You can clearly see at this point that reduced carbohydrate intake affects a number of different muscle building pathways in the human body. Thereʼs still more though. Hydration has been shown in studies too increase muscle building in the muscle cell. “For example, the extreme protein losses which accompany illness and injury is commonly accomplished by cellular dehydration, and increasing hydration helps to prevent protein losses (Mcdonald, 14).” I should mention that this is the only function thatʼs not entirely conclusive, but itʼs highly likely that it plays a role in protein synthesis (muscle building) to some extent and is suggested repeatedly by many credible scientists in the industry. Lastly, there is generally an inverse relationship between carb consumption and protein consumption. If you increase one you automatically decrease the intake of the other. In the case of the low carb diet, carbs obviously are reduced and protein intake tends to scale upward. Protein catabolism (breakdown) requires more water to occur. This adds to the present dehydration and encourages the negative effect explained above. You can also feel free to search all of the confirmed cases in the past century where various general health factors were threatened when subjects utilized a low carb diet.


If youʼve ever followed a low carb approach while exercising then you will be able to quickly identify this unfortunate down fall. Carbohydrates are utilized by our specific energy systems in our cells much more efficiently and quickly then either fat or protein, with the exception of certain amino acids. Bottomline, is that if you eat them itʼs going to result in a more productive workout in terms of both performance and calorie expenditure. Your going to have much more energy, burn more energy, improve conditioning levels, and potentially lose weight/fat faster if other aspects of your overall training regime are in order.


Now this is where studies and scientists can get creative and deceitful. Given even amounts of calories consumed, an absolutely identical training program, age, gender, training experience, stress levels, motivation, and other influential factors considered, a moderate to low carb diet is superior and more efficient for fat loss compared to a low carb approach. Keep in mind I said fat loss not weight loss. One reason is because you wont experience as much metabolic slowdown (hormonal imbalances/crashing, reduced calorie burn, increased hunger/appettite, etc.) and muscle loss with a moderate/high carb diet. I would love argue that the moderate/high carb approach is more efficient than low carb for total weight loss, but this is extremely hard to measure. If we take into account everything I mentioned above, and the fact that a lb. of muscle only contains 600 calories relative to a lb. of fat which contains 3500 calories, then you can conclude that there is a counter balance effect. Lots of other stuff have to be considered as well (nutritional and training factors, stress, psychological issues, etc.). What you should be concerned with here is that if you are losing more weight on a low carb approach itʼs undoubtedly and irrefutably, due to the fact that you are either eating far less calories overall (calorie deficit) which is contributing to the scale loss, muscle loss is more evident, as we now know it takes far less energy, time, and effort to expend compared to fat, and your probably exercising or moving around more. Nothing really to be proud of since your weight will inevitably rebound far more than youʼd like for specific reasons I will explain later in the article, and its not good weight, as each lb. of muscle loss will result in an equal amount of fat being retained by the body and your physique will suffer.


Extensive science is not warranted here. Show me thousands of people that have been able to sustain a low carb diet over the long-term (over a year), and Iʼll show and report thousands that have not. What is even more frightening is the fact that so few people are able to sustain the weight loss they accomplished over the long-term. I consistently heard that only 10% of people actually do so in research. Unfortunately, I was unable to locate studies to support my idea that the low carb approach is a contributor to this arguable epidemic, but I am pretty confident it does since so much of what is being published and practiced in our culture today embodies this idea of low-carb dieting.


I had to save this one for last. Itʼs the icing on the cake per se. When all is said and done, you will be doomed and probably regain much more weight than you lost on a low carb approach. High amounts of continued dieting and exercise can counteract this, but there is much empirical evidence to support the contrary. First of all, enzymes are the physical components in the body that store and breakdown the food we consume. When we remove or cut down carbs from our diet for any period of time, the enzymes that handle this nutrient are reduced in number by down-regulating or lowering their activity in the body. Once they are re-introduced back into the diet, our body will be ill-equipped to use and store carbs and we will be left hungrier from an inability to handle and fill up our carb (glycogen) stores. Eventually we will adapt back, but itʼs not immediate. Secondly these enzymes will compensate and up-regulate or increase their activity resulting in extra storage of carb sources above baseline levels. “The end result after depleting and then loading is theyʼd end up doubling their muscle glycogen storage capacity from an original 300-500 grams all the way up to around 800-1000 grams(Baggett, 52). What does this mean? “That would be a minimum of an extra 4 pounds of water and glycogen resulting from the additional 500 grams of carbohydrate storage above baseline (Baggett, 52).”This concludes the second part of this series. I hope you liked it. In the final part of this series I will disclose and explain 3 exceptions to the rule as well as 5 common myths associated with low carb dieting.


You must be logged in to post a comment.