[Sensei Creation]

Do you still gain muscle mass if you get enough protein but not enough carbs ?

[Doc Rock]

That's pretty unspecific. Short answer: yes. But it depends on your total calorie intake. Carbs are the body's primary source for producing energy, but fat and protein can be used as well. If more energy is needed, the body can transform protein into carbs. So if you do not get "enough"(?) carbs, for your energy needs, the body will use fat (dietary and stored) and protein (dietary and stored). Now if you also restrict those two and as a result your total calorie-intake is below your calorie-needs for several days, muscle protein synthesis will be kept to a minimum and it's rate will drop below that of your muscle proteolysis, resulting in a net loss of total muscle mass. My guess is that you ask this question because you want to build muscle mass while losing fat. For this, if you are in the gym regularly, you don't have to worry about carbs as much, because yes, carbs can be transformed into fat, but this doesn't happen nearly as much as people might think IF you are active. Fat however is calorie-dense and will be stored as fat if calories aren't restricted. So, you will have to watch your total calorie intake, keep proteins high (but don't overdo it as advised in lots of bodybuilding magazines - 1.5g per kg bodyweight would be the number to aim for), carbs medium (for enough energy to kill a workout) and keep your fat-intake low but not too low so that your hormone-synthesis will stay in tact.

[HughMyron]

If enough protein and enough calories to be in a caloric surplus: Yes. If enough protein but no caloric surplus: No. Carbs are almost irrelevant to that question

[alexdagr81]

It would be very hard, you would get gains much faster by eating carbs. Carbs stimulate insulin much better than protein.

This chart says it all

Of note, Leucine is the essential amino acid (and a BCAA) that has the best effect on insulin. I saw one graph that compared insulin response of Leucine with BCAAs and it was pretty much the same. Insulin is probably the most anabolic hormone in the body. GH and Test have catabolic properties (they burn fat). Insulin just stores: carbs, fats, and proteins. IF you workout the body is more geared to storing proteins as muscle and carbs as glycogen rather than fat.

[Onto]

(03-10-2015 06:58 AM)Doc Rock Wrote:  

That's pretty unspecific. Short answer: yes. But it depends on your total calorie intake. Carbs are the body's primary source for producing energy, but fat and protein can be used as well. If more energy is needed, the body can transform protein into carbs. So if you do not get "enough"(?) carbs, for your energy needs, the body will use fat (dietary and stored) and protein (dietary and stored). Now if you also restrict those two and as a result your total calorie-intake is below your calorie-needs for several days, muscle protein synthesis will be kept to a minimum and it's rate will drop below that of your muscle proteolysis, resulting in a net loss of total muscle mass. My guess is that you ask this question because you want to build muscle mass while losing fat. For this, if you are in the gym regularly, you don't have to worry about carbs as much, because yes, carbs can be transformed into fat, but this doesn't happen nearly as much as people might think IF you are active. Fat however is calorie-dense and will be stored as fat if calories aren't restricted. So, you will have to watch your total calorie intake, keep proteins high (but don't overdo it as advised in lots of bodybuilding magazines - 1.5g per kg bodyweight would be the number to aim for), carbs medium (for enough energy to kill a workout) and keep your fat-intake low but not too low so that your hormone-synthesis will stay in tact.

That's a really great post. I need to lose 20 lbs and would like to "tone" my muscle in the meantime. I'm 5'8 and very stocky. I'm under the impression eating nuts (natural almonds and peanuts) is good because it's low carbs/high protein. And I eat "a lot" of them thought the day.

However you're post about "fat" is making me question my nut intake. I know it would be better to eat chicken, but nuts are a good munchie for me.

What do you think?

[H1N1]

(03-11-2015 06:55 PM)Onto Wrote:  

(03-10-2015 06:58 AM)Doc Rock Wrote:  

That's pretty unspecific. Short answer: yes. But it depends on your total calorie intake. Carbs are the body's primary source for producing energy, but fat and protein can be used as well. If more energy is needed, the body can transform protein into carbs. So if you do not get "enough"(?) carbs, for your energy needs, the body will use fat (dietary and stored) and protein (dietary and stored). Now if you also restrict those two and as a result your total calorie-intake is below your calorie-needs for several days, muscle protein synthesis will be kept to a minimum and it's rate will drop below that of your muscle proteolysis, resulting in a net loss of total muscle mass. My guess is that you ask this question because you want to build muscle mass while losing fat. For this, if you are in the gym regularly, you don't have to worry about carbs as much, because yes, carbs can be transformed into fat, but this doesn't happen nearly as much as people might think IF you are active. Fat however is calorie-dense and will be stored as fat if calories aren't restricted. So, you will have to watch your total calorie intake, keep proteins high (but don't overdo it as advised in lots of bodybuilding magazines - 1.5g per kg bodyweight would be the number to aim for), carbs medium (for enough energy to kill a workout) and keep your fat-intake low but not too low so that your hormone-synthesis will stay in tact.

That's a really great post. I need to lose 20 lbs and would like to "tone" my muscle in the meantime. I'm 5'8 and very stocky. I'm under the impression eating nuts (natural almonds and peanuts) is good because it's low carbs/high protein. And I eat "a lot" of them thought the day.

However you're post about "fat" is making me question my nut intake. I know it would be better to eat chicken, but nuts are a good munchie for me.

What do you think?

Possible, but it's generally an anathema to try to lose weight eating nuts. They are incredibly calorie dense. If you want to lose weight, you fundamentally need to be in a calorie deficit. Nuts are about the easiest thing in the world to over eat on. Personally, for people with as much weight to lose as you (although 20lbs isn't a huge amount) I tend to recommend a first phase, or a few weeks at least, of simply cutting all sugar, junk, processed food, nuts, milk and bread. I've seen plenty of not-that-fat guys drop 10-20lbs weight (not the same as fat), simply by doing that.

[Doc Rock]

(03-11-2015 06:28 PM)alexdagr81 Wrote:  

It would be very hard, you would get gains much faster by eating carbs.

It would be harder, because carbs provide good energy for an intense workout, thus enabling more calorie-burning in return.

(03-11-2015 06:28 PM)alexdagr81 Wrote:  

Carbs stimulate insulin much better than protein.

While different foods do indeed stimulate insulin-secretion to different degrees, these differences aren't significant enough to have any noticeable impact on your muscle growth.

(03-11-2015 06:28 PM)alexdagr81 Wrote:  

GH and Test have catabolic properties (they burn fat).

Just to be clear: the way you wrote it, this is actually true. However, this is not to be confused with saying, Test and GH were only catabolic. But I guess that's clear. The question is then, why did you mention that since burning fat is what he aims for and both of those induce fat-burning as well as muscle growth.

(03-11-2015 06:55 PM)Onto Wrote:  

I'm under the impression eating nuts (natural almonds and peanuts) is good because it's low carbs/high protein. And I eat "a lot" of them thought the day.

However you're post about "fat" is making me question my nut intake. I know it would be better to eat chicken, but nuts are a good munchie for me.

Well, always consider all 3 macros. Then, nuts are low carb, medium protein, high fat. Nuts are very healthy, so daily consumption should not be avoided. However, it seems like you consume quite a lot of them. Either start counting your macros (apps such as MyFitnessPal can help a lot with that) and cut back on other foods to make up for it if you like nuts that much, or reduce the amount of nuts to maybe a handful a day. Eating them for munchies is a sure way to inflate your calories. The alternative doesn't have to be chickenbreast and rice, though. There are enough meal options that are low fat.
Heavy weight training and enough sleep are not to be neglected as well.

Good luck.

[alexdagr81]

(03-13-2015 07:14 AM)Doc Rock Wrote:  

It would be harder, because carbs provide good energy for an intense workout, thus enabling more calorie-burning in return.

Nah it's mostly based on the insulin response and sensitivity. GLUT4 receptors ratio favors the muscles over fat post-workout (if it's glycogen depleting). Carbs will spike insulin which will store more proteins into the muscle and minimize fat storage.

(03-13-2015 07:14 AM)Doc Rock Wrote:  

While different foods do indeed stimulate insulin-secretion to different degrees, these differences aren't significant enough to have any noticeable impact on your muscle growth.

if this was the case no bodybuilding website would ever recommend a protein shake with whey protein (hydrosolate > isolate > concentrate), maltodextrin, and dextrose. They could say don't eat anything at all as bioavailability is not important. Even John Berardi spoke on how insulin sensitivity can make a difference in ratios of gaining muscle vs. fat

(03-13-2015 07:14 AM)Doc Rock Wrote:  

Just to be clear: the way you wrote it, this is actually true. However, this is not to be confused with saying, Test and GH were only catabolic. But I guess that's clear. The question is then, why did you mention that since burning fat is what he aims for and both of those induce fat-burning as well as muscle growth.

It was to contrast insulin between these two hormones as a general statement. Insulin hardly has any catabolic properties.

[Doc Rock]

(03-13-2015 08:34 AM)alexdagr81 Wrote:  

Nah it's mostly based on the insulin response and sensitivity. GLUT4 receptors ratio favors the muscles over fat post-workout (if it's glycogen depleting). Carbs will spike insulin which will store more proteins into the muscle and minimize fat storage.

Carbs will be primarily stored as muscle-glycogen rather than fat if you exercise regularly. That involves a complex system of regulation, it's not just insulin on/off. Muscle activity as such leads to increased GLUT4-expression independent of insulin. More insulin will not minimize fat storage. Insulin increases GLUT4-expression in both muscle and fat tissue and increases MPS as well as lipogenesis. Carbs spike insulin, but so do amino acids (AA also lead to secretion of glucagon which helps reduce lipogenesis). Usually, carbs spike it a little bit more but it's all within physiological ranges, which don't fluctuate too much and the resulting impact is mainly in regards to regulation of BG levels. MPS will be elevated for about 2 days post-workout if calorie-intake is sufficient. Meal-timing however does not have a significant impact on MPS if seen over the course of a day.
After all, we both agree that he shouldn't restrict carbs so "LJBF".

(03-13-2015 07:14 AM)Doc Rock Wrote:  

if this was the case no bodybuilding website would ever recommend a protein shake with whey protein (hydrosolate > isolate > concentrate), maltodextrin, and dextrose. They could say don't eat anything at all as bioavailability is not important. Even John Berardi spoke on how insulin sensitivity can make a difference in ratios of gaining muscle vs. fat

This will be my final response because those "arguments" are out of place in a scientific debate and show lack of effort. Don't try to get your nutritional knowledge from marketing slogans. Paying money for carbs in a fancy container is the fitness-equivalent to blue pill beta orbiting. - You waste your resources in hope of a resulting benefit but nothing ever comes about.
Of course bioavailability is important. Better bioavailability means a larger amount of the consumed nutrient is absorbed - it does not take absorption-/distribution-time into account. The timing isn't a factor if you reached your macros at the end of the day. It might have some minimal impact but that would only be of concern if any of us would compete in a pro-league which then would require us to use drugs which then would change the whole discussion-base completely.
Of course insulin sensitivity has an impact. If for example you have Type II Diabetes, your metabolism can not be compared to that of a healthy person anymore. I assumed this debate was about healthy, active individuals as nobody stated having an insulin insensitivity issue.

(03-13-2015 07:14 AM)Doc Rock Wrote:  

It was to contrast insulin between these two hormones as a general statement. Insulin hardly has any catabolic properties.

That's the point. He wants to lose weight which requires catabolism. If physiological insulin fluctuations could actually be influenced by food alone to the degree you say it can, then he would have to avoid carbs in order to lose weight.

Best of luck. I now disengage.