BodyRecomposition Support Forums  

Go Back   BodyRecomposition Support Forums > General information > General diet questions
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Unread 09-21-2018, 06:19 PM
theribeye theribeye is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Posts: 1
Default Is UD 2.0 Still Recommended over Linear Gaining/Losing?

After listening to Lyle's podcast on "Refeeds Revisited" he spoke about how potentially a lot of the stuff he wrote about in UD 2.0 with regards to "reversing" some of the issues that come up with dieting will more likely need more than just a day or two of refeeding to reverse itself (as more research has been done and we have a better understanding now.)

However, does this mean that most of UD 2.0 is still valuable otherwise? In particular, the ability to help burn fat more effectively, spare muscle more effectively, help burn stubborn fat, etc.

I ask because I like to base my actions in what the research actually supports rather than what I feel/remember due to how biased we can be and how we can restructure our memories and fool ourselves. Although I feel that large refeeds have helped me lean out to a much greater degree, if not just do to the reduction in cortisol, but other metabolic adaptations (e.g. with regards to alpha/beta-receptors, depletion of glycogen before carb loading cyclically, etc.) and tricks as well way more than just linear dieting, I'm not 100% sure that it's just my mind playing tricks on me. This is especially true during the context of a cut where it's all mental mind games.

Last edited by theribeye : 09-21-2018 at 07:05 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Unread 09-21-2018, 07:46 PM
InsertCleverNameHere InsertCleverNameHere is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 341
Default

I don't own the book, but I thought there was more to the diet than refeeds. Do refeeds need to be what they were originally thought to be in order for this diet to work?

Maybe there's some way to incorporate diet breaks more often. Like I said, I don't have the book, so I don't know how many weeks the protocol is supposed to be run or how long it takes for these "metabolic issues" to come up.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Unread 09-23-2018, 07:42 AM
AlphaBettor AlphaBettor is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 649
Default

It's an interesting question. I'm not sure I have a very good answer.

For a personal anecdote, UD2 worked extremely well for me when I used it many years ago. All diets seem to work well though as long as the basics are down (weight training, adequate protein, and all that.)

Still, UD2 seemed to work particularly well. I always had a hunch that a lot of that had to do with the training. The 4x/week per muscle group training was completely new to me back then, and even the low and high rep work was fairly novel as I had mostly stuck to moderate reps beforehand.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Unread 09-23-2018, 07:47 AM
w1cked w1cked is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,994
Default

I like ud a lot but the suck of depletion and massive refeed outweighed the efficacy for me as I got older. Ymmv of course.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Unread 10-08-2018, 08:47 PM
AlphaOmega AlphaOmega is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 206
Default

Ive been wondering about the usage of cyclical carb diets too. It seems that the new studes show that muscle loss is nearly entirely avoidable assuming proper protein and weight training and that these couped with a reasonabe deficit will get the desired muscle maintenance (maybe slight gain) and fat loss just as well. But then is there still something to the idea of calorie partitioning via CHO manipuation?

A lot of anecdotal info says there is but the official stance seems to be that given sufficient protein, training, and a moderate deficit, you will be good to go...
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Unread 10-09-2018, 08:00 PM
manofsteel manofsteel is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 71
Default

From what I understand UD 2 is good because you are actually anabolic on refeed days and since a ton of the calories go to muscle glycogen you can actually continue to lose fat for a fair portion of the refeed. Apparently it is not unheard of to gain muscle while on UD 2.

I am paraphrasing what Lyle said during a podcast I listened to recently from within the past year or 2.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Unread 11-07-2018, 02:32 PM
katriss katriss is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 31
Default

well in my understanding the UD2.0 extreme as it may be, still sacrifices a bit of efficiency for "comfort". that is - squeezing it all in into a 7 day cycle, to enable most people have a set weekly schedule - which is a huge contributor to people's success with it imo. doesn't matter how good the diet is if you don't do it. fitting it all into a 7 day cycle makes it way more orderly and doable in terms of fitting it into real life demands and routine.

for me nothing got me leaner than UD2.0. and my strength increased a bit during the first 3-4 weeks and it felt like some muscles too (pants felts tighter around my legs. not terribly scientific i know. did not lose any noticeable muscle mass anyhow).
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Unread 01-26-2019, 03:27 AM
BEATMEOUTTAME's Avatar
BEATMEOUTTAME BEATMEOUTTAME is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 500
Default

I gave UD 2.0 a shot several years ago in 2013... i was really interested in the technical nature of dieting and just wanted to give it a try so i did it pretty much exactly how the program recommended for let's say ~3 weeks...

I was pretty impressed with the results and ive seen a lot of people post pics with amazing results who were able to do it longer than i did..

Ultimately, UD 2.0 is a really interesting and effective diet and I'd never discourage anyone interested from trying it.

On the flip side it's very technical and demanding so I'd never recommend it to someone who I didnt think was relatively gung-ho about trying it.

There are a lot of diets where people just want to see results for the least amount of effort. For that i'd steer them towards a low carb, PSMF approach.

This is a diet for people who want to challenge themselves and sort of make this whole thing into a game or competition to see what they're capable of... this is for someone who is competitive by nature and willing to make their diet/exercise routine their primary focus in life for the next few weeks/months.
__________________
My Wild Ride to A great body in my 30s.

http://forums.lylemcdonald.com/showthread.php?t=23215

Thank you Lyle. This website is a game changer once you understand the mechanisms behind fat loss/muscle gain.

Spun my wheels for years prior to finding this site.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Unread 01-26-2019, 08:49 AM
LightCrow LightCrow is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,029
Default

My understanding from many years of following Lyle is that UD2 shouldn’t be the default. If you can lose fat and maintain muscle on something simpler do that. You can’t deny even though new science says it may not be optimal that it has worked for many people phenomenally.

I’ve done UD2 in the past quite successfully for a couple of show preps. I don’t compete any more but when I’m doing my summer prep diets I do something much simpler like a pretty standard diet with high protein and the stubborn fat protocols. I much prefer having more flexibility if life happens and I can’t make a workout one day. And I just never found the carbloads all that enjoyable.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:21 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.