GEORGE SPELLWIN'S ANNOUNCEMENTS
Enlightening Men about Anabolic Steroids and Bodybuilding for over Two Decades
 UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! |
 George Spellwin's ELITE FITNESS Discussion Boards
 Diet Discussion Board
 Body Opus for Drug-Free BBs?
|
| Author | Topic: Body Opus for Drug-Free BBs? |
|
IronChick Amateur Bodybuilder (Total posts: 84) |
posted July 20, 2000 03:56 PM
  
When I first came across the Body Opus Diet, my impression was that this was a diet for drug BBs....a drug-free competitor would lose too much muscle. So, I dismissed it for a while, but didn't totally write off the idea. I see a lot of discussion regarding this diet and variations of it, so I am thinking about it again. I would like to hear from any drug-free competitors who use this diet for contest prep. ------------------ IP: Logged |
|
Your_Moms_Kneepads Pro Bodybuilder (Total posts: 306) |
posted July 28, 2000 11:50 AM
I cant really give you the exact feedback you are looking for but I can give you some feedback. You have to ask yourself a few questions. 1) What kind of shape are you in right now? 2) Body type-fat evenly distributed or stuck in a few areas (out of proportion)? 3)Lose muscle easily with decreased calories? Basically if you can lose alot of fat without it your life will be alot easier,but for a genetic "fuck up" (as Duchaine would say)like me needs a Keto diet to get into shape. I know I didnt answer your question but I hope at least I gave you some things to ponder ------------------ IP: Logged |
|
IronChick Amateur Bodybuilder (Total posts: 84) |
posted July 28, 2000 04:59 PM
#3 is the area of concern for me. I tend to lose muscle very easily when calories are restricted. I really have to stay on top of it, but I figure this is a part of being a natty. I am able to achieve low BF without this type of diet. Guess that's why I never tried it, but seems like a lot of people are doing them. Just wondering what the advantages would be for someone like me, if any. Thanks for the input. It does give me a little different perspective. ------------------ IP: Logged |
|
vlaovic Pro Bodybuilder (Total posts: 220) |
posted July 28, 2000 05:22 PM
An advantage of CKD for the drug free bodybuilder is that #1 you don't have to restrict calories too much (12xbody weight is PLENTY low enough) #2 you only have to eat 0.9 to 1.0 grams protein per pound of Lean Body Mass and #3 you get a huge anabolic rush every weekend that keeps your strength and your metabolism up. The problem for drug free competitors on non-ketogenic low-carb diets is they eat so much protein, their bodies become highly adept at using it as a fuel source and start to rely on monstrous quantities (sometimes in exess of 2g/lb) just to keep muscle. Often this screws up their subsequent mass cycles because they have to eat so many calories to gain muscle they get too fat. Ketosis is a highly protein-sparing state - the body learns to almost exclusively rely on body and dietary fat for energy, burning virtually no protein (carbs are of course required for high-intensity exercise like weight lifting; thus, the carb load on the weekends). IP: Logged |
|
IronChick Amateur Bodybuilder (Total posts: 84) |
posted July 29, 2000 11:59 AM
Yes, this is what I have going on - the very high maintenance protein intake while dieting to keep the mass. This is why I am thinking of an alternative dieting method. I am interested enough to read the book. Based on what you have said about this diet, I have to wonder why it isn't the diet of choice for drug-free competitors. I can't think of any that use it and no one that fit that profile answered my post. That's still a ? in my mind. IP: Logged |
|
vlaovic Pro Bodybuilder (Total posts: 220) |
posted July 29, 2000 08:42 PM
While I don't compete, I think I have a good hypothesis as to why drug-free competitors don't use it more often. The biggest drawbacks to the diet are its highly scientific nature and its restrictiveness. By scientific, I mean that if you don't have a grasp of why things happen on this diet (mostly hormone-related issues), you have a hard time taking the extreme measures it asks you to; training as well as nutrition wise. Plus, it takes many people (me included) several weeks to 'dial in' the right workout, and food scheme to make the diet work most effeciently. Another words, you have to experiment with what workouts and cardio you respond best to, what substances kick you out of ketosis, how much protein and carbs kick you out of ketosis, how many calories are too many, and the list goes on... In short, it takes time and patience, and if you've got a contest coming up, chances are you're low on both. The best way CKD will work for competitors is if they experiment with it in the offseason by doing a sort of "trial run". Then, once they know exactly what works for them, they can achieve rapid and teriffic results pre-contest. p.s. Sorry if my post has turned into a rambling marathon, but I tend to do that sometimes! IP: Logged |
|
MS Pro Bodybuilder (Total posts: 657) |
posted July 30, 2000 03:31 PM
Although I agree with your assessment of the rigors of CKD, I don't see what this has to do with drug-free or not. I hope your not implying that drug-free BB's don't have as much discipline or scientific understanding as juice-heads! ------------------ IP: Logged |
|
vlaovic Pro Bodybuilder (Total posts: 220) |
posted July 30, 2000 06:48 PM
I feel that a pro is a pro - roids or no roids. Either way, he/she is disciplined as hell. When it comes to amateur bodybuilding and fitness enthusiasts, things are different though. These roid users often get better results than drug free bodybuilders with the same, or even less discipline; thus the appeal of drugs to amateur/recreational lifters. It was not my intention to make it sound as though a drug-using PROFESSIONAL doesn't have to be as disciplined as a natural one. A pro often uses roids for the same reasons other pro atheletes do. If anything, he/she has MORE dedication and is willing to make a bigger sacrifice than those who stay natural. It's a whole different mentality when competition is involved. Thus, it was my mistake to make it sound as though drug-free competitors have superior discipline - I don't think they do. I do however stand by my position that recreational lifters who use drugs often (but not always) do so because they lack the discipline or patience to do it naturally. IP: Logged |
|
mossimo Amateur Bodybuilder (Total posts: 73) |
posted July 30, 2000 06:56 PM
I really wouldn't see the point of doing a strict CKD while on AS. The key point of a CKD is that you would be able to maintain lbm while losing fat. If you are "on" then the muscle catabolism is not an issue so you can just watch your cals as normal and eat better while doing tons of cardio and not worry about muscle loss. A CKD definatly is better suited for a natural or between cycle BB that's looking to cut up a little without too much muscle loss. IP: Logged |
|
vlaovic Pro Bodybuilder (Total posts: 220) |
posted July 30, 2000 07:01 PM
CKD is pointless for drug users. IP: Logged |
|
IronChick Amateur Bodybuilder (Total posts: 84) |
posted August 02, 2000 09:26 PM
Vlaovic, wha?? Not sure where you get the idea that drug-free competitors have a hard time with scientific diet methods. You remember the original Cybergenics? Go ahead and laugh as many people used to. I used to use that diet. Many people used to say it was BS and it didn't work, blah blah. (But people always wanted to know what diet I was using) The diet worked and was in fact, a bit ahead of its time. A lot of these concepts are used in carb manipulation diets today. People thought it didn't work because they couldn't get it to work. Most people couldn't deal with the extreme nature of the diet and the extreme discipline required and exacting nature of the diet....most people couldn't make it work for them. And it did take about 4 or 5 tries to perfect it for yourself. And it does involve triggering growth hormone release and insulin, but if you didn't have a basic grasp on how the body worked, you wouldn't understand how to do this diet and have the dedication to stick with it. The diet involved a 13 hour fast overnight and you had to work out first thing in the morning on an empty stomach, except for supps. You would literally wish for death during the first half hour of your training, but kept going because you knew the rush of hormones would come and get you through your workout. It was a natural high. And the rush of strength and energy - no other experience like it. You also had the carb feeding days like some other diets have today. You had to calculate your BMR and AMR, figure out all your proportions of carbs, proteins, calories, etc. - most of the commonly accepted ideas we all use in one way or another. The diet is a little outdated in some of it's concepts, but the highlights of are still used by many other low-carb diets these days. These diet concepts are not new although they get modified and they get new names, but the basic idea has been around for a while. I guess my rambling point is that many of my drug-using AND natural friends said Cybergenics was bull, so I don't think there is any difference between drug-BBS and naturals as far as being able to handle scientific info. And Cybergenics was just an example. Some nattys put it all together well and some don't - same for drug-BBs. Depends on the person. My personal take is that in order to be a good natural competitor, you have to have MORE of an understanding of how the body works with your nutrition - what you can make it do - since you are relying solely on diet and training to get your results. There is more room for error when you have drugs. I felt the need to defend this since it sounded like you were implying that maybe drug-free competitors do not need as much knowledge as drug-BBs. Not about the drugs, obviously, but diet and training - any good natural competitor I ever met knows their shit about the body and nutrition. After all, that is what natural BB is all about - figuring out how the body works and manipulating and tricking the body through diet and training. It doesn't have a damn thing to do with not wanting to take risks or make sacrifices or fear of drugs. Some people are challenged by the idea of learning more and more about the body to see what they can achieve. And it's not a stance against drugs, either, as many people think. That would be a shallow view of what it really was, in my mind. These drawbacks you are describing are not problems for people at a competitive level. It's a given that their techniques are scientific to some degree and that they have knowledge of how the body works, otherwise they wouldn't be at that level. Getting into contest shape requires a lot more knowledge than just dieting to get cut. Go look at the women's board and take a look at MS's post on the keto diet. She's got a link on there to Lyle Mc'Ds site and there's a female competitor on there who used this diet. Now I am back to thinking this is not a superior diet for contest prep. I am not convinced that this is better than what I have been doing. ------------------ IP: Logged |
|
vlaovic Pro Bodybuilder (Total posts: 220) |
posted August 02, 2000 11:16 PM
I'm not sure where you got the idea I was implying drug-free competiors are unable to handle scientific info??? I have never used drugs (granted I don't compete and don't plan on doing so), but have nothing against them. I plan on staying drug-free all my life, and I feel I am quite capable of assimilating any diet in my head, so why would I think a pro isn't. All I was implying with my post was that I have nothing against those people who chose to use drugs to achieve what cannot be achieved naturally. I was't saying anything about which is better, or anything remotely close to that. I was actually praising pros in general, be they natural or not. So why this defensive attitude? I really don't understand what gave you the impression that I think natural pros can't handle complex diets. And also, what's your point regarding Elzi Volk? And if you think eating 2g per lb bodyweight in protein is good dieting , here's a link for you: http://www.testosterone.net/html/10maxim.html If you're absolutely hellbent on avoiding The Opus for dieting, at least employ a form of protein cycling rather than teaching your body how to effectively dispose of protein. The diet described in the above link may be too extreme for use in fat loss (i.e. having to restrict calories), so you might wanna try Eric Hesse's version and lowering calories; go to http://www.ironmag.com/ "Training" section, "Nutrition" subsection and you'll find 3 excellent articles on cycling protein (since I'm getting sick of CKDing after two months, I may do such a cycle myself, with low calories in order to finish cutting up since I spent 6 weeks of my CKD bulking and only the past 2 cutting, and not doing so very strictly at that). [This message has been edited by vlaovic (edited August 02, 2000).] [This message has been edited by vlaovic (edited August 02, 2000).] IP: Logged |
|
IronChick Amateur Bodybuilder (Total posts: 84) |
posted August 08, 2000 07:45 PM
I got that impression when you said you had a hypothesis as to why drug-free BBs don't use the diet and then in the next sentence you're saying the diet is highly scientific, etc. If you read thru the thread, it was interpreted that way by someone else, too. In any case I get the message that it's not what you meant. So hard to understand intent on these postings, anyway. I am not hell-bent on NOT using this diet. I simply wouldn't ask about it if that was the case, but I need a compelling reason to do so. I just want to see some excellent results on a drug-free competitor - a female. The point I am trying to make is that I have not seen any great results from it, as far as getting contest ready. I'm not saying no one has done it - I just haven't seen it and that's why I am asking about it and why aren't they all using it? I am interested in drug-free, so I can make an observation knowing that there was no assist from cutting drugs...that results are all from diet because that's all I have to work with. My comment regarding the competitor on Lyle's site is simply this: the cuts in the quads are not there and there seems to be a noticeable amount of BF in the ham/glute tie-in. (Not sure - on closer look, it may be just loose skin back there) Now, don't be defensive about this because it is not to insult anyone's accomplishment - I know nothing about her - just her pics. This is BB - when BBs post their pics, they are always going to get honest critique from other BBs and I would think they expect that....especially when the guy is putting up pics saying they are the result of this diet. He obviously does not think the results are that great since he is making excuses for her legs and back. He says the problem was improper form, which implies he is using the diet on a beginner. My other thought was that might not be a good subject for comparison. I am simply commenting on what I see in the pictures and these are the types of things that will be judged onstage as problem areas. The cuts in the lower body are not there. This is normally a problem area for females and I did not get the impression that this type of dieting helped in that respect. Everyone's perspective is different, but to me that would not be good enough for competition, which is pretty stiff these days. I do not take in 2 g of protein per lb of bodyweight, so I never argued the merits of it being "smart" or not. I weigh 155 lbs offseason and around 138 contest, so this would be an enormous amount of protein for me to eat, but I do not cycle protein when contest dieting as the Dr. suggests in his article. (Off-season I give my body breaks from protein, but I am interested in contest techniques here so I'll only address that.) I just get tired of having to eat what I consider to be so much protein every couple of hours when I'm dieting and the fear of losing muscle. You can criticize whatever it is you think I am doing, theoretically, but my results are there. Yes, I lose some muscle, which is why I asked about a different technique. I don't waste away to nothing, though. I know there are lots of scientific geniuses out there who write about diet techniques - I read a lot of them - I just want to SEE it applied successfully on a drug-free competitor and there is a serious lack of that going around. There are lots of great concepts on paper that may or may not work in the real world for any given competitor, depending on lots of factors, including but not limited to whether you are a man or a woman, use drugs or not, etc. If I was to see some great results on a woman without use of drugs, then I might think it's worth dissecting the diet and trying it for myself. I read the article on protein cycling, but it raises some of the same types of questions. He is basically saying that his technique is the smartest and most scientifically founded, etc. and listings of credentials and he says to ask him for his pics. I know - there are lots of smart people out there writing about diet techniques. His theory sounds interesting to me on paper just like the CKD sounds interesting, but people want to see this stuff actually applied. And me, as a woman, I want to see the success story on another female competitor's body - one who does not use drugs. And, I wonder the same thing as before - why aren't the majority of competitors using these methods if they are "it" and the currently used method is "unintelligent." I was just trying to get a better understanding of "why," if there was some reason and it does not seem that it will be answered here. IP: Logged |
|
vlaovic Pro Bodybuilder (Total posts: 220) |
posted August 09, 2000 01:38 AM
In retrospect, I think I may have too hastily recommended a CKD for a FEMALE competitor. I found myself thinking about this post a great deal, since you are probably one of the most serious and sceptical - good things in my eyes - people on this board. I began to think, what makes the Body Opus and the Anabolic Diet so great? I really don't think it's ketosis alone, because Anabolic Diet does not technically require ketosis - I actually prefer this version over the BO, and I lose just as much fat on it, if not more, because it's less restrictive, in that a dieter does not have to avoid citric acid, aspartame, L-glutamine, etc. It's also not caloric restriction, because both diets only recommend mild calorie cutting. The macronutrient profiles are similar in both diets as well, 65% fat for AD, 70% for BO. So what makes the AD and BO, which are similar in everything except the requirement of ketosis from Monday to Friday, so much better for cutting than conventional diets? What makes them spare protein better? Duchaine would have us believe it's ketosis, but DiPasquale actually said in an interview that on his AD, he does not recommend you even try to get into ketosis - you still eat 65% fat/5% carbs, but don't stress over whether you're in keto or not. No, it's not ketosis that makes these diets protein-sparing and thus very appealing, it's the HORMONES. Both diets, despite parting ways on the issue of ketosis, are very similar on the macronutrient intake. So why all the fat? Why the saturated fat? To jack up testosterone - the MALE hormone. Why no carbs? To jack up GH - the fat-burning hormone. Why the weekend calorie + carb rush? To keep the thyroid going and to jack up insulin. So now, I find myself thinking, is a diet centred around eliciting a hormonal response favorable to a male anatomy wise for a female competitor? Maybe, maybe not. I really don't know enough about the hormonal responses that are desirable by female BB's to even speculate. After all, I am a male athelete, and have never investigated female hormones. So with that, I apologize if I have offended you, or if I have come off like some cheezy Lyle McDonald wannabe. Neither was my intention, and if you've been to the aformentioned person's website, you know why I have no desire to end up looking like him. Believe me, I have achieved much better results on the high fat/low carb, moderate protein diet than he has, whether it was an AD or BO style approach (another words, ketosis or not). I also think that diet was not the problem with Elzi Volk's poor lower body definition, rather localized overtraing of the quads, combined with poor genetics (speculation only). Regardless, I still maintain that it's unwise to consume more than 35-40% protein. I also want to clearify that I was not trying to recommend you follow Dr. Jones' protein cycling scheme for a precontest diet (maybe offseason) - I don't plan to. I just wanted you to get a sense of what I was talking about regarding eating too much protein. I think a better approach to such cycling, with great potential for pre-contest dieting may be Eric Hesse's version at www.ironmag.com (I plan on experimenting with it in a few months). His series called Animalbolics is another diet that I have used with some personal, more extreme modifications (as an amature though) to get fat% of around 5. Well, to conclude this entirely too lengthy of a post, I want to say I'm sorry if I came on sounding rude - that was the last thing I wanted to do. And I really didn't mean to make it seem like I was "pushing" high fat diets. All I wanted to say is that I've had success with them, and that I think they are scientifically sound for the drug free pro. I should have however, thought more specifically in the context of FEMALE pro. Either way good luck and good buy for now. IP: Logged |
|
MS Pro Bodybuilder (Total posts: 657) |
posted August 09, 2000 03:46 PM
I've been staying out of this one as much as possible, but I think I might be the one stirring the pot behind the scenes. I speculated on the women's board that high-fat diets may not be optimal for female bodybuilders for exactly the reasons you mention vlaovic. Not only would a female get a very poor testosterone response to the weekend carb-ups, but high fat diets also increase estrogen levels in females, and estrogen=increased fat storage on thighs an butt. It seems to me that if you have high circulating fats AND high estrogen levels, it will be extra hard for a female to get ripped in the lower body. On top of this is my personal observation that I have'nt seen any high-quality female competitors that have used this diet, and I know MOST women that have tried it have felt like dog poos. This also makes some biological sense in that men tend to be less sensitive or less prone to fluctuations in serotonin levels. Don't kid yourself that CKD type diets don't have a profound effect on neurotransmitters. This is all pure speculation/observation, and I'm looking forward to hearing from women who have had good experiences on a high-fat diet. I'm thinking about toying with it again myself (when there's no competition looming for me). But I'll add a couple of supplements that I hope will help. Specifically Prozac (to increase serotonin activity) and Nolvadex (to counter some of the estrogen side efects?). That's enough rambling for now. I'm hoping for feedback (from men and women) to validate OR invalidate my thinking. Otherwise, I'll let you know how I get on with my modified CKD sometime in the future. IP: Logged |
| |
