is indeed very good because the limited diet helps to restrict food choices to a list that is much easier to control. The best thing on the iso for me was my mood - of all diets I've tried, this is the one I feel best on. Does it bias me? Yes, of course it does... but the raw data supports it as being as good as keto for me, and since many people keep saying low carb is optimum and it holds its own against it then surely even those folks must agree that I'm not being an idiot to like it.

Keto diet was 40-60g carbs per day, 2.5g protein per kg/bodyweight (although started at 3g/kg in the cutting diet and had to drop down to stabilize ketosis by the ketostix), rest of kcals from fat (of which around 30% was saturated, 25% monounsaturated, 35% omega 6 polyunsaturated and 10% omega 3 PUFA). Supps were whey protein around the workout, multivitamin & mineral, ZMA, creatine mono, b complex tab and vitamin c. During the cut I think I was also using GABA at night in the last month or so.

*Iso diet was basically 40/30/30 c/p/f... it started as 30/30/30 with a floating 10% but always seemed to end up more carbs simply due to convenience when meal planning (so basically a lot like the zone diet). Dietary fats were high in monounsaturates, sat fats limited as much as possible from coconut oil (short and med chain sat fats), and omega 3/6 ratio was fussed over a lot to keep at 1/3... this was a fuss to calculate initially but easy enough to implement once I knew my food combos. Supps were either whey or EAAs around the workout, ZMA, creatine mono. Occasionally I also used AAKG during the lean bulk as a pre workout. I also sometimes added 20g or so of a malto/dex blend to the pwo whey (nowadays I do pre workout eaa's and not pwo whey on this diet).

Training in all diets was 3-4 times per week weights, and 2 cardio days.

Make of the bove what you will, am not telling anyone what to think about it all, just showing my own experiences.


----------



## Huntingground (Jan 10, 2010)

Nice post DTLV, will read more fully later.

Looking good in avi BTW (NOHOMO).


----------



## dipdabs (Jun 14, 2012)

Huntingground said:


> Nice post DTLV, will read more fully later.
> 
> Looking good in avi BTW (NOHOMO).


He is isn't he, I like it better than the other Avis lol


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

Thanks Hunting and Kay, kind words... figured it was about time I got over my camera phobia, took a pic and put it up (hate pics of myself, lol)!


----------



## PHMG (Jun 15, 2010)

I eat more carbs to lose fat (and go as low fat as possible). Find for me personally it works far better.


----------



## Simspin (Sep 5, 2011)

Don't be misled by fad diets that make blanket pronouncements on the dangers of carbohydrates. They provide the body with fuel it needs for physical activity and for proper organ function, and they are an important part of a healthy diet. But some kinds of carbohydrates are far better than others.

Choose the best sources of carbohydrates-whole grains (the less processed, the better), vegetables, fruits and beans-since they promote good health by delivering vitamins, minerals, fiber, and a host of important phytonutrients. Skip the easily digested refined carbohydrates from refined grains-white bread, white rice, and the like- as well as pastries, sugared sodas, and other highly processed foods, since these may contribute to weight gain, interfere with weight loss, and promote diabetes and heart disease.

Try these five quick tips for adding good carbs to your diet:

1. Start the day with whole grains. Try a hot cereal, like steel cut oats, or a cold cereal that lists a whole grain first on the ingredient list and is low in sugar. But finding sugar in cereals takes a bit of detective work. Learn how to be a savvy reader of breakfast cereal labels.

2. Use whole grain breads for lunch or snacks. Confused about how to find a whole-grain bread? Look for bread that lists as the first ingredient whole wheat, whole rye, or some other whole grain -and even better, one that is made with only whole grains, such as 100 percent whole wheat bread. Or try this recipe for hearty whole grain bread.

3. Bag the potatoes. Instead, try brown rice, bulgur, wheat berries, whole wheat pasta, or another whole grain with your dinner. Read "Health Gains from Whole Grains" for a list of whole grains and their health benefits, or check out these whole grain recipes.

4. Choose whole fruit instead of juice. An orange has two times as much fiber and half as much sugar as a 12-ounce glass of orange juice. Looking for juice alternatives? See six ideas for low-sugar drinks, a recipe for a low-sugar fruit cooler, and a recipe for sugar-free sparkling iced tea.

5. Bring on the beans. Beans are an excellent source of slowly digested carbohydrates as well as a great source of protein.


----------



## lxm (Jul 26, 2011)

carbs make me fat, even with cardio... even in a cal deficit diet...

I prefer going without carbs.


----------



## AJP89 (Jul 8, 2012)

lxm said:


> carbs make me fat, even with cardio... even in a cal deficit diet...
> 
> I prefer going without carbs.


Same mate, maybe we are freaks of nature?


----------



## Ukmeathead (Dec 4, 2010)

AJP89 said:


> Same mate, maybe we are freaks of nature?


Carbs make me fat too!! I lose most bodyfat on a low carb diet not keto.


----------



## phoenixlaw (Mar 5, 2012)

Carb cutting worked the best for me. Hadn't really done it before(enjoyed a beer too much) but now down to 11% body fat and still going fingers crossed!! If I do get carbs its from wholemeal only. :rockon:


----------



## 2004mark (Oct 26, 2013)

AJP89 said:


> Same mate, *maybe we are freaks of nature*?


You would pretty much have to be. It just breaks the law of energy conservation... you can't make something (fat) out on nothing (calorie deficit).


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

anab0lic said:


> Carbohydrates can convert to fat even while you are in an energy deficit... the effect is independent of energy in and energy out. It doesn't nullify the the energy balance equation, it DOES however make an impact upon it. Which pretty much adds a new dimension to the calories are all that matters theory.


Yes they can and are used to synthesize triglycerides in a kcal deficit just after eating... and they will be stored as fat within a few hours... but then because of the negative energy balance they are quickly released again from the adipose cells within a matter of hours and utilized for energy, resulting in an overall fat balance that reflects overall calorie balance.

Taking the immediate postprandial fate of carbs and extrapolating it long term without factoring in everything else is poor science... would be like saying that since the very first rep of a warm up set of deadlifts doesn't promote immediate strength gain, deadlifts are therefore totally useless as an exercise for building strength... the logic of both statements is equally flawed when in full context (even if it may look appealing out of context).

This whole debate now, as usual, is largely turning into a tit-for-tat... person A says low carb works for me so is automatically best for everyone and all other views are invalid (and here's some out of context science to prove it)... person B then says they responded best on higher carbs so the low carb approaches are flawed (here's some inaccurate cut and paste to prove it)... meanwhile person C who is trying to learn doesn't know who to believe and just gets more and more confused, and person D sits back with head in hands wondering why no one listened when they acknowledged that overall both approaches can work and the optimum for each person is based upon a range of individual factors that the sheep for each approach always somehow fail to see (yet remains the most logical option because it is the only option which actually lends credence to everyone's observations and all the data out there).


----------



## reza85 (Jan 11, 2009)

OK I think the biggest mistake people are making hear is that they are treating every body as equal were clearly we ARE NOT ALL equal.

A friend of mine that I work and train with is 5.8 86KG 18inch arms and 11% body fat never taken any steroids in his life eats SH*T 70% off the time and never put on fat party's and drinks 3/4 nights a week some times on heavy binges !

Now how many of you on hear can say you could do that and get away with it?

So what I'm trying to get at is all about how your body deals with nutrition! Most body builders are genetically gifted to begin with and he people that are training them understand that hence the reason why they never look like that them self's !

So pleas dont be going around coping them or quoiting them as they are not dealing with the average human.

FACT if you have been over weight pre puberty FACT is that you are more likely then not carb intolerant due to poor handling of your receptors storing glycogen.

Please feel free to comment and point out mistakes as I don't believe in my way being the only way horses for courses


----------



## brabusrocket (Mar 18, 2011)

Excess carbs make you fat. It doesn't really matter about calories when your on a low carb diet, low carb as in below 20 carbs a day. Atkins Diet also explains that it doesn't matter about how many calories you have its all about lowering those carbs. I have also tried and tested and maintained this and eaten ridiculous amounts of calories in a day from Fat and Protein while keeping my carb level around the 20 mark and im still losing fat at a rapid rate regardless of how many calories im taking in.


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

anab0lic said:


> @ DTLV74 it doesn't work like that though.... *you are converting carbs to fat and THEN because you are still so reliant on glucose as a fuel source + insulin suppressing fat burning enzymes you arnt burning fat **optimally* at rest or through exercise. On top of that you are also losing more muscle mass when your body is craving sugar...it starts breaking down lean tissue to get it... which is kind of a big deal for any bodybuilder looking to get lean and retain as much muscle mass as possible.


This is where the difference between theory and reality breakdown. Yes, there is limited suppression, but the real term practical difference between the 'non optimal higher carb supressed state' and 'optimal lower carb state' is much much smaller than the carb fearers imply....and do not forget that it is easily mitigated completely by genetic factors, and don't forget either that exercise performed at varying levels of VO2 max influences substrate utilisation highly directly... this is why low carb dieters are consitently shown to exhibit greater losses of lean mass than those following isocaloric higher carb diets.

I have no idea where you get this idea that low carb preferentially preserves muscle mass compared to higher carb, as there are countless studies out there to demonstrate that this isn't true. Low carb ketogenic diets do promote muscle protein preservation through displacement of protein degradtion by fatty acid derived ketone use for fuel, but not ever to the point of greater lean mass preservation than in the glucogenic system... similar preservation effect by different mechanism yes, but not greater. Ever heard of homeostatsis? Anyone who insists low carb preferentially preserves muscle mass has either misinterpreted or is just making sh1t up to try and win an argument.

I guess maybe though you are talking about AAS use preserving muscle mass on a low carb diet compared to a non ASS use on a higher carb kcal restricted diet... in that comparison then yes, you would possibly be right (but am sure you'd claim the difference was mostly due to the carbs and the AAS was an irrelevant factor).

Anyway, it is true that when carbs make up a high percentage of energy intake the body then will utilise glycogen as a fuel source, which it obviously cannot do as much on a low carb diet (because glycogen stores are lower and preferentially preserved for organ and immune function), but this differential is just another thing that becomes vastly over exaggerated.... and genetic differences through polymorphisms already mentioned in this thread are exactly why different people DO respond better to differing diets because the magnitude of these differences at a signalling level is greater than than the suppressant effect you keep citing... yes, if genetically unsuited to carbs in this respect then high carb diets will really screw your fat burning, but if genetically suited, the suppression is over compensated for by more efficient energy signalling... and if polymorphisms are also expressed which lead to a phenotype which handles carbs well and dietary ft poorly, the overall effect is still more efficient fat burning in the presence of carbs and insulin.

If you genuinely believe fat loss is massively inhibited in all individuals in all sets of circumstances by dietary carbohydrate... if you have no doubt whatsoever that only the people who believe this understand science, and that the theory is a total reflection of reality with no remaining advances in nutritional science to come that might alter understanding, then all I have left to say is good for you... enjoy your reality!!!


----------



## rectus (Jan 18, 2012)

Good thread, but I would prefer DTLV's posts as audiobooks if possible 

Re: the negative comment towards Taubes - Yes he didn't get everything right, but there's plenty he did and he is respected for his heavy research in the field of diet. His books are definitely worth reading, but then it's wise to read the critiques of his findings so you can make a more informed decision in regards to your goals for weight loss.

Keto works, fullstop. That's according to Dave Palumbo who advocates the keto diet. It may not be pleasurable for everybody, but the way it changes your fuel source to using ketones surely should be the same for every human?


----------



## musio (Jan 25, 2008)

Dtlv, you mentioned you current lean bulk diet a few posts back, can you expand on that?

I'm doing a low carb / Tkd approach having carbs post workouts and going over maintenance on workout days. Half the week is spent on a slight calorie defect. Wondering if it's similar?

PS, always been interested. Post some pics!


----------



## Guest (Jul 17, 2012)

thanks to whoever changed the title, it was irritating me and i only opened this thread since it was changed :thumb:


----------



## benki11 (Sep 17, 2010)

FrankDangerMaus said:


> thanks to whoever changed the title, it was irritating me and i only opened this thread since it was changed :thumb:


Nobody changed title mate!!


----------



## J87 (Nov 27, 2010)

If insulin makes us fat, as a result of eating carbs .. Why dosent dietary protein which is insulinogenic not make us fat?

Protein can spike insulin just as much as carbs .. Without affecting blood sugar levels.

http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=319

http://www.mendosa.com/insulin_index.htm


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

anab0lic said:


> Reality vs theory?
> 
> Look at the reality of the 2010 study I posted, the only difference between the two groups is one group was consuming far less carbs which were replaced with fats.... and the low carb group made significantly better body composition changes...look at the reality of peoples results in this thread that are posting.... the only reality you seem to be basing your beliefs on is the results of how things went when you tried it? Then you've focused entirely on the science that supports your belief system and completely ignore the stuff that refutes it.... tbh its hard to even tell whether it worked well for you or not... it seems as though glycogen levels are skewing the the outcome of your results.... a whole host of other variables that could have affected the outcome to... do you have any picture comparisons? Tape measurements? Strength level comparisons? As for the depression and lethargy that could easily be a symptom of something completely non diet related.... Let me ask you something have you ever tried to get your bodyfat down to single digits naturally? Because you will lose significant muscle mass in the process when too many carbs are in the mix.... try it and see for yourself...I've been there done that and seen the horrific outcome of others who have too....
> 
> ...


I've got down to 8% b/fat naturally (as measured by parillo caliper method), and have achieved this on a 40/30/30 c/p/f split and yes naturally... won't say it was easy to drop that far, but it wasn't by any means impossible... my current avi from just a couple of days ago is me (no measurements taken but am guessing around 11%), pretty much untrained in the last six months, and is my maintenece condition on the same 40/30/30... am not even counting calories particularly because for me appetite is stable on this kind of diet.

You question the validity of me including my personal experience in my assesment of things but consider it perfectly valid to reference your own and other peoples positive experiences when they mirror yours, but at the same time dn't aknowledge the experiences of those who claim a different experience.

Yes, I aknowledged that fluid levels and glycogen changes could have skewed the results - but one thing they couldn't hide was any greater effect from keto on fat burning, simply because for me there wasn't one.

In respect of AAS, I agree with you, but would just add that with the agreed influence they have caution should be shown when taking the results bodybuilders who are n't natural have had with specific diets and suggesting the same results will apply to naturals... the AAS is in effect a confounding variable which skews the data when you look at the experiences of bodybuilders as a whole (and this bias affects all diets)... and lets be honest, most bodybuilders who achieve contest level body fat levels have at some point been assisted along the way... but because of he AAS/PED effect, those results don't necessarily result solely from the diets.

I've looked for the full version of that study but not yet found it - if you have it and link it here I'll then take a look and discuss it with you in an informed way, but not until then... I like to follow through my science and not extrapolate beyond the data I can actually see.

Yes, please go into detail about lean mass preservation on low carb... been reading an interesting study review article on this exact topic today as well as a couple of studies and am still satisfied that the body of evidence as a whole suggest that low carb diets do not preferentially spare lean mass to any significant degree beyond higher carb or protein approaches.

One thing I think that bugs me about the logical conclusion of the 'carbs inhibit fat loss and promote fat storage under all conditions' view is that this implies that other than carbs converted to glycogen, he fate of all other injested carbohydrate once converted to triglycerides is to forever remain as body fat so long as carbs continue to be eaten and elevate insulin and keep this inhibitory process going... if this is true then it would be impossible to burn a single ounce of fat whilst carbs are included in diet, irrespective of calorie balance... but you do rightly aknowledge the role of energy balance, but don't seem to see how the logical conclusion of your main argument contradicts this. Am sure you'll reply with some variables that show that the logical conclusion is an absurd argument, and that's good because all I've wanted is an agreement that variables do make a difference, and make cast iron predictions impossible.

I think though you are slightly missing my whole angle in this debate though - not once have I claimed that the approach you advocate isn't effective... I've simply stated that from my view point (and many others, both athletes and clinical researchers) the theory you buy into isn't as scientifically tight as you and others think it is, and have suggested simply that there are many variables and factors that can make other approaches easily as effective. I know you don't believe in individual differences being of a significance great enough to make a difference either in diet or training protocls, and if that is how you interpret things thats fine I guess... but it shows that we both see the same things differently, and I kind of think that means there's not ever going to be much balanced discussion on this because we can't agree to interpret the data the same way. Heck, am not even a huge fan of high carbs and recognise the metabolic issues associated with over reliance on them... am by no means a 'everyone should follow high carb diets' advocate, not at all... is just that when I feel that carbs are getting associated with issues that are overblown, exaggerated, and generalised out of the greater context, I feel that some counter points need to be made.

I'll just re-summarise my view here that imo both low carb and moderate carb diets can be very effective for weight loss if followed correctly (which is actually the most important thing of all IMO), and different people will benefit best from differing approach, and that generalizing the positive data from one approach and the negative data from another approach isn't the best way of accurately representing what is going on across the entire population, nor is it an accurate reflection of the total quantity of clinical data collected on this topic.


----------



## Hera (May 6, 2011)

FrankDangerMaus said:


> thanks to whoever changed the title, it was irritating me and i only opened this thread since it was changed :thumb:


Ha ha, that was me - the orignial title was jarring! :laugh:


----------



## Craig660 (Dec 8, 2005)

Katy said:


> Ha ha, that was me - the orignial title was jarring! :laugh:


Can you change it to 'Will carbs make me fat?'

As I feel the title is in a round about way refering to me, and I like eating carbs. Thanks


----------



## Ukmeathead (Dec 4, 2010)

Dtlv74 said:


> I've got down to 8% b/fat naturally (as measured by parillo caliper method), and have achieved this on a 40/30/30 c/p/f split and yes naturally... won't say it was easy to drop that far, but it wasn't by any means impossible... my current avi from just a couple of days ago is me (no measurements taken but am guessing around 11%), pretty much untrained in the last six months, and is my maintenece condition on the same 40/30/30... am not even counting calories particularly because for me appetite is stable on this kind of diet.
> 
> You question the validity of me including my personal experience in my assesment of things but consider it perfectly valid to reference your own and other peoples positive experiences when they mirror yours, but at the same time dn't aknowledge the experiences of those who claim a different experience.
> 
> ...


I would read this but my mind will explode!


----------



## Strongr (Oct 4, 2012)

killah said:


> I switched from bulking with mostly carbs to good fats now and noticed I feel better and leaner while bulking


I've recently done the same, direct carbs after am weights workout which is usually fasted and then direct carbs before and after pm training which is MMA/kick boxing so they easily get used up.

Carbs bloat me and make me "feel" fat


----------



## Andy 67 (May 2, 2012)

rectus said:


> Re: the negative comment towards Taubes - Yes he didn't get everything right, but there's plenty he did and he is respected for his heavy research in the field of diet.


Here is a quote from Mr Taubes where he is making his case that obesity isn't linked to sedentary lifestyles.

"One of the things that's been known for decades is that the poor tend to be fatter than the rich. The poorer you are, the fatter you're likely to be. And the poorer you are, the more likely your job will require manual labor. Ditch diggers and housekeepers expend more energy than bond traders and fashion consultants. So how can you blame obesity on sedentary behavior?"

Full article here http://articles.latimes.com/2007/oct/22/health/he-fat22/2

This sounds realy convincing until you actually look at the logic. Poor people are fatter than rich people, poor people tend to do manual jobs than rich - therefore exercise doesn't keep you slim.

What absurd bo11ocks !!!

This is like saying that men are generally taller than women, men masturbate more than women, therefore masturbation makes you taller. He's using cross-correlations as evidence of causation, which is the sort of bad science that he writes whole articles about.

Here's another one from the same article..

"Q : Does the time of the obesity epidemic coincide with public recommendations to eat carbs?

A : The evidence shows it began sometime between 1976 and 1986. In 1977, a congressional committee officially advised the entire nation to eat less fat and more carbohydrates, and then it sort of ballooned from there."

Again - he's using the correlation between US govt starting to advise people to eat more carbs & the fact that people have been getting fatter since the mid 70's to somehow evidence that carbs are to blame - completely ignoring the fact that it was in the 70's that the whole snack-food industry took off, which led to a large chunk of the population eating lots more calories.

This is why Taubes gets criticised. Any good points he makes are lost because he keeps on using really shoddy lines of evidence like this.


----------



## benki11 (Sep 17, 2010)

Katy said:


> Ha ha, that was me - the orignial title was jarring! :laugh:


Ok can't remember what was the Original Title (it s my thread why change my title  )


----------



## Hera (May 6, 2011)

benki11 said:


> Ok can't remember what was the Original Title (it s my thread why change my title  )


Oh it was just that you said 'does' not 'do' so it didn't read easily. That's what I meant by 'jarring'.


----------



## Super_G (Feb 20, 2012)

Am I alone in spotting the first two replies are word for word identical?


----------



## benki11 (Sep 17, 2010)

Katy said:


> Oh it was just that you said 'does' not 'do' so it didn't read easily. That's what I meant by 'jarring'.


OK bad English ):

Btw you have the most beautiful Avatar I have ever seen :wub:


----------



## Hera (May 6, 2011)

benki11 said:


> OK bad English ):
> 
> Btw you have the most beautiful Avatar I have ever seen :wub:


Why thank you  Was surprised by that...thought I'd annoyed you by changing the title.

You're avi isn't too bad either!!


----------



## Oldam Lad (Jul 13, 2009)

Carbs are the spawn of the devil !!!


----------



## Andy 67 (May 2, 2012)

Katy said:


> You're avi isn't too bad either!!


I suspect that's not actually his backside though.


----------



## Hera (May 6, 2011)

Andy 67 said:


> I suspect that's not actually his backside though.


Ha ha, yes I gathered that.


----------



## Andy 67 (May 2, 2012)

Anyway - while you two are busy flirting....

With all this talk about how we should keep our insulin levels low, are people forgetting that insulin is one of the most anabolic hormones in the human body, and that professional bodybuilders are shooting up massive amounts of the stuff.


----------



## rectus (Jan 18, 2012)

Andy 67 said:


> Anyway - while you two are busy flirting....
> 
> With all this talk about how we should keep our insulin levels low, are people forgetting that insulin is one of the most anabolic hormones in the human body, and that professional bodybuilders are shooting up massive amounts of the stuff.


True, so how does one maximise their ability to build muscle through manipulating insulin?


----------



## Fatstuff (Mar 2, 2010)

rectus said:


> True, so how does one maximise their ability to build muscle through manipulating insulin?


by buying it in a little vial and injecting it


----------



## rectus (Jan 18, 2012)

Fatstuff said:


> by buying it in a little vial and injecting it


NATURALLY! You bloody juice heads!


----------



## lxm (Jul 26, 2011)

so guys, Low carb ? full carb ? low fat ? full fat ?


----------



## Fatstuff (Mar 2, 2010)

eat what u want, keep ur protein >1g per lb bodyweight and keep your overall calories lower than your overall energy expenditure. Job done


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

Fatstuff said:


> eat what u want, keep ur protein >1g per lb bodyweight and keep your overall calories lower than your overall energy expenditure. Job done


Pretty similar view to the above

ensure decent minimal protein (IMO 2g per kg bodyweight) and essential fatty acid intake (including omega 3/6 balance)

calculate total energy intake to be lower than maintence calories

beyond the calorie value of your essential nutrients, make up the difference from foods which your body seems to react best to and you psychologically are least likely to rebel against (to ensure diet consistency)

choose mostly clean foods in as close to the natural state as possible, avoiding processed sugars, trans fats and hydrogenated oils, and also processed meat loaded with water, nitrates and preservatives.

eat as wide a range of natural foods as you can to provide decent micronutrient intake

a little junk can be ok if you really crave it or circumstances at meal times make it hard to avoid, but overall try to stick to a 80/20 rule of clean/junk at the most.

EDIT: oh and exercise regulary and remember to keep the body mobile as much as possible even when not exercising. ensure adequate fluid intake also, as low fluids hamper fat loss.


----------



## benki11 (Sep 17, 2010)

So we have split decision 48-47 here for Carbs !

So I'll change my diet I went nicely lean and reducing bf from 26ish to 12,by not eating carbs , but that must be not reason I lost weight!

I going to eat now everything as before but keep calories down to maintained 2000 a day

Right now I havin bowl of ice-cream and tonight i ll visit take away :lol:

But if I become fat again I'll blame you!!!!!!!!!!!!

So those pictures are me right now and i like what see compared what i used to be !!

If i change to worst we ll now carbs do make us fat


----------



## lxm (Jul 26, 2011)

Benki11.

Any chance you could post up a basic sample of what your daily diet consists of ? our of intrest ? zero direct carbs ?


----------



## benki11 (Sep 17, 2010)

lxm said:


> Benki11.
> 
> Any chance you could post up a basic sample of what your daily diet consists of ? our of intrest ? zero direct carbs ?


No it is t Zero!but carbs i consume comes mostly from green veggies and fruits .

So i would eat up to day!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!(today ill change to better or worst and listen to advice of people on here)

Boiled eggs

Chicken Brest

Chicken everything,but fresh not process chicken product

all green veggies,sometimes tomatoes and cucumbers

fresh fish

Fruit for desert

and no carbs or minimum frankfurters sausages and others from Aldi

cheese,ham

and 3xday isolate whey protein with multivitamins and fish oils


----------



## Fatstuff (Mar 2, 2010)

Theres no way u will hit your desired macros lol by having takeaway and ice cream lol (doubt it anyway)


----------



## lxm (Jul 26, 2011)

benki11 said:


> No it is t Zero!but carbs i consume comes mostly from green veggies and fruits .
> 
> So i would eat up to day!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!(today ill change to better or worst and listen to advice of people on here)
> 
> ...


You down with fats? (nuts omega, flax etc)


----------



## benki11 (Sep 17, 2010)

lxm said:


> You down with fats? (nuts omega, flax etc)


 i forget to mention i eat nuts every day,nuts as Almonds and other natural nuts and sunflower seeds as well!

Sorry


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

benki11 said:


> View attachment 89132
> View attachment 89133
> So we have split decision 48-47 here for Carbs !
> 
> ...


Bear in mind though to reintroduce carbs slowly, not suddenly.... when adapted to low carbs the body has altered insulin sensitivity and thyroid output, and a sudden influx of glucose will be difficult to handle.

If you think about what happens when you suddenly drop carbs for keto, the first week feels like hell as the body plays catch up with enzymes and hormones in its adaptation to a new balance of energy substrates... and the of course as part of this there's the sudden drop in bodyweight from glycogen and fluid loss... a sudden reintroduction basically is a reverse of this process, so water weight goes up fast and its equally a metabolic rough ride to going in the other direction with short term unstable energy levels etc.... to avoid this take several weeks to go back up.

In respect of that, its one thing where some proponents of low carb diets forget their logic... they recognize the short term difficulties associated with going from carb to fat adapted when the carbs are dropped as an issue with adaptation rather than an issue due to some negative quality dietary fat possesses, but when they reintroduce carbs just as suddenly and experience the same in reverse they quickly cry that its down to the carbs being bad, and often cite that experience as proof... they forget though its simply a temporary issue with adaptation as fuel sources switch and enzymes and hormones are plying catch up just like the first week of keto.

Big macro changes are best made slowly and in a graduated fashion to avoid a short term negative rebound, and in respect of reintroducing carbs the sudden change in water weight can be quite a downer to mny people when they look on the scales... add no more than 50g to yur daily amount per week IMO, did this after my second keto run but not my first and the experience was radically different and much much better.


----------



## Guest (Jul 18, 2012)

benki11 said:


> Nobody changed title mate!!


yeah they did, some spaz called it "does carbs make us fat"

man anabolic never gets tired of arguing lol


----------



## benki11 (Sep 17, 2010)

FrankDangerMaus said:


> yeah they did, some spaz called it "does carbs make us fat"
> 
> man anabolic never gets tired of arguing lol


OK Sorry mate

Well English is t my first language, so i make mistakes !!!


----------



## Fatstuff (Mar 2, 2010)

Bump


----------



## Andy 67 (May 2, 2012)

anab0lic said:


> Because Blood levels of bcca INCREASES on a keto diet, the one in particular relevant here is leucine which is a VERY potent regulator of muscle protein synthesis....


Didn't know that. Got any references for that.



> the critics of keto diets that assume that reduced levels of insulin will cause muscle loss/prevent growth, are unaware of the counterbalancing effects increased levels of leucine creates


I'm not a critic of keto. I've used it myself & found it effective - but I find it really hard work to follow, especially at family mealtimes when I'm wanting to have something different to the rest of my family.

What I am a critic of is people dismissing the simple concept of total energy balance in favour of complex micromanagement of their diet. At the end of the day, carbs yield 3.5-4 calories per gram & fat 8.5-9.5 calories per gram no matter who is eating them & what time of day it is.



> And as for injecting insulin have you seen what modern day bodybuilders waists look like? Its grotesque. Extreme example, but this is what you can end up looking like:
> 
> View attachment 89163
> 
> ...


I'm a Frank Zane wannabe myself, so no. The point I was making is that lots of bodybuilders use massive amounts of insulin even pre-contest, and it doesn't seem to stop them being lean.

Oh and that pic is photoshopped btw. Look at the shadow on the wall under his belly


----------



## bayman (Feb 27, 2010)

This thread requires no bumping, it's s goldmine of misinformation and personal anecdote which is worthless, a few exceptions (Dtlv and others) aside.

Carbs do not make you fat, excess calories do.

Anyone telling you otherwise doesn't understand the whole picture, or is being selective with their references to try prove a point.

Bodybuilders have gotten shredded for years on moderate carb intakes, so what does that prove?


----------



## barrettmma1436114759 (Feb 28, 2011)

life makes me fat!


----------



## musio (Jan 25, 2008)

Mockett said:


> if you have the time watch this
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It's a long video but did anyone check it out? Any thoughts? I'm 1h in and it's really really good. He's got a sense of humour too. Basic message so far, avoid fructose and increase finer for health reasons if anything.

Reps for this video


----------



## benki11 (Sep 17, 2010)

musio said:


> It's a long video but did anyone check it out? Any thoughts? I'm 1h in and it's really really good. He's got a sense of humour too. Basic message so far, avoid fructose and increase finer for health reasons if anything.
> 
> Reps for this video


Bump


----------



## bayman (Feb 27, 2010)

musio said:


> It's a long video but did anyone check it out? Any thoughts? I'm 1h in and it's really really good. He's got a sense of humour too. Basic message so far, avoid fructose and increase finer for health reasons if anything.
> 
> Reps for this video


It's complete crap and Lustig is a research cherry picking charlatan. Why just because he delivers the message in a glossy video do people just presume everything being said in it is true?

Read this: http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/

Then watch this for a real perspective on the issue:


----------



## rectus (Jan 18, 2012)

FFS Bayman, you always have to come along and show us the other side of the story. Do you realise how frustrating that is? There I am, skipping along down the road on a sunny day with the knowledge that sugar is evil and you come and p!ss on my face.


----------



## Fatstuff (Mar 2, 2010)

rectus said:


> FFS Bayman, you always have to come along and show us the other side of the story. Do you realise how frustrating that is? There I am, skipping along down the road on a sunny day with the knowledge that sugar is evil and you come and p!ss on my face.


as a rule of thumb (imo of course) best nutrition info on this site would come from bayman and dtlv74, this is just my personal opinion. Theres plenty of others , but those 2 stick out for me.


----------



## rectus (Jan 18, 2012)

Fatstuff said:


> as a rule of thumb (imo of course) best nutrition info on this site would come from bayman and dtlv74, this is just my personal opinion. Theres plenty of others , but those 2 stick out for me.


Maybe. I don't know what's real anymore.


----------



## bayman (Feb 27, 2010)

rectus said:


> FFS Bayman, you always have to come along and show us the other side of the story. Do you realise how frustrating that is? There I am, skipping along down the road on a sunny day with the knowledge that sugar is evil and you come and p!ss on my face.


If there's one piece of advice I'd give you on nutrition in relation to BB'ing and health, it's question EVERYTHING. Me included.

There are very few unbiased and logical sources of information out there on the subject. Anyone with stuff to sell normally has an agenda, as with Lustig, Taubes etc. It's normally never as simple as black or white unfortunately. It took me a while to be objective and actually look behind claims that were being made by various "experts" and see if they were backed by *solid* empirical (scientific) evidence.



Fatstuff said:


> as a rule of thumb (imo of course) best nutrition info on this site would come from bayman and dtlv74, this is just my personal opinion. Theres plenty of others , but those 2 stick out for me.


I appreciate being named in the same sentence as Dtlv, but this guy has the patience of a saint and the knowledge to go with it. Always delivers top quality info.


----------



## bayman (Feb 27, 2010)

Because it's as simple as pinning down various health markers to one isolated dietary macronutrient...


----------



## rectus (Jan 18, 2012)

anab0lic said:


> Haven't watched that video and don't really have time to right now...but there is actually an ENORMOUS amount of evidence to support the fact that carbs are very much responsible for many of the health problems we currently suffer from in modern society.
> 
> I could go on for another 10 pages just on that subject alone...


This is exactly what I thought, I have watched so many lectures and read so many articles that show these results to be true but they are accused of cherry picking or picking poorly conducted or outdated studies.

If you look at the paleo diet, it's based on how we used to eat as cavemen. Then we introduced the manufacture of refined carbs and there is correlation between that and the rise of heart disease and obesity. We wouldn't evolve to get heart disease from the foods we ate, that happened when we interfered with our own evolution.


----------



## Andy 67 (May 2, 2012)

anab0lic said:


> Haven't watched that video and don't really have time to right now...but there is actually an ENORMOUS amount of evidence to support the fact that carbs are very much responsible for many of the health problems we currently suffer from in modern society.


No there isn't.

There may well be masses of evidence that *over-consumption of refined* carbs is responsible for health problems *in sedentary people* - but there is no convincing evidence that carbs are generally bad.

Humans are omnivores FFS - we are designed by millions of years of evolution to eat a mixed diet of protein, fat & carbs.


----------



## mark22 (Jul 13, 2011)

Lol, some people watched the vid, I'm guessing any of us left standing realise what alan was saying. It wasn't just the evil carb god. Calories came from fat as well, I know we love fat , ****, maybe we average it out a bit.


----------



## Andy 67 (May 2, 2012)

anab0lic said:


> We are primary CARNVIVORES, if you look at ALL the evidence you will see this is true. Do you know how much carbs were available during the ice age which lasted how many years? plant life was no existent.


Sorry Mate - that's complete fertilizer.

We are not carnivores. We are omnivores, descended from apes who are primarily herbivores. If we were carnivores, we would do stuff like make our own vitamin C, and our guts would function okay without dietary fibre.

During the Ice Age, we didn't live in areas where plant life was non-existant - we lived further south. Even the Neanderthals (who were much more carnivorous than us) didn't live in areas with no plant life, because the big game that they hunted wouldn't have been able to survive there.

Humans evolved in Africa & spent a couple of million years as hunter gatherers, where we gradually increased the amount of meat in our diet. If you look at indigenous people all over the world, most of them get less than half their calories from meat, and get the rest from vegetable sources. The only real exceptions are the inuits, but they are not representitive of our species as a whole, and none of us are descended from them.

The neolithic revolution (which dramatically increased the amount of cereals in our diet) would also have exerted selection pressure on populations, tending to remove people who couldn't tolerate a high cereal diet from the gene pool.

Anyone who argues that a couple of hundred generations isn't enough to cause significant changes in our metabolisms should look at the distribution of lactose tolerance to ancestral pastoralism, or the way that alcohol dehydrogenase levels are higher in people who come from groups where alcohol consumption has been high for the past couple of thousand years, and


----------



## Fatstuff (Mar 2, 2010)

Ian mcarthy has done well considering his parents gave him that middle name 

Right so far everything we know about u anabolic is that your right, everyone on this forum is wrong! Not just everyone on this forum but people like Alan Aragon now? You really are the king of training and nutrition, how can I pay for your services??


----------



## Blinkey (May 14, 2012)

anab0lic said:


> Haven't watched that video and don't really have time to right now...but there is actually an ENORMOUS amount of evidence to support the fact that carbs are very much responsible for many of the health problems we currently suffer from in modern society.
> 
> I could go on for another 10 pages just on that subject alone...


But some of the healthiest people in the world eat a high carb diet. (The Japanese for example) but they tend to eat what I call a natural carb,rice and the such. Not the junk the west eats. There are not many fats japs about. Nor are their many who suffer from diabetes, heart disease or thyroid problems.

But when you look at the Chinese, they have drastically changed their diet that leans towards a western type diet and they are now getting fat and suffer the health consequences that go with it.


----------



## Fatstuff (Mar 2, 2010)

We have gone from do carbs make u fat to does having no carbs make u healthy.

Carbs help build impressive physiques

Carbs help build fat round physiques

It's what u do with them that counts !!!


----------



## PHMG (Jun 15, 2010)

anab0lic said:


> No LOL. The healthiest people in the world are the tribes that still remain on this planet that eat high fat, mod protein, zero carb diets.... Inuit, masai etc... heart disease, strokes, cancers, diabetes all unheard of amongst those people.... which was also true for us too before the introduction of agriculture.


Of course they are unheard of...they live in the middle of nowhere :lol:

Guys, im currently eating 8 jacket potatoes a day and a tin of pineapples and im losing fat (i dropped 1.8kg last week and thats 3 weeks into my diet so not just a water drop).

Carbs are great in my opinion.


----------



## PHMG (Jun 15, 2010)

anab0lic said:


> Do tell the forum you current steroid intake which significantly alters things.
> 
> 700mg tren a weekly last time I checked.


Never taken that in my life.

currently is 430mg which is also the highest/equal highest its ever been.

ive also dieted to very low bodyfat (as in veins going across chest, abbs and everywhere else) on 130mg of tren. And seeing as the majority of people reading this will be using some sort or gear and stimulants, we can say the playing field is level?


----------



## PHMG (Jun 15, 2010)

klach79 said:


> At least PHMG has pictures of himself to prove that he walks the walk, you have Dorian Yates in your avi and you could be 160lbs and chubby for all we know!


But im also not saying that my way is the right way either as he is. Im saying that there are numerous ways. I personally didnt seem to lose fu.ck all on keto compared to high carb, v low fat and mod protein.


----------



## Andy 67 (May 2, 2012)

anab0lic said:


> Look at ALL the facts before you come to conclusions.
> 
> Watch the seminar below on this very topic... you might learn a thing or two
> 
> http://missinghumanmanual.com/?p=859


Human evolution is one of my pet subjects.



> Barry Groves shows how we adapted to a mainly meat diet - millions of years of ice age when there were few plants that we could have eaten


That's just flat out wrong.

Humans (or at least our genetic line) were confined to Africa until ~70,000 years ago, and during the Ice Ages, Africa had a climate fairly similar to what it is today, except a bit cooler & a bit wetter. We have never been through a primarily carnivorous stage in our evolution - unlike the (now extinct) Neanderthals. We only pushed North into areas ravaged by the Ice Age as the ice sheets retreated.

Even the logic is stupid - there were no plants therefore would have eaten meat. Well - what would our prey animals have eaten then ?


----------



## PHMG (Jun 15, 2010)

anab0lic said:


> Are you unable to comprehend scientific facts?
> 
> You truely are an imbecile and beyond my help.


Why do you choose to talk to people in such a condescending way? Really is no need mate. We are all just bouncing ideas here???


----------



## Fatstuff (Mar 2, 2010)

anab0lic said:


> Are you unable to comprehend scientific facts?
> 
> You truely are an imbecile and beyond my help.


Lol, u really are a piece of work aren't u, i ought to report you for name calling but where's the fun in that. Let's face FACTS

FACT - u don't eat carbs to any significant degree?? Yes?

FACT - u constantly claim genetic inferiority?? Yes?

FACT - u r not very big? Yes?

Possible fact - u might get bigger, stronger and closer to your goals if u throw the odd bowl of rice down ur neck!


----------



## Andy 67 (May 2, 2012)

anab0lic said:


> Are you unable to comprehend scientific facts?


You're not providing scientific facts though. You are providing links to blogs which make ridiculously innacurate claims, whilst rubbishing guys like Alan Aragon who specialise in trawling through proper scientific studies.


----------



## Blinkey (May 14, 2012)

Looking back on ancient human history, we were not particularly designed to eat a protein rich diet, but more of a highish carb diet with some protein thrown in if we were lucky.. We were not really designed to go out fighting huge beasts, but more designed to gather worms, insects and fish (if we were lucky)

The main diet that sustained humankind were fruit, veg,eggs and nuts. So carbs in the form of fruit and veg were pretty much our main stay.

But it is in the last few years of the human cycle where things have gone wrong. Physically we are the same as 30,000 years ago, but our diet has changed beyond recognition.

We now eat a very new product (in evolution terms to humans) called grain. We are not designed to digest it and it sends our bodies into disarray. Insulin spikes etc.

We are also the only animal on earth that drinks milk in adulthood. ( Another new thing in human evolution.)

But humans learnt a new skill called farming which changed us forever. It gave us almost limitless food, which made us more intelligent as our brains grew due to the massive increase in protein it gave us.

The population grew which meant that humans could band together and hunt large animals, which again gave us a high protein diet which our bodies were not designed for.

As we were full, we had more spare time, so we sat around and did very little.

Since we were well fed we had more time on our hands, so we played about with our food and learnt things like cooking. This resulted in using ingredients that perhaps we were not designed to eat, such as bread, it made us fat.

Come the modern times we learnt how to process food to make it cheaper so the diet became totally alien to what the body (the same as 30.000 years ago) could process. We became fat.

So it is not eating carbs that make you fat, it is not moving enough and eating food that we are not designed to eat that makes us fat.


----------



## Fatstuff (Mar 2, 2010)

anab0lic said:


> Because all this idiot does is follow me around the forums and post lame little insults, look at his post history, surprised the guy isnt banned allready hes a complete tool.


Imbecile, idiot and tool?? That's surely worth a ban! Did I also follow u into MY journal??


----------



## PHMG (Jun 15, 2010)

anab0lic said:


> He doesnt have any pictures to prove how much better/or worse off hed be if he ate the way i advocate though does he?


No, because for me personally, i couldnt stick it for more than a week and a half and literally felt complete s.hit. Therefore it just wasnt for me.

By keeping carbs high, i can train a lot harder, which i believe (yes with an assortment of drugs :lol: ) that also means i can build muscle whilst losing fat.

Which has surely got to be better than just losing fat, looking flat, feeling s.hit and having to search everything you eat for "hidden carbs"??


----------



## Fatstuff (Mar 2, 2010)

anab0lic said:


> OH dear.
> 
> 1. I am in better shape, bodycomp wise and have gained far more muscle mass than 99% of this forum.
> 
> ...


Lol


----------



## Fatstuff (Mar 2, 2010)

klach79 said:


> 1. *I am in better shape, bodycomp wise and have gained far more muscle mass than 99% of this forum*.
> 
> 2. Yes genetics play a role in terms of the absolute size you can attain.... anyone who doesnt understand this is a fool.
> 
> 3. Do you not think maybe just maybe in the 10 years of dieting and training ive been involved in I did the higher carb diets LOL?.... I did it for YEARS fella.... back when i was new to all this stuff and just put my faith in the 'experts' without really looking around and seeing if there's a better way....like i said my methods have evolved since then.


Picture or I call you out as full of sh*t


----------



## Blinkey (May 14, 2012)

anab0lic said:


> :lol:


Well if you think that you can condense the nutritional history of humankind into a post more proficiently then please do so.


----------



## Tinytom (Sep 16, 2005)

anab0lic said:


> OH dear.
> 
> 1. I am in better shape, bodycomp wise and have gained far more muscle mass than 99% of this forum.
> 
> ...


To be fair you have an attitude that's 'my way is right no other way is right'

You did this in a thread about rack pulls saying that slow negatives were the only way to build muscle or words to that effect.

You failed in that thread to answer 3 questions I put to you about your statements and couldn't really answer other issues raised by very experienced power lifters and trainers.

You're doing the same thing here.

I want to see these pics of how great you look. Don't make statements unless you can back them up.

Or you're just another gym gym lol


----------



## Blinkey (May 14, 2012)

Tinytom said:


> To be fair you have an attitude that's 'my way is right no other way is right'
> 
> You did this in a thread about rack pulls saying that slow negatives were the only way to build muscle or words to that effect.
> 
> ...


Or is he a carb carb.


----------



## RACK (Aug 20, 2007)

Carbs make me fat......... but that's just me


----------



## Fatstuff (Mar 2, 2010)

anab0lic said:


> I actually came into your Journal to HELP YOU.
> 
> But as the saying goes... you can lead a horse to water... but you cant make it drink.


My biggest bugbear with u is your inability to realise that your way is not always the best just because u say so. Why are u so arrogant? Serious question?

There is more than one way to skin a cat! Why belittle people, you can't even agree to disagree because in your eyes what you say is not opinion, it's right, no matter what!


----------



## Blinkey (May 14, 2012)

RACK said:


> Carbs make me fat......... but that's just me


You would say that as anabolollux made a post about pulling a rack.


----------



## Fatstuff (Mar 2, 2010)

G


----------



## PHMG (Jun 15, 2010)

RACK said:


> Carbs make me fat......... but that's just me


Exactly, and that makes the point that my way/his way/and anyone elses specific way isnt the best doesnt it. Why would people use prep guys if it was one size fits all.


----------



## Ukmeathead (Dec 4, 2010)

anab0lic said:


> Well there you go then.... you never even stuck with it too see wether or not its better than what you are doing now.... and i bet if i actually looked at exactly how you ate during that week id be able to pinpoint exactly why you 'felt like ****'....
> 
> oh and RE your drug intake you seem to post something different on every forum....I have seen posts where you talk about double the drug intake you are claiming here.... and yes while its true a lot of members here use drugs, not everyone is.... some guys just come on here and want to know the best way to lose some chub and not lose strength/muscle in the process and I think its important that people have access to all the facts and make a decision based on that.


Just post a picture of you god dam it! Not like it matters but meh


----------



## PHMG (Jun 15, 2010)

anab0lic said:


> Well there you go then.... you never even stuck with it too see wether or not its better than what you are doing now.... and i bet if i actually looked at exactly how you ate during that week id be able to pinpoint exactly why you 'felt like ****'....
> 
> oh and RE your drug intake you seem to post something different on every forum....I have seen posts where you talk about double the drug intake you are claiming here.... and yes while its true a lot of members here use drugs, not everyone is.... some guys just come on here and want to know the best way to lose some chub and not lose strength/muscle in the process and I think its *important that people have access to all the facts and make a decision based on that*.


Point being that something many cant stick to isnt the best regardless of results is it????

Double the amount??? what so double 430mg tren?? thats 860mg? You saying ive said that cos thats absolute crap? Ive said i was on 500mg before, but for some reason i rounded up the 430mg.

If you want to know my exact daily protocol im more than happy to say. I have no need to lie. Im not the one acting holier than thou here....

*and bold bit??? Isnt posting all the options doing that, not just stating yours as the correct way?*


----------



## Andy 67 (May 2, 2012)

anab0lic said:


> 3. Do you not think maybe just maybe in the 10 years of dieting and training ive been involved in I did the higher carb diets LOL?.... I did it for YEARS fella.... back when i was new to all this stuff and just put my faith in the 'experts' without really looking around and seeing if there's a better way....like i said my methods have evolved since then.


I was on 700g of carb a day back in the 1980's (combined with low fat) for months on end, and I didn't get fat. In fact, my training diaries reflect my insane frustration at being unable to gain weight on that diet - something which only changed when I started eating more fat.

I've done keto cuts & moderate carb cuts, and haven't found any significant difference in fat loss or muscle preservation between the two. The only real difference is that keto is a really impractical diet for someone like me who works quite long hours & likes to sit down to dinner with his family without the aggro of having to make a special low-carb meal if my wife has cooked spag bol.

In years & years of obsessively logging my food intake, macros, bodyweight & skinfolds, I've come to the conclusion that it's total calorie deficit & surplus that matters more than everything else put together.


----------



## Ukmeathead (Dec 4, 2010)

This is my 2 cents if someone isn't assisted then excess carbs could make you fat! But assisted on stuff like tren eating loads of carbs don't matter.


----------



## Blinkey (May 14, 2012)

Ukmeathead said:


> Just post a picture of you god dam it! Not like it matters but meh


Here he is


----------



## hackskii (Jul 27, 2003)

Well, I think there are many ways to lose weight, but you will have to have a deficit of calories or it will never happen regardless of the macro's.

I dieted on the zone which gave me 40/30/30 carbs/protein/fats and for every 5 pounds I lost an inch on my waist.

I did the Atkins diet and for every 4 pounds I lost an inch on my waist.

I do feel a keto diet does work well for me because it is easy to adhere to and I have lots of energy day to day stuff. I didn't crash at the gym but my stamina was not as good.

Most all bodybuilding diets manipulate carbs to one extent or another.

I am all for a healthy debate, but insults are not happening, it lowers the bar of the thread, and honestly makes anyone less credible in my book.

Stick to the facts or opinions and the thread will flow like it is supposed to allowing others to learn.

Iron sharpens iron like one man sharpens another.

Lets use each other as a resource to learn, to help, to grow, and to laugh, that is what the board is for.


----------



## Fatstuff (Mar 2, 2010)

hackskii said:


> Well, I think there are many ways to lose weight, but you will have to have a deficit of calories or it will never happen regardless of the macro's.
> 
> I dieted on the zone which gave me 40/30/30 carbs/protein/fats and for every 5 pounds I lost an inch on my waist.
> 
> ...


What's your thoughts on carbs for putting on size?


----------



## hackskii (Jul 27, 2003)

Fatstuff said:


> What's your thoughts on carbs for putting on size?


Nice, back on topic.

Necessary as it replenishes glycogen stores, ATP stores and also intracellular water to allow better leveraging.

So, yes not only that but it is protein sparing as well.

But, depending on what you are doing may change the requirement for it all.

Also depending on how you react to carbs, some modifications might need to be in order.

Example sitting down watching TV one would burn more fats than carbs.

Heavy resistance training or a full sprint would be predominantly glucose.

So, depending on what you were doing might change the ratio some.

This is one reason why keto diets work so well for sedentary folks.

Now to be fair, first would be to figure out how much protein you would need to support your muscle.

Then the carbs would follow and fats as both are a fuel source.

But remember that fats are necessary for hormone production and low fat diets can cause low testosterone.

So, I would suggest about 1/3 of the diet should be fat, and out of that 1/3 each fat (mono, saturated, polyunsaturated), this will help you keep a balance for all fats to do what they are supposed to.

Many fair very well on low carb, and no carb, I do, but this in itself can cause other problems long term like excessive cortisol production, and a sluggish thyroid.

It is the balance that really needs to be looked at.

And even that, some will fair better one way, and another.

If you get tired after eating carbs, then I would suggest less carbs and the ones that are of a lower glycemic index, along with a protein, fat, and fiber.

Adding in something like apple pectin can lower the glycemic load of a meal.


----------



## Fatstuff (Mar 2, 2010)

hackskii said:


> Nice, back on topic.
> 
> Necessary as it replenishes glycogen stores, ATP stores and also intracellular water to allow better leveraging.
> 
> ...


Interesting hacks


----------



## hackskii (Jul 27, 2003)

Fatstuff said:


> Interesting hacks


There is another reason for balance that is called eicosanoids, have a read on that one Google it.

When we prioritize one macro over another and lose balance this disrupts this hormonal pathway.


----------



## Andy 67 (May 2, 2012)

hackskii said:


> So, I would suggest about 1/3 of the diet should be fat, and out of that 1/3 each fat (mono, saturated, polyunsaturated), this will help you keep a balance for all fats to do what they are supposed to.
> 
> Many fair very well on low carb, and no carb, I do, but this in itself can cause other problems long term like excessive cortisol production, and a sluggish thyroid.
> 
> It is the balance that really needs to be looked at.


I'm increasingly coming to favour a roughly isocaloric mix. I tend to det my protein at 175-200g daily, and whatever calorie target I'm shooting for, I get around half the remaining cals from carbs & half from fat.

This lets me eat the sorts of foods that I like, and I feel I'm striking a good balance between getting enough fats for test production & enough carbs for quick energy.


----------



## hackskii (Jul 27, 2003)

Yah, how ever you work it, enough protein to support your muscle, then a combination of other macros to make up the energy balance.

Protein can be used for fuel, but there is a loss in conversion and if too much it compromises your nutritional profile, not to mention would be costly.

I like the idea of the paleo diet, but I see good things from many diets, I myself get fat on carbs as I then tend to crave them.

I mean pizza is my hands down fav food, I don't think it would be a good idea pushing that in front of me daily. :lol:


----------



## rectus (Jan 18, 2012)

The Vegetarian said:


> We are also the only animal on earth that drinks milk in adulthood. ( Another new thing in human evolution.)


What would they drink then? If I go into the mindset of a caveman (like when I'm out on the beers) and I see a cows teat, I'm going to suckle it because I know it's tasty and will fill me up so how is this a relatively new thing?



hackskii said:


> I like the idea of the paleo diet, but I see good things from many diets, I myself get fat on carbs as I then tend to crave them.
> 
> I mean pizza is my hands down fav food, I don't think it would be a good idea pushing that in front of me daily. :lol:


Sisson sells the Paleo diet pretty well, but then he does have a book. I don't like the idea that some people have on here that if a man decides to share his knowledge with the world in an attempt to help people then he is somehow just out for making money off his idea. Pizza is the number 1 fast food in America I believe, they are pretty amazing. I even used to have Dominoes Pizza on my speed dial but I had to stop the deliciousness because my face started to resemble their deluxe meat feast.

And the bitching in this thread ruins it, it's like I'm watching teenagers debating.

Epic thread


----------



## bayman (Feb 27, 2010)

There's sharing knowledge for the benefit of others, then there's making dramatic and bold statements just to sell stuff - i.e Taubes.

Sisson is "alright" I suppose, especially as he had to publicly admit he was wrong on some stuff after being called out on it. He info on whole is pretty solid.


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

bayman said:


> *There's sharing knowledge for the benefit of others, then there's making dramatic and bold statements just to sell stuff - i.e Taubes.*
> 
> *
> *
> ...


Bang on mate, I have seen enough insults being thrown by all involved to say any more and someone will be banned, you are all adults and so should be able to debate a subject...

No one is correct no one is wrong as in the most part we are bringing our personnel experiences to the debate but with this people tend to argue there point being the right and only one, as for the boasts of being better physique wise Please!!!! Do me a favour what are you 2???? By this reckoning I am always right as I can bet I have a better physique than the majority but it does not work this way.......how you look has no bearing of what you know to the most part it is more down to how you apply that knowledge.........and most cannot but they can scream and shout about on a forum......

There is no one way, I have worked and still do with a good mix of people some will react better with higher carb diets some better with higher fat keto style........I know British and World champions who have won there respective titles using one or the other of these type of diets......

Then we get down to studies, studies are not FACT they in general do not use enough subjects for the conclusion to be a general statement and hardly ever repeat real world environment and this changes things...........so please guys if you are going to give your experiences or quote a study do so in a way that does not make it sound like it is the only way.....

Any more insults people will be banned......

Have a good evening


----------



## mark22 (Jul 13, 2011)

Proof neanderthals ate carbs

http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=neanderthals-may-have-self-medicate-12-07-20

And did drugs....


----------



## skinnnyfat (Feb 26, 2012)

So what we need is a simple method for people to establish which way works best for them. After just over a month of keto I am sick of it hence today I thought **** it and smashed into some carbs. While I really have an urge to say bollocks to it and start upping calories and eating Dbol for breakfast I can change diet to 500 less than maintenance that includes carbs and then compare results. After an initial period to get some glycogen and water back I should be able to get an idea which way works best for me which is all anyone really needs to know.


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

For a breakdown of what nutritional and physiological anthropologists believe the paleolithic diet actually was (as opposed to what some fairly common misconceptions and beliefs about what the evidence suggest) and how it compares to the modern western diet, take a look at the three links below... the first and second links are comparison tables, and the third link the full meta study the table came from (which is worth a read if interested in evolutionary nutrition, and not too sciency):

http://www.ajcn.org/content/91/2/295/T1.expansion.html

http://www.ajcn.org/content/91/2/295/T2.expansion.html

http://www.ajcn.org/content/91/2/295.full.pdf+html

You'll note from table 2 that the estimated carb intake equated to 35-40% of total energy, but sugar intake very low, with protein at 25-30% and the remainder as fats.


----------



## hackskii (Jul 27, 2003)

Dtlv74 said:


> For a breakdown of what nutritional and physiological anthropologists believe the paleolithic diet actually was (as opposed to what some fairly common misconceptions and beliefs about what the evidence suggest) and how it compares to the modern western diet, take a look at the three links below... the first and second links are comparison tables, and the third link the full meta study the table came from (which is worth a read if interested in evolutionary nutrition, and not too sciency):
> 
> http://www.ajcn.org/content/91/2/295/T1.expansion.html
> 
> ...


Will look at this in a min.

I notice that this looks pretty close to the zone diet of 40/30/30


----------



## Tinytom (Sep 16, 2005)

Anabolic still not answered my questions.

Probably disappear off this thread same as the partial deads one now that some credible counter arguments have surfaced.

Maybe cos he can't use the 'my body is better' argument lol


----------



## dipdabs (Jun 14, 2012)

Tinytom said:


> Anabolic still not answered my questions.
> 
> Probably disappear off this thread same as the partial deads one now that some credible counter arguments have surfaced.
> 
> Maybe cos he can't use the 'my body is better' argument lol


Anabolic


----------



## Unintended (Jun 20, 2011)

I did a Keto cut for about a month and really slimmed out. I found it ok as well because I love meat and cheese!! I added in carbs and continued to eat a caloric deficit, but progress slowed down a little. I am going to try keto again starting from next week just to away from 11-13% body fat and down to single digits.

I know it will work because It has before. The only carb I will miss is bananas and fruit.


----------



## rectus (Jan 18, 2012)

Kaywoodham said:


> Anabolic
> 
> View attachment 89295


If you don't have anything useful then cease posting in this thread. The childish posts were put an end to earlier.


----------



## dipdabs (Jun 14, 2012)

rectus said:


> If you don't have anything useful then cease posting in this thread. The childish posts were put an end to earlier.


Woah calm down mate was just a joke! No need to get snappy! And I will post what I like!


----------



## dipdabs (Jun 14, 2012)

anab0lic said:


> I'm sure there will be a huge reaction to the above post from the usual suspects saying I'm full of sh1t.... I really couldn't care less what bill, frank and dave on an internet forum *thinks* is truth.... The proof is in the pudding... and Ive tasted that pudding.


Could still throw a picture up without saying anything about your supposed training methods.

I just like pictures of men though lol.


----------



## Fatstuff (Mar 2, 2010)




----------



## rectus (Jan 18, 2012)

anab0lic said:


> Hi Tom, unfortunately I am unable to go into great depth about my training methods and beliefs. I have for a VERY long time now been working hard to put together a program to produce both hypertrophy and strength gains at the fastest rate possible.. and I believe I'm pretty much at that point now with what Ive come up with. The concept isn't entirely new, it just never got enough attention that it deserves.. and well... I've given it that attention, for almost 3 years now... and it has to be said the results are truly phenomenal.... I've tweaked it to the point where the rate of gain really has to be seen to be believed. It's amazing actually that it never was explored in depth enough as the results in its original form were blowing everything else out of the water... I guess it just got buried under all the bull**** training advice that's spread like wildfire from various genetic freaks who use steroids who can grow freakishly large doing whatever the hell they feel like....too bad most of us don't have that luxury. First reaction of people that have trained for a good while with popular methods and then train this way is anger...why do they get angry? Because in comparison to other training techniques it makes them seem like a huge waste of time and effort. I know all of this probably sounds too good to be true.... but i truly have invested a huge amount of time and money into this...and every once in a while people come up with something that changes things in this world and that's how we have gotten to where we are today as a species. AFAIK nobody else out there is doing this currently, although its entirely possible they are and are keeping it to themselves for financial gain/to give the athletes they work with an edge over the competition. I just cant afford to divulge it all on an internet forum for free... would pretty much be career suicide... I'm sure u understand and would do exactly the same in my position.


Do you have a book coming out soon by any chance? Some big claims there! I am keeping an open mind with you Anabolic.


----------



## Tinytom (Sep 16, 2005)

anab0lic said:


> Hi Tom, unfortunately I am unable to go into great depth about my training methods and beliefs. I have for a VERY long time now been working hard to put together a program to produce both hypertrophy and strength gains at the fastest rate possible.. and I believe I'm pretty much at that point now with what Ive come up with. The concept isn't entirely new, it just never got enough attention that it deserves.. and well... I've given it that attention, for almost 3 years now... and it has to be said the results are truly phenomenal.... I've tweaked it to the point where the rate of gain really has to be seen to be believed. It's amazing actually that it never was explored in depth enough as the results in its original form were blowing everything else out of the water... I guess it just got buried under all the bull**** training advice that's spread like wildfire from various genetic freaks who use steroids who can grow freakishly large doing whatever the hell they feel like....too bad most of us don't have that luxury. First reaction of people that have trained for a good while with popular methods and then train this way is anger...why do they get angry? Because in comparison to other training techniques it makes them seem like a huge waste of time and effort. I know all of this probably sounds too good to be true.... but i truly have invested a huge amount of time and money into this...and every once in a while people come up with something that changes things in this world and that's how we have gotten to where we are today as a species. AFAIK nobody else out there is doing this currently, although its entirely possible they are and are keeping it to themselves for financial gain/to give the athletes they work with an edge over the competition. I just cant afford to divulge it all on an internet forum for free... would pretty much be career suicide... I'm sure u understand and would do exactly the same in my position.


Well that's great.

But one of my questions was

'what pro level bbers does (the guru you mentioned) train?'

Don't see how that infringes your training method or whatever?

To be fair that's a pretty long answer which says nothing. Very ericksonian in your approach. Hope your training programme is more macro or it won't be very good as a guide.


----------



## lxm (Jul 26, 2011)

pic or nophysique


----------



## Fatstuff (Mar 2, 2010)

Serious question! What might one pay for the services you offer, anabolic? Do you have a website?


----------



## musio (Jan 25, 2008)

anab0lic said:


> I have for a VERY long time now been working hard to put together a program to produce both hypertrophy and strength gains at the fastest rate possible.. and I believe I'm pretty much at that point now with what Ive come up with. and it has to be said the results are truly phenomenal.... I've tweaked it to the point where the rate of gain really has to be seen to be believed. It's amazing actually that it never was explored in depth enough as the results in its original form were blowing everything else out of the water... I


What's the 'skinny' on this?  When will it be ready? Would be interested in having a look, especially if it has diet info...


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

Kaywoodham said:


> Woah calm down mate was just a joke! No need to get snappy! And I will post what I like!


That's not entirely true but he has a point try and post useful info or refrain from posting.



anab0lic said:


> I'm sure there will be a huge reaction to the above post from the usual suspects saying I'm full of sh1t.... I really couldn't care less what bill, frank and dave on an internet forum *thinks* is truth.... The proof is in the pudding... and Ive tasted that pudding.


I am glad you could not care less what the Internet guys say, but if you are going to brag in a Post how better your physique is than other members as you did in this thread then proof is actually needed, and please don't be an ass and make the mistake that you are superior to everyone who takes steroids, I am glad you have built a method but to be fair everything has been done to death cannot see you rocking the world but I am sure you will say you will prove me wrong as your results are phenomenal


----------



## dipdabs (Jun 14, 2012)

I posted a funny picture replying to tom/toms comment. Dozens of members have posted p1ss taking and useless comments on many many threads including this one. It was not offensive to any of you nor has it caused any harm.


----------



## Huntingground (Jan 10, 2010)

anab0lic said:


> Hi Tom, unfortunately I am unable to go into great depth about my training methods and beliefs. I have for a VERY long time now been working hard to put together a program to produce both hypertrophy and strength gains at the fastest rate possible.. and I believe I'm pretty much at that point now with what Ive come up with. The concept isn't entirely new, it just never got enough attention that it deserves.. and well... I've given it that attention, for almost 3 years now... and it has to be said the results are truly phenomenal.... I've tweaked it to the point where the rate of gain really has to be seen to be believed. It's amazing actually that it never was explored in depth enough as the results in its original form were blowing everything else out of the water... I guess it just got buried under all the bull**** training advice that's spread like wildfire from various genetic freaks who use steroids who can grow freakishly large doing whatever the hell they feel like....too bad most of us don't have that luxury. First reaction of people that have trained for a good while with popular methods and then train this way is anger...why do they get angry? Because in comparison to other training techniques it makes them seem like a huge waste of time and effort. I know all of this probably sounds too good to be true.... but i truly have invested a huge amount of time and money into this...and every once in a while people come up with something that changes things in this world and that's how we have gotten to where we are today as a species. AFAIK nobody else out there is doing this currently, although its entirely possible they are and are keeping it to themselves for financial gain/to give the athletes they work with an edge over the competition. I just cant afford to divulge it all on an internet forum for free... would pretty much be career suicide... I'm sure u understand and would do exactly the same in my position.


GymGym??

Classic post. :thumb:


----------



## Fit4life (Sep 16, 2011)

benki11 said:


> I know general thinking is that caloric surplus makes you fat not ,Carbs !?
> 
> but I been on 26% bf mostly last 4 years but then I started cuting carbs down mostly I keep them under 120 a day and
> 
> ...


maybe this will help you understand :

http://www.mikementzer.com/skinner070703.html

kaza

IMHO carbs are natures bad boys the human body doesnt need to abuse these little blighters, we are designed (being animals) to digest protein and fats but we do need carbs as in complex carbs for energy as it really is the best option for fuel....Suppose in a way it is like the converting of a petrol engine to run on old chip fat, yes it will work but not as efficiently..


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

Kaywoodham said:


> I posted a funny picture replying to tom/toms comment. Dozens of members have posted p1ss taking and useless comments on many many threads including this one. It was not offensive to any of you nor has it caused any harm.


Whatever, my post still stands......


----------



## C.Hill (Nov 21, 2010)

anab0lic said:


> I'm sure there will be a huge reaction to the above post from the usual suspects saying I'm full of sh1t.... I really couldn't care less what bill, frank and dave on an internet forum *thinks* is truth.... The proof is in the pudding... and Ive tasted that pudding.


Is just your word mate. How hard is it to post a picture of yourself? Or someone you have prepped? Before and after pics? Surely someone of your superior calibre has some?


----------



## hackskii (Jul 27, 2003)

Man, how about sticking to the thread if carbs make you fat?

Simples.

Id put a pic up but then nobody would listen to me:lol:


----------



## Davidmc1961 (Nov 1, 2008)

benki11 said:


> I know general thinking is that caloric surplus makes you fat not ,Carbs !?
> 
> but I been on 26% bf mostly last 4 years but then I started cuting carbs down mostly I keep them under 120 a day and
> 
> ...


Nah don't think so. Excess calories do though imo.


----------



## hackskii (Jul 27, 2003)

Do you ever wonder this question.

Beings that all macro's have a rating on energy, ever wonder why protein is the same as carbs?

I mean fat yes, ever see a grease fire?

Wow, lots of energy.

Or sugar that has caught on fire, burns pretty good.

Lean meat on the grill, just turns to charcoal.

It does not burn at all, you could hold a blow torch to that and just char.

I do not see how gram for gram that lets say sugar will catch fire, grease will cause a big fire, yet protein chars and has the same calorie gram per gram as sugar?

Just tossin that out there.


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

hackskii said:


> Do you ever wonder this question.
> 
> Beings that all macro's have a rating on energy, ever wonder why protein is the same as carbs?
> 
> ...


The 4kcals per gram for proteins and carbs and 9kcals per gram formula isn't by any means accurate. There was a guy way back towards the beginning of last century called Wilbur Atwáter (no accent over the a - had to put that in because the forums anti swearing fliter thinks I'm typing the word twát in the middle of his name :lol: ), and he did a load of experiments measuring the energy values of loads of different foods, and he found that fats, carbs and proteins of differing types each have different calorie values... 4/4/9 is an average based upon the energy contribution from each macro in a typical early 20th century diet in north america... if someones diet is radically different to the food choices used to make those averages (like a veggie diet or a keto diet etc) then the actual calorie intake may be a fair bit off from what the 9/4/4 suggests it is, what the nutritional label says it is, and what most people therefore assume it is.

Since Atwáter a few more experiments have been done that have confirmed his data, although some corrections have been made to his formulas for available energy. One thing is for sure though, more often than not each single gram or carbs or protein you eat will not actually be bang on 4kcals, nor will a gram of fat be exactly 9kcals... the composition of differing amino acids, monosaccarides and fatty acids in each gram will make a difference, although mostly the figures are very close to the 4/4/9.

http://www.nutribase.com/a****er.shtml

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A****er_system#Derivation_of_the_A****er_System

If I can find it again I'll put up a document I have copied from a series of studies that list the precise calorie values (metabolisable energy) for individual sugars (fructose, galactose, glucose) and for several fatty acids and protein fractions... makes interesting reading as it does show that the average calculations are possibly way off over the long term for some food choices in respect of metabolizable energy.


----------



## hackskii (Jul 27, 2003)

Dtlv74 said:


> The 4kcals per gram for proteins and carbs and 9kcals per gram formula isn't by any means accurate. There was a guy way back towards the beginning of last century called Wilbur Atwáter (no accent over the a - had to put that in because the forums anti swearing fliter thinks I'm typing the word twát in the middle of his name :lol: ), and he did a load of experiments measuring the energy values of loads of different foods, and he found that fats, carbs and proteins of differing types each have different calorie values... 4/4/9 is an average based upon the energy contribution from each macro in a typical early 20th century diet in north america... if someones diet is radically different to the food choices used to make those averages (like a veggie diet or a keto diet etc) then the actual calorie intake may be a fair bit off from what the 9/4/4 suggests it is, what the nutritional label says it is, and what most people therefore assume it is.
> 
> Since Atwáter a few more experiments have been done that have confirmed his data, although some corrections have been made to his formulas for available energy. One thing is for sure though, more often than not each single gram or carbs or protein you eat will not actually be bang on 4kcals, nor will a gram of fat be exactly 9kcals... the composition of differing amino acids, monosaccarides and fatty acids in each gram will make a difference, although mostly the figures are very close to the 4/4/9.
> 
> ...


I would look fwd to reading that, just to put my head in and listen.

I need some mental stimulation anyway.

Right now the house is in harmony.

That is a good thing.

It's all good

Thanks Det for taking the time to post that.

Your a good man

I love you and I love this board.

Nuf Said


----------



## big steve (May 8, 2011)

anab0lic said:


> I'll have some great pictures to show you guys exactly what can be achieved using this stuff in the not so distant future.... I can give you my word on that.
> 
> but tbh i think this is more to your tastes/needs
> 
> https://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=brad%20pitt&psj=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&biw=1146&bih=568&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=72IKULDXB-eQ0AX_wYXQCg#um=1&hl=en&safe=off&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=brad+pitt+body&oq=brad+pitt+body&gs_l=img.3..0l10.4337.5127.0.6784.5.5.0.0.0.0.223.802.1j2j2.5.0...0.0...1c.2g7KisvBXFo&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=ed5223a9e4ff5b3b&biw=1146&bih=568


i take it thats not you in your avi then?


----------



## ConstantCut (Apr 21, 2011)

So would 2500 kcals a day of low carbs, low fat and high protein work just as well as 2500 kcals of any breakdown of the above?


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

hackskii said:


> I would look fwd to reading that, just to put my head in and listen.
> 
> I need some mental stimulation anyway.
> 
> ...


I'm too lazy to look for it right now :lol: but do have a summary of the calorie values:

kcals per g

glucose 3.692

lactose 3.877

sucrose 3.959

starch 4.116

average meat protein 4.233

average plant protein 4.301

olive oil 9.384

animal fat 9.372

butter fat 9.179


----------



## 36-26 (Jun 30, 2009)

anab0lic said:


> No LOL. The healthiest people in the world are the tribes that still remain on this planet that eat high fat, mod protein, zero carb diets.... Inuit, masai etc... heart disease, strokes, cancers, diabetes all unheard of amongst those people.... which was also true for us too before the introduction of agriculture.


How would people have known if they had cancer, heart disease or diabetes before the introduction of agriculture, did they have regular blood tests and trips to their GP? they couldn't possibly have known if they had it or not, so how do you know several millenia later?


----------



## rectus (Jan 18, 2012)

36-26 said:


> How would people have known if they had cancer, heart disease or diabetes before the introduction of agriculture, did they have regular blood tests and trips to their GP? they couldn't possibly have known if they had it or not, so how do you know several millenia later?


Analysis of the skeletons of our ancestors should give us a clue into this, but I am unsure of the methods used to obtain such data.


----------



## hackskii (Jul 27, 2003)

Sure, for instance Eskimos had no cavities, and I think no heart disease either.


----------



## Heath (Mar 3, 2011)

Some say Inuits used higher cycle doses than Mac and even wore his BB t shirt but didn't look stupid!! :whistling:


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

Inuits living the traditional way are indeed a population with low heart disease... but the average lifespan is much shorter (average mortility is between 10 and 18 years younger depending on which survey you read) for a traditional living inuit (not necessarily because of diet), than for someone in the west, and because heart disease incidence statistically increases with age, it kind of makes assumptions dangerous because more Inuits never get old enough to the time when CVD is most likely to kick in.

Likewise the Maasai have a high fat diet and low incidence of heart disease, and they have an even lower average lifespan of 42 years for men and 45 for women, and 60 is apparently about as old as they get.

A second thing here is that the assumption is often that the low CVD must be down to carbs, but there are other dietary differences. Is well established that an unhealthy calcium/magnesium ratio contributes to heart disease, and the inuits happen to have a near on perfect ratio, much better than most western populations - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3448406.

Again its a case of being cautious about definite statements about macros when other things might play into the mix.

The low incidences of diabetes are clear cut though, but again its important to note that a) traditional living inuits are very active, and the low carb high fat diets they eat have a very distinct fatty acid balance with massively high omega 3 ratios and lots of monounsaturated fats.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8871682

A second point though is that low carb diets long term significantly increase osteoporosis incidences, and in young developing humans also prematurely limits skeletal development - http://www.springerlink.com/content/d68lg6c0ymdgwhj0/ and http://www.ajcn.org/content/88/6/1678.full.

I think the thing to take home is that while it is undeniable that the modern western diet is too reliant on carbohydrate content, especially of the processed kind, it is not necessarily the case that dropping all carbohydrate in favour of fat or protein is automatically a resolution to all health problems.

Also, many of the studies that compare high and low carb diets that show beneficial effects from low carb aren't really that low carb... the average carb intake in the western world is around 60% of calorie intake, and all a protocol has to be in scientific terms to qualify as low carb is less than this average intake... the zone diet for example is considered low carb and has the positive low carb correlations for health risk and fat loss yet carbs are still the dominant macro (40% energy).

It all suggests that multiple factors beyond crude macros and nasty carbs (or sat fats as some people believe) are where the real benefit lies in non standard western diets.


----------



## Tinytom (Sep 16, 2005)

Damn Det.

You are a smart mutha fukka (said in Samuel L Jackson voice)


----------



## Heath (Mar 3, 2011)

Dtlv74 said:


> Inuits living the traditional way are indeed a population with low heart disease... but the average lifespan is much shorter (average mortility is between 10 and 18 years younger depending on which survey you read) for a traditional living inuit (not necessarily because of diet), than for someone in the west, and because heart disease incidence statistically increases with age, it kind of makes assumptions dangerous because more Inuits never get old enough to the time when CVD is most likely to kick in.
> 
> Likewise the Maasai have a high fat diet and low incidence of heart disease, and they have an even lower average lifespan of 42 years for men and 45 for women, and 60 is apparently about as old as they get.
> 
> ...


Teach me how to live, Master.


----------



## StillTraining (May 7, 2012)

Ok so the anwser is excess cals make you fat not Carbs. Quick question, one of the other posts in this thread, if I understood it correctly, stated that sedentary lifestyles are more likely burn Fat as opposed to Carbs ie. while watching TV.

For a 3 times a week gym goer that apart from the gym has a sedentary lifestyle and wants to lost fat/cut, is it better to have a diet with more Fat than Carbs or doesn't matter?


----------



## BaronSamedi (Jul 23, 2012)

simply put i would say yes

keto my stomach is flat and im looking lean as hell

introduce carbs my stomach is distended as if im carrying twins and i looked watery and bloated

back on the keto tomorrow


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

StillTraining said:


> Ok so the anwser is excess cals make you fat not Carbs. Quick question, one of the other posts in this thread, if I understood it correctly, stated that sedentary lifestyles are more likely burn Fat as opposed to Carbs ie. while watching TV.
> 
> For a 3 times a week gym goer that apart from the gym has a sedentary lifestyle and wants to lost fat/cut, is it better to have a diet with more Fat than Carbs or doesn't matter?


Just because you are not at the gym does not mean your metabolism is not higher than the norm, there is no easy answer here mate create a plan and adjust it depending on your results.....


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

MutantX said:


> Teach me how to live, Master.


LOL, well that's as much a question as the role of carbohydrate density in fat loss diets :lol: Since you asked I'll pretend I didn't get the sarcasm... try this:



Live graciously, humbly and simply. Live with honour.




Let go of dwelling on the past, and do not live in fear of the future.




Live in the moment, but remain responsible for your future.




Do not be judgemental towards yourself or others.




Be humble in your achievements, and always question your own knowledge and beliefs.




Always recognise you may be wrong, and respect differences in opinion and experience.




Show magnanimity and humility in times of fortune, and dignity in times of suffering and misfortune.




Express your individuality.




Be humble where your talents excel.




Never put any one else down when trying to achieve something, always be fair in competition.




Set goals for yourself that bring you happiness rather than adulation.




Look after your loved ones.




Be truthful.




Be compassionate, loving and forgiving.






There ya go, easy


----------



## Heath (Mar 3, 2011)

Dtlv74 said:


> LOL, well that's as much a question as the role of carbohydrate density in fat loss diets :lol: Since you asked I'll pretend I didn't get the sarcasm... try this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yeah yeah that's all well and good but how do I get hench, attract hot 18 year old chicks and live for 100+ years?? 

Stop keeping the good stuff to yourself :lol:


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

MutantX said:


> Yeah yeah that's all well and good but how do I get hench, attract hot 18 year old chicks and live for 100+ years??
> 
> Stop keeping the good stuff to yourself :lol:


For that you need to get into satanism and make a pact with the devil.

It worked for the Weiders apparently - http://www.musclemissions.org/public/100.cfm

:devil2:


----------



## Blinkey (May 14, 2012)

A little known fact about Inuits, is that they bleed to death very easily as their blood does not clot due to the high amount of oil ( as in fish) in the diet. Also caused by their consumption of seals and whale meat.


----------



## benki11 (Sep 17, 2010)

After one week with carbs and keeping my calories intake at 2500 I lost two of my sixpacs already so I think Carbas are bad for me personally,and I do not believe every calory is equal


----------



## hackskii (Jul 27, 2003)

benki11 said:


> After one week with carbs and keeping my calories intake at 2500 I lost two of my sixpacs already so I think Carbas are bad for me personally,and I do not believe every calory is equal


Yah, but your ass looks very tasty in your avatar. :lol:


----------



## Fatstuff (Mar 2, 2010)

benki11 said:


> After one week with carbs and keeping my calories intake at 2500 I lost two of my sixpacs already so I think Carbas are bad for me personally,and I do not believe every calory is equal


2 six packs?


----------



## L11 (Jan 21, 2011)

After doing 4 weeks with very low carbs, a week with pretty low carbs, I've had to carb up this week (BAD constipation which I can only assume was down to the lack of fiber), after 4 days I actually look way more defined. I'm loving how much energy I have (even on 2100) calories. I don't think I'll ever do low carb again, just low calories.


----------



## rectus (Jan 18, 2012)

Fatstuff said:


> 2 six packs?


What's confusing about this? Do you not have a 24 pack like the rest of us? He's only got two of his six packs left, poor guy.


----------



## benki11 (Sep 17, 2010)

rectus said:


> What's confusing about this? Do you not have a 24 pack like the rest of us? He's only got two of his six packs left, poor guy.


No i meant that i lost 2 out of 6 by adding carbohydrates to my diet

6-2=4


----------



## bayman (Feb 27, 2010)

All calories ARE equal, 1kcal of fat is the same as 1kcal of protein. This is fact. However, all macros are not created equal though.

It's as simple as: Energy balance determine weight loss / gain. Macro content determines if this is fat / muscle / water / glycogen.


----------



## bayman (Feb 27, 2010)

In defence of calories - Part 1.


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

Bump, a really good article on this debate here (this guy says what I've been trying to say about individual differences, but much better than I could, lol):



> *Low Carb or Low Fat? Let Science Settle the Debate*
> 
> In part one of this series, I discussed how universal truths are a standard bit of rhetoric in the fitness industry. In part two, I offered some reasons for how the scientific literature has unwittingly supported this naïve view. Then in the latest installment, I pointed out how more enlightened practitioners have attempted to classify individuals based on somatotype, in order to better define an individual's dietary needs.
> 
> ...


http://graemethomasonline.com/low-carb-or-low-fat-let-science-settle-the-debate/


----------



## rectus (Jan 18, 2012)

So really, to sum up this thread I think it's correct to say:

While calorie restriction is beneficial for weight loss, macro-nutrient composition should be analysed and adjusted specifically for an individual first.


----------



## hackskii (Jul 27, 2003)

Damn Det, that makes alot of sense.

I had a friend that was a cardio fanatic, all he ate was carbs, and I mean mostly junk carbs, but dude was totally lean.

He would get a cut or something on his hand and in days it was totally healed up.

I rarely ever saw him eat protein either.

Could be the amount of cardio he did, but he ate more carbs than anyone I ever knew and was skinny.

For me I did the Atkins and Zone diets.

I noticed that for every inch on the zone diet I lost on the waist was 4 pounds, for the zone diet it was 5 to 6 pounds.

I attributed this to being more insulin resistant.

But after a long time when I got very lean with very little bodyfat I kept losing weight and had to increase the food.

I attributed this to over time I got more insulin sensitive and better utilized my energy.

I was exercising 5 days a week when I was on the zone, at one point I had to cut the cardio out all together, as I lost more than my target weight of 1.5 to 2 pounds a week.


----------



## Fit4life (Sep 16, 2011)

rectus said:


> So really, to sum up this thread I think it's correct to say:
> 
> While calorie restriction is beneficial for weight loss, macro-nutrient composition should be analysed and adjusted specifically for an individual first.


ABSOLUTELY

Indvidually what is good for one may not be great for another but as a general rule if we restrict carbs and increase proteins and good fats we see a faster burn of body fat if exercise is done .Most people fail because they restrict good fats too and frankly that doesnt make sense, salmon is great if used correctly for fat burning yet some bodybuilders refuse to consume it because they do not understand how the body digestive process works. I recall an argument at a gym specifically about this and one guy telling everyone I didnt have a "FXucking clue about diets or nutrition" ..... say no more !

Kaza

In reality the only thing that makes us fat is eating too much that is not used by the body for fuel, so in essence anything can make us fat if we eat too much....


----------



## hackskii (Jul 27, 2003)

*Decade-Long Feeding Study Reveals Significant Health Hazards of Genetically Engineered Foods *

http://www.riseearth.com/2012/08/decade-long-feeding-study-reveals.html#.UCVmThrNn95


----------



## rectus (Jan 18, 2012)

Fit4life said:


> I recall an argument at a gym specifically about this and one guy telling everyone I didnt have a "FXucking clue about diets or nutrition" .....


That seems a bit of an extreme response. Some people like to give advice and some people don't like to get advice so I find it's better to wait to be asked.


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

rectus said:


> So really, to sum up this thread I think it's correct to say:
> 
> While calorie restriction is beneficial for weight loss, macro-nutrient composition should be analysed and adjusted specifically for an individual first.


Yes that's bang on imo - and also to be wary of the recommendations of 'experts' who put all the blame for fat gain/difficulty losing fat on one particular macro (be it fat or carbs), and also to recognise that what works really well for you or me might be totally inappropriate for someone else.

Generally most people who have been training for a while and tried a load of different diet types find what works for them, and I think that's the other take home bit of knowledge... worth experimenting with many different approaches, and to attack each one with equal vigour and lack of ideological bias to find what works for each of us... until the genetic tests are more available and less expensive the only way to find out is through trial and error.



hackskii said:


> Damn Det, that makes alot of sense.
> 
> I had a friend that was a cardio fanatic, all he ate was carbs, and I mean mostly junk carbs, but dude was totally lean.
> 
> ...


I remember a few olympics back the BBC did a programme following some of our competing athletes and looking at the amount of training they did, and diet got a bit of a mention... some of the guys doing high energy sports like rowing (this was the year Redgrave won his fifth gold medal, and Pincent his forth) were consuming close to 10,000 kcals pre day, most of it from simple carbs, the rowers were eating hundreds of grams of candies whilst training, and were at the same time stripping off the bodyfat... Pincent was on this diet and I remember his comments that he was still struggling to maintain a high enough bodyweight.

I seem to lose fat fairly equally on either lower carb or higher carb cutting diets when the deficit is only slight, but there appears (for me) an increased advantage for the higher carb approach as the degree of deficit increases... obviously haven't done the genetic test, but have done fasting glucose and fed glucose tests before, and I know I have very good glucose clearance response and have good blood sugar management... this all ties in and makes sense with the data concerning good insulin sensitivity and the preferential diet for that condition being a higher carb one.

In contrast am helping one young lady lose some body fat right now and she is (or was, she isn't any more  ) pre diabetic... and for her after just a short while of playing around with diets it's obvious she needs to keep carbs well restricted, no more than 100g per day.


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

since 2010 i have not counted calories in my pre-contest and off season diets, the diets are based on macro splits it did not make sense to me at first but seeing as i have reached top 6 in the world and top 4 in Britain i can be certain it does now


----------



## hackskii (Jul 27, 2003)

Good stuff Det.

I know why I am more insulin resistant than I should be:..........................................Beer! :lol:

So, I tend to restrict carbs during the day and eat more protein and fats, then when I get off work: :beer: :lol:


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

Pscarb said:


> since 2010 i have not counted calories in my pre-contest and off season diets, the diets are based on macro splits it did not make sense to me at first but seeing as i have reached top 6 in the world and top 4 in Britain i can be certain it does now


Exactly... there are probably a load of people who would love to tell you what you do is 'wrong' Paul, but they don't dare because they will never come close to your success - primarily because they are stuck in an ideological way of thinking about it all, and cant get beyond that self limiting way of thinking.

You know your body perfectly an know exactly what it needs to get what you want from it.


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

hackskii said:


> Good stuff Det.
> 
> I know why I am more insulin resistant than I should be:..........................................Beer! :lol:
> 
> So, I tend to restrict carbs during the day and eat more protein and fats, then when I get off work: :beer: :lol:


We definitely will go for that beer we keep talking about one day... i'll help you shaft your insulin levels just a little bit further :lol:


----------



## hackskii (Jul 27, 2003)

Dtlv74 said:


> We definitely will go for that beer we keep talking about one day... i'll help you shaft your insulin levels just a little bit further :lol:


Shaft? :scared: :wub: :devil2:


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

hackskii said:


> Shaft? :scared: :wub: :devil2:


yes baby  :lol:


----------



## mark22 (Jul 13, 2011)

Pscarb said:


> since 2010 i have not counted calories in my pre-contest and off season diets, the diets are based on macro splits it did not make sense to me at first but seeing as i have reached top 6 in the world and top 4 in Britain i can be certain it does now


I don't know bout anyone else but i'd like know your diet ins and outs.


----------



## hackskii (Jul 27, 2003)

Dtlv74 said:


> yes baby  :lol:


Dude, such a charmer:lol:

I give....

Uncle...

You had me at yes:lol:


----------



## rectus (Jan 18, 2012)

hackskii said:


> Shaft? :scared: :wub: :devil2:


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

mark22 said:


> I don't know bout anyone else but i'd like know your diet ins and outs.


You are sure asking someone worth asking... am not blowing smoke (well maybe a little :lol: ) but Paul is one of THE people to listen to imo.


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

Dtlv74 said:


> You are sure asking someone worth asking... am not blowing smoke (well maybe a little :lol: ) but Paul is one of THE people to listen to imo.


Cheers mate,


----------



## biglbs (Jan 26, 2012)

Pscarb said:


> Cheers mate,


Fee,is .........

C'mon mate don't soften here ffs! :lol:


----------

