Weight lifting, kickboxing and "Adam's Diet". Does it work? - JP Fitness Forums

Bo · 10-04-2004, 03:47 PM

Okay I've been lifting weights for about 3 months now and am about to start the Beginner program from Book of Muscle. (skipping week 1-3 since I got some time under my belt)

I do this Mon-Wed-Fri

on Tue and Thu I do 1.5 hours of Kickboxing.

on Saturdays I do some HIIT and Abs.

Now "Adam's Diet" is a low-carb one. From my understanding, it's okay to consume carbs in my before and after workout shakes as long as that's the only time, correct?

Now how does this work for Kickboxing? Since it's mostly cardio (though I control myself so as not to start burning muscle), should I also take some carbs before so I can have energy? Or can the fats I eat before (clean fats of course) provide me with the energy I need?

BjsAust · 10-04-2004, 07:56 PM

Been a while since I read it, but I wouldnt recommend skipping weeks 1-3. Ian King tends to use the first few weeks of a routine to make sure you have the base for whats coming, regardless of what you've done before.

Quote:

Now "Adam's Diet" is a low-carb one. From my understanding, it's okay to consume carbs in my before and after workout shakes as long as that's the only time, correct?

No, you consume high gi carbs in your pre-post shakes, but one solid meal should contain low gi carbs.

My understanding is that for Cardio you should still take in similar carbs as you would pre-workout. If you've got the energy available then you can work harder and therefore get more benefit. You wont get that instant access to energy from fats.

Adam Campbell · 10-05-2004, 08:25 AM

I think it probably depends. You might try it and judge your energy levels. 1.5 hours is a long time, though. If you're pretty lean already, I'd just eat the carbs before, during and after your kickboxing workout. If you've got quite a bit of fat to lose, maybe try a couple of different approaches.

Fat oxidation rates (the rate you burn fat for energy) may increase as your body adapts to a chronic low-carb diet, BUT you won't be in ketosis, so I'm not sure it works the same way. A recent subject in a study (that has not been published yet) was an ultra-endurance athlete and he found that his performance was improving over his high carb diet--at the two-hour mark of races, other people were hitting the wall, he was not. This guy was in ketosis and eating less than 50 grams of carbs a day.

Here's the really amazing thing: He lost 23 pounds of fat and gained 6.5 pounds of muscle in those 12 weeks. How? I have no idea, but it was DEXA-ed and he wasn't on steriods. He did nothing but aerobic exercise, anywhere from 2-4 hours worth a day. The best part: He was 57 years old.

NoMoYoYo · 10-05-2004, 09:04 AM

Anecdotal evidence from a genetic freak....whom I hate since I'm overweight [img]smile.gif[/img]

Adam Campbell · 10-05-2004, 09:21 AM

Anecdotal--actually it's not. This guy took part in a study which will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. He's just a case study from it and he is probably a freak--probably the best-case scenario that you could hope from a diet adaptation.

But here are some of the preliminary data from the study:

30 overweight men consumed a very-low carb diet for 12 weeks. Half consumed a fiber supplement (glucomannan) before each meal.

Results:

Mean weight loss: 18 pounds in both groups.

Reductions in TG, Total and LDL cholesterol in BOTH groups.

Increases in HDL cholesterol in both groups.

The fiber supplement didn't make a difference apparently, although that doesn't account for long-term health benefits, etc. Basically, it may show that a very-low carb diet is so good that you don't need to add fiber to it to improve the effects, although again, that's for fat loss and satiety only. I think it's still smart to recommend it for the health benefits.

Here's the most interesting part:

One 57-year old male in the very-low carb diet only group had some amazing results. You should know what he's an "obsessive" aerobic exerciser who literally exercises 3 to 4 hours a day (he competes in ultra-endurance events). He doesn't lift weights.

He lost 23 pounds of fat.
He gained 6.5 pounds of muscle.

Keep in mind this was measured with DEXA both times.

This is especially incredible since there wasn't a stimulus to promote signficant muscle growth, he was doing excessive aerobic exercise, and he was hypocaloric. Not to mention he's 57. For a guy that age to gain six pounds of muscle mass in 12 weeks is damn impressive even if he's on a "bulking" diet.

The guy was doing the same exercise program before he started the study (as per study instructions). He was also eating a high carb diet and had a gut (about 23% BF). By 180-ing his diet, he 180-ed his body. In addition, he said his performance in the events improved as when others hit a wall at the 2-3 hour mark, he didn't. (Probably a product of improved fat oxidation.)

The guy above was obviously not the norm, but there has been a trend when you look at individual's who exercise in studies like this (the data hasn't been run but it will be) to have this nutrient repartitioning effect. It's all hard to believe or even understand so it'll be interesting to see future results. Unfortunately, no one is funding low-carb diet and exercise studies yet. That should be the next big thing.

The bottom line is that this goes against virtually everything most of us have ever learned. Could it just be bad study data? It's possible, but DEXA is as accurate as it gets right now for body comp and the researchers know the guy was in ketosis the duration of the study. Plus, the results were visible as well. He could just be a freak, but that doesn't explain why he was 23% fat as an ultra-endurance athlete eating a high-carb diet, and the low-carb diet literally transformed his body in a matter of 12 weeks.

Bill Hartman · 10-05-2004, 09:36 AM

Did he experience a significant increase in caloric intake and a significant increase in protein intake by going on the low carb diet? Both have been associated with increased muscle mass without training.

Another thought is the increased protein intake may have offset the draw on his amino acid pool that he would experience during ultra-endurance training and keep him out of negative nitrogen balance.

Bill

Adam Campbell · 10-05-2004, 09:45 AM

They actually counseled them to reduce calorie intake by 500 calories a day, since they were maintaining their weights at the time. However, this was not a part of the plan that was emphasized because part of the point was to keep it simple. I don't know what his final numbers were, but it would have been done by recall, and you know how accurate that is. So... to answer your question--I can't answer your question [img]smile.gif[/img] Come to think of it, I said he was hypocaloric but I probably shouldn't have. However, with that much exercise on a low-carb diet, you would think he was (that's speculative, though). It's a good point about the protein intake, calorie intake, and musle mass, but you still have the contradictory benefit of two pounds of fat loss a week.

I'd think that the fact that the body was running on fat as the preferred type of fuel would be the main reason he would maintain muscle mass (ketosis has a nice muscle preservation effect that no one gives it credit for), but without a strong anabolic stimulus (insulin levels haven't been run yet, but you could guess they were very low, especially with that kind of fat loss) you'd think that it'd be hard to put on that much muscle.

Bo · 10-05-2004, 10:17 AM

Hmm well today is kickboxing day so I'll let you know how my energy levels are like. The only source of carbs I have had/will have before the kickboxing will be half a banana that was cut and frozen that I used in my morning shake and a small whole wheat bun which I will eat for lunch

The total should be around 50g or so.. I'll also avoid any carbs after the workout and just go home for a protein/fat shake.

We'll see how it goes

NoMoYoYo · 10-05-2004, 02:26 PM

Adam, I hope you realized I was just jealous [img]smile.gif[/img]

I'm currently playing around with steady state (jogging) with some Turbulence Training type weight training and your diet guidelines. If I lose 23 pounds of fat in 12 weeks, I'll be sure to let you know

Adam Campbell · 10-05-2004, 02:33 PM

You better go for ketosis if you want that kind of fat loss [img]smile.gif[/img]

Bo · 10-05-2004, 03:34 PM

There HAS to be some kind of a bad aftereffect of forcing your body into ketosis instead of a nice 3 split balance. What about if we want to go back to carbs for gaining some mass. Would be expect abnormal results at first?

Adam Campbell · 10-05-2004, 03:40 PM

Quote:

There HAS to be some kind of a bad aftereffect of forcing your body into ketosis instead of a nice 3 split balance.

I'm not going to argue this point, but why does there HAVE to be a "bad aftereffect"?

Bo · 10-05-2004, 08:44 PM

My apologies, I didn't mean anything by it [img]smile.gif[/img]

My understanding is that "do everything in moderation". While that also means don't overdo something, it also means don't underdo it.

That's really my whole basis for argument. [img]smile.gif[/img] I don't know nearly enough about the intricacies of how fat/carbs/protein exactly work but it just seems that restricting yourself from carbs will eventually lead to some kind of an imbalance in the digestion system.

Bo · 10-06-2004, 03:44 PM

Oh and update regarding yesterdays Kickboxing class. Didn't notice any lack of energy in me from limiting the carbs. So, I'm gonna keep on doing it

Bo · 10-06-2004, 05:40 PM

Hmmm just did some HIIT right now and before my max was about 13 minutes. Now I couldn't even do 9 minutes

Legs got really tired (could've been from kickboxing, but I did HIIT before after kickboxing) and started feeling some chest pains too. First time during cardio for me. Hmmm. Will check again next time to make sure this isn't just some freak occurance caused by something else.

DKing · 10-06-2004, 07:58 PM

I am assuming that before trying Adam's diet you were much higher in carbs, especially before kickboxing. If thats the case than the body won't be all that effcient at fat metabolism yet so even if you are getting tired quicker I would stick with the lowered carb intake for a while longer. Your body will get better at metabolizing fat as you restrict carbs and then you will be good to go as fat is a much better energy source in the long run.

Danny

Bo · 10-06-2004, 08:56 PM

Yeah that makes sense. Thanks DKing.

If I keep going with this when I decide to start really putting on some muscle mass (I want to get a bit more leaner before I do), should I take up the protein/carb combo before-during-after workout or might fat eaten before provide me with the energy needed so I can make my protein shake just a protein shake with some frozen berries and flaxseed (ie. little carbs, lots of fiber)?

Adam Campbell · 10-06-2004, 09:14 PM

Not necessarily the "diet" either, Bo. When did you eat the carbs before your workout? It's possible that the timing was wrong, and that could have what cause you to fatigue quickly (a fast drop in blood glucose brought on by an insulin spike that was timed poorly with exercise).

I can't imagine physiologically how any acute diet would CAUSE "chest pains". I agree with Danny about metabolizing fat, but one of the problems inherent with "Adam's Diet" is that you restrict carbs but you never completely convert to using fat as your primary source of energy (which would be ketosis). I've been eating low-carb for a while, so it doesn't bother me (maybe my body has adjusted), but I'm not sure about going straight from an average diet to "Adam's Diet". (But as Danny said, maybe you need some time to adjust.) JP might be able to elucidate us on his experience.