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.
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.
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.
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 2 what?
There is literally nothing you can disagree with on this comment but I am sure you will find something.
Basically the lot of it. You are trying to claim that fat and carbs are interchangeable. They are not.
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.
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
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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?