BoxRec

Boxerbeetle wrote:

TheLeprechaun wrote:

lefty wrote: Not sure I agree with that. I think it's more of a learnt behaviourand thus a habit. Habits are hard to change however but it can be done.

That's what everyone likes to believe as it gives us the feeling that we are in control.

The truth is that it's largely genetic. Think about giving up smoking for example. Some people can give it up with some effort. For others they just can't give it up no matter what level of effort they put in. They could put in more effort than the other person who gave it up but still be unable to give it up. I know a lad who has kidney cancer, had a kidney removed recently and is still smoking. He tried really hard to give it up but couldn't.

Sorry, totally disagree with that. The idea that discipline is genetic just gives people excuses. There is absolutely no reason why a person can't force themselves to work hard and stay disciplined.

To be honest we might actually see a different Gavin going into his next fight (unless he retires) he'll know that he's in the last chance saloon and thus his career could be over. Could bring out a completely different side of him (here's hoping).

lefty wrote:

Boxerbeetle wrote:

TheLeprechaun wrote:


That's what everyone likes to believe as it gives us the feeling that we are in control.

The truth is that it's largely genetic. Think about giving up smoking for example. Some people can give it up with some effort. For others they just can't give it up no matter what level of effort they put in. They could put in more effort than the other person who gave it up but still be unable to give it up. I know a lad who has kidney cancer, had a kidney removed recently and is still smoking. He tried really hard to give it up but couldn't.

Sorry, totally disagree with that. The idea that discipline is genetic just gives people excuses. There is absolutely no reason why a person can't force themselves to work hard and stay disciplined.

To be honest we might actually see a different Gavin going into his next fight (unless he retires) he'll know that he's in the last chance saloon and thus his career could be over. Could bring out a completely different side of him (here's hoping).

He has never turned it on so why should he now? Complete lack of discipline. Shame as even with little effort, he is performing at a level higher than 90% of boxers.

tobyh5 wrote:

lefty wrote:

Boxerbeetle wrote:
Sorry, totally disagree with that. The idea that discipline is genetic just gives people excuses. There is absolutely no reason why a person can't force themselves to work hard and stay disciplined.

To be honest we might actually see a different Gavin going into his next fight (unless he retires) he'll know that he's in the last chance saloon and thus his career could be over. Could bring out a completely different side of him (here's hoping).

He has never turned it on so why should he now? Complete lack of discipline. Shame as even with little effort, he is performing at a level higher than 90% of boxers.

Well the thing that was different in those circumstances is he was probably still in his comfort zone thinking that even if he lost, he could still box on and have a successful boxing career. Now he knows that if he loses again, it's pretty much curtains for him. That said like you say it might not make a difference. He still might not care.

The odd part of it is that when he's in the gym; people say he works very hard. It seems like he's just not disciplined when it comes to his diet and when he's not in training. It kind of makes the first part of that equation redundant when he fucks up his diet, etc, however.

lefty wrote:

TheLeprechaun wrote:

lefty wrote: Not sure I agree with that. I think it's more of a learnt behaviourand thus a habit. Habits are hard to change however but it can be done.

That's what everyone likes to believe as it gives us the feeling that we are in control.

The truth is that it's largely genetic. Think about giving up smoking for example. Some people can give it up with some effort. For others they just can't give it up no matter what level of effort they put in. They could put in more effort than the other person who gave it up but still be unable to give it up. I know a lad who has kidney cancer, had a kidney removed recently and is still smoking. He tried really hard to give it up but couldn't.

I see what you're getting at but I'm still not entirely convinced. How do you know lad you know truly wants to give up smoking? He might know he needs to for the sake of his self but deep down he enjoys smoking and thus subconsciously could be self sabotaging.

Loads of studies are out there (done on rats and mice mind) where scientists pinpoint several genes which are more common in the more active animals and way less common in the lazy/less active ones. The common scientific opinion is that laziness/discipline is largely genetic. It's definitely related to genes that regulate dopamine and serotonin uptake and the activity/amount and location of their receptors in the brain.

TheLeprechaun wrote:

lefty wrote:

TheLeprechaun wrote:


That's what everyone likes to believe as it gives us the feeling that we are in control.

The truth is that it's largely genetic. Think about giving up smoking for example. Some people can give it up with some effort. For others they just can't give it up no matter what level of effort they put in. They could put in more effort than the other person who gave it up but still be unable to give it up. I know a lad who has kidney cancer, had a kidney removed recently and is still smoking. He tried really hard to give it up but couldn't.

I see what you're getting at but I'm still not entirely convinced. How do you know lad you know truly wants to give up smoking? He might know he needs to for the sake of his self but deep down he enjoys smoking and thus subconsciously could be self sabotaging.

Loads of studies are out there (done on rats and mice mind) where scientists pinpoint several genes which are more common in the more active animals and way less common in the lazy/less active ones. The common scientific opinion is that laziness/discipline is largely genetic. It's definitely related to genes that regulate dopamine and serotonin uptake and the activity/amount and location of their receptors in the brain.

I've seem one study that says there's a possibility of that. However it doesn't account for people who were clinically obese and did little to no exercise and then got in good shape or on the flipside people who used to be gym rats and then became fat assess who became very sedentary.

I imagine that in reality there probably a little bit of both in the equation.

lefty wrote:

tobyh5 wrote:

lefty wrote: To be honest we might actually see a different Gavin going into his next fight (unless he retires) he'll know that he's in the last chance saloon and thus his career could be over. Could bring out a completely different side of him (here's hoping).

He has never turned it on so why should he now? Complete lack of discipline. Shame as even with little effort, he is performing at a level higher than 90% of boxers.

Well the thing that was different in those circumstances is he was probably still in his comfort zone thinking that even if he lost, he could still box on and have a successful boxing career. Now he knows that if he loses again, it's pretty much curtains for him. That said like you say it might not make a difference. He still might not care.

The odd part of it is that when he's in the gym; people say he works very hard. It seems like he's just not disciplined when it comes to his diet and when he's not in training. It kind of makes the first part of that equation redundant when he fucks up his diet, etc, however.

All about diet on the shape we turn up in. Apologies in advance for a bodybuilding bloody comparison as i know about them and lead balloons here but I train identical all year round. Weights 4 times per week, I do cardio all year round for heart health and the only difference when I get ready for a show is diet. I will weigh 82kg off season, 69-71 in season. Literally only change is how much goes in my mouth.

When I am leaning out, people say "Oh, you are back in training?" I cannot be arsed to explain to them. But the point is, he probably does graft in the gym but just lacks the discipline in the other 22 hours per day

tobyh5 wrote:

lefty wrote:

tobyh5 wrote:
He has never turned it on so why should he now? Complete lack of discipline. Shame as even with little effort, he is performing at a level higher than 90% of boxers.

Well the thing that was different in those circumstances is he was probably still in his comfort zone thinking that even if he lost, he could still box on and have a successful boxing career. Now he knows that if he loses again, it's pretty much curtains for him. That said like you say it might not make a difference. He still might not care.

The odd part of it is that when he's in the gym; people say he works very hard. It seems like he's just not disciplined when it comes to his diet and when he's not in training. It kind of makes the first part of that equation redundant when he fucks up his diet, etc, however.

All about diet on the shape we turn up in. Apologies in advance for a bodybuilding bloody comparison as i know about them and lead balloons here but I train identical all year round. Weights 4 times per week, I do cardio all year round for heart health and the only difference when I get ready for a show is diet. I will weigh 82kg off season, 69-71 in season. Literally only change is how much goes in my mouth.

When I am leaning out, people say "Oh, you are back in training?" I cannot be arsed to explain to them. But the point is, he probably does graft in the gym but just lacks the discipline in the other 22 hours per day

As somebody that clearly is knowledgeable in that particular field; how important is diet in regards to body composition? Also how important is diet in regards to your cardio-vascular fitness levels? The reason I ask these questions is I was talking to somebody the other day that said that eating a lot of bread (a strong carb source as you know) wouldn't make much difference to fat loss as in their opinion it's all about calories in versus calories out.

That seems quite a hotly debated topic in the fitness world actually. My argument was that if it was as simplistic as that then surely concepts like 'if it fits your macro's' wouldn't be such a big thing when it comes to fitness models and people just getting in shape generally? I'm curious to hear your take on it though.

lefty wrote:

tobyh5 wrote:

lefty wrote: Well the thing that was different in those circumstances is he was probably still in his comfort zone thinking that even if he lost, he could still box on and have a successful boxing career. Now he knows that if he loses again, it's pretty much curtains for him. That said like you say it might not make a difference. He still might not care.

The odd part of it is that when he's in the gym; people say he works very hard. It seems like he's just not disciplined when it comes to his diet and when he's not in training. It kind of makes the first part of that equation redundant when he fucks up his diet, etc, however.

All about diet on the shape we turn up in. Apologies in advance for a bodybuilding bloody comparison as i know about them and lead balloons here but I train identical all year round. Weights 4 times per week, I do cardio all year round for heart health and the only difference when I get ready for a show is diet. I will weigh 82kg off season, 69-71 in season. Literally only change is how much goes in my mouth.

When I am leaning out, people say "Oh, you are back in training?" I cannot be arsed to explain to them. But the point is, he probably does graft in the gym but just lacks the discipline in the other 22 hours per day

As somebody that clearly is knowledgeable in that particular field; how important is diet in regards to body composition? Also how important is diet in regards to your cardio-vascular fitness levels? The reason I ask these questions is I was talking to somebody the other day that said that eating a lot of bread (a strong carb source as you know) wouldn't make much difference to fat loss as in their opinion it's all about calories in versus calories out.

That seems quite a hotly debated topic in the fitness world actually. My argument was that if it was as simplistic as that then surely concepts like 'if it fits your macro's' wouldn't be such a big thing when it comes to fitness models and people just getting in shape generally? I'm curious to hear your take on it though.

All depends who you talk to as experts all disagree on this but no, I do not agree with calories in vs calories out. It works to a degree for a while but you are always fighting it, changing diet, reducing carbs and calories, increasing cardio.

Carbs produce insulin, insulin is shuttled into the cells including fat cells. They produce energy and while going into the fat cells, fat cannot escape which makes it harder to lose bodyfat. So you are living on the energy the carbs are creating down into sugar – known as glucose. Glucose is needed in the creation of ATP (an energy molecule), which is a fuel that is needed for the daily activities and maintenance inside our bodies. To lose the fat, we need to eat at a deficit which is always going to decrease as your body adjusts

Or you can research Keto and go with that. In absence of insulin, your body will produce ketones for energy. Fat cells are open, release fatty acid which goes to the liver to produce ketones which then fuel your body. So you are burning the fat all the time. On a bro diet I will have to go with 1800 or less to get results, on keto I can go with 2500.

A million people will argue against Keto, which i currently use, but for me it is the best and healthiest diet. Great for preventing cancer, alzheimer's and a number of diseases, plus as a straight diet it is piss easy to adhere to. High fats, nearly no carbs (just veg), moderate protein. No blood sugar spikes, constant energy, forcing the body to use its preferred energy source, mentally sharp. All win win for me

*not many bodybuilders or fitness models use keto, but I am a convert. A good youtube channel with some videos explaining it in real English is this guy https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOfJHa ... NbQ/videos

lefty wrote:

tobyh5 wrote:

lefty wrote: Well the thing that was different in those circumstances is he was probably still in his comfort zone thinking that even if he lost, he could still box on and have a successful boxing career. Now he knows that if he loses again, it's pretty much curtains for him. That said like you say it might not make a difference. He still might not care.

The odd part of it is that when he's in the gym; people say he works very hard. It seems like he's just not disciplined when it comes to his diet and when he's not in training. It kind of makes the first part of that equation redundant when he fucks up his diet, etc, however.

All about diet on the shape we turn up in. Apologies in advance for a bodybuilding bloody comparison as i know about them and lead balloons here but I train identical all year round. Weights 4 times per week, I do cardio all year round for heart health and the only difference when I get ready for a show is diet. I will weigh 82kg off season, 69-71 in season. Literally only change is how much goes in my mouth.

When I am leaning out, people say "Oh, you are back in training?" I cannot be arsed to explain to them. But the point is, he probably does graft in the gym but just lacks the discipline in the other 22 hours per day

As somebody that clearly is knowledgeable in that particular field; how important is diet in regards to body composition? Also how important is diet in regards to your cardio-vascular fitness levels? The reason I ask these questions is I was talking to somebody the other day that said that eating a lot of bread (a strong carb source as you know) wouldn't make much difference to fat loss as in their opinion it's all about calories in versus calories out.

That seems quite a hotly debated topic in the fitness world actually. My argument was that if it was as simplistic as that then surely concepts like 'if it fits your macro's' wouldn't be such a big thing when it comes to fitness models and people just getting in shape generally? I'm curious to hear your take on it though.

I'm no expert, but I thought it was nearly universally agreed that it's not as simple as calories in/calories out. As my trainer once pointed out, you could eat a Crunchie for breakfast, a Crunchie for lunch and a Mars bar for dinner and be doing ok from a purely calorific perspective, but it's hardly conducive to a training regime.

All calories are not equal. A protein calorie is very different from a glucose calorie

Boxerbeetle wrote:

lefty wrote:

tobyh5 wrote:

All about diet on the shape we turn up in. Apologies in advance for a bodybuilding bloody comparison as i know about them and lead balloons here but I train identical all year round. Weights 4 times per week, I do cardio all year round for heart health and the only difference when I get ready for a show is diet. I will weigh 82kg off season, 69-71 in season. Literally only change is how much goes in my mouth.

When I am leaning out, people say "Oh, you are back in training?" I cannot be arsed to explain to them. But the point is, he probably does graft in the gym but just lacks the discipline in the other 22 hours per day

As somebody that clearly is knowledgeable in that particular field; how important is diet in regards to body composition? Also how important is diet in regards to your cardio-vascular fitness levels? The reason I ask these questions is I was talking to somebody the other day that said that eating a lot of bread (a strong carb source as you know) wouldn't make much difference to fat loss as in their opinion it's all about calories in versus calories out.

That seems quite a hotly debated topic in the fitness world actually. My argument was that if it was as simplistic as that then surely concepts like 'if it fits your macro's' wouldn't be such a big thing when it comes to fitness models and people just getting in shape generally? I'm curious to hear your take on it though.

I'm no expert, but I thought it was nearly universally agreed that it's not as simple as calories in/calories out. As my trainer once pointed out, you could eat a Crunchie for breakfast, a Crunchie for lunch and a Mars bar for dinner and be doing ok from a purely calorific perspective, but it's hardly conducive to a training regime.

Yeah I don't agree with it myself but their argument was that as long as you're burning more calories than you're consuming (to lose weight) and consuming more than you're burning (to gain weight) then it doesn't matter what those calories are made up of in terms of proteins, fats and carbs. That seems a very simplistic viewpoint to me but admittedly I'm not nutritionist/dietician so I really don't know.

lefty wrote:

Boxerbeetle wrote:

lefty wrote: As somebody that clearly is knowledgeable in that particular field; how important is diet in regards to body composition? Also how important is diet in regards to your cardio-vascular fitness levels? The reason I ask these questions is I was talking to somebody the other day that said that eating a lot of bread (a strong carb source as you know) wouldn't make much difference to fat loss as in their opinion it's all about calories in versus calories out.

That seems quite a hotly debated topic in the fitness world actually. My argument was that if it was as simplistic as that then surely concepts like 'if it fits your macro's' wouldn't be such a big thing when it comes to fitness models and people just getting in shape generally? I'm curious to hear your take on it though.

I'm no expert, but I thought it was nearly universally agreed that it's not as simple as calories in/calories out. As my trainer once pointed out, you could eat a Crunchie for breakfast, a Crunchie for lunch and a Mars bar for dinner and be doing ok from a purely calorific perspective, but it's hardly conducive to a training regime.

Yeah I don't agree with it myself but their argument was that as long as you're burning more calories than you're consuming (to lose weight) and consuming more than you're burning (to gain weight) then it doesn't matter what those calories are made up of in terms of proteins, fats and carbs. That seems a very simplistic viewpoint to me but admittedly I'm not nutritionist/dietician so I really don't know.

You would lose weight in the short term, but it wouldn't be at all sustainable

Edit: I pressed submit too early by mistake and was about to make an extraordinary and interesting point, but now have to go for a drive so it will have to wait.

Yeah. Also going on their theory- it's all well and good either losing or gaining weight but if it's the wrong type of weight ie either muscle or fat then that's not great either.

For instance when you watch Frankie box- he looks like a guy that has very little muscle on his frame but a rather high body fat %. Now on the flipside- having too much muscle can make you gas more quickly as all that muscle requires a lot of oxygen. Good examples of the opposite being Fury and Calzaghe who have/had good engines on them but not particulalry impressive physiques.

lefty wrote:Yeah. Also going on their theory- it's all well and good either losing or gaining weight but if it's the wrong type of weight ie either muscle or fat then that's not great either.

It does not take so much into account, eg on Keto you are working with hormones more to lost fat.

But yeah, a calorie is not a calorie. They have a different role and reaction

tobyh5 wrote:

lefty wrote:Yeah. Also going on their theory- it's all well and good either losing or gaining weight but if it's the wrong type of weight ie either muscle or fat then that's not great either.

It does not take so much into account, eg on Keto you are working with hormones more to lost fat.

But yeah, a calorie is not a calorie. They have a different role and reaction

Is a keto diet one you have to be very cautious on though health wise? The reason I asked is if you start having Ketones, that can be life threatening right? One of the symptoms being that your breath smells of pear drops or something along those lines.

Also Toby- what's your thoughts on intermittent fasting?

lefty wrote:

tobyh5 wrote:

lefty wrote:Yeah. Also going on their theory- it's all well and good either losing or gaining weight but if it's the wrong type of weight ie either muscle or fat then that's not great either.

It does not take so much into account, eg on Keto you are working with hormones more to lost fat.

But yeah, a calorie is not a calorie. They have a different role and reaction

Is a keto diet one you have to be very cautious on though health wise? The reason I asked is if you start having Ketones, that can be life threatening right? One of the symptoms being that your breath smells of pear drops or something along those lines.

Keto is fine, Ketones is fine, the confusion is with ketoacidosis I believe it is called. Keto really is fine. But yeah it can cause a breath issue, not so bad IMO.

It is a fascinating piece of science and the more I study and research it, the more I am becoming a fan of it. I have looked at it in the past but not too deeply, currently stepping it up.

tobyh5 wrote:

lefty wrote:

tobyh5 wrote:
He has never turned it on so why should he now? Complete lack of discipline. Shame as even with little effort, he is performing at a level higher than 90% of boxers.

Well the thing that was different in those circumstances is he was probably still in his comfort zone thinking that even if he lost, he could still box on and have a successful boxing career. Now he knows that if he loses again, it's pretty much curtains for him. That said like you say it might not make a difference. He still might not care.

The odd part of it is that when he's in the gym; people say he works very hard. It seems like he's just not disciplined when it comes to his diet and when he's not in training. It kind of makes the first part of that equation redundant when he fucks up his diet, etc, however.

All about diet on the shape we turn up in. Apologies in advance for a bodybuilding bloody comparison as i know about them and lead balloons here but I train identical all year round. Weights 4 times per week, I do cardio all year round for heart health and the only difference when I get ready for a show is diet. I will weigh 82kg off season, 69-71 in season. Literally only change is how much goes in my mouth.

When I am leaning out, people say "Oh, you are back in training?" I cannot be arsed to explain to them. But the point is, he probably does graft in the gym but just lacks the discipline in the other 22 hours per day

This sums it up perfectly. I have the same. I could be running 6/7 miles a day but if I am eating little treats I could be up to anything as 5kg heavier.

tobyh5 wrote:

lefty wrote:

tobyh5 wrote:

It does not take so much into account, eg on Keto you are working with hormones more to lost fat.

But yeah, a calorie is not a calorie. They have a different role and reaction

Is a keto diet one you have to be very cautious on though health wise? The reason I asked is if you start having Ketones, that can be life threatening right? One of the symptoms being that your breath smells of pear drops or something along those lines.

Keto is fine, Ketones is fine, the confusion is with ketoacidosis I believe it is called. Keto really is fine. But yeah it can cause a breath issue, not so bad IMO.

It is a fascinating piece of science and the more I study and research it, the more I am becoming a fan of it. I have looked at it in the past but not too deeply, currently stepping it up.

I think some of the UFC roster in on Keto diet actually.

lefty wrote:

tobyh5 wrote:

lefty wrote: Is a keto diet one you have to be very cautious on though health wise? The reason I asked is if you start having Ketones, that can be life threatening right? One of the symptoms being that your breath smells of pear drops or something along those lines.

Keto is fine, Ketones is fine, the confusion is with ketoacidosis I believe it is called. Keto really is fine. But yeah it can cause a breath issue, not so bad IMO.

It is a fascinating piece of science and the more I study and research it, the more I am becoming a fan of it. I have looked at it in the past but not too deeply, currently stepping it up.

I think some of the UFC roster in on Keto diet actually.

UFC isn't relevant in this situation, it's KFC that has been the problem.

leejonesjnr wrote:

lefty wrote:

tobyh5 wrote:
Keto is fine, Ketones is fine, the confusion is with ketoacidosis I believe it is called. Keto really is fine. But yeah it can cause a breath issue, not so bad IMO.

It is a fascinating piece of science and the more I study and research it, the more I am becoming a fan of it. I have looked at it in the past but not too deeply, currently stepping it up.

I think some of the UFC roster in on Keto diet actually.

UFC isn't relevant in this situation, it's KFC that has been the problem.

Haha.

lefty wrote:

tobyh5 wrote:

lefty wrote: Is a keto diet one you have to be very cautious on though health wise? The reason I asked is if you start having Ketones, that can be life threatening right? One of the symptoms being that your breath smells of pear drops or something along those lines.

Keto is fine, Ketones is fine, the confusion is with ketoacidosis I believe it is called. Keto really is fine. But yeah it can cause a breath issue, not so bad IMO.

It is a fascinating piece of science and the more I study and research it, the more I am becoming a fan of it. I have looked at it in the past but not too deeply, currently stepping it up.

I think some of the UFC roster in on Keto diet actually.

I did not know that, do not really pay much attention to UFC. Thank you, will go and have a look at who does and how they approach it. I follow the Keto cycle which is a carb day once per week, done it today. I do not miss carbs in the other days, the night before the carb day I do not want to have them, an hour into it and I have not scheduled enough and want to double it!

tobyh5 wrote:

lefty wrote:

tobyh5 wrote:

All about diet on the shape we turn up in. Apologies in advance for a bodybuilding bloody comparison as i know about them and lead balloons here but I train identical all year round. Weights 4 times per week, I do cardio all year round for heart health and the only difference when I get ready for a show is diet. I will weigh 82kg off season, 69-71 in season. Literally only change is how much goes in my mouth.

When I am leaning out, people say "Oh, you are back in training?" I cannot be arsed to explain to them. But the point is, he probably does graft in the gym but just lacks the discipline in the other 22 hours per day

As somebody that clearly is knowledgeable in that particular field; how important is diet in regards to body composition? Also how important is diet in regards to your cardio-vascular fitness levels? The reason I ask these questions is I was talking to somebody the other day that said that eating a lot of bread (a strong carb source as you know) wouldn't make much difference to fat loss as in their opinion it's all about calories in versus calories out.

That seems quite a hotly debated topic in the fitness world actually. My argument was that if it was as simplistic as that then surely concepts like 'if it fits your macro's' wouldn't be such a big thing when it comes to fitness models and people just getting in shape generally? I'm curious to hear your take on it though.

All depends who you talk to as experts all disagree on this but no, I do not agree with calories in vs calories out. It works to a degree for a while but you are always fighting it, changing diet, reducing carbs and calories, increasing cardio.

Carbs produce insulin, insulin is shuttled into the cells including fat cells. They produce energy and while going into the fat cells, fat cannot escape which makes it harder to lose bodyfat. So you are living on the energy the carbs are creating down into sugar – known as glucose. Glucose is needed in the creation of ATP (an energy molecule), which is a fuel that is needed for the daily activities and maintenance inside our bodies. To lose the fat, we need to eat at a deficit which is always going to decrease as your body adjusts

Or you can research Keto and go with that. In absence of insulin, your body will produce ketones for energy. Fat cells are open, release fatty acid which goes to the liver to produce ketones which then fuel your body. So you are burning the fat all the time. On a bro diet I will have to go with 1800 or less to get results, on keto I can go with 2500.

A million people will argue against Keto, which i currently use, but for me it is the best and healthiest diet. Great for preventing cancer, alzheimer's and a number of diseases, plus as a straight diet it is piss easy to adhere to. High fats, nearly no carbs (just veg), moderate protein. No blood sugar spikes, constant energy, forcing the body to use its preferred energy source, mentally sharp. All win win for me

*not many bodybuilders or fitness models use keto, but I am a convert. A good youtube channel with some videos explaining it in real English is this guy https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOfJHa ... NbQ/videos

Wish you'd post more stuff like this mate you know your stuff

tobyh5 wrote:

lefty wrote:

tobyh5 wrote:
Keto is fine, Ketones is fine, the confusion is with ketoacidosis I believe it is called. Keto really is fine. But yeah it can cause a breath issue, not so bad IMO.

It is a fascinating piece of science and the more I study and research it, the more I am becoming a fan of it. I have looked at it in the past but not too deeply, currently stepping it up.

I think some of the UFC roster in on Keto diet actually.

I did not know that, do not really pay much attention to UFC. Thank you, will go and have a look at who does and how they approach it. I follow the Keto cycle which is a carb day once per week, done it today. I do not miss carbs in the other days, the night before the carb day I do not want to have them, an hour into it and I have not scheduled enough and want to double it!

I think Miesha Tate is one of them. I can't think who the others are off the top of my head. I think ex UFC heavyweight Shane Carwin might be another aswell actually.