PDA

View Full Version : Calculating Carb load (theoretical method).



usman
10-03-2003, 10:57 AM
I read an article about contest prep covering all the fine details of carb/sodium/water manipulation. However the advice about carbing up intrigued me, this isnt another question on what do I do (as a search on this probably would answer my questions). Im just looking for peoples impressions and thoughts on this.
Anyway I'll start with a few facts from the article:
Under normal conditions skeletal muscle stores between 1.5-2g carbs per 100g of muscle tissue. Secondly each gram of carb binds with 2.7g water.
Firstly I'll talk about carb depletion, so lets take a 200lb person with a 6% bf would give a a fat free mass of 188lbs. Because non skeletal muscle (i.e. bone, water, organs etc) account to approx 35% of this wieght he actualy has 122lbs skeletal muscle, which is 56kg of muscle. So now lets assume glycogen stores are about 1.5g/100g muscle, (as dieting low carbs glycogen levels probably going to be lower than normal). Also since its advised that leg training shouldnt be done this means that 39.2kg of muscle is going to be depleted (we are just including upper body muscle tissue, and for arguements sake lets assume lower body is 30% of muscle mass).
39.2kg (upper body muscle) * 1000 = 39200g of muscle
39200/100 = 392hg of muscle (remember glycogen stored per 100g).
392 * 1.5 (carb/100g muscle) = 588
588 * 2.7 (water+1g carb) = 1587.6g / 1000 to get of depleted glycogen, of 1.6kg/3.5lbs of weight should in theory be reduced by the end of the carb depleting workouts. This is not approximate as nothing is 100%, so in real life glycogen depot depletion may only be acheived to 70% so this figure would be lower, but gives you a basic picture. So now our guy weighs 196.5lbs overall body weight.

So now the carbing up. He now has the potential to store between 3.5-4g of carbs per 100g of skeletal muscle, also remember the 2.7 of water binded to 1g of carb. Remember we are interested in increasing upper body glycogen depots, which is now 37.6kg (less due to depletion).
37.6 * 1000 = 37600g
37600/100 = 376hg
376 * 4 (carbs stored per 100g skeletal muscle) = 1504
1504 * 2.7 (water for every g of carb) = 4061 / 1000 to get 4kg of increase in glycogen depot or 8.8lbs. So 37.6 + 4 + 16.8 (lower body muscle) + 5.45 (fat mass) + 29.9kg (non skeletal muscle) = 93.75kg or 206lbs. But this in reality does not count for water or extracellular water loss (remember). So he has increased his muscle weight artificially by extra 6lbs due to increased glycogen content.
Now onto carb intake, now for this 6lbs increase to happen theoretically his depleted muscles have the capacity to absorb 1504g carbs. This over a 3 day period equals to 501g carbs per day. This entire article is purely hypothetical and im not saying it accurate or true, but lets just imagine for arguemts sake that it was. This is where it gets interesting for me and confusing. If this was true 501g carbs would be a cal intake of 2004.
remember his fat free mass was 188lbs. So lets assume his basal metabolic rate is (188 * 12) = 2256. Lets add another 700 cals for energy expenditure throughout the day, (this guys going to be doing nothing all day hence the low energy expenditure). Now his total cal needs are 2256 + 700 = 2956cals.
What I have conflict with is if this cal intake is to cover his energy expenditure, that means he has potentially 2004 cals of energy to store into his muscles that day. So does that make his energy intake 4960 cals? Also going back to his energy expenditure of 2956 cals. Since his weight is 188lbs of FFM that means he takes in approx 200g protien per day. Lets say fat intake is at 30g per day. These macro nutrients Im assuming are going to cover his total energy expenditure, so 200g prot is 800 - 2956 = 2156 left over. fat is 30g, 270 - 2156 = 1886 cals left over. This then would be covered by intake of carbs 1886 / 4 = 471g carbs.
Now assuming this his correct his total cal intake would be 4960cal and an intake of 972g carbs (remeber extra needed to store glycogen 471 + 501), and 200g protien, and 30g fat. His energy expenditure by the way is purely made up and am aware is innacurate and could be higher or lower, but you get the idea. So my query is do you think idea of eating extra surplus cals or carbs has any validity, it makes sense that the extra carbs that can be stored must be taken in as well as the carbs/prot/fat needed to cover overall energy expenditure. It also makes sense as all you are trying to do is store energy into muscles.
Therefore if he took the 501g carbs per day, and just ate that amount he would no where near reach the potential of maximum carb strorage. The reason why this intrigues me as the article I got this from did assume this, and ignored cals needed to cover energy expenditure. Any thoughts on this would be appreciated.

BLEED GREEN
10-03-2003, 11:30 AM
for Mid,presser,bigshug etc..

midwtchamp
10-03-2003, 01:08 PM
I guess the easiest way to explain this or my response to this is, that your body is in such a depleted state that it is oging to suck up any carbs you throw in it by this point...when you carb load say starting wed and thurs you eat low glycemic carbs to start the process, but after you weigh in on fri is when you start w/the junk (this is all assuming you are using no slin) In addition 200g of protien is really kinda low for that person. I dont personally think that 500 g of carbs is needed to actually carb load in a depleted state, but all your calculations and the theory seems correct. I say you can carb load from about 350g carb or up.....I mean you are soo depleted water wise also, which means you wont be binding as much water to the carbs b/c it is just not available....in conclusion I think each person is different on how to load and you have to learn what way is best for you from trial and error....hope that helps or explains a little...if not I will do better when am off these pain pills!\

Skip
10-03-2003, 04:03 PM
Hmmm....

The only thing I am going to say to this is that the amount of carbs that can be absorbed and stored after being truly depleted, is extremely high. Most guys never even get close to taking in too many carbs though this is always the excuse when they show up soft from phuking up their water. I am not a big guy and I loaded this year on 2100 GRAMS (not calories) of carbs from wed - sat morning and was hard as nails.

I have very different ideas on water vs. carbs than midweight and most other guys. However, this thread was not about that so I will bow out now. hehe

Skip

VA MadDog
10-03-2003, 07:16 PM
Mid is probably right that the average 200 lb bber is going to be eating more like 350-450g of protein, so that drops the extra carbs needed by this theory by another 150-250g.

Skip is also right that you can take in a lot of carbs if your GI track can deal with it. That to me would seem to be the limiting factor, especially with a shitload concept. Eating that much that fast is going to bloat most people big time.

What is hard to figure is the water drop/manipulation factor. Without extra water available to bond with the extra carbs they will not be able to take in the 2.7g of water per 1/g of carbs, it just is not there. I can attest to that from my last shit load as I did not fill out until I drank about 12-16 oz of water around mid-day on Saturday. I had injested the carbs, not 2100 grams like skip, but probably between 500 and 1,000grams but I did not gain any weight from Thursday morning through Saturday night. In fact as most people do I dropped some weight or stayed close to steady on Friday and Saturday. Now if you were to keep water high all the way through I bet that you would see some weight gain with the extra carbs.

I suppose that if, for scientific reasons, you were to measure bladder output and every drop of liquid intake you could add that in to the theory calculations, but you would not be able to measure liquid lost through sweating so that variable would still be in play. Another possible factor is that I believe your BMR is going to drop some during the carb depletion and non training days so your maintenance calorie level may be somewhat less than would normally be expected.

Sure sounds like we can all eat more doesn't it! Follow Skip down the path to big time bloating - lol ;)

usman
10-04-2003, 09:41 AM
Yes these statements are true, I wasnt trying to lay down a method of carb loading for anyone as everyone is different. Just that according to this thoery it shocked me the amount of energy (glucose) the muscle could store once in a depleted state, and how much theoretically one would have to congest (carbs).
The point I was trying to raise that it makes sense to me that carbing up all you basically are trying to do is replenish your energy stores in the form of glucose (and water). And during this period your muscles have a higher capacity than normal in terms of energy storage thus we achieve superconsation of glycogen. But in order for this to happen it makes more sense for a person to be in a positive energy balance, because in order to store energy into your muscles one would have to eat for the amount of energy you expend in a day, and plus extra in the form of carbs to store in muscle. If a person just eat a high carb ratio and there energy intake matched there energy expenditure for the day wouldnt that affect them achieving maximum glycogen storage? I think the above calculations though are probably too high in terms of carb intake, as rate of glycogen synthase activity is also another vital factor as well as many others. Therefore maybe it would make more sense to consume your highest amount of carbs above your energy expenditure with the first 24 hrs of the carb up as at this time rate of glycogen synthase activity would be the highest, then adjust the following days of your carb intake. But it would make sense to make sure youre in a positive energy balance thorughout the carb up period, and the highest being the first day of the carb up, then reducing down the following days. As for water intake it, advice from a few people on this board would seem that intake of water would not be a problem, as most people advise not to reduce water intake untill you cut it out thus keeping your natural dierutic response. Anyway as you guys stated there are just too many variables invlolved in calculating or hypothising a method for carb load, now if only scientists were interested in helping bodybuilders achieving a maximum glycogen state and carried out controlled tests in lab conditions that would be intetresting, untill then well have to stick to self experimentation.

VA MadDog
10-04-2003, 10:36 AM
usman - You are sure correct about this being self-experimentation. That's what I like and hate about it - lol It is very interesting trying to figure it out but it also can trigger a lot of anxiety, especiallly as you do a contest run. It is nearly impossible to hold all of the variables the same from contest to contest, so even if you hit your peak just right and do the exact same thing the next time, it might not be the exact same result because of factors like stress, or show timing, etc.

Being a part of a board like this and seeing what results others get - along with the details of how they got them, is very helpful. For those of us who compete, that is the best learning tool - doing it yourself and trying to adjust different factors.

The good part about this, IMHO, is that if you do your homework and follow a sound plan you will come into the contest in very good condition no matter which method you apply, we are really just talking about the details that take you to that last 10% of improvement . If you can keep your head on straight and look at the whole thing as an inexact science it can be a very rewarding challange.

I understand that you were not trying to say - "This is the way to carb up" in your initial post, you did a good job of laying out the theory and plugging in the numbers. I'm always trying to take the things I read here and turn them into practical application.

dpsquat
10-10-2003, 07:16 AM
interesting read!

VA MadDog
10-10-2003, 08:08 AM
I thought that you had been abducted by aliens - good to see that they returned you.