Time to get cut!

  • vince_the_cyc...

    Posts: 126

    Feb 22, 2008 5:15 PM GMT
    I'm naturally on the lean side. I've spent the last 6 months eating everything in sight (3,500 calories a day) in order to bulk up, and seen some great progress! I'm way overdue for posting some new bod shots.

    I've put on fat in the process, and want to start dropping that fat while maintaing my hard-earned muscle so that by the time May rolls around I'm ready for the beach.

    I'm considering a standard diet, dropping calories down to around 1,800-2,000 while keeping the protein up. However I've heard from some bodybuilders that a cyclical ketogenic diet is the way to go. This is basically super-low carbs for 4 days, followed by 1 day of moderate carb intake.

    Any experience or suggestions would be greatly appreciated! Thanks!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 22, 2008 11:27 PM GMT

    You have a beautiful
    face, vince. icon_redface.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 22, 2008 11:44 PM GMT
    I look forward to hearing from some RJ nutrition experts on this subject as well.
    Oh and Vince, you look great !
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 22, 2008 11:45 PM GMT
    GuiltyGear said
    You have a beautiful
    face, vince. icon_redface.gif


    you're a funny guy guiltygear. icon_lol.gif

    you are correct. vince has a great face. but i think he wants advice about how to get a great body like yours. icon_smile.gif
  • vacyclist

    Posts: 162

    Feb 23, 2008 12:18 AM GMT
    i don't know if i want to see the new bod shots, as far as i'm concerned you look great the way you are/were & are/were already "ready for the beach"....sorry, i'm into lean bods, so my opinion probably doesn't count for much!
  • vince_the_cyc...

    Posts: 126

    Feb 23, 2008 1:20 AM GMT
    Thanks for the compliments guys icon_smile.gif

    I'm still on the lean side, though there's definately a lot more muscle compared to the shirtless shot of me in my profile (and a bit more fat). The goal is to drop the fat and keep the muscle, so I look like I'm made out of rock! icon_wink.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 23, 2008 1:29 AM GMT
    Well not knowing what size you are now its hard to say what your starting point is but looking at your before would say 2000 should be your starting figure.

    Preotein high at the end of the day is a matter of opinion and taste more so than the end result if anything you need your carbs to fuel the furnace and ignite the fat burning.

    Weights wise hard heavy and to failure

    Diet wise:

    Try cycling it down in line with your execise demands.
    You dont want the body to adapt and by providing a contunual stream of teh same calories day in day out is going to make the process laborious intensive and protracted. (Too bigger words at this time of night!)

    Try a reducing approach:

    week 1 2000
    Week 2 down 200 to 1800
    Week 3 up 100 (wahoo a refeed) 1900
    and continue down up to your minimum at your height would be roughly 1400 again depending on your weight and height.
    Then start again at the beginning and yuor body will relish the refeed. Not only that it takes some of the sacrifice element away as you know on the harder weeks at the lower end of the scale its not a long way to go before the refeed.

    As to the cylical kytogenic diets you look at the studies versus the above approach and you are talking ounces difference at best. Now compare that to the complexity and margin for error.

    The way you train will define wether or not yu lose the lean muscle mass more so than the way the diet is made up. However, as you use up stored glycogen the muscles will take on a harder leaner appearance. But needless to say when you hit desired weight and flip back to maintenance calories you get the added benefit of "glycogen rebound" ie a refill in the first week

    Hope that helps
  • vince_the_cyc...

    Posts: 126

    Feb 23, 2008 1:33 AM GMT
    In case it helps, I'm 6' and 181lbs.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 23, 2008 1:37 AM GMT
    1800 starting but that needs to be symbiotic with yuor training so if you are going to add running then you need to allow fo rthis and make it slightly higher nearer 2000 (which in itself is counter productive but a matter of preference ie eat more work harder eat less work efficiently)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 07, 2008 11:38 PM GMT
    There are almost as many opinions on this as their are people. I know that higher protein diets have been effective for a lot of people, and science will tell us the simple reason. Proteins are harder for the body to breakdown, thus 1/3 of the calories in protein are used in digestion. So if you have 300 calorie serving of chicken, 100 calories of that is used to digest it.

    Do not go crazy in cutting healthy fats, the mono unsaturated, and polyunsaturated, as these are necessary for the production of testosterone. As far as I am concerned these super low fat or no fat diets are an abomination. If you don't eat the necessary fats to keep testosterone levels up, then the testosterone to estrogen level gets out of wack and this will either cause fat storage in a female like fat distribution pattern ( the but, the back, the hips and legs), or else it will just make losing the fat, maintaining or increasing muscle mass very difficult.

    So that leaves us with carbs. Carbs are important in restoring glycogen after intense lifting or cardio. If you don't replenish them to some degree, your going to find your strength and stamina is off.

    So what is a person to do? Given your height and weight, I would try at first avoiding the extremes. Cyclical Ketogenic Diets are probably a bit extreme for your needs and can impact your training. I would start off restricting calories but keeping a reasonable balance of the macronutrients and continue working hard. If anything I would try a 40% protein and 30% for both carbs and fats.

    At the end of the day, we can make all the recommendations in the world, but its going to come down to you trying a few things and finding out what works with your body. Grab a free fitday.com account to track food, nutrients, activities, etc. You enter what you eat and it does most of the work for you. That way you can keep very specific track of what works and what doesn't. It works best when you treat it like a science and track every detail, and evaluate carefully what works and what doesn't for you.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 08, 2008 12:37 AM GMT
    30% fat you are having a giraffe! Yes I know its all semantics at the end of the day (for want of a better word) as when you crunch the numbers wether you chose 15% or 30% when talking a calorie intake of say 1800 a day its not a massive difference but 3 points to note here:

    1) Whilst your body is busy processing dietary fat it detracts from the ability to metabolise body fat

    2) Their is no evidence to suggest that a diet based on 15% or even 10% fat is detrimental to hormone production

    3) If you are increasing your fat content of your diet you will get a lot less bang for your buck on keeping you feeling fuller.


    On the protein v carb higher (not high as again at this level of calorie intake it is not the same as Protein high diet or carb high diet) studies indicate minimal difference in end result, ounces at best.

    So the best macro approach is one similar to the way your diet is structured ie before starting the diet. Two reasons here: you are likely to stick to eating similar food styles and you know how your body responds to that approach ie tolerance of food type

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 21, 2008 5:24 AM GMT
    FROM WIRED NEWS:

    Diets too low in fat may be responsible for stubborn bulges on bellies, thighs and butts, according to a new study.

    Dieters trying slim down by following extremely low-fat diets may be causing the exact opposite results, according to new research from the Washington University in St. Louis. Eating at least small amounts of dietary fats, such as fish oils, might be a better way to kick-start fat-burning, say researchers.

    Scientists found that in mice, old fat stuck around when the liver had no new fat to process. The results are further evidence that extreme diets often aren't the ticket to a lean body, and a balanced diet is likely important for more reasons than scientists currently understand.

    "Extremes of diet are sometimes unwise, because a balanced diet may be critical for providing certain dietary signals that allow you to respond appropriately to stresses, and one of those stresses is eating too much," said Dr. Clay Semenkovich, a professor of medicine, cell biology and physiology at the University of Washington and co-author of the study.

    The research may be one reason why the Atkins diet -- which is low in carbohydrates and high in fat -- seems to work. But Semenkovich said a balanced diet is probably more effective in the long run, because it's easier to maintain for long periods of time. And, like all extreme dieters, Atkins followers could be suppressing other dietary signals important for staying healthy.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 21, 2008 6:06 AM GMT
    [quote][cite]If you don't eat the necessary fats to keep testosterone levels up, then the testosterone to estrogen level gets out of wack and this will either cause fat storage in a female like fat distribution pattern ( the but, the back, the hips and legs), or else it will just make losing the fat, maintaining or increasing muscle mass very difficult.
    [/quote]

    huh!!!!...more than diet plays a role in hormone blood concentrations/ratios


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 24, 2008 3:13 AM GMT
    Well of course more then this is at work in hormone balance. There are dozens if not hundreds of feedback loops involved in hormone regulation. This has just been shown to be a significant factor.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 24, 2008 3:20 AM GMT
    Bfg1, most of the time you and I see eye to eye on most things. But in this case when you say there is no scientific evidence that suggests a low fat diet is detrimental to hormone production I have to tell you that you are wrong on this bro.

    According to a study published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, thirty-nine healthy men were studied while they were consuming a high-fat/low-fiber diet and after an eight-week modulation switched to an isocaloric low-fat/high-fiber diet. After diet modulation, blood testosterone concentration fell, accompanied by small decreases in free (biologically active) testosterone.

    Cite Wang C et al. Low-fat high-fiber diet decreased serum and urine androgens in men. J Clin Endocrinol Metab, 2005;90:3550-3559.

    Also there was a study at Duke that published in the journal Urology. Twenty five men were on the low-fat, flaxseed-supplemented diet for an average of 34 days. Researchers reported good compliance with the diet and said it was tolerated well. At the end of the study, the researchers observed that the men on the diet had significant decreases in cholesterol, and both total and free testosterone.


    Research shows that reducing fat intake from around forty percent to 20-25 percent of calories decreases testosterone output. Low fat diets also increase levels of sex hormone-binding globulin (SHBG), a protein which binds to testosterone, thus reducing the amount of bioavailable, or 'free', testosterone in the body. It is free testosterone that is responsible for this hormone's favorable effects on growth, repair, sexual capacity and immune function.
    79. Hamalainen EK, et al. Decrease of serum total and free testosterone during a low-fat high-fibre diet. J Steroid Biochem. Mar 1983; 18 (3): 369-370.
    80. Reed MJ, et al. Dietary lipids: an additional regulator of plasma levels of sex hormone binding globulin. J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab, 1987; 64: 1083-1085.
    81. Dorgan JF, et al. Effects of dietary fat and fiber on plasma and urine androgens and estrogens in men: a controlled feeding study. Am J Clin Nutr. Dec 1996; 64 (6): 850-855.


    Again, not just any old fat will suffice when it comes to optimizing testosterone levels. A study with weight-training men showed higher saturated fat and monounsaturated fat consumption to be positively associated with testosterone levels. In contrast, higher dietary levels of so-called "heart-healthy" polyunsaturated fats relative to saturated fats were associated with lower testosterone levels.
    Volek JS, et al. Testosterone and cortisol in relationship to dietary nutrients and resistance exercise. Journal of Applied Physiology, Jan 1997; 82 (1): 49-54.


    Hopefully these six or seven studies are enough to prove there is in fact scientific evidence linking low fat diets to decreased hormone production, if not I can find more for you. Its a well documented scientific fact bro. Just a heads for you.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 24, 2008 7:34 PM GMT
    what's the breakdown of your diet ynghungsfsd?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 27, 2008 1:09 AM GMT
    YngHungSFSD saidBfg1, most of the time you and I see eye to eye on most things. But in this case when you say there is no scientific evidence that suggests a low fat diet is detrimental to hormone production I have to tell you that you are wrong on this bro.


    No not at all I welcome the dicsussion its how we learn and expand our horizons. It was a blanket statement that was not fully quantified and I should have done that. ie put it in perspective ie "studies that show any major significance."

    I dont tend to post up endless studies as to be honest most of us dont live our lives in a controlled situation/environment as "some" studies are undertaken nor do you get fully detailed accounts available of all the controls ie weight, hydration sleep etc. Nor do we get givn calorie intake versus training or total macro split just an isolatory figure. Yes if you can access the source data (and for some I can) then you can make some broad brush comparisons but often it compares apples with pears to prove a point and not fact or like for like.

    As much as there are evangelical pro studies in favour of low fat there are those against the argument. It doesnt help that most studies dont define what is deemed low fat altho I note it does in a couple of the studies but then does not quantify this in terms of what level of calorie intake the individual is on. But major point to note here is that hormone production particularly testosterone reduces anyway when on a calorie restriction.

    I think this article puts together alot of the arguments very well both in your and my favour as it were http://www.musculardevelopment.com/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=83

    I particularly like the summation

    "Does this mean you should go out and consume whole cream, beef and steak every day? No! It should be mentioned that epidemiological studies have shown a link between high saturated fat diets and prostate cancer.8,26,33 The intention of this article is to point out that those who consume low-fat diets year- round may be missing out on strength and size gains due to sub-optimal testosterone production. Incorporating some olive oil and red meat into your diet in moderation may lead to more anabolic hormone production for optimal muscle gains.