The New Low-Carb Guru
An interview with Dr. Jeff Volek
by Greg McGlone

Dr. Jeff Volek is one of the leading "new school" researchers in the
areas of nutrition, resistance training, lipid metabolism, and
endocrinology. He also knows more about low-carb dieting than just
about anyone else on the planet. Greg McGlone recently cornered Dr. Volek and fired a few questions at him. Here's what he had to say! Greg McGlone: Dr. Volek, why don't you introduce yourself to those in the T-Nation audience who don't know you? Jeff Volek: I
studied dietetics in college at Michigan State University. In
retrospect, the coursework was a complete waste of time, but after four
years of BS I earned a B.S.
I did an
internship and received my R.D. (registered dietitian) a year later and
worked for a year in a clinical setting. Knowing there must be more, I
sought out graduate schools in exercise science with ambitions to be a
strength coach with a masters degree and R.D. This led me to Penn State
University where I was first exposed to research.
I
loved it and was hooked. I couldn't soak up enough information,
spending entire days in the library reading and absorbing as much as
possible. It was during my thesis project (the first study
investigating the effects of creatine supplementation on resistance
training performance) that I had an epiphany. I realized who I was and
what I wanted to be — a scientist. So I naturally continued on the
academic path in the doctoral program. GM: When did you become interested in low-carb diets? JV: Beside
creatine and sports nutrition, the other topic I was reading about late
at night in the library was low-carbohydrate diets. By this time I'd
abandoned everything I learned in dietetics and stopped the ultra
low-fat approach I was doing in favor of a low-carbohydrate diet. My
dissertation involved a prospective low-carbohydrate diet intervention
aimed primarily at markers of cardiovascular disease.
After
receiving my Ph.D., my first job as a professor was at Ball State
University. Then I moved to Connecticut and I've been an assistant
professor in the Human Performance Laboratory at the University of
Connecticut since 2001. As a professor, I teach undergraduate and
graduate courses in areas such as physiology, exercise physiology,
sports nutrition, muscle physiology, and lipid metabolism.
My
real passion is research and working with graduate students. I love
going to work every day, interacting with my team, and making
scientific discoveries.
Oh, and for what it's
worth, I do lift so I'm not just an academic with no pragmatic sense of
how to translate research for the guy in the gym. My stint in
powerlifting lasted about five years, and despite less than optimal
genetics I managed to collect a little hardware. GM: You're an expert on the topic of low-carb diets, so what's your definition of low-carb anyway? JV: There
are no firm guidelines for a definition of low-carbohydrate diets, but
I'll give you my opinion with some explanation.
The
term "low-carbohydrate diet" is frequently identified with the Atkins
diet. This leads to several problems in that the Atkins diet has four
different levels of carbohydrate restriction and hence potentially very
different composition, and it's an ad lib diet which is frequently accompanied by spontaneous caloric restriction.
On the other hand, prescribed diets (not ad lib)
have at least four total and three independent degrees of freedom. To
concisely capture this information, I'd suggest diets be described by
their energy level and relative macronutrient distribution. For
example, a study could compare isocaloric 2000 kcal diets that were
either low in carbohydrate (% carb:fat:protein = ~9:29:62) or low in
fat (~59:19:21).
In
describing diets in narrative, I'd use as a starting point the NHANES
data showing that carbohydrate consumption before the obesity epidemic
was 43% of total energy. My suggestion is that any diet nominally less
than that, say < 35-40%, be considered a "low-carbohydrate diet,"
although the caloric level if substantially different from 2000 kcal
would have to be indicated.
The assumption of
low-carbohydrate diets is that there's an inflection point, that is, a
sharp break in metabolic effects. This point, as in the Atkins diet, is
identified with ketosis. This is frequently used as an indicator of
compliance with a carbohydrate restricted diet. Although the actual
onset of ketosis varies among individuals, the rough range for the
onset of ketosis is 50 grams a day, or on a nominal 2000 kcal diet,
approximately 10%.
I'd recommend that diets that target this level of carbohydrate be referred to as low-carbohydrate ketogenic diets (VLCKD). The unmodified term ketogenic diet
should be reserved for the very high fat diet used in the treatment of
epilepsy. I'd note that this diet is fairly unpalatable and is, in my
view, an anachronism.
Comparable results in
treating seizures with the simpler VLCKD have been reported. I'd
propose referring to diets in the range of 40-55% of calories as moderate carbohydrate dietsand anything greater than 55% as high carbohydrate diets, again with the caveat that the caloric level may change the actual impact of such diets. GM: Should most people be adhering to low-carb nutrition, regardless of whether they want to gain mass or cut body fat?
JV:
The majority of people will find it much easier to cut body fat with
lower carbohydrates. There are many other reasons to restrict
carbohydrate for metabolic health. Gaining mass may be achieved with
high carbohydrate, but at the expense of compromising fat loss — and
for most people, metabolic health. GM:
So you say most people gain mass at the expense of fat loss, which is
usually understood, but what strategies would you suggest for those who
might be in a mass gaining phase but want to be healthy and still look
good naked year round? JV:
Building muscle and losing fat at optimal rates is a compatibility
problem. It's the same concept as trying to train for maximal endurance
and muscle strength performance at the same time. They're opposing
physiological demands.
In the case of
endurance training, the stimulus is to keep the cell size constant or
even shrink it to maximize oxygen kinetics, whereas for strength
training there's a stimulus to increase muscle cell size to overcome
the overload demands.
Building muscle and
losing fat requires an anabolic state in muscle and catabolic state in
adipocytes, respectively. Most guys are willing to compromise though
and aren't interested in one over the other.
The
best compromise to achieve some muscle growth while still allowing very
significant fat loss and therefore "still look good naked year round"
is to follow a low-carbohydrate diet or even a VLCK diet, and of course
hit the weights. You can augment the muscle growth further without
compromising fat loss by supplementing with creatine and using
appropriate pre and post-workout nutrition. GM:
You said by focusing on pre/during/post-workout nutrition and
low-carbing it the rest of the time, someone could see modest muscle
gains while experiencing significant fat loss. Do you think that the
idea of cutting and bulking is outdated, and that perhaps body
recomposition is a more realistic goal to chase? Or would it be too
much of the whole "If you chase two rabbits, both will escape." JV: Historically,
bulking and cutting was the primary method used to get in contest shape
for bodybuilding. I'm not sure we should totally relegate this approach
to archival status, but it's worth exploring other options.
To
be frank, I've never come across a lot of scientific evidence for this
approach, but I've been to enough bodybuilding shows to know it does
work quite effectively for some people, but it's hard to separate out
the effects of pharmaceutical assistance in many cases.
More
to the point, the downside of this approach for the average guy is that
you have to go through a bulking period where you build a solid
foundation of muscle while basically getting fat. Many guys would
prefer not to go through this phase because they only look good for a
short time when they peak.
The major advantage
of creating a nutrient partitioning effect is that you steadily lose
fat and build muscle and therefore create a more permanent "in shape"
physique that can be sustained. GM: What supplements do you find to be useful for fat loss and for following a low-carb diet in general? JV: The
beauty of the low-carb diet is that there's little else you need to do
to augment fat loss further. By reducing insulin, lipolysis is
increased markedly and your energy needs are being met almost
exclusively by lipid fuel sources (fatty acid and ketones).
If
you consume adequate calories, the lipid fuel is mainly from exogenous
(diet) sources, but if you cut calories, energy comes from endogenous
(body fat) sources. The real trick is to prevent the muscle loss and
ideally build muscle.
My first two supplement
recommendations would therefore be protein and creatine. It's critical
to get a high quality protein source (like whey) before and after
workouts. Including extra branched chain amino acids rich in leucine
would be ideal because in addition to its structural role in proteins,
leucine directly acts as a nutrient regulator engaging cell signaling
pathways that leads to protein synthesis. This is a very efficient way
to augment protein synthesis without providing a lot of calories.
You
can throw in a few carbs to increase insulin, which acts in synergy
with the effects of amino acids to increase protein synthesis, and this
hormone may also inhibit protein breakdown. But you don't need to go
overboard because research shows large increases in insulin don't
stimulate protein synthesis further. This way you keep the negative
effects of insulin on lipid metabolism under control.
Beyond
protein and creatine, there are a multitude of health benefits
associated with omega 3s (EPA and DHA). I also like vitamin E
supplements (gamma as opposed to the more common alpha form) for its
anti-inflammatory effects. GM:
Okay, now let's talk about training, both weights and cardio. What are
your thoughts on what works, what doesn't, and how low-carb nutrition
can give you superior results on both fronts? For the sake of
simplicity, let's say we're dealing with someone who's training for
aesthetic reasons, but also wants to be able to lift more than a wet
paper bag.
JV: If
your main goal is to look good and maintain decent strength levels,
training should definitely be focused on resistance exercise to build
muscle, and adjust diet (i.e. lower carbs) to burn fat. I don't see
endurance training as that important, unless of course you feel the
need to increase your maximal oxygen consumption or you just enjoy it.