Special weekend-only carbs!
ᕙ(⇀‸↼‶)ᕗ ||| The 2023/2024 Gym Rats Thread ||| ᕙ(⇀‸↼‶)ᕗ
- Thread starter Somnambulist
- Start date
I'm assuming you must be consuming a decent amount of fats, or are you really consuming 400-500g of protein a day.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 May 2010
- Posts
- 23,641
- Location
- London
Lose weight as fast as possible.
It's a slightly modified RFL I'm on.
The only difference from the RFL is I am eating a slightly broader range of fruit and veg.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 May 2010
- Posts
- 23,641
- Location
- London
Nope. I'm not doing things exactly as the RFL says you should be doing, as I'm not getting enough protein in and I'm eating a wider selection of veg but it is working.
The RFL (Rapid Fat Lose Diet) is basically a muscle sparing protein fast.
It's designed to shred fat in the shortest amount of time possible whilst minimising the amount of muscle lost.
The only thing with the actual RFL is it is so boring. It's literally lean protein and leafy greens. That's the entire diet.
It's also not really designed to be run for an extended period of time.
As I had about 14kg to lose I am not really the right candidate for the RFL as it's meant for short bursts of rapid weight loss over maybe a month or so.
I've taken the core of the RFL which is basically low calories, high protein and leafy greens and expanded it to be a bit more sustainable.
High protein (eggs, fatty and white fish, steak, chicken, lamb etc) and expanded the selection of veg. So rather than just eating leafy greens which is extremely boring I eat all veg and fruits.
I only avoid bananas and corn as they are quite carby.
I satisfy my sugar craving with raspberries, strawberries and the occasional orange.
Weekends I can relax and eat like a normal person. For example I had a pizza on Saturday evening and dough balls!!
Honestly the RFL (or my modification) is a skill for life. Because you can eat what you like and every now and then throw in a month or two of my modified RFL and shed some fat in rapid fashion.
Not unthinkable to lose 6-8kg in 2 months. It all depends on your calorie deficit.
Of course you need gym as well.
No one wants to be dieting for months on end so the fastest you can get it over and done with the better.
I suspect I am probably in a 1000 calorie deficit. but I am still able to go to the gym and do a 2 hour weights session. (At reduced poundages)
Next time round when / if I have some lifts I need to preserve I will do it slightly differently.
Its just I allowed my self to get to 82kg which is a lot more than I should be. So I just wanted to shed the fat asap.
Last edited:
RFL is not sustainable thats the point, and the benefits of carbs to fuel your workouts not only for muscle retention but better muscle growth is not insignificant! You do you fella but its really not a good approach to lifting combined with weight loss goals.
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 May 2010
- Posts
- 23,641
- Location
- London
I'm not suffering too much.
I get that my approach is not optimal. But it works.
If I had some lifts I needed to preserve then I would do things differently.
Firstly I wouldn't let my self get so fat in the first place so I wouldn't have much to lose.
Then a short 4-6 weeks of RFL would work perfectly.
Secondly I should be doing half my volume and more cardio. But I choose to do weights instead.
The point is this, most people struggle to get results. My methods work and they work to dramatic effect.
14kgs dropped in around 4 months is good imo. (By the end of May)
Last edited:
Have you considered eating raw liver?
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 May 2010
- Posts
- 23,641
- Location
- London
No. You?
Last edited:
No but I hear it's good for protein and with no carbs
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 May 2010
- Posts
- 23,641
- Location
- London
I feel like people are slightly confused on this subject.
The human body does not actually need carbs at all.
Lyle McDonald has often explained that, from a strictly biochemical standpoint, carbohydrates aren’t “essential” in the same way that certain amino acids or fatty acids are. In other words, the human body doesn’t require dietary carbohydrates for survival because it possesses the metabolic machinery—like gluconeogenesis—which can synthesize the necessary glucose from proteins and fats. This means that even on very low‐carbohydrate diets, the body can generate the glucose required for critical functions, such as fuel for parts of the brain and red blood cells.
Don't get me wrong I'm not saying that from an optimal perspective carbs for gym performance are not critical but when it comes to the human biology we do not actually need carbs at all.
This is why a low carb diet is so effective because low carbs will make the body burn fat for fuel and the larger your deficit then the more fat you can lose in the quickest time.
Theres obviously many different ways to run a diet. Fast or slower. All will get you to where you want to be.
You just have to choose a path.
But do not conflate the idea that you "need" carbs. Because this is scientifically false.
The human body does not actually need carbs at all.
Lyle McDonald has often explained that, from a strictly biochemical standpoint, carbohydrates aren’t “essential” in the same way that certain amino acids or fatty acids are. In other words, the human body doesn’t require dietary carbohydrates for survival because it possesses the metabolic machinery—like gluconeogenesis—which can synthesize the necessary glucose from proteins and fats. This means that even on very low‐carbohydrate diets, the body can generate the glucose required for critical functions, such as fuel for parts of the brain and red blood cells.
Don't get me wrong I'm not saying that from an optimal perspective carbs for gym performance are not critical but when it comes to the human biology we do not actually need carbs at all.
This is why a low carb diet is so effective because low carbs will make the body burn fat for fuel and the larger your deficit then the more fat you can lose in the quickest time.
Theres obviously many different ways to run a diet. Fast or slower. All will get you to where you want to be.
You just have to choose a path.
But do not conflate the idea that you "need" carbs. Because this is scientifically false.
Last edited:
The human body doesnt need meat either, it doesnt need a lot of things, purely in the context of survival, but theres is vast gap between surviving and being healthy/balanced, or even better, giving the body the best tools to dot he jobs you are asking it to do!
I know for certain that I have said you are clearly over looking the benefits of carbs and the importance of the role they play in a well, in both a balanced diet and workout upsides.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 May 2010
- Posts
- 23,641
- Location
- London
At the end of the day do what ever works.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 May 2010
- Posts
- 23,641
- Location
- London
Meat is comprised of fats and protein.
We are talking about the fundamental building blocks here: carbs, fats and protein.
The body doesn't need carbs.
Science.
I'm sorry to burst the bubble but this is the truth.
Much as I debunked the myth that squats are optimal for legs.
The RFL is designed in a way to optimise fat loss. And guess what? No carbs.
Why are we talking about this anyway?
Am I struggling to lose weight? Am I suffering in the gym?
Nope. 14kg off in 4 months. (Would probably be 16kg if it wasn't for Easter!)
Someone asked for advice and I told them the keys to losing fat in rapid time.
The point is this I shouldn't of got so fat in the first place. Then I could do a mini cut of say 4kg using a short RFL which is all explained in this video.
Why spend months dieting (whilst eating carbs) when in weeks you can shed the weight and be back to bulking again? We all love bulking and hate dieting so surely this makes sense right?
Key part starts 101
Remember I am not saying it is healthy to not eat carbs. Of course not that is nonsense. But if one is looking to optimise fat loss then dropping carbs makes it very easy to achieve dramatic results in a short time.
Last edited:
I've never lost strength on a cut and I've lost 50lbs+ on some of them. If you're losing noticeable strength for an extended period of time you're losing a significant amount of lean tissue.
Currently I'm 30lbs down since the new year and again strength has increased and I eat what I want 7 days a week.
Just like the whole squats arguement (that you didn't debunk, there was just two different discussions going on), no one is saying you need carbs.
What they're saying is you can get the weightloss without losing gym performance (and therefore as much lean tissue) with sensible and well timed carb intake.
If it works for you cool, but that doesn't make it the magical holy grail of weightloss. Many different ways to skin a cat and all that.
I've also done PSMF runs in the past just to give some balance.
Currently I'm 30lbs down since the new year and again strength has increased and I eat what I want 7 days a week.
Just like the whole squats arguement (that you didn't debunk, there was just two different discussions going on), no one is saying you need carbs.
What they're saying is you can get the weightloss without losing gym performance (and therefore as much lean tissue) with sensible and well timed carb intake.
If it works for you cool, but that doesn't make it the magical holy grail of weightloss. Many different ways to skin a cat and all that.
I've also done PSMF runs in the past just to give some balance.
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 May 2010
- Posts
- 23,641
- Location
- London
This I agree with. And I never said otherwise.
"Many different ways to skin a cat and all that."
I said this above.
It's just we all want to be over with the diet asap.
Which is why I prefer no carbs.
And regarding squats... You do realise that squats are NOT functional right?
In most real-world situations, people rarely squat with an evenly distributed external load on their upper back.
Simply, Squats don’t mimic real-world movement patterns directly, as most real-life lifting is asymmetrical and involves rotation or shifting loads.
Functional strength involves handling unpredictable forces, which squats lack compared to carries or sandbag work.
Squats focus on the sagittal plane, whereas real-world strength often involves frontal and transverse plane movements.
Suitcase carry, Farmer’s Carry, Sandbag Clean and Press, fireman's lift, Trap Bar Deadlift, Kettlebell Turkish Get-Up, Single-Arm Landmine Press, Step-Up with Load,Sled Push/Pull, Zercher Squat (MAYBE!!), Medicine Ball Rotational Throw, One-Arm Suitcase Deadlift
Those are functional.
Traditional barbell squats are not functional.
The functional argument is just bro science.
Last edited:
Yet again missing the point..... why settle for the guidance around what is a bottom line "need" rather then work more effectively and efficiently and give the body what works.
That's like running a diesel car on vegetable oil that's fried 10000000 mars bars and hasn't been filtered. The diesel engine just needs a fuel source to run (your point) but my point is why not run it far better on premium diesel that's been refined for the specific purpose of delivering the best performance.
This isn't just bro science, this is science science. Carbs are not just a negative, they have a very important role in the energy delivery and usage during workouts and the role of helping the body protect and sustain lean muscle tissue as well.
As for the whole why eat carbs while dieting when you can achieve the same weight loss in weeks by not, is completely untrue. You will not be losing the same composition of mass by crash dieting your way down. Your deficit dictates the rate at which you loose weight, not the type of food you eat. So if you are losing weight faster then that is because you are in a bigger deficit, and the bigger the deficit you are in the higher the likelihood is you will be losing appreciable lean muscle mass as well as fat. This is science and has F-all to do with not eating carbs and everything to do with the scale of your deficit. Also by not eating carbs you force the body to use the stores of energy from the muscle and therefore they retain less water and you therefore carry less water, and if you aren't replenishing your muscles glycogen stores by not eating carbs you are not allowing the muscles to function at best potential as water retention within the muscle is part of its core function, and less glycogen = less water retained = less efficient muscle function=lower ability to retain/improve strength and a false deflation of weight on the scale.
As I have said before, you do what you need to do, just don't try and sell your delusions that its the best way to do things, and that carbs are not a good thing, they very much are, and that's been proven over and over.
That's like running a diesel car on vegetable oil that's fried 10000000 mars bars and hasn't been filtered. The diesel engine just needs a fuel source to run (your point) but my point is why not run it far better on premium diesel that's been refined for the specific purpose of delivering the best performance.
This isn't just bro science, this is science science. Carbs are not just a negative, they have a very important role in the energy delivery and usage during workouts and the role of helping the body protect and sustain lean muscle tissue as well.
As for the whole why eat carbs while dieting when you can achieve the same weight loss in weeks by not, is completely untrue. You will not be losing the same composition of mass by crash dieting your way down. Your deficit dictates the rate at which you loose weight, not the type of food you eat. So if you are losing weight faster then that is because you are in a bigger deficit, and the bigger the deficit you are in the higher the likelihood is you will be losing appreciable lean muscle mass as well as fat. This is science and has F-all to do with not eating carbs and everything to do with the scale of your deficit. Also by not eating carbs you force the body to use the stores of energy from the muscle and therefore they retain less water and you therefore carry less water, and if you aren't replenishing your muscles glycogen stores by not eating carbs you are not allowing the muscles to function at best potential as water retention within the muscle is part of its core function, and less glycogen = less water retained = less efficient muscle function=lower ability to retain/improve strength and a false deflation of weight on the scale.
As I have said before, you do what you need to do, just don't try and sell your delusions that its the best way to do things, and that carbs are not a good thing, they very much are, and that's been proven over and over.
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 May 2010
- Posts
- 23,641
- Location
- London
Last edited: