• 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.
how about people actually read instead of slapping eachother on the back feeling all cool and popular?

How about you actually read the study then how about you actually read that I already answered replied to that study.

Well from that study less than 40% of calories coming from carbs is considered low carb.

I cut on 4000 calories. So as long as I am under 400g of carbs a day it is considered low carb. Lol.

Someone cutting on 2000 calories can be eating 199g of carbs a day and be considered low carb. Lol. If that's low carb I have no issue with it what so ever.

It pays to actually read the study. Going by their definitions of low carb (less than 40% calories as carb) and low fat( less than 20% fat) I would say the low carb group is more appropriate for most people but it isn't really that low in carbs at all.
 
There are always exceptions to the rules. But the majority of high GI foods consumed by the general public are sugar packed and calorie dense. Which means it doesn't fill you up and will leave you hungry not long after consuming.


Eat 300 cals of regular potatoes and then eat 300 cals of charisma potatoes (low GI). The regular potato is far more satiating. (I typically eat a minimum of 500g of charisma as I like the volume)
 
The newer more credible scientific data (ie studies not backed by big pharma or grain organisations) suggests homocysteine and visceral fat levels are the true indicators of poor cardiovascular health and not consumption of saturated fats or cholesterol levels as has been believed for the past 50 years. It seems increasingly likely that the inflammatory response from processed foods is what hurts us and blaming Cholesterol for all heart attacks is like blaming firemen for all fires, just because they are both at the scene of the crime doesn't imply they are responsible for the act.

ABC's Catalyst tacked this issue last year to scathing criticism and were subsequently pulled from the ABC's website due to concerns of bias. However upon reading the report the only element of both episodes (see below) they found to be unbalanced was in the second episode when they neglected to mention the benefit of statins to those who had already suffered a heart attack (called secondary prevention). Seems like a bit of an overreaction to pull both episodes right?
The cholesterol myth is dying a slow death and statins are toxic bull shit
 
Good bump.

we used to think that sugary cereals and low fat milk was better for us than real butter and whole eggs.

boy I've seen a lot of shit in my life.

Artificial sweeteners are good for us too.
 
Good bump.

we used to think that sugary cereals and low fat milk was better for us than real butter and whole eggs.

boy I've seen a lot of shit in my life.

Artificial sweeteners are good for us too.

I suspect he saw me lurking it before.

P.S. which sweeteners are "good" for us?


it is a well know fact that the human body can quite happily exist without carbs as it is able to produce it's own from proteins, again there is no such thing as essential carbs, fats and protein however is essential for human survival.

If you believe there are essential carbs please show me a link or anything at all that suggests that there are essential carbs.

But is low or no Carb OPTIMAL for producing muscular strength and size? .......... No!
 
Using artificially sweetened food and drink means we can enjoy sweet things and lose weight.
it's been great!
And in some cases we can enjoy more of it, winning!
 
I suspect he saw me lurking it before.

P.S. which sweeteners are "good" for us?




But is low or no Carb OPTIMAL for producing muscular strength and size? .......... No!

I've probably posted this in this thread already. I don't know.

Some people seem to do ok on low carb. Personally I get very weak and feel like crap, almost depressed.

It's not a matter of getting used to it. I did low carb for something like 12 months or more.

For me carbs are just as important as protein on a low calorie diet.
 
I've probably posted this in this thread already. I don't know.

Some people seem to do ok on low carb. Personally I get very weak and feel like crap, almost depressed.

It's not a matter of getting used to it. I did low carb for something like 12 months or more.

For me carbs are just as important as protein on a low calorie diet.

I don't perform as well when on Low Carb either. I suspect that's common across the Human population.
 
I don't perform as well when on Low Carb either. I suspect that's common across the Human population.

High calorie and low carb I seem to do ok. Low calorie and low carb is just terrible for me. It was a bad time in my life when I stuck with low carb. I though I had depression. At footy despite training harder than I ever had in my life I couldn't run out one quarter without being totally fucked and lethargic.

When I put carbs back in it was like magic the improvement.
 
Top