With all the hoopla about the Anabolic diet and the High-Protein diet, it's a wonder that we're not all eating bacon morning, noon, and night. However, one important fact concerning the rash of high-fat diets has been swept under the rug: they're not necessarily the best diets for already lean bodybuilders or competitive athletes. If you fall into one of the previous two categories then, by all means, devour this article. Keep in mind, though, that the high-fat diets are still worth exploring if you want to drop some bodyfat and get into those single-digit percentages that you keep hearing (or dreaming) about.

Most of the Testosterone staff and, hopefully, a significant number of readers who want to lose some bodyfat are still going to start the Testosterone diet come January that's based on a high-protein, high-fat philosophy (with a number of twists and turns). Details about both the diet and the special prizes that we'll be offering to those who have exemplary success will follow in the next week or two.

Wake-up call

Hey, buddy, it's time for you to fess up and come clean. You're doing it again, aren't you? Come on, just admit it. There's no shame in it, really. We all do it, occasionally. You've abandoned the idea of a balanced diet and have jumped onto that wildly swinging dietary pendulum again, haven't you?

Maybe you're on one of those trendy low-carb, high-fat programs, or perhaps you're taking in 300 grams of protein a day when you only weigh 190 pounds. Well, what if I told you that your extreme dietary regimen may be robbing you of performance in the gym and slowing down any muscular gains? What if that "best seller" diet you're using just might cause you to lose on game day? What if low-carb diets shrink your tallywacker faster than an ice-cold skinny dip with Ellen Degeneres? Okay, that part isn't true. But could it be possible that most diets discussed in bodybuilding magazines are, in reality, the absolute last ones that you should be following? Maybe you do need to eat plenty of carbs, and maybe — just maybe — you don't need all of that protein.

It's time for you to sit back and evaluate these dietary trends and really think about whether or not they fit your individual needs. In other words, it may to time for you wake up and smell the bagels!

Back in the day...

Most people familiar with trends in the nutritional aspect of the fitness field have seen a shifting of views in regard to carbohydrates. During the '80s, fat was the bad guy and carbs were the macronutrient of choice. The lower an athlete's fat intake, the more dedicated he was to his diet. Things like pasta and bagels were staples for many athletes.

Now, it seems that the views have changed completely on the subject. Carbs have become demonized for their insulin-spiking and fat-storage properties and are to be avoided at all costs. Athletes are now passing on the bagels and eating an MRP with a tablespoon of flaxseed oil instead, making sure to keep their carb intake at a minimum.

Proponents of low-carb diets claim that one of the biggest advantages of such a dietary approach is that it switches your metabolism from one that favors carbs, an inefficient fuel source, to one that prefers fats, a more efficient fuel source. While the scientific premise for this diet makes sense on the surface, a few questions arise upon looking a little deeper about the efficacy of such a dietary approach for some, especially strength and power athletes.

Overview of energy metabolism

As anyone familiar with the sports sciences will tell you, power and speed sports, along with the vast majority of activities in the weight room, emphasize the anaerobic pathways of muscular energetics — the ATP/CP and glycolytic pathways.

In a nutshell, all movement is powered by simply splitting off a phosphate from an adenosine triphosphate (ATP) molecule, forming an adenosine diphosphate (ADP) molecule. ATP is replenished initially by creatine phosphate (CP), what creatine monohydrate turns into after being absorbed by the body. CP stores are very limited and can only replenish enough ATP to power less than ten seconds of intense activity like weightlifting, sprinting, jumping, and other such endeavors.

After the initial CP stores are exhausted, your body begins to break down large amounts of glycogen, your body's storage form of carbs, to replenish ATP. This process is known as glycolosis and represents the glycolytic pathway of muscular energetics. This pathway can power movement for about 90-120 seconds.

You'd need to perform an activity nonstop for two minutes or more to allow your aerobic system to catch up and begin to be a major player in powering a movement. Only at that point would a metabolism that runs efficiently off fats be of any benefit.

Endurance athletes would benefit from such a metabolism, but bodybuilders (who are in a gaining phase) and strength athletes need something very different. You'd want a metabolism that runs best on the body's hard and fast fuel source, also known as (brace yourself, big guy) carbohydrates.

In addition, once muscle glycogen has been used to power a workout, it will need to be replenished. Low-carb diets make it very difficult to optimally replace spent muscle glycogen. This means that you will need more time to fully recover from your last workout or your performance will drop off.

If carbs are so valuable, why has the majority of the fitness media given us the impression that eating carbs carries all sorts of negative consequences?

In defense of carbs

Carbohydrates have been sorely misrepresented in many nutrition articles and books in recent times. Like many other aspects of fitness, an author can take information, isolate it from the context in which it was presented, and use it to "prove" his point. Sometimes, though, that information can be misleading in the way that it's presented. When the whole story goes untold, it's usually very hard to make an informed decision on a subject. Carbohydrates and their role in nutrition are a prime example of how some information can be twisted and taken out of context.

There's nothing inherently evil about carbohydrates. A lot of people get the impression that eating carbs will automatically make you gain large amounts of unsightly fat and ruin all of that time and effort in the gym. The fact is that the overconsumption of any macronutrient, not just carbohydrates, will lead to fat gain.

While products that use highly processed carbs, such as bread and pasta, can be deceivingly high in total caloric content, it's the total calories, not the carbs themselves, that are the real culprit. It strikes me as funny that, a few years ago, the sports sciences community was using this same argument in the defense of consuming dietary fats.

The glycemic index (GI) is another way that carbohydrates have been misrepresented. By themselves, some carbs can cause a large insulin spike and interfere with fat metabolism. But most people eat a variety of macronutrients with each meal. The proteins and fats slow down the absorption rate of the carbohydrates, therefore blunting the dreaded insulin spike. Few people realize that the GI is a basically worthless tool when all three macronutrients are eaten together as they should be, yet it seems that the anti-carb crusaders will not pass up a single opportunity to bring up the "evil" GI.

Besides the fact that the value of the glycemic index is questionable when you add proteins and fats to a meal, insulin is a very valuable hormone. It's one of the body's most anabolic agents and is necessary for muscle and strength gains. If you're going to use all of the insulin that's produced by the pancreas in response to eating a meal, it's not the "bad boy" hormone that will put those saddle bags on you in record time.

Yes, a large insulin spike in response to eating a meal comprised of mainly high-GI carbs can cause fat storage. A lifetime of eating in such a manner may result in serious, long-term health problems, but not everyone falls into the segment of the population that needs to worry about such things.

Some people metabolize carbohydrates very efficiently and don't have the problems that others do with fat storage and disproportionate insulin responses. Why fix something that isn't broken? If you can metabolize carbs efficiently, why change it? Those with sluggish metabolisms and endurance athletes may benefit from such a change, but other people require something different. Weight gain, not fat loss, is a problem for them.

Another thing that a lot of people don't realize is that most low-carb diets were intended for and researched using diabetics and endurance athletes. These individuals have different problems and dietary needs than most bodybuilders and strength athletes. So why are these bodybuilders and strength athletes following diets not intended for them? What's more, why are some endurance athletes, such as runners, following the bullshit diets presented in most bodybuilding mags?

Putting it all in perspective

Now, before those of you who've had great success using a low-carb dietary approach get ready to string me up from the nearest tree, let me say that I do think that the low-carb diet is a valid and valuable dietary approach. For some individuals, particularly those who have trouble metabolizing carbs or who have problems with insulin sensitivity, a low-carb diet is most likely the best thing. The problem is that a lot of people, especially naturally lean bodybuilders and strength and power athletes, will not benefit from such an approach.

Let me also say that this is far from a call for "the good old days" when carbs made up 80% or more of an athlete's diet. It's all about perspective. Bodybuilders and athletes started to read about some of the negative effects associated with chronic carb overdosing, and they subconsciously cut out most of their dietary carbs.

I have spoken with athletes who thought that they were getting plenty of carbs through their vegetables and rice. When these same athletes finally counted how many carb grams they were consuming, they found out that they were lucky to get 150 grams a day, or less than 25% of their total calories. Without realizing it, they had slowly dropped most of the carbs from their diet and ate primarily protein, instead.

Most sports science experts will agree that one gram of protein per pound of bodyweight is usually sufficient for a hard-training athlete to maintain positive nitrogen balance. Normally, this will come out to 25-30% of an athlete's total caloric intake. Any more than this is unnecessary and potentially counterproductive. Your body will have to expend energy to turn some of that protein into glucose for fuel and then into fat for storage, if necessary. That energy could be put to a much better use, like recovery and growth.

Much like steroids, the more you use it, the less sensitive you are to it — only, in this case, the "it" is protein. Several authors have touched on the merits of protein cycling and, from this viewpoint, the consistent use of a high-protein diet is actually detrimental to a bodybuilder's and strength athlete's goals, in the long run. If you feel that you're always on a heavy training cycle and need that extra protein all of the time, either learn to properly periodize your training, or get ready to take some time off for when you eventually injure yourself and/or hit the point of severe overtraining.

Putting it into practice

So what does all of this mean? I'm not suggesting that you eat a ton of carbs, but I am suggesting not to eat a ton of protein all of the time, either. I've said that I believe that a low-carb diet is a viable option for some, and yet I've also said that I feel that too many people follow such a diet. So which is it?

Well, my friend, there is something called a middle ground that few people find but is usually the best approach. In this case, the middle ground is somewhere between having carbs comprise 80% of your total calories and having them only make up 20% of your total calories. My personal feeling is that most strength and power athletes and some bodybuilders should have between 50-60% of their total calories coming from carbs, 20-30% coming from a variety of quality proteins, and 20% coming from fats, especially the essential fatty acids.

Why most strength and power athletes and only some bodybuilders? Strength and power athletes are worried primarily about performance, not physique. As I pointed out earlier, a higher-carb diet and the metabolism associated with it is more conducive to performance in events and activities that require a large portion of energy to be delivered via the anaerobic pathways of muscular energetics, such as the vast majority of strength and power sports.

Bodybuilders, on the other hand, are worried more about how their physique appears than how well it performs. While the majority of their activities in the gym are also anaerobic, minimal bodyfat is usually a primary concern and, in this case, a metabolism that burns fat efficiently would be a benefit.

However, there are still some bodybuilders who would benefit from the higher-carb approach. Who are these individuals? In my opinion, there are two types of bodybuilders who would get the most from higher carbs. The first type is the individual who is naturally very lean. This person has never had to worry about fat loss, even before he started to work out, because he has a very high metabolism. His training goals usually revolve around weight gain and, in this case, the higher ratio of carbs will keep his metabolism from rising even higher by not forcing it to expend energy converting protein to glucose and fat. Besides higher-carb calories, the "hardgainer" ectomorph-type also needs higher calories, period. Carbs are the easiest and cheapest way to get these extra calories, and without those extra calories, the weight gain just ain't gonna' happen!

The second type of bodybuilder that would benefit from higher carbs is along the same line. Although he has to worry about gaining fat from time to time, he still wants to put on some mass. In this case, a cycling of a higher-protein, lower-carb diet and a lower-protein, higher-carb diet would work best.

Keeping it in perspective, though, this isn't a suggestion for the old tradition of "bulking up." There's no real benefit to letting your bodyfat percentage climb to unsightly and unhealthy levels. If you're currently 12% bodyfat and want to gain some mass, give yourself an upper limit of 15% bodyfat. Once you reach that level, you'll know that it's time to go back to a lower-carb, fat-burning diet. That way, you can consistently add muscle and yet remain fairly lean.

Too many bodybuilders today want to always sit on that fence between gaining weight and losing fat. Although it's possible to gain muscle and lose fat at the same time, you will never be able to maximize either if you don't eventually get your oscillating ass off of that fence.

The main point that I would like to drive home: think about your dietary approach. If you're a strength and power athlete who gets 30-40% or less of your calories from carbs, you might want to consider that a higher-carb diet and the metabolism associated with it might be more specific to your sport or event. If you're a naturally lean bodybuilder or have been following a lower-carb approach recently and are frustrated with your lack of muscular gains, consider a higher-carb diet to add some mass.

The key word here is "perspective." Somewhere between the super high-carb diet and the super low-carb diet is a middle ground that we should all try to find. That middle ground will be different for all of us, but hopefully, this article has given you some fuel for thought and the motivation to find yours.

About the author

James Wilson is the owner of Wilson's Fitness Systems — a personal and athletic training and consulting business in Santa Barbara, California (805-880-4925). He's certified through ISSA in the following areas:

• Performance nutrition
• Fitness therapy
• Sports conditioning
• Aerobic fitness training
• Water fitness training
• Youth fitness training
• Martial arts conditioning

He's also the assistant editor of the ISSA Specialist in Performance Nutrition text, third edition, and a competitive track athlete in the 400-meter (best time 49 seconds) and 800-meter (best time 114 seconds) events. Send an email to wilfitsys@hotmail.com to contact him regarding online training.
 

Well, T-mag readers, what do you think? Are you ready to give James a big "high five," hoist him up on your shoulders, and parade him around the gym as the new voice of sanity in sports nutrition? Or would you rather lock him a tiny cell and force-feed him those nasty-tasting Atkins protein bars until he's forced into a ketogenic coma? You make the call.