You want as many carbs as possible has
been the claim for a long time, but
today's new meta-analysis shows
something different. They compared
carbohydrate and fat intakes of various
levels. There was no statistically
significant effect on muscle growth of
eating more carbs or more fats. That's a
big deal and this is awesome because
it's a huge win for mixed diets. How do
you know if you personally benefit from
more carbs, more fats, or something in
between?
Hey folks, Dr. Mike here for RP
Strength. Are carbs magical for muscle
growth and is it the more carbs the
better for muscle growth? Let's answer
that question today. We have a new
meta-analysis to look at. So, first up,
what you for sure need to get jacked
from your food.
Four to six meals per day
of high-quality protein as the core of
pretty much each meal.
Sufficient overall calories so that
you're above maintenance to gain at your
best rate to actually put on body
weight.
And those are the two fundamental
must-have non-negotiable ingredients.
The people in this world, all of the
people in this world,
have made their best gains on for sure
this combination. Four to six meals,
core of protein, and enough calories to
gain weight. Period. Not up for debate.
How much protein? About a gram per pound
of protein per day is a really good
middle number. There's totally nuance on
that. We have like a billion different
videos on the nuance. Gram per pound is
a really good start.
And because fat is an essential
nutrient, something like a quarter uh
grams of fat per pound per day is also a
good idea. So, for example, if you weigh
200 lb, you need about 200 g of protein
at at least 50 g of fat. That's pretty
low-end, though. And so, typically, you
would aim more for like 75 g of fat in
that situation. So, a four a fourth of
your body weight, more like a third in
fats.
And
here's the thing.
For a long, long time, and to this day,
the vast majority of the bodybuilding
community, serious fitness community,
will tell you that you get 200 g of
protein if you weigh 200 lbs, maybe 75 g
of fat.
The rest should be carbs.
All the way up to where your total
calories are hit.
Not any more fats than about 75 because
that would be too many fats, and you
want as many carbs as possible has been
the claim for a long time.
In other words, keep the fat on the low
end and fill the rest in with carbs.
So far, so good.
Now, why carbs? Didn't you just say this
at random? Carbohydrates have some real
serious advantages that fats seemingly
don't, at least on paper.
Carbs
help help you secrete insulin.
Insulin is very anti-catabolic, so it
reduces overall muscle breakdown. And is
mildly catabolic, so it slightly
increases muscle building.
A good deal less breakdown and a little
bit more building means overall, over
time, with the presence of insulin, you
are expected to gain a substantial
amount of muscle. Over the long term.
Maybe.
Another thing is this. Carbs provide a
lot of workout energy.
So, when you want to gain, you want to
train hard to be able to gain. If you
have a really good workout energy, you
can train harder and gain more muscle.
Carbs can allow you to do that.
Another thing is carbs give you big-ass
pumps, which psychologically makes you
love training more and usually keeps you
more consistent. Cell swelling does have
an effect on hypertrophy, but maybe not
because of the carbs but really because
of the tension and the damage.
And this is a true thing.
If you have glycogen, which is the
carbohydrates loaded into your muscles,
that go goes very low, like
substantially below a third of the
glycogen you typically store,
your muscle growth machinery checks the
glycogen before it turns on after a
lifting session and doesn't turn on
nearly as much. So, let me say that
another way.
If you're fully loaded with glycogen,
at the very least if you're not below a
third of what your glycogen typically
is, you're full on going to grow a ton
from every training session. But if your
glycogen, the internal storage of carbs
in your muscles, drops really low, then
the molecular machinery designed to make
gains happen for you, doesn't do as much
of what it usually does to make
So, that seems to be like a pretty
compelling case and like you'd have to
be kind of crazy not to eat as many
carbs as possible and stick to the
minimal fats.
But
today's new meta-analysis from Menno
Henselmans and colleagues, a great
friend of the channel and me in real
life,
show something different.
So, what's this meta-analysis situation?
They had
randomized controlled trial.
Randomized controlled trials.
11 of them included in this study of
studies.
And they compared carbohydrate
and fat intakes of various levels.
But they kept the calories the same in
all of these studies
and they kept the protein the same.
That's super critical because in many of
the studies that have compared carbs,
fats, and proteins to each other, they
don't keep the protein levels the same.
Protein has the biggest effect on muscle
growth outcomes. Surprise.
And so, if you don't keep it the same,
you can't really make a good comparison.
The resistance training interventions in
these studies lasted at least 6 weeks,
which is enough to show some directional
growth.
There were group differences, pretty big
ones, in carbohydrate intake, all the
way from pretty high carb to pretty
decently low carb.
They measured muscle size as the
outcome, direct measurements of muscle
size, which is good. We're not inferring
based on growth pathways or anything.
We're actually measuring muscles before,
muscles after. How many carbs versus
fats did you eat? Everyone ate the same
protein, had the same calories. What
happened with muscle growth?
They also checked to make sure there
weren't any other supplement
differences. It's just carbs versus fats
within the same constraint of calories
with the same amount of protein.
Looking back, the average sample size
per study was about 20 people, which is
robust enough to detect some effects.
And the average duration of
intervention, how long they lifted for
with either more carbs or fats, was
about 8 and 1/2 weeks, which is really
good. Like, you can detect some stuff.
It's not terribly long, so subtle
effects are undetectable by the study
design. But big effects, like if we were
going to say for sure eating a bunch
more fats or for sure eating a bunch
more carbs is going to be more
beneficial, uh this kind of
meta-analysis can either rule that in or
rule that out pretty definitively.
So,
what were the findings?
There was no statistically significant
effect
on muscle growth of eating more carbs or
more fats.
There was a slight directional effect
benefiting more carbs,
but the effect was teeny tiny.
And as scientifically literate people,
we have to admit that there's no way for
us to know if that's not just total
error, total random chance. It's so
close to the line of would be the same
that we just have to be like,
"Ah, there's just not much here."
So, in practical terms, there's no
convincing evidence that raising your
carbohydrates and dropping your fats
from 50/50 of each is going to cause you
more muscle.
The paper argues that for most
resistance training,
your glycogen doesn't get depleted much
below 40%.
And since the anti-anabolic effects kick
in below like a third or even less of
glycogen, you're just almost never going
to run into that. And so, if you're
eating enough carbohydrates to replenish
the glycogen back to a normal,
and because it's not getting crazy
depleted and you don't need infinity
carbs, a lot of fats and a lot of carbs
can still work totally fine. And that
seems to be what's really going on.
Now,
here's what this meta-analysis doesn't
show and thus we probably shouldn't
conclude.
It doesn't show that low carbs are
ideal, not even close. The study will
for sure be misinterpreted by low
low-carb folks as that. That's not the
case.
It doesn't show that there might not be
or might be a fine-grained difference in
growth from pros or people on growth
hormone that have some compelling
reasons to eat more carbohydrate and
less fat. It doesn't refute that. So,
every pro bodybuilder that's eating a
lot of carbs and very low fats, they
could still be doing the right thing.
It also doesn't show that in a caloric
deficit, more carbs might not be best
because in a caloric deficit, your
glycogen's getting depleted already.
And if you eat more carbohydrates, you
stay above that line below which you
start losing more muscle or just not
gaining as much.
In a deficit, maximizing carbohydrates
might still be a good idea. We're not
for sure, but this study does not rule
that out because everyone here in the
study was roughly at maintenance.
And
it doesn't show that there's no benefit
of more carbs and fewer fats.
Again, directionally there was a little
bit benefit, but not statistically
significant. But that doesn't say that
the benefit does not exist. It could
exist. We're just not sure if it does.
One thing we can be pretty confident of
in this study
is that we know whatever effect there is
of more carbs versus fewer fats or
versus more fats on muscle growth
that direction
the magnitude of the effect has to be
pretty small. So if carbs do have an
advantage, it's not going to be a huge
advantage. It could be a small one. Now,
small advantage over time makes some big
differences, but it's not going to make
a difference in in in the terms of
months or anything like that. So that's
a really big thing to figure out. And
good news, most of these studies were
conducted on trained lifters. So this
isn't just untrained noobs. These are
pretty serious folks.
What does this meta-analysis actually
show that we can walk away from?
First, it shows that roughly an even
amount of carbs and fats checks all the
boxes for basic muscle growth. So if
we're eating like a little fewer carbs
or a little more carbs, it really just
seems to be that you're going to get
great muscle gain either way.
So if you're eating 3,500 kcal
3,500 calories, technically kcal
and you eat 1,000 calories of those will
be your protein
you have 2,500 calories left over to
split between carbs and fats.
If you do something like
I don't know, 1,200 uh 50 of each carbs
or fats or you do like 600 carbs and
1,900 in fats. If you do 600 calories in
fats and 1,900 in carbs
all of that and everything between is
likely to gain you similar amounts of
muscle growth, at least in the medium
term of months.
That's a big deal, and this is awesome
because it's a huge win for mixed diets.
Mixed diets are carbs and fats uh in in
very good proportion to each other.
It's so much easier to travel, to go to
restaurants, etc., just get enough
protein and not care about the carb-fat
ratio, because the that way you can live
your life and still check all the boxes
for muscle growth. Instead of having to
go to a restaurant being like, "Can you
guys get rid of all the fats and just
give me carbs?" That's not nearly as
cool, it's not nearly as fun, and
seemingly doesn't have to be done.
Here's another thing. Some people, even
if they're not going out to eat and
they're eating clean food, they just
enjoy and feel better on a higher-fat
diet. Less brown rice, more avocado.
Some people are like that, and it seems
to be according to the study that that
can be a workable thing to gain a lot of
muscle, no problem.
Lastly,
how do you know if you personally
benefit from more carbs, more fats, or
something in between?
Here's what you do.
You
cap your calories to whatever slow gain
that you can.
You eat whatever amount of protein that
you need.
And then, what I would recommend you do
is start at like
50 g of carbs
and the rest fats.
Do a month of that to see what
low-carbing really feels like.
Train normally, train to gain. Remember,
eat enough calories and you will gain
muscle even at low carbs like that.
Add 50 g of carbs to that a month later.
So, now you're up to 100 g of carbs.
You got to get the calories from
somewhere, and the rough math is that
you subtract 20 g of fat from your diet.
So, you added 50 g of carbs, subtracted
20 g of fat.
A month later, do the same thing. So, a
month later, again, you're at 150 g of
carbs per day, and you've subtracted 40
g of fat away from your original value,
20 and then 20.
Then you go up to 200 g of carbs for a
month, 250, 300, etc. until you get to,
well, you know, something like for this
example, about 60 or something grams of
fat. Don't go any lower than that cuz
that would be too low.
Each one of those clips should be about
a month. Why? Because you really want
good data. You don't want fluctuations
to muddy the picture for you.
And you're going to be looking at a few
core outcomes, tracking them
meticulously using your RP Hypertrophy
app, and you can use your RP Diet Coach
app to program this diet.
You want to track strength progression
and see where during this time you're
gaining strength for reps the best.
You're going to want to track your
pumps. Pumps are correlated to muscle
hypertrophy. People who get the best
pumps typically grow the most. This is a
research-backed finding and has
theoretical support as well.
So, wherever you're getting the best
pumps,
probably is where you're getting the
most growth.
Soreness, if you're getting nice and
sore, but then healing on time, that's
good. If you get really sore but don't
heal on time, not great. If you don't
get sore at all and you feel like you're
barely working out, also not great.
Another one is workout energy. This one
is huge.
Somewhere
between low-carb, high-fat, high-carb,
low-fat, somewhere in that curve, you're
going to feel your best workout energy
and that's critical because if good
workout energy means you train harder,
and not only do you train harder per
set, but you can do more sets. And that
way, you can get more growth. Workout
energy is big. Whatever way to eat that
gives you enough protein and maximizes
workout energy, man, it's not far off of
the right answer.
Another one is sleep quality. Where are
you sleeping best? Some people have the
best sleep on a high-carb, some people
when their moderate carb, some people
win their lower carb. There's no wrong
answer, there's just what works for you.
Sex drive, as a slight proxy for
androgenic hormones like testosterone.
Fats are awesome for testosterone. Some
people will have great testosterone
levels with 50 g of fat per day.
Some people don't have their best until
they're at 150 g of fat per day.
Sex drive will be a proxy for your
testosterone levels. The higher the sex
drive, generally the better it is for
muscle growth. Though, that's not a
one-to-one thing, it's a directional
thing.
And overall indicators of fatigue, how
tired, how worn down are you? How many
weeks can you progress without having to
deload?
If you honestly can't tell the
difference between like 150 g of carbs
and 250 g of carbs and everything in
between, 150, 200, 250 felt the same.
Okay, at 100, you felt not so great, not
enough carbs.
At 300, you're like, okay, you have to
eat so few fats that your sex drive
starts to go down the drain. But if 150,
200, 250 are all roughly the same for
you, you don't have to be all fucking
Albert Einstein about it and try to get
to which one's 175. That really is great
news because that means all of those are
the right answer. And so that on some
days, when you're eating your food and
it just so happens you're going out for
pasta, you can eat more carbs and fewer
fats. And then other days when you're
eating your food and you feel more like,
you know, some almonds or something like
that, then you can eat higher fats and
lower carbs and everything's going to be
totally fine as long as you stay within
your personal range of optimality, which
you will find out if you do some of
these progressions where you're reducing
carbs, raising carbs, reducing fats,
raising fats. Calories stay the same,
protein stays the same, so you're only
ever changing really one thing if you
think about it. Now, just one more thing
before I sign off for you guys. This is
a big deal. When we're saying fats,
we don't mean
bad fats. We don't mean junk food
because there's a way to interpret this
that says, "Look, I eat clean.
I've got my turkey breast, got my rice,
got my veggies.
Because I do low high carb low fat in
this case,
that's what clean eating looks like."
Then you see this meta-analysis, you
read it, you watch this video, and you
go, "Ah, fats are great." So, instead of
a bunch of white rice and lean turkey
and veggies, I'm going to eat like a
regular burrito with like cheese and
sour cream in this mother. Same
calories, same protein, way more fat,
way fewer carbs.
And then you're like, "Yeah, so I guess
a McDonald's cheeseburger also has the
profile that I need to get like, you
know, same calories. I have a protein
shake with her." You eat your shit, and
it even has enough protein, but it's way
higher fat, way lower carb.
That would be a mistake because
McDonald's cheeseburgers are not
healthy. Now, every now and again you
can eat them, and they're totally fine.
But regularly eating unhealthy fat
sources, lots of saturated fat, lots of
processed foods is probably not ideal.
What you want to do is stick to healthy
fat sources, nuts, nut butters,
olive oil, canola oil, etc.
Healthy fats.
That should be the majority of your
fats. So, if you decide that you want to
do higher fat lower carb because it
seems to work for you based on this
experiment, don't just eat a shit load
of bacon and a bunch of grease. Make
sure that your fats are from healthy
sources, then you're going to have
amazing results and amazing health. And
because you have amazing health, you'll
be able to train significantly harder
for longer and have amazing results.
Do we know what this means for pro
bodybuilders, people who are using
growth hormone, insulin, etc.? We don't.
And so, if you're in that category of
real serious bodybuilder, I would still
tell you that it's good to experiment.
Here's how.
Don't go into the low carb shit. You
don't need to start from 50 g of carbs.
That's insane. That's almost certainly
not going to be what's best for you.
But if let's say you're eating about 75
g of fat
and you're eating about 400 g of carbs,
the rest protein.
What I would do is I would try to play
with taking your fats down to 50,
jacking your carbs up,
and I know this is crazy, try to get
your fats up to 100 g of fat per day and
jack your carbs out a little bit.
Some people hate it and some people it
was the medicine they didn't know that
they needed. There are many pro
bodybuilders over the years that
realized the super low fat diets were
not working for them. They went to
higher fats, lower carbs and their
physiques blew up.
Sometimes people need more fats to take
care of the hormonal stuff and they just
don't know what they're missing. So, if
you're a pro bodybuilder, if you're up
there in the bodybuilding ranks, still
change the carbs and fats, just keep the
fats lower on average and the and the
carbs higher and don't make the changes
as big and you might realize that a
100 g of fat per day is better for you
than than 50. 75 is about as good as
100, maybe 100's even better. Or you can
find out that 50 to 75 is great,
anything close to 100, so few carbs,
your pumps suck, you're you don't have
as much of a response in the gym, you're
not healing as quickly on time and then
you go back to 50 to 75 and live the
bodybuilding lifestyle.
Let me know if that makes sense.
Questions in the comments and I'll see
you guys next time.