help with diet (crum)

[Manu]

Hi everyone.
I am doing now a diet to get ripped.

The diet is like crum diet,1,5grs protein and 0,5 grams fat.
I am eating some vegetables and the only time i take simple sugars is post-workout, 50 grs of cell tech.
The question is that: what is the benefit of this diet comparing to "regular" diet? does this diet works better in losing fat?
and also the other question is this: if the body don't have carbs wont he be converting the protein into glicogen?

Thanks

(i just would like to understand better the mechanism behind this diet.)

 

[Manu]

my diet

45 minutes cardio

meal 1 = 2 scoops whey – 44 grs. Protein - 260 cal. +1 tbs flax seed oil (15 grs = 135 cal.) + glutamine


meal 2= 200 grs. salmon – 36,8 prot. + 24 grs fat = 362 cal.



meal 3 = 240 grs. tuna = 196 cal. 56,64 grs. Prot. 0,8grs. fat
2 egg whites = 39 cal. 8,4 grs. prot. 1 grs. fat
1 egg = 87,6 cal. 7,56 grs. Prot. 6,6 fat 0,84 carb
half cup vegetables ( brocoli)




meal4 = 240 grs. tuna = 196 cal. 56,64 grs. Prot. 0,8grs. fat
3 egg whites= 57,5 cal. 12,625 grs. Prot. 3,5 grs. fat
1 tbs flax seed oil (15 grs = 135 cal.)
half cup vegetables ( brocoli)


Post workout = dextrose- 40 grs. +- 160 cal.

20 minutes later = 2 scoops Whey – 44 grs. protein - 260 cal. + glutamine


meal 5 = 240 grs. tuna = 196 cal. 56,64 grs. Prot. 0,8grs. fat
3 egg whites = 57,5 cal. 12,625 grs. Prot. 3,5 grs. fat
half cup vegetables ( brocoli)

meal 6 = 2 scoops Whey – 44 grs. Protein - 260 cal. + glutamine


Total prot. = 379,93 grs.
fat = 41 grs + 2 tbs flax seed = 2 +- 30 grs ( 270 cal.)
Total fat = 71 g

calories= 2131,6 + 270 = 2391,6

How does it looks? i apreciate comments.

(i will also will start taking fish oil- around 8 grams)

Thank you

 

[Vageta]

You're gonna get a lot of arguement on this issue and some will disagree with me but here goes... Low carb diets offer no significant benefit in fat loss over standard diets so long as the rest of the diet specifics are similar(ample protein, identical calorie intake, enough EFA's, etc..). Someone eating 50g of carbs per day versus someone eating 150g of carbs per day won't see a difference in fat loss, end of story. The main difference in the amount of carbs in a diet is hunger control. Higher fat diets will make you feel fuller than higher carb diets that can cause hunger due to insulin spikes. You should always set protein intake first and then balance the rest of your intake between fats and carbs. Either take one high and drop the other low, or get both in moderation. I like the 2nd choice myself.

Also dieting newbies see low carb diets as the holy grail due to immediate weight loss. What they don't understand is that weight is water and is only temporary. The lower you drop carbs the more water you will lose initially and it's not uncommon to lose 8-10 pounds the first week. However once you come off of the diet and introduce carbs back into your diet you will gain that water back quickly.

Simply pick a diet that you can stick to the best. If you like some carbs in your diet then by all means eat them. Don't go into a low-carb diet thinking it has some magical effect on burning fat because it doesn't. It's better to pick a diet you will adhere to and have some enjoyment with than to pick one that's "theoretically superior" and hate every waking minute of your life and always feel like cheating.

 

[Manu]

Thanks a lot Vageta.

Yes, i am a diet newbie.
I am looking to a way of preserving most muscle mass, so to your opinion this diet isn't better then others on that issue.
I will try it and see what happens.
What some people tell me at the gym is that the body needs carbs to handle protein and that doing this i will lose strenght.
i suppose the excess protein is converted in glucose by the body.(?)
Thanks again and it would be nice to see other opinions on this diet.

Thanks

One other question i have : what is better, little cardio and create a mild caloric deficit by diet or adding more cardio and eating more? (creating the same amount of deficit(
what would preserve more amount of muscle?

 

[Manu]

aditional info

i am 1,72 m ( 5,64 f) and 88,4 kgs ( 195 p) with around 24% bf)

i've been lifting from 1 year and a half now. my train now is working one body part per day, 6 days week.

i am not sure about my maintance calories (i am triying to determine that now) and would apreciate some hints on that matter.
Also my diet experience at this level is low, that means it is the first time i am calculating things this way.

Thanks

 

[Vageta]

Yes excess protein will be converted to glucose in a hypocaloric state if you don't consume enough of the other macronutrients. Consuming adequate calories in the form of carbs and/or fat will help prevent this from happening. As far as preserving muscle mass is concerned, both fat and carbs are protein sparing so long as you get enough of either one or both. Caloric deficit in itself also plays a major role in this regard. If you cut calories too steeply then you will burn muscle regardless of your macronutrient ratios.

As far as losing strength by dropping carbs, it's mostly a water and glycogen issue. When low carbing your muscle glycogen will empty out and therefore you're not as strong. However after a carb-up/refeed you will get it back if only for a short time. Having more carbs in your diet will help keep muscle glycogen fuller and thus you'll have more strength. Anytime you're in a caloric deficit however your muscle glycogen will never be completely full.

The cardio question is debatable. It's hard to judge how many calories you actually burn during a cardio session so the calorie deficit for the day is harder to gauge. With food you know exactly how much you're taking in to create a specific deficit. Trying to guess how much extra to eat to offset the cardio is tricky. I'd suggest just choosing a mild deficit and doing cardio. Something like 500 calories below maintenance then whatever else the cardio takes from this. As far as muscle preservation it should be about the same. There are arguements for both sides but I doubt it makes much of a difference. Cardio can catabolize muscle if you do too much and create a huge deficit but so long as you keep it in moderation it shouldn't be a problem.

For maintenance calories most people just multiply their bodyweight x 15 but this is far from scientific. It's a ballpark figure to start at and then you'll have to play with it from there to decide.

 

[Manu]

Thanks again vageta

One or two questions more :

In the Crum diet there is a amount of carbs you can eat, you won't go in ketosis, i suppose the glycogen from liver is never depleted and muscle glucose is spared (??)
This all thing started with an article from www.ironmag.com called "summer six-pack", written by Todd Wilson, after reading eat i started doing this diet. This article is in some sort more permissible then crum diet. I would suggest anyone one interested to give it a look (you will find if you type "summer six-pack" in ironmag search engine.

Thanks

 

[Vageta]

Protein should theoretically only be converted to glycogen when there isn't enough fat or carbs to use. Regardless if your liver glycogen is full or empty or somewhere between there is always dietary fat intake to consider. If you're low carbing then you have to get the rest of your calories from fat. You can't low carb AND low fat, at least not efficiently. This will definately ensure your protein is being broken down into glucose.

If you think Crum's diet is too restrictive you can read my diet thread. Search for a diet post from a few weeks ago called "The not so low carb diet". It allows more carbs than Crum's diet but is still considered low carb. It also has 2 built in refeeds during the week and a nice spreadsheet to figure it all out for you.

 

[georgie24]

You're gonna get a lot of arguement on this issue and some will disagree with me but here goes... Low carb diets offer no significant benefit in fat loss over standard diets so long as the rest of the diet specifics are similar(ample protein, identical calorie intake, enough EFA's, etc..). Someone eating 50g of carbs per day versus someone eating 150g of carbs per day won't see a difference in fat loss, end of story. The main difference in the amount of carbs in a diet is hunger control. Higher fat diets will make you feel fuller than higher carb diets that can cause hunger due to insulin spikes. You should always set protein intake first and then balance the rest of your intake between fats and carbs. Either take one high and drop the other low, or get both in moderation. I like the 2nd choice myself.

Also dieting newbies see low carb diets as the holy grail due to immediate weight loss. What they don't understand is that weight is water and is only temporary. The lower you drop carbs the more water you will lose initially and it's not uncommon to lose 8-10 pounds the first week. However once you come off of the diet and introduce carbs back into your diet you will gain that water back quickly.

Simply pick a diet that you can stick to the best. If you like some carbs in your diet then by all means eat them. Don't go into a low-carb diet thinking it has some magical effect on burning fat because it doesn't. It's better to pick a diet you will adhere to and have some enjoyment with than to pick one that's "theoretically superior" and hate every waking minute of your life and always feel like cheating.

i do not agree with this post 100%


keep this in mind buddy"what works for someone may not for everyone" thats just the rule of thumb

 

[Manu]

...

Thanks again Vageta. I will read your post.

Thanks for you opinion georgie24.
Does this diet work better for you comparing with others?

 

[Vageta]

Yes we are all different but we are still all human and share the same basic physiology. Hypo-caloric states will cause weight loss periodp. Macronutrient breakdown(combined with resistance training) will determine what type of weight is lost(fat/muscle). Unless you have legitiment issues with insulin sensitivity or diabetes then you will still be able to lose fat while eating xxx amount of carbs. Why do people brainwash themselves into thinking that if they don't low carb they won't lose fat?

I'm not saying that everyone should go for a 60% or higher carb diet, however I am saying that there isn't much difference between 50-100 carbs in a diet. If you get good results on your CKD then by all means continue, but if you think that by eating more carbs you'd not be able to lose fat then I think you're overstating the effectiveness of your diet.

I doubt if even 1% of the population has legitimite issues with burning fat eating carbs. Yet it seems trendy these days to assume you are one of these people and "have" to eat a low-carb diet to lose fat. I have no doubt that the majority of these people that "think" they can't lose fat with carbs simply didn't give it a good enough try. Or they went from a high carb diet immediately into a ketogenic diet without trying something in the middle.

The last paragraph wasn't aimed at you Georgie24, just in general. My main point is the majority of people do not have to resort to these low carb extreme diets, they just think they do. Until you get down to below 10-12% you shouldn't have to resort to these types of diets. There are people who legitimately need to follow these diets, but in reality they are few and far between. Not every other person on the diet board.

 

[georgie24]

The last paragraph wasn't aimed at you Georgie24, just in general. My main point is the majority of people do not have to resort to these low carb extreme diets, they just think they do. Until you get down to below 10-12% you shouldn't have to resort to these types of diets. There are people who legitimately need to follow these diets, but in reality they are few and far between. Not every other person on the diet board.

no offense taken...