Nutrition EDU

There was so much information that I now have to split into multiple post

The same questions come back over and over again so I wanted to make an EDU about it. Feel free to add a comment or PM me if there are mistakes or stuff to add. I might add links to some resources or to my sources, just ask for it and I’ll look it up and add it. If there are terms you don’t understand, use Google and Wikipedia, this crazy website for geeks () THEN ask questions.

A huge influence on your progress will be your nutrition. Training is usually the one thing people talk about but nutrition is almost always overlooked. People know how many miles per gallon their car does, but now how much cals they have to eat to maintain their weight. Some people can get amazing results in spite of what they’re doing (eating, training, etc). We shouldn’t try to do what they do. Genetics doesn’t mean that you can’t do anything about it, it means that you’ll have to work harder to get it. Part of being what you want to be is doing stuff you don’t really want to do.

It’s also not necessary to get some food every 2-3 hours. As long as you’re getting at least 3-4 “feedings” (both meals and snacks) everyday, it’s fine.

Here is a calorie calculator :
Chose the Harris-Benedict equation. I saw numerous studies comparing many equations and the Harris-Benedict one seemed the closest one everytime although it slightly underestimated the calorie needs. It’s a good start point though.

Then, how much to eat will depend on your goals. Use the counter or eat 15 cals/lb, wait for 2 weeks and reassess. If you want to lose or gain weight it hasn’t changed, lower this amount by 500 cals every 2 weeks until you lose/gain 1-2 lbs per week. If it’s going too fast, adjust by adding or substracting 250 cals.

Whatever you do, gaining weight is about eating more calories than you expend (cals in > cals out) and losing weight is expending more calories than what you eat (cals in < cals out). The thing is that what we expend (cals out) varies greatly from one person to another and will be influenced by a lot of factors (activity level, genetic differences, metabolism, fidgeting and so on). The trick is to find at what point you gain or lose weight, it will vary from one to another so you’ll have to try some stuff and see for yourself.

Sorry for the small picture. Go there if you want to learn more about energy balance (cals in vs cals out) and how you can play with it :

Here are some troubleshooters by Dr Lonnie Lowery

If you want to gain weight, it’s a bit trickier. If you’re a skinny beginner, you can probably gain a couple of lbs every month. If you’re a skinny fat beginner though, I don’t think you should use the scale. You could be gaining muscle mass and losing fat while staying at the same weight. Use the mirror, take measurements, take pictures to assess progress.
Whatever your goals are, adjust your intake to your daily activity level. That means you can take more cals on training days and less cals on off days. It can easily be done by adding a pre/peri/post-workout meal (which will be discussed later).

As a former fat bastard gifted with a slow (efficient) metabolism, I’m not really into the bulking/cutting phases.

For those who want to gain slowly, eating 10% over maintenance during training days (that’s including calories burned during your activities) and 10% under maintenance during off-days can lead to pretty clean gains in the long term. Aiming at 2-4 lbs per month (the higher part is for those new at this) is a good goal. It might seem slow to some people, but over a year, we’re looking at 24-48 lbs if you gain all the time, which is pretty good.

For those who want to gain faster (those who can afford it the most are the skinny guys that always have been skinny, have a really fast metabolism and can go for a long time without eating, it will be a lot easier for them to lose the excess fat), you could aim at 1-2 lbs per week. You could eat the same amount of food everyday if you want, but I would just take out the PWO drink/meal on days off.

Whatever you do, the excess calories should come from the “energy-providing” macronutrients (fats and carbs, the only usable sources of energy by the body). Protein can stay the same or higher if you want to, but the excess protein will be turned to energy (inefficiently) and it will be a costy source of energy. This process is called gluconeogenesis and only 80% of the energy found in your excess protein will be converted to glucose because of the thermic effect of food. It can be an advantage when dieting though. You could replace some cals from carbs by protein and if you replace 50g of carbs with 50g of protein, your body will only have the energy equivalent of 40 g of carbs (80% of it).

As far as cutting goes, you just have to lower the carbs a little at first, then fats, until you lose 1-2 lbs per week (that’s if you’re not overly fat, people over 25-30% of bodyfat can lose way faster).

Something by Christian Thibaudeau on the subject. Keep in mind the calculations were for him (he was 220-230 lbs at the time) and it’s just an example.

Well I first established the basic amount of calories I needed to grow optimally. I did this by calculating my BMR, then daily caloric expenditure.

When I started my preparation I established that my BMR (basal metabolic rate) was 2092kcals and my daily caloric expenditure (BMR x activity level factor of 1.6 … see my Dr.Jekyll for more details) was 3343kcals/day.

When I work with my clients I establish their caloric intake this way:

1) Average muscle growth with no (or minimal) fat gain = Energy expenditure x 105-110%

2) Significant muscle growth with a small fat gain = Energy expenditure x 115-120%

3) Maximum growth with a significant gain in fat = Energy expenditure x 125-130%

Taking myself as an example these goals would put my caloric intake are:

1) 3514 to 3680kcals (the lower amount would be for non-training days and the higher amount for training days)

2) 3849 to 4020kcals

3) 4183 to 4350kcals

Since I was very lean when I started this diet and that I had some muscle to regain I decided to go right between option 2 and 3 at the start. So I did set my caloric intake at 4250kcals, but to avoid gaining too much fat too fast, I decreased my calories on “off” days slightly (3750 instead of 3800-4000).

From there I would gradually increase my caloric intake each month to accomodate the added muscle tissue. Each month I would establish if I could (or not) increase caloric intake (was I still in good condition). If I found that my body fat was still in acceptable range I would increase my calories. If I found that fat was gained too fast, I would not increase calories.

On the second week of november I noticed that I was gaining fat at an unacceptable rate (for me) and wasn’t gaining more size or strength compared to the previous caloric intake, so I decided to start my gradual descent.

At my “new” bodyweight I know (from the same calculations) that my BMR is now around 2200kcals and my daily energy expenditure is around 3600kcals/day. So as long as I do not go below 3600kcals/day I can maintain and even increase my level of muscularity and that I will need to go below that to lose fat.

I carry something like 28-30lbs of fat. To get down to competition shape I will need to lose around 22-24lbs. Normally this would take around 12-14 weeks to do so without losing mass. But I decided to play it safe an alocate 16 weeks for my fat loss phase, hence the four months where I’ll be on a relative caloric deficit (as opposed to an absolute caloric deficit…).

A relative caloric deficit means eating less calories than you use per day. So consuming less than your daily energy expenditure.

An absolute deficit means eating less calories than your body’s basic needs each day. That means eating less than your BMR each day (this option is catabolic and will lead to muscle loss).

I think the body has adapted (evolutionary speaking) to some sort of carb cyling : grains weren’t available really when they were hunter-gatherers, they had access to some fruits, when they found a tree or a bush that had some. So I guess the body got used to the fact that it had carbs from time to time and that he tried to store this energy in glycogen stores and used supercompensation as a mean to store more energy for high intensity/short duration bouts (my guess is that they didn’t jog… they were either walking or running the fuck away from something).

Example of a plan :
1 high carb/higher

Carb : 2 g/lb
Protein : 1g/lb
Fats : low
Calories : higher than maintenance

3-4 moderate carb days
Carb : 1g/lb
Protein : 1g/lb
Fats : the rest, varies according to calories
Calories : around maintenance or according to the goals (a little less to lose, a little more to gain)

2-3 low carb days
Carb : around 50 g (basically, only non-starchy veggies, low cal and low carb veggies, trace amount as in cottage cheese
Protein : 1-1.5 g/lb
Fats : the rest
Calories : under maintenance (maybe 12*bodyweight)

Lifting is done while there are carbs, the higher carb day being the one which you want to progress the most or where you train more or a bigger muscle group.

Carbohydrate loading (or glycogen supercompensation, which is just that glycogen stores store more glycogen than they usually could, check out the part on glycogen in the “carb” post) can happen without any exercise or depleted glycogen store : “In conclusion, these findings showed that combining physical inactivity with a high intake of carbohydrate enables trained athletes to attain maximal muscle glycogen contents within only 24 h.”

Also one can just use a single bout of exercice (a couple of min of exercise with a 30 sec all-out sprint) to elicit a glycogen supercompensation effect afterward : “This study shows that a combination of a short-term bout of high-intensity exercise followed by a high-carbohydrate intake enables athletes to attain supranormal muscle glycogen levels within only 24 h.

This is why I begin to understand why nutritionist say it’s hard to gain weight with carbs unless you get too much of it for a couple of days in a row. In these articles, there was no low level of glycogen. The amount of carb they ate usually turns around 10 times their weight in kg (or around 4.5g of carb/lb). That’s a shitload of carb. I saw a study which showed that glycogen supercompensation can’t be repeated a couple of days in a row, so a one-time cheat with almost just carbs is not at all negative if you don’t repeat it the day after. High GI food is important though, and protein + carb usually leads to a higher GI.

(I know that the terms used suck as far as evolution goes but it’s not the main point).

Here’s a table which compares different diets :

They say weight changes is dictated by calories eating (cals in vs cals out). Apparently, what you win or lose is dictated by your macro breakdown. So the big question is how much protein, carbs, fats should we eat. There are many answers to that question. Once you’ve determined your daily cal intake (cals can be at maintenance or adjusted according to your goals), you can play with the macronutrient ratio.
Daily intake – cals from protein = cals for energy (carbs + fat)

There’s a lot of talk about those ketogenic diets, CKD (cyclical ketogenic diet), cycling carbs, Zone diet, etc.
For most of the people here, there’s no reason to go all-out on one macronutrient (getting 60% of the energy from either carb, fat or protein). High carb diets usually recommended by nutritionists are also favoring one macronutrient a little too much in my opinion. In the end, all your macros should provide between 20-40% of your cal intake and it will vary in function of how your body reacts to it, your activity level and so on.

(4 cals/g of protein) = 1 g pf protein/lb of bodyweight is a good goal. There is no known risk if you want to go higher though (unless you have a preexisting kidney disease) and there are some benefits but the most important are increased thermic effect of food (which basically means higher metabolism and higher satiety) and positive nitrogen balance (which means eating more protein that your body needs, which is what we want if we want to grow).
Protein has a really high thermic effect of food (TEF) which means that the body uses a lot of energy to process it. That’s usually linked to greater energy lost (which is one reason why protein is the best macronutrient to get in excess), boosts the metabolism and has been linked to greater satiety.

The recommended intake for sedentary individual is 0.8g/kg but recent studies suggest that it should be the double (1.6g/kg). The 0.8g/kg recommandations provides enough protein to 98% of the sedentary people and it takes into account the variable quality of the protein. So if one would take only complete protein, it could be a little lower. Studies done in weight training individuals show that there’s no additionnal benefit when over 1.8g/kg as far as muscle building goes. 1g/lb is 2.2g/kg, so it should be plenty enough.

All proteins are not created equal. Animal protein is better than plant protein due to their biological value, among other things (. Some plant protein sources aren’t complete either (.

If you’re anal about it, again, Alan Aragon’s opinion on it (not necessary, it’s anal but getting at least 1g/lb is what you should aim for).

the super-meticulous method:

your protein need depends on 3 main factors: 1) your activity level; 2) your TARGETED lean body mass (LBM) as opposed to your current one – unless of course your goal is maintenance; 3) your energy balance – whether it’s at equilibrium, hypercaloric, or hypocaloric.. there certainly are other factors to consider, such as protein type & biologic availability, but for this discussion, let’s assume we’re talking about high-quality protein sources, as opposed to incomplete & substandard ones.

finding out your goal LBM, aka your goal fat-free mass, will require some calculation: decide what you realistically want to achieve in terms of total bodyweight and bodyfat %. after calculating how many pounds of fat you aim to carry, subtract this number from your goal bodyweight. the remaining number is an estimate of your target LBM. for example, if you wanted to weigh 190 lbs at 7% bodyfat, multiply 190 by .07, which is 13.3. this is your projected bodyfat in pounds. subtract this from 190, which gets you 176.7 lbs of targeted LBM.

if you’re in a hypocaloric state (ie, in an energy deficit for fat loss), your protein needs are increased just as they would be for gaining mass, because you need an additional amount to buffer catabolism. maintenance protein needs are lower. refer to the following chart i developed for my RD students. this data is based on a combination of my own private practice experience and research by preeminent eggheads such as lemon, tarnopolsky, krieder, evans, antonio, stout, and others:

Activity levels:

1) Sedentary – no exercise beyond typical daily tasks
2) Light – appx. 2-3hrs/wk of light resistance & cardiorespiratory work
3) Moderate – appx. 4-6hrs/wk of moderate resistance & cardiorespiratory work
4) High – appx. 7-9hrs/wk of moderate to high intensity resistance & cardiorespiratory work
5) Very High – appx. 10 or more hrs/wk of moderate to high intensity resistance & cardiorespiratory work

requirements in pounds & kilograms for maintenance, and then fat loss/muscle gain according to activity level, respectively:

1) 0.5g/lb LBM; 1.1g/kg LBM , 0.6g/lb LBM; 1.3g/kg LBM
2) 0.7g/lb LBM; 1.5g/kg LBM , 0.8g/lb LBM; 1.8g/kg LBM
3) 0.9g/lb LBM; 1.8g/kg LBM , 1.1g/lb LBM; 2.4g/kg LBM
4) 1.0g/lb LBM; 2.2g/kg LBM , 1.2g/lb LBM; 2.6g/kg LBM
5) 1.2g/lb LBM; 2.6g/kg LBM , 1.4g/lb LBM; 3.0g/kg LBM

if an athlete is on anabolics and/or androgenics, add 20% to the above numbers.

the simple (but still methodical) way:

keep in mind, the previous is an extremely meticulous way to figure protein needs. if you wanted to go the easier route while still taking target body composition & thermodynamic factors into account, employ the following method which i actually prefer for its simplicity:

1) set a bodyweight goal, assuming that this weight is comprised of your desired bodyfat level. the number of your goal weight in pounds is your approximate protein gram requirement. if you’re shooting for maintenance, stick with this number to keep it simple. but also bear in mind that you can probably get away with 0.6-0.8g/lb for maintenance purposes; the now classic 1.0g/lb ballpark figure imparts a certain degree of surplus, which isn’t necessarily a bad thing.

2) if you need to be in an energy deficit to get there, in other words, if you need to lose total bodyweight to hit your goal – which requires at least a temporary hypocaloric condition – multiply that goal weight by 1.25 to get your protein grams.

3) do the same as directly above in step 2 if you need to gain weight to get there. as stated previously, these scenarios require more protein than maintenance needs due to adaptive shifts in subtrate use. in practice, i tend to round off this number to 1.3g/lb target bodyweight, and often need to kick it up to 1.5g/lb during a hypercatabolic precontest ravaging. on rare occasion, bodybuilding competitors need as much as 2.0g/lb in order to fight to maintain muscle in the endstages of the precontest phase.

note: if you’re on roids, go through the same steps, but add 15-20% more to your calculation. for example, if joe average needs 180g, then joe juice could effectively use 180 multiplied by anywhere from 1.15-1.20, granted they share the same protocol other than the needles (couldn’t help that ). keep in mind that the amounts i stated are on the conservative side. i believe in ramping up as necessary, versus remaining in excess and eventually realizing that after decades of overuse. individual variations discovered by trial and error will ultimately dictate your true protein need.

(9 cals/g of fat) = We should be getting saturated, monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fats everyday. Satured fat is usually found in meat and dairy, mono in nuts and poly in fish and plants.
Fat helps with satiety has it slowers gastric emptying : it makes us digest food slowly. It has the worse TEF (about 3% of it is lost to process the fat) : fat is energy and the body is really good at using it.

Make sure to get a good amount of essential fatty acid (EFA) from your diet (mainly fatty fish) or fish oil supplements if needed (around 1000 mg of omega-3 daily is recommended, pay attention though, 1000 mg fish oil pills usually provide 300 mf of omega-3, which is the amount of both EPA and DHA in the pills). What you want to get is EPA/DHA because the body can use it. ALA (another kind of omega-3 fat which comes from plant sources) isn’t readily converted by the body, only about 15%. So don’t get most of your omega-3 from plant sources (flax, flax oil, nuts, sesame oil, soy products and so on).

Some recommend dividing our fat intake equally between the 3, but saturated fat in bodybuilders has been linked to higher test levels so you might want to concentrate on polyunsaturated and saturated fats. Adjust fat intake if your have lipid problems too. The only fat to avoid is trans-fat.
Total fat intake could be around .5 g/lb of LBM. Note that carb and fat intake should vary based upon individual progress. A greater percentage of carbs and less from fat for those who are lean can’t seem to gain weight and a greater percentage from fat and less from carbs for those who can’t seem to get lean. Play with the percentage, but try to stay in the 20-40% range for both.

It is recommended that you take a maximum of 2-4g of combined EPA/DHA daily. EPA/DHA comes from animal source, not plant source (such as flax, flax oil and so on).
Most fish oil caps contain 30% of combined EPA/DHA, so that’s about 6-13 caps a day. 4-8 if they have 50% of combined EPA/DHA.
200 g (9 oz) of uncooked salmon has 5 g.
200 g of uncooked halibut has 1 g.
200 g of uncooked shrimps (about 30-40 shrimps) has 1 g.
1 can of tuna has about 0.5 g.
1 large omega-3 egg has 0.4 g.

An article from John Berardi on fat :

(usually 4 cals/g of carb) = Setting carb intake is tricky. Some people do well, other not, so you’ll have to adjust your intake accordingly. TEF for carbs is a little higher than with fat which means that the body is not using it as efficiently. “Healthier” food choices usually have more fibers though, and fiber slows nutrient absorption, makes you feel fuller during a longer time, helps you shit nicely, is good for those with lipid problem (as water-soluble fiber absorbs some fat before the body does) and a bunch of other things.
Starting at 1-1.5 g/lb could be a good idea and adjust your intake from there. You can then balance your energy calories between fat and carbs according to your body’s reaction.

An article by Lyle MacDonald on carb intake :

How Many Carbohdyrates Do You need

Introduction: This is an excerpt/section from the never to be completed opus, I had posted it to my forum and someone suggested I make it the new article of the month. If it seems a little bit incomplete, that’s because it is, apparently I never quite finished the entire chapter. In any event, this one section deals simply with the issue of how many carbohydrates you need per day.

Argments over recommended carbohydrate intake have a long history and it doesn’t appear to be close to ending any time soon. Typical mainstream recommendations have carbohydrates contributing 50% or more of total calories while many low-carbohydrate advocates suggest far fewer (ranging from the 40% of the Zone diet to close to zero for ketogenic diets). I should mention again that percentages can be fundamentally misleading, putting carbohydrate recommendations in terms of grams per kilogram or per pound is generally more valid (with one exception noted below). A typical ketogenic/low-carbohydrate diet might contain 1 gram/kilogram (about 0.5 g/lb) of carbohydrate. An average Zone diet might contain 1 g/lb (~2 g/kg) of carbohydrate or slightly more. Typical recommendations for endurance athletes are in the 6-8 g/kg (3-4 g/lb) range and carb-loading may require 10-16 g/kg (5-8 g/lb) of carbohydrate.

Still, whether yo’ure looking at carb recommendations in terms of percentages of g/lb (g/kg), there is still a huge discrepancy between different experts. Some recommend lots of carbs, some recommend medium amounts, some recommend almost none.

Who’s right? In answering this question, I’m going to look at a few issues. So you know, what I’ll end up concluding is that how many carbohydrates you need (or should consume) daily depends on the same factors that affect other nutrient recommendations: goals, preferences, types and amounts of activity, and our old friend, genetic variation. By the end of the discussion, I plan to have set both minimum and maximum intake values depending on different conditions that might crop up. Let’s start with minimum amounts.

As I discussed in great detail previously, there is no actual physiological requirement for dietary carbohydrate. Most tissues can use fatty acids, the few that utilize glucose exclusively just reuse the same amounts over and over, and the brain switches to using ketones when glucose isn’t available with the body making what little is required from other sources. From the standpoint of survival, the minimum amount of carbohydrates that are required in a diet is zero grams.

Of course, when carbohydrates are restricted completely, the body has to find something to make glucose out of. That something is lactate and pyruvate (produced from glucose metabolism), glycerol (from fat metabolism) and amino acids. It’s the amino acid use that can be problematic since they have to come from somewhere. Under conditions of total starvation, that somewhere is generally muscle tissue; the body will readily break down protein to scavenge the amino acids it needs to produce glucose. In doing so, the muscle released alanine and glutamine (produced in the muscle from the breakdown of leucine and the branch chained amino acids, so you know) which can be converted to glucose in the liver.

Protein losses during total starvation are extremely high to start, gradually decreasing as the brain switches over to using ketones for fuel. Even so, in complete starvation there is always some loss of body protein. Over long periods of time, this goes from harmful (because function is compromised from muscle loss) to downright fatal.

From a body recomposition point of view, it should be obvious that losing muscle protein this way is bad. Researchers found years ago that providing adequate dietary protein helped to decrease if not outright eliminate the utilization of body protein for gluconeogenesis (a big word meaning the production of new glucose). Diets providing nothing but small amounts of protein (to the tune of 1.5 g/kg lean body mass or so) helped to almost eliminate the nitrogen losses inherent to starvation.

Recall from the chapter on liver metabolism that over half of all ingested amino acids are broken down in the liver in the first place. A good portion of those can be used to make glucose. Recent research has suggested that high leucine intakes (5-10 grams/day) may be beneficial in providing a source for glucose production in the liver.

Bodybuilders have typically used this approach while dieting, jacking up protein in hopes that it will limit muscle loss. Unfortunately, this is only successful when protein intake is insufficient in the first place. The breakdown of muscle protein is as much hormonally controlled by low insulin, falling testosterone, high cortisol and catecholamines as by nutrient availability. All of the protein in the world won’t help when your hormones are putting your body in an inherently catabolic state.

However, there is an alternate way to limit the use of body protein when carbohydrates are being severely restricted. As few as 15 grams of carbohydrates per day has been shown to limit nitrogen loss and 50 grams of carbohydrate per day severely limits the need for the body to use amino acids for gluoconeogenesis. Not only will it maintain blood glucose and insulin at a slightly higher level (thus inhibiting cortisol release), it directly provides glucose for the brain, limiting the need to break down protein in the first place.

Ketosis (if desired) will generally still develop under those conditions. So although the physiological requirement for dietary carbohydrates is zero, we might set a practical minimum (in terms of preventing excessive body protein loss) at 50 grams per day. I realize that most ketogenic diet authors use 30 grams/day as a starting point but, frankly, I have no idea where that value came from.

However, not everyone functions well in ketosis. They get brain fuzzed, lethargic and just generally feel like warmed over shit. Even with weeks of being on a ketogenic diet, they never seem to adapt completely. That’s not a good recipe for long-term adherence to a diet or healthy functioning. So we ask how many carbs it takes to avoid the development of ketosis. In general, assuming zero or very low levels of activity, an intake of 100 grams of carbohydrates per day will prevent the devlopment of ketosis, just providing the brain with enough carbohydrates to function ‘normally’. So, for folks who want (or need) to just avoid ketosis, 100 grams per day will act as a practical limit.

Summing up so far, we’ve set a practical minimum of 50-100 grams of carbohydrates per day depending on whether or not you function well in ketosis. I want to mention again that this shouldn’t be taken as a recommendation that such an amount is ideal, it simply represents a minimum intake value.

So far I haven’t considered the impact of activity on all of this as this will drastically change the numbers above. And so you know, the values above don’t change significantly with body size. Mainly, in the above discussion we’re dealing with the brain and its glucose requirements. For the most part, brain size doesn’t scale with body weight (no jokes about athletes and the size of their brains, please); neither do glucose requirements.

So now we have to consider activity in the calculations of what might be a practical minimum (note: minimum should not be taken as synonymous with optimum). Both the type, amount and intensity of activity will impact on carbohydrate requirements. Typical low intensity aerobic/cardiovascular work doesn’t generally use a lot of carbohydrate. So if someone were only performing that type of activity (i.e. walking 3-5 times per week), there wouldn’t be any real need to increase carbohdyrate intake over the above minimum. Such a person might want to increase carbs for various reasons, but there wouldn’t be any strict need to do so.

The carbohydrate requirements for weight training actually aren’t that great. I did some calculations in my first book and concluded that, for every 2 work sets or so, you’ll need 5 grams of carbohydrates to replenish the glycogen used. So if you did a workout containing 24 work sets, you’d only need about 60 extra grams (24 sets * 5 grams/2 sets = 60 grams) of carbohydrate to replace the glycogen used. So if you were starting at the bare minimum of 50 grams per day and were doing roughly 24 sets/workout, you’d need to consume an additional 60 grams (total 110 grams/day) to cover it. If you didn’t function well in ketosis and were starting at the 100 g/day, you’d increase to 160 g/day. If you don’t feel like doing such calculations, an intake of 1 g/lb or ~2 grams/kg lean body mass can probably be considered a practical minimum (an exception is various cyclical ketogenic diets which I’ll discuss in a later chapter).

I should mention that most bodybuilding experts recommend intakes in this range: anywhere from 1 g/lb on fat loss diets to 3 g/lb for mass gains so we’re definitely in that range. General recommendations for strength athletes by the nutrition mainstream is in the range of 5-7 g/kg or 2.2-3 g/lb so these values are all pretty consistent.

Higher intensity cardiovascular exercise is a little bit harder to pinpoint in terms of carbohydrate requirements. At high exercise intenties (usually sustainable only by highly trained athletes), muscle glycogen can be depleted within 2 hours or so and this can represent 300-400 grams of total carbohydrate or so. Under less extreme circumstances, carbohydrate requirements won’t be as high. And while current recommendations for endurance athletes are in the 7-10 g/kg (3-4.5 g/lb) range, studies show that most athletes consume closer to 5 g/kg (2.2 g/lb).

Frankly, if competition athletes are getting sufficient carbohydrate intake at that level, I see little reason for the average individual to consume more. I should note that the above sections assume that maintenance of muscle glycogen is the goal. Under some situations, glycogen depletion is the goal. This means that an athlete or dieter may deliberately underconsume carbohydrates such that, over some time period, glycogen concentrations decline. Under others, the goal is to increase muscle glycogen above normal levels and, obviously, this will require higher carbohydrate intakes than the values above.

Ok, so we’ve looked at some minimums, what about maximum intake levels? A practical limit for carbohydrates intake would be a sitaution where they made up 100% of your total energy intake. An average individual has a daily caloric intake in the realm of 15-16 cal/lb. Since carbs have 4 calories/gram, this would represent a maximum intake of roughly 4 grams/lb (8.8 g/kg). Athletes involved in heavier training (hence burning more calories per day) will be able to handle proportionally more.

One final situation occurs when glycogen has been depleted by heavy training and a low-carbohydrate diet and glycogen supercompensation has occurred. Under that specific condition, carbohydrate intakes in the realm of 16 g/kg (a little over 7 grams/pound) of lean body mass can be tolerated over a 24 hour period. This probably represents a practical maximum for carbohydrate intake.

So let’s sum up, looking at both practical minimum and maximum carbohydrate intakes under different circumstances. For the g/lb recommendations, I’ll use a lifter with 160 lbs of lean body mass and put gram amounts in parentheses

Physiological requirement: 0 g/day

Practical minimum to avoid excessive muscle breakdown: 50 g/day Practical minimum for individuals who function poorly in ketosis: 100 g/day

Note: all above values assume no exercise.

Additional amount to sustain low intensity exercise: minimal approaching zero

Additional amount to sustain weight training: 5 grams carbohydrate/2 work sets

Typically recommended amounts by bodybuilding experts: 1-3 g/lb (160-480 g/day)

Typically recommended amounts by mainstream nutritionists: 2-3 g/lb (320-480 g/day)

Average intake for endurance athletes: 5 g/kg or a little more than 2 g/lb (320 g/day)

Recommended intake for endurance athletes: 7-10 g/kg or 3-4.5 g/lb (480-720 g/day)

Practical maximum for non-carb loading individuals: 8.8 g/kg or 4 g/lb (640 g/day)

Maximal intakes for carb-loading: 16 g/kg or 7 g/lb (1120 g/day)

Summing up: So, in looking at possible carbohydrate intakes, we can find a pretty drastic range from an absolute minimum of zero grams per day all the way up to 1120 g/day for someone trying to maximize glycogen storage
. For most of the diets described in these books, the 1-3 g/lb values will probably be most appropriate. More on that later.

Alan Aragon’s view on the subject :

TBW = target bodyweight:

60-90 minutes preworkout, have a solid, balanced meal:

Protein = 0.25g/lb TBW
Carbs = 0.25g/lb TBW
Adding fat at this point is fine, use your discretion as long as it fits into your macro goals.

20-0 minutes preworkout – (and/or sipped throughout the workout), have a liquid or easily digested meal:

Protein = 0.25g/lb TBW
Carbs = 0.25g/lb TBW
Fat should be minimized here. Guidelines aren’t hard & fast, but I personally wouldn’t exceed 20% of the cals of this meal, in other words, keep the fats here incidental, not added.

Sooner the better postworkout – within 30 minutes, but optimally ASAP, have either a liquid or solid meal:

Protein = 0.25g/lb TBW
Carbs = 0.5g/lb TBW
Fats here should be kept minimal to moderate.
I personally start on this shake 60 minutes into my weight workouts, which take 80-90 minutes.

Post-postworkout is simply your next sheduled meal, whether it’s 1, 2, or 3 hrs later simply doesn’t matter – especially if your immediate postworkout meal (which may be split up into 2 halves) was designed as above.

NOTE: The small differences are mainly geared toward simplifying the guidelines. The rest of the recommendations about food types are pretty much the same. Also note that I no longer give a damn about GI, it doesn’t really make a difference one way or another. If you want high GI carbs pre and/or during training, go for it. As time has passed, GI has proven itself to be a worthless, irrelevant index. Insulinogenesis is a separate issue, and striving to keep insulin up during & postworkout is a great idea. This is accomplished by both food type & food amount, the latter being more important. There’s obviously a lot more to this, but that’s the important basics. The rest is fringe.

During your workout, there’s an increased blood flow to the muscles being used. Eating before means more nutrients being transported there so that’s why I believe the preworkout meal (or drink) is important. I think during your workout it’s not necessary to get something unless you train for more than 1h or if you’re at a competitive level (or in competition). What matters mostly is the big picture though : strive to get your daily cals at least, then macronutrient ratios and then think about timing. If you’re eating a meal 60-90 min before and then after, you’ll be fine.

A fruit PWO is not a bad choice per say as it will replenish liver glycogen stores anyway. Any kind of carb will do. Oats, oats+whey, tuna sandwich, chocolate pop tart. The logic behind this is that during the workout, you use muscle glycogen (if it’s lifting or something intense like HIIT, but not much with low intensity cardio). Taking carbs before would limit fat burning and your body will use more carbs (it’s a good way to depleted glycogen stores though). If you take it PWO, the carbs will be used to replenish glycogen stores and won’t blunt fat burning.

Any kind of exercise (low intensity cardio, lifting, HIIT, football, whatever) especially when you exercise a long time, use liver glycogen to control blood sugar levels. So taking a fruit PWO is not entirely wrong since fructose will replenish the liver glycogen (and fruits aren’t only made of fructose). But taking a piece of fruit in the morning would be a little better I think since you need the carbs for the liver (we use 50% of it to control blood glucose during the night I think) without getting much of the insulin associated with other carbs.

PWO, there are 2 main goals, to my knowledge: (1) boost insulin level (and, simply put, increase muscle building) (2) replenish muscle/liver glycogen stores.

Insulin sensitivity
There are glucose transporters which bring glucose into the cells. There are two ways to activate them : insulin (which is released because of the presence of glucose itself) and exercise (which is produced by muscle contraction).

Insulin sensitivity refers to the sensitivity of the transporters to bring glucose into the cells because of the presence of insulin. Not being sensitive means that the person needs a greater amount of insulin and there’s less glucose being taken by the (muscle) cells, more glucose in the blood and I suppose that more glucose get converted to fat (which would lead to high triglycerides levels in the blood). Fatty acids in the blood (they are released when not enough glucose can be used, such as when there’s insulin resistance or carb/caloric deficit) induces insulin resistance. So it’s a circle.
When a little insulin resistance is there, the body uses more of another source of fuel : fat. During dieting, being a little insulin resistance is usually regarded as promoting fat burning.

Carbs make the body release insulin, protein make the body release insulin (and usually glucagon, which, simply put, does the contrary) and fat doesn’t make the body release insulin (in fact, it blunts it because of the slower food absorption).

For the glycogen replenishment, you have a 24 h window so in reality; this isn’t a priority for the PWO drink but more of a nice side effect.
Insulin and PWO drink :
– dairy has a big effect on insulin than it should
– cocoa triggers insulin release
Protein and carbs taken together have a synergistic effect that if we were to add their effect on insulin while taken alone. Use it PWO.
– Cinnamon (1g/day)/fiber/fats/omega3 can help control insulin or insulin sensitivity

An example of a great PWO drink would be milk with whey and cocoa powder.

The fructose issue : fructose (sugar found in fruits) doesn’t have an effect on insulin release. It only replenishes liver glycogen stores (which control blood sugar levels). Fruits contain around 50% of fructose, so it shouldn’t be avoided. It’s just that there could be better choices PWO, but it’s not a bad choice per say and it will replenish liver glycogen stores instead. The deal with fructose is when it’s consumed in huge amounts (which basically mean when you eat a lot of refined food with HCFS, high-fructose corn syrup). Eating fruits isn’t going to lead to some health problems.
Link on fructose : )

The dairy issue : dairy doesn’t necessarily have lots of carbs and they have some protein in it while many bodybuilders try to avoid them. Interestingly, dairy products lead to a bigger insulin release that it should. It could be a nice addition to your PWO meal/drink.

The GI issue : GI (glycemic index) is sometimes considered important. I haven’t really seen any information that would say so, in fact, most studies I saw said it was irrelevant. I think that glycemic load (GL) is more important though. It basically measures the amount of carbs that you eat. Focus on the amount of carbs and then timing, not the other useless stuff.

During the first week of dieting, many people lose a lot of weight, especially if they cut the carbs a lot (like on a ketogenic diet, Atkins diet or else). What they experience is the fact that because they consume less carbs, their glycogen stores aren’t replenished and because of it they lose weight.

Glycogen is obtained from carbohydrate and glycogen stores are energy stores in both the muscle and liver. Liver can store about 50 g of glycogen and muscles about 400-450 g. These figures are for a “normal” 180 lbs guy, so results will vary according to the amount of muscle mass. When these stores are full, the excess carb is converted to fat (de novo lipogenesis).
Glycogen is stored in two places : 1) liver (100 g stored) 2) muscles (about 400 g stored). These figures are for a regular 180 lbs guy and the amounts will vary according to muscle mass. More muscle, more glycogen stored and also more glycogen used during exercise although low-intensity exercise doesn’t rely that much on glycogen.
Total amount stored can then go around 500 g. For each gram of glycogen, there’s 3 grams of water. So if someone lost 400 g of glycogen after a couple of days low-carbing, they’d lose 1.6 kg on the scale (3.5 lbs) without even dropping a single pound of fat. Glycogen stores also explain why after, for example, a week of eating you can get away with a high intake of carb (cheat, binge) without too much damage.

Liver glycogen stores control blood glucose levels. Fructose has to go there to be used so if you crash a little when dieting, eating a piece of fruit could help control blood glucose levels.

Muscle glycogen is used during exercise. You can say that you use 5 g of glycogen for every 2 work sets you’re doing in the gym. An average lifting session could lower muscle glycogen levels up to 25% (100 g) and the whole glycogen replenishment window is up to 24h.

HIIT can be quite glycogen depleting and a single 30 sec sprint can lower the levels by 30%!! (linky : )
So if the partionning effects are caused by an exercice induced change (both a higher glucose uptake and then a higher insulin sensitivity) it should be fine. (reading : 6036907 )
Depletion of glycogen stores to a certain extent will prevent de novo lipogenesis. A 2h session of cardio is also usually used in studies to completely deplete glycogen stores.

HIIT is also pretty glycogen depleting, 10 bouts of 1 min decreased muscle glycogen by almost 60% and most of this depletion occurs during the first couple of bouts :

Glycogen depletion patterns during continuous and intermittent ice skating.

Green HJ.

The glycogen depletion patterns in the vastus lateralis muscle were studied during ice skating using eight hockey players. For each subject, exercise consisted of either repeated bouts (10) of high intensity work (120% Vo2 max) or continuous work (60 min) of low intensity (55% Vo2 max). During continuous skating, glycogen showed a 29% decline (p less than 0.05) over the 60 min. In the intermittent condition, there was a two fold greater depletion (p less than 0.05) with the most rapid loss occurring during the first five, one min work bouts. Histochemical analysis by fiber type indicated that the most pronounced glycogen loss was from the Type I fibers during continuous skating whereas during the intermittent condition, a preferential loss occurred in the Type II fibers, most notably the Type IIB fibers. Measurements of muscle metabolites during continuous skating indicated no change for ATP from the rest condition at 30 or 60 min, a reduction (p less than 0.05) in CP (4.1 at 60 min and an elevation (p less than 0.05) in lactate (0.85 at 60 min. In the intermittent condition, reductions (p less than 0.05) in ATP (0.47 and CP (8.7 and elevations (p less than 0.05) in lactate (21.7 were found following 5 work bouts. Thereafter, no significant changes were observed. It is concluded that the glycogen depletion patterns and alteration in muscle metabolites are similar to those seen during cycling at similar percentages of Vo2 max.

When at low levels, glycogen stores in muscle can store more glycogen than it usually could (it’s called carbohydrate loading or glycogen supercompensation) but this effect can’t be repeated two days in a row. That would mean that depleting glycogen stores during 2-3 days, followed by a high carb day (2g per pound of carb and 1g/lb of protein, fat kept at about 30-50 g).

So by controlling carb intake and exercise being done during this day, most people could get a nice intake of carb while preventing some fat gain.

There�s a whole debate about eating clean. I believe that eating clean is : (1) getting whole foods (2) getting food with higher nutrient density (more vitamins, minerals, antioxidants per calorie) (3) getting more fiber (4) eating food that we aren�t prone to overeat. These are the reasons, I think, that eating clean can lead to better results in many people.
Eating junk food can be done while still being lean, especially if you count calories, get some supplements to compensate for less micronutrients and have good genetics.

Take home message : do it if it works for you, but don�t come here crying if it doesn�t. Nutrition should be individualized. It’s all about reassessment. It holds true for anything. If it works, keep doing it. If it doesn’t, try something new.

Eating is mostly about making good choices and not only avoiding bad stuff. It takes time to get where you want and consistency is necessary. Making good choices 90% of the time is enough, get 1 cheat meal every week if you want to, as long as you stick to your plan the rest of the time. Read the labels and strive to get foods that contain stuff you can at least pronounce and, ideally, that you know what it is. Fewer ingredients usually means better for you.

Dairy products are usually avoided because some people are lactose intolerant or do poorly with it.
Starchy food should also mainly be eaten PWO and in the morning (both times at which our body is more insulin sensitive). Total carb count is your priority though.

Don’t forget to add everything up (Ex : count carbs from milk, count fat from meat, etc.) and to add those foods so that they end up fit your daily plan.


o Any fish or seafood (canned tuna, salmon, sole, tilapia, shrimp, etc).
o Eggs and egg whites
o Beef, pork, poultry, lamb, anything but prioritize lean sources
o Dairy products like cottage cheese, cheese, milk (many of them have high sugar content though, like yogurt)
o Protein powder (whey, casein, milk protein isolate, etc)


o Prioritize vegetables which contain fibrous carbs (since they have a high nutrient density and a low caloric density, they can almost be eaten freely) such as

  • Green Leafy Lettuce (Green Leaf, Red, Leaf, Romaine)
  • Broccoli
  • Asparagus
  • String Beans
  • Okra
  • Spinach
  • Bell Peppers
  • Brussel Sprouts
  • Cauliflower
  • Cabbage
  • Celery
  • Cucumber
  • Eggplant
  • Green or Red Pepper
  • Onions
  • Pumpkin
  • Garlic
  • Tomatoes
  • Zucchini

o Fruits
o Starchy veggies (sweet potatoes, yam, legumes)
o Starchy products (Oat meal, oat bran, oat bran cereal, bran cereal, rice, whole-wheat pasta, 100% whole-grain products)
o Oatmeal (stick to the non-flavored/non-sugar packed ones, just plain oatmeal, the kind of oatmeal doesn’t really matter)
o Legumes (they contain lots of protein but they usually are incomplete proteins and contain too much carb to be considered a protein source)
o Basically, the less refined stuff. Strive to eat stuff that was available a couple of hundred years ago and try to eat fewer food that come in a box.


o Fatty fish (for example : salmon, mackerel, sardines)
o Omega 3 capsules (i.e. fish oil capsules).
o Oil from a vegetable source (olive, flax and sesame being the best)
o Egg yolks
o Nuts (prioritize walnuts due to their omega-3 content but other nuts like almonds, peanut, etc are fine)
o Any nut butter (almond, cashew, peanut, etc)
o Don’t forget to count the fat that comes from your other foods, especially meat and dairy

Pick a source of protein, add a source of carb (veggies, fruits, grains) and/or a source of fat so that it fits your desired intake. There’s a meal. Then you can find recipe on teh intraweb.
Example : chicken, pasta, olive oil. Search in google a recipe that has those and bingo.
Just combine. Fatty fish + rice + veggies. Beef + veggies (could be a stir fry, could be a stew, could be steak with veggies). Cottage cheese + fruits/yogurt. Tuna + bread (it’s called a sandwich, it’s awesome and portable).

As far as the weekly cheat meal goes, it all depends on how you do. If you can cheat more often without sacrificing results, fine, but if you fail to see results, stick to the one meal.
Cheating doesn’t mean binging. It means “eating foods that you wouldn’t usually chose without giving a fuck”. Keep the same portions as you usually eat.
If you want to eat a “cheat-like” food but you make it fit into your daily intake and macro breakdown while still eating the same nutrient-dense food, it’s not a cheat. Example : eating a thin crust pizza with veggies and marinated chicken while still counting the cals/macronutrients is not a cheat. 100% whole-wheat, protein enriched pasta with meat sauce and veggies (still counted) isn’t a cheat.
Try to keep it PWO if you want to add up most of your carb intake in one meal though.

What you drink doesn’t have an influence on your satiety level so most people should stick to the beverages that contain no calories. If you want to gain weight and can’t seem to eat enough, do the opposite. Try to avoid sugar-containing drink (most fruits flavoured drinks are to be avoided because of this, make sure it contains only fruits ideally). Mllk and whey is a good alternative. Search for weight gainer recipes if you want.
Dark coffee, tea, water should be a staple of your diet. You can use sweeteners (splenda, stevia). Crystal light, diet cola and other juice-like beverages are no brainers, as long as they don’t have calories in them.

Sodium will make you hold water and might increase blood pressure in about 20% of the population. Unless you have a high blood pressure, you don’t need to think about it (it’s not a reason to overdo it though but checking it closely is not necessary).

Protein denaturation refers to the fact that there will be a change in the protein and it will cause it not to be able to fulfill its function properly. Your body usually needs the amino acids from the protein and not the protein themselves so it’s not important if the protein is denatured. It only matters if you want to take a protein for its function (like taking melatonin to sleep, it could make it useless to heat it).

  • If you want a SCIENTIFIC source, go there :
  • Geek physiology website :
  • Tuna and Mercury :
  • Christian Thibaudeau’s view on weight gain :
  • Some article by Lyle MacDonald :
  • A semi-scientific website with varied info :
  • Also this :
  • Information on supplementation :
  • Food databases :
  • ->
  • -> (especially for restaurants)
  • Food conservation and storage :
  • ->
  • -> [ttp://

Future additions :
– suggestions…
I wanted to add 2 new tables in the protein section but because of the amount of text the forum didn’t like it… I ad to split it but the new tables are there. Apparently, when not taken alone, whey > casein !
this is fucking unreal andrew, thanks so much for putting work into it
Soon there’ll be no need to talk about ANYTHING in F*N anymore. It will all be in stickies!

Nice work!
Added a calorie counter and some stuff about calorie/carb cycling and glycogen supercompensation.
You guys can ask questions here too instead of creating a new thread. Maybe it’ll limit the amount of threads that keep coming back (like denaturing the protein with heat and so on).

Good work, andrew.

Good work, andrew.

Is there anything you’d like to see added or to be explained ?
So, this whole theory means that I need to not eat anything but work my ass out. amirite?
I’ve been wondering if its ok to, or if I should take whey and/or protien shakes if im trying to bulk to cut fat. Never really tried either so I’m unsure about them.
If it fits your daily macro intake, do it, but you could eat some food instead. It’s only powdered food.
What about including something dispelling myths related to diet with reasons to counter these myths? Things like don’t eat before bed, etc.? I may have missed stuff like that, but I don’t think I did.
Andrew…. from Lyle’s newsletter comparing eating clean to a fast food source….


Yeah, I asked him to send me the article actually. It’s part of the reason why I begin to believe that people should meet both their daily macronutrient goals (which should vary according to the exercise done with fiber and healthy fats getting a special attention) and micronutrient goals (vitamins, minerals and so on).
I fail to see why a lot of people think that hamburgers can’t be “healthy” for example. I don’t think eating brown rice and chicken all year is something sane to do but some people feel too much anxiety if they don’t. Many people seem to think that if it’s palatable, it’s unhealthy.
After all my time here I just took the time to read all of this. Great information man Thanks!!

Yeah, I asked him to send me the article actually. It’s part of the reason why I begin to believe that people should meet both their daily macronutrient goals (which should vary according to the exercise done with fiber and healthy fats getting a special attention) and micronutrient goals (vitamins, minerals and so on).
I fail to see why a lot of people think that hamburgers can’t be “healthy” for example. I don’t think eating brown rice and chicken all year is something sane to do but some people feel too much anxiety if they don’t. Many people seem to think that if it’s palatable, it’s unhealthy.

I always eat beef, just not garbage fast food.

Andrew , your opinion on this…

Seems interesting if you’re a non-exercising elderly woman
Seriously, check out the 3 studies he refers to. One of them shows no difference in protein turnover in young women and the other shows a difference in protein turnover in elderly women but no difference in fat free mass for the pulse (well, 0.1 kg…).

Plus, their protein intake was boosted to a mighty 1g/kg in the old woman which would be like .5g/lb or something.

All it show is that when the body lacks something it adapts to it. Many bodybuilders think that gaining mass should be done right after contest time and I would think that’s why.

Well, if by “burger” people think about a beef-cereal patty that’s been sitting for 2 hours inbetween 2 pieces of white bread with loads of shitty sauce and mayo, yeah, it’s crap. But someone can still make a good burger with a little effort.

Seems interesting if you’re a non-exercising elderly woman
Seriously, check out the 3 studies he refers to. One of them shows no difference in protein turnover in young women and the other shows a difference in protein turnover in elderly women but no difference in fat free mass for the pulse (well, 0.1 kg…).

Plus, their protein intake was boosted to a mighty 1g/kg in the old woman which would be like .5g/lb or something.

All it show is that when the body lacks something it adapts to it. Many bodybuilders think that gaining mass should be done right after contest time and I would think that’s why.

But the point being that while its not better for the rest of us, its surprisingly not worse.

Anyway…. here’s Lyle’s thoughts on that article….

Great thread. I live by calorie king, one of the best things I ever put on my computer.

90% lean ground beef+ 1/2 cup chopped onion + 1/2 cup chopped, wilted spinach= fast food pwning burger thats uber healthy
I feel like an asshole for having this resource in front of me for half a year and this is the first time I’ve really sat down and read it.
Bump, still looking for requests, comments, suggestions, insults.

Not even effort…. get some lean ground beef (personally I like ground turkey even for burgers), add spice, shape it, broil, done. Throw on some lettuce and put it on wheat buns or mix it into a bowl of veggies and it’s fucking delicious.
Hey Andrew I have a question:

where exactly is the protein in eggs? I know the yolk contains most, if not all of the fats… but is there protein in the yolk too or is it all in the white?

The white is protein only while the yolk contains all the fat (and thus cholesterol) and some protein.
Check this website, can answer your question and give you plenty of indo such as the kinds of vitamins in it and so on :

What it doesn’t say though is that eggs tend to lower the amount of absorbed iron and that consuming high amounts of uncooked egg whites can lead to biotin deficiency.
About the cholesterol thing, someone PM’ed me about this today :

J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2007 Oct;62(10):1164-71.Click here to read Links
Statins and dietary and serum cholesterol are associated with increased lean mass following resistance training.
Riechman SE, Andrews RD, Maclean DA, Sheather S.

Department of Health and Kinesiology, Texas A&M University, College Station TX, 77843, USA.

BACKGROUND: Age-related muscle loss (sarcopenia) is a prevalent condition associated with disability and mortality. Exercise and optimal nutrition are interventions to prevent and treat sarcopenia, yet little is known, outside of protein, of the effect of common nutrition recommendations and medication use on exercise-related muscle gain. METHODS: Forty-nine community-dwelling, 60- to 69-year-old men and women completed 2 weeks of nutrition education (American Dietetic Association recommendations) followed by 12 weeks of high intensity resistance exercise training (RET) with postexercise protein supplementation and 3x/wk dietary logs. RESULTS: We observed a dose-response relationship between dietary cholesterol (from food logs) and gains in lean mass that was not affected by variability in protein intake. Serum cholesterol and the serum cholesterol lowering agent statin were also independently associated with greater increases in lean mass. Dietary cholesterol was not associated with serum cholesterol or the significant reduction in blood pressure observed, but trends were observed for altered plasma C-reactive protein. CONCLUSION: These data suggest that dietary and serum cholesterol contribute to the skeletal muscles’ response to RET in this generally healthy older population and that some statins may improve this response.

It was done in old people so take it for what it’s worth, but exercise changes a lot of things…

Just tried out this program, very slick.
i really don’t think it’s that hard. just eat well and excercise, no need to read all of that.

Some people don’t like to be ignorant about what is in what we eat and how it affects us. Different strokes for different folks
does anyone have any suggestions for a PWO powdered shake?

i wanted to try out biotest surge which is recommended by the T-dawg 2.0 diet but it’s no longer available.

This simply rocks, thank you for compiling it.

does anyone have any suggestions for a PWO powdered shake?

i wanted to try out biotest surge which is recommended by the T-dawg 2.0 diet but it’s no longer available.

Powdered milk.
Whey + anything with some carbs but not too much fructose.
It could be food too.
i don’t knwo what type of carbs are in milk but PWO i loves me a scoop of whey with 12oz of skim milk. Plenty of P a little C and some N in da A and D in da P

Milk as lactose (which is decomposed in galactose + glucose by an enzyme called lactase, which some people lack and makes them lactose intolerant). Some people are whey/casein intolerant too so taking whey isolate isn’t always a solution for those who should avoid dairy.
According to that equation I have to eat 2600 cal daily combined with my exercise to lose weight.

Fuck, I don’t ever eat that much.
Must read! for those wondering why they dont have a 6 pack, yet eat low calories and exercise a lot….

The exact biochemical methods by which trans fats produce specific health problems are a topic of continuing research. The most prevalent theory is that the human lipase enzyme is specific to the cis configuration. This enzyme can hydrolize the cis double bond, resulting in two lower molecular weight fatty acids that can be further metabolized. The human lipase enzyme is ineffective with the trans configuration, so trans fat remains in the blood stream for a much longer period of time and is more prone to arterial deposition and subsequent plaque formation. – basicly a more permanent fat

some points from about page for you cliff note fuckers

About Trans Fat

There are four kinds of fats: monounsaturated fat, polyunsaturated fat, saturated fat, and trans fat. Monounsaturated fat and polyunsaturated fat are the “good” fats. It is generally accepted that consumption of saturated fat should be kept low, especially for adults. Trans fat (which means trans fatty acids) is the worst kind of fat, far worse than saturated fat.

Partial hydrogenation is an industrial process used to make a perfectly good oil, such as soybean oil, into a perfectly bad oil. The process is used to make an oil more solid; provide longer shelf-life in baked products; provide longer fry-life for cooking oils, and provide a certain kind of texture or “mouthfeel.” The big problem is that partially hydrogenated oil is laden with lethal trans fat.

One of the reasons that partially hydrogenated oils are used is to increase the product’s shelf life, but they decrease your shelf life.

Trans fats cause significant and serious lowering of HDL (good) cholesterol and a significant and serious increase in LDL (bad) cholesterol; make the arteries more rigid; cause major clogging of arteries; cause insulin resistance; cause or contribute to type 2 diabetes; and cause or contribute to other serious health problems.

!!!What not to eat!!!!

1. Don’t eat any product which has the words “partially hydrogenated” or “shortening” in the ingredients list.

2. If the label says zero trans fats, don’t believe it. If the words “partially hydrogenated” or “shortening” are in the ingredients list, it DOES contain trans fat.

3. Be careful when consuming products with labels from outside the United States. Sometimes they contain partially hydrogenated oil but it’s not on the label.

4. In restaurants, bakeries, and other eateries, ask whether they use partially hydrogenated oil for frying or baking or in salad dressings. If they say they use vegetable oil, ask whether it is partially hydrogenated. Don’t be shy about asking. Assume that all unlabeled baked and fried goods contain partially hydrogenated oil, unless you know otherwise.

One more thing. Cholesterol that affects our arteries comes from two sources: (i) animal products and (ii) bad fats. If a product is “cholesterol fee,” that doesn’t mean that it won’t raise your bad cholesterol. If the product itself contains no cholesterol but it does contain trans fat or saturated fat, it will raise your bad cholesterol.
What you’re saying is that eating trans fat keeps people on low-cal diets from having abs ? You know it makes no sense, right ?
after all… a calorie is just a calorie.. right?

who would like to be our test subject(s) ?

if you care to read further on that site:

Kylie Kavanagh, D.V.M., presented the findings today at the 66th annual Scientific Sessions of the American Diabetes Association in Washington, D.C. She said that over six years, male monkeys fed a western-style diet that contains trans fat had a 7.2 percent increase in body weight, compared to a 1.8 percent increase in monkeys that ate monounsaturated fats, such as olive oil.

All that extra weight went to the abdomen, and some other body fat was redistributed to the abdomen. Computed tomography (CT) scans showed that the monkeys on the diet containing trans fats had dramatically more abdominal fat than the monkeys on the monounsaturated fat. “We measured the volume of fat using CT,” Kavanagh said. “They deposited 30 percent more fat in their abdomen.”

The monkeys all were given the same amount of daily calories, with 35 percent of the calories coming from fat. The amount of calories they got should only have been enough to maintain their weight, not increase it, Rudel said. “We believed they couldn’t get obese because we did not give them enough calories to get fat.”

One group of monkeys got 8 percent of their calories from trans fat while the other group received those calories as monounsaturated fat. The researchers said that this amount of trans fat is comparable to people who eat a lot of fried food.

“We conclude that in equivalent diets, trans fatty acid consumption increases weight gain,” said Kavanagh.
Interesting, that’s the first time I see something about trans fat and weight gain instead of cardiovascular diseases and arterial problems (which is what your first post layed out actually).

after all… a calorie is just a calorie.. right?

who would like to be our test subject(s) ?

if you care to read further on that site:

Kylie Kavanagh, D.V.M., presented the findings today at the 66th annual Scientific Sessions of the American Diabetes Association in Washington, D.C. She said that over six years, male monkeys fed a western-style diet that contains trans fat had a 7.2 percent increase in body weight, compared to a 1.8 percent increase in monkeys that ate monounsaturated fats, such as olive oil.

All that extra weight went to the abdomen, and some other body fat was redistributed to the abdomen. Computed tomography (CT) scans showed that the monkeys on the diet containing trans fats had dramatically more abdominal fat than the monkeys on the monounsaturated fat. �We measured the volume of fat using CT,� Kavanagh said. �They deposited 30 percent more fat in their abdomen.�

The monkeys all were given the same amount of daily calories, with 35 percent of the calories coming from fat. The amount of calories they got should only have been enough to maintain their weight, not increase it, Rudel said. �We believed they couldn�t get obese because we did not give them enough calories to get fat.�

One group of monkeys got 8 percent of their calories from trans fat while the other group received those calories as monounsaturated fat. The researchers said that this amount of trans fat is comparable to people who eat a lot of fried food.

�We conclude that in equivalent diets, trans fatty acid consumption increases weight gain,� said Kavanagh.

So make a shit diet even shittier?

Lyle’s response:

“After six years on the diet, the trans-fat-fed monkeys had gained 7.2% of their body weight, compared to just 1.8% in the unsaturated group”

Let’s be realistic:

A 6% difference over 6 years
1% difference/year.
1/365% difference per day between groups.

That’s a massive 0.0027% difference per day in caloric efficiency.

So in this case, assuming identical caloric value, a calorie isn’t a calorie.
It is only 99.9973% of a calorie.

so switch out tran for monos and you too can lose 0.0027% more weight per day. Anssi will be all over this metabolic advantage.

you’ll be ripped in no time.


More on that study…

So make a shit diet even shittier?

Lyle’s response:

More on that study…

that forum u link requires registration, and this lyle guy, what moron math is he using? you cannot elaborate from final results that its a linear gain; making assumptions that the weight can be just as simply burnt off as if you had natural fats in your system

From the second link…

In humans trans fat intake is associated with a higher fat oxidation… at least in one study

Effects of diets enriched in saturated (palmitic), monounsaturated (oleic), or trans (elaidic) fatty acids on insulin sensitivity and substrate oxidation in healthy adults.

Lovejoy JC, Smith SR, Champagne CM, Most MM, Lefevre M, DeLany JP, Denkins YM, Rood JC, Veldhuis J, Bray GA.

Pennington Biomedical Research Center, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70808, USA.

OBJECTIVE: Diets high in total and saturated fat are associated with insulin resistance. This study examined the effects of feeding monounsaturated, saturated, and trans fatty acids on insulin action in healthy adults. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A randomized, double-blind, crossover study was conducted comparing three controlled 4-week diets (57% carbohydrate, 28% fat, and 15% protein) enriched with different fatty acids in 25 healthy men and women. The monounsaturated fat diet (M) had 9% of energy as C18:1cis (oleic acid). The saturated fat diet (S) had 9% of energy as palmitic acid, and the trans fatty acid diet (T) had 9% as C18:1trans. Body weight was kept constant throughout the study. After each diet period, insulin pulsatile secretion, insulin sensitivity index (S(I)) by the minimal model method, serum lipids, and fat oxidation by indirect calorimetry were measured. RESULTS: Mean S(I) for the M, S, and T diets was 3.44 +/- 0.26, 3.20 +/- 0.26, and 3.40 +/- 0.26 x 10(-4) min(-1). microU(-1). ml(-1), respectively (NS). S(I) decreased by 24% on the S versus M diet in overweight subjects but was unchanged in lean subjects (NS). Insulin secretion was unaffected by diet, whereas total and HDL cholesterol increased significantly on the S diet. Subjects oxidized the least fat on the M diet (26.0 +/- 1.5 g/day) and the most fat on the T diet (31.4 +/- 1.5 g/day) (P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Dietary fatty acid composition significantly influenced fat oxidation but did not impact insulin sensitivity or secretion in lean individuals. Overweight individuals were more susceptible to developing insulin resistance on high-saturated fat diets.

doesnt state if they are natural trans fats or synthetic, i mean if you seem to be pro trans fat, why not going on a fries and whey protien diet and come back with the results
Why the argument? I don’t care whether trans fats make me gain or lose weight. They are bad for me so I’m not eating them.

I’m not pro trans fat. I’m just not scared of .5g of trans fat.
And never have counted my trans fats. And because of my age I do get my health checked regularly. And never been a problem.

steak and cheese from subway has .5g transfat. any transfat in your meal ftl.

try and extra meat turkey (36 protien) or extra meat grilled chicken teriyaki (52g protien) samwich on italian herb and cheese , cheese, olives, lettuce, tomatoooo addd = under 9g of fat FTW …….chipolte or olvie oil to add if you wish

it is the best to keep the mindset of avoiding all transfat, because you will be more positive that the food is beneficial towards your goals. Not everyone is genetically gifted, and forcing yourself to be strict is the best way. Not only did i start weightloss because i had a sad strength ratio, but also my father had 3 heart attacks, with his father before him dying from one, so genetics are not on my side

I understand where you’re coming from…but the media and medical field has flipped flopped on what exactly we should be most concerned about that there has to be abit of perspective.

Thirty years ago, the diet police scared us away from animal fat-based butter and began singing the praises of what they said was a healthier alternative, trans fat-based margarine. Now, the diet police have done an about-face and want to scare us away from those same trans fats � all the while omitting mention that their butter scare was bogus from the get-go.
So what exactly would be the basis for trusting the alarmists this time around? Also worth considering is the fact that CSPI has been in the business of scaring people about the food they eat for more than 30 years. From labeling Fettucine Alfredo as “heart attack on a plate” to claiming that fat substitute olestra might make truck drivers sick enough to lose control of their vehicles while driving, to claiming caffeinated beverages cause miscarriages, CSPI has been and remains on the cutting edge of dietary absurdity.

More form Lyle from that thread to which I again whole heartedly agree with….

exactly, I mean, let’s face it

bad eating habits in the modern world typically means:
too much food overall
too much total fat esp in the face of too many highly refined carbs
too manyt w-6 and too few w-3, too much saturated fat
insuficient fruits and veggies
smoking/alcohol often go hand in hand with this

and trans-fatty acids are the big concern?

but now put this in perspective of someone who typically eats
appropriate calorie amounts
relatively lean
sufficiently active
plenty of fruits and veggies
limitd sat fat and w-6, w-3 supplements, mostly mononusaturated fat
which describes active/health conscious folks

if that second person eat a hamburger with some trans fats a few times per week, you’re telling me it matters?


In the end, to each their own. Whether because of genetic disposition and other factors, what is required of you to stay lean and/or healthy isn’t necessarily the same requirement for me. There’s a wide range between the minimum requirements and the optimum approach. Hell, even what’s to be considered optimum alone may differ significantly between folks.

I’m not pro trans fat. I’m just not scared of .5g of trans fat.
And never have counted my trans fats.

if you workout and your diet is relatively clean, as it is for most F&N’ers around here, worrying about .5g of transfat here and there is probably less detrimental to your then the cortisol from stressing about the amount of transfat in your diet.

it is something that has been in our diets in small amounts forever afterall
In terms of health (heart disease etc) they are best avoided.. but in terms of being lean ther 100 other things to worry about before you start worrying about trans fats.
Thanks for the great post. While I admit, I didn’t read the entire thing, I did still find lots of useful information.
I see this a bit like a dictionary. No one really reads it completely but once you got a question it’s handy.
Best. Dictionary. Evar.

at some point i’ll have to start following it and lose this flab
does taro fall within this category well?

o Starchy veggies (sweet potatoes, yam, legumes)

i love this stuff. my main carb sources during dinner nowadays are sweet potatoes and whole wheat pasta. i’m thinking of throwing taro into this mix.

Leave a Reply