Speaker A
Various promises are often packaged up, but in reality, we need to look into this. Someone might say, "Cycle your carbs and you can get leaner faster, keep more muscle, and reach a low body fat percentage more easily." And today,
Explores carb cycling, refeeds, and diet breaks in fat loss and muscle preservation with scientific evidence and practical insights.
Key Takeaways
- No metabolic or fat loss advantage exists for carb cycling compared to a consistent calorie deficit with adequate protein.
- Refeeds and diet breaks can improve psychological and physiological sustainability of dieting but must be planned carefully.
- Carb cycling's main benefit is adherence and training support, not accelerated fat loss.
- Misapplication of carb cycling or refeeds can harm progress and athlete performance.
- Individualization and professional guidance are essential for effective nutrition strategies.
What the video covers
- Carb cycling involves alternating low-carb and high-carb days but lacks a standardized scientific definition.
- Refeeds are planned short increases in carbohydrate intake to restore energy balance, distinct from cheat meals.
- Diet breaks are longer periods of eating at maintenance calories to reduce fatigue and hunger during prolonged deficits.
- Scientific evidence shows no significant fat loss advantage of carb cycling over continuous calorie deficit when protein and training are adequate.
- Carb cycling may indirectly help by improving adherence, reducing hunger, and supporting training quality.
- Improper planning of refeeds or excessive low-carb days can lead to fatigue, overeating, and nullify progress.
- Meta-analyses indicate minimal metabolic benefits from carb cycling, especially in athletes versus overweight individuals.
- Bodybuilders use carb cycling and diet breaks to manage hunger, fatigue, and lean mass preservation during contest prep.
- The choice of strategy should be individualized based on convenience, sport, and personal response rather than expecting metabolic miracles.
- Nutrition strategies should be implemented professionally to avoid risks like low energy availability and disordered eating.
Chapters
- 00:00Introduction and Terminology Clarification
- 02:54Refeeds vs Cheat Meals and Diet Breaks
- 05:51Energy Deficit and Carb Cycling Effects
- 08:54Scientific Evidence on Carb Cycling
- 12:08Carb Cycling in Bodybuilding and Athlete Preparation
- 15:09Broader Perspectives and Practical Considerations
- 17:36Nutritional Planning and Avoiding Pitfalls
- 21:10Summary, Q&A, and Final Recommendations
Full Transcript — Download SRT & Markdown
Speaker A
we’re going to test that. Uh, the same high-carb day can be part of a bodybuilder's contest prep. It could also be recovery after a fighter's weigh-in, fuel before intense cyclical training, or just a strategy that matters in a specific context. And the
Speaker A
main question here is, what problem are we solving? In a specific situation for a specific athlete or sport, will it create new problems, and what is the point of it all anyway? And overall, by the end of this broadcast, I hope you
Speaker A
have a simple filter and an understanding of where fitness rumors and myths about carbs end, and where actual work begins, in a scientific and professional context, including the work of a nutritionist and so on. Let's start moving on slowly. First, let's
Speaker A
clarify the terminology a bit. Uh, in the Russian-speaking fitness community, carb cycling usually refers to alternating days with relatively low carbs and high protein with high-carb days. But this isn't a standardized scientific protocol. People can mean completely different things by the same
Speaker A
term, such as varying calorie counts, frequency, and macronutrient distribution. Carb cycling is, as I said, an alternation of macronutrients.
Speaker A
And in fact, from a scientific perspective, the evidence base for this specific term and for cycling in general is quite limited. A refeed is a short, pre-planned increase in energy, most often primarily through carbohydrates. I want to emphasize: a
Speaker A
planned increase in energy. In the context of a deficit, this usually means returning to energy balance. It is not a "cheat day" where you can eat until you drop and whatever you want.
Speaker A
As people often say, "I did a cheat meal, meant a refeed," or "I did a refeed, meant a cheat meal," and this day can turn into one that ruins a week of progress. We'll talk about that more later. There is also a planned diet
Speaker A
break. This is a longer period, usually a week or two, of eating at energy balance between cycles. For example, you stick to a deficit for 6 weeks and then take a 2-week break. And also separate carbohydrate loading, that is,
Speaker A
a specific pre-competition strategy when you need to maximize glycogen stores before a particular start, before a competition. Perhaps some of you have competed and are also familiar with this tool. Uh, and moving on, now the main question: does carbohydrate
Speaker A
cycling itself help lose more fat? So we will now take a look from the perspective of the numbers. And here you can see, yes, that if two diets provide a comparable average energy deficit, well, naturally, with a sufficient amount of protein, or, well,
Speaker A
provided there is enough protein and sufficient training load. And there is no confirmed specific advantage to carb cycling. In this case, we see that for some number of days, for example, 5, 6, 7 days, there is an equally steady
Speaker A
deficit, for example, 2,500 calories. And, for instance, we restrict calories more by reducing carbohydrates, by reducing carbohydrates, for example, on certain days and increasing them on others. And consequently, if on average we end up with, for example, 14,000
Speaker A
calories, in terms of energy loss, it will be, in principle, the same. And what follows from this? Fat decreases not because the body was somehow tricked after a protein day or, conversely, after a carb day where we loaded up more, it was tricked,
Speaker A
something shifted, or something accelerated. But rather because, well, according to the law of conservation of energy, over a prolonged period, expenditure exceeded energy intake.
Speaker A
That's all. That is, the difference lies in the chosen strategy. But in terms of energy loss, we will observe essentially the same thing. Uh, but carb cycling in general can indirectly influence the result. That is, if a high-carb day or a series of high-carb
Speaker A
days by itself helps to stick to the plan, for example, staying in a calorie deficit, and maintaining training quality. For instance, yesterday was a carb day, or yesterday and the day before were carb days, today we go in,
Speaker A
we have a heavy leg day, yes, everyone knows how hard that is, or something like that, in general, a heavy workout.
Speaker A
It can give you strength. Overall, it can reduce stress, and subjectively decrease hunger. And the strategy may prove to be quite convenient. But there is a risk that, if, for example, you plan incorrectly, then, as I’ve said, some people do it without proper
Speaker A
planning, performing some refeeds, and that can wipe out the deficit. Consequently, mm, it may turn out to be, well, it could be a negative aspect, or, for example, some high-protein days where carbohydrates were cut to zero, perhaps someone decided to apply a
Speaker A
scenario with too many protein days. This can provoke fatigue, a decrease in daily activity, and, in general, relapses, overeating, and so on. So, consequently, this strategy not only fails to improve results, it can simply nullify your preparation for a
Speaker A
competition, a photo shoot, or any kind of event. So, for example, an athlete is told, "Look, use this strategy and everything will work out well." Oh, great. He applies it. As a result, his training suffers, he can't handle it,
Speaker A
he breaks down, and so on. Uh, let me check the chat. Yes, food combining was trendy. That’s also, by the way, a topic like that. Uh, well, by the way, this specific strategy is somewhat similar. Let’s move on specifically
Speaker A
to science, to what research tells us about this. And overall, I want to confirm what was said above about these numbers we can always rely on, that is, comparing two strategies: a linear deficit and any type of carb cycling.
Speaker A
And where the total calorie count is the same, things turn out roughly the same. Consequently, research demonstrates this; one study tested 5 days of deficit and two high-carb days against a continuous deficit, and no advantages for fat loss, lean mass, or
Speaker A
resting metabolic rate were confirmed. The difference remained only for lean body mass. Next, 12 weeks of continuous deficit versus 4 weeks of deficit and 3 weeks of maintenance. Again, no advantages in fat loss, overall body weight, lean mass changes, strength,
Speaker A
endurance, or resting metabolism. Although, slightly less hunger and higher satisfaction were demonstrated. Well, which is logically consistent; if you've been in a deficit for some time, it is logical to assume that, uh, you will get a little rest from what came
Speaker A
before. And next, uh, 6 weeks of continuous deficit versus a deficit with energy balance weeks. Another study. No, also no advantages in body composition or resting metabolism. And the only, the only difference found there was in one indicator of eating
Speaker A
behavior. Well, and moving on, uh, directly to the meta-analysis of 12 RCTs with 881 participants. Uh, here there was, um, a slightly smaller compensatory decrease in resting metabolism, by about 47 calories per day on average. However, the effect was
Speaker A
more pronounced in people with excess weight than in those who are training. And it was not accompanied by greater fat loss. Well, that is certainly an interesting signal, but not about any kind of magical, you know, metabolic boost. And by no means is this grounds
Speaker A
to claim that, I don't know, if we're telling an athlete that based on such data, they will lose, uh, slightly more calories. Uh, now directly on the ranking of sports, let's start with bodybuilding. I think many will find
Speaker A
this topic interesting. And here, as the athlete prepares, uh, well, for example, for competitions, the athlete reduces body fat, cuts, and becomes lighter; the deficit continues, hunger and fatigue may increase, and preserving lean mass becomes an increasingly important task. And a
Speaker A
systematic review of observations of competing physique athletes shows pronounced changes in metabolism, hormonal markers, mood, and performance, al
Speaker A
not by the cycling itself, but, as we have already mentioned in principle, by the duration and precision of the deficit. At the same time, overly aggressive restriction increases the cost of preparation. Yes, the leaner the athlete gets, the deeper the
Speaker A
deficit, the harder it is to maintain muscle mass and training quality. Therefore, it is more important here to place emphasis on, so to speak, showing more strategic thinking, focusing more on a slow rate of weight loss, on sufficient protein intake, and on
Speaker A
ensuring that strength levels are maintained. And this is usually much more difficult and much more important than alternating low-carb and high-carb days. Because, especially in the final stages, when the body is, so to speak, really tightening the screws, here it
Speaker A
is worth making this task a more strategic one. But on the other hand, this can subjectively, uh, again, improve tolerance. And if it's convenient for an athlete's preparation , if it's, uh, convenient for them to alternate, yes, days—meaning they
Speaker A
know they will have an increased amount of carbohydrates in the coming days, and it will bring them satisfaction, they will be able to de-stress—that would be, um, psychologically, that would be less risk of breaking the diet . Of course, this strategy would be
Speaker A
justified, but from the perspective of comfort; conversely, if a more steady pace is more preferable for a person, and they don't want to change, or if some increased intake of carbohydrates would trigger them, then, of course, this strategy is not applied. And so
Speaker A
here we need to look more broadly. That is, again, it might sound like something from somewhere, yes; for example, "professionals use carb cycling," but saying exactly who used it and telling everyone that it definitely works for everyone would be
Speaker A
incorrect and likely unprofessional. And I also wanted to touch upon the topic of refeeds. Is a refeed even necessary at all? For example, a refeed in the middle of a prep, again, for competitions, for instance, can be viewed as a testable tool, by the way,
Speaker A
like when hunger intensifies or if a specific, um, volume workout gets worse , as I already mentioned, yes, like some difficult training that you need to do tomorrow. And here we check, first and foremost, something very important—by the way, I would like to
Speaker A
emphasize this—we check why, why it is hard for the person, yes, why is their hunger intensifying, and, for example, how severe is their deficit?
Speaker A
Maybe, uh, maybe we went too far in the planning, maybe the person isn't getting enough sleep. Maybe they have constant flights, maybe they have too much training volume or daily activity.
Speaker A
And in general, signs of Low Energy Availability (LEA). We'll talk about that later too. And only if all that is in order, then, uh, one can, again, increase the planned energy intake, yes , primarily through carbohydrates, to the level of energy balance. But again,
Speaker A
I would also like to draw attention to the fact that this is not something that speeds anything up. It is merely a tool. Um, again, to load up on carbs a little bit before a hard workout, to feel a bit better, and so on. But only
Speaker A
after ruling out problems related to, as it often happens, too large a deficit—everything, meaning it's impossible to be hungry, it's hard, training is difficult, strength levels are dropping—all these indicators must be checked. If everything is in order there, it can be considered as
Speaker A
one of the tools, but again, not as a foundation. And as we have already established, the data we currently have all indicate that with an equal deficit , there are no advantages to any specific strategy for lowering body fat
Speaker A
percentage. No, it's just a matter of convenience. Furthermore, regarding refeeds, I would also like to mention their use as a tool during the final week before hitting the stage, for example, for a bodybuilder or physique athlete, it doesn't matter. And here,
Speaker A
there may be different goals for carbohydrate manipulation. The task here is to increase muscle glycogen stores and visual fullness for a specific day. And it is very important to test your reaction to carbohydrates and water retention in advance so as
Speaker A
not to worsen your physique. Those things can happen during carbohydrate loading. So. So again: first, determine if a refeed is even needed, and if it is, then use it. Also, test your carb loading well in advance of the
Speaker A
competition to understand how your body reacts to the surge in carbohydrates. Because when we load carbohydrates and replenish glycogen stores, 4 grams of water are also pulled in for every gram of glycogen. You could certainly end up with a "soft" look due to extracellular
Speaker A
fluid, resulting in a poor stage appearance. Such situations do happen. Regarding other sports and different athletes, the goal of periodization related to nutrition and carbohydrates varies for everyone. We've already discussed bodybuilding, and overall, regarding fat loss, there is no
Speaker A
difference. No speed increases due to carb cycling or refeeds. It is a matter of convenience and comfort while avoiding other issues that might affect performance, recovery, and so on. Uh.
Speaker A
For combat sports athletes, for instance, or athletes in cyclic and team sports. There can be different strategies here, for example, for combat sports athletes. Well, for instance, after the weigh-in. It is important to understand that the priority here is the restoration of
Speaker A
fluid, sodium, and available fuel in the time remaining before the start. That is a separate recovery protocol.
Speaker A
And here, again, some standard protocol —perhaps carb-cycling—simply doesn't fit; well, I mean, a standard template protocol just doesn't fit into the strategy of a combat sports athlete . What's needed here is an individual protocol that suits this specific
Speaker A
athlete so that they can recover after the weigh-in and be at peak performance . specifically during the fight. Uh.
Speaker A
Regarding cyclic sports and team sports , for example, for runners or cyclists, carbohydrates primarily help to meet the required volume and...that is, the work they are able to perform, since they burn a lot of energy during both training sessions and competitions. It
Speaker A
is important here to recover between workouts or to recover to be as ready as possible for the start—that is, for the next task. And here, specific periodization, once again, in...in carbohydrates, yes, for example, can generate more fuel around key sessions,
Speaker A
yes, and with smart loading and...one can reduce them, for example, in those cases where it is, well, where it is necessary—for instance, if there is an individual GI reaction to a large amount of carbohydrates. And most importantly, this should not reduce the
Speaker A
quality of performance for the following training sessions. And by no means should it reduce the quality of performance when tackling tasks at any competitions. Uh. Moving on to the topic of carbohydrates, glycogen, and water. I have already briefly mentioned
Speaker A
it. These seem like simple things, but many people may still be confused or perhaps worried, so I will mention it anyway. When, after a carbohydrate-rich day, the weight in the morning has increased, well, that's obviously not proof—and not even a day. "A day" is
Speaker A
likely a huge simplification. Even within the scope of a week, or over the course of a few days, a person steps onto the scale. This is no proof that weight has increased due to a rise in body fat percentage, and it is
Speaker A
definitely not a reason to panic or sound the alarm, since glycogen restoration is linked to water, as I’ve said, so short-term weight changes are perfectly expected. And this is exactly the moment when a specialist, a nutritionist, develops a
Speaker A
strategy for tracking results—that is , tracking changes specifically within the framework of a long-term trend, using averages and weekly averages. And , consequently, decisions are made based specifically on these indicators, rather than on any individual, separate metrics, and furthermore, not on the
Speaker A
subjective perception of an individual athlete or simply a client. By the way, athletes also have these hang-ups regarding fluctuations in the numbers on the scale. Well, since they are human too, for instance, in fitness and bodybuilding, this happens quite often.
Speaker A
Therefore, it is important for every specialist to have a set of arguments to explain that this is normal, even good, as glycogen stores have been restored, allowing them to go train while feeling full of energy and in a
Speaker A
good mood. So, what mistakes might confuse and slow down an athlete's progress? As I mentioned above, calling a cheat meal a refeed. A refeed, as I said before, is planned, has a clear goal, and does not turn into
Speaker A
unrestricted compensation, as we have already discussed. It might be necessary, it might not be needed at all, or it could be used selectively, that is, within the framework of a carbohydrate loading strategy before a competition. Next is considering weight
Speaker A
gain as fat gain; as I mentioned earlier, mass often changes after increasing carbohydrates due to glycogen, water, and the volume of food . And the decision is sometimes made based on a long-term trend to compensate for a refeed with harsh
Speaker A
fasting or cardio. It sounds cliché, but unfortunately, this is still present. Some of you may have encountered this. This can reinforce the cycle of restriction, overeating, and compensation, whereas nutritional planning and strategy itself should solve the problem. Not reinforce or
Speaker A
exacerbate it. Well, and, doing a refeed at any plateau, rushing, or being impatient in this process.
Speaker A
Because, for example, a plateau might be a tracking error, or simply mistakes being made in the existing strategy, such as decreased daily activity, or issues with water balance or sleep.
Speaker A
Someone stopped tracking, or someone started doing it inaccurately. In general, all of these things. And someone might say, we need to change the strategy, do protein-carbohydrate cycling, push it a little, speed up the metabolism because it’s slowing down,
Speaker A
and we need to do something. But no, here you still need to start from the basics that I mentioned above. And then there is a problem that, so to speak, sounds the alarm. At this point, it is not about scheduling carbohydrate and
Speaker A
protein days, nor about refeeds. There is a syndrome called RED-S. Ah, I mean, if there is increasing fatigue, recurring injuries, worsening performance, menstrual cycle irregularities, significant anxiety around food, or a depressed mood. And here, of course, this is a real problem
Speaker A
. And this problem exists among many professional athletes. And the International Olympic Committee explicitly emphasizes that this problem exists and that it must be properly addressed when preparing athletes. And in this case, an assessment of the athlete's condition by the medical and
Speaker A
sports team as a whole is necessary. That is, if there is, for example, a coach or a nutritionist on the team, these symptoms must be noticed and measures must be taken, because this concerns the athlete's health. RED-S is
Speaker A
low energy availability, and it is a clinical problem. And it must be addressed using the various methods currently available. But again, this must stay within the scope of competence of the person who notices it , and under no circumstances should
Speaker A
they give direct recommendations; they should refer the athlete further. That is, apply an interdisciplinary approach and address this problem by passing it on to a more specialized professional.
Speaker A
And if you take away one main thought from today's broadcast, it is this: " refeeds" can have their place. In amateur and professional sports, these strategies can be used to create a calorie deficit, but they are only tools. And a tool becomes useful when
Speaker A
the specialist knows exactly what task they are solving and how to verify the result. And, in principle, before designing any strategy, you can answer a few questions. What is the sport, what is the cost of reduced training quality if the strategy is poorly
Speaker A
chosen, and where is the athlete in their season—what stage are they at? Are they in a muscle-building phase, a deficit phase, preparing for a competition, and so on? And tactically, what specific problem are we trying to solve at this moment? Are there signs
Speaker A
of RED-S—that is, insufficient energy availability and impaired recovery— and consequently, how are we tracking and measuring all of this? And, consequently, if if we pay attention to questions of convenience and sum up today's broadcast, protein-carb cycling and refeeding are possible strategies,
Speaker A
but science has not confirmed any clear advantages between these nutritional strategies. In the context of reducing body fat percentage, meaning the difference in fat loss, the difference in changes to lean body mass, and the difference in resting metabolic rate—
Speaker A
aside from some data suggesting minor changes, which aren't confirmed in athletes—it could be a convenient strategy for some. And for others, it’s overly inconvenient. In this case, we can have these tools in our arsenal. We need to convey the idea
Speaker A
that there is no difference. We choose, but we provide a choice. Look, we have this, this, and this option. But no matter what, the achievement of the result will be the same. But again, if it’s convenient for a person to
Speaker A
alternate days, they are willing, yes, to complicate the plan slightly for the sake of their comfort. Yes, of course.
Speaker A
And if refeeds are necessary, they help decide: it’s built into the training plan where it’s comfortable for the person to do refeeds, where they get psychological relief, especially if it’s built into the training week where they have a heavy session and can
Speaker A
push themselves extra without suffering or crashing. And with proper investigation of other symptoms, which are most often the cause of the problems a person has when taking steps toward their goal. Unfortunately, everyone lives a life, not just for
Speaker A
sports, although professional athletes do live specifically for sports. But even they have a life of their own; they have stress, they might be sleep-deprived, they might have a main job, and many, many other things. Well, and consequently, at our BodyCoach
Speaker A
school on the sports nutritionist course, we examine all these stages in detail. Today I briefly touched upon the topic of an interdisciplinary approach. That is, we look at how to work in a team, how to interact with other specialists when we work with a
Speaker A
specific athlete or a team of athletes, relying on fundamental knowledge: physiology and biochemistry. Starting from there, we learn to build strategies based on modern methodology —building strategies and meal plans, including those mentioned today in the context of different sports: strength,
Speaker A
endurance, combat sports, and so on. And by combining all this knowledge, one can gain a significant advantage in the world of fitness. And now I will take a look. Oh, by the way, later on in the recording, you can also, uh,
Speaker A
look at the sources, click on them, and perhaps get more acquainted with them if it was interesting and you want to delve into something specific. And if you have any questions now after, uh, the broadcast, you can write them in
Speaker A
the chat, and I will answer them. If there are no questions, we will say goodbye. And, uh, I’m waiting for you in the chat. Perhaps someone has already prepared questions. Oh, I see, I see. And the question is, uh, for
Speaker A
example, a client Uh-huh. No, no, that’s not from here. My apologies. These aren't your questions. I’ll wait a little bit. If there are no questions from you, we will say goodbye . Or in general, you can, um, give
Speaker A
feedback on how today’s broadcast was , what new things you learned? Are there any myths that, uh, that you once believed, and now you know a little bit more? So, friends. Uh, yes, excellent.
Speaker A
Just right. Is there any point in a carb load for non-athletes who train in the gym and are in a deficit? Uh, look, in general, well, again, for example, I’ll give you my own example. For me, for instance, it’s important to do
Speaker A
refeeds so that, uh, the long-term strategy of reducing body fat percentage to the result I need can be carried out without relapses, with a certain level of comfort; so that I can use some weekends to, um, eat, for
Speaker A
example, my 3,200–3,400 calories, and I will feel better because of it. I know that when I go to do a tough workout on Monday, I’ll be, well, more energetic. But for someone else, this strategy might be a predictor of a
Speaker A
relapse, and he’ll start—for example, he’s eating in a deficit of, say, 2,700, and he planned a day for 3,300, he ate it, and perhaps even included, uh, something tasty, yes, in his diet within that calorie count. And that could be a trigger, wanting to eat
Speaker A
more, a trigger for a relapse. And in general, if this person can stick to the strategy constantly—meaning it doesn't really bother him, his strength performance isn't dropping, he feels fine, he’s smiling, and so on—but he is in a slight deficit, then he
Speaker A
definitely doesn't need it, because, well, he would actually be making things worse for himself. So, it will be absolutely different for everyone.
Speaker A
And the recording of the broadcast, yes , of course, it will definitely be available. You can watch it again. Uh, as for the daily water intake norm. Uh, actually, we mostly hear information that there is some kind of daily norm,
Speaker A
2-3 liters of water, 20, 30-40 ml per 1 kg of weight. Uh, and perhaps this is some kind of convenient benchmark that an ordinary person can stick to. But if in the context, again, today the broadcast is, uh, more related to
Speaker A
sports, yes, maybe even closer to professional sports, with advanced amateurs, if we omit, let's say, the context of professional sports, let's take some athlete, a bodybuilder, who was told: "You must drink 35-40 ml per 1 kg of weight." Uh, but at the same
Speaker A
time his activity, yes, his workouts, especially during training, he has higher sweat losses. Will he be able to ensure proper hydration of his body with these recommendations? No, of course not. Therefore, there are certain criteria that one can be guided
Speaker A
by, yes? This is the clearest marker of hydration in general is the color of urine, yes. A lighter gradient is enough, a darker gradient is not enough . And also, as far as training is concerned, during training you just
Speaker A
need to drink fluid, yes? Within the framework of a workout, yes, during training you need to drink a certain amount of liquid, you can weigh yourself before the workout, weigh yourself before the workout, and understand how much fluid you are
Speaker A
losing and if you are replenishing it normally. But a specific recommendation of "this much" is "that much"—no, it doesn't exist. For everyone, it can be different. I’m not even talking about the fact that there are different types of sports. That is, for a runner and
Speaker A
for an athlete in strength sports, these will be different norms. And if for an ordinary person, again, I already said, the standard indicator is urine color, there is no specific norm, but the 2-3 liter norm and so on, it's
Speaker A
just convenient. If a person doesn't drink at all, well, you could recommend it to them, but there are no specific recommendations regarding the amount of liquid. And how often is an anabolic window even possible? not for competing athletes. Uh, if it's convenient, you
Speaker A
can, uh, I will start by addressing the term itself. The anabolic window, it doesn't carry any, in short, it doesn't carry any meaningful weight. Uh, but if you want to eat a few more carbohydrates, you can do it whenever
Speaker A
you want. The main thing is to stay within the weekly calorie limit, yes, that is, within the plan. And if you have sufficient protein intake at the same time, and you're sticking to your calorie plan, you can, you know, you
Speaker A
can eat, say, a bit more carbs today and fewer fats, or, for example, if you want to eat more carbs tomorrow, you can save on your calories, on your carbs and fats today, and eat more carbs tomorrow, but there's no need to
Speaker A
worry about any "carb windows." I mean, uh, unless, of course, these are some specialized, um, areas, for example, if you aren't a professional runner, uh, training twice a day, where it's critically important to replenish glycogen stores and so on. Well, I just
Speaker A
added that. I understand, not for competing athletes. So, really, if you're not in a calorie deficit, just at maintenance, a balanced diet with enough carbs is sufficient, and you don't need to close any windows or worry about any special timing.
Speaker A
Especially after a workout and so on. Everything is fine, and you can get by without that. Regarding nutrition, most trainers set clients, women, with a minimum amount of fat, 50g of fat, for example. Is that justified? Because, for me personally, I've realized that
Speaker A
higher fats, like 60-80 g, suit me better. We have data suggesting that if you change, um, at the same calorie level, with two different strategies— a high-fat and a high-carb diet—at the same calorie level, there will be no difference at all in fat loss. So,
Speaker A
if you feel comfortable eating more fats and slightly fewer carbs, but again, as long as there are enough carbs so your training performance doesn't drop, everything is great. If you control everything else, well, why the issue with fats? It's just easier
Speaker A
to overeat on fats, that's all. And if, for example, you develop a habit of overeating on fats, it's more likely you'll overconsume, if, you know, we expand on that topic a bit. Okay, in the questions section. Let me look
Speaker A
again. Nothing here. Maybe if someone else has a question. Colleagues, you're asking very good questions. Absolutely wonderful. It's great when there are questions. Oh, by the way, as part of the sports nutritionist course, you get access to a chat where there is tutor
Speaker A
support, where I also, during the training process, uh, answer students ' questions, so any questions that arise regarding the lectures, you can use the tutor support throughout the entire duration. Well, maybe some of you have already taken it, they know. And thank
Speaker A
you very much for being here. I hope it was interesting and useful, that you learned something new, and perhaps were able to let go of some old ideas. And now your solutions will be more versatile for your training sessions
Speaker A
and for your clients. And perhaps you will want to gain even more knowledge. And welcome to our course. All the best to everyone, have a great day and see you next time. M.
Topics:carb cyclingrefeedsdiet breaksfat lossmuscle preservationnutrition sciencebodybuildingcalorie deficitsports nutritionfitness myths
![[YTP] Pragerworld — Transcript](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Nopw6DGzCFA/maxresdefault.jpg)
![[Warhammer40k] The last church; Graham McNeill. Stream-reading. — Transcript](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/x7YsEuT2B4k/maxresdefault.jpg)
