could you grow on a ketogenic diet?

A ketogenic diet is very difficult to gain muscle mass on. Simply put, you'll be keeping your protein quite high (around 1 gram per pound of body weight) which under normal circumstances would fulfill requirements for stable protein synthesis (how you build/maintain muscle mass). However, when you throw your body into a ketotic state, this doesn’t hold true. To actually understand why this is, we’ve got to do a little biochemistry/cellular metabolism legwork.

On a diet that isn't carbohydrate restricted, your body undergoes glycolysis - the oxidation metabolism of glucose molecules into adenosine triphosphate (ATP - energy) and pyruvate which fuels the citric acid cycle (TCA cycle). Glycolysis can be broken down into two stages which are anaerobic and yield very little ATP: First, glucose is converted to glucose 6-phosphate, which is converted to fructose 6-phosphate, which is converted into fructose 1,6-bisphosphate, which is finally converted into two phosphoglyceraldehyde (PGAL) molecules. This first process requires 2 ATP's and yields none. In the second process which also requires two ATP's, the two PGAL molecules are converted into pyruvate; four ATP's and two NADH's are created in the process. Therefore, the total net yield of ATP from glycolysis is two molecules. In the grand scheme of things, this is a tiny amount.

Okay so now that that's out of the way, let's take a look at those two pyruvate molecules. Those will be converted to Acetyl-CoA, which then generates 2 more NADH's and 2 molecules of CO2 per each pyruvate. The Acetyl-CoA can now undergo TCA cycle. Skipping a whole bunch of conversions, at the end of TCA cycle, we’re left with six NADH’s per three Acetyl-CoA, FADH2 and two ATP per 1 Acetyl-CoA, and four CO2 per two Acetyl-CoA. All of this brings the total for the oxidation of pyruvate and TCA cycle to eight NADH, two FADH2, two ATP, and six CO2.

From here, we go to the electron transport chain where NADH and FADH2 are broken down thereby pumping H+ ions through ATP synthase into the outer compartment of the mitochondria. This creates a gradient that is used to produce the majority of our ATP – approximately 32. Combined with glycolysis and TCA cycle, the final amount of ATP generated is roughly 36 molecules.


Using carbohydrates to fuel glycolysis, TCA cycle, and the electron transport chain to generate ATP is the body's preferred method of producing energy because this is the most energy efficient method available (plain and simple, carbohydrates are easy to break down into glucose, which as we just saw, is the fundamental molecule necessary for energy production.
However, due to your extremely low carbohydrate intake (true ketogenic diets assume a net intake of less than 50 grams of carbs/day) your body will begin breaking down the amino acids normally used for protein synthesis, (either from the protein you're ingesting, or from your muscles) and start using it to make glucose (gluconeogenesis). The only amino acids that can’t be use during this process are leucine and lysine as these can only be utilized to synthesize fatty acids. In addition to this process, the body will begin increasing the rate of lipolysis (this is the major upside of a ketogenic diet) wherein a triacylglycerol (fat) molecule is cleaved to provide 3 fatty acid chains and 1 glycerol molecule. Via beta-oxidation, which gives us Acetyl-CoA, these fatty acids can be used by most body tissues as an alternative source of energy (remember, Acetyl-CoA is what drives TCA cycle and subsequently, the electron transport chain).

Here’s where things get interesting. The brain cannot use long-chain fatty acids for energy because they are completely albumin-bound and as such, cannot cross the blood-brain barrier (only some medium chain fatty acids cross the BBB, but this is generally not sufficient enough to provide adequate energy for the brain). Therefore, any carbohydrates that you do intake will be automatically shunted towards providing energy for the brain and be broken down into glucose. Why’s this bad for muscle growth? Well, for one this means that the glycogen stores in your muscles will become depleted very quickly (usually within a few days), and two, your body will being to rely heavily on the urea cycle (the breakdown of amino acids) and also lipolysis for energy stores. All of these factors result in a large net decrease in the rate of amino acid (protein) synthesis, especially true in skeletal muscle tissue. Not only does this inhibit muscle hypertrophy and increase rate of catabolism, but it also makes the body more acidic (fyi, some enzymes – enzymes catalyze reactions, some of which are catabolic – operate more efficiently in an acidic environment) due to an increase in nitrogen content in the body (the result of large scale breakdown of amino (NH2) acids) which together with CO2 forms urea. Everyone loves gout, right? Finally, your insulin levels will plummet pretty low. Insulin is released in response to carbohydrate ingestion and it is the most anabolic hormone known to man. Without it, it’s definitely going to be nearly impossible to grow.

Long story short, if you’re looking primarily for fat-loss, a ketogenic diet is a great method to employ. However, if you’re looking to gain muscle mass, a ketogenic diet can be your biggest enemy; at best you can expect to maybe maintain your muscle mass, but this is for the few genetically gifted individuals among us. Ask anyone that’s run a ketogenic diet and they will tell you that without the aid of AAS or GH peptides, they lost muscle mass. Your best bet is to eat a clean and well balanced diet and actually up your carbohydrate intake. If you’re worried about gaining fat, just limit your carbs to low glycemic index carbs (keeping your insulin spikes pretty low) and aim for a small calorie surplus. After all, science aside, simple math will tell you that you’ve got to have more calories going in than what you’re burning every day or you’re going to end up with a net loss. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but building muscle mass (truly building mass) and losing fat at the same time is nearly impossible without any aid of some sort.

Cheers.
 
Wouldn't the idea of cyclic keto dieting circumvent a lot of issues mentjoned with the periodic refeeds to restore muscle glycogen but keep the liver depleted and preventing coming out of keto? Or is it not efficient as either diet and we should just adhere to one or the other depending on one's goals? Great post btw.
 
great post. The thread was about staying in the same weight, not gaining anything dramatic. I'm only using low dose gear.

What is a ketogenic diet?

A Ketogenic Diet is any diet that causes ketones to be produced by the liver, shifting the body’s metabolism away from glucose towards fat utilization. Typically on a moderate to high carb diet, the body will prefer glucose for fuel (usually from dietary carbs), but by restricting carbs, the body will prefer fat for fuel. By inducing ketosis, a series of adaptations will take place.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gZfJejOM8fJsX1iCilmnpp1qmT_KncJwWCR4-EsaEHc/edit?pli=1
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Wouldn't the idea of cyclic keto dieting circumvent a lot of issues mentjoned with the periodic refeeds to restore muscle glycogen but keep the liver depleted and preventing coming out of keto? Or is it not efficient as either diet and we should just adhere to one or the other depending on one's goals? Great post btw.

Theoretically, yes but you've got to make sure your time points as well as your carb intake amount are spot on. The body usually begins to enter into a ketotic state after 2-3 days (this is when the body's glycogen stores are become depleted). However, the initial states of ketosis are fairly inefficient and to become fully adjusted to daily life in a ketotic state it usually takes around 3 weeks. During these three weeks you'll generally see the largest amount of weight loss per unit time. Once in a full ketotic state (after 3 weeks), it becomes easier to transition in and out of a ketotic state because the it takes awhile (approximately 2 weeks) for the body to fully replenish it's glycogen stores (if you're going to run a cyclic ketogenic diet wait 3 weeks before starting cycles). When you're trying to transition out of ketosis (the cycle-out) you've really got to be careful of the type of carbs you ingest as taking in a high amount of high glycemic index carbs in a short amount of time will cause such a large insulin spike that most of the carbs will undergo glycogenesis and be stored as fat, which would completely defeat all the weeks of work you've put in prior to lose fat. The downside to this type of diet for those who aren't super strict is that they'll inevitably end up undergoing a treadmill effect where no progress is made and they simply stay stagnant at the same body composition with no fat loss or muscle gain. This type of logic can apply to workout types as well and what your target end-goals are. Ex: Lifting at a high intensity, lighter weight and shorter rests for increased lipolysis vs lifting at a lower intensity, heavier weight, longer rests aimed at muscle hypertrophy. If one were to perform the two types of workouts in an alternate pattern every other week, it's likely that not much improvement in either direction would be observed. However, by increasing the time points of these phases to, lets say 3 months each, one would experience much more significant improvement in muscle hypertrophy and fat loss.

From an efficiency standpoint, I used to be a proponent of "do as many things at once as possible to try and achieve as many goals as possible in the shortest time period." However, after trying time and time again and failing, I've realized that for me, it's usually more efficient (and hence I make more progress) focusing on one goal at a time and throwing all my effort into that goal. This is why professional bodybuilders cycle they way they do; usually they'll spend months at a time bulking up and then spend months more at a time focusing on leaning up. Now, if you're using gear (which most if not all of them are) then the time points can obviously be shortened to some degree and the gains experience from both directions will be significantly greater than without gear.

All in all, I say pick one and stick to it for a decent amount of time; then when you feel you've reached your maximum potential in that area, switch gears and start working towards your other goal. But, again, this is simply what I find most efficient for myself - I just happen to be in the large majority as far as this topic is concerned.

Hope this helps.

Cheers.
 
^^^ where the hell have you been all these years... Lol good info man
 
I like bread. Does anyone here know of a bread product with no carbs if that is even possible? I may start my keto diet switch right before the end of the year. I'm still getting rid of all my carby foods at home by eating them, when it's gone I'll make a switch. There was a bread product high in protein but I forgot the company. I read about it on another AAS board. I think they sell high protein foods online. I think it's a company called Ezekiel?

Regarding buying foods in bulk or cheaper; I think any restaurant depots would sell to anyone even if you do not own a restaurant. I knew an owner of 2 restaurants who gets his food supplies at a restaurant depot. I guess google restaurant depot and you may have local stores in your area. It may be called something else but it's an outlet where restaurant owners get their food supplies from.
 
Last edited:
A pure ketogenic diet isn't optimal for growth. However, how about macro cycling? That is, lower carb/higher fat rest days and higher carb/lower fat workout days?
 
That's an interesting idea. pure ketogenic diet seems expensive. I've looked around at low carbs foods and it is more expensive than regular foods the masses would eat. Not sure if the unsteadiness of what you're suggesting might mess with how the body works.

Another thing I want to get at is so basically to count carbs goes like this: if the carb listed on a slice of bread is 12g but the dietary fiber is 10g, that means the net carbs is really only 2g, right?
 
building muscle mass (truly building mass) and losing fat at the same time is nearly impossible without any aid of some sort.

Cheers.

Some would say its impossible with even compounds.... What compounds would you suggest might give best results...?
 
I disagree strongly. His physique strikes me as a mod test high deca build. Very full round muscle bellies. He didn't have that hard edge look primo and other dhts are known for. I'd say parabolan was in there as well and decent hgh usage when it became more affordable outside of the medical setting. He had very little spillover and bloof that would be seen with a high test regimen and lacks the dht sharpness. Primo was used definitely but it was more than likely not the cornerstone compound in his arsenal.
 
He had what Primo is known to give which was "beautiful muscles", he didn't have monster or ugly muscles common these days. He wasn't that huge compared to what people are using these days. He had tiny waist (size 32). Isn't it known that was his favorite steroid as well?

Yeah, it's more difficult to synthesize than most other compound..
Why do you think Arnold only used Primobolan ?
 
HGH wasn't available in his time from what I understand.

HGH will not make you grow but it gives you an edge, according to English bodybuilder Dorian Yates:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKxF1N-YPEY

And he came out in the 80's! He said he never used HGH during his competition days like what the guys are using "these days".

I think it's best to load up on steroids we naturally do not produce? We already have testosterone so I think using less of that is best so you don't get moody and load up on otherwise AAS we don't naturally produce (i.e. the synthetic ones). If that makes sense or if anyone here disagree let us all know.

I've known people who weighed over 200 pounds yet looked slender and appeared to be only 170. I think their bones are heavier. So it's also part genetics. Maybe Schwarzenegger already weighed 200 pounds plus he has the height. he just needed the compounds to give a more muscular effect, but I doubt he loaded up on horse steroids no wonder why the kids these days are moody and have to be on antidepressants while on cycle which only will make you feel like shit, something I feel is the opposite of what steroid use is all about (i.e. feeling and looking good).

I disagree strongly. His physique strikes me as a mod test high deca build. Very full round muscle bellies. He didn't have that hard edge look primo and other dhts are known for. I'd say parabolan was in there as well and decent hgh usage when it became more affordable outside of the medical setting. He had very little spillover and bloof that would be seen with a high test regimen and lacks the dht sharpness. Primo was used definitely but it was more than likely not the cornerstone compound in his arsenal.
 
Last edited:
In my opinion test is probably the best tolerated steroid at high doses. Estrogen kept in check that is. It does everything we need to keep the body balanced essentially: it's anabolic, androgenic, reduces to dht, aromatises to e2... It's hard to find another compound that does this in decent ratios to keep everything working optimally aside from maybe boldenone which does all of the above to a lesser degree which is why some estro sensitive people run bold instead of test for a base to keep things functioning. And if memory serves right cadaver hgh was available since the 60s, and I'm not entirely sure when the 192aa fully synthetic gh was released but I know it was quite some time before the recombinant 191 came out so it's possible he did use gh.
This is getting a bit off topic now.
 
Gene,

have you ever used Winstrol?

It was said it makes one lose fat while retaining lean body mass, something I do not find with Anavar. I have never used Winstrol. I am looking into it. I've seen 5mg tabs.

"The drug (winstrol) were classified as probably effective as adjunctive therapy in the treatment of senile and postmenopausal osteoporosis but only as an adjunct, and in pituitary dwarfism (with a specific caveat for dwarfism, "until growth hormone is more available".

In 1980 the FDA removed the dwarfism indication from the label for stanozolol since human growth hormone drugs had come on the market, and mandated that the label for stanozolol and other steroids say: "As adjunctive therapy in senile and postmenopausal osteoporosis."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanozolol

Does this mean Winstrol has some GH activity? Also, the fact stated that HGH came out in the 80's, not really during Schwarzenegger's earlier days. Steroids was still at its infancy in the 60's so I highly doubt something more "advanced" like HGH would be used during that time.

Some would say its impossible with even compounds.... What compounds would you suggest might give best results...?
 
Well extracted gh from cadaver pituitary glands in medicine has been taking place since the 1950s... And was used up until the 80s when synthetic hgh was produced. This would allow people during the 60s-80s to use gh albeit sparingly to advance their physiques. So yes it is possible.
 
GH won't make you grow, it might give one an edge. No one had "edge" then than they do now. Steroid use was enough edge then.

Well extracted gh from cadaver pituitary glands in medicine has been taking place since the 1950s... And was used up until the 80s when synthetic hgh was produced. This would allow people during the 60s-80s to use gh albeit sparingly to advance their physiques. So yes it is possible.
 
Top