Reply
Results 1 to 14 of 14
  1. #1
    Registered User AD1985's Avatar
    Join Date: Jun 2007
    Location: Thailand
    Age: 33
    Posts: 1,033
    Rep Power: 971
    AD1985 is a jewel in the rough. (+500) AD1985 is a jewel in the rough. (+500) AD1985 is a jewel in the rough. (+500) AD1985 is a jewel in the rough. (+500) AD1985 is a jewel in the rough. (+500) AD1985 is a jewel in the rough. (+500) AD1985 is a jewel in the rough. (+500) AD1985 is a jewel in the rough. (+500) AD1985 is a jewel in the rough. (+500) AD1985 is a jewel in the rough. (+500) AD1985 is a jewel in the rough. (+500)
    AD1985 is offline

    Does replenishing glyocen slow down fat loss?

    When I take a week or even a day to eat at maintenance I feel more energized the days after. This is also true at the beginning of a cut. I understand this is because the body isn't glycogen depleted.

    I have some disclarity here. If I'm eating at true maintenance I'm not gaining weight. But if glycogen is replenished and then depleted again through a caloric deficit, that seems to imply glycogen is being burned in place of more fat.

    Is this correct or does replenishing glycogen have only positives?
    Reply With Quote

  2. #2
    pay the iron price SuffolkPunch's Avatar
    Join Date: Jan 2007
    Location: Suffolk, United Kingdom (Great Britain)
    Posts: 48,004
    Rep Power: 1256615
    SuffolkPunch has the mod powerz SuffolkPunch has the mod powerz SuffolkPunch has the mod powerz SuffolkPunch has the mod powerz SuffolkPunch has the mod powerz SuffolkPunch has the mod powerz SuffolkPunch has the mod powerz SuffolkPunch has the mod powerz SuffolkPunch has the mod powerz SuffolkPunch has the mod powerz SuffolkPunch has the mod powerz
    SuffolkPunch is offline
    Think about what you are asking - does CICO somehow not apply in these circumstances? Of course not. If you were low in glycogen before then you were losing fat at a faster rate. That rate will reduce once you ingest carbohydrates. But the timing you apply to these things is irrelevant given the same total intake/expenditure.

    There are no hacks or shortcuts.
    Reply With Quote

  3. #3
    Registered User rtpmarine's Avatar
    Join Date: Jun 2019
    Posts: 223
    Rep Power: 1315
    rtpmarine is just really nice. (+1000) rtpmarine is just really nice. (+1000) rtpmarine is just really nice. (+1000) rtpmarine is just really nice. (+1000) rtpmarine is just really nice. (+1000) rtpmarine is just really nice. (+1000) rtpmarine is just really nice. (+1000) rtpmarine is just really nice. (+1000) rtpmarine is just really nice. (+1000) rtpmarine is just really nice. (+1000) rtpmarine is just really nice. (+1000)
    rtpmarine is offline
    Think of it as if glycogen is your checking account and fat stores are your long-term savings account. Your paycheck is set to direct deposit into your checking account, but when the checking account gets too big your bank moves some money into your savings account for you. Likewise, if your checking account gets too low then your bank offers overdraft protection that automatically pulls money from your savings account.

    In terms of how much total money you have in the bank, the thing that matters is how much you’re putting in vs. how much you’re taking out. The size of the two accounts relative to one another doesn’t matter as much, but maybe every now and then you want your checking account to be loaded up so you can buy some expensive item (a long, hard workout perhaps).
    Reply With Quote

  4. #4
    Registered User hardyboysare's Avatar
    Join Date: Oct 2018
    Age: 49
    Posts: 2,995
    Rep Power: 22230
    hardyboysare has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) hardyboysare has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) hardyboysare has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) hardyboysare has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) hardyboysare has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) hardyboysare has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) hardyboysare has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) hardyboysare has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) hardyboysare has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) hardyboysare has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) hardyboysare has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000)
    hardyboysare is offline
    Only positives for most healthy individuals.

    I would argue that having adequate glycogen stores are beneficial therefore in relation superior for most people when trying to lose fat. This is from having more available energy to perform your giving exercise with greater exertion as your body prefers glycogen use over anything else. Likewise your overall decrease in NEAT may be less effected by having extra energy available at hand through the regular replenishment of muscle glycogen.

    However as always individual differences do play a big part.

    Fat loss is controlled by calories not your stores of glycogen.
    Last edited by hardyboysare; 12-03-2019 at 08:04 AM.
    Reply With Quote

  5. #5
    Registered User AD1985's Avatar
    Join Date: Jun 2007
    Location: Thailand
    Age: 33
    Posts: 1,033
    Rep Power: 971
    AD1985 is a jewel in the rough. (+500) AD1985 is a jewel in the rough. (+500) AD1985 is a jewel in the rough. (+500) AD1985 is a jewel in the rough. (+500) AD1985 is a jewel in the rough. (+500) AD1985 is a jewel in the rough. (+500) AD1985 is a jewel in the rough. (+500) AD1985 is a jewel in the rough. (+500) AD1985 is a jewel in the rough. (+500) AD1985 is a jewel in the rough. (+500) AD1985 is a jewel in the rough. (+500)
    AD1985 is offline
    Originally Posted by SuffolkPunch View Post
    Think about what you are asking - does CICO somehow not apply in these circumstances? Of course not. If you were low in glycogen before then you were losing fat at a faster rate. That rate will reduce once you ingest carbohydrates. But the timing you apply to these things is irrelevant given the same total intake/expenditure.

    There are no hacks or shortcuts.
    Based on what you said though, it seems like eating once/week at maintenance is a hack:

    1) I eat at maintenance on one day
    2) From experience I have extra 2-3 days of feeling relatively energized (3-4 days total)
    3) Fat loss isn't affected overall other than on the eat-at-maintenance day. So I've slowed the cut by 1 out of 7 days, and got to feel decent half the week.

    I'm contemplating slowing down my cut this way. It seems to result in a subjectively better experience and make things more manageable. IMO that's worth a 14% slowdown
    Reply With Quote

  6. #6
    pay the iron price SuffolkPunch's Avatar
    Join Date: Jan 2007
    Location: Suffolk, United Kingdom (Great Britain)
    Posts: 48,004
    Rep Power: 1256615
    SuffolkPunch has the mod powerz SuffolkPunch has the mod powerz SuffolkPunch has the mod powerz SuffolkPunch has the mod powerz SuffolkPunch has the mod powerz SuffolkPunch has the mod powerz SuffolkPunch has the mod powerz SuffolkPunch has the mod powerz SuffolkPunch has the mod powerz SuffolkPunch has the mod powerz SuffolkPunch has the mod powerz
    SuffolkPunch is offline
    Individual experiments are always problematic because of measurement errors and confirmation bias.

    Try eating the same average calories every day - probably get the same results over long enough time frame.
    Reply With Quote

  7. #7
    Train hard play harder Tommy W.'s Avatar
    Join Date: Feb 2006
    Age: 67
    Posts: 16,561
    Rep Power: 74866
    Tommy W. has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Tommy W. has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Tommy W. has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Tommy W. has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Tommy W. has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Tommy W. has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Tommy W. has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Tommy W. has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Tommy W. has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Tommy W. has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Tommy W. has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000)
    Tommy W. is offline
    Glycogen stores affect weight loss\gain (water) but not fat loss\gain unless glycogen stores are full then it shifts to fat gain however your weekly calories will determine fat gain\loss and not a daily fluctuation of glycogen stores
    If you don't get what you want you didn't want it bad enough
    Reply With Quote

  8. #8
    Registered User John Prophet's Avatar
    Join Date: Oct 2005
    Age: 52
    Posts: 15,946
    Rep Power: 10126
    John Prophet is a name known to all. (+5000) John Prophet is a name known to all. (+5000) John Prophet is a name known to all. (+5000) John Prophet is a name known to all. (+5000) John Prophet is a name known to all. (+5000) John Prophet is a name known to all. (+5000) John Prophet is a name known to all. (+5000) John Prophet is a name known to all. (+5000) John Prophet is a name known to all. (+5000) John Prophet is a name known to all. (+5000) John Prophet is a name known to all. (+5000)
    John Prophet is offline
    so myself, I started a cut on 10-11-19. I was 241.2 that morning @ 32.7%

    today, almost 8 weeks later, I am 229.0 % 30.9%

    Ignoring the fact that my lowest carb day has probably been 235ish, just the fact that I am this fat, arent I basically going to be glycogenated at all times more or less?? lol In other words lets say today I cut out almost all my carbs and I did 2 hard workouts. Wont my body reglycogenate from my massive fat stores anyway? (or is that perhaps more of a two day thing?)

    Im pretty sure this is also related to why, being a fat person for quite some time now, that even if I am losing 1.3-1.5lbs per week, I have no sensation of hunger nor have I for years lol. Hell, a few years back when i was still out of the gym I got a wild hair and went on 2000 then 1800 calories for a year and went from 259 to 199 over that year and was never hungry once lol
    "Humility comes before honor"
    Reply With Quote

  9. #9
    Registered User AD1985's Avatar
    Join Date: Jun 2007
    Location: Thailand
    Age: 33
    Posts: 1,033
    Rep Power: 971
    AD1985 is a jewel in the rough. (+500) AD1985 is a jewel in the rough. (+500) AD1985 is a jewel in the rough. (+500) AD1985 is a jewel in the rough. (+500) AD1985 is a jewel in the rough. (+500) AD1985 is a jewel in the rough. (+500) AD1985 is a jewel in the rough. (+500) AD1985 is a jewel in the rough. (+500) AD1985 is a jewel in the rough. (+500) AD1985 is a jewel in the rough. (+500) AD1985 is a jewel in the rough. (+500)
    AD1985 is offline
    Originally Posted by John Prophet View Post
    so myself, I started a cut on 10-11-19. I was 241.2 that morning @ 32.7%

    today, almost 8 weeks later, I am 229.0 % 30.9%

    Ignoring the fact that my lowest carb day has probably been 235ish, just the fact that I am this fat, arent I basically going to be glycogenated at all times more or less?? lol In other words lets say today I cut out almost all my carbs and I did 2 hard workouts. Wont my body reglycogenate from my massive fat stores anyway? (or is that perhaps more of a two day thing?)

    Im pretty sure this is also related to why, being a fat person for quite some time now, that even if I am losing 1.3-1.5lbs per week, I have no sensation of hunger nor have I for years lol. Hell, a few years back when i was still out of the gym I got a wild hair and went on 2000 then 1800 calories for a year and went from 259 to 199 over that year and was never hungry once lol
    When I was at 20% last year, I could cut for weeks and never wake up fatigued. Now at a little under 12% or so, if I don't have a carb replenishing day for 1-2 weeks, I wake up and I'm already tired. And the hunger comes 3 hours in as opposed to 5 or 6.

    Cutting at lower bodyfats is no fun. I don't know how guys in the single digits do it, must be grueling.
    Reply With Quote

  10. #10
    Registered User rtpmarine's Avatar
    Join Date: Jun 2019
    Posts: 223
    Rep Power: 1315
    rtpmarine is just really nice. (+1000) rtpmarine is just really nice. (+1000) rtpmarine is just really nice. (+1000) rtpmarine is just really nice. (+1000) rtpmarine is just really nice. (+1000) rtpmarine is just really nice. (+1000) rtpmarine is just really nice. (+1000) rtpmarine is just really nice. (+1000) rtpmarine is just really nice. (+1000) rtpmarine is just really nice. (+1000) rtpmarine is just really nice. (+1000)
    rtpmarine is offline
    Originally Posted by John Prophet View Post
    Ignoring the fact that my lowest carb day has probably been 235ish, just the fact that I am this fat, arent I basically going to be glycogenated at all times more or less?? lol In other words lets say today I cut out almost all my carbs and I did 2 hard workouts. Wont my body reglycogenate from my massive fat stores anyway? (or is that perhaps more of a two day thing?)
    I believe glycogen synthesis is almost exclusively driven by blood glucose and insulin levels. Your body taps into fat stores primarily for direct energy (via beta-oxidation) or to make glucose (via gluconeogenesis). When either of those things are happening, blood glucose is probably low enough that very little is being converted to glycogen stores.

    This could be an issue with T2 diabetics, however, because their liver's insulin resistance stops them from properly shutting off gluconeogenesis, so they'll do it even when blood glucose is relatively high.

    Originally Posted by John Prophet View Post
    Im pretty sure this is also related to why, being a fat person for quite some time now, that even if I am losing 1.3-1.5lbs per week, I have no sensation of hunger nor have I for years lol. Hell, a few years back when i was still out of the gym I got a wild hair and went on 2000 then 1800 calories for a year and went from 259 to 199 over that year and was never hungry once lol
    It sounds like you are a good "fat burner", meaning you have access to fat oxidation pathways all the way from lipolysis in the adipose tissue to beta-oxidation in the mitochondria of working tissues. People who struggle to get this machinery to engage have a hard time losing fat and stay "sugar burners".
    Reply With Quote

  11. #11
    Train hard play harder Tommy W.'s Avatar
    Join Date: Feb 2006
    Age: 67
    Posts: 16,561
    Rep Power: 74866
    Tommy W. has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Tommy W. has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Tommy W. has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Tommy W. has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Tommy W. has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Tommy W. has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Tommy W. has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Tommy W. has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Tommy W. has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Tommy W. has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Tommy W. has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000)
    Tommy W. is offline
    Originally Posted by rtpmarine View Post
    I believe glycogen synthesis is almost exclusively driven by blood glucose and insulin levels. Your body taps into fat stores primarily for direct energy (via beta-oxidation) or to make glucose (via gluconeogenesis). When either of those things are happening, blood glucose is probably low enough that very little is being converted to glycogen stores.

    This could be an issue with T2 diabetics, however, because their liver's insulin resistance stops them from properly shutting off gluconeogenesis, so they'll do it even when blood glucose is relatively high.



    It sounds like you are a good "fat burner", meaning you have access to fat oxidation pathways all the way from lipolysis in the adipose tissue to beta-oxidation in the mitochondria of working tissues. People who struggle to get this machinery to engage have a hard time losing fat and stay "sugar burners".
    no they have a hard time losing fat because they take in too many calories in relation to their TDEE
    If you don't get what you want you didn't want it bad enough
    Reply With Quote

  12. #12
    Registered User rtpmarine's Avatar
    Join Date: Jun 2019
    Posts: 223
    Rep Power: 1315
    rtpmarine is just really nice. (+1000) rtpmarine is just really nice. (+1000) rtpmarine is just really nice. (+1000) rtpmarine is just really nice. (+1000) rtpmarine is just really nice. (+1000) rtpmarine is just really nice. (+1000) rtpmarine is just really nice. (+1000) rtpmarine is just really nice. (+1000) rtpmarine is just really nice. (+1000) rtpmarine is just really nice. (+1000) rtpmarine is just really nice. (+1000)
    rtpmarine is offline
    Originally Posted by Tommy W. View Post
    no they have a hard time losing fat because they take in too many calories in relation to their TDEE
    Do you realize that you're claiming all people experience the same degree of difficulty when it comes to losing weight? I hope you didn't really mean that and just wanted to put in a quick CICO shoutout.
    Reply With Quote

  13. #13
    Train hard play harder Tommy W.'s Avatar
    Join Date: Feb 2006
    Age: 67
    Posts: 16,561
    Rep Power: 74866
    Tommy W. has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Tommy W. has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Tommy W. has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Tommy W. has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Tommy W. has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Tommy W. has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Tommy W. has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Tommy W. has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Tommy W. has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Tommy W. has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Tommy W. has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000)
    Tommy W. is offline
    Originally Posted by rtpmarine View Post
    Do you realize that you're claiming all people experience the same degree of difficulty when it comes to losing weight? I hope you didn't really mean that and just wanted to put in a quick CICO shoutout.
    the difficulty comes from varying levels of willpower, ability to tolerate a certain amount of hunger, etc. sugar adaption? No
    If you don't get what you want you didn't want it bad enough
    Reply With Quote

  14. #14
    Registered User John Prophet's Avatar
    Join Date: Oct 2005
    Age: 52
    Posts: 15,946
    Rep Power: 10126
    John Prophet is a name known to all. (+5000) John Prophet is a name known to all. (+5000) John Prophet is a name known to all. (+5000) John Prophet is a name known to all. (+5000) John Prophet is a name known to all. (+5000) John Prophet is a name known to all. (+5000) John Prophet is a name known to all. (+5000) John Prophet is a name known to all. (+5000) John Prophet is a name known to all. (+5000) John Prophet is a name known to all. (+5000) John Prophet is a name known to all. (+5000)
    John Prophet is offline
    Originally Posted by AD1985 View Post
    When I was at 20% last year, I could cut for weeks and never wake up fatigued. Now at a little under 12% or so, if I don't have a carb replenishing day for 1-2 weeks, I wake up and I'm already tired. And the hunger comes 3 hours in as opposed to 5 or 6.

    Cutting at lower bodyfats is no fun. I don't know how guys in the single digits do it, must be grueling.
    dude, if I ever even get below 20% i'll feel like Mr Olympia lol. been fat since like 1990. cest la vie

    in a way I cant wait to have "normal" bodybuilding experiences such as actually needing to carb up etc etc. in any case that will probably be a good 18 months away even if im diligent
    "Humility comes before honor"
    Reply With Quote

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts