[quote]Joel Marion wrote:
One of the major reasons to avoid CF meals is to gain all the benefits of eating in the PF, PC fashion.
http://www.T-Nation.com/readTopic.do?id=799077[/quote]
Looks like you haven’t read the thread at all Joel.
[quote]wufwugy wrote:
- 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.
quote]
I agree, to some extent. Obviously, the simple answer is that eating on a deficit will cause weight loss, while eating on a surplus with cause a weight gain. However, strategic combinations and food choices in general can influence your metabolic rate, and therefore influence how many calories you need to consume to be in surplus, and how many you cut to be in deficit. If your diet is designed to stoke metabolism, you can eat more without being extremely hypercaloric. And you get get away with cutting less out when you want to be hypocaloric.
To say “it’s all about calories” or “it’s all about macro combinations” is equally oversimplistic. A little from column A, a little from column B (always remembering that column A is influenced by column B).
[quote]thajeepster wrote:
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
…
im not saying plug in other brands… just alternatives, ie dex/whey pwo etc etc.
I’ll shut up now.
[/quote]
personally, i dont even think PWO is a big deal (research suggests it is only in fasted individuals, and i dont think any of the studies have matched calories). i also think that the only supps that work can be considered 1) food, or 2) drugs.
but dont believe me. figure it out for yourself.
[quote]Jinx Me wrote:
I agree, to some extent. Obviously, the simple answer is that eating on a deficit will cause weight loss, while eating on a surplus with cause a weight gain. However, strategic combinations and food choices in general can influence your metabolic rate, and therefore influence how many calories you need to consume to be in surplus, and how many you cut to be in deficit. If your diet is designed to stoke metabolism, you can eat more without being extremely hypercaloric. And you get get away with cutting less out when you want to be hypocaloric.
To say “it’s all about calories” or “it’s all about macro combinations” is equally oversimplistic. A little from column A, a little from column B (always remembering that column A is influenced by column B).[/quote]
two things jump out at me:
- you’ve either 1) made stuff up, or 2) misunderstand what i mean by ‘nourishment’ or ‘nutritional deficiencies.’ you’re right that certain foods (nutrients is a better word) stoke metabolism, but only up to a point. that point is determined by nourishment status i.e. is the body sufficient in particular nutrients?
did you know that there’s research that shows that zince boosts T? did you know that that research is done in deficiency models? did you know that research done in sufficiency models shows that added zinc doesn’t increase T? this is what i mean by ‘nourishment.’
research shows that approximately 1g/lb bw protein is optimal nourishment of protein. certain gurus argue that increasing that up to 2-3g/lb bw protein increases nourishment in other ways than increased calories? funny how the research says otherwise.
with some of these things there is a debatable difference, but that difference falls in to the minutiae category. the human body does not operate under the common imprudent adage “if this amount is good, then more is better.”
- you say ‘simplistic,’ i say ‘what does that mean?’ does calling something simplistic mean that it’s false?
guess what? human beings have sex with each other. simplistic? yes. true? yes. ‘calories in, calories out’ and ‘eliminate nutritional deficiencies’ may be simplistic, but they’re true.
[quote]thajeepster wrote:
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
…
im not saying plug in other brands… just alternatives, ie dex/whey pwo etc etc.
I’ll shut up now.
[/quote]
I personally ultilise PWO and MRPs for convinience not necessity. Its an easy way to reach your optimal caloric intake. But thats it.
Are you getting 8 hours of sleep everyday? Are you busting ass in the gym? Are you doing extra workouts for active recovery? Have you read a lot of training information? Do you eat enough protein and EFA?
Do these things before you sweat about supplements.
Fahd
[quote]Joel Marion wrote:
One of the major reasons to avoid CF meals is to gain all the benefits of eating in the PF, PC fashion.
http://www.T-Nation.com/readTopic.do?id=799077[/quote]
Joel, didn’t that thread get ‘cleaned’ up?
i seem to recall a rather lengthy and enlightening thread on Rugged on this topic in which you were involved.
Joel:
Someone asked this question to you before. I’m not so sure if you have answered it previously on Rugged, however, since its down anyway, I would still love to see you answer to this question concerning your article. This is the question from that guy:
“once again I specifically ask, how does insulin control this passage across the lipid membrane, and how does dietary fat control it?”
Thanks Joel,
Fahd
[quote]wufwugy wrote:
Joel Marion wrote:
One of the major reasons to avoid CF meals is to gain all the benefits of eating in the PF, PC fashion.
http://www.T-Nation.com/readTopic.do?id=799077
Joel, didn’t that thread get ‘cleaned’ up?
i seem to recall a rather lengthy and enlightening thread on Rugged on this topic in which you were involved.[/quote]
No, the thread here is exactly as posted…no changes.
And I wouldn’t have exactly called the other thread “enlightening”.
[quote]Fahd wrote:
Joel:
Someone asked this question to you before. I’m not so sure if you have answered it previously on Rugged, however, since its down anyway, I would still love to see you answer to this question concerning your article. This is the question from that guy:
“once again I specifically ask, how does insulin control this passage across the lipid membrane, and how does dietary fat control it?”
Thanks Joel,
Fahd
[/quote]
The more important message was the rest of the article and is what I just posted here. It’s not about why to avoid CF, it’s about the many benefits of eating in the PC, PF fashion.
As I mentioned in the article, the discussion can go back and forth all day. The article, like all my other work, is there for people to read and come to their own conclusions.
And the answer to that question was answered one of the beginning paragraphs of the article. While insulin isn’t the only player, it is a player.
"Short chain and medium chain fatty acids can readily diffuse across the cell membrane; however, long chain fatty acids (LCFAs) rely on facilitated diffusion or “active transport” in order to cross. The fatty acid transfer proteins FAT/CD36 and FATP1 (responsible for the transport of LCFAs across the cell membrane) are mainly located inside the cell, but in the presence of insulin they’re “translocated” to the cell membrane.
This insulin induced translocation has been shown to increase the uptake of LCFAs in the adipocyte (1)."
[quote]Joel Marion wrote:
The more important message was the rest of the article and is what I just posted here. It’s not about why to avoid CF, it’s about the many benefits of eating in the PC, PF fashion.
As I mentioned in the article, the discussion can go back and forth all day. The article, like all my other work, is there for people to read and come to their own conclusions.
And the answer to that question was answered one of the beginning paragraphs of the article. While insulin isn’t the only player, it is a player.
"Short chain and medium chain fatty acids can readily diffuse across the cell membrane; however, long chain fatty acids (LCFAs) rely on facilitated diffusion or “active transport” in order to cross. The fatty acid transfer proteins FAT/CD36 and FATP1 (responsible for the transport of LCFAs across the cell membrane) are mainly located inside the cell, but in the presence of insulin they’re “translocated” to the cell membrane.
This insulin induced translocation has been shown to increase the uptake of LCFAs in the adipocyte (1)."[/quote]
what does any of this have to do with PF/PC?
[quote]wufwugy wrote:
Joel Marion wrote:
The more important message was the rest of the article and is what I just posted here. It’s not about why to avoid CF, it’s about the many benefits of eating in the PC, PF fashion.
As I mentioned in the article, the discussion can go back and forth all day. The article, like all my other work, is there for people to read and come to their own conclusions.
And the answer to that question was answered one of the beginning paragraphs of the article. While insulin isn’t the only player, it is a player.
"Short chain and medium chain fatty acids can readily diffuse across the cell membrane; however, long chain fatty acids (LCFAs) rely on facilitated diffusion or “active transport” in order to cross. The fatty acid transfer proteins FAT/CD36 and FATP1 (responsible for the transport of LCFAs across the cell membrane) are mainly located inside the cell, but in the presence of insulin they’re “translocated” to the cell membrane.
This insulin induced translocation has been shown to increase the uptake of LCFAs in the adipocyte (1)."
what does any of this have to do with PF/PC?[/quote]
I’m assuming you havn’t read the article.
[quote]Joel Marion wrote:
I’m assuming you havn’t read the article.
[/quote]
i have read the article, and i have checked the references within and in a few of JB’s ME articles, and have found them to be quite lacking and irrelevant to PF/PC and purported metabolic advantage.
but now i can ask you if you’ve read my posts in this thread? particularly the ones that refer to anecdote and its inadequacy. unless i misread your article, you imply that your proof is based on anecdote and others’ anecdotes.
do you understand why this a completely unreliable source of proof. please provide me with research that has been done attempting to find the benefits of PC/PF dieting. i would love to see it, love to evaluate it, and would love to find out if im wrong.
Joel, simple question, if P+C and P+F is so scientifically sound, why would Dr. Berardi write this:
"John Berardi Wrote:
And yes, in the end, my experience repeatedly counters the idea that at the same energy intake, once protien and EFAs are fixed, the rest doesn’t matter.
Since I know that there isn’t much data to support or refute this fixed protien and EFA hypothesis, this is pretty much the physiological end game.
The rest is opinion, experience, and some pretty olympic caliber deductive leaps based on proximal research."
[quote]wufwugy wrote:
Joel Marion wrote:
I’m assuming you havn’t read the article.
i have read the article, and i have checked the references within and in a few of JB’s ME articles, and have found them to be quite lacking and irrelevant to PF/PC and purported metabolic advantage.
but now i can ask you if you’ve read my posts in this thread? particularly the ones that refer to anecdote and its inadequacy. unless i misread your article, you imply that your proof is based on anecdote and others’ anecdotes.
do you understand why this a completely unreliable source of proof. please provide me with research that has been done attempting to find the benefits of PC/PF dieting. i would love to see it, love to evaluate it, and would love to find out if im wrong.[/quote]
There is plenty of science in the article. Not everything has been studied directly; that’s just the way it is. You take what is known and theorize and test it out.
wufwugy,
I’m curious.
So after the smoke clears and the calories have been counted or discounted, are you basically saying you disagree with everything John Berardi says?
In a nut shell, it sounds like you’ve basically said his theories and products are crap.
Which then begs the question as to why you are on the Biotest website at all.
[quote]sven33 wrote:
wufwugy,
I’m curious.
So after the smoke clears and the calories have been counted or discounted, are you basically saying you disagree with everything John Berardi says?
In a nut shell, it sounds like you’ve basically said his theories and products are crap.
Which then begs the question as to why you are on the Biotest website at all.[/quote]
I’m not wufwugy but I feel you just wrote something idiotic.
I disagree with a lot of what JB writes.
How does that mean I have anything against Biotest?
Let me ask you a question: do YOU agree with all the writers on this site?
If the answer is yes, than you are a fucking liar because they don’t agree with each other.
So why the fuck are you on this site? Hey I’m using your logic.
I’m just curious,
Fahd
nice strawman
[quote]Joel Marion wrote:
Not everything has been studied directly; that’s just the way it is. You take what is known and theorize and test it out.[/quote]
Montignac put forward the idea of seperating carbs from fats back in 1991, and there has been research looking at it.
Similar weight loss with low-energy food combining or balanced diets.
Golay A, Allaz AF, Ybarra J, Bianchi P, Saraiva S, Mensi N, Gomis R, de Tonnac N.
Division of Therapeutic Patient Education for Chronic Diseases, University Hospital Geneva, Switzerland.
OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to evaluate the effect of two diets (‘food combining’ or dissociated vs balanced) on body weight and metabolic parameters during a 6-week period in an in-hospital setting. SUBJECTS AND DESIGN: 54 obese patients were randomly assigned to receive diets containing 4.5 MJ/day (1100 kcal/day) composed of either 25% protein, 47% carbohydrates and 25% lipids (dissociated diet) or 25% protein, 42% carbohydrates and 31% lipids (balanced diet). Consequently, the two diets were equally low in energy and substrate content (protein, fat and carbohydrate) but widely differed in substrate distribution throughout the day. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the amount of weight loss in response to dissociated (6.2 +/- 0.6 kg) or balanced (7.5 +/- 0.4 kg) diets. Furthermore, significant decreases in total body fat and waist-to-hip circumference ratio were seen in both groups, and the magnitude of the changes did not vary as a function of the diet composition. Fasting plasma glucose, insulin, total cholesterol and triacylglycerol concentrations decreased significantly and similarly in patients receiving both diets. Both systolic and diastolic blood pressure values decreased significantly in patients eating balanced diets. The results of this study show that both diets achieved similar weight loss. Total fat weight loss was higher in balanced diets, although differences did not reach statistical significance. Total lean body mass was identically spared in both groups. CONCLUSION: In summary at identical energy intake and similar substrate composition, the dissociated (or ‘food combining’) diet did not bring any additional loss in weight and body fat.
The sample size is small. For what its worth:
Obes Res. 2004 Nov;12 Suppl 2:130S-40S. Related Articles, Links
A randomized trial comparing low-fat and low-carbohydrate diets matched for energy and protein.
Segal-Isaacson CJ, Johnson S, Tomuta V, Cowell B, Stein DT.
Department of Epidemiology and Population Health, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY 10461, USA. isaacson@aecom.yu.edu
Several recent studies have found greater weight loss at 6 months among participants on a very-low-carbohydrate (VLC) weight-loss diet compared with a low-fat (LF) weight-loss diet. Because most of these studies were not matched for calories, it is not clear whether these results are caused by decreased energy intake or increased energy expenditure. It is hypothesized that several energy-consuming metabolic pathways are up-regulated during a VLC diet, leading to increased energy expenditure.
The focus of this study was to investigate whether, when protein and energy are held constant, there is a significant difference in fat and weight loss when fat and carbohydrate are dramatically varied in the diet. The preliminary results presented in this paper are for the first four of six postmenopausal overweight or obese participants who followed, in random order, both a VLC and an LF diet for 6 weeks. Other outcome measures were serum lipids, glucose, and insulin, as well as dietary compliance and side effects. Our results showed no significant weight loss, lipid, serum insulin, or glucose differences between the two diets.
Lipids were dramatically reduced on both diets, with a trend for greater triglyceride reduction on the VLC diet. Glucose levels were also reduced on both diets, with a trend for insulin reduction on the VLC diet. Compliance was excellent with both diets, and side effects were mild, although participants reported more food cravings and bad breath on the VLC diet and more burping and flatulence on the LF diet.
[quote]Fahd wrote:
sven33 wrote:
wufwugy,
I’m curious.
So after the smoke clears and the calories have been counted or discounted, are you basically saying you disagree with everything John Berardi says?
In a nut shell, it sounds like you’ve basically said his theories and products are crap.
Which then begs the question as to why you are on the Biotest website at all.
I’m not wufwugy but I feel you just wrote something idiotic.
I disagree with a lot of what JB writes.
How does that mean I have anything against Biotest?
Let me ask you a question: do YOU agree with all the writers on this site?
If the answer is yes, than you are a fucking liar because they don’t agree with each other.
So why the fuck are you on this site? Hey I’m using your logic.
I’m just curious,
Fahd
[/quote]
Glad you’re curious Fahd and thanks for using my logic.
Can you squeeze the word “fuck” in anywhere else? It’s really impressive and you sound really cool.
I am fucking on this site because i agree with a lot of the theories posted and they have worked for me. I would assume most people are here for that reason.
Do i agree with all the writers? No.
And i never said that i did or that anyone should.
(so i guess i’m not a FUCKING liar, whew.)
I didn’t say he was “against” Biotest.
However. JB is a very big part of this site and this company. I’d say he is one of their core contributors who is typically backed by the majority of the other core contributors.
Wufwugy seems to be across the board against everything JB has proposed.
That’s perfectly fine, but in such a Pro-Berardi environment, it doesn’t make much sense to be here.
And i could have the wrong impression of wufwugy, maybe he thinks some of John’s thinking is sound. I don’t know. That’s why i asked.