Carb Source Doesn't Matter for Body Comp

[quote]LiquidMercury wrote:
I’d be interested to see how carb sources reflect body composition while bulking up. I wonder if Skip will try this in reverse though it going from his anecdotal evidence it would logically work in reverse as well.[/quote]

He stated it would be really hard to do the same thing in reverse

When bulking, you will gain fat, thats a given

Now, how could you tell if you are gaining fat because you are using “shitty” carbs as opposed to just because you have more calories overall…

On the shitty carb use, one thing that can be great for some people is the money this would save them…

“Shitty” processed carbs cos less than “good” carbs…

To some extent. You really can’t get much cheaper than rice and oatmeal I’d say.

[quote]thoughts1053 wrote:

[quote]DOHCrazy wrote:
Skip believes ‘fullness’ is related to caloric intake, not volume. Eat a stick of butter and tell me you don’t get full.

I agree this is best used for cravings and convenience. Quality carbs still provide health benefits that processed carbs don’t.

Skip is planning to try it for contest prep. [/quote]

[quote]zraw wrote:
ext step is seeing if it works for contest prep actually lol

Being able to rely on just about any carb source with low fat would make stuff that much easier, and fun…

Im not sure I understand what you mean when you say “stay fuller” tough[/quote]

Idk, maybe I’ve never noticed it, but I feel like one cup of oats would keep me full vs 3 tablespoons Natural Peanut butter which is about the same calorie intake.

—Not that this has anything to do with the current topic—
[/quote]

I find that I “stay full” based on the caloric load of a meal. For example, if I ate a cup of oats I’d probably start getting hungry about the same time I would after eating 3 tbsp of peanut butter.

The difference is that the oats would make me feel full faster. Maybe it’s because it takes longer to eat, or it just expands in your stomach quicker, but that would make me stop eating quicker. I can get a LOT of peanut butter down before I notice that I’m full, and at that point I’ll get sick.

[quote]zraw wrote:
Hey guys, wether you decide to have 30g of carbs from brown rice or from 355ml of sprite doesnt change shit as far as body composition is concerned

Hooray?[/quote]

Yeszir

[quote]DOHCrazy wrote:

[quote]thoughts1053 wrote:
I read this over on the other forum too and thought it was interesting. As far as practical purposes, if this is true, I think it would really help people stick to their diets. Of course, I would want to keep the ‘healthier’ foods as my main carb sources to stay fuller, but if I’m having a craving and a meal calls for a certain amount of carbs, why not get them from something tasty, if in the long run it won’t change anything.

Also, I read this is for regular fat loss, not contest prep.[/quote]

Skip believes ‘fullness’ is related to caloric intake, not volume. Eat a stick of butter and tell me you don’t get full.

I agree this is best used for cravings and convenience. Quality carbs still provide health benefits that processed carbs don’t.

Skip is planning to try it for contest prep. [/quote]

A stick of butter is 800 calories. Eat 800 calories of broccoli and tell me which is more filling.

[quote]scj119 wrote:

[quote]DOHCrazy wrote:

[quote]thoughts1053 wrote:
I read this over on the other forum too and thought it was interesting. As far as practical purposes, if this is true, I think it would really help people stick to their diets. Of course, I would want to keep the ‘healthier’ foods as my main carb sources to stay fuller, but if I’m having a craving and a meal calls for a certain amount of carbs, why not get them from something tasty, if in the long run it won’t change anything.

Also, I read this is for regular fat loss, not contest prep.[/quote]

Skip believes ‘fullness’ is related to caloric intake, not volume. Eat a stick of butter and tell me you don’t get full.

I agree this is best used for cravings and convenience. Quality carbs still provide health benefits that processed carbs don’t.

Skip is planning to try it for contest prep. [/quote]

A stick of butter is 800 calories. Eat 800 calories of broccoli and tell me which is more filling.[/quote]

Eat 800 calories of broccoli and call me in 3 weeks when you get done shitting yourself. Dumb argument.

[quote]LiquidMercury wrote:
Ken “Skip” Hall is running the experiment and it’s been having some good success it would appear.[/quote]
Pigeon chest

[quote]MODOK wrote:
Contrary to popular belief, food density does not really limit caloric intake. Your body isn’t that stupid. You can eat 10 lbs of tree bark or grass and you’re still going to be hungry. Just like you can drink all of the water you want and still be hungry. They’ve studied this exhaustively in animals. No matter how diluted their chow is, they keep eating until they eat their caloric requirement.[/quote]

Probably why I’ve had two large plates of salad and still felt my stomach eating itself out of hunger.

[quote]zraw wrote:
Hey guys, wether you decide to have 30g of carbs from brown rice or from 355ml of Cocaine doesnt change shit as far as body composition is concerned

Hooray?[/quote]

[quote]WestCoast7 wrote:

[quote]zraw wrote:
Hey guys, wether you decide to have 30g of carbs from brown rice or from 355ml of Cocaine doesnt change shit as far as body composition is concerned

Hooray?[/quote]
[/quote]

Overbuzz :open_mouth:

Isn’t this kind of irrelevant if the experiment is being conducted on people in a caloric deficit?

What I want to know is if 30g of sugar from a sprite is the same as 30g of carbs from brown rice when there is a caloric surplus involved

[quote]Aussie Davo wrote:
Isn’t this kind of irrelevant if the experiment is being conducted on people in a caloric deficit?

What I want to know is if 30g of sugar from a sprite is the same as 30g of carbs from brown rice when there is a caloric surplus involved[/quote]

Irrelevant to what lol?

To bulking? Yeah sure

Its pretty relevant to dieting… Lol

Which is what this “experiment” was/is about

[quote]MODOK wrote:
Contrary to popular belief, food density does not really limit caloric intake. Your body isn’t that stupid. You can eat 10 lbs of tree bark or grass and you’re still going to be hungry. Just like you can drink all of the water you want and still be hungry. They’ve studied this exhaustively in animals. No matter how diluted their chow is, they keep eating until they eat their caloric requirement.[/quote]

This is the worst feeling. When going low carb this always happens to me. I eat a lot greens get bloated/full but, I am still hungry.

[quote]zraw wrote:

[quote]Aussie Davo wrote:
Isn’t this kind of irrelevant if the experiment is being conducted on people in a caloric deficit?

What I want to know is if 30g of sugar from a sprite is the same as 30g of carbs from brown rice when there is a caloric surplus involved[/quote]

Irrelevant to what lol?

To bulking? Yeah sure

Its pretty relevant to dieting… Lol

Which is what this “experiment” was/is about
[/quote]

I mean irrelevant in the sense that a person in a caloric deficit is going to lose fat regardless.

[quote]Aussie Davo wrote:
I mean irrelevant in the sense that a person in a caloric deficit is going to lose fat regardless.[/quote]

But because this concept remains so elusive for so many, your irrelevance regains relevance

Most of the nutritional experts I respect agree that the source of carb has a limited effect. They don’t usually say there is NO difference, though. Just that it’s not a huge difference. I’m not as comfortable as Dave Tate to eat a bag of skittles post-workout very often, but I have tried it a few times when gaining weight.

[quote]zraw wrote:
What does matter is the # of grams you do ingest

There, I said it[/quote]
I thought “everybody knows” this…hehe

[quote]Aussie Davo wrote:

[quote]zraw wrote:

[quote]Aussie Davo wrote:
Isn’t this kind of irrelevant if the experiment is being conducted on people in a caloric deficit?

What I want to know is if 30g of sugar from a sprite is the same as 30g of carbs from brown rice when there is a caloric surplus involved[/quote]

Irrelevant to what lol?

To bulking? Yeah sure

Its pretty relevant to dieting… Lol

Which is what this “experiment” was/is about
[/quote]

I mean irrelevant in the sense that a person in a caloric deficit is going to lose fat regardless.[/quote]

More people fail at dieting than not. It’s why nutritional information/research gets so much more attention than the lifting aspect of physique improvment.

Um, consuming refined carbs etc will certainly lead you down a path you do not want to go, health wise, regardless of whether you “lose weight” or not during such an experiment. Losing weight is not hard…losing bodyfat and optimising bodycomp is an art with the right food choices and one should gain muscle whilst losing fat if healthy. VERY few people understand or invest ANY time in optimising their health in an effort to improve their body comp…rather “CUTTING” which is easy.

Spiking blood sugar, requiring your body to release shit loads of insulin every time you ingest your shitty carbs is not smart long term IMHO. Save the dramatic spike in insulin PWO and that’s it!

Anyway, just my (any hundreds of my colleagues) view…:slight_smile:

GJ

[quote]MODOK wrote:
Contrary to popular belief, food density does not really limit caloric intake. Your body isn’t that stupid. You can eat 10 lbs of tree bark or grass and you’re still going to be hungry. Just like you can drink all of the water you want and still be hungry. They’ve studied this exhaustively in animals. No matter how diluted their chow is, they keep eating until they eat their caloric requirement.[/quote]

And eating an apple when you’re hungry is only useful if you’re a fattie who eats because he likes to. If I’m hungry, I can eat maybe 6 lbs of really sweet apples and still be as hungry…