veganmaster

Very nice chat software. I'm chatting with myself right now

Hi, When overfeeding I use Maltodextrin + soy protein, and I buy them from here (the best deal online I can find for both): http://store.honeyvillegrain.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWPROD&ProdID=643 In fact the combo is pretty much the cheapest energy source around. I get the 50 lb bag of M + a couple 4 lb bags of soy protein (I think it's about $90 total). You have to buy in these large amounts to get a good deal - but you get a lot. Just the bag of maltodextrin is over 90,000 kcal for around 50 bucks.

To me eating clean means eating the right foods for our biology: whole plants (no oils or refined sugars). Other issues are of a much lesser priority, as the body has a large capacity for healing once the digestive burden of animal foods and oils are removed from the picture. Whether you focus on starches, or instead eat tons of greens and fruit, the end result will be very similar: near optimal healing potential. The key is realizing that replacing animal food and oils with whole plants is the key to health. I do find it quite annoying that "clean bulking" to regular folks means eating lots of skinless chicken and fish and low fat dairy - all foods proven to cause disease build-up through waste products. The irony is that people every day are diagnosed with high cholesterol, blood pressure, etc., from eating such a "clean" diet - and they just don't understand why. Animal foods are "dirty" fuel for the herbivorous human machine!

Speaking of shoes, I'm rehabilitating so I'll be back on the tennis court in a month or so, and the shoes I like aren't being made anymore. What is your favorite shoe for tennis (or jogging, biking, etc.)? I found New Blance 338 shoes to be comfortable right off the bat - but I can't even find them on ebay. I'm not willing to spend the $150 for the special shoes in that first article, lol, though they sound very cool. I wonder if they'll let me play tennis barefoot, haha, that would sure make for a controlled game lol.

I just posted a comment - great article. You totally ROCK - shattering the propaganda, puttin' your money where your mouth is, so to speak!

I'm currently healing my weak points (left foot, right wrist) with stretching and barefoot walking (though I've been into muscle work for a few years, I was retarded about stretching, until my GF healed her nagging shoulder injuries this year using simple stretches - she's a gardener who always gets plenty of exercise, so it was an epiphany to me that stretching is the foundation of exercise, not the other way around - now I feel like I finally have all aspects of health down ). Here are two articles that highlight the fact that shoes by definition get in the way of healthy feet, for evolutionary and biomechanical reasons. I really want to get back to playing tennis this summer, and I'm going to do it with barefoot walking/jogging (indoors, cuz I don't fancy running around the neighborhood concrete and asphalt barefoot - though the strange looks might be worth it). I think the lack of understanding of evolutiion is a prime reason modern people tend to have such poor health. Guess all those Carl Sagan books I read have helped steer me in the right direction, lol! Through the lens of evolution it is easy to understand why a vegan diet and stretching is so powerful. What do you think? http://nymag.com/health/features/46213/ http://anthropik.com/2007/06/learning-to-walk/

Although the weight of the evidence is very heavily on your side, you face an uphill battle (see my other posts for lots of details). http://www.drmcdougall.com has plenty of well-referenced scientific articles for the science inclined, check out the 2005 United Nations report "Livestock's Long Shadow" which shows that livestock acount for significantly more anthropogenic Co2 equivalent emissions (something like 19% for livestock compared to 13% for ALL of world transportation!!). That is for the environmentalist. It's easy enough to find info about the vast ethical reasons too. But ALWAYS remember that 99% of people will automatically rejects new ideas, regardless of the reality they represent - new memes are despised, and old comfortable memes (usually vulgar propaganda) are defended with vigor. Most people will not listen to the truth until THEY ARE READY. I have helped many people eat more plants/go vegan over my 12 years of veganism, mostly via my in-depth knowledge of nutrition. BUT not ONE of those people wasn't already slightly open to the idea. An uncurious mind is like a brick wall - "it's hard to teach an old dog new tricks." Most people would rather suffer and die horribly from disease than face the frightening changes in their long-term habits - the fear of doing something bold and unpopular. The excuse is often "grandpa ate meat and smoked every day and lived to 90" - little do they know that grandpa likely ate way more whole plant food in his life than themselves. And grandpa likely never became obese. The human body is very tough, and can surive for a long time on a even a diet of mostly whiskey! Point out the people you know who didn't live to 90, but died at 50 from animal product consumption, like Jim Fixx, the founder of modern jogging. Like Tim Russert. Like thousands of people who die from artery disease in the US every single day. The only way to slowly change the minds of the uncritical thinkers is to lead by example - eat a low-fat vegan diet + stretching and exercise and perhaps eventually they will notice that you stay trim and tone, almost never get sick, haven't gone to the doctor in years, require no prescription drugs, etc. - this is why this site is so important, it helps shatter the propaganda. My GFs parents are obese and dying from various animal food/oil causes diseases, from Multiple Sclerosis to Diabetes to Artery and Lung Disease - I have educated her mother well enough to give her the knowledge to take control of her health - but she does nothing because her husband is totally unsupportive (well that's her excuse) - he's quite happy to be disabled, diseased and drugged up on pills - as long as he gets his meat! They are both disabled too - a direct result of their shitty lifestyle habits. I say this to highlight the power of ingrained habits - most people are sheeple, and do NOT know how to think for themselves. Even when they acknowledge the truth, they are so comfortable being sick and blaming "bad genes" that taking responsibility for their health is terrifying. “During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.” George Orwell And it seems nothing is more personal than diet - it's like going up to a dog eating out of his food bowl - putting your hands near his mouth is dangerous. So get ready for rejection, but know the facts are squarely on your side, from all angles. We humans are herd animals, afterall - and following the group has been a successful evolutionary strategy in the past - but it is absolutely a recipe for failure in "modern" propagandized society - a topsy turvy world where feeding a biological herbivore solely plant food somehow seems crazy! Recognizing that evolutionary mismatch is the key to taking control of personal health - show me someone who reversed their chronic disease and I'll show you someone who has cultivated respect for our herbivorous human biology (whether they realize it or not). Good luck! http://michaelbluejay.com/veg/natural.html http://www.nealhendrickson.com/mcdougall/030700pumeatinthehumandiet.htm http://www.drmcdougall.com/misc/2006nl/dec/truth.htm

I am quite aware of the good points you are making - but one can call gravity "just a theory," but the wide-ranging evidence is so robust that I have no problem at all saying a very low fat vegan diet cures diseases - because we are biological herbivores! You talk about finding a single diabetic disproving the hypothesis, but you are drifting into the area of extreme genetic mutation. What I am saying is that every single human being, BY DEFINITION, has a digestive tract adapted to processing plant foods. This is scientific fact. Our DNA is over 99% chimp, afterall. Like gravity & evolution, people are free to believe otherwise - but no matter what people think: we are herbivorous apes. Science shows us that chronic disease is a caused by feeding herbivores like carnivores. Let's take artery disease as an example (stroke, heart attack, aneurysm, etc.) Every single person who follows a strict low-fat vegan diet will remove the main cause of their artery disease. It happens everyday, and it is normal. Some permanent damage may have already been done - but we must remember that our bodies are constantly building up and breaking down - the work of McDougall, Ornish, and so many others showcases the true healing power of the human body when fed the biologically appropriate fuel! McDougall takes diseased, obese people who come in on handfuls of pills, and in less than 2 weeks they are often off the pills and their arteries have begun to heal. The body is constantly healing - but animal food produces so much waste that regular intake of it overcomes our healing potential. From the available evidence IMO it is quite logical for me to say "a very low fat vegan diet will inevitably remove the waste by-products built up from years of animal food intake, from years of overcoming the body's natural healing potential by feeding the human metabolism the wrong fuel." In fact it is I would go as far as saying it is INEVITABLE. The cholesterol, high-sulfur animal protein, uric acid, chemical toxins, etc., has been removed from the diet. So how exactly is a person going to cause heart disease without animal foods and oil? The Framingham Heart Study has never encountered artery disease in people with cholesterol levels below 150 (100-150 is a normal level for humans eating plants). Every time a study fairly compares animal product heavy diets to low-fat vegan diets, superb results are inevitable, as nothing cures a problem like removing the cause. We are far more similiar than different - each newborn comes with the same basic body plan. No matter what the popular articles say, artery disease is not caused by DNA. Genetics provides the foundation, but environments determines health. So even if you're whole family has died of heart disease - you don't have to, by choosing to respect your herbivorous biology you remove the cause. I suppose we're arguing semantics somewhat - but I'm tired of the big picture being ignored. The key step is realizing we are biological machines, specialized for eating plants. All we have to do to prevent chronic disease is eat lots of whole plant food and move out of the way! Optimal body healing awaits!

The Atkins diet is completely ridiculous. We actually spent a day in one of my biochemistry classes learning why Atkins causes you to poison yourself (flaming Atkins wasn't the purpose of the lesson...it was actually on "altered lipid metabolism", but nearly everything in the lesson applied perfectly to the situation of someone on Atkins). The problem is that your body runs on carbs, specifically glucose - and if you starve yourself of carbs, your body starts making them from proteins and fats. The worst case scenario is long-term carb deprivation (like Atkins), where you can actually use up your Krebs intermediates (used by the mitochondria in your cells in the last and most important steps of turning food into energy) to produce extra glucose. This totally f*cks with your metabolism, since you're not only running off of protein and fat, but you can't even turn them into energy the way you would if you weren't carb-starved. The end result is the production of a lot of ketones - wonky molecules you DO NOT want to be producing. It's the reason a lot of people on Atkins get bad breath - this is due to the production of ketones, which is a similar (but milder in the case of Atkins) reason that people in ketoacidotic diabetic comas have that smell to their breath. I can't even begin to describe how bad that is for you. Plus all the cholesterol and saturated fat you get from Atkins...it's just such a bad idea for your health. Well said! I got this e-mail from McDougall about it: Advertising Passed Off As Research Confuses the Public Again A study, published in the July 17, 2008 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine, has generated headlines that may lead the casual reader to believe that a low-carbohydrate (animal-food based) diet is the healthy, effective way to lose weight and a low-fat, plant-food based diet, like the McDougall diet, is not. The diet they called “low fat” was the American Heart Association Diet - a diet of 30% fat with 300 mg of cholesterol daily. The diet I recommend is 7% fat with no cholesterol. The Dr. Robert C. and Veronica Atkins Research Foundation funded the study. The full study can be read here: http://content.nejm.org/cgi/reprint/359/3/229.pdf This is another case of purposeful deception, publicized widely in order to confuse the public—keeping the status quo. There will be an economic windfall for a variety of industries with an increase in sales of meats, dairy products, cholesterol-lowering statins, and angioplasties. Consumers will pay with worse health, rising medical bills, higher food costs, and an increase in environmental pollution. This was a 2-year trial of 322 moderately obese (about 200 pounds or 91 Kg), mostly men, randomly assigned to follow a low-fat, restricted-calorie; a Mediterranean, restricted-calorie; or a low-carbohydrate, non–restricted-calorie regime. The mean weight losses were 7.26, 10.12, and 12.1 pounds (3.3 Kg, 4.6 Kg, and 5.5 Kg), respectively. There was little change in cholesterol levels (LDL-cholesterol changes were -0.5, -5.6, and -3 mg/dL, respectively). At our live-in program the average weight loss for moderately overweight people in 7 days is 4.5 pounds (2 Kg)—while eating without limit from a delicious buffet of foods. And the average reduction in total cholesterol is 25 mg/dL. John McDougall, MD I made a post in another thread about how researchers design studies to produce a marketable result. This is an excellent example. The fact that cholesterol levels barely changed is a very clear indication that health was not much improved, despite their weight loss. The "scientists" have succeeded - they designed a study that, due to the physics of weight loss, would inevitably give a marketable result for big business. Oh, and the American Heart Association's diet is a fucking joke - it's proven to worsen artery disease (but at a slightly slower rate than the SAD, whoooopeeeee!).

Here's a great list of studies for further research: http://www.pritikin.com/research/research_StudiesResearch.shtml Also check out the studies of Dr. Dean Ornish: http://www.pmri.org/?p=nwr There is so much evidence supportive of our herbivorous nature, and the fact is anytime we eat significant animal food disease rates skyrocket. Yet most studies are correlational in nature, with scientists being obsessed with "risk factors." So researchers can see that limiting "saturated fat," "cholesterol" "animal protein" etc. is healthy, but they are generally so obsessed with details they ignore the big picture: all these risk factors describe a diet high in animal foods. They write studies about "metabolic syndrome" - which describes the effects of animal foods without admitting it. There is no mystery. Correlational studies are part of the problem because they are ripe for manipulation. Yet the few studies that directly change people's diets to low-fat vegan always show dramatic improvements that, if the results had been achieved by drugs, it would make biliions of dollars and be in the media constantly. But no pill will ever remove the cause at its source: the biologically inappropriate meat/dairy that is put into a digestive tract designed for plant foods, we are primates, afterall. Dean Ornish's research highlights the power of plant foods - reversing heart disease, prostate cancer. I totally disagree that "old" research is somehow inferior to "new" research. A quality study stands the test of time, and reflects big picture reality. So many of the "newer" studies are exercises in obfuscation - purposefully designed to get the result industry wants, to make it appear that their product (animal foods, pills) can be part "of a balanced diet." Yet anyone who has reversed heart disease, cancer, diabetes, autoimmune diseases, they have done it with a 95-100% low-fat plant diet, like these Star McDougallers: http://www.drmcdougall.com/star.html Like these Pritikin Successes: http://www.pritikin.com/stories/stories_FromGuests.shtml Reality is reflected by both quality science and personal experience. And it has been known for a very long time - royalty in the past have wished each other "the health of peasants" - because they knew their poor subjects, who ate simple plant diets and exercised, had far greater health than themselves, with their intake of rich animal foods. The longest lived people in the world, as documented by John Robbins' book "Healthy At 100" have 2 things in common: a diet very high in whole plant foods, and a high level of activity. I love the power of the scientific method, but in this era of specialization, even nutrition scientists rarely connect the dots (most nutrition researchers couldn't even reverse their own diseases). We are herbivores, designed via evolution to perfectly process plants. We can handle a little animal food, but every bite directly increases waste buildup precisely because we are adapted especially for plant food metabolism. Specialization comes at a cost: animal food is dirty fuel for the human machine. Eating significant amounts leads to artery-lined plaques, promotes cancer, causes osteoporosis, diabetes, kidney stones, kidney disease, etc. - in fact multiple areas of the body are burdened with a steadily increasing waste load/consequences. Removing the cause is the only effective solution (fasting also works of course, since it does remove the cause, thus the popularity of caloric restriction for health benefits - any reduction in animal food intake increases the body's healing potential, in a dose-dependent fashion). The evidence is overwhelming, and only propaganda and junk science keep the "controversy" alive. Even the American Dietetic Association admits the power of plant nutrition - but they also grovel at the feet of industry and bend over backwards to keep the lie alive: they must be able to say that animal foods, in fact ANY food, can be a part of a "balanced diet." Not just for big business, but also because people love hearing good news about their bad habits. So plant foods can be advertised as "reducing the risk" of disease, but the truth that humans are herbivores, that every bite of animal food has negative consequences, that can never be explicitly advertised. The truth is steadily battered down by industry because it lowers profits, the food/drug/medicine industries are mostly profiting from animal-food induced suffering - & once people learn the truth and apply it to their diets, they no longer need anything other than emergency care - and that's the way it should be! Let thy (plant) food be thy medicine.

Also, you may want to read why the glycemic index is a poor and faulty tool for food choices: http://www.drmcdougall.com/misc/2006nl/july/glycemic.htm The two articles I posted will blow your mind if your carb-phobic at all, lol. Maybe I should have said, "free your mind."

Check out my posts if you'd like - there is a lot of info there. In fact you'll see my last post was about diabetes. This article connects the scientific dots: http://www.nealhendrickson.com/mcdougall/040200pudiabetes.htm Suffice it to say eating a no-oil, whole foods vegan diet (high starch) gives the body maximum room to heal, and thus prevent/reverse/ameliorate chronic diseases, which are all manifestations of waste by-product build up from intake of animal foods and oil (much greater detail in my other posts). You are on the right track!

Reading the article, McDougall says that overconsumption (esp. of fatty animal foods) leads to diabetes. In your opinion then, would a vegan with a high fruit intake (90% of cals, say) who is eating above their minimum caloric requirement (in a muscle building program, etc.), would they be at risk for diabetes? Or, more simply, will a diet high in sugars and with caloric excess cause diabetes? Absolutely not, such a diet will cure and prevent diabetes - our bodies are superbly designed to process fruit with very little waste build-up - thus the bodies healing potential is maintained as normal. It is the consumption of animal foods that is the main problem (refined oil being another). Someone eating 90% fruit is feeding the human machine the low-fat, high CHO food that we are designed to process! The ABSENCE of cholesterol and saturated fat (which line the arteries with plaques that will eventually rupture), of high-sulfur animal proteins (which pull calcium from bones to buffer pH, leading to porous bones and eventual fracture) - is the main benefit of the vegan diet. The SAD diet constantly overcomes the body's healing potential via regular unhealthy meals. This explains the popularity of fasting - the absence of these chemical constituents of animal food starts the reversal of waste product build-up (personally I fast for fat loss, but it is nice give the digestive tract some rest). We must remember the body is constantly healing - but we are designed via millions of years of brutal evolution to process plants beautifully! Fed biologically appropriate diets, the true healing potential of the organism blossoms forth - just look at the "Star McDougallers" section of http://www.drmcdougall.com to understand just how quickly people begin to heal once they submit to their vegan biology. I have seen no evidence at all that overfeeding CHO (surplus kcal) is by itself disease inducing - superficial correlations aside. The confusion caused by correlational, risk-factor obsessed science is stupendous - the rise of specialization has led to a neglecting of the big picture, if you know what I mean. I mean, it would be a hell of a task to find someone with clogged arteries whose been eating a low fat vegan for a year - and if you did find them they must have been eating lots of meat in their sleep! Chronic disease is extremely rare in all organisms that consume biologically appropriate diets & exercise naturally - why would we expect any different, when we look at the many incredible and refined adaptations that life has made? The key insight into human health is that we are biological herbivores that can handle all manner of plant foods cleanly (with the exception of refined oils). Eat high on the food chain, and we suffer the consequences of running a machine on the wrong kind of fuel mix - sure it works ok, but at what cost? Just like we can survive on alcohol ok like alcoholics do - but thrive? That's reserved for whoever eats only whole plant foods and does regular stretching/exercise. Here's an important excerpt from that article and some studies for further learnin': "The Treatment of Type-2 Diabetes with a Low-Fat, Plant-Food Diet Multiple studies dating as far back as the 1920s have shown the benefits of a high-carbohydrate, low-fat diet in the treatment of type-2 diabetes.23 For example, studies from the University of Kentucky Medical School reported as many as two-thirds of diabetics were able to discontinue insulin and almost all stopped oral agents.24 A recent thorough review of the use of a vegetarian diet in the treatment of type-2 diabetes was published in the September 2003 issue of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. In this review article Dr. David Jenkins reported on research showing improvements in blood sugars in diabetics with 39% stopping insulin and 71% stopping diabetic pills after three weeks of therapy.25 Relief of diabetic neuropathy pains, reduced lipids (cholesterol and triglycerides), and weight loss have also been reported with a low-fat, pure-vegetarian diet. Another recent research paper has reported similar findings with a low-fat vegetarian diet.26 Many of these people with type-2 diabetes are cured of their disease within three weeks, and most will be cured of their diabetes over time as they adhere to a low-fat, high carbohydrate diet, exercise, and lose all of their excess body fat. This same kind of diet (in large part because of the restriction of animal protein) has been shown to dramatically improve the health of the kidneys of diabetics (protein in the urine, a sign of diabetic kidney damage, decreases and disappears).27,28 Research has also shown diabetic damage found in the eyes (retinopathy) can be reversed with a low-fat diet.29,30 24) Kiehm TG, Anderson JW, Ward K. Beneficial effects of a high carbohydrate, high fiber diet on hyperglycemic diabetic men. Am J Clin Nutr. 1976 Aug;29(:895-9. 25) Jenkins DJ, Kendall CW, Marchie A, Jenkins AL, Augustin LS, Ludwig DS, Barnard ND, Anderson JW. Type 2 diabetes and the vegetarian diet. Am J Clin Nutr. 2003 Sep;78(3 Suppl):610S-616S. 26) Nicholson AS, Sklar M, Barnard ND, Gore S, Sullivan R, Browning S. Toward improved management of NIDDM: A randomized, controlled, pilot intervention using a lowfat, vegetarian diet. Prev Med. 1999 Aug;29(2):87-91. 27) Raal FJ, Kalk WJ, Lawson M, Esser JD, Buys R, Fourie L, Panz VR. Effect of moderate dietary protein restriction on the progression of overt diabetic nephropathy: a 6-mo prospective study. Am J Clin Nutr. 1994 Oct;60(4):579-85. 28) Cupisti A. Vegetarian diet alternated with conventional low-protein diet for patients with chronic renal failure. J Ren Nutr. 2002 Jan;12(1):32-7. 29) Van Eck W. The effect of a low fat diet on the serum lipids in diabetes and its significance in diabetic retinopathy. Am J Med. 1959; 27:196-211. 30) Kempner W. Effect of the rice diet on diabetes mellitus associated with vascular disease. Postgrad Med. 1958; 24:359-71. 31) Ornish D, Brown SE, Scherwitz LW, Billings JH, Armstrong WT, Ports TA, McLanahan SM, Kirkeeide RL, Brand RJ, Gould KL. Can lifestyle changes reverse coronary heart disease? The Lifestyle Heart Trial. Lancet. 1990 Jul 21;336(8708):129-33."

Diabetes is not caused by high intake of carbohydrates, but by high intake of animal foods and oil. In fact populations eating the greatest amount of carbs have the least diabetes. I like to come back to the big picture science: not only does a very low fat vegan diet remove the cause of basically all chronic diseases (by fueling the herbivorous human machine with the biologically appropriate fuel) but body recomposition is also optimized via the same diet. The implicating of CHO in disease is correlational in nature - our bodies excel at processing carbs cleanly, and it is a testament to misperception that there are diabetics out there who are afraid of potatoes and carrots! The irony is huge, as the whole carb-phobia thing makes people afraid of the very foundation of a healthy diet. Certainly starches are even better for you than simple sugars (which feed bacteria) but they are both super compared to the waste product build up caused by animal foods and oils (cholesterol, animal protein, uric acid, etc. leading to artery disease, kidney disease, gallstones, diabetes, autoimmune diseases & so much more). See this article for an overview of the diabetes science (McDougall is the best conveyor of the big picture science, IMO, because never sugar-coats anything. The evidence bats first and last, as it should be. http://www.nealhendrickson.com/mcdougall/040200pudiabetes.htm I'll compile some of my favorite studies for you to read - I have binders full of them, many are available in full for free (most references I've put in a posts merely have to be googled to find the full study). I'll update this post with some favorites tonight.

Welcome aboard! The answer is "NO." Physics guarantees (and metabolism science confirms) that if you consume surplus kcal, you will build energy stores. You are actuall in a great position for maximum body recomposition results, all you have to do now is focus on increasing total kcal intake (especially CHO intake while minimizing fat intake). Please read my post history for tons of detail and further info. While glycogen stores are limited, protein and fat stores can theoretically unlimited. Just think of sumo wrestlers and world record sized-humans - they have extremely large stores of BOTH LBM & FAT, directly as a result of regularly consuming more energy than expending ("hardgainer" is just someone with a naturally lower appetite - but physics is the same for everyone). A high fat diet is much worse for recomposition compared to an isocaloric low-fat hi-CHO diet (a taste of the studies are referenced in my other posts). The trick is to realize that it may require eating some processed, liquid foods, because the faster the digestion, the more energy the body can process. Also, chewing and mouth feel are satiety signals that can be bypassed by drinking your kcal - you will be hungry much sooner due to lack of chewing signals, etc. So you may have to drink a lot of hi-carb, very low fat shakes. For example, I use Maltodextrin + soy protein + flavoring - I can drink down 800kcal at a time - try doing that with 800 kcal of beans . So you are in a great position since all your exercise oxidizes a lot of fat and increases protein synthesis regularly! What you have to do now is figure out how you personally can eat surplus kcal every day. Once you do that you will steadily gain muscle, possibly with no additional fat gain if you keep fat intake well-controlled! Many vegans dislike "processed" food, but it only takes one look at overweight Americans to realize that processed food is the key to weight gain - but since high fat intake is proven to cause slightly less muscle gain and much more fat gain, one should maximize the ratio of CHO:F for the best results. Still, even if you found you liked overfeeding kcal on a higher-fat diet (fat is dense energy, at 9kcal/g, afterall) - you oxidize so much fat during prolonged exercise that you will still be able to gain muscle without much additional fat gain. To sum up: liquify & overfeed. Make sure you are eating several hundred surplus kcal above your energy needs - and the greater the surplus, the greater the inevitable increase in energy stores (basic physics). For example, potatoes alone can support great health, and they are superb for dieting since they scored the highest on the Satiety Index, but try eating 800 kcal worth of baked potatoes(low-fat, fiber-rich starches) versus 800 kcal of a Malto/PRO shake - one of these kids is not like the other! (A very low fat starch-based diet is actually the best for recomposition, so if your appetite is large enough to allow you to significantly overfeed on them, that's excellent because fat deposition will be minimal. But for me I've found Maltodextrin+Soy Protein drinks to be a useful compromise - I actually would prefer to use double batches of Jasmine rice milk (nothing added) -although I liked the taste, it was too much hassle with the making/cleaning/water use. If I was rich I'd pay someone do to it for me though.

I understand - I suppose I was just expanding on these issues, but I see what you mean. I agree whole fruit isn't a problem unless one's teeth are damaged already. I might slightly disagree about the downside of insulin spikes, as high insulin is required for optimum body recomposition (as long as fat is drastically minimized). The studies actually show very low fat starch overfeeding to be the best for muscle gain and fat minimization - because insulin is kept steadily elevated, which shuttles protein into storage (& fat if it's there). But the catch is very low-fat starch overfeeding is very filling - that's why people doing strict McDougall and Pritikin, etc., are so successful at weight maintenance! So when overfeeding I compromise and use low-sugar maltodextrin + soy protein shakes - this does cause a relatively faster, higher spike in insulin, but all you have to do to prevent any excessive dip in blood sugar is to regularly eat complex carbs too.

Insulin regulates your blood sugar by helping your cells absorb sugar (glucose). Any excess glucose that your cells don't need is then turned into fat. Normally your cells do not absorb all that glucose and it is excreted in your urine, thus not turning to fat, but when your blood sugar spikes and triggers an insulin spike all that glucose is being absorbed by your cells, rather than only what they need. I'd like to expand on this topic. You can eat whole fruit all day long and you will likely not have turned ANY of those sugars into fat via De Novo Lipogenesis. Metabolism science clearly elucidates the way carbohydrate metabolism works (see my other posts for references and very detailed info). DNL is a "quantitatively minor" process, except in situations where huge amounts of simple carbs are overfed for many days at least. The reason for this is twofold: 1) because the way the body responds to increasing CHO intake is to simply oxidize it directly for current energy needs (concomitantly reducing oxidation of other macronutrients). In "Glycogen storage capacity and de novo lipogenesis during massive carbohydrate overfeeding in man" maximum glycogen stores were measured to be ~700g for an average man and 1100g in a collegiate swimmer. 2)Because DNL is a very inefficient process, losing up to 30% of the initial energy, the body only chooses this pathway when forced to by MAXED OUT glycogen stores. But most people have hundreds of grams of room to spare, so DNL is rare except in those overfeeding on refined sugars. The "carbs make you fat" meme is a gross exaggeration of the scientific evidence - specifically when you are talking about whole foods*. *Complex carbs (starches) are even less likely to be converted to fat because what the body does is simply burn that steady glucose steam for immediately energy needs. Thus there are many pasta/starch overfeeding studies which show even a huge 1600 kcal pasta meal does not lead to DNL - in fact in the group that performed a little moderate exercise were found to be burning NET FAT DESPITE THE ENORMOUS PASTA MEAL IN THEIR STOMACHS! Simple sugars by themselves, especially in an easily-digestible liquid, may in fact be processed so quickly that our glucose burn rate is momentarily exceeded, but even then the amount is very small, and what matters most is maximum glycogen capacity, which is impossible to overcome without significant sugar overfeeding. The popular idea that carrots or whole fruit turn easily into fat is not supported at all by the scientific evidence. When you eat fruit, the body simply burns the glucose immediately - it's what we are designed to do: efficiently and directly use carbohydrates for energy needs. Any leftover energy needs are met primarily via fat oxidation (even during initial fasting, protein oxidation is a mere 1g/h for an non-obese male - that's a very minor contribution). By the way, those insulin spikes we are talking about have a positive effect on body recomposition by increasing the efficiency of Nitrogen retention (protein). To speak practically, anyone who is worried about getting fat from low-fat fruits is doing so without logical reason. The evidence of metabolism is clear, though unfortunately not well known. For muscle gain and fat minimization, high carb/very low fat diets are proven to create the best recomposition. There is a reason for the "skinny vegan" meme, and it is that very low-fat vegan foods simply are not metabolized into fat unless enormous amounts are eaten - and with all that fiber it is extraordinarily rare. Thus overweight vegans eat lots of fat, with simple sugars on top of that - this shifts immediate metabolism towards CHO oxidation, while causing fat oxidation to drop. Thus, the fat you eat is the fat you wear. So really, the only drawback to fruit is indeed the high amount of simple sugars - for myself, for example, I eat almost no fruit, whether tomatoes or bananas, because anything sweet hurts my teeth. BUT, that's because I'm a sugar addict, whose only been "on the wagon" for a couple years - my teeth are damaged from decades of stuffing myself with sugary food. But if I had only ever eaten whole fruit my teeth would have never been so damaged. The science shows us that bacteria, including the nefarious streptococcus mutans, feed on simple sugars and release acid waste that dissolves the integrity of teeth. So if you're teeth are already damaged from the SAD diet, a large fruit intake may cause pain/degradation - but the good thing is that mouth will let you know. If you eat something sweet and your teeth ache, it's time to limit sugars and focus on starches, which are the healthiest of all foods (bacteria cannot process those long chains of sugars). And yes, this includes refined starches - refined white flour never destoyed anyone's teeth (simple sugars did)! Although fiber has been removed, the complex chains of sugars remain - and bacteria do not eat starch, they eat simple sugars. I know this from personal experience too because I can eat unlimited white flour with no tooth pain whatsoever - yet if I regularly eat anything sweet, my teeth will let me know quickly. (My daily fasts do give me some wiggle room though, because it starves the bacteria.) I was a huge sugar eater, even after going vegan. Even now I use splenda, which doesn't bother my teeth (so I still have some work to do, but I freak out bigtime without anything sweet).

Though my degree is in English, my "self-taught" expertise is in nutritional science, with a focus on metabolism. I have done many thousands of hours of studying the calorimetry metabolism studies, which are studies which directly measure the release of gases from people (& this can accurately measure changes in oxidation rates of macronutrients). The thing is, the truth is not very popular, especially in mainstream views on nutrition. The way the body processes fuel is very well understood by a handful of specialists - yet the scientific specialist is always at risk of myopia, missing the big picture. Me, I love digging into the science, studying, and then connecting the dots. For example I have compiled data from dozens of overfeeding and macronutrient studies in order to understand how what macronutrients creates the best recomposition. I compared the amount of net protein gain per day, the kcal surplus, fat gained per day, ratio of P/CHO/F, and even some ratios I made up myself, like the BCS (Body Composition Score). I've been studying nutrition for the entire 11 years I've been vegan, but it is during the last few since I've gotten obsessed with metabolism and recomposition that I've really learned exactly how things work. I'm not a scientist, but I use the scientific method without zero regard for popular thought. The truth is often out there, but rarely is the big picture understood, because of specialization. Science has elucidated clearly the way energy processing occurs in us primate herbivores. It shows us exactly why disease grows when we eat the wrong fuel, and it shows us exactly what diet is most useful for muscle gain and fat minimization: very high CHO, very low fat. It seems to me that important truths are too nuanced to make it to pop culture, instead oversimplified if not inaccurate memes flourish. Thus everyone must ask where vegans "get their protein/calcium/whatever," despite the inherent foolishness of these questions, since both epidemiological, biological, & genetic evidence shows us to be herbivores who get sick when fed much carnivore fuel. Metabolism science is pretty much unknown, so much so that people think low-fat starches like potatoes can make you fat by themselves, when the science shows the exact opposite, like the studies on pasta showing that despite eating 1600 kcal of pasta does not cause fat conversion (simple sugars are more likely to do this though). Protein is another area of misinformation. Just reading the results from studies I've referenced in my posts here should be enough to make people realize that eating hundreds of grams of protein a day can be counterproductive, and that replacing much of it with carbs instead will cause greater net muscle gain via spiking insulin and thus retaining more Nitrogen. I want to write articles about all these topics, and I want to create several specific programs for my blog, but it may be awhile, since I want to make it very clear and very data-heavy, because the science is robust, IMO.

Body weight exercises can be made as difficult as you like by adjusting leverage, etc. - simply put it is the muscle contraction that increases protein synthesis, and even static isometrics has been proven to increase PS. Although increasing protein synthesis via muscle contraction slightly increases net protein deposition it is total energy intake that is still the major factor in muscle gain (ratio of the macronutrients is the another minor one). So all people with impressive, supranormal amounts of muscle have 1 thing in common: overfeeding, either intentional or because of a naturally large appetite. When people call themselves "hardgainers" what they are noticing are differences in appetite, not a failure of exercise to stimulate protein synthesis! Metabolism is physics, and the basic physics of energy are extremely similar for all people - if you eat more energy than burn you will increase your stores of protein, fat, and carbs. If you took a obese American and put him on a PSMF (Protein-Sparing Modified Fast), he would eventually gain definition and everyone would see the bodybuilder's body hidden under the fat. While muscle contraction presses down the accelerator a bit, we should remember that the fastest growth in LBM comes via overfeeding diets very high in kcal. People regularly put on 1/3-1/2 lb of LBM per DAY without any exercise at all in overfeeding studies.

First of all, I notice that the results are not much different from similar exercises - and when you consider the error bars it may be worse. But regardless, just look at this sentence: "An exercise can never work 100% of muscles fibers." That is incorrect. Simply holding a cup of tea in the air for long enough will work 100% of muscle fibers eventually (in those muscles used). The studies show that muscles require an MVC (maximum voluntary contraction) of only between 50-85% to stimulate all fibers, depending on muscle size. Muscle fibers are fired in oscillations. Imagine a tug of war, with only some of your people pulling at one time - as time goes on everyone will have been utilized by varying/increasing both the # of people pulling and the speed/synchronicity at which they pull - eventually muscle failure is hit, and before that 100% of fibers have contributed. "These differences [in EMG] may indicate excessive muscle tension. For our purposes, the differences will also determine the percent of muscle fibers being stressed." In other words: let's ignore the overall science & make some large leaps in logic so I can write this article. Here are some relevant quotes from the literature: "The relative contribution of motor unit recruitment to muscle force varies between muscles. In some hand muscles for example, all motor units are recruited at around 50% of maximum. In other muscles, such as the bicep brachii, deltoid, and tiblias anterior, motor unit recuitment continues upto 85% of the maximum force (Deluca, LeFever, McCue & Xenakis, 1982a; Kukulka & Clamann, 1981; Van Cutsem et al,. 1997)" Page 290, Neuromechanics of Human Movement 3rd Edition. Roger M. Enoka And here is a study showing that EMG is better estimated via MMG (mechanomyogram): "Electromyographic and mechanomyographic estimation of motor unit activation strategy in voluntary force production. Akataki K, Mita K, Watakabe M. Department of Functioning Science, Institute for Developmental Research, Aichi Human Service Center, Kasugai 480-0392, Japan. [email protected] Electromyographic and mechanomyographic estimation of motor unit activation strategy in voluntary force production. In order to determine whether electromyogram (EMG) and mechanomyogram (MMG) are suitable for the noninvasive estimation of the motor unit (MU) activation strategy, the EMG/force and MMG/force relationships were examined simultaneously during isometric ramp contractions in biceps brachii muscle. The highest mean power frequency (MPF) of the EMG, which reflects the full MU recruitment, was determined at 51% MVC. Two obvious inflection points were identified on the MMG-amplitude/force relationship that showed an initial slow increase followed by a rapid increase and a progressive decrease at higher force levels. Our results suggest that the MMG amplitude allows the estimation of the beginning of recruitment of MUs that innervate the first-twitch fibers in addition to identification of the full MU recruitment. The rate coding strategy was qualitatively reflected by the MMG-MPF/force relationship. We conclude that the MU activation strategy is estimated in more detail by the MMG than by the EMG."

Remember, all exercise simply involves muscle contraction - if you are working hard enough to make yourself breath heavy, then you are conditioning your lungs alright. If you are referring to the mainstream idea that lower intensity "Cardio" burns "more" fat than higher intensity, that is actually a big misperception. I have posted a scientific study before in which they directly measure exercises effect on metabolism - the results show that although a higher % of fat is oxidized during moderate exercise, the basic physics still makes sense: the higher the intensity (energy expenditure per unit of time) - the greater the absolute amount of fat oxidized. So the authors of the study recommend those looking for the most fat loss will want to balance maximum intensity with safety. You can get just as winded doing your workout without breaks (or doing 100s of hindu squats) as you can jogging - it's all about muscle work. After all, what does "cardio" logically mean except increasing blood flow and heart rate - and these things are easily done anywhere even by intense isometric muscle contraction. The whole "you need cardio" meme is unscientific IMO, it sounds like you're doing fine - eating low fat vegan and working out hard will easily keep the heart healthy and strong - don't underestimate the superb design of the body when fed the biologically appropriate fuel .

Another relevant factor is the ratio of complex carbs to simple sugars in the diet. Research shows simple carbs to stimulate lipogenesis more than starches. But what really matters is Glycogen storage - studies show the average men could hold 700g of glycogen, while a swimmer had a maximum capacity of 1100g.* When you exceed your glycogen stores, that's when De Novo Lipogenesis really gets going (30% of the energy is lost in conversion though). CHO Overfeeding studies show that it can take several days to max out. And since (besides alcohol) CHO is on top of the oxidative hiearchy the body prefers to burn CHO 1st. Thus the steady release of energy from complex carbs is simply burned as it comes in. But simple sugars come more in bursts, perhaps enough to overcome short term energy needs and thus be shuttled into glycogen storage. I'll have posts about all these things on my blog, when I find the time. *"Glycogen storage capacity and de novo lipogenesis during massive carbohydrate overfeeding in man" Alcohol is germane as well, as I intimated earlier it is prioritized over CHO, PRO, & FAT. Studies show that alcohol is similar to CHO, in that as soon as a large influx begins to be processed, it takes priority over all other fuels. But in the case of alcohol, the body does not store it directly, so 95+% of it will be immediately burned for fuel (a few % may be converted to a very small amount of fat). That is why, alcohol + FAT + simple sugar is a recipe for fat deposition - not only does fat act similarly as CHO, lowering FAT oxidation, alcohol has 7 kcal/g versus about 4 for CHO. Also, liquids are digested faster, since less work is required. And any large intake of a non-fat macronutrient leads to a significant reduction in fat burning. Fat is low man on the totem pole of oxidative hierarchy. It is the human fuel reserve - for example studies show that during initial fasting someone my size (170) will oxidize about: 4 g/h FAT, 1 g/h PRO, 5 g/h CHO Studies show that 4-7 times as much FAT as PRO is oxidized during fasting, depending on your macronutrient stores. That's why cycles of fasting and refeeding via a MNP* diet seem to me to be ideal for comfortable optimum recomposition, at least when fat loss is the priority: *http://veganmaster.blogspot.com/ [no posts yet] Food for thought.

Hi Richard - great job on the videos, you are such a fine example of the power of bodyweight exercises. Loved your inspiring one-arm PUs, handstand PUs & clapping pull-ups! Keep it up. Health is the intersection of plant nutrition and exercise - a lifestyle that respects our biology and exercise/stretching needs does wonders. Do you have any videos showing your favorite stretches? I'm steadily strengthening my weak spots (a foot and wrist) with stretching, but I'm going to be doing a lot of Hindu push-ups and Hindu squats. I love that you can make bodyweight exercise or flowing isometrics as hard as you want by adjusting leverages or tension.

You're welcome, thanks for your feedback. Yes, scientific studies certainly have their own complicated jargon, which may vary by country as well, so it does take some practice to truly comprehend them! Here I am referring to the starch overfeeding diet used in the two studies listed below, which show the most impressive body recomposition results in the literature. They used a 4300 kcal diet containing: 759g CHO 91g PRO 95g FAT, or 71% CHO/9% PRO/20% FAT I calculated a total energy surplus of +1824 kcal, which comes out to 28 kcal/g PRO, which means each gram of net protein gained required 28 kcal of surplus energy. I have measured this kcal/g ratio for many overfeeding studies, and the studies highest in carbs and lowest in fat tend to be under 60 kcal/g, while the high fat overfeeding can go as high as 200 kcal/g. These numbers reflect the superiority of CHO overfeeding for body recomposition. Note that net protein deposition can happen while in a kcal deficit, as I've mentioned previously (especially when exercise increases protein synthesis). In both of the studies by Minehira et al, the diets caused about 70% of dietary protein to be deposited, leading to gains of 65 and 70 grams of net protein gained per day. Muscle is about 20% protein so we multiply by 5 to get a net gain of over 300g of LBM per day. That's more than 1/2 pound of muscle a day, without exercising. But because they still ate 95g/d FAT, they also gained about 75g/d FAT. In other words, they gained a little more fat than muscle, which is actually very good compared to most (usually high fat) overfeeding studies, which can lead to up to 15 times as much fat being deposited for each gram of protein! And the results will be even better when less fat is used and exercise is added. So one can imagine a 4300 kcal diet that's even lower in fat - the evidence suggests that the result will be even better for recomposition. My overall point here is about the increased efficiency of net protein deposition via a diet like 80/10/10 (or one even lower in fat). So the greater one's CHO intake, the greater the increase (mediated via insulin) in the percentage of protein that is retained by the body. So your diet is quite well shifted towards optimum recomposition. Combined with exercise, you will gain more muscle but less fat than if you're diet was higher FAT/lower CHO. So you have that covered - but I would suggest a higher kcal intake - recall that the greater the kcal surplus, the more energy is deposited. 50 grams a day @2800kcal is certainly enough to build muscle, (one study showed a very high CHO diet @3000kcal & only a mere 25g PRO nevertheless maintained Nitrogen Balance). The classic bodybuilding idea of "eat big, lift big" is of course correct - but it is an oversimplification that ignores the nuances of metabolism. Thus anyone who overfeeds high fat is limiting their partitioning results. So it's really a matter of trying to consume as much surplus (80/10/10) kcal above energy expenditure as you can, while at the same time burning enough fat via exercise/fasting to prevent fat gain. Alternatively, one can allow fat gain and do cycles of overfeeding and cutting. I'm doing this now via fasting, which burns ~4 grams of fat per hour without exercise. I'm about 167 now, slowly melting the fat off by limiting my eating window to 8 hours per day. I'll get down to some nice definition at 160, then I'll finally get to do some serious overfeeding, until I go back up to 170. Rinse, cycle repeat . Not that fasting is essential, but I really like how easy it is, as compared to eating lots of small meals - in the evening I don't worry about limiting portions or counting kcal. And because I burn at least 40g FAT during my fast and eat only about 10g FAT at night (and have an overall energy deficit), physics guarantees a net loss of FAT, more when my exercise is added in. When I do eat, the large CHO meals spike insulin upwards, deposition a high percentage of the protein. I may even be gaining a little muscle, but I know for sure I'm maintaining. "Effect of Carbohydrate Overfeeding on Whole Body and Adipose Tissue Metabolism in Humans" Minehira et al. "“Effect of carbohydrate overfeeding on whole body macronutrient metabolism and expression of lipogenic enzymes in adipose tissue of lean and overweight humans” Minehira et al. *I should also note that complex carbs are less likely to be converted via DNL to FAT compared to simple sugars - thus starch overfeeding with even lower fat would give some great results. In fact I've previously used double batches of rice milk, but though I liked them it is a real hassle so I settled on Maltodextrin, which is cheap, somewhat complex carb (short chains of glucose). It's a compromise, but M is very useful for overfeeding (and of course low-fat liquids are faster to digest, allowing more total kcal to be eaten). There are some pasta overfeeding studies that even show subjects burning net FAT despite having stomachs loaded with 1600kcal of pasta. Thus you can see why a high kcal, very low fat starch diet is great for recomposition! Thanks for the question, this gives me more writing to clean up and convert to the blog (still haven't done the first post).

Pardon my ignorance... This is a good thing, right? Retaining nitrogen promotes muscle growth? Wow, that's a lot more than I would have guessed. Thanks for the info veganmaster. I've always thought there had to be something more going on than just pure "eat more protein to put on muscle". Obviously a lot has to do with how you body uses (or can use) the protein that it is eating. This makes sense. The details always start getting jumbled up in my mind though as I hear a little bit from one source, then a little bit from another, etc. Greg Glad to help Greg! As wikipedia says "Nitrogen balance is the measure of nitrogen output subtracted from nitrogen input.[1] Blood urea nitrogen can be used in estimating nitrogen balance." Yes, your instinct is more right than you know, here's my short overview of why (I'm going to clean up and improve this and other info for my upcoming blog). Pay special attention to #3 & the study abstract below, as it confirms in a real world setting what calorimetry-based metabolism science and overfeeding studies have already established: carbs are the protein savers, and overfeeding isocaloric carbs gets better recomposition results than overfeeding protein or fat. "Muscle gain factors: 1. Total kcal intake. Whenever you eat more kcal than you expend, you will increase energy stores, in the forms: glycogen, protein, fat. The greater the kcal excess the more energy will build up in your body. The largest muscle protein gains are seen in very high CHO studies, with averages of up to 65 g/d (starch overfeeding studies achieved this with 4300 kcal diets 71% CHO/20% FAT/9% protein). During overfeeding all three energy stores increase, though glycogen stores are limited to 700-1100 grams. 2. Ratio of FAT:CHO:PRO A key insight is that there is a difference in how excess CHO, PRO, and FAT are dealt with by the body. Fat is already in the chemical form of storage, so it takes a mere 3% or so loss of energy to deposit the fat. CHO (& PRO), on the other hand, must be converted to FAT via De Novo Lipogenesis, an inefficient process that uses up to 30% of the energy during the conversion. So right there you can begin to see why eating FAT is logically the best way to increase fat stores. Now, another important factor in this is that as CHO intake increases, less Nitrogen (protein) is excreted by the body (via urine, sweat, etc). So to maximize PRO while limiting FAT you actually want a very high CHO diet with modest protein (90 grams a day is fine - in fact the best studies show 50-65 grams out of 90 grams of protein deposited as muscle, multiply by 5 to get LBM). Now, these diets still included 20% FAT, so the fat gain was at least equal or double the muscle gain - but for overfeeding that's pretty good because I've calculated the FAT:PROTEIN ratio and when fatty diets are used in overfeeding studies, the result can be as much as 13 grams of FAT gained PER gram of muscle protein gained. 3. Energy Expenditure/increased protein synthesis - exercise on an empty stomach increases PS, but also protein breakdown, putting the body into a catabolic state unless food is present in the stomach. Exercise burns mostly CHO and FAT, about half of kcal from each. But still, it is quite easy to eat in one mouthful the amount of FAT it took you an hour jogging to burn off. Certainly, if you are in a caloric deficit you'll lose energy stores overall, that's the basic physics, but you certainly influence WHICH energy stores are used via diet. So for example this study: "Metabolic effects of a mixed and a high-carbohydrate low-fat diet in man" found a HCLFD to be superior to a mixed diet in terms of muscle gain on a caloric deficit diet (they did lots of cycling on a machine). The interesting thing is that despite a greater kcal deficit in the HC group (-458) compared to the MD (-340), the hi-CHO group gained 17 grams of net protein compared to only 11 grams gained in the mixed diet group. In addition, the CHO group oxidized 80.5 grams of fat while the MD group oxidized 75 grams. In other words, in terms of body recomposition, maximizing CHO, minimizing FAT and getting moderate protein was much more effective despite the fact that the total amount of energy consumed was the same. The HCLFD diet was 17% PRO, 4% FAT, 78%CHO. While just one study, the science is robust - here's a practical example of the same thing: "Effects of high-calorie supplements on body composition and muscular strength following resistance training" "BACKGROUND: Seventy-three healthy, male subjects randomly divided into 3 groups participated in a study to determine the effects of 2 high-calorie nutritional supplements on body composition, body segment circumferences, and muscular strength following a resistance-training (RT) program. METHODS: In addition to their normal diets group 1 (CHO/PRO; n=26) consumed a 8.4 Mj x day(-1) (2010 kcal) high calorie, high protein supplement containing 356 g carbohydrate and 106 g protein. Group 2 (CHO; n=25) consumed a carbohydrate supplement that was isocaloric with CHO/PRO. Group 3 (CTRL; n=22) received no supplement and served as a control. All subjects were placed on a 4-day x week(-1) RT program for 8 weeks. RESULTS: Dietary analysis revealed no significant differences in total energy consumption or nutrients at any time in the non-supplemented diets of the 3 groups. Significant (p= or <0.05) increases in body mass (BM) and fat-free mass (FFM) were observed in CHO/PRO and CHO compared to CTRL. Mean (+/- SD) increases in BM were 3.1+/-3.1 kg and 3.1+/-2.2 kg, respectively. Fat-free mass significantly (p= or <0.05) increased 2.9+/-3.4 kg in CHO/PRO and 3.4+/-2.5 kg in CHO. Muscular strength, as measured by a one-repetition maximum in the bench press, leg press, and lat-pull down increased significantly (p= or <0.05) in all groups. No significant differences in strength measures were observed among groups following training. CONCLUSIONS: Results indicate that high-calorie supplements are effective in increasing BM and FFM when combined with RT. However, once individual protein requirements are met, energy content of the diet has the largest effect on body composition." If megadoses of protein built muscle, the high CHO group would not have gotten the best body recomposition - but they did, because high-CHO, low-fat is the best for Maximum Nutrient Partitioning. My MNP blog (initial post to come this weekend): http://veganmaster.blogspot.com/