T Nation

P+C and P+F

[quote]marcus_aurelius wrote:
Right, but the whole point is that there are other storage mechanisms besides just insulin.
[/quote]

I was just responding to the original poster who wanted to know why not combine carbs and fats and protein at the same time.

As far as which part of the day, that is more technical so I can’t comment but I will check out that site later tonight.

My real point was to get more scientific, so don’t hold back. I don’t just want to know what happens, I want to know why it happens so chrisb71 if you can add on go for it, otherwise I’m going to do a search for the other threads concerning this topic. Thanks for all the help,

-K

I just want to interject here and point everyone to Massing Eating Reloaded where Berardi re-emphasizes the importance of veggies and fruits with every meal. This does differ from the original ME which recommended less than 10g of carbs per meal.

I like Berardi, I have questioned Lyle’s hyperbole in the past and can’t believe he directly responds, generally with explectives, he has no creditionals, he’s not even a BB, but he pulls no punches tells it like it is - reviews the same research that everyone does, in skeptical balance way.

If you are naive to Lyle, google him, he will round out your education in nutrition. He is very much like Lonnie Lowery, citing research as is and when he takes a hypothetical jump, he clearly informs reader.

He and others argue P-ratio controls partitioning, so you can’t split fat and carbs and simply change the ratio of lean-to-fat mass loss/gain.

OK I went to that site and read the specific thread. Lyle’s problem seems to be he says Berardi says that you can eat all the fat you want and it won’t get stored because insulin is low. But I have NEVER read anywhere where Berardi says that. Maybe some stupid people Lyle met say that that can’t read, but I can’t find anywhere where Berardi said it.

As I understand it, the reason to not eat carbs at night is because of decreased insulin sensitivity will make the carbs more likely stored as fat. So might as well eat the carbs only when you have increased insulin sensitivity. I have never read anywhere where Berardi says there is a magic window for fat intake, only the during and post workout have anything close to a magic window for glucose and protein.

So, from what I’ve read, Lyle’s whole problem with Berardi is because of a complete misunderstanding of what Berardi is saying. Lyle is probably correct in what he says, but the two do not contradict each other, from what I read.

[quote]chrisb71 wrote:
OK I went to that site and read the specific thread. Lyle’s problem seems to be he says Berardi says that you can eat all the fat you want and it won’t get stored because insulin is low. But I have NEVER read anywhere where Berardi says that. Maybe some stupid people Lyle met say that that can’t read, but I can’t find anywhere where Berardi said it.

As I understand it, the reason to not eat carbs at night is because of decreased insulin sensitivity will make the carbs more likely stored as fat. So might as well eat the carbs only when you have increased insulin sensitivity. I have never read anywhere where Berardi says there is a magic window for fat intake, only the during and post workout have anything close to a magic window for glucose and protein.

So, from what I’ve read, Lyle’s whole problem with Berardi is because of a complete misunderstanding of what Berardi is saying. Lyle is probably correct in what he says, but the two do not contradict each other, from what I read.[/quote]

You need to re-read Lyle, then.

In a nutshell, his take is that for athletes with similar protein intake, the sole factor determining fat gain/lss is the equation of calories in and calories out. (And said calories should be counted within 24 hour windows.)

Doesn’t matter if you eat your oatmeal in the morning or just before bed. Doesn’t matter if you eat your calories over 2 meals or 6 meals or 20 meals. Doesn’t even matter if you get your calories from oatmeal or pizza or Twinkies. Once protein levels are established at a level allowing for muscle maintenance (if hypocaloric) or muscle gain (or hypercaloric), then all the rest is academic.

Will Berardi’s stuff perhaps help you comply with whatever dietary parameters? Maybe…lots of feedback here seems to indicate so. But other than that, there’s not a bit of double-blind human studies which support any notion of food combining.

To summarise from some of Lyle’s posts:

i) lots of carbs post workout is not revolutionary

ii) Lyle’s response to Berardi’s claim that carbohydrates are converted to lipids in the liver:

  • Berardi should perhaps read Hellerstein

iii) Lyle responding to Berardi now claiming in Massive Eating Reloaded that now low GI carbs can be eated with fat and protein :

  • most people usually aren’t eating dextrose or other high GI/II carbs with these meals

  • Berardi should look at some valuse for insulin/fat metabolism

etc…

[quote]marcus_aurelius wrote:
To summarised from some of Lyle’s posts:

i) lots of carbs post workout is not revolutionary

ii) Lyle’s response to Berardi’s claim that carbohydrates are converted to lipids in the liver:

  • Berardi should perhaps read Hellerstein

iii) Lyle responding to Berardi now claiming in Massive Eating Reloaded that now low GI carbs can be eated with fat and protein :

  • most people usually aren’t eating dextrose or other high GI/II carbs with these meals

  • Berardi should look at some valuse for insulin/fat metabolism

etc…[/quote]

Edit: My response might have been out of line. I’ll stay out of it.

Training and nutrition can be called a theory. Everyone says theirs is better. Its just like religion. People say Allah is the almighty while we say God is almighty. Genetics do play a big role in training and nutrition. If they don’t, someone needs to tell me how someone can build muscle by eating peanut butter and jelly sandwiches all the time.

I used to work with this guy and he had the biggest arms I’ve ever seen. The rest of his body was pretty big, but his arms stuck out. All he brought to work was PB&J sandwiches with honey. Thats it.

[quote]Todd S. wrote:
marcus_aurelius wrote:
To summarised from some of Lyle’s posts:

i) lots of carbs post workout is not revolutionary

ii) Lyle’s response to Berardi’s claim that carbohydrates are converted to lipids in the liver:

  • Berardi should perhaps read Hellerstein

iii) Lyle responding to Berardi now claiming in Massive Eating Reloaded that now low GI carbs can be eated with fat and protein :

  • most people usually aren’t eating dextrose or other high GI/II carbs with these meals

  • Berardi should look at some valuse for insulin/fat metabolism

etc…

Ok, is there a reason your on here trying to bash Berardi? Your claiming dispite the fact his stuff works, since there is not scientific test to prove it, it is made up… Go hang out on Lyle’s site and leave us alone…

[/quote]

Awesome response, dude!! What do you do when you hear something you don’t like…stick your fingers in your ears and mumble “lalalala–I can’t hear you–lalalalalala,” until it goes away?

What such forums are supposed to support is debate and inquiry and the exchange of ideas.

And what MA is saying…and what Lyle has stated…is that Berardi’s stuff may very well work, but not for the reasons he claims.

And, by the way, Berardi is the one who opened the door to such inquiry by originally making the claim that his food combination stuff works due to some complex biochemical mechanisms. I’m sure MA and I and others would have less skepticism if he’d just stated that his diets work because the structured meals make compliance easier…

[quote]Sammy Jankis wrote:
I like Berardi, I have questioned Lyle’s hyperbole in the past and can’t believe he directly responds, generally with explectives, he has no creditionals, he’s not even a BB, but he pulls no punches tells it like it is - reviews the same research that everyone does, in skeptical balance way.

If you are naive to Lyle, google him, he will round out your education in nutrition. He is very much like Lonnie Lowery, citing research as is and when he takes a hypothetical jump, he clearly informs reader.[/quote]

Except that LL has credentials, doesn’t respond with explitives, and is a huge Mofo who practices what he preaches in making himself big and strong.

You decide.

Yup, Boscobarbell. Exactly my point.

Debate in principle isn’t such a bad thing. Separating fact from fiction isn’t also a bad thing.

Not trying to add fuel to the fire, just want to make an objective point. It would be wise to remember that both Lyle and John basically have a job to do, and they make a lot of their money based on their own findings and theories based on their research or reviews of others’ literature.

In other words, Lyle has his stance and John has his. On that note, if Lyle already has or were to find out that there is some merit to what John says in a real-world setting, he’s certainly not going to admit it, at least in the publc eye. People would laugh at him. He must stick to what he has always said, or he would lose all respectability and probably a lot of his book/endorsement deals, clients, etc.

The same holds true for John, were he to find that Lyle is “right” (I use that term very loosely, here, as there are so many factors involved in nutrition that I doubt anyone will ever truly be “right” or “wrong” when it comes to certain issues).

That being said, I’ve tried both macronutrient split (P+C and P+F) and regular meals, and personally, I feel that I can add lean mass and strip away fat (while still retaining mass) much more easily with the split protocol because, well, I’ve done it. That is only speaking for myself however, and not everyone will be inclined to agree.

[quote]michaelv wrote:
Sammy Jankis wrote:
I like Berardi, I have questioned Lyle’s hyperbole in the past and can’t believe he directly responds, generally with explectives, he has no creditionals, he’s not even a BB, but he pulls no punches tells it like it is - reviews the same research that everyone does, in skeptical balance way.

If you are naive to Lyle, google him, he will round out your education in nutrition. He is very much like Lonnie Lowery, citing research as is and when he takes a hypothetical jump, he clearly informs reader.

Except that LL has credentials, doesn’t respond with explitives, and is a huge Mofo who practices what he preaches in making himself big and strong.

You decide.[/quote]

Lyle has credentials too. He has a Bachelor’s degree. I don’t think he would have a problem getting into a grad program if he so desired considering how many books/articles he has done plus I imagine he did quite well at school considering his critical analysis of various topics.

Also, just because someone has a PhD does not mean that they can’t make mistakes.

[quote]CC wrote:
Not trying to add fuel to the fire, just want to make an objective point. It would be wise to remember that both Lyle and John basically have a job to do, and they make a lot of their money based on their own findings and theories based on their research or reviews of others’ literature.

In other words, Lyle has his stance and John has his. On that note, if Lyle already has or were to find out that there is some merit to what John says in a real-world setting, he’s certainly not going to admit it, at least in the publc eye. People would laugh at him. He must stick to what he has always said, or he would lose all respectability and probably a lot of his book/endorsement deals, clients, etc.

The same holds true for John, were he to find that Lyle is “right” (I use that term very loosely, here, as there are so many factors involved in nutrition that I doubt anyone will ever truly be “right” or “wrong” when it comes to certain issues).

That being said, I’ve tried both macronutrient split (P+C and P+F) and regular meals, and personally, I feel that I can add lean mass and strip away fat (while still retaining mass) much more easily with the split protocol because, well, I’ve done it. That is only speaking for myself however, and not everyone will be inclined to agree.[/quote]

Very well said!

[quote]michaelv wrote:

Except that LL has credentials, doesn’t respond with explitives, and is a huge Mofo who practices what he preaches in making himself big and strong.

You decide.[/quote]

Thank you, Michael. You know, I know John of course, and Lyle and I go back a ways, too. I like them both (yes, it’s possible).

The reason they can both be “right” [quote](actually Lyle is educated as well; he just thinks outside the box to such an extreme that he hasn’t stayed in a program long enough to earn his doctorate)[/quote] comes back to a statement I once had snootily thrown at me by a superior-acting physics professor:

“Ahem, physics is perfect, Mr. Lowery… biology is messy

This is why both training and nutrition perspectives can vary so widely. There is as much “art” as “science” in a human biological system. This is not to say readers should listen to uneducated, uncredentialled gurus. They don’t have the theoretical basis to build upon. It’s not enough to have experience. A guru could have 20 years under his belt but those could’ve been 20 years of doing something terribly wrong, eh?

Anyway, even if John’s not a nutritonist per se and relies on experience rather than dietetic education in applying his ideas, he does, I think, emphasize that all the stuff regarding meal timing, combining and diurnal rythyms is meant to stack the odds in a client’s favor. It’s true that even the federal government will (correctly) tell you energy balance is paramount… but that doesn’t mean cleverly choosing a meal plan (considering metabolic data) is hokey.

Case in point: I saw the word “adherence” a bit earlier on this thread. That’s what helped me get quite lean when I used to compete. Eating more carbs in the AM and saving healthy fats for PM (when glucose tolerance ebbs anyway) kept my mind on my diet in a healthy, non-obessive, non-miniscule-portion kind of way. I think it did encourage lower OVERALL kcal intake - making them both right in a sense!

PS I did write a piece on the principle fat storage pathways that these two debate. It emphasized the everyone-responds-differently concept, each concept with real references to support it. “Fat Loss Biochemistry”, I think it was called - try a search, eh?

Cheers,
LL

I think you’re talking about these:

http://www.t-nation.com/findArticle.do?article=04-063-diet

http://www.t-nation.com/readTopic.do?id=506667

First off, let me say that I feel that the concepts of Food Combining/Massive Eating/Don’t Diet are credible tools to use in order to reach ones Physique goals.

With that being said, I don’t want to argue so much the research in this post, but what I feel is perhaps the poorest argument I hear over and over again when I try to explain the concepts to someone. (By the way, you will even hear these arguments expressed by many “gurus”).

The argument is that the body is smart and has evolved to a point that it doesn’t matter what combinations you use, because the body doesn’t care and can process whatever foodstuffs you eat, in what ever way you eat them…(with the qualifiers a) as long as you keep it “cals-in-vs-cals-out”…AND b) ingest “suffficient” protein…)

The reason this is a poor argument is essentially two-fold:

  1. To me, it isn’t a question of whether or not the body can process whatever you take in; it’s a question of how efficiently the body utilizes those foodstuffs, and what the consequences are in terms of the bodies response.

In order to use an extreme example (for illustration), you can go to a Big Beach party and down loads of fat-laden barbeque with visible fat (thus consuming loads of “sufficient” protein) ; bread that you slathered on a load of trans-fatty acid laden margarine, salt and dressing; pile on a few globs of mayo rich potato salad; eat handfuls of Doritos, chips and bacon/cheese dip; top it all off with a couple of slices of pie and wash it all down with Beer and few swigs of Barcardi. You can eat all this (which really isn’t so unusual at a Big Bash), and your body will certainly “process” it. But it will be a VERY inefficient, waste producing, mind-and-artery clogging, inflammatory and fat inducing process.

So the argument that the body can process whatever you eat is true. But it doesn’t always process what we eat and how we eat it in an efficient manner. ME/Don’t Diet protocols are merely ONE way in which to “fine tune” that efficiency.

Can one eat “massively”, consume crap and expect results? No…and that is an absurd supposition. However, you CAN improve on the efficiency of a clean, macronutrient rich diet.

  1. JB’s protocols are getting mixed up too much with many of the “Holistic/New Age/ Granola” food combining regimens advocated in the past be a myriad of “health gurus”. Their food combining and/or timing regimens were purported to cure every thing from depression to ADHD. These most recent protocols advocated by JB and others are NOT meant to be some magical cure for any ailment you may suffer from. They are meant to a) again, improve the efficiency of your body’s utilization of foodstuffs and b) allow one to consume greater caloric amounts (thus supporting lean mass gain) while balancing the amount of subsequent fat gain.

Will these protocols work for everyone? IF part of a well structured TOTAL program of diet, resistance training and aerobics, the answer is a resounding “yes”.

For some, no…especailly if they follow them in a half-assed,cynical manner…

One last disingenuous tactic that I see when attacking JB’s ideas is the “Assault by Study”…a sort of abstract “Shock and Awe…”

It’s the practice of disputing ideas based on solid Science (like JB’s) and a LOAD of “real-world” experience by throwing at those ideas as many abstracts as you can… like a wide-dispersal “abstract frag grenade”…

Anyone involved on human nutrition and resistance studies KNOWS that almost ALL studies are limited either by a)study subject size b) the cross-section of the study subject and/or c) the limited question(s) that a particular abstract attempts to answer

AT SOME POINT…you need to take the Science (with it’s limitations)…put it into “real-world” practice…and come to solid conclusions based on your observations…

In other words…you have to take the Science…then “push the envelope” if you expect ANY answers and/or results…

JB has, and continues to do, just that…

My answer is that if you really believe it’s all bullshit…then just don’t do it…do something else…and then let’s put YOUR client results up against JB’s…

I can assure you that JB will be up for the task…

Mufasa

One last thing for all the “pseudo-scientist” and “abstract pushers”…

Science is good for the collection of data and answering SOME questions from which we BASE our hypothesis. It is NOT meant to either a) limit those questions or b) prevent us from testing what may be VERY practical applications as we wait for the empirical data to catch up.

That can sometimes take years, ESPECIALLY in the areas of Human Performance and Nutrition…

Mufasa

[quote]Boscobarbell wrote:
Doesn’t matter if you eat your oatmeal in the morning or just before bed. Doesn’t matter if you eat your calories over 2 meals or 6 meals or 20 meals. Doesn’t even matter if you get your calories from oatmeal or pizza or Twinkies. Once protein levels are established at a level allowing for muscle maintenance (if hypocaloric) or muscle gain (or hypercaloric), then all the rest is academic.[/quote]

Ah… ok so that’s where the “Berardi’s plan just makes you eat less” came in. The insulin plus other fat storing methods add up to the same amount of fat storage as long as the total cals from fat + carbs stay the same. Is that what he’s saying? And that the spike in insulin and extra storage from that would only happen if total cals from fat + carbs were increased (like you take you P+F meal and add C, without first subtracting some F).

Is that his argument?

Eh. it is hard to understand Lyle with all the swearing and all. :slight_smile: