Abraham said:
hmmm, I'll tell you all a little story.
I've been doing it for just over 2 weeks now. Lost a couple of kilos (not really concentrating on diet 100% yet, slowly making changes). Anyway, I applied for a training course within my job and I had to do a medical.
Firstly my VO2 output was way above average. I was pleased about that. I don't know if that was due to GC training.
I did a urine test. This I FAILED! WTF????
The nurse called me in and asked me if I had been eating. She then went on to explain that I had an excessive amount of ketones in my urine. She said this meant my metabolism was unusually higher than it normally is, and that I was burning fat cells at a ridiculous rate. She said the amount of ketones in my urine were similar to the amount displayed in the urine samples of someone who was starving. I assured her that I had been eating plenty, although I had not had breakfast (I eat breakfast sometimes 10am, it was 9am). She sends me away to eat something. I do, I come back, and do the test again, lo and behold, it is the same.
She then explains that the results of my urine sample were very rare. Similar results are also found in people that have an overactive thyroid and diabetes. I was tested for diabetes less than 12 months ago. I didn't have it, my blood sugar and cholesterol levels were fine.
Anyway, due to this, I failed my medical and I have to get clearance from my local doctor, which will involve doing the urine test again, then blood tests if the results are the same.
I left the medical very angry and confused. A little voice in the back of my head kept saying "Man, its the guerrilla cardio, this is how it works"
Surely the results are not this extreme???!!!!
ps, I'm still training and I feel fine, I don't feel run down or anything.
WTF???
Try to up your carb intake. I'll give you an excerpt off of a bodybuilding website for what you're dealing with. It's a misconception in this particular case and what the doctor is confusing it for.
"Answer: Well, I am aware of that theory, but it is completely wrong. In the 1950s they did an experiment with rats in which one group was given 100% carbohydrates. They lost weight, but got fatter. What went away?
Question: The muscle?
Answer: Precisely. The muscle provided the fuel the whole time. Carbohydrates or glucose does not spare protein. What really spares it are
ketones.
Question: How do
ketones spare muscle?
Answer: Since
ketones are the muscle's preferred fuel, their presence slows the rate of protein degradation while enhancing the rate of protein synthesis. The presence of ketones indicates a nutritional and hormonal profile that is one of the hunger state vs. the fed state, in which the signals are provided by glucose, insulin, or a high insulin/glucagon ratio.
All systems are in a fat burning mode and not a fat storage mode. Since it makes sense in the "wisdom of the body" to preserve its muscle and burn its fat, this is the evolutionary status quo and both occur during the production of ketones whose source is the triglycerides in the fat cell (release dictated by low insulin) and whose manufacture occurs in the liver (high glucagon). When this fuel is available and is actively being burned by the tissues, there is no signal to degrade muscle protein to supply amino acids as a source of carbon skeletons to make glucose because the organism could care less about glucose because it has its primary fuel and is very happy. Also the hormonal profile of low insulin, high glucagon, higher epinephrine, elevated growth hormone and testosterone all contribute to the preservation of muscle tissue and even to its enhancement if there are sufficient calories and a muscle-building stimulus."
And further more..... the answer
"Answer: The research he quoted is accurate but only under limited conditions. What needs disputing is the underlying philosophy.
Insulin resistance has a negative connotation to it just like ketones because both conditions were first observed in diabetics and have been, ever since, considered very negative responses tied tightly to disease. It is one thing to study man the "carbohydrate-eater/diseased-man" and an entirely different thing to study man the "fat-eater/man-not-diseased." One cannot extrapolate the findings in one group to the other, yet it is done all the time. So now what would benefit one group is extrapolated to benefit the other. This is very poor science. It is likely that consuming caffeine along with carbs is a bad idea just as consuming carbs w/o caffeine is a bad idea. Of course, an even worse idea is to eat few carbs for a couple of days and then to load carbs for a few days, and, as well, to starve and then to eat a lot of food in one meal along with carbs. All of these are bad actions. But, on the other hand, if you consumed caffeine along with a low-carb diet, it would enhance the fat burning process, the ideal condition of man."