High Protein Modified "Keto + Fasting" muscle building with low fat

(Karim Wassef) #441

Thanks! It’s all part of my near keto adventure

So… after another massive egg, cheese and sausage + morning on the reef, my pre-lunch numbers are 99G, 0.4K so very consistent given the massive excursions both in intake and output.

(Karim Wassef) #442

Today’s meals:

That’s two lunch plates (one is paella but without the rice and veggies) and Brazilian restaurant with multiple meat dishes… chorizo, pork loin, beef x 2, chicken, turkey bacon, ham… good day :smiley:


We have a Churascaria here, as well and I completely forgot about it!!! I should go now, I can finally eat my money’s worth :joy:

(Muhammad Nasim) #444


(Karim Wassef) #445

Today we go deep sea fishing for three hours in this little thing… the Maria Isabella with a fisherman called Francisco o Pancho… it’s the first time for the girls.

There’s a chance wifey and the littlest one won’t come. Getting up at 6am doesn’t “please” … they’re up & have issue with the lack of a real toilet…

The eldest and I are excited … a day of drama is sure to ensue…

(Karim Wassef) #446

Hey Mo. what are you testing? :slight_smile:

(Muhammad Nasim) #447

Thanks for doing that Karim!. I’ve been away so apologies for going silent. I haven’t caught up with the thread BUT similar to what Ilana is mentioning, the following could well apply:

  1. If you are gaining strength (which you are) you are unlikely to be genuinely losing muscle mass and the strength feels like a more reliable indicator than the bioimpedance or the dexa
  2. If your visible fat is going down - which again from your photos looks like it is then you are probably losing fat at the same time
  3. If you are gaining strength (which you are), whilst you can get stronger without building muscle (e.g. fibre composition etc), if your chest/shoulder circumferences are getting bigger and your waist etc is getting smaller then you are probably putting on muscle.

I think perhaps the bioimpedance and dexa are not worthy of your diligent work in taking data and recording your progress. You deserve a lab lols:)

(Karim Wassef) #448


The open question is whether strength is an adequate representation of the glucose-sink that skeletal muscle should be.

My moderate research doesn’t connect strength with mass. I don’t see a direct connection between mass and a glucose sink either but it makes more sense to me.

Moderate low fat ~ 13% (men) = hormonal health
High muscle mass = glucose sink

Both support longevity with less disease.

Those are my goals.

(Karim Wassef) #449

I cut back on breakfast a bit - boat ride and all…

(Little Miss Scare-All) #450

Raises her hand

I want your sausages. :plate_with_cutlery:

(Karim Wassef) #451

The trip was a bit of a dud… we went out for 3 hours hoping for mahi-mahi and caught one barracuda after 2.5hrs… and both girls seasick overboard… and dirty looks from wifey… yay drama!

Still the 3 mins of excitement catching the 4.5’ barracuda was good. It was a nice daddy-daughter bonding experience.

That’s the fisherman - not me. I’m behind the camera.

The trip ended in a rain shower until we ran to the hotel room and it stopped… more wifey drama…

In all the excitement, I didn’t measure last night or this morning. Pre-lunch was 87G, 0.3K so I’m going to skip lunch. I’m not super hungry anyway and with a big breakfast and sitting in a boat all morning, I’m fine with it. :smiley:

Ok. Still another half day of fun and exercise…

(Karim Wassef) #452

Ok. I lied. I was tempted by a tiny plate of salmon and tuna sashimi…

Like 2 slices each but still… honesty in reporting :blush:

(PJ) #453

Alright, this is delayed, I found it in the text file I keep all the time for misc. notes and stuff (between fried hardboiled eggs and keto yumyum sauce recipes lol), meant to respond and never did.

Also - as usual - my lean mass loss is almost exclusively in my legs again. Not glutes, since I’ve been focusing on those, but quads and hams…
It’s like a lie detector test… I haven’t not been doing squats (double negatives are fun) but I haven’t been pushing like the other muscle groups… and the results show it…

Since the lean and fat came from the same place, don’t you think it’s possible that some of that lean was something that needed to be lost? I mean fat doesn’t live alone, you know? It lives with fluid, and protein (fibrous tissue) and so on. So maybe when someone loses fat, especially if the fat is relatively close to the skeleton (because you are so much leaner now), maybe it’s a given they’ll lose some lean but that doesn’t have to mean they only lost it because they did squats but not ENOUGH of them. I feel like you are forcibly correlating the two things together (gosh I didn’t try hard ENOUGH on leg day) (I lost lean mass in my lower body) when in fact one of them (lean mass) may be correlated with something entirely different (fat loss in that region) and NOT actually much related to the first (somewhat less exercise there).

I think I used too many words to say that but I hope it was sensible in the end

Edited to add: just saw another post with a ref from Fung’s book that I think well addressed this:


(Karim Wassef) #454

That’s my point exactly. Many here are able to gain lean and lose fat simultaneously. I cannot.

Whether I eat high fat keto or high protein keto… the rates change but the relationship is the same… both go up or both come down together.

(Karim Wassef) #455

Dinner was grouper confit

Just the grouper :slight_smile:

After a long day of fishing, horseyback rides and reef snorkeling - and a light sashimi lunch, I am hungry and exhausted… think I’ll call it a night and start fresh tomorrow

(Neil) #456

That looks like an awesome vacation! May I ask which resort you’re at? I want to run away to there later this year now. I’ve stayed at one of the Secrets properties before and had a good time, but I’m sure there are lots of other good options too!

(mole person) #457

This is true. But you are taking from this that the lean mass that you are losing is “good mass” that you’d rather keep. Other possibilities are that you have more lean supporting your fat mass than some others do, or that your body is actually doing a more efficient job of ridding you of said supporting lean.

I still haven’t seen anything that supports the notion that increasing glucose sink isn’t first related to strength and only secondarily correlated with any measures of ‘lean mass’. In fact, I can’t even imagine how lean mass, when it includes things like the protein matrix of fat cells and blood vessels that support fat, could be anything but secondarily correlated with the amount of glucose sink.

(Karim Wassef) #458

Secrets is right next door but it’s for adults only…

We’re at the Akumal Bay Resort. It’s all inclusive and decent value if you buy early enough.

(Karim Wassef) #459

We don’t know and I can’t find evidence.

My hypothesis is based on “more mass” = needs “more energy”. In fact, more strength may indicate a superior efficiency in using the available mass = more efficient energy usage = less glucose sink… maybe.

As far as good lean mass vs bad lean mass… again unknown… I’m not paying for an MRI to find out but I’ll keep trying to improve my numbers. Eventually the bad lean should go away enough.


Ok… off to the reef and kiddos

(Neil) #460

Cool, thanks! I’ll check it out. :slight_smile: Enjoy the reef!