# Why low protein, high fat keto diets are ****ing stupid



## MrRippedZilla (Mar 13, 2017)

I once got into a "debate" with an individual on another board who was convinced that low protein keto diets are just fine at preventing muscle loss due to the fat intake. I originally put this down as 1 narrow minded idiot but then saw the same mindset occur again & again in real life and across the boards (thankfully, never here). I believe this has a lot to do with the anti-protein trend that I've mentioned before. 

So I've decided to dive into some basic biochemistry to explain WHY fat intake alone does NOTHING to prevent muscle loss when dieting. You won't see any references here because this is stuff I learnt at college and can be found in any decent biochemistry textbook (I recommend the one by Berg, Tymoczko & Stryer) so without any further delay let's dive in...


*The Krebs cycle, Acetyl groups & Oxaloacetate*

In order to burn carbs for energy, you first need to have the acetyl group enter the Krebs cycle (also known as the Citric acid/TCA cycle), which is the main cycle used by your body to produce ATP (your body's main energy source).
Now, in order to get that acetyl group into the cycle you *MUST* have some Oxaloacetate (OAA) lying around so the two can hook up and form citrate. 


*Where do you find this OAA stuff?*

Well, this is called a "cycle" for a reason. Usually things just go round and round, being re-metabolized (the acetyl group is removed from the OAA) and there is no need for any "new" OAA. 
However, OAA has other stuff to do outside of the cycle - one of which is to help produce new amino acids such as Aspartate. In fact, the Krebs cycle has a lot of intermediate steps between the OAA-Citrate hook up that involve a bunch of stuff leaving to make other amino acids (alpha ketoglutarate can leave the Krebs cycle to make glutamate, etc) but I won't go deep into this for fear of losing you folks. 
The net result is, no matter who leaves during the intermediary steps, you end up with less OAA and you NEED to find some fresh from elsewhere.


*What happens on a normal diet*

With plenty of carbs available, OAA comes from Pyruvate (which comes from glucose). Pyruvate is mostly used to generate acetyl groups but some will also generate OAA so those two can hook up and enter the Krebs cycle. 
The key point here is that *carbs are the main provider of OAA under normal conditions.* Fat can be broken down into the acetyl groups via beta-oxidation BUT these acetyl groups NEED OAA in order to enter the Krebs cycle and carbs are doing the supplying. 
In fact, you could say that the fat is entering the Krebs cycle and is "burning" while OAA is the "flame" that allows it to enter the cycle. This is where the “fat burns in the flame of carbs” saying comes from; it means that acetyl groups derived from fat can only enter the Krebs cycle to be metabolized for energy if sufficient OAA can be derived from carbs. 
*Remember, fats can generate acetyl groups but not OAA.* 


*So where does protein fit into this little energy circle?*

Just as OAA can produce amino acids, amino acids can enter the Krebs cycle and produce OAA (two-way street) by the same process just reversed. This means the "fat burns in the flame of carbs" saying isn't quite accurate - it's more like "fat burns in the flame of OAA" because *both carbs & protein can provide the OAA.*


*What happens on a traditional keto diet (low carb, decent protein & fat)?*

Before going deep into detail here I want to add that OAA doesn’t just leave the Krebs cycle to make amino acids, it also leaves the cycle to make glucose via gluconeogenesis (making glucose, your main energy source, from non-carb sources). Keep that in mind.  

So, we don't have enough carbs to supply OAA. 
OAA itself is being depleted since some of it is leaving to produce new glucose. 
Protein is going to be driven to enter the Krebs cycle but we still have that OAA that is being made leaving for the process of gluconeogenesis so OAA depletion seems inevitable. 

Now, what is also happening in the liver (home of gluconeogenesis) is that fatty acids are being taken up, entering the mitochondrion, getting beta-oxidized to acetyl groups and with the end result being a massive oversupply of said acetyl groups. 
When you combine this massive oversupply of acetyl groups with the massive under supply/depletion of OAA, you have a recipe for mass accumulation of acetyl groups that CANNOT enter the Krebs cycle because the cycle is operating less effectively and there are too many acetyl groups. 
*This is the event that causes ketogenesis: oversupply of acetyl groups to a depleted OAA pool where the acetyl groups cannot enter the Krebs cycle. Acetyl groups have nothing else to do except condense with one another to make ketones *
Ketones are an energy source so they reduce the burden on the Krebs cycle, which means less depletion of OAA. This works because we still have SOMETHING to make OAA with, namely protein.


*So if both carbs & protein can make OAA, and fat can only make the acetyl groups, what happens when you rely on a high fat/low carb/low protein style keto diet?*

You lose muscle. It's as simple as that. 
You NEED to get that OAA and if isn't coming from diet then it's coming from somewhere within the body. Hmm...I wonder where your body can find a decent supply of amino acids? Oh yea...your gainz. Those muscle gainz are going bye bye. Loss of lean mass is going to be triggered in large part by depletion of OAA, and only carbohydrate/protein together can supply OAA (both of which your stupidly not supplying). 


*Summary*
There you go. A biochemistry lesson, showing what your body does with these energy sources, to justify why low protein keto diets (low protein diets in general actually) are ****ing stupid and there is no justification for it if your goal is to maximize body recomp.


----------



## motown1002 (Mar 13, 2017)

Great read!!!  Thanks!


----------



## ToolSteel (Mar 13, 2017)

Could you define "low protein"


----------



## CardinalJacked (Mar 13, 2017)

Also, the simple argument of "you don't eat carbs" is a reason why it's stupid.


----------



## MrRippedZilla (Mar 13, 2017)

ToolSteel said:


> Could you define "low protein"



In the context of a ketogenic environment: below 0.8g/lb of LBM for young, fat, inactive men - higher for most others (maybe not young, inactive, fat women where it would probably be 10-20% lower).
Why such a specific number? Because we know from this that going below that amount leads to early muscle loss during the adaptation phase in that very group.



CardinalJacked said:


> Also, the simple argument of "you don't eat carbs" is a reason why it's stupid.



Not really. 

Telling a Type 2 diabetic, or a healthy individual with poor insulin sensitivity, that they MUST consume carbs when dieting is pretty much setting them up for failure in a lot of cases. 
Fat/carb macros has always been an individual specific thing - tailor it to whatever helps the person adhere to the plan.


----------



## Rip (Mar 13, 2017)

Why would a bodybuilder eat low protein?


----------



## MrRippedZilla (Mar 13, 2017)

Rip said:


> Why would a bodybuilder eat low protein?



For the same reason the majority of people are stupid 
As I said in the article, its a trend...a very real trend...that people are following to go against the grain more than anything else. Same thing happened with fats & carbs.


----------



## ToolSteel (Mar 13, 2017)

Reason I asked is because I rarely break 1g/# lbm. While I'm not necessarily trying to pack on mass, I have no problem maintaining it either. And strength has continued to rise.


----------



## automatondan (Mar 13, 2017)

MrRippedZilla said:


> For the same reason the majority of people are stupid
> As I said in the article, its a trend...a very real trend...that people are following to go against the grain more than anything else. Same thing happened with fats & carbs.



I am running into this a bit with some of my buddies who have been asking me what I do for my diet... Come to find out, its their wives that have them on a low protein diet.... and they are just too lazy/pacified to think for themselves. This low protein BS diet is probably being heavily pushed in some women's magazines and other woman for women type stuff... I think a major issue is that men have become pacified and tame, almost as if leashed, this is what our culture desires them to be, and our inability to think for ourselves is what is causing the breakdown. This is affecting every aspect of our culture/lives. And its not good.


----------



## automatondan (Mar 13, 2017)

ToolSteel said:


> Reason I asked is because I rarely break 1g/# lbm. While I'm not necessarily trying to pack on mass, I have no problem maintaining it either. And strength has continued to rise.



I could be wrong here, but I assume it would be a correct presumption that taking AAS would _lessen_ the negative impact, or at least help your body to be more proficient with protein synthesis while taking in less protein....? However, it seems that the more protein the better.... like you are doing okay now at the amount you are currently eating, but would you be doing even better if you were able to increase your protein to 1g/lb of body weight?


----------



## snake (Mar 13, 2017)

Well I read it twice and I think I'm with Zilla on this from my own experience. I have done my share of dieting from a real world experience and there's nothing here for me to disagree with. 

I personally like to shoot for 1g of protein/ LEAN body mass and will slip to .75 at times. 

I think when people speak about what works for them regarding losing weight we need to be cautious. There's a big difference on what happens to and within the body when we're talking about the first 5 lbs compared to the last 5 lbs.


----------



## MrRippedZilla (Mar 13, 2017)

ToolSteel said:


> Reason I asked is because I rarely break 1g/# lbm. While I'm not necessarily trying to pack on mass, I have no problem maintaining it either. And strength has continued to rise.



As an advanced athlete, which I consider you to be, I think your selling yourself short with 1g/lbm when dieting regardless of whether its keto or not. 

The protein intake/AAS relationship is an interesting one because yes, it allows you to get away with less protein intake due to enhanced efficiency of use but it also allows you to build muscle in an energy balance that normally isn't conducive to building anything regardless of protein intake.
So unless your against getting bigger, weight classes or whatever, I don't see why you wouldn't add at least an extra 0.2g/lbm into the mix.


----------



## PillarofBalance (Mar 13, 2017)

Tool if you put on weight I will kill you.  So will your water cuts lol


----------



## mistah187 (Mar 13, 2017)

Keto is moderate protien high fat. If it works it works. Mostly keto is used to cut fat and it is amazing at doing that. You will not always be jacked and full but that's part of dieting. Sometimes you have to looks like shit to get to where u wanna go. 
Keto however is not for everyone and sometimes a low carb diet works better for them. I could post articles and studies to refuse every single one of your arguments but that is a waste of time. Going out and doing these diets is the only way to know how they work. I don't care what u read somewhere. I've done it. Keto works wonderful at what vital is meant to do, cut fat. The I telnet is full of I formation, you can always find studies and things to steer u into believing whatever your beliefs are. 
Bottom line is dieting is a fickle thing and not eberyone responds the same to any diet, of training for that matter.


----------



## mistah187 (Mar 13, 2017)

Keto still keeps protien between a gram and a gram and a half per lb. Reason being extra protien "can" be turned into glycogen. Very crude explanation  for lack of texting on phone. Lazy.


----------



## PillarofBalance (Mar 13, 2017)

mistah187 said:


> Keto is moderate protien high fat. If it works it works. Mostly keto is used to cut fat and it is amazing at doing that. You will not always be jacked and full but that's part of dieting. Sometimes you have to looks like shit to get to where u wanna go.
> Keto however is not for everyone and sometimes a low carb diet works better for them. I could post articles and studies to refuse every single one of your arguments but that is a waste of time. Going out and doing these diets is the only way to know how they work. I don't care what u read somewhere. I've done it. Keto works wonderful at what vital is meant to do, cut fat. The I telnet is full of I formation, you can always find studies and things to steer u into believing whatever your beliefs are.
> Bottom line is dieting is a fickle thing and not eberyone responds the same to any diet, of training for that matter.



He is discussing low protein high fat diets not moderate protein high fats.

Keto isn't better than other methods for losing fat it's just better for some who prefer it.

You can be jacked and full when on a diet.  Carb and sodium intake is all it takes.  You may have moments where you are depleted but that can often be remedied Ina single meal.

If you have studies to refuse (sic) everything he said you should definitely post those. Because what he posted is basic or maybe at times intermediate physiology.  We are all the same species so the ground rules of our physiology apply to all.

Also you kind of accused zilla of cherry picking his info. I don't think that's fair. He has himself posted a thread on how to tell when a study is deeply flawed and should be disregarded.

Lastly dieting is not at all fickle. Caloric deficit = fat loss. That never changes.


----------



## MrRippedZilla (Mar 13, 2017)

mistah187 said:


> Keto is moderate protien high fat. If it works it works. Mostly keto is used to cut fat and it is amazing at doing that



Ok first of all, learn some reading comprehension. 
This was never about whether keto works or not, any diet that induces a caloric deficit works. It was about the recent trend of LOW protein keto diets and why they are ****ing stupid. Like seriously, its the title of the thread. 



mistah187 said:


> I could post articles and studies to refuse every single one of your arguments but that is a waste of time. Going out and doing these diets is the only way to know how they work.



I know for fact that you cannot post data to refute my "arguments" because I'm not making any "argument" - *I'm telling you how the body works*. So please go ahead and post this imaginary, non-existent data, that counteracts basic biochemistry that you clearly have no idea how to comprehend. Go on, post it. 

Oh and don't give me the "its waste of time" bullshit. This is the science section, if your going to call me out on my facts you better have some ****ing evidence to support you. 




mistah187 said:


> I don't care what u read somewhere. I've done it. The I telnet is full of I formation, you can always find studies and things to steer u into believing whatever your beliefs are.



Classic response from someone who has NO IDEA how to interpret data. And again, if you don't care what the data says, your in the wrong sub-forum.

I know that your WAY out of your league on this but I want to see how long its going to take you to realize that or are you going to just let your ego run wild and embarrass yourself? Let's find out


----------



## DieYoungStrong (Mar 13, 2017)

I'm down almost 7 lbs in week 3 of a diet. I'm eating plenty of carbs...


----------



## Flyingdragon (Mar 13, 2017)

Semen isnt carbs :32 (19):



DieYoungStrong said:


> I'm down almost 7 lbs in week 3 of a diet. I'm eating plenty of carbs...


----------



## DF (Mar 13, 2017)

Biochemistry flash back!  I just broke out in a cold sweat.


----------



## ToolSteel (Mar 13, 2017)

MrRippedZilla said:


> As an advanced athlete, which I consider you to be, I think your selling yourself short with 1g/lbm when dieting regardless of whether its keto or not.
> 
> The protein intake/AAS relationship is an interesting one because yes, it allows you to get away with less protein intake due to enhanced efficiency of use but it also allows you to build muscle in an energy balance that normally isn't conducive to building anything regardless of protein intake.
> So unless your against getting bigger, weight classes or whatever, I don't see why you wouldn't add at least an extra 0.2g/lbm into the mix.


Let me add a little clarification; this is not on a cutting or bulking diet, just my everyday "staying where I'm at" diet. When I'm actually trying to cut, I prefer high protein Keto only for the fact that it's the easiest diet for me to stick to. 
It didn't occur to me till now, however, that I don't really bump protein up over 1g when bulking. I just add mainly carbs. 



PillarofBalance said:


> Tool if you put on weight I will kill you.  So will your water cuts lol



But yeah... What he said ^^^
I'm holding 255-260 pretty steady for now. If I don't consciously over eat I drop to the low 250's.  Any higher and 242 is gonna be hell to break.


----------



## ron1204 (Mar 13, 2017)

Can someone explain exactly lean body mass opposed to total body mass. Is it just your total weight minus fat? For example if I'm 190 with a bf % of 10 what would be my lean body mass (if it can be figured out with that info).
Also zilla u recommend around 1.2g of protein per pound of lean body mass? Would going over to let's say 1.5 be any better ?


----------



## DocDePanda187123 (Mar 13, 2017)

ron1204 said:


> Can someone explain exactly lean body mass opposed to total body mass. Is it just your total weight minus fat? For example if I'm 190 with a bf % of 10 what would be my lean body mass (if it can be figured out with that info).
> Also zilla u recommend around 1.2g of protein per pound of lean body mass? Would going over to let's say 1.5 be any better ?



If you are 190lbs @ 10% BF it means you have 19lbs of fat and 171lbs of lean body mass.


----------



## DocDePanda187123 (Mar 13, 2017)

MrRippedZilla said:


> Ok first of all, learn some reading comprehension.
> This was never about whether keto works or not, any diet that induces a caloric deficit works. It was about the recent trend of LOW protein keto diets and why they are ****ing stupid. Like seriously, its the title of the thread.
> 
> 
> ...



I lol'ed

10char


----------



## MrRippedZilla (Mar 13, 2017)

ron1204 said:


> Also zilla u recommend around 1.2g of protein per pound of lean body mass? Would going over to let's say 1.5 be any better ?



That was my recommendation for TS specifically, before he clarified that he was talking about his maintenance diet of course. TS is a PLer with, as far as I'm aware, no intention of getting super lean anytime soon - that plays a big part in all this. 

In terms of whether more protein is better, it depends on context (yes, I know I say that a lot but its true).
An example that is not entirely relevant to you but is worth sharing because it is interesting was a recent study using "obese" beginners. They compared a group consuming 1.2g/kg of protein (the group averaged 96kg weight with 24.8%bf = 115.2g protein OR *0.73g/lb of LBM*) and another consuming 2.4g/kg of protein (100.1kg weight, 23.6%bf = 240.24g protein OR *1.43g/lb of LBM*) with both facing a 40% caloric deficit. The difference was one maintained muscle, the other gained muscle (about 2.5lbs) - that's pretty impressive faced with that deficit IMO. 

I'm blabbering, sorry about that. Anyway, if your situation pertains to getting shredded and/or dieting with AAS then yes - more protein may be better


----------



## ron1204 (Mar 13, 2017)

Ok perfect explanation man. Thanks! With all this protein nonsense going around it's hard to make sense of it but your explanations are second to none and everything is easy to understand.


----------



## ToolSteel (Mar 13, 2017)

MrRippedZilla said:


> TS is a PLer with, as far as I'm aware, no intention of getting super lean anytime soon


I was butthurt for about 0.2 seconds, then realized you couldn't be more correct. 
:32 (18):


----------



## ECKSRATED (Mar 14, 2017)

ToolSteel said:


> I was butthurt for about 0.2 seconds, then realized you couldn't be more correct.
> :32 (18):



Damnit that was Sig material but u caught it first.


----------



## ECKSRATED (Mar 14, 2017)

I like high protein super high fats and super higher carbs. 

Seriously I love carbs. Can't imagine not eating them.

Interesting read but seems to be common sense in the bodybuilding world but like u said its a new trend that people will follow. I've seen a bunch of stupid shit on the internet lately about protein being bad and causes such and such problems. What problems? Some extra smelly farts? Yeah but your bicep got bigger didn't it? Lol.


----------



## Rip (Mar 14, 2017)

Mass in what form? What is your body fat %



ToolSteel said:


> Reason I asked is because I rarely break 1g/# lbm. While I'm not necessarily trying to pack on mass, I have no problem maintaining it either. And strength has continued to rise.


----------



## Rip (Mar 14, 2017)

Guys in the Olympia are eating around 500grams of protein.


----------



## ToolSteel (Mar 14, 2017)

Rip said:


> Mass in what form? What is your body fat %



Hell if I know. Between 15 and 20. The fur makes it hard to tell. 

As far as protein intake goes I was referring to 1g/lb lean mass.


----------



## Flyingdragon (Mar 14, 2017)

I eat 5 grams of protein per inch of body height....I have no scientific proof to my process, but I would classify it as "alternative facts"....


----------



## DieYoungStrong (Mar 14, 2017)

Flyingdragon said:


> I *SWALLOW* 5 grams of *SEMEN* per inch of *DICK LENGTH*....I have no scientific proof to my process, but I would classify it as "alternative facts"....



Fixed that for you...homo


----------



## SuperBane (Mar 15, 2017)

I've been plenty successful with palumbos higher protein version of keto


----------



## mrmichael (Apr 11, 2017)

MrRippedZilla said:


> I once got into a "debate" with an individual on another board who was convinced that low protein keto diets are just fine at preventing muscle loss due to the fat intake. I originally put this down as 1 narrow minded idiot but then saw the same mindset occur again & again in real life and across the boards (thankfully, never here). I believe this has a lot to do with the anti-protein trend that I've mentioned before.
> 
> So I've decided to dive into some basic biochemistry to explain WHY fat intake alone does NOTHING to prevent muscle loss when dieting. You won't see any references here because this is stuff I learnt at college and can be found in any decent biochemistry textbook (I recommend the one by Berg, Tymoczko & Stryer) so without any further delay let's dive in...
> 
> ...



I was in on the thread u are talking about lol. I told him that he was a fool too, made no sense at all. When u talk about protein intake for bulking and cutting. Say u were 200 lbs and wanted to gain. U would eat around 200g per day right? Would those protein g's count from ANY source? Even if say 20g came from pasta, another from brown rice.. Incomplete sources are factored in correct? Or would It need to be 200g of meat/eggs/nuts ect.. only


----------



## knightmare999 (Apr 12, 2017)

mrmichael said:


> I was in on the thread u are talking about lol. I told him that he was a fool too, made no sense at all. When u talk about protein intake for bulking and cutting. Say u were 200 lbs and wanted to gain. U would eat around 200g per day right? Would those protein g's count from ANY source? Even if say 20g came from pasta, another from brown rice.. Incomplete sources are factored in correct? Or would It need to be 200g of meat/eggs/nuts ect.. only


You factor in incomplete protein sources, and you can combine incomplete sources to complement one another. 
Throwing some beans in your rice, for example, will provide a more complete profile of amino acids.


----------



## MrRippedZilla (Apr 12, 2017)

mrmichael said:


> I was in on the thread u are talking about lol. I told him that he was a fool too, made no sense at all. When u talk about protein intake for bulking and cutting. Say u were 200 lbs and wanted to gain. U would eat around 200g per day right? Would those protein g's count from ANY source? Even if say 20g came from pasta, another from brown rice.. Incomplete sources are factored in correct? Or would It need to be 200g of meat/eggs/nuts ect.. only



That thread was fun. It's a shame that they follow the usual pattern though. 
I say something, a clueless whoever calls me out, I respond, they either a) realize they're out their depth and run away or b) resort to ad hominem attacks and other irrelevant statements in a desperate attempt to save face. Interestingly, I've yet to find a single person who came out better off after such "debates"....their might be a lesson there 

1g/lb protein is a nice place to be for folks bulking on gear. And as knightmare said, all sources should be factored into your calculations.


----------



## Beezy (Apr 12, 2017)

I tried this diet to slim down for a cruise. Muscle went as fast as fat. 
A high protein/fat and low carb diet gave me better results.


----------



## ToolSteel (Apr 12, 2017)

Beezy said:


> I tried this diet to slim down for a cruise. Muscle went as fast as fat.
> A high protein/fat and low carb diet gave me better results.



You tried a high protein/fat low carb diet that made you lose muscle. But then used a a high protein/fat low carb diet with better results. 

Wut


----------



## Beezy (Apr 12, 2017)

I tried the "keto" diet that is high fat and low (protein/carbs) which made me lose muscle. 
The high protein/fat and low (carbs) was better for only losing fat. 
However after a month the muscle seemed to start coming off too.


----------



## ToolSteel (Apr 12, 2017)

The problem likely wasn't the diet, it was your deficit.


----------



## MrRippedZilla (Apr 12, 2017)

ToolSteel said:


> The problem likely wasn't the diet, it was your deficit.



What if I told you that a 60% deficit vs 25% deficit, with the same end goal, results in similar recomp numbers?

I'm such a tease


----------



## Beezy (Apr 12, 2017)

That's possible, Tool. 
I didn't do a whole lot of calculations. Actually, until I joined up here today and started reading all these posts, I didn't realize I should be. This forum is pretty eye-opening. I've been lifting about 18 months and have zero friends who lift, so I thank you guys for all this info.


----------



## ToolSteel (Apr 13, 2017)

MrRippedZilla said:


> What if I told you that a 60% deficit vs 25% deficit, with the same end goal, results in similar recomp numbers?
> 
> I'm such a tease


I'd say prove it.
 If it was a set in stone ratio then everyone would eat barely enough to survive on a cut to get it done faster.


----------



## DocDePanda187123 (Apr 13, 2017)

ToolSteel said:


> I'd say prove it.
> If it was a set in stone ratio then everyone would eat barely enough to survive on a cut to get it done faster.



Its basically like 2x12 = 24 but so is 4x6

larger deficit the higher the rate of muscle loss but the less time spent dieting. Lower deficit means lower muscle loss per week but you also spend longer time dieting so the end result is basically similar.


----------



## MrRippedZilla (Apr 13, 2017)

ToolSteel said:


> I'd say prove it.
> If it was a set in stone ratio then everyone would eat barely enough to survive on a cut to get it done faster.



Your assuming that everyone would be able to handle such a severe deficit. This assumption is false. 

This is one of those areas where, with regards to our community, I consider myself to be WAY ahead of the data. 
Building on some of the work that Lyle McDonald showed (get a copy of his RFL book, excellent read) I've been able to experiment with this stuff both on myself and clients, with dexa scans to see differences, and have witnessed practically zero difference in body comp between small vs large deficits with the same end goal. 
Of course this is anecdotal and I don't expect anyone to simply take my word for it - this is the science section after all.

The reason for the lack of conclusive data is due to the fact that severe deficits are difficult to adhere to and, as I've said many times, adherence > everything. You would need to instigate a high level of control on the variables (all food provided by the lab, subjects are permanently indoors for monitoring, etc) for the long term with members of our community (bodybuilders, etc). This is going to be incredibly expensive and frankly not an area of real interest for those who provide funding.


----------



## ToolSteel (Apr 13, 2017)

Didn't you also say in another thread that muscle wasting while cutting is related to inadequate protein intake? Or was that doc?


----------



## MrRippedZilla (Apr 13, 2017)

ToolSteel said:


> Didn't you also say in another thread that muscle wasting while cutting is related to inadequate protein intake? Or was that doc?



Probably both of us in several places because its true.


----------



## ToolSteel (Apr 13, 2017)

MrRippedZilla said:


> Probably both of us in several places because its true.


Right. So if two people have the same macro split, but one is at 60% deficit and one at 25%, the 60% will be eating far less protein. 

So so how can you claim to have it both ways?


----------



## MrRippedZilla (Apr 13, 2017)

ToolSteel said:


> Right. So if two people have the same macro split, but one is at 60% deficit and one at 25%, the 60% will be eating far less protein.
> So so how can you claim to have it both ways?



Re-read my posts. I never at any point said that the macro split stays the same because it doesn't. In fact, trying to maintain the same ratio makes zero sense anyway - why would you sacrifice all 3 macros equally when the effect on muscle preservation isn't equal? Zero sense.

Carbs/fats are sacrificed to increase the size of the deficit while protein stays the same or creeps higher depending on the circumstances.


----------



## ToolSteel (Apr 13, 2017)

MrRippedZilla said:


> Re-read my posts. I never at any point said that the macro split stays the same because it doesn't. In fact, trying to maintain the same ratio makes zero sense anyway - why would you sacrifice all 3 macros equally when the effect on muscle preservation isn't equal? Zero sense.
> 
> Carbs/fats are sacrificed to increase the size of the deficit while protein stays the same or creeps higher depending on the circumstances.


I was hoping you'd say that. 

My point is that regardless of the Marco split a large enough deficit will drop protein too low, causing an increased rate of muscle loss disproportionate to one at a smaller deficit. 

So all deficits do not have equal results with the same end goal.


----------



## MrRippedZilla (Apr 13, 2017)

ToolSteel said:


> I was hoping you'd say that.
> My point is that regardless of the Marco split a large enough deficit will drop protein too low, causing an increased rate of muscle loss disproportionate to one at a smaller deficit.
> So all deficits do not have equal results with the same end goal.



Dude, your better than this. I never said ALL deficits have equal results with the same end goal either. Strawman, stay away from it 

There is a reason why I chose the 60% vs 25% numbers. The former is possible with a PSMF approach (maintaining adequate protein intake) and the latter is a typical deficit size for most. I also happened to use those same numbers on a few experiments and dexa verified what I knew all along. 

One day I will write up an article going into more detail on this topic since the idea that "slow and steady" is superior is, frankly, bullshit. But for now, I have some some MFR data to look into and the posts in this thread have teetered on becoming irrelevant to the OT for a while now. By all means, PM me if you want to learn more.


----------



## ToolSteel (Apr 13, 2017)

MrRippedZilla said:


> Dude, your better than this. I never said ALL deficits have equal results with the same end goal either. Strawman, stay away from it
> 
> There is a reason why I chose the 60% vs 25% numbers. The former is possible with a PSMF approach (maintaining adequate protein intake) and the latter is a typical deficit size for most. I also happened to use those same numbers on a few experiments and dexa verified what I knew all along.
> 
> One day I will write up an article going into more detail on this topic since the idea that "slow and steady" is superior is, frankly, bullshit. But for now, I have some some MFR data to look into and the posts in this thread have teetered on becoming irrelevant to the OT for a while now. By all means, PM me if you want to learn more.


You're right, I do know better than that. But I like poking you to get more thorough explanations for future readers. 

We ain't all wizards.


----------



## PFM (Oct 14, 2017)

For the mos part I agree, but for the most part.

I have had great cutting results taking a keto meal or two per day while on a 6-8 meal feeding regimen. 

Once a guy reaches the 10's he can use the mirror day to day to adjust.

I am currently taking a sardine and peanuts meal mid afternoon. The days I eat some carbs with that meal bogs me down.

A diet of all protein and fats is dumb, but using all protein and fat meals in conjunction with 3 macro meals can and does have its place.


----------



## Chillinlow (Oct 14, 2017)

Never heard of a keto diet that is low protein 

keto diet is high fat moderate protein and no carbs

to be on a legit keto diet and be in ketosis takes a very determined person most people fail at this. They never count their macros and do proper calculations and always trying to cheat the system

therws a million bullshit articles saying you need carbs for your lean muscle bull shit

i have done the keto life style and have helped consult and have numerous friends who have businesses that are specifically built around the keto diet 

you can say all your fancy information you want but till you actually try it and get the calculations right your fancy words is you pissing in the wind

the best example I use explaining the keto diet when people are confused about it and think you need "carbs" is I simply tell them look at a carnivore ..... look at a lion tiger etc
theu eat red meat protein no carbs they are made up of lean muscle , ask a hunter how much fat and muscle is on a mountain lion, there is basically no fat all muscle and o yeah they didn't need carbs to get there 

just saying brotha been there done that

and apologize for my 3rd grade grammar in advance before I catch shit


----------



## DocDePanda187123 (Oct 14, 2017)

Chillinlow said:


> Never heard of a keto diet that is low protein
> 
> keto diet is high fat moderate protein and no carbs
> 
> ...



So when we all turn into mountain lions your argument might have some relavence, until then we'll just ignore it. 

If if you've never heard of a low protein keto diet then I'm guessing it's you who's pissing in the wind.


----------



## ECKSRATED (Oct 14, 2017)

What's lean muscle? Can someone please explain that to me.


----------



## Seeker (Oct 14, 2017)

ECKSRATED said:


> What's lean muscle? Can someone please explain that to me.



Lol you trying to be sarcastic? You can also refer to it as lean body mass. Which is your body weight minus your fat mass. Body weight including your muscles,  bones, organs, even hair i think. You and Doc.would know all about the extra hair weight


----------



## ECKSRATED (Oct 14, 2017)

Seeker said:


> Lol you trying to be sarcastic? You can also refer to it as lean body mass. Which is your body weight minus your fat mass. Body weight including your muscles,  bones, organs, even hair i think. You and Doc.would know all about the extra hair weight



Lol I was being sarcastic. I HATE hearing someone say that. Lol. There's one type of muscle. That's it. Now lean body weight/mass is a different thing. And yes my lean body mass is much higher than normal because of my fur.


----------



## Chillinlow (Oct 14, 2017)

DocDePanda187123 said:


> So when we all turn into mountain lions your argument might have some relavence, until then we'll just ignore it.
> 
> If if you've never heard of a low protein keto diet then I'm guessing it's you who's pissing in the wind.



Its simple example
for simple minded people .

and there's low protein diets but a real keto diet is moderate protein 

The keto diet is not ment to build mass but what mass anyways? That's a whole other subject.


----------



## Chillinlow (Oct 14, 2017)

ECKSRATED said:


> Lol I was being sarcastic. I HATE hearing someone say that. Lol. There's one type of muscle. That's it. Now lean body weight/mass is a different thing. And yes my lean body mass is much higher than normal because of my fur.



hmmm are you sure 

The muscular system is actually broke down into three types of muscle tissue just saying


----------



## DocDePanda187123 (Oct 15, 2017)

Chillinlow said:


> Its simple example
> for simple minded people .
> 
> and there's low protein diets but a real keto diet is moderate protein
> ...



A simple example that has no relevance whatsoever.

incorrect. A real keto diet is any diet that allows someone to enter ketosis which means it can be low protein as well. Notice the following keto diet which is 1g/kg BW of protein or ~0.45g/lb BW protein, hardly a "moderate" protein diet. You can't re-define something which already has a working definition to suit your argument. 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2716748/


----------

