'Don't eat carbs at night' BS busted as nonsense

[Cumulonimbus]

No reason to be so f**kin nasty or over-generalizing. Am well aware of glycogen stores and tho I may be old, unlike most of my peers, I don't sit on my azz, my cardio 5 days/wk is pre-meal 1 and the 3rd of 6 daily meals is 1 hr prior to my afternoon workout (4 days/wk), except for training once wk with my natural pro bb coach.

WTF is your problem? I wasn't nasty at all.

Are you that sensitive to your friends around you who swear jokingly?

Also, I don't care what cookie cutter plan your natural BB coach is giving you.

[andyboi]

I've lost around 4kg so far on my cut eating carbs after 6pm and whenever the fk I choose to.

[Ghosting]

WTF is your problem? I wasn't nasty at all.

I didn't think you were being nasty either, at all.

[StaticZ]

I eat about a third of my carbs after 11pm 5x a week. Go to bed a little after midnight.

[HoustonTXMuscle]

WTF is your problem? I wasn't nasty at all.

Are you that sensitive to your friends around you who swear jokingly?

Also, I don't care what cookie cutter plan your natural BB coach is giving you.

My original question was intended for Layne and I wanted an explanation from the standpoint of physiology. You pipe in with a one-liner with nothing to back it up. BTW, am not using a cookie cutter meal plan, nor has it been forulated by my coach (despite weekly checks).

[Bnizzle163]

I eat about a third of my carbs after 11pm 5x a week. Go to bed a little after midnight.

This.

During prep, I would save a lot of carbs and fats for pre-bed. Still had glute striations

[bazzi]

I've lost around 4kg so far on my cut eating carbs after 6pm and whenever the fk I choose to.

Pretty easy to lose bodyfat and hold muscle, while eating more when your on cell tech son.

[J_dazzle23]

Pretty easy to lose bodyfat and hold muscle, while eating more when your on cell tech son.

Having more test in your system does not change wether you eat carbs at night or in the morning. And wether or not on celltech or not, you still need a calorie deficit to lose Bodyfat.

*although not discrediting, it does help maintain mass on a cut. Did this guy say he juices?

[bazzi]

Having more test in your system does not change wether you eat carbs at night or in the morning. And wether or not on celltech or not, you still need a calorie deficit to lose Bodyfat.

When you have unnatural test levels you dont need to find that sweet spot cause its impossible to lose lean mass.

When youre natural you have to find the fine line of losing more fat then lean mass while you drop weight.

If you are droping weight while on hormones, its 100% fat.

[J_dazzle23]

When you have unnatural test levels you dont need to find that sweet spot cause its impossible to lose lean mass.

When youre natural you have to find the fine line of losing more fat then lean mass while you drop weight.

If you are droping weight while on hormones, its 100% fat.

The body is not selective in its needs, it also breaks down protein and carbohydrate stores, when you are in a calorie deficit, unless you are on a serious mega cycle. You may lose less lean mass, but you will still have the body degrading protein stores to meet energy needs, the longer you have a negative calorie balance. I have seen this in many npc atheletes(that are obviously not on the grams and grams of celltech that a pro would be on).

Granted, with extreme cycles, you are right, but I highly doubt this is the case for the poster that you quoted.

I am also missing the point. Are you inferring that being on celltech changes what time of day that you can eat carbs and not store them as fat?

Not trying to ruffle your feathers, just asking for clarification.

[StaticZ]

When you have unnatural test levels you dont need to find that sweet spot cause its impossible to lose lean mass.

When youre natural you have to find the fine line of losing more fat then lean mass while you drop weight.

If you are droping weight while on hormones, its 100% fat.

I guess since you don't believe in science, you must have reached this conclusion based on first hand experience...

[bazzi]

The body is not selective in its needs, it also breaks down protein and carbohydrate stores, when you are in a calorie deficit, unless you are on a serious mega cycle. You may lose less lean mass, but you will still have the body degrading protein stores to meet energy needs, the longer you have a negative calorie balance. I have seen this in many npc atheletes(that are obviously not on the grams and grams of celltech that a pro would be on).

Granted, with extreme cycles, you are right, but I highly doubt this is the case for the poster that you quoted.

I am also missing the point. Are you inferring that being on celltech changes what time of day that you can eat carbs and not store them as fat?

Not trying to ruffle your feathers, just asking for clarification.

No I am saying that if you are training and eating maitenence or even a little over you are not gaining any fat period.

[bazzi]

I guess since you don't believe in science, you must have reached this conclusion based on first hand experience...

Not yet

[J_dazzle23]

No I am saying that if you are training and eating maitenence or even a little over you are not gaining any fat period.

Not being a dick, but I'm gonna have to disagree with you on that one. Plausible at maintenance, yes, but if you eat over maintenance, and only gained muscle, and no fat, we would have 5 different guys in every gym across America going for their pro card. Hate to break it to ya, but steroids do not make it that much of a walk in the park, with the exception of a few genetically blessed individuals whose response to hormones is very excellent, and are running extreme amounts of oils, and hgh. It sounds like you have been reading up gh15.

[AustrianOakJr]

You can always tell when someone is talking out of their ass when they begin their argument with name-calling and general dickory. Way to go, Bazzi. The old "it works for me" arguement. Seriously?

Well, at least its entertaining.

[str8flexed]

Pretty easy to lose bodyfat and hold muscle, while eating more when your on cell tech son.

'cell tech' causes metabolism to work in reverse

SCIENCE!

[J_dazzle23]

'cell tech' causes metabolism to work in reverse

SCIENCE!

couldn't have said it better myself.

[Milone79]

Not yet

Do you just troll threads so you can accuse people of teching??...u are one insecure, idiotic P.O.S. please go already and stay gone!!

[Milone79]

You can always tell when someone is talking out of their ass when they begin their argument with name-calling and general dickory. Way to go, Bazzi. The old "it works for me" arguement. Seriously?

Well, at least its entertaining.

Yeah Bazzi chimed in on one of my threads and accused me of being on the tech becuase...wait for it... I have a receding hairline...now that sure sounds like scientific proof to me....the guy is a loser plain and simple!

[Cumulonimbus]

When you have unnatural test levels you dont need to find that sweet spot cause its impossible to lose lean mass.

When youre natural you have to find the fine line of losing more fat then lean mass while you drop weight.

If you are droping weight while on hormones, its 100% fat.

You gotta be fukcing yourself over pretty hard to lose a significant amount of LBM while dieting and non-enhanced.

[tagun]

No I am saying that if you are training and eating maitenence or even a little over you are not gaining any fat period.

If you're eating a little over your true maintenance then it's logically impossible not to gain fat. You're obviously not gaining pure lean mass 24/7 every month of every year while in a calorie surplus, otherwise you'd be 300 pounds of pure muscle in a few years... So it's kinda obvious you're ALWAYS gaining a mixture of fat, muscle, water, glycogen (as your storage capabilities are increasing with increasing amount of muscle mass) and you obviously also start growing your tendons, veins etc. when gaining muscle/fat. All of that combined (except fat) is Lean Body Mass.

[ChristianBBer]

Don't know how you guys can major in Biochemistry, Molecular Nutrition etc..

I just read a book about the difficulties in Molecular Nutrition. Where we can only guess what vitamins do because everything works in synergy with one another. Isolating certain vitamins/minerals , studying them will prove different outcomes as opposed to combining vitamins with one another. This doesn't even factor in the physiological state of the person consuming them.

All I gotta say is Props for undertaking that task of comprehension.

[AustrianOakJr]

Yeah Bazzi chimed in on one of my threads and accused me of being on the tech becuase...wait for it... I have a receding hairline...now that sure sounds like scientific proof to me....the guy is a loser plain and simple!

Well if a receding hairline is the give-away, I guess im busted BIGTIME. Heck, pass the syringe!

[bazzi]

Fact: Y'all are mad.

Fiction: Someone in this thread actually knows what they are talking about.

[HoustonTXMuscle]

Fact: Y'all are mad.

Fiction: Someone in this thread actually knows what they are talking about.

OkayI'll bite and prove you wrong. Let's get back to the abstract in the OP. I'll play the mad/crazy scientist or better yet the devil's advocate with the caveat that I'm rather new to bodybuilding. Will admit that I've only read the abstract and have not gone to the med library in the Texas Med Ctr to pull and read the full article. I have several issues with the abstract. Although, I previously raised the issue of compliance of the individuals in both groups, for all intents and purposes will not argue that point again, except to point out that a human study conducted off site is prone to problems. The main issue that I have is that the individuals in both groups were obese (>30 BMI). In my mind that translates into unhealthy individuals and aside from all the other variables (age, smoking, alcohol consumption, etc) there are other considerations such as presence/risk for hypertension, diabetes, CVD, stroke, etc. Thus, the first question that I'll raise is how in the world can extrapolate the observations to healthy bb or athletes with much lower BMI's, ignoring whether they're on a maintenance, bulking or cutting meal plan with weight distributed or undistributed carbs? And, in turn, brush this off as BS. There are just too many variables to do so. There's also no mention in the abstract regarding what statistical applications (Cox regression, etc.) were used to adjust for all the variables. What does "(carbohydrates eaten mostly at dinner)" mean? Late night, just before bed or between 7 and 9 p.m.? Being a molecular immunologist, I'm puzzled as to why they looked at the cytokines (TNF and IL-6) considering risk factors in both groups. Perhaps to give the study more of a molecular twist? The only result that seems concrete in the abstract is: "The experimental diet modified daily leptin and adiponectin concentrations..." Another point that I'd like to raise, going back to the OP is: what is the basis for the hypothesis or speculation that many nutritionists use for stating that one should not eat carbs late at night? Many of them treat this as theory rather than hypothesis. Questioning colleagues (3 of them nutritionists) in the Med Ctr, I've yet to get a definitive answer. Overall, I found the concluding 3 sentences rather hedgy and definitely not very stong with a phrase such as: ". It might also be beneficial for..." Perhaps the article constitutes evidence in favor of theory, but not in my mind.

[J_dazzle23]

Fact: Y'all are mad.

Fiction: Someone in this thread actually knows what they are talking about.

Fact: Imnotmad.jpg.

Fiction: You can provide me with a science based study that shows that you somehow do not add "any bodyfat, period" when eating at a calorie surplus, when testosterone levels are unnaturally high.

[bazzi]

Yeah Bazzi chimed in on one of my threads and accused me of being on the tech becuase...wait for it... I have a receding hairline...now that sure sounds like scientific proof to me....the guy is a loser plain and simple!

Open Challenge to you is still open.

Fact: Imnotmad.jpg.

Fiction: You can provide me with a science based study that shows that you somehow do not add "any bodyfat, period" when eating at a calorie surplus, when testosterone levels are unnaturally high.

You have been fooled and either getting fake stuff, or have a horrible diet if you get fat while taking drugs.


How about we keep it on topic. And that is the fact that some natural people like myself cant eat carbs at night with any benefit whatsoever especially if they train in the AM. Because their workouts suffer therefore they dont train intensely enough to keep their LBM on a calorie defeceit. They even lose it and have it replace with fat if they eat most of their carbs only at night as opposed to around their workouts. Seen it happen in as just as many people as it doesnt matter. Study is completely useless to me, others here have agreed. The ones that seem to agree with it are on juice. The others that disagree are the other 50% the study applies to. Simple as that.

[str8flexed]

bazzi, you should obviously come and run a lab, i'm sure you could put much better studies together than experts. Tell you what, I'll take over your bank branch while you do it. I mean your just managing a bank. I manage my own check book, a bank should be a piece of cake

[bazzi]

bazzi, you should obviously come and run a lab, i'm sure you could put much better studies together than experts. Tell you what, I'll take over your bank branch while you do it. I mean your just managing a bank. I manage my own check book, a bank should be a piece of cake

May I suggest you convert to a new platform. Check books are so early 90s. We have new time effective ways now. Although they wont spot human input errors, they do remove human calculation errors. I am sure you would do alright though, it isn't that hard.

The Robert H. Smith Faculty of Agriculture, Food and Environment, Institute of Biochemistry and Food Science, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Rehovot, Israel [2] Meuhedet Medical Services, Diet and Nutrition Department, Israel.

I am sure the way they do studies in the country of israel differs from how they run labs here too btw.

When are you going to get me a study that proves taking larger doses of BCAAs over extended periods of time will interfere with the balance of other amino acids. Which can be but isnt limited to causing deficiencies in these important amino acids. Which of course are extremely important to the body and its processes. I mean yeah sure taking large doses of BCAAs may help improve protein synethesis, but at the cost of what?

[HoustonTXMuscle]

When are you going to get me a study that proves taking larger doses of BCAAs over extended periods of time will interfere with the balance of other amino acids. Which can be but isnt limited to causing deficiencies in these important amino acids. Which of course are extremely important to the body and its processes. I mean yeah sure taking large doses of BCAAs may help improve protein synethesis, but at the cost of what?

Perhaps the following abstract (although older) will get you get off a subject that you know little, at best, about. Realize that it's in animals, however, as hard as it may be, work your way through the first sentence.

4th Amino Acid Assessment Workshop
Tolerance for Branched-Chain Amino Acids in Experimental Animals and Humans1
David H. Baker2
Department of Animal Sciences and Division of Nutritional Sciences, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61801
ABSTRACT
There is no good evidence for establishing branched-chain amino acid (BCAA) tolerance levels for humans. With pigs, chicks, and rats, data are available concerning excessive intake levels of BCAA, but most of the information is for growing animals instead of for adults. Estimates of maintenance requirements for (high-quality) protein and BCAA in pigs weighing between 43 and 140 kg are 350 mg • kg–1 • d–1 for protein and 28.7 mg • kg–1 • d–1 for total BCAA. In contrast, human adult maintenance requirement estimates are much higher, i.e., 660 mg • kg–1 • d–1 for good quality protein and a range of 68 to 144 mg • kg–1 • d–1 for total BCAA. The human maintenance BCAA requirement estimates range from 10.3 to 22% of the maintenance protein requirement. Whole-body protein of 45-kg pigs contains 14.2 g BCAA/100 g protein, but the maintenance requirement (based on nitrogen balance) for total BCAA is only 8.2% of the total maintenance protein requirement. Conversely, sulfur amino acid (methionine + cysteine), threonine, and tryptophan maintenance requirements of pigs as a percentage of the maintenance protein requirement are much higher than whole-body protein levels of these amino acids. This suggests that the efficiency of using absorbed amino acids of dietary origin or of reusing endogenous amino acids arising from body protein catabolism may vary considerably among the indispensable amino acids. Additionally, work with pigs points to the conclusion that whole-body amino acid concentrations are poor predictors of both maintenance requirements and ideal amino acid profiles. Based on studies with young experimental animals, a rather large dietary excess (above requirement) of an individual BCAA is well tolerated when consumed in diets containing surfeit levels of protein and the other 2 BCAA.