Show Posts
1
Carnivorous / Zero Carb Approach / Re: How many carbs to un-keto-adapt?
« on: December 30, 2010, 10:34:09 pm »If fat loss is the sole focus then I'm inclined to say yes on a theoretical basis. But like most of the processes total protein (and fat) consumption would have to factor in as well. But also an argument could be made that carbs could provide immediate fuel for high intense activity and therefore raise metabolic rates way higher so your net productive activity could result in more fat being burned. In other words you might feel more strength/power to do whatever exercise for a net burning of more fuel. I'm also still learning about these things so don't take my word as a final say."
No way glycerol would be enough to supply the body with all of the glucose needs. The glucose in this case would presumably come from amino acids (protein component of ZC diet). The fat-adapted state is muscle sparing but without adequate protein intake I would still say its still a net loss of muscle.
Once fat-adapted the process of gluconeogenesis HAS to occur still because you will be converting amino acids to glucose. I think the bottom line is if you have adequate protein intake so that your glucose lee\vels can be maintained AND the body has enough protein to maintain muscle. In fasting, there is no protein (or carb/fat) intake so during ketosis the body fat gets "converted" to oxaloacetate and thus travel up the path of gluconeogenesis to make glucose. The body muscle is spared once again as much as possible.
I see exactly what you're saying. I've been experimenting with using whey an hour before workout to use the free glucose for intensity. I did this twice, but won't be continuing. It did up my ability to maintain intensity, but I felt it made it easier on my body resulting in less adaptation on a cellular level. Hard to explain, but that is how it felt. In my case, I would rather have all my activity come from fat throughout the day and coming days in response to my activity. Prolonging the recovery and whatever advantages that can provide.
Protein intake does have to be a tad bit higher on a fat-adapted diet, doesn't it. And I do notice what hannibal mentioned earlier in this thread about using BCAAs past a certain lactic threshold. I'm wondering if this could be a beneficial factor in the long-run. Causing higher amounts of damage, and resulting in more repairs having to be made as opposed to glucose loaded. I'm not sure if it's related to this, but I feel that my muscle comes in tighter, and more dense on this diet. It could be from fasting and accumulating damage, and then repairing it in a nightly mini-bulk resulting in unstretched muscle coming in. My inclination is that muscle maturity could be reached faster on a fat-adapted diet because of the ease in which damage is caused. Muscle maturity basically being volume and quality of damage acculumated to be later repaired and made stronger over time.
I've found that making it harder on the body only results in the best adaptations. Given proper protein, fats, and calories are consumed in the end.