Dave Palumbo Diet

[devo09]

lol
You guys are looking at fat burning as an ON/OFF switch, which it isn't
Even with insulin present, fat WILL be burned (if your in a deficit)

Why would you automatically completely drop all of your carbs?
Your metabolic rate will drop MUCH faster if you do this. Which might not be that big of a problem if your can introduce clen/T3/etc, but for a natural if your metabolic rate is in the shitter, and you still have fat to lose, you're ****ed

AND, when you deplete glycogen for so long, you lose the ability to synthesize glycogen, so when you introduce carbs back in the diet (unless you do it VERY slowly) your going to gain a LOT of fat. . I always see the guys that do keto diets get REALLY fat/bloated after a show lol


oh ya, and ketogenic diets offer no metabolic advantages over moderate/low carb diets

Johnston CS et. al. Ketogenic low-carbohydrate diets have no metabolic advantage over nonketogenic low-carbohydrate diets. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. (2006) 83: 1055-1061

Background:Low-carbohydrate diets may promote greater weight loss than does the conventional low-fat, high-carbohydrate diet. Objective:We compared weight loss and biomarker change in adults adhering to a ketogenic low-carbohydrate (KLC) diet or a nonketogenic low-carbohydrate (NLC) diet. Design:Twenty adults [body mass index (in kg/m2): 34.4 ± 1.0] were randomly assigned to the KLC (60% of energy as fat, beginning with 5% of energy as carbohydrate) or NLC (30% of energy as fat; 40% of energy as carbohydrate) diet. During the 6-wk trial, participants were sedentary, and 24-h intakes were strictly controlled. Results:Mean (±SE) weight losses (6.3 ± 0.6 and 7.2 ± 0.8 kg in KLC and NLC dieters, respectively; P = 0.324) and fat losses (3.4 and 5.5 kg in KLC and NLC dieters, respectively; P = 0.111) did not differ significantly by group after 6 wk. Blood ß-hydroxybutyrate in the KLC dieters was 3.6 times that in the NLC dieters at week 2 (P = 0.018), and LDL cholesterol was directly correlated with blood ß-hydroxybutyrate (r = 0.297, P = 0.025). Overall, insulin sensitivity and resting energy expenditure increased and serum -glutamyltransferase concentrations decreased in both diet groups during the 6-wk trial (P < 0.05). However, inflammatory risk (arachidonic acid:eicosapentaenoic acid ratios in plasma phospholipids) and perceptions of vigor were more adversely affected by the KLC than by the NLC diet. Conclusions:KLC and NLC diets were equally effective in reducing body weight and insulin resistance, but the KLC diet was associated with several adverse metabolic and emotional effects. The use of ketogenic diets for weight loss is not warranted.

[devo09]

You can do blood work to measure test levels as you diet...youll be amazed...although you cant be on aas.
The keto diet has helped thousands of people and has been used by the medical community to control or eliminate specific conditions...namely epilepsy....it was used exclusively to almost eliminate epilepsy in children years ago prior to the drugs we now have available. Also it has been used to control or eliminat type 2 diabetes. Do a search on My big fat diet...its a documentary where an entire town goes on a keto diet.
Most people fail on the keto diet because they are not running it correctly...too many carbs, too much fat etc or they fail mentally because they panic in the first month.
P

its not the carbs that have introduced metabolic derangements into most of society

its a lack of inactivity+food abundance leading to insulin resistance and obesity

look up a study on "thrifty genes"

Also, the idea that keto diets help with test levels in nonsense. If your deficient in dietary fat you may have lower test levels, but a high fat intake won't raise test levels anymore than a moderate fat diet

[Praetorian]

lol
You guys are looking at fat burning as an ON/OFF switch, which it isn't
Even with insulin present, fat WILL be burned (if your in a deficit)
AS INSULIN RISES GLUCAGON FALLS AND WITH SO DOES FAT BURNING...IT MAY NOT HALT ALTOGTHER BUT IT IS DRASTICALLY SLOWED

Why would you automatically completely drop all of your carbs?
YOU DONT DROP ALL CARBS ONLY ENOUGH TO GET INTO KETOSIS IF THAT IS THE DIET YOU ARE DOING...YOU STILL REQUIRE 50G DAILY
Your metabolic rate will drop MUCH faster if you do this. Which might not be that big of a problem if your can introduce clen/T3/etc, but for a natural if your metabolic rate is in the shitter, and you still have fat to lose, you're ****ed THIS IS THE PURPOSE OF THE WEEKLY CHEAT MEAL...THE METABOLISM SLOWS BECAUSE CONVERSION OF T4 TO T3 SLOWS....THE CHEAT MEAL INCREASES THIS AND EFFECTIVELY HALTS METABOLISM SLOW DOWN

AND, when you deplete glycogen for so long, you lose the ability to synthesize glycogen, so when you introduce carbs back in the diet (unless you do it VERY slowly) your going to gain a LOT of fat. . I always see the guys that do keto diets get REALLY fat/bloated after a show lol YOU ARE NOT GOING TO GAIN ALOT OF FAT UNLESS YOU OVEREAT...JUST THE SAME AS IN ANY DIET...ONCE A KETO DIET IS FINSHED YOU DO HAVE TO INTRODUCE CARBS SLOWLY...THE SAME AS A REGUALR DIET BECAUSE THE BODY BECOMES VERY CARB SENSISTIVE AND IS NOT AS EFFICIENT AT METABOLIZING CARBS....THIS OCCURS WITH A LOW CARB DIET AS WELL...IT TAKES ABOUT 6 WEEKS TO GET BACK TO NORMAL. ALSO YOU WONT BE ABLE TO OVEREAT CABRS AND GAIN FAT WITHOUT FIRST RUNNING INTO SEVER WATER RETENTION IE PERIPHERAL EDEMA...WHICH CAN LEAD TO CARDIAC ISSUE....DOESNT MATTER WHICH DIET IS USED





oh ya, and ketogenic diets offer no metabolic advantages over moderate/low carb diets

Johnston CS et. al. Ketogenic low-carbohydrate diets have no metabolic advantage over nonketogenic low-carbohydrate diets. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. (2006) 83: 1055-1061

Background:Low-carbohydrate diets may promote greater weight loss than does the conventional low-fat, high-carbohydrate diet. Objective:We compared weight loss and biomarker change in adults adhering to a ketogenic low-carbohydrate (KLC) diet or a nonketogenic low-carbohydrate (NLC) diet. Design:Twenty adults [body mass index (in kg/m2): 34.4 ± 1.0] were randomly assigned to the KLC (60% of energy as fat, beginning with 5% of energy as carbohydrate) or NLC (30% of energy as fat; 40% of energy as carbohydrate) diet. During the 6-wk trial, participants were sedentary, and 24-h intakes were strictly controlled. Results:Mean (±SE) weight losses (6.3 ± 0.6 and 7.2 ± 0.8 kg in KLC and NLC dieters, respectively; P = 0.324) and fat losses (3.4 and 5.5 kg in KLC and NLC dieters, respectively; P = 0.111) did not differ significantly by group after 6 wk. Blood ß-hydroxybutyrate in the KLC dieters was 3.6 times that in the NLC dieters at week 2 (P = 0.018), and LDL cholesterol was directly correlated with blood ß-hydroxybutyrate (r = 0.297, P = 0.025). Overall, insulin sensitivity and resting energy expenditure increased and serum -glutamyltransferase concentrations decreased in both diet groups during the 6-wk trial (P < 0.05). However, inflammatory risk (arachidonic acid:eicosapentaenoic acid ratios in plasma phospholipids) and perceptions of vigor were more adversely affected by the KLC than by the NLC diet. Conclusions:KLC and NLC diets were equally effective in reducing body weight and insulin resistance, but the KLC diet was associated with several adverse metabolic and emotional effects. The use of ketogenic diets for weight loss is not warranted.
A SIMPLE SEARCH WILL UNCOVER MANY STUDIES DISAGREEING WITH THE ABOVE, A FEW YEARS AGO THE AJCN SAID HIGH CARB LOW FAT DIETS WERE THE MOST EFFECTIVE...HMM.

Caps are not yelling just to differentiate my comments.
P

[Praetorian]

its not the carbs that have introduced metabolic derangements into most of society

its a lack of inactivity+food abundance leading to insulin resistance and obesity

look up a study on "thrifty genes"

Also, the idea that keto diets help with test levels in nonsense. If your deficient in dietary fat you may have lower test levels, but a high fat intake won't raise test levels anymore than a moderate fat diet

It definitely is lack of activity and food abundance yes...in the form of processed carbohydrate. In the last 30 years or so with the introduction of HFCS into the American diet....it is proliferant in 90% of all foods...obesity and type 2 diabetes has skyrocketed. The incidence of type 2 diabetes in children (which was unheard of 30 years ago) is not due to inactivity or abundance of food...it is processed carbohydrate....corn specifically...which by the way is subsidized by the top food corporations in America...which is why it is cheaper to buy breakfast cereal then broccoli.
The body thrives on protein, fat, nuts . legumes, fibrous carbs etc...its called the paleolithic diet...the human body has not been around long enough to evolve to process what the average person eats today.
P

[Ritch]

the human body has not been around long enough to evolve to process what the average person eats today.
P

That may be true, but they didn`t bodybuild back then, with bodybuilding things change and what was ideal then, may not be now...

Gotta head out, but this conversation is interesting, props to devo with his posts.

[Ritch]

Even with low glycemic carbs insulin is not as stable as when in ketosis. Fat is also lower which increases hunger because of less satiety...insoluble fibre will decrease transit time as well.
P

May not be as stable, but it`s not a problem, I don`t know why you`re so set out to make it seem that way... Especially when the carbs are taken pre post and second post workout meal.

[jamex]

Most people fail on the keto diet because they are not running it correctly...too many carbs, too much fat etc or they fail mentally because they panic in the first month.
P

just curious about too much fat...is the only effect that you end up storing more fat then you're burning off? I'm still not clear on how much is too much fat to consume. You want just enough to get into\stay in ketosis, but no more than that minimum so that you're burning fat stores and not dietary fat?

[Praetorian]

May not be as stable, but it`s not a problem, I don`t know why you`re so set out to make it seem that way... Especially when the carbs are taken pre post and second post workout meal.

Im just making a comparison...one is more stable than the other...the issue becomes a problem when you take a vary carb sensitive person and put them on a standard low carb type diet...they do not respond well and many of the issues I posted above become very apparent.
P

[Praetorian]

That may be true, but they didn`t bodybuild back then, with bodybuilding things change and what was ideal then, may not be now...

Gotta head out, but this conversation is interesting, props to devo with his posts.

The body still metabolizes certain types of foods much more effectively and efficiently...so no they did not BB back then but working with the body instead of against it will provide better performance in sedentary life as well as sport.
P

[Ritch]

Im just making a comparison...one is more stable than the other...the issue becomes a problem when you take a vary carb sensitive person and put them on a standard low carb type diet...they do not respond well and many of the issues I posted above become very apparent.
P

Most definitely it`s about how good or bad the person`s insulin sensitivity is. I`m guessing mine is rather high and is why I can do it the way I can. The endomorhps tend to do well on keto, I`m more of a natural ecto...