I've read a whole lot over the past two years about this sort of thing, and I have one question that I generally have not seen addressed:
I understand that protein can be broken down into carbohydrates in two cases: a) when glycogen stores demand it in the absence of carbohydrates and b) when more protein is taken in than the body can process as protein.
This usually leads to the conclusion that (esp during the PWO period, for example) carbohydrates should be combined with protein when glycogen stores are lowered to "spare" the protein, as you say.
But let's say we had an individual who was carb-averse. Not as a matter of "makes me bloated/fat/whatever that probably isn't even the case"--instead, just either has allergies to many carb-heavy foods (oatmeal) and/or doesn't find fruits palatable (too sweet, etc).
So let's take two cases PWO: a) individual takes in 120 grams of nutrients--60 grams protein, 60 grams carbs; b) individual takes in 120 grams of nutrients--120 grams protein.
Is the idea that (a) is better than (b) simply because of the metabolic cost of protein? One argument would be similar to the argument against taking in fat PWO--i.e. that the metabolic processing of fat competes with protein synthesis into muscle. Another would be that you're "teaching" the body to turn protein into glycogen stores (i.e. an energy source) instead of muscle. Separate arguments, but the general consensus seems to be that P+C>P, even in same total amounts.
Thoughts on this? Have any of you actually experimented with this? I'm doing so currently (introducing carbs PWO), and I guess I'm just going to see what happens. I apologize if this question is elementary--I just don't think that I've come across a satisfactory explanation of this. I should also mention that I realize that this is, at least to some extent, "majoring in the minors," as it were--I'm asking more out of general interest than anything else.