Yeah, I agree with what’s been said so far. I used to follow P+F and P+C. Now I’ve pretty much changed to “Eat tons of vegetables + Eat tons of protein + Don’t eat cake and cookies and soda.” I can’t say I’ve seen a difference.
I think nutrition is just all about having some discipline and sticking to it. You can have the greatest plan in the world but if you have 2 “cheat meals” every day you’re not going to get the results you want (if you are trying to cut fat that is).
One thing I will say about not eating carbs and fat together is that it would probably work for people who don’t eat regularly, like a lot of Americans. Than again, not eating shit with every meal would probably have the same effect.
[quote]jtrinsey wrote:
Yeah, I agree with what’s been said so far. I used to follow P+F and P+C. Now I’ve pretty much changed to “Eat tons of vegetables + Eat tons of protein + Don’t eat cake and cookies and soda.” I can’t say I’ve seen a difference.
I think nutrition is just all about having some discipline and sticking to it. You can have the greatest plan in the world but if you have 2 “cheat meals” every day you’re not going to get the results you want (if you are trying to cut fat that is).
One thing I will say about not eating carbs and fat together is that it would probably work for people who don’t eat regularly, like a lot of Americans. Than again, not eating shit with every meal would probably have the same effect.[/quote]
IMHO the greatest merit of old massive eating protocals is because it prevents people from eating high calories junk food which has high carb + fat content (think pizza).
currently, my outgoing PM system is dysfunctional. i’ve received a PM asking me to expound on a few things, and due to PM difficulties i’ll expound in this thread.
in Temporal Nutrition II there’s a sentence at the end that reads
“Although there’s no data specifically looking at calorie-matched comparisons between temporal nutrition and any other dietary approach, you can still see a ton of evidence presented here.”
this means that the temporal nutrition speculations have not been proven because all the ‘evidence’ never controlled for variables properly. match the calories, eliminate nutritional deficiencies, etc. and there just might not be a difference. this has been proven time and again with many different speculations. find out about it at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi
the vast majority of the ‘evidences’ that are given for new diet fads are anecdotal, and anecdotal evidence can be considered a logical fallacy. this is because anecdotal evidence is often very logical ("my clients dont mix fats and carbs and lose weight), yet is based on a fallacious premise.
that premise is that variables are controlled when they are actually not. so what happens when guys like JB and LL have clients who lose weight after switching to no mixing of fats and carbs is that they also reduce calories, or increase energy expenditure, or eliminate nurtitional deficiencies, or any number of variables that are very often not controlled under anecdotal circumstances, yet have been shown to be causes of anecdote reaching wrong conclusions.
they may see results when they do stuff like not combining fats and carbs, but the mistake is made when it’s claimed that the fats and carbs combination achieves some unknown metabolic disadvantage wrt fat mobilization and storage.
This thread brings up a number of important questions I held back in asking. That is because, had I asked anything which was in opposition to this “holy-grail” a few months ago I would have been bombarded with flames as to how I could question concepts of such biblical proportions (as many others did).
The two main questions are:
what do you guys think about the importance of carbs in the diet. In other words, can you have a decent amount (say 30-40% of calories) or should they be limited as described in many T-Nation articles, in order to achieve a certain body composition.
what about timing/spacing out of carbs? Are they really only for PWO and possibly early morning (if your body type ‘allows’ and no other times during the day; or can they be more spread out (so you are not having 100g+ a meal).
These two topics have become taboo so some insight would be greatly appreciated.
2
[quote]xenithon wrote:
This thread brings up a number of important questions I held back in asking. That is because, had I asked anything which was in opposition to this “holy-grail” a few months ago I would have been bombarded with flames as to how I could question concepts of such biblical proportions (as many others did).
The two main questions are:
what do you guys think about the importance of carbs in the diet. In other words, can you have a decent amount (say 30-40% of calories) or should they be limited as described in many T-Nation articles, in order to achieve a certain body composition.
what about timing/spacing out of carbs? Are they really only for PWO and possibly early morning (if your body type ‘allows’ and no other times during the day; or can they be more spread out (so you are not having 100g+ a meal).
These two topics have become taboo so some insight would be greatly appreciated.
2[/quote]
ive recently started spreading them out evenly… about 50-60g per meal. Much better on my digestion than cramming 100+ at one meal, ive noticed no differences in fat gain during my bulk.
[quote]xenithon wrote:
This thread brings up a number of important questions I held back in asking. That is because, had I asked anything which was in opposition to this “holy-grail” a few months ago I would have been bombarded with flames as to how I could question concepts of such biblical proportions (as many others did).
The two main questions are:
what do you guys think about the importance of carbs in the diet. In other words, can you have a decent amount (say 30-40% of calories) or should they be limited as described in many T-Nation articles, in order to achieve a certain body composition.
what about timing/spacing out of carbs? Are they really only for PWO and possibly early morning (if your body type ‘allows’ and no other times during the day; or can they be more spread out (so you are not having 100g+ a meal).
These two topics have become taboo so some insight would be greatly appreciated.
2[/quote]
30-40% carbs is absolutely fine. carbs are generally the first place to look when attempting to reduce cals.
the two most important dietary factors wrt body composition are: 1) calories. raise them and you’ll gain, lower them and you’ll lose, nothing magical. 2) nourishment. eliminate nutritional deficiencies and your body will operate optimally. the deficiencies weight loss is mainly concerned with are macro/micros, not cals because you must be deficient in cals to lose weight via dieting.
do some research about how much protein, EFAs, minerals, etc. are actually needed to be nourished. then achieve those numbers then get your desired cal goals with any foods you like.
eat carbs whenever you want. wont make a difference unless that changes your calories or nourishment status.
of course, i dont want you to listen to me the same way you listened to those who gave you some other diet ideas. the problem with this field is that most people dont wanna do their own research and they’re looking for magic. doesn’t work that way. new grounds are very rarely and very slowly broken. fads would have you think otherwise.
Very interesting guys. Like I said,I eat plenty of fat and carbs together with my proteins.However,when I do eat high GI carbs(not low GI),I try to avoid a lot of fat.
These are just my personal opinions based on online conversations and reading the work of other people (Lyle Mcdonald) but here I go.
Over the years, many bodybuilders used a high carbohydrate, low fat, high protein diet to get into contest shape.
You need to adequate protein, EFA,minerals, and caloric intake.
Once you did that, its not what you eat that make you fat, its how much you eat that makes you fat.
Can you get ripped on table sugar once the above conditions are met? Yes (although for health that would be fucking stupid). Can you get ripped while consuming a caloric surplus even though you are eating clean and combining your food in a magical way? No.
The main problems associated with high GI carbohydrate are a high rate of digestion (blood glucose problems) and the fact that they are relatively calorie dense (pasta).
If you eat high fiber and low GI carbs throughout the day, this will not be a problem.
Remeber, its not the type of food you eat that make you fat, its how much you eat (once you get adequate protein and EFA).
[quote]supermick wrote:
good contributions guys - threads like this dont come about as often as they should[/quote]
Wufwugy and a few others has always done a pretty good job at debunk some of the myths that a lot of people at this site holds true.
However 80% of the usual responses are: Have you read JB or LL?
People need to stop getting all their information from one site, one author etc… Read a variety of articles on the same topic from different places, use www.pubmed.com to look up their studies and then find out the answers for yourself and stop acting like cult members.
[quote]Fahd wrote:
However 80% of the usual responses are: Have you read JB or LL?
People need to stop getting all their information from one site, one author etc… Read a variety of articles on the same topic from different places, use www.pubmed.com to look up their studies and then find out the answers for yourself and stop acting like cult members.
Cheers,
Fahd
[/quote]
Most people probably are too busy to read everything regarding a certain topic.
However, as editor-in-chief, it’s my job to sift through the stuff and find the gems. It’s my job to find the best writers and the best minds. It’s what I do. It’s what I’ve done for the last 15 years.
If a writer is a regular on this site, he’s good and his work passes scrutiny. If he’s a regular on the site, he’s already reading PubMed to help formulate his theories.
(However, a lot of times, “PubMed” should be reading US! This is where many new ideas are coming from!)
And if there are some hot shots out there who are worth reading, they’ll eventually be writing articles for T-Nation.
to the guys who responded to my post: thanks, that is very sound advice… i think i may start being less anal about a few good carbs later in the day/with a little fat. (i’m on my first proper cutting phase, so just getting a feel for this)
Anecdotal and experimental evidence with myself can disprove some of the evidence provided above. Food selection, I feel, is critically important beyond the health benefits accrued from proper fruit/veggie intake.
Does this mean other metholodolgies with regard to dietary practices don’t work? No! Can some people stay lean on Frosted Flakes (assuming EFA, protein etc. are accounted for) OF COURSE! I know a ton of them!
Myself - I have to be very stingy with respect to carbs, particularly outside the PWO period. I know the research may not be there, but having tried both a temporal and a more “macronutrient partitioning” approach (LL and JB respectively), I’ve found the latter to be more effective for me.
As far as the F+C ordeal, I think it’s a bit dated at this point. JB frequently hammered that point home until a year or two ago, when his focus shifted much more toward the nutrient timing aspect of things. He hasn’t really reconciled his previous suggests with his current recommendations in any published literature - I’m hoping he will soon as this question seems to pop up on the message board frequently. As of now, though, I believe you can throw fat in with starchy carbs irregardless of the amounts of each.
[quote]Fahd wrote:
supermick wrote:
good contributions guys - threads like this dont come about as often as they should
Wufwugy and a few others has always done a pretty good job at debunk some of the myths that a lot of people at this site holds true.
However 80% of the usual responses are: Have you read JB or LL?
People need to stop getting all their information from one site, one author etc… Read a variety of articles on the same topic from different places, use www.pubmed.com to look up their studies and then find out the answers for yourself and stop acting like cult members.
Cheers,
Fahd
[/quote]
you need to share your wisdom with some people on this site when it comes to supplements as well. Seems like the only name in the game is Biotest. I realize this site sells it, but im not going to die if i dont have Surge pwo.
Obviously you will not die if you don’t have Surge PWO. However, I will throw in a plug for Biotest by saying that when I use Surge PWO there is definitly a noticeable (slight, but noticeable) difference in my recovery than when I don’t use it. I’ve tried another product (GNC Power Load or whatever they call their PWO shake) and it definitly was not as good, both in taste and recovery.
To talk a little bit about adding fats and carbs together. I used to follow the P + C and P + F pretty strictly but not so much any more and haven’t noticed any difference in my progression. However, I do try to avoid any substantial amount of fat in the hour or two before either a workout or a practice/conditioning session (I’m a college athlete btw). I notice that if I do my energy level is just a tad down. It could be placebo, but I feel that eating a clean P + C meal about an hour or two before a workout or practice helps bigtime. Just my two cents there.
[quote]zdrax wrote:
Anecdotal and experimental evidence with myself can disprove some of the evidence provided above.[/quote]
uh, no it doesn’t (also, i never presented any evidence, i presented a link to a place where evidence can be found). anecdote as evidence that can be applied to others (i.e. science) is false. did you know that there is anecdote for just about everything? did you know that there is substantial anecdote for many things that have been very proven to be very wrong? anecdote is only anecdote and can never be proof.
when you did your different diet strategies did you match calories? energy output? optimal nourishment? let me answer that for you: no, you didn’t? you may think you did, yet the evidence shows that 1) those diet strategies dont work for the reasons purported and 2) anecdotal diet evidence regularly under or overestimates calories.
people dont seem to realize that an assload of research has been done on assloads of diet stuff, and that research can only be called research because it is peer-reviewed.
anecdote fails peer-review every time, and keep in mind that the only thing that will ever be considered evidence must also be openly peer-reviewed.
P.S. i dont doubt the fact that you have to be stingy with your carbs, but i seriously believe that that stinginess gets results because it’s damn good at achieving lower total calories without feeling it or knowing it.
[quote]thajeepster wrote:
you need to share your wisdom with some people on this site when it comes to supplements as well. Seems like the only name in the game is Biotest. I realize this site sells it, but im not going to die if i dont have Surge pwo.
[/quote]
this is a Biotest website
[quote]wufwugy wrote:
thajeepster wrote:
you need to share your wisdom with some people on this site when it comes to supplements as well. Seems like the only name in the game is Biotest. I realize this site sells it, but im not going to die if i dont have Surge pwo.
this is a Biotest website
…[/quote]
im not saying plug in other brands… just alternatives, ie dex/whey pwo etc etc.