• Keep up to date with Ausbb via Twitter and Facebook. Please add us!
  • Join the Ausbb - Australian BodyBuilding forum

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

    The Ausbb - Australian BodyBuilding forum is dedicated to no nonsense muscle and strength building. If you need advice that works, you have come to the right place. This forum focuses on building strength and muscle using the basics. You will also find that the Ausbb- Australian Bodybuilding Forum stresses encouragement and respect. Trolls and name calling are not allowed here. No matter what your personal goals are, you will be given effective advice that produces results.

    Please consider registering. It takes 30 seconds, and will allow you to get the most out of the forum.

Low Carb Diet: Fat Or Fiction | ABC Catalyst

steveP said:
What are in carbs that makes them 'build muscle'? Amino acids are the building blocks of muscle. Carbs can only be used in 3 ways; a fuel source, replace glycogen and to be stored as fat. In that order.
Click to expand...

No 1 and 2.

Building muscle requires fuel.

To build muscle you need to build more than you break down. Full glycogen stores reduce muscle breakdown for fuel.
 
But that's like saying "don't eat carbs so you don't get fat". Your muscles need energy or glycogen to function. Limiting this is counter productive. So you're saying you'd prefer to be weak with no energy to maximise muscle damage? Claims like that need some type of evidence or proof.

Either way, I asked for a better explanation to the claim and it was side stepped.
 

Are you replying to me? Because if you are that is not even close to what I was saying, it's not even the same topic.
 
Sorry, I read your post wrong. I thought you were talking about muscle breakdown in terms of microfiber damage, not as a fuel source.
 
from what i understand very basically, and please feel free to correct me;
your blood carries about 3 minutes worth of Glucose but the brain needs a continuous supply.
The liver works constantly to keep up with the demand?
The liver can store around 12 hours of glucose, the main reason one should eat breakfast and include Carb's.
After an overnight fast the liver is deficient in stored glucose to parcel out for your brain, breakfast and a mid-morning snack does the trick.
The outcome is the feeling weak and or dizzy condition.
Hence my Carb's for building comment.
 
Last edited:
Your description is consistent with carbs being a fuel source. Unless our interpretations of 'building' is different, protein and amino acids are building and repairing muscle. If anything, carbs are doing the repairing as they are fueling the muscles cells.
 

Well, carb's provide the elements to build muscle (fuel)?
Proteins supply the muscle elements to repair?

I guess it's important to appreciate that both are required and that their functions a manifold and very complex, so complex it's better to think KISS.
 

And that both do both.
 
It should really be worded as Carbs give you energy to train - which indirectly helps you build more muscle (training harder > Building more muscle) - Fats also give you energy to train, which indirectly in turn helps build muscle...

Its fairly straight forward and really bodybuilding for beginners 101

Protein - builds/repairs muscle

Carbs/Fats - Provide the energy to train


Where your fuel source comes from is totally upto the individual - be it a mix of carbs/fats, just fats, more carbs, less fats etc etc....

Don't overthink things - get the basics right and work out what works for you.
 

No.
 
Bazza20 said:
Basically the lot of it. You are trying to claim that fat and carbs are interchangeable. They are not.
Click to expand...

For a fuel source of course they are.

BUT (and as I have stated many times) - if will depend on the person - everyone is different.
 
Rugby88 said:
For a fuel source of course they are.

BUT (and as I have stated many times) - if will depend on the person - everyone is different.
Click to expand...

Again no they are not. They are very different as energy sources.

People in general are not that different. It's more how they live their lives that make them different, activity levels ect.
 
Calories count: The first school contends the the law of conservation of energy governs weight loss.
In other words, to maintain weight, the energy your body uses through heat given off and physical work done must equal the calories you consume as food, because the measure of enrgy is a calorie.

If you take in more energy than your body uses, you gain weight and visa versa
 
Bazza20 said:
Again no they are not. They are very different as energy sources.

People in general are not that different. It's more how they live their lives that make them different, activity levels ect.
Click to expand...

Yes totally agree they are different energy sources - I guess a good way to describe it (have done so before)

Lighting a fire and using a log (FAT) or using Paper (Carbs) - which one will give you the longest lasting energy?

Yes carbs have their place - sometimes - and yes of course it depends on activity to a degree.

People are very different - the way they react to food is large across the board - how people react to carbs, fats, proteins etc is widely different.

You yourself are a great example - you advised us that you did a keto style diet for 2 years and have advised you did it correctly i.e didn't go to low on fats or proteins - but it simply did not work for you and once you added it carbs you felt alot better....but then you have other people in this thread that use the keto approach and love it.
 

Of course - this is simple common sense - but what you need to work out is where the energy is coming from.
 
Anyone who appreciates science and examines the evidance soon relizes that human metabolism must obey the law of conservation of energy as does everything else.

The other school argues that certain foods or combinations namely the elimination of carbs and the replacement of fats and protiens have special qualitires, calories arent a critical factor in this equation.
 

That analogy is useless and wrong. It's not about the speed they have totally different effects on the body. You seem to be very confused on this.

I have never in person seen anyone do a true keto diet, not on gear, and have an impressive physique.

The only time I would say keto is better than eating a normal amount of carbs is for morbidly obese people with very low activity.
 

Fantastic! Sounds good.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register