Why do all these ifbb pros all have such bro diets?

[MikeK46]

Certain types of white rice and potatoes can actually have a GI of ~100. I'd say the label fast digesting is appropriate.

Glucose, a monosaccharide, was given a GI reference point of 100 because no digestion is necessary. It's simply absorbed. Rice is 75% starch (polysaccharides that may contain up to several thousand glucose units joined by glycosidic bonds) and therefore requires plenty of digestion. It is most certainly a much slower digesting carbohydrate, as are potatoes.

GI is a completely outdated, flawed, and useless metric from the 1980's that tells us nothing about anything. They fed fasted subjects 50 grams of a caborhydrate-containing food, in isolation, and measured the area under the curve of the subjects' blood sugar levels over two hours.

[Mrpb]

Glucose, a monosaccharide, was given a GI reference point of 100 because no digestion is necessary. It's simply absorbed. Rice is 75% starch (polysaccharides that may contain up to several thousand glucose units joined by glycosidic bonds) and therefore requires plenty of digestion. It is most certainly a much slower digesting carbohydrate, as are potatoes.

Slower and faster are relative terms. For a carbohydrate to reach a GI of 100 it has to be digested relatively fast, faster than carbohydrates with fiber such as brown rice or whole oats.

[ezjax]

I dare anyone to eat 5-6000 calories of chicken breast vegetables and rice..

Try it and tell me you think it's possible that guys eating that many calories or more are eating Those foods every day.

[Silencespeaks]

Maybe to prevent bloating with water weight? Idk I love IIFYM myself and will never eat clean but I'm just a casual lifter and don't compete.

I know what you mean though because I used to go to a small "hardcore" private gym with a lot of competitors and they were all about clean eating. Tried to have a discussion about IIFYM once and that did not go over well lol.

[MikeK46]

Slower and faster are relative terms. For a carbohydrate to reach a GI of 100 it has to be digested relatively fast, faster than carbohydrates with fiber such as brown rice or whole oats.

While the fiber in brown rice does slow digestion a bit, white rice is still a complex carb (just without as much fiber) and therefore still takes plenty of time to digest. That's why I don't believe there is any rice or potato that will have a GI anywhere near glucose. Of course, GI is completely useless in the real world because we're usually not in a fasted state and we usually eat mixed meals. Combine white rice with a protein source (e.g. chicken or beef) and a side of fibrous veg, and there's very little difference in digestion speed of that meal versus what the digestion speed would be if the meal contained brown rice instead of white. Nothing fast digesting here. Quite the opposite.

And because it's about meeting your total daily fiber requirement with respect to your total calorie intake, not every single ingredient in every single meal needs to be in the form that provides the highest possible amount of fiber. Assuming the total diet as a whole meets nutrient requirements, having a meal with white rice is no less healthy than having it with brown rice. The whole thing with brown rice always being the better or healthier option is simply false. There are even downsides to brown rice, as shown with peer reviewed research. Brown rice actually reduces protein digestibility as well as nitrogen retention when compared with white rice.

[Mrpb]

white rice is still a complex carb (just without as much fiber)

I'm well aware of what complex carbs are. I'm also well aware of the limitations of the GI index. I'm even aware of that old brown rice study you're referring to. None of that changes the fact that some complex carbs digest a lot faster than other complex carbs. Some simple carbs like fruit can also digest slower than certain complex carbs. And while adding protein and fat does impact digestion speed, some carbs still digest slower than others even when eaten with fat and protein.

[WillBrink]

If u watch any ifbb pros diets most of them consists of lot of veggies, meats and basically just a lot of "clean" foods. Why would they eat like this lol. Don't they know that there's no such thing as clean or junk foods?

From Body Building Myths That Must Die!

Myth #2: “Pros eat ‘clean’ all year round”

This myth can be blamed squarely on the bodybuilding publications who want the readers to think their heroes eat low fat healthy “clean” foods year round. This has often led to newbie types attempting to get all the calories they require for growth from baked chicken, rice, and vegetables. Of course getting – say – 4000 plus calories (or more) from such foods is virtually impossible. This reality often leaves the newbie confused and depressed because he’s not making any appreciable gains attempting to stuff himself to death with foods that are low in calories. It’s very difficult to get 4000, 5000, or even 6000 calories a day from chicken and rice. Now for the reality: off-season I have sat across the table from many a pro eating cheeseburgers, pizza, and apple pie. I know one pro who used to pull over anytime he saw a Taco Bell. Big people require plenty of calories and calorie-dense foods are the only way to get them. As the late, great Dan Duchaine once said regarding off-season eating for growth: “don’t feel bad you ate a cheeseburger, feel bad you didn’t eat three!”

Now I can’t comment on every pro’s diet as I don’t know them all, and I am sure some of them have cleaner diets then others off-season. However, make no mistake: the articles you read about what pros eat off-season and what they really eat are often two different things.

As sort of an ancillary myth, most pros will carry more body fat than they claim off-season when trying to gain new muscle mass. Telling people they eat at Taco Bell and are above single-digit body fat levels does not sell magazines or supplements, so it pays to perpetuate the myth that they are hard as nails all year (with a few exceptions) and always eat “clean”.

Cont:

http://www.brinkzone.com/articles/bo...that-must-die/

[Gloryhound]

People also need to remember that all those competing in the IFBB are not 200+ pound monsters. Let us face the fact that probably 99%+ of the population does not have the genetics or drive to naturally be over 200 lbs and get to 5% body fat.

The IFBB has multiple weight classes all the way down to (if memory serves me right) 135 lbs or less. even at 150 lbs if I ate more than 3000 calories a day I would get fat, even if it was all "clean" food. With that said most Men that are new to weight lifting and sculpting are probably over 18% BF if not 25% and the last place they should start is eating a 4000 calorie or more diet a day. At best they may eat a maintenance for the first couple of months to take advantage of newbie gains and that would only be for someone on the leaner side of a newbie.

Granted of course if the general public understood that their genetics will not naturally let them be a 200+ pound monster they see in the ads all the companies selling useless supplements wouldn't be making what they are. (Yes, I too am guilty of supporting the supplement industry when I was new.) The sooner people realize this the sooner they can actually work on the best their body can be instead of a marketed ideal of what body builders all have to look like.

[rhadam]

People also need to remember that all those competing in the IFBB are not 200+ pound monsters. Let us face the fact that probably 99%+ of the population does not have the genetics or drive to naturally be over 200 lbs and get to 5% body fat.

The IFBB has multiple weight classes all the way down to (if memory serves me right) 135 lbs or less. even at 150 lbs if I ate more than 3000 calories a day I would get fat, even if it was all "clean" food. With that said most Men that are new to weight lifting and sculpting are probably over 18% BF if not 25% and the last place they should start is eating a 4000 calorie or more diet a day. At best they may eat a maintenance for the first couple of months to take advantage of newbie gains and that would only be for someone on the leaner side of a newbie.

Granted of course if the general public understood that their genetics will not naturally let them be a 200+ pound monster they see in the ads all the companies selling useless supplements wouldn't be making what they are. (Yes, I too am guilty of supporting the supplement industry when I was new.) The sooner people realize this the sooner they can actually work on the best their body can be instead of a marketed ideal of what body builders all have to look like.

There isn't a single IFBB competitor that is natural. Your post is irrelevant.

[Gloryhound]

There isn't a single IFBB competitor that is natural. Your post is irrelevant.

Didn't think I was allowed to be that blunt about the topic, but I guess as long as I don't use the key words it is all good?

[OT2000]

Many pros do not have a bro diet unless it’s time to cut for a show. And when you’re a professional bodybuilder at that level, you most certainly have to be careful of what/how to eat etc. Which doesn’t apply to 99% of people.

That said, I like the diet of one pro, Evan Centopani. Some of it is bro as can be however I like his desire to consume as many micronutrient dense food along with his meals.

[MikeK46]

I'm well aware of what complex carbs are. I'm also well aware of the limitations of the GI index. I'm even aware of that old brown rice study you're referring to. None of that changes the fact that some complex carbs digest a lot faster than other complex carbs.

Of course. But like I said, I personally still wouldn't call them "fast digesting" because I reserve that description for the fastest digesting group of carbs, the simple ones. The faster of the "slow digesting" complex ones are still relatively slow in my book.

Some simple carbs like fruit can also digest slower than certain complex carbs.

This is where we have to make a clarification. As I'm sure you're well aware, a food isn't a carb, or a protein, or a fat, but rather a collection of water and all macronutrients (e.g. a fruit contains both simple as well as complex carbs, a little protein, a little fat, a lot of water), which all affect digestion. Two, are you taking serving sizes into account? For example, a 100g apple contains about 14g digestible carbs. Are you comparing that to 26g oats (14g digestible carbs) or 100g oats (55g digestible carbs) when you say the fruit will digest slower? Big difference there, because it may digest slower than 26g oats, but will digest considerably faster than 100g oats.