I can see where you're coming from, to an extent. Keto doesn't necessarily "hurt" productivity but it can, depending on what you're aiming for at the gym. If you want to maintain and promote lean muscle, as you've inferred, keto is the way to go. However, if you want mass and size, you need carbohydrates.
Well no, to me Paleo is the best way to promote and maintain lean muscle while losing fat. When you're on a calorie deficit, unless you're consuming a large amount of protein, you are going to lose strength gains. This goes double if you're on a calorie deficit and ketosis. Your strength gains will decrease significantly over time. The only real way to deal with ketosis is to have a carb loading/refeed 1 day a week.
Originally posted by The RenegadeJudging from personal experience and spending years on the bodybuilding forum, this is what I've gauged. The best you can hope for on a calorie deficit is the maintenance of lean muscle, which is done by keeping your lifts close to the same level. What usually happens is a drop off in lifts and muscle mass, although this is minimized through a large amount of protein consumption.
Your "strength will decrease over time" when in ketosis? Do you have any evidence to back this up?
No, no. You do not lose muscle mass. You'd shed fat mass and you're right when you say you'd "maintain" lean muscle, or gain it if it wasn't present before, but you do not lose muscle mass or strength. There's actually evidence to suggest this doesn't happen (see below) but I can see how this could be viewed as such.
http://www.jissn.com/content/9/1/34
EDIT: If you're referencing bodybuilders and people who already have a large portion of mass, loss is possible via ketosis. However, it's not unhealthy but rather an alteration of muscle composition (I'm aware you haven't said that it is unhealthy. I'm just droppin' it anyway). I'm saying it doesn't happen for people who aren't familiar with fitness or who are and are "lean." I'm saying muscle mass isn't just a process that occurs to those who don't have a lot of mass, to clarify.
As I said previously, it would only "hurt productivity" if what you REALLY wanted was size and mass. Otherwise, it won't.
Originally posted by The Renegade
No, no. You do not lose muscle mass. You'd shed fat mass and you're right when you say you'd "maintain" lean muscle, or gain it if it wasn't present before, but you do not lose muscle mass or strength. There's actually evidence to suggest this doesn't happen (see below) but I can see how this could be viewed as such.http://www.jissn.com/content/9/1/34
EDIT: If you're referencing bodybuilders and people who already have a large portion of mass, loss is possible via ketosis. However, it's not unhealthy but rather an alteration of muscle composition. I'm saying it doesn't happen for people who aren't familiar with fitness or who are and are "lean." I'm saying muscle mass isn't just a process that occurs, to clarify.
Yea I've heard as much but from my experience, I don't react well to low/no carb diets. To each his own though. Not saying keto sucks because it most certainly does not, but I need carbs to do the workouts that I do and it's tough to do stuff like weights followed by HIIT, without carbs.
But I stand by the general perception that anything resembling a calorie deficit will have muscle loss, even if it's minimal.
http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=28538&highlight=keto+muscle+loss
Edit: I also did not do refeeds/carb loads with keto which could explain some muscle loss.
Originally posted by psmith81992I don't think I've ever been outright opposed to doing so, so long as it's on invitation/request from the Iraqi government. But that's simply for respecting Iraq's sovereignty. On the matter of actually doing it, going back in to fight another, arguably more potent and powerful insurgency than anything pre-2011... that's tricky. I'm all for the airstrikes Obama just OK'd, but I'd be more wary if he OK'd troops on the ground. That's something that could evolve (or devolve) in to something else entirely, something unpredictable.
So LL, do you still oppose going into Iraq and stopping ISIS? If not, how many more beheadings will it take?
And I'm a big believer in a nation "coming of age" if you will. The threat that the IS is to Iraq and all Iraqis has really given them something to fight for. I feel that if so many of them have to fight and die for the cause of a unified, peaceful country, then the country as a whole will be more internally stable and confident, at least for a few generations or so. And assuming they're victorious. If they're not, and Iraq and/or Syria falls... then I'd be more comfortable with re-invading. I know it sounds arbitrary and indifferent to human suffering (and it totally is), but I want as few third parties involved as possible before we start charging in and kicking ass.
Although, yes: In general, I'm A-OK with IS biting every bullet.
It's not a big mistake, it's a win now mentality. Lebron has probably 3 years of his prime left. The only problem with this team is going to be defense, and that's a big problem. They should be favored to win the East (depending on D-rose's health), but they would get smashed in the finals against what I'm assuming is my Spurs.
Also I think Lebron stopped chasing Jordan, which is why he went back to Cleveland. He wants himself and his entourage to run the show and that wasn't going to happen on Riley's watch. I mean going back makes for an interesting and heartfelt story but let's be honest, he was going home to younger guys and no longer trusted Bosh and D-Wade or their aging cast.