3 1/2 year transformation pics ( recovering alkie)

[Hypnotix]

suddenly, no. but what about 'over time' ?


""Type 2 diabetes has been linked to the overconsumption of refined carbohydrates, which include white breads, pasta and many packaged snack foods. These types of carbs digest quickly and cause a rush of glucose into the blood. This increases the body's need for insulin and it's theorized that this higher demand wears out the insulin-producing cells of the pancreas leading to the onset of the disease.""

taken from a 'study',, but 'studies' are like assholes, every one has one and can use it to prove pretty much any point they want.

just curious your thoughts on the link between carbs and insulin resistance over time. wouldn't 'bulking' year round, year after year and over consuming carbs and sugars to get a surplus of calories in possibly cause health issues, like stated above

Consuming simple carbs and complex carbs affect insulin, sensitivity of, and resistances.

Simple sugars are molecularly closer to glucose. Easier for us to convert. Soooo much easier that we make a bunch of insulin at once to convert them to glucose for energy. A pop will be instant in comparison to a sweet potato. Instant energy, but at the sacrifice of insulin sensitivity and pancreatic longevitity.

Sweet Potato is molecularly farther from glucose. Takes longer for our body to convert to energy. So as it digests, less insulin is needed in any one frame of time. Less effect on resistance, and much better for pancreatic health/longevitity.

With this being said.. over a long period of time of consuming carbs, it's really going to come down to what kinds of carbs you were primarily eating. Bulking shouldn't be a permanent endeavor and so it's acceptable to add in simple sugars to an extent, sat fats.. etc. Because averaged out over a 4-5 mos bulk.. and then set next to your entire life it's miniscule.

 

[Matt0071]

New mirror in the makes stay tune

 

[halfwit]

suddenly, no. but what about 'over time' ?


""Type 2 diabetes has been linked to the overconsumption of refined carbohydrates, which include white breads, pasta and many packaged snack foods. These types of carbs digest quickly and cause a rush of glucose into the blood. This increases the body's need for insulin and it's theorized that this higher demand wears out the insulin-producing cells of the pancreas leading to the onset of the disease.""

taken from a 'study',, but 'studies' are like assholes, every one has one and can use it to prove pretty much any point they want.

just curious your thoughts on the link between carbs and insulin resistance over time. wouldn't 'bulking' year round, year after year and over consuming carbs and sugars to get a surplus of calories in possibly cause health issues, like stated above

Okay, let me hit it from this angle:

Being sedentary and overconsuming any source of calories will lead to obesity. If the chief source of said calories happens to be carbohydrates, then yes - the pancreas and liver would become taxed over time as body mass increases, gut health deteriorates, and more insulin is required to dispose of the free glucose playing around in the blood stream. This is ultimately what leads to insulin resistance and type II diabetes.

We're not talking about a sedentary person, nor are we discussing an overconsumption of calories beyond what the body can use either. We're discussing healthy individuals that are aiming for a *slight* surplus. In a healthy individual, the glucose from monoglycerides and even diglycerides would be sent to the liver for conversion to glycogen as Hypnotix stated above.

Would there be a small spike in both glucose followed by insulin? Absolutely. However, this spike should be trivial unless we're talking about several thousand calories in the form of said simple sugars. This is where the glycemic index comes into play, as it takes repeated spikes like this to push the body outside its ability to process such tremendous abundances of energy. Foods higher on the index have a more rapid ability to spike hormones, while fiber-rich sources will have a far lower impact - even if the caloric densities are the same.

This is because the actual process occurs in the gut, and is an enzymatic chain reaction. A reaction that is dulled when the flora and fauna in the gut have to work their way through the fibrous material. This is partly (nutrients tend to be higher in fiber-rich foods too) the reasoning behind opting for whole oats, brown rice, sweet potatoes, red potatoes and such instead of their processed cousins.

Assuming all things being equal, the risk (with calories not being excessive) would be minimal of developing diabetes or any degree of insulin resistance if food selection stays within these parameters for the majority of the time. It's when the sources of calories are constantly from simple sugars that risk increases significantly. I won't pretend to know exactly how long it could take, or even if there's a threshold in which the average Joe begins to push the envelope.

I would imagine that if someone were bulking year round, in a caloric surplus, they would have many issues with their health - potentially diabetes being one of them. But it has always been about moderation, and knowing our limits that is key to maintaining a healthy body.

 

[Matt0071]

Yeah it just depends, everyone.is dif when it comes.down to carbs
I.just feel.really bloated and.sluggish when eating a shit ton of carbs.but that's.just me
And.for.me.moving furniture and totes all day long.it's the last thing I want to.feel.is.sluggish lol

 

[anzel]

So when too much glucose is in your bloodstream the insulin will shuttle it out of your blood and into cells for storage. The excess glucose then sit there until it is called upon for energy. This essentially is where excess fat comes from because the insulin is "dumping off" the excess glucose into your cells, the cells get bigger and also increase in number over time. So unless your bulk is perfect then prolonged bulking is a pretty sure way to increase fat?
Furthermore as we age our metebolic processes can become less efficent. The problem here is that it makes it harder to dial in a perfect bulk. A 45 yr old bulking may not be able to follow the exact same bulk as he did when he was 25 even if all other variables were unchanged, the changing of metabolism can be enough to throw it all outta whack and you really cant figure out just how or what did change. You will always be guessing to some point and never have a perfect bulk.

 

[Matt0071]

How the hell can u.make your brown.rice taste better.lmao
Idea Bros I have tried mixing salsa in with.it, it just taste like.paper haha not like.jasmine.rice.where it's.a lot fluffyier

 

[Matt0071]

So when too much glucose is in your bloodstream the insulin will shuttle it out of your blood and into cells for storage. The excess glucose then sit there until it is called upon for energy. This essentially is where excess fat comes from because the insulin is "dumping off" the excess glucose into your cells, the cells get bigger and also increase in number over time. So unless your bulk is perfect then prolonged bulking is a pretty sure way to increase fat?
Furthermore as we age our metebolic processes can become less efficent. The problem here is that it makes it harder to dial in a perfect bulk. A 45 yr old bulking may not be able to follow the exact same bulk as he did when he was 25 even if all other variables were unchanged, the changing of metabolism can be enough to throw it all outta whack and you really cant figure out just how or what did change. You will always be guessing to some point and never have a perfect bulk.

But then again gaining 1-2lbs a.week with.added.drugs like tRen.say won't it keep the excess fat.at bay if going over your tdee at 2-500 cals above?

 

[Mrrippedzilla]

I no longer hang around here but just wanted to say a few things to prevent any confusion over some of the statements in this thread...

Its actually pretty common knowledge among those who've studied human biology that insulin alone is not responsible for getting fat because ASP ( Acylation Stimulating Protein ) increase caused by fat intake, with no corresponding insulin increase, leads to fat gain. We've known this since the 80s.

As for the insulin resistance thing, it can be caused by the overfeeding of any nutrient and is actually an adaptation to try and prevent further weight and fat gain by your body.
This is pretty obvious when you realise that insulin resistance stops calories from being stored in liver, muscle or fat cells. Not to mention the fact that insulin sensitivity happens to be highest at the end of a diet (most likely period to regain weight) and insulin resistance strongest at the beginning (when you lose weight the fastest).

From my perspective, my best clients commonly consume relatively high carb diets year round - even when cutting (300-350g). They have no health issues to speak of, stay around 12% in the off season and get completely shredded come prep time.
Being active makes a massive difference to these things

 

[omgmike1]

I no longer hang around here but just wanted to say a few things to prevent any confusion over some of the statements in this thread...

Its actually pretty common knowledge among those who've studied human biology that insulin alone is not responsible for getting fat because ASP ( Acylation Stimulating Protein ) increase caused by fat intake, with no corresponding insulin increase, leads to fat gain. We've known this since the 80s.

As for the insulin resistance thing, it can be caused by the overfeeding of any nutrient and is actually an adaptation to try and prevent further weight and fat gain by your body.
This is pretty obvious when you realise that insulin resistance stops calories from being stored in liver, muscle or fat cells. Not to mention the fact that insulin sensitivity happens to be highest at the end of a diet (most likely period to regain weight) and insulin resistance strongest at the beginning (when you lose weight the fastest).

From my perspective, my best clients commonly consume relatively high carb diets year round - even when cutting (300-350g). They have no health issues to speak of, stay around 12% in the off season and get completely shredded come prep time.
Being active makes a massive difference to these things

I just started my cut again Mr rip.
The last cut I did, I kept carbs high, high protein and low fats as possible, ran 500mg test, worked out for 2.5hours of weight training ED, sometimes cardio for a bit extra 15 mins.

Right now I'm finishing bulking and don't want to pass 200 lbs on my frame. So i'm planning on dropping from 198 right not to about 182-185 range? Maybe even 180. I take in about 600g carbs to bulk norrmally or MORE. I aimed during my old cut to lose 2lbs or so PW in a rapid pace, mainly kept cals high, never below 3000 and just worked extra hard in the gym

I'm currently doing my cut by finishing the test 500, tren 400 off for a bit and then going to just run test 500 till I'm leaned down. I cut my carbs by a lot down to around 350-400g ED and keep protein high, I try to burn more in the gym by working it off and keep my calories higher overal (I know it seems counterproductive, as I could just work out less and reduce cals more), but I feel I'm heading down the right direction after reading ur last paragraph.

I know we talked about it in the past, that low carbs, lots of reps, low protein, low AAS amount = muscle loss.

However, 300g+ carbs seems very high, even when trying to get below 10% BF. If u always in took this amount and worked very hard in the gym with cardio and weights and kept protein high and ran at LEAST 500mg test and AIMED to lose 1.5-2lbs PW, THEN would it be SAFE to presume, that pretty much all muscle is retained by doing this or not? Thoughts? I'd greatly appreciate a response to this one

PS: those 300g+ carbs would be MOSTLY all fiber sources: brown rice, oats, whole grain pasta ect...No junk sugar or faster acting carbs. Except once in a while, maybe like 50g would be potatoes..

 

[Hypnotix]

I no longer hang around here but just wanted to say a few things to prevent any confusion over some of the statements in this thread...

Its actually pretty common knowledge among those who've studied human biology that insulin alone is not responsible for getting fat because ASP ( Acylation Stimulating Protein ) increase caused by fat intake, with no corresponding insulin increase, leads to fat gain. We've known this since the 80s.

As for the insulin resistance thing, it can be caused by the overfeeding of any nutrient and is actually an adaptation to try and prevent further weight and fat gain by your body.
This is pretty obvious when you realise that insulin resistance stops calories from being stored in liver, muscle or fat cells. Not to mention the fact that insulin sensitivity happens to be highest at the end of a diet (most likely period to regain weight) and insulin resistance strongest at the beginning (when you lose weight the fastest).

From my perspective, my best clients commonly consume relatively high carb diets year round - even when cutting (300-350g). They have no health issues to speak of, stay around 12% in the off season and get completely shredded come prep time.
Being active makes a massive difference to these things

No difference in effects from high glycemic, and low glycemic carbs?

Just want to clarify your clients aren't eating 350g of skittles and pop. Because I think this to an extent was something being debated as well. The importance of complex carbs, and how simple sugars can still be utilized but are not to be eaten as a primary carb source.

 

[Mrrippedzilla]

I just started my cut again Mr rip.
The last cut I did, I kept carbs high, high protein and low fats as possible, ran 500mg test, worked out for 2.5hours of weight training ED, sometimes cardio for a bit extra 15 mins.

Right now I'm finishing bulking and don't want to pass 200 lbs on my frame. So i'm planning on dropping from 198 right not to about 182-185 range? Maybe even 180. I take in about 600g carbs to bulk norrmally or MORE. I aimed during my old cut to lose 2lbs or so PW in a rapid pace, mainly kept cals high, never below 3000 and just worked extra hard in the gym

I'm currently doing my cut by finishing the test 500, tren 400 off for a bit and then going to just run test 500 till I'm leaned down. I cut my carbs by a lot down to around 350-400g ED and keep protein high, I try to burn more in the gym by working it off and keep my calories higher overal (I know it seems counterproductive, as I could just work out less and reduce cals more), but I feel I'm heading down the right direction after reading ur last paragraph.

I know we talked about it in the past, that low carbs, lots of reps, low protein, low AAS amount = muscle loss.

However, 300g+ carbs seems very high, even when trying to get below 10% BF. If u always in took this amount and worked very hard in the gym with cardio and weights and kept protein high and ran at LEAST 500mg test and AIMED to lose 1.5-2lbs PW, THEN would it be SAFE to presume, that pretty much all muscle is retained by doing this or not? Thoughts? I'd greatly appreciate a response to this one

PS: those 300g+ carbs would be MOSTLY all fiber sources: brown rice, oats, whole grain pasta ect...No junk sugar or faster acting carbs. Except once in a while, maybe like 50g would be potatoes..

Copy & paste this into a PM for me and I'll respond when I'm a little more awake

No difference in effects from high glycemic, and low glycemic carbs?

Just want to clarify your clients aren't eating 350g of skittles and pop. Because I think this to an extent was something being debated as well. The importance of complex carbs, and how simple sugars can still be utilized but are not to be eaten as a primary carb source.

I pay no attention to the glycemic index.

Nobody gets their entire carb intake from sugars so the extreme example you've used, and any debate around it, is something I consider to be irrelevant in reality.
I have had clients cut for shows with fruit (fructose + glucose) as the main carb source and many reported feeling better in general, performance was good, less bloat on refeeds, etc. Fructose + glucose is fine, fructose only may cause issues in excess.
Of course most people don't consume pure fructose so, again, the debate around this issue becomes irrelevant in reality.

 

[halfwit]

So when too much glucose is in your bloodstream the insulin will shuttle it out of your blood and into cells for storage. The excess glucose then sit there until it is called upon for energy. This essentially is where excess fat comes from because the insulin is "dumping off" the excess glucose into your cells, the cells get bigger and also increase in number over time. So unless your bulk is perfect then prolonged bulking is a pretty sure way to increase fat?
Furthermore as we age our metebolic processes can become less efficent. The problem here is that it makes it harder to dial in a perfect bulk. A 45 yr old bulking may not be able to follow the exact same bulk as he did when he was 25 even if all other variables were unchanged, the changing of metabolism can be enough to throw it all outta whack and you really cant figure out just how or what did change. You will always be guessing to some point and never have a perfect bulk.

Kind of, yes. Just remember that ANY macronutrient can be stored as fat if calorie intake exceeds what your body can put to use. That's why it's always a good idea to gauge things as you go through your bulk.

I totally understand Matt, and there's nothing wrong with choosing to add more fats for extra calories.

Edit: Geez, I didn't realize there was another page already. Zilla answered this stuff better than I can.

 

[Matt0071]

Yes when I do.increase.my cals depending on my weight gain I'll simply just add more fats to this plan, like cashews, or peanuts ect ect, as this pretty much gives me a base to start out with as my.protein is set relatively high just coming from.protein sources itself not.counting the protein.in.the rice,.bagel.ect ect

 

[Hypnotix]

Copy & paste this into a PM for me and I'll respond when I'm a little more awake


I pay no attention to the glycemic index.

Nobody gets their entire carb intake from sugars so the extreme example you've used, and any debate around it, is something I consider to be irrelevant in reality.
I have had clients cut for shows with fruit (fructose + glucose) as the main carb source and many reported feeling better in general, performance was good, less bloat on refeeds, etc. Fructose + glucose is fine, fructose only may cause issues in excess.
Of course most people don't consume pure fructose so, again, the debate around this issue becomes irrelevant in reality.

No one worth talking of.. maybe. No one at all.. ludicrous.

There are people on this very forum who opt into simple carbs over complex every meal I guarantee it.. Hell, Matt was doing it before I mentioned it to him. Maybe not the EXTREME of Mtn. Dew instead of sweet potato. But white rice > brown..

Fruit aside, because one it's actually hard to get 400g of carbs from fruit in a single day, and expensive as hell.. you're saying eating white rice over brown, white bread over whole wheat, sweet potato over mashed idaho, and corn flakes over oats are perfectly fine?

That, that scenario NEVER happens and over 5 years would have negligible effect on the pancreas and all functions associated..?

I don't care if I'm misguided here and thinking wrong right now.. it'd be convenient to know what's actually right. Not trying to pick.. you know your stuff, I respect that.. and I think it'd be best if everyone on here reading this would be able to have a better understanding of it even. I guess I've just always thought it was better somehow or another to pick complex over simple..

 

[bigben66]

worked out for 2.5hours of weight training ED

This alone would set alarm bells ringing for me Mike....

From experience with clients, intensity needs to be kept high, especially on a cut. With respect, if you are weight training for 2.5hrs every day, I doubt intensity levels would be at a high enough level....

Unless of course you are paying the gym 2 x visits a day.... if that IS the case, I'd be recommending at least 2 rest days a week.

Get in, get it done as hard in around an hour as you physically can, and get out....

 

[omgmike1]

This alone would set alarm bells ringing for me Mike....

From experience with clients, intensity needs to be kept high, especially on a cut. With respect, if you are weight training for 2.5hrs every day, I doubt intensity levels would be at a high enough level....

Unless of course you are paying the gym 2 x visits a day.... if that IS the case, I'd be recommending at least 2 rest days a week.

Get in, get it done as hard in around an hour as you physically can, and get out....

I've always made progress and been training for 2.5h for like 2 years or more straight. My endurance has built up a lot, so I can last this time frame. I'm just more worried about the muscle burning up than that.

 

[Mrrippedzilla]

No one worth talking of.. maybe. No one at all.. ludicrous.

There are people on this very forum who opt into simple carbs over complex every meal I guarantee it.. Hell, Matt was doing it before I mentioned it to him. Maybe not the EXTREME of Mtn. Dew instead of sweet potato. But white rice > brown..

Fruit aside, because one it's actually hard to get 400g of carbs from fruit in a single day, and expensive as hell.. you're saying eating white rice over brown, white bread over whole wheat, sweet potato over mashed idaho, and corn flakes over oats are perfectly fine?

That, that scenario NEVER happens and over 5 years would have negligible effect on the pancreas and all functions associated..?

I don't care if I'm misguided here and thinking wrong right now.. it'd be convenient to know what's actually right. Not trying to pick.. you know your stuff, I respect that.. and I think it'd be best if everyone on here reading this would be able to have a better understanding of it even. I guess I've just always thought it was better somehow or another to pick complex over simple..

I think your getting the definitions mixed up.
We were talking about how no one gets all their carbs from simple sugars - white rice, white bread, etc are sources of starchy carbs and not simple sugars.
So I'll repeat what I said earlier - 99.9% of people don't the extreme example of getting all their carbs from sugars and therefore I consider it irrelevant in reality.

As for the GI thing, I've already made my position clear on it.
It makes zero difference to body composition, the effect of a mixed meal (how most people eat) nullifies most of the numbers and the total glycemic load is far more important with regards to most health parameters, etc, etc, etc.
I can keep going on but I have no desire, or need, to do so. If your interested in discussing it further then PM me.

 

[Roush]

I just started my cut again Mr rip.

worked out for 2.5hours of weight training ED, sometimes cardio for a bit extra 15 mins.

I know we talked about it in the past, that low carbs, lots of reps, low protein, low AAS amount = muscle loss.

However, 300g+ carbs seems very high, even when trying to get below 10% BF. If u always in took this amount and worked very hard in the gym with cardio and weights and kept protein high and ran at LEAST 500mg test and AIMED to lose 1.5-2lbs PW, THEN would it be SAFE to presume, that pretty much all muscle is retained by doing this or not?

Your worried about 'retaining muscle' during a cut, or worrying about muscle loss.. yet working out 2-3 hours per day on a cut. That amount of volume is a sure way to cause muscle loss, let alone prevent it.

 

[Roush]

Assuming all things being equal, the risk (with calories not being excessive) would be minimal of developing diabetes or any degree of insulin resistance if food selection stays within these parameters for the majority of the time. It's when the sources of calories are constantly from simple sugars that risk increases significantly. I won't pretend to know exactly how long it could take, or even if there's a threshold in which the average Joe begins to push the envelope.

Well the guy I was responding to did say he was having trouble consuming 5500 calories a day, a majority of them all from carbs, and wanted to know if consuming even more "simple sugars and cookies" was a good option to help scarf down the calories.

I said, over consumption in a calories surplus and surplus of simple sugars was 'linked' to diabetes.

As far as how long this takes. Not sure, but simple sugars are extremely prevalent in american society and so is diabetes and more and more people are developing the disease at younger and younger ages. So, it may not take as long as we think.
especially if we consider that a large percentage of the population is already insulin resistant to a degree to begin with.


on a side note: if Ripzillas clients pay him for him to tell them to eat Skittles, cookies, white bread and white rice at 350 grams a day while dieting on a cut. cool. If that works, I'm sure it will catch on eventually.

 

[Mrrippedzilla]

on a side note: if Ripzillas clients pay him for him to tell them to eat Skittles, cookies, white bread and white rice at 350 grams a day while dieting on a cut. cool. If that works, I'm sure it will catch on eventually.

LOL really?
An internet nobody is critiquing my coaching ability when I've coached multiple natural bbing champs (men & women), competed & won myself and have a educational base in biology & nutrition - priceless.

These constant snide remarks (people have told me what you've been posting elsewhere) have got to stop dude.
Seriously, the jealousy is beyond sad now - I'm sorry that people value my opinion a tiny bit more than yours, really I am