Any thoughts here? I don't know about his table sugar comment, but the rest of his commentary seems to make sense, at least to this layman.
Mike Mentzer: The Value of Carbohydrates
- Thread starter Frederick Foresight
- Start date
Are carbs an anabolic macronutrient? I don't know; I guess so. But Cathe sure is a looker.
https://cathe.com/beyond-protein-anabolic-effects-carbohydrates/
https://cathe.com/beyond-protein-anabolic-effects-carbohydrates/
Baron
ET Founder
I've experimented on myself with a low-carb diet many times, and they are definitely the worst diet for gaining muscle. And not only that, but you walk around each day feeling flat and weak, which sucks. So yeah, carbs are extremely anabolic and are absolutely essential if you want to put on muscle, but it's extremely easy to overdo it though. In other words, if you are taking in an excess of calories then the extra carbs can definitely spill over into causing fat storage. We often talk about watching our calories during a cutting phase, but in my opinion, watching the number of calories you take in during a bulking phase is even more important so you don't put on unnecessary excess fat as you're trying to build new muscle.
As can an excess of any type of calorie. That's why it helps to focus on fiber-rich carbs to help fill you up on fewer carbs and total calories overall.
I agree. The daily calorie surplus should be relatively modest to avoid porking up.
This ties in with his belief that we don't need as much protein as the "industry experts" say.
MIKE MENTZER: HOW MUCH PROTEIN DO YOU REALLY NEED? - YouTube
MIKE MENTZER: HOW MUCH PROTEIN DO YOU REALLY NEED? - YouTube
I do believe that protein is overconsumed by bodybuilders. Heck, I used to have (way) too much of it, and I was always ever only a weekend warrior. But I find it a bit hard to swallow that to grow 10 pounds of muscle a year, you only need an extra 16 calories per day, and one additional gram of protein beyond maintenance, as Mentzer says. I'd say that's a stretch, unless I misunderstood.
Anyway, here he talks specifically about those mythical 10 pounds of additional muscle that I will never see (again):
A few months ago, I started upping my protein intake (again). After seeing this stuff, I think I'll dial it back (again). Except for that additional gram, of course.
Instead, I'm in the process of reducing my frequency (again), since I actually lost a little bit of size over a short period of time when I upped my workout frequency to 10 compound sets to full static concentric failure twice a week. Previously I had been working out 3x/2wks. I'm giving once a week of 11 compounds a try (again) with an additional 6-minute ~HIIT workout thrown in mid-week (again).Round and round she goes.
Last edited:
Baron
ET Founder
Maybe that's because you didn't ramp up your calories to accommodate the increased frequency.
That could be. Because staying lean is more important to me, however much I would like to be a bit bigger. However, you will recall that video I posted a few days ago about what McGuff said was the biggest lie about exercise:
https://www.elitetrader.com/et/threads/the-biggest-lie-in-fitness.367337/
So I don't know how much of a role the calorie thing might have played. But I suppose it may have had a hand if I was just on the wrong side of that border.
Admittedly, my talking about reducing my frequency from twice to once a week for just under a dozen sets of compounds seems crazy. Ten years ago, I would have laughed in my own face. Now, I'm treading a bit more lightly.
Oh, and of course, I'm reminded of this remark, which I have posted from time to time in this forum:
And so, I think the best bet for me is to focus on remaining lean since, after a lifetime of working out, I doubt that I can tweak my way into adding much to my chicken frame. Although my best days are behind me, physique-wise, my only hope at this point is that the two brief workouts a week that I was doing somehow edged me into overtraining territory. And, realistically, what are the odds of that?