Carbohydrate is it needed or not to build muscle?

dragonkin

Hey all,

Now my understanding of carbohydrate synthesis, is that is is converted to glycogen in the muscles or otherwise into fat in fat cells. Both processes requiring insulin. Now in the case of anaerobic activity intense sprinting etc. this glycogen is used as an energy source by the muscles otherwise the muscles burn fat.

However if you are not undergoing high intensity exercise frequently and depleting the glycogen reserves any excess carbohydrate is then converted into fat in fat cells. This entire process requires insulin and over time unless the glycogen is being depleted pretty constantly the excess insulin can result in insulin resistance and a whole host of health issues.

Now that is my understanding of the issue, however it seems to be generally accepted that carbohydrates are an essential requirement to gain weight and not something that should be used only to replenish depleted glycogen reserves. I am curious if there is some important element I am missing as to why carbohydrates are rated so highly in building mass.

Now obviously it depends on context but going to the gym, doing squats, deadlifts, pull up etc does not require glycogen depletion and all muscle groups can be fueled primarily by fat. Indeed as the muscles can only retain a certain amount of glycogen and it is replenished quite quickly it seems to me that excessive carbohydrate intake above that required to replish the bodys pretty measly glycogen reserves will result in excess insulin production, and possibly insulin resistance. Now this is a view I have gotten from reading websites etc. but it seems to me there is an alternative consensus and I would like to know more about it.

EDIT I know a certain amount is required to fuel the brain but my understanding is that vegetables provide sufficient quantities.

Duffman'05

dragonkin wrote: »

I am curious if there is some important element I am missing as to why carbohydrates are rated so highly in building mass.

it seems to me that excessive carbohydrate intake above that required to replish the bodys pretty measly glycogen reserves will result in excess insulin production, and possibly insulin resistance.

You're forgetting that there are different types of carbohydrates - namely monosaccharides (sugars), disaccharides and polysaccharides. The latter two are ultimately broken down to monos as only these can be absorbed in the gut.

Excessive consumption of sugars will ultimately lead to insulin resistance, but the point is that complex carbohydrates give you a more gradual increase in blood sugar levels as they are broken down, which insulin can handle.

They are rated so highly because they are high in energy (9kcal/g) and you can pick and choose between different types depending on how much energy you need and over what time frame.

dragonkin

Duffman'05 wrote: »

You're forgetting that there are different types of carbohydrates - namely monosaccharides (sugars), disaccharides and polysaccharides. The latter two are ultimately broken down to monos as only these can be absorbed in the gut.

Excessive consumption of sugars will ultimately lead to insulin resistance, but the point is that complex carbohydrates give you a more gradual increase in blood sugar levels as they are broken down, which insulin can handle.

They are rated so highly because they are high in energy (9kcal/g) and you can pick and choose between different types depending on how much energy you need and over what time frame.

Ok, but is it not better to simply remove the glucose (which I believe is what all carbs are eventually broken down into regardless of their glycemic index) from the equation completely and metabolise fat as a fuel source? Fat has 9kcal/g whereas glucose has 4kcal/g according to wikipedia, if using fat then the energy is highly bioavailable and doesn't require insulin. The glucose will end up as fat anyway unless it is burned off as glycogen during intensive exercise.

jive

you don't need carbohydrates to build muscle, you need protein and a caloric surplus

cc87

You can store carbohydrates as well.....you do know that? Every carb you eat and don't expend isnt necessarily going to turn to fat

dragonkin

cc87 wrote: »

You can store carbohydrates as well.....you do know that? Every carb you eat and don't expend isnt necessarily going to turn to fat

How? My understanding is that it gets stored as glycogen or fat. What other methods are there??

cc87

dragonkin wrote: »

How? My understanding is that it gets stored as glycogen or fat. What other methods are there??

Well thats what I mean, by the way you were talking it was sounding like you believed either the glycogen is used immediately or turned to fat.

Carbs are the bodies preferred energy source for anything above light exertion because they are easily metabolised.......are they essential, no. Bur it makes it a lot easier

dragonkin

cc87 wrote: »

Well thats what I mean, by the way you were talking it was sounding like you believed either the glycogen is used immediately or turned to fat.

Carbs are the bodies preferred energy source for anything above light exertion because they are easily metabolised.......are they essential, no. Bur it makes it a lot easier

Well according to some others would say fat is the preferred energy source as that is after all how the body stores its fuel and it is metabolised extremely easily. I've already said that glycogen is stored in muscles but the amount they can store is pretty small. Glycogen can be replaced from fat through ketone bodies whether that is a good thing or not depends on who you read.

karl_m

You need carbs for cardio though right? If you don't it starts to break down muscle? Am I wrong there?

UL_heart_throb

I'm not sure what the context of this question is and how much bro-science we should get into.

ARe you asking a basically academic/theoretical question about how import cho is to muscle growth?
Are you looking for people to debate the concept of having a completely cho free diet?

cc87

dragonkin wrote: »

Well according to some others would say fat is the preferred energy source as that is after all how the body stores its fuel and it is metabolised extremely easily. I've already said that glycogen is stored in muscles but the amount they can store is pretty small. Glycogen can be replaced from fat through ketone bodies whether that is a good thing or not depends on who you read.

What others?

dragonkin

karl_m wrote: »

You need carbs for cardio though right? If you don't it starts to break down muscle? Am I wrong there?

Well my understanding is if you're doing intensive cardio your muscles will burn glycogen. So yes, if you're doing a lot of high intensity cardio you need carbs, with different GIs depending on the exercise and rate of glycogen depletion. For instance pure glucose tabs will go straight to your bloodstream and cause a massive insulin spike however if your glycogen stores are depleted the muscle cells should suck it up and it won't be a problem. Your body can produce ketone bodies if you are carb depleted but doing so is a bit controversial and it's probably not a good idea. As far as I'm aware ketone bodies are from fat deposits however so I'm not sure if you will start to break down muscle, but I don't know. Generally you will just feel exhausted and have no energy.

dragonkin

UL_heart_throb wrote: »

I'm not sure what the context of this question is and how much bro-science we should get into.

ARe you asking a basically academic/theoretical question about how import cho is to muscle growth?
Are you looking for people to debate the concept of having a completely cho free diet?

Well I'm really looking for dissenting opinions backed up by some theory, I am just putting down what I know of this so far but I'm always wary of believing something when many others disagree.

dragonkin

cc87 wrote: »

What others?

Just look up the paleo diet, there are plenty of books written about it.

karl_m

Interesting. God nutrition can be so complicated.

cc87

dragonkin wrote: »

Just look up the paleo diet, there are plenty of books written about it.

Are you saying paleo is a no carb diet?

Gummy Panda

Don't carbs rarely get turned into fat?

UL_heart_throb

I am missing as to why carbohydrates are rated so highly in building mass

hope i'm not repeating what's already been said. the building blocks of muscle hypertrophy will be amino acids used in protein synthesis to increase the length of the myofibrils.

The stimulus for this is increased stress and loading. In order to move your muscles they need adequate energy stores. Slow twitch type 1 fibres preferentially use triglycerides as a fuel. Fast twitch type 2a fibres use glygogen and creatine phosphate as preferential fuel source. Really fast twitch type 2b fibres use ATP directly and creatine phosphate. (wikipedia).

So I don't really see how you could 'build mass' on a 0% CHO diet as a significant amount of your muscle fibres will not be working effectively. Gluconeogenesis will produce glucose from amino acid metabolism, but mostly in the liver and not in the brain or muscle cells. So I don't think you'd get any muscle growth on a 0% carb diet but open to correction.You might be able to subsist on it, as long as you got a lot of fat and vitamins but you'd certainly never grow big imo.

dragonkin

cc87 wrote: »

Are you saying paleo is a no carb diet?

In effect yes, it's not a no carb diet like the Atkins diet. Rather a low carb diet with increasing amounts of carbs depending on the level of high intensity activity.

UL_heart_throb

Dragonkin the more I read your posts the more I think you are talking about just starches from breads and grains. You do accept, there is a lot of cho in vegetables and fruits and millions of other food stuffs that aren't pure fat like oils?

Atkins wasn't even a no carb diet.

dragonkin

UL_heart_throb wrote: »

hope i'm not repeating what's already been said. the building blocks of muscle hypertrophy will be amino acids used in protein synthesis to increase the length of the myofibrils.

The stimulus for this is increased stress and loading. In order to move your muscles they need adequate energy stores. Slow twitch type 1 fibres preferentially use triglycerides as a fuel. Fast twitch type 2a fibres use glygogen and creatine phosphate as preferential fuel source. Really fast twitch type 2b fibres use ATP directly and creatine phosphate. (wikipedia).

So I don't really see how you could 'build mass' on a 0% CHO diet as a significant amount of your muscle fibres will not be working effectively. Gluconeogenesis will produce glucose from amino acid metabolism, but mostly in the liver and not in the brain or muscle cells. So I don't think you'd get any muscle growth on a 0% carb diet but open to correction.You might be able to subsist on it, as long as you got a lot of fat and vitamins but you'd certainly never grow big imo.

Ok but is the amount of carbs from vegetables sufficient? Or is it necessary to introduce traditional carb sources like bread, potatoes etc. I'm not really suggesting a no carb approach rather a low carb approach.

UL_heart_throb

dragonkin wrote: »

Ok but is the amount of carbs from vegetables sufficient? Or is it necessary to introduce traditional carb sources like bread, potatoes etc. I'm not really suggesting a no carb approach rather a low carb approach.

that's a completely different argument and question tbh. I'm pretty certain you could body build on a high protein, high fat diet with plenty of fresh green vegetables, some fruits and nuts and other stuff like legumes. You certainly don't need to ever eat bread, grain or potatoes.

Duffman'05

dragonkin wrote: »

Ok, but is it not better to simply remove the glucose (which I believe is what all carbs are eventually broken down into regardless of their glycemic index) from the equation completely and metabolise fat as a fuel source? Fat has 9kcal/g whereas glucose has 4kcal/g according to wikipedia, if using fat then the energy is highly bioavailable and doesn't require insulin. The glucose will end up as fat anyway unless it is burned off as glycogen during intensive exercise.

That was a typo (my bad) - yes glucose is around the4kcal/g mark.

Well, not all carbs are broken down to glucose - it's about 80%. Fructose and galactose are also absorbed at the end of digestion.

dragonkin

UL_heart_throb wrote: »

that's a completely different argument and question tbh. I'm pretty certain you could body build on a high protein, high fat diet with plenty of fresh green vegetables, some fruits and nuts and other stuff like legumes. You certainly don't need to ever eat bread, grain or potatoes.

Ok fair enough, when I say carbohydrates that is what I really mean the traditional carbs, pasta, bread, oats etc. I don't mean the many hidden carbs such as vegetables. I'm not even sure it would be possible to eat no carbs at all.

Brian?

Gummy Panda wrote: »

Don't carbs rarely get turned into fat?

Quite the opposite. Carbs are very easily stored as fat. They spike insulin as well.

Gummy Panda

briankeating wrote: »

Gummy Panda wrote: »

Don't carbs rarely get turned into fat?

Quite the opposite. Carbs are very easily stored as fat. They spike insulin as well.

From my understanding, it requires massive amounts of carbs for de novo lipogenesis to occur in humans. Also that carb consumption blunts the oxidation of fat so dietary fat is stored.

Zamboni

dragonkin wrote: »

Ok but is the amount of carbs from vegetables sufficient? Or is it necessary to introduce traditional carb sources like bread, potatoes etc. I'm not really suggesting a no carb approach rather a low carb approach.

It is increasingly difficult, both time and cost wise, to build muscle on a paleo diet on an increasing rate of calories.
Even some militant paleo warriors will introduce dairy and sweet potato and rice on a bulk.
Try consuming 3,500+ calories a day pure paleo. Bloody hard and expensive.

dragonkin

Zamboni wrote: »

It is increasingly difficult, both time and cost wise, to build muscle on a paleo diet on an increasing rate of calories.
Even some militant paleo warriors will introduce dairy and sweet potato and rice on a bulk.
Try consuming 3,500+ calories a day pure paleo. Bloody hard and expensive.

Yes I have been enlightened by the fact that certain muscle fibres require cho to operate at all I was not aware of this. I thought they only required fat at the lower levels of activity. I guess you just have to really pay attention to your body and figure out what it needs.

Brian?

Gummy Panda wrote: »

briankeating wrote: »

Gummy Panda wrote: »

Don't carbs rarely get turned into fat?

Quite the opposite. Carbs are very easily stored as fat. They spike insulin as well.

From my understanding, it requires massive amounts of carbs for de novo lipogenesis to occur in humans. Also that carb consumption blunts the oxidation of fat so dietary fat is stored.

I could well have it arseways.

Hanley

UL_heart_throb wrote: »

I'm not sure what the context of this question is and how much bro-science we should get into.

ARe you asking a basically academic/theoretical question about how import cho is to muscle growth?
Are you looking for people to debate the concept of having a completely cho free diet?

This would be interesting. Both for laughs, and from an information sharing standpoint

Gummy Panda wrote: »

Don't carbs rarely get turned into fat?

Yes - it's mostly the ingested fat you eat that gets stored as fat and not metabolised for energy.

briankeating wrote: »

Quite the opposite. Carbs are very easily stored as fat. They spike insulin as well.

Gummy Panda wrote: »

From my understanding, it requires massive amounts of carbs for de novo lipogenesis to occur in humans. Also that carb consumption blunts the oxidation of fat so dietary fat is stored.

Yeah - that's pretty much it there out of the Tootless black and white bear De novo lipogenesis is unlikely for most.

The other thing to be aware of is the link between high carb consumption, increased palmitic acid levels, and increased VLDL cholesterol levels as a results.

And a final consideration - in the absence of sufficient kcals and during hard training, cortisol release stimulates gluconeogenesis. And if you're not eating sufficient kcals, where does the protein come from to fuel it? Your musckles.

Excess carb consumption is bad. Adequate is not. Finding that balance is most people's problem.

dragonkin

Gummy Panda wrote: »

From my understanding, it requires massive amounts of carbs for de novo lipogenesis to occur in humans. Also that carb consumption blunts the oxidation of fat so dietary fat is stored.

Ok, I've read a little bit about this again and from what I gather the glucose is turned in glycerol phosphate which is the key ingredient in triglycerides (that is fat that is held locked in a cell), if there is not a lot of glycerol phosphate triglycerides are not formed as easily. So in effect fat cannot be stored without glucose.

Hanley

dragonkin wrote: »

Ok, I've read a little bit about this again and from what I gather the glucose is turned in glycerol phosphate which is the key ingredient in triglycerides (that is fat that is held locked in a cell), if there is not a lot of glycerol phosphate triglycerides are not formed as easily. So in effect fat cannot be stored without glucose.

Fat cannot be stored without glucose? So it would be theoretically impossible to get fat off a high fat, very low carb diet?

dragonkin

Hanley wrote: »

Fat cannot be stored without glucose? So it would be theoretically impossible to get fat off a high fat, very low carb diet?

I just read that in good calories bad calories. I will have to do more research but here is a quote from the book

“It may be stated categorically,” the University of Wisconsin endocrinologist Edgar Gordon wrote in JAMA in 1963, “that the storage of fat, and therefore
the production and maintenance of obesity, cannot take place unless glucose is being metabolized. Since glucose cannot be used by most tissues
without the presence of insulin, it also may be stated categorically that obesity is impossible in the absence of adequate tissue concentrations of
insulin…. Thus an abundant supply of carbohydrate food exerts a powerful influence in directing the stream of glucose metabolism into lipogenesis,
whereas a relatively low carbohydrate intake tends to minimize the storage of fat.”

Hanley

dragonkin wrote: »

I just read that in good calories bad calories. I will have to do more research but here is a quote from the book

“It may be stated categorically,” the University of Wisconsin endocrinologist Edgar Gordon wrote in JAMA in 1963, “that the storage of fat, and therefore
the production and maintenance of obesity, cannot take place unless glucose is being metabolized. Since glucose cannot be used by most tissues
without the presence of insulin, it also may be stated categorically that obesity is impossible in the absence of adequate tissue concentrations of
insulin…. Thus an abundant supply of carbohydrate food exerts a powerful influence in directing the stream of glucose metabolism into lipogenesis,
whereas a relatively low carbohydrate intake tends to minimize the storage of fat.”

Dude... you just quoted "evidence" from damn near 40 years ago.

dragonkin

Hanley wrote: »

Dude... you just quoted "evidence" from damn near 40 years ago.

Well look, I'm not trying to prove anything here just throwing out ideas if you have more recent relevent information please share it. Triglycerides are formed using glycerol phosphate which comes from glucose as far as I can see. Anyways all the best papers were published back in the 60s at least in my field.

UL_heart_throb

There was hardly anything known about obesity and its causes (other than the rather simplistic overeating and under exercising) until leptin was discovered in 1994.

Hanley

dragonkin wrote: »

Well look, I'm not trying to prove anything here just throwing out ideas if you have more recent relevent information please share it. Triglycerides are formed using glycerol phosphate which comes from glucose as far as I can see. Anyways all the best papers were published back in the 60s at least in my field.

Honestly, without trying to sound condescending, is this all coming from Gary Taubes? You really need to be careful with this stuff because there's so much agenda pushing.

I was talking to someone about this a while ago, here's the extract from the mail (they'd be a good friend so so "get me" if that makes sense?)

"So it would appear that without insulin, you don't store fat? That's what Taubes is saying, and what I was joking about. Because of course you do. It's like saying once you don't eat carbs you can eat as many kcals as you want, and of course that's a frackin' ridiculous notion!!

Becauuuuuse... there's also an enzyme called Acylation Stimulating Protein (ASP), which is what Will was talking about. Even when no carbs/insulin are around (as in a low carb/ketogenic diet) it still acts in pretty much the same way as insulin. It's produced as a result of fat levels in the blood stream (as a result of eating) and sucks the fat out and into fat cells for storage (ie increases body fat levels). It's why you've fat eskimos for example!!

It's all f*cking ridiculous and is pretty easily solved by two words - balance and moderation."

Once again I'm going to say - carbs are not the problem once they're good quality and eaten according to activity levels. Taubes manipulates so much stuff to push his own agenda it makes my head spin.

EDIT: as always I'm willing to learn, so if anyone wants to chime in on the subtler nuances, I'd love to hear it!

UL_heart_throb

I'm honestly finding this thread difficult to follow. Like we have the macromolecules protein, carbohydrate and fat. But then someone will use start using these terms to describe non-dietary molecules. For example, do you need protein to store fat? Good question from a macromolecule bro-science point of view. But what if someone means protein as in literally amino-acid chains, if you had no protein, you'd have no cell membrane and no cell membrane transporters and nothing would work. Extreme, unrealistic and not a pragmatic example but makes the point.

UL_heart_throb

Hanley wrote: »

EDIT: as always I'm willing to learn, so if anyone wants to chime in on the subtler nuances, I'd love to hear it!

I think there are a huge amount of adipokines, adipose derived hormones and cytokines and hormones of other origin that influence storage and mobilisation of fat, contribute to obesity, satiation and appetite. Insulin is the best understood but there are many others leptin, ghrelin, ASP/C3adesArg etc.

If someone has a review article of this I'd love to read it, it actually seems a very hot topic.

JJayoo

I am full of carbs.

jive

UL_heart_throb wrote: »

I'm honestly finding this thread difficult to follow. Like we have the macromolecules protein, carbohydrate and fat. But then someone will use start using these terms to describe non-dietary molecules. For example, do you need protein to store fat? Good question from a macromolecule bro-science point of view. But what if someone means protein as in literally amino-acid chains, if you had no protein, you'd have no cell membrane and no cell membrane transporters and nothing would work. Extreme, unrealistic and not a pragmatic example but makes the point.

you need protein to live nevermind just to store fat. if you had no protein you'd be dead and not posting about cell membranes and transporters

kevpants

Absolutely no one has addressed the question though. It's turned into a slimming thread. Why are carbs important in gaining muscle?

OP I've no idea why but it appears to me that they are. I've first hand experience of high, lo and no carb diets and the concensus seems to be it's seriously hard to add significant muscle mass without a significant intake of carbs. Anyone care to explain?

christmas2012

carbohydrate turns into glycogen and is stored in the muscle if it is unused it turns straight into fat,but carbohydrate is the best way to bulk up if you want more muscle..

jive

UL_heart_throb wrote: »

There was hardly anything known about obesity and its causes (other than the rather simplistic overeating and under exercising) until leptin was discovered in 1994.

i always have a good lol at the mouse with the leptin gene mutation/deletion

UL_heart_throb

jive wrote: »

you need protein to live nevermind just to store fat. if you had no protein you'd be dead and not posting about cell membranes and transporters

that was my point

Hanley

jive wrote: »

you need protein to live nevermind just to store fat. if you had no protein you'd be dead and not posting about cell membranes and transporters

That's what he said?

christmas2012 wrote: »

carbohydrate turns into glycogen and is stored in the muscle if it is unused it turns straight into fat,but carbohydrate is the best way to bulk up if you want more muscle..

Ah come on. Really??

jive

kevpants wrote: »

Absolutely no one has addressed the question though. It's turned into a slimming thread. Why are carbs important in gaining muscle?

OP I've no idea why but it appears to me that they are. I've first hand experience of high, lo and no carb diets and the concensus seems to be it's seriously hard to add significant muscle mass without a significant intake of carbs. Anyone care to explain?

caloric differences. easier for the average joe to get more calories by getting more carbs on board, tougher to keep calories high without carbs. probably has other effects too but id imagine that would be the biggest factor

UL_heart_throb

kevpants wrote: »

Absolutely no one has addressed the question though. It's turned into a slimming thread. Why are carbs important in gaining muscle?

OP I've no idea why but it appears to me that they are. I've first hand experience of high, lo and no carb diets and the concensus seems to be it's seriously hard to add significant muscle mass without a significant intake of carbs. Anyone care to explain?

My argument was CHO is the best source of energy for the exercise needed to build muscle mass. I don't know how anyone would build big muscles without using carbs as an energy source. They can go on a carb-freeish diet to cut for the podium. Rejected?

jive

UL_heart_throb wrote: »

that was my point

Hanley wrote: »

That's what he said?

Oh right. I thought he was on about how no protein would affect you. You can live without carbs though so i don't really understand the point... ??? maybe im a spastic and its going over my head

Hanley

UL_heart_throb wrote: »

My argument was CHO is the best source of energy for the exercise needed to build muscle mass. I don't know how anyone would build big muscles without using carbs as an energy source. They can go on a carb-freeish diet to cut for the podium. Rejected?

Eat enough carbs to fuel exercise and daily activity.

Save the protein and fat you eat to fuel gunzz.

Simple enough idea, no?

Mellor

kevpants wrote: »

Absolutely no one has addressed the question though. It's turned into a slimming thread. Why are carbs important in gaining muscle?

OP I've no idea why but it appears to me that they are. I've first hand experience of high, lo and no carb diets and the concensus seems to be it's seriously hard to add significant muscle mass without a significant intake of carbs. Anyone care to explain?

Trying to eat a calorific surplus without carbs is unnecessary torture.

christmas2012 wrote: »

carbohydrate turns into glycogen and is stored in the muscle if it is unused it turns straight into fat,but carbohydrate is the best way to bulk up if you want more muscle..

Carbs are converted to glycogen, but everything else you said was wrong.
Carbs rarely turn to fat under normal conditions. Excess carbs can make you fat, but that's doesn't mean that they turn to fat.

Excess carbs increase gylcogen oxidation. Literally, the more carbs you eat the more carbs you burn. But obviously basic physics still applies and the increase in energy coming from carbs must be balanced. So fat oxidation drops. This fat is then stored directly.

The body is efficent. It makes no sense to burn carbs and fat for energy, whilst converting the excess carbs to fat for storage. It's far easier to just burn carbs and store the fat.