nobody is above criticism. a lot of what JB says is spot on, but some of what he says (which happens to be far more popular) isn’t, or is at least debatable.
i like calling things what they are. i realize that when selling articles or products it is sometimes best not to call things what they are.
i am on this website because i like it and it’s the first training/diet website i’ve been a part of. it’s just that i get irked when i see blind faith. im sure you wont disagree with me when i say that many readers read what guys like JB have to say, dont check the references, dont even know how to check references, dont even know whether or not it’s important to check references, and just take their word for it.
i dont really doubt JB’s sincerity, but i do believe that it’s common to be sincere and wrong at the same time. maybe JB’s the latter and doesn’t know it sometimes, maybe he’s lying and knows that some of his speculations dont work via purported mechanisms, but he knows that they sell articles and products and creates for him a nice niche. i dunno.
but i do know that i like to call things what they are because that keeps me honest, and honesty helps me sleep at night.
nobody is above criticism. a lot of what JB says is spot on, but some of what he says (which happens to be far more popular) isn’t, or is at least debatable.
i like calling things what they are. i realize that when selling articles or products it is sometimes best not to call things what they are.
i am on this website because i like it and it’s the first training/diet website i’ve been a part of. it’s just that i get irked when i see blind faith. im sure you wont disagree with me when i say that many readers read what guys like JB have to say, dont check the references, dont even know how to check references, dont even know whether or not it’s important to check references, and just take their word for it.
i dont really doubt JB’s sincerity, but i do believe that it’s common to be sincere and wrong at the same time. maybe JB’s the latter and doesn’t know it sometimes, maybe he’s lying and knows that some of his speculations dont work via purported mechanisms, but he knows that they sell articles and products and creates for him a nice niche. i dunno.
but i do know that i like to call things what they are because that keeps me honest, and honesty helps me sleep at night.[/quote]
Could you possibly explain to me what part of promoting P+C and P+F meals sells more products than promoting P+C+F?!
JB clearly understands what the literature says. he only takes the leap based on his own experience (anecdote) that his idea may be better. Phillips decides to stick with the literature.
in this thread, i have pointed out that anecdote is unreliable. this implies that things that guys say about their own anecdote is unreliable. guys like JB say a lot of good stuff, but i’ve noticed that they also treat their own anecdote like it’s applicable to others. this is where problems arise.
P.S. both JB and Phillips agree on PWO stuff based on the literature. i tend to disagree. partly because i dont know of any literature that is applicable (fasted subjects and not matching energy) and partly because of my own anecdote.
my jury is still out on that one so i wont say that PWO means nothing because i dont want to get my ass handed to me, but i do think it is overrated.
that’s just an example of how i kinda disagree with JB and Phillips on one thing, but not on other things. doesn’t mean i disagree with everything (and i guess that you never actually meant that, but i just wanted to clarify).
[quote]Fahd wrote:
TriGWU wrote:
Could you possibly explain to me what part of promoting P+C and P+F meals sells more products than promoting P+C+F?!
He was talking about Post workout drink[/quote]
Even if you argued that P+C/P+F Split is dogma much research out there shows that fat post-workout isn’t as good as carbohyrates post-workout. That is just common sense.
From that point you can carry out the splits of P+F / P+C.
I was sold on Surge just from a common sense standpoint before ever reading articles.
To look at the comparison of P+C or P+F to C+F you don’t need to consider C+F at all. Just look at the result of being protein fasted.
I’d like someone to tell me WHY eat a C+F meal. Can someone provide me with research as to why we should negate protein or emphasize the combination of carbs and fats?
There are reasons for carbs at certain times.
There are reasons for fats at certain times.
There are reasons for having protein all the time.
Put that all together and we’ve got P+C / P+F.
Personally I am more of a Carb dominant or Fat dominante meal but always have representatives from each party (protein always included en masse).
[quote]TriGWU wrote:
I’d like someone to tell me WHY eat a C+F meal. Can someone provide me with research as to why we should negate protein or emphasize the combination of carbs and fats?
[/quote]
[quote]TriGWU wrote:
Fahd wrote:
TriGWU wrote:
Could you possibly explain to me what part of promoting P+C and P+F meals sells more products than promoting P+C+F?!
He was talking about Post workout drink
Even if you argued that P+C/P+F Split is dogma much research out there shows that fat post-workout isn’t as good as carbohyrates post-workout. That is just common sense.
From that point you can carry out the splits of P+F / P+C.
I was sold on Surge just from a common sense standpoint before ever reading articles.
To look at the comparison of P+C or P+F to C+F you don’t need to consider C+F at all. Just look at the result of being protein fasted.
I’d like someone to tell me WHY eat a C+F meal. Can someone provide me with research as to why we should negate protein or emphasize the combination of carbs and fats?
There are reasons for carbs at certain times.
There are reasons for fats at certain times.
There are reasons for having protein all the time.
Put that all together and we’ve got P+C / P+F.
Personally I am more of a Carb dominant or Fat dominante meal but always have representatives from each party (protein always included en masse). [/quote]
you misunderstand the PC/PF supposition. doing what you do is normal. doing what PC/PF originally meant was by not combining F and C, regardless of P content.
Given that Dr. John M Berardi, PhD, C.S.C.S has backed down from the whole P+C/P+F stuff in his latest articles, why are people still clinging to this idea ?
Poliquin things food combining is b.s. So now who is right - Poliquin or Berardi ?
It just absolutely boggles my mind how believe anything a so-called “expert” writes.
FYI, John posted an example of his PWO meal on another forum:
Extra lean beef meatballs
Tricolored pasta
1 tablespoon olive oil
Frozen veggies
1 tablespoon peanut satay sauce
Sea salt
Crushed red pepper
(All mixed together)
Fruit on the side
We’ve got fat coming from the olive oil and meatballs, some fairly high GI carbs from the satay sauce and the pasta, and low gi carbs from the fruit and veggies. This certainly looks like a F+C combination to me.
Like a poster said earlier, JB’s current emphasis is on timing your starchy carbs appropriately rather than trying to mix and match macronutrients in individual meals.
[quote]TriGWU wrote:
wufwugy wrote:
i think i did say something like interesting content sells articles and can make believers out of easily believing people.
in an indirect way i can see this helping sell products, but i never said that and dont care.
What does selling products have to do with negating the use of P+C/P+F split or supporting the use of C+F meals?
Saying that good content sells supplements has nothing to do with this topic.
[/quote]
The whole Massive Eating series was supposed to be revolutionary. Now it turns out, there were several flaws. What does this have to do with selling stuff ?
Well, when a certain person claims they are the best nutritionist in the world, having a proprietary system which is marketed like it is revolutionary gives proponents of this idea alot of business based on a questionable theory.
[quote]TriGWU wrote:
What does selling products have to do with negating the use of P+C/P+F split or supporting the use of C+F meals?
[/quote]
i didn’t say it did.
also, nobody’s supporting CF without P. that’s just stupid. CF is another way of stating the combination of C and F when discussing the diet PC/PF.
[quote]Saying that good content sells supplements has nothing to do with this topic.
[/quote]
uh, i was asked a question for which my answer included the supposition that the PC/PF speculations may be for the purpose of selling articles.
People need to chill the fuck out and stop relying on others (namely JB) to tell them how to eat. It’s up to you to find out what works for you. Different things effect people in different ways.
I think that this site has a LOT of information. Not all of it says the same thing and some of it actually may contradict. But the point is that everyone is different and what works for one person may not work for another.
If you’ve spent a few months separating your macronutrients into PC and PF meals and you haven’t noticed a difference, then try something else.
This wouldn’t be a great site if all the training programs were the same or if they only have a single diet or nutrition plan.
Some of the writers (and posters) provide anecdotal information because that is what worked for them. I’m glad they do because it gives me hope that if PC/PF doesn’t give me the results I seek, maybe PCF will because it worked for someone else.
Same thing with the PWO meal. Do I drink a shake immediately after my workout? An hour after? Do I eat a meal an hour after that? These are all things to try to see if it works for you.
I’m probably restating the obvious, but everyone has to go through the trial and error process… and as a T-Nation member (Caveman) has said, there are a lot of errors before you figure it out.
Dude, I wasn’t disagreeing with you, I agree that it comes down to calories in vs. calories out. I was simply adding a small caveat, which is that macro and micro ratios and timing can have some effect on how many calories are going out. That doesn’t challenge the ‘calories in/calories out’ argument at all. I’m not saying that your view is simplistic, but I do feel that the whole cals in/out argument IS often oversimplified, that’s all - which is the reason I added my p.o.v.
my previous post was intended as a response to this comment (thought I’d quoted it, but I guess not):
[quote]wufwugy wrote:
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).
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]