C+F Meals Why Not?

Nutrition
81

[quote]Jinx Me wrote:
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.

[/quote]
i know what you said, and i remember you agreeing with the majority of what i said.

i disagree with the nutrient timing stuff. why? for the same reasons that i disagree with anything in this thread.

82

now, im gonna sound like a stickler for pointing this out, but…

i think “what works for you may not work for others,” or “there are many different ways to skin a cat” or whatever commonly used maxims are misunderstood. there is only one way to skin a cat, fundamentally. it just looks like there are many ways. there is only one way for stuff to work, fundamentally. it just looks like there are more ways.

people think that because somebody is a genetic freak that some stuff works for them that doesn’t work for others. on the contrary, the same stuff works for freaks as it does for normies. it’s just a matter of degrees.

i point this out because people have been saying that PC/PF may work for some but not others. bull. PC/PF does not work via purported methods, bottom line. anybody who has ever lost weight or anybody who has ever gained weight have done them the only way possible, the same way as every other person who’s changed body composition. it just looks like they’re doing it differently, but the fundamentals never changed.

i guess i just want to say that it’s not that certain stuff works for certain people, but that the details make it look different but the fundamentals stay the same, and what works works to different degrees with different people.

‘what works for you may not work for me’ makes zero sense on the fundamental level. is there some light bulb out there that works via different mechanisms than other light bulbs of the same make/model? no. is there some tree that grows via different mechanism than other trees of the same species? no. apply the correct fundamentals and genetics/physics determines to what degree progress is effected.

83

[quote]wufwugy wrote:
sven,

id like to add something…

remember this debate? http://www.T-Nation.com/readTopic.do?id=615251 in it JB and Stuart Phillips debate about optimal protein consumption.

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]

wufwugy,
thanks very much.
you explained yourself perfectly and in a mature, intelligent manner (unlike fahd’s barroom brawl tone) and that was really all i was interested in.
Everything you said makes sense.
And i completely agree that everyone should question every bit of info they get and not blindly follow anything…particularly in the supplement and “fitness” world.

Thanks again.
-sv

84

[quote]wufwugy wrote:
now, im gonna sound like a stickler for pointing this out, but…

i think “what works for you may not work for others,” or “there are many different ways to skin a cat” or whatever commonly used maxims are misunderstood. there is only one way to skin a cat, fundamentally. it just looks like there are many ways. there is only one way for stuff to work, fundamentally. it just looks like there are more ways.

people think that because somebody is a genetic freak that some stuff works for them that doesn’t work for others. on the contrary, the same stuff works for freaks as it does for normies. it’s just a matter of degrees.

i point this out because people have been saying that PC/PF may work for some but not others. bull. PC/PF does not work via purported methods, bottom line. anybody who has ever lost weight or anybody who has ever gained weight have done them the only way possible, the same way as every other person who’s changed body composition. it just looks like they’re doing it differently, but the fundamentals never changed.

i guess i just want to say that it’s not that certain stuff works for certain people, but that the details make it look different but the fundamentals stay the same, and what works works to different degrees with different people.

‘what works for you may not work for me’ makes zero sense on the fundamental level. is there some light bulb out there that works via different mechanisms than other light bulbs of the same make/model? no. is there some tree that grows via different mechanism than other trees of the same species? no. apply the correct fundamentals and genetics/physics determines to what degree progress is effected.[/quote]

wuf,
Respect to your opinions of course, but i have to disagree with you on this.

I may be misunderstanding you, but it sounds like your saying everyone can follow the same nutrition plan and get the same result.

I do believe that different people need different things to achieve similar results.

There are food allergies, intolerances, sensitivities, different metabolisms etc. Some people can eat tons of pasta and potatos and be thin as a rail, some can eat it once a day and start ballooning up.

I understand your thought that more calories = more size, fewer calories=less size, and i agree with this simplificiation to a degree.

But i do feel that people’s genetic makeup, metabolism, insulin sensitivity, etc means that different people need different things.

apologies if i’m misunderstanding.

85

sven,

we humans are very, very physiolgically alike. the same stuff works for us. that is what i mean by fundamentals. but there are also genetic differences that affect progress or slight variances of how progress is achieved. this is what i mean by degrees. although, there are also greater genetic differences that debatably slightly change the funcdamentals, but those are very rare, and not on topic.

my point was simply that some stuff does not work, yet people will say that it does for some people.

i realize i was being kinda vague, but im also kinda burnt out on this thread.

86

Well to be honest, I’ve been questioning a lot about nutrient timing myself. For example, PWO nutrition. There seems to be a lot of evidence that it’s basically irrelevant, unless you’re defining PWO as anytime in the 24 hour period following a weights workout.

But wouldn’t you say that eating a diet that’s very clean, high in fibre, and spaced out over the course of the day would have a different effect on metabolism than eating a diet with the same number of calories, but mostly junk, once a day?

[quote]wufwugy wrote:
Jinx Me wrote:
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.

i know what you said, and i remember you agreeing with the majority of what i said.

i disagree with the nutrient timing stuff. why? for the same reasons that i disagree with anything in this thread.
[/quote]

87

There was absolutely no material information to this post.
I understand that all fundamentals are the same, but the differences aren’t just “details” in most cases. For example I know that my body respnds much better and makes better use of fats rather than of carbohydrates. I also have a friend who knows that their body sucks ass at using fats and relies completely on carbs (and protein of course). And we both have similar metabolisms, but our diets are VERY different in the previously stated way. Basically you were completely over simplifying things by saying the fundamentals are the same.

And no, its not just “Cals In vs. Cals Out”. Like I said, peoples bodies function completely different no matter how similar we are genetically.

88

Hi,

I am new to this site. I am confused, what do people think?

Some seem to think Massive Eating works, whilst others seem to dismiss it.

I put in my stats on the massive eating calculator and it says that I have to eat 6593 cals! Is this right?

I’m 230 lbs, 15% bf, have a construction job, do Intense Free weight training for 90 mins, low intensity running for 30 mins, and walk at low intensity to my workplace for about 30 minutes.

Am I doing this right?

I would have to practically eat all day to eat this many calories.

89

[quote]Doctor Z wrote:
Hi,

I am new to this site. I am confused, what do people think?

Some seem to think Massive Eating works, whilst others seem to dismiss it.

I put in my stats on the massive eating calculator and it says that I have to eat 6593 cals! Is this right?

I’m 230 lbs, 15% bf, have a construction job, do Intense Free weight training for 90 mins, low intensity running for 30 mins, and walk at low intensity to my workplace for about 30 minutes.

Am I doing this right?

I would have to practically eat all day to eat this many calories.[/quote]

i can understand how you’d be confused.

if you eat 6593 cals you’ll gain weight.

other than that, as much as i’d like to keep this going, i’d rather bow out of this thread. it’s been fun…

90

[quote]wufwugy wrote:
Doctor Z wrote:
Hi,

I am new to this site. I am confused, what do people think?

Some seem to think Massive Eating works, whilst others seem to dismiss it.

I put in my stats on the massive eating calculator and it says that I have to eat 6593 cals! Is this right?

I’m 230 lbs, 15% bf, have a construction job, do Intense Free weight training for 90 mins, low intensity running for 30 mins, and walk at low intensity to my workplace for about 30 minutes.

Am I doing this right?

I would have to practically eat all day to eat this many calories.

i can understand how you’d be confused.

if you eat 6593 cals you’ll gain weight.[/quote]

I’m not familiar with the exact calculations, but as far as I know, Massive Eating is about gaining weight. What are your goals?

91

I wonder if the original poster got his question answered in this thread…

:smiley:

92

[quote]michael2507 wrote:
wufwugy wrote:
Doctor Z wrote:
Hi,

I am new to this site. I am confused, what do people think?

Some seem to think Massive Eating works, whilst others seem to dismiss it.

I put in my stats on the massive eating calculator and it says that I have to eat 6593 cals! Is this right?

I’m 230 lbs, 15% bf, have a construction job, do Intense Free weight training for 90 mins, low intensity running for 30 mins, and walk at low intensity to my workplace for about 30 minutes.

Am I doing this right?

I would have to practically eat all day to eat this many calories.

i can understand how you’d be confused.

if you eat 6593 cals you’ll gain weight.

I’m not familiar with the exact calculations, but as far as I know, Massive Eating is about gaining weight. What are your goals?[/quote]

Hi Michael2507,

I’m trying to gain muscle, lose fat, and get stronger. I understand that this is possible using the principles, philosphies and lifestyle changes associated with Massive Eating and more recently Precision Nutrition. If I understand correctly, I can raise my metabolism by just eating alot of food (with slow weekly increments of say 250 - 500 kcal).

I am fascinated by this whole system of eating, but I just wanted to get some feedback as I am already fat enough and I don’t want to put on alot of fat.

Thanks,

Doctor Z

93

bump

94

[quote]Velvet Revolver wrote:
I dont get all boiled down in what to mix with what. I would stick to eating clean, that in itself is hard enough. I know plenty of lean people who mix carbs and fat. [/quote]

I agree with Velvet Revolver.
It’s alright to mix good fats and complex carbs that are high in fiber together,since 3-5 grams of fiber reduces the G.I. of foods by 50 %.( oatmeal and peanut butter).

Just don’t mix refined carbs(sugar) with a bunch of fat(candy bars, juice and icecream,sugar on your brownie,juice and peanut butter).

95

One thousand calories of apples,chicken breasts,fish and green vegetables is much different than one thousand calories of trans fat-filled junk food.Thats coming from experience.The first bulk I ever did was with nothing but steak and junk food.The steak was great,but the junk food wasn’t.
The second time I bulked with clean foods I didn’t gain much fat.
If no one believes that,then they can go on a diet with clean foods,then again with junk food.
They’ll notice a difference alright.

[quote]Jinx Me wrote:
Well to be honest, I’ve been questioning a lot about nutrient timing myself. For example, PWO nutrition. There seems to be a lot of evidence that it’s basically irrelevant, unless you’re defining PWO as anytime in the 24 hour period following a weights workout.

But wouldn’t you say that eating a diet that’s very clean, high in fibre, and spaced out over the course of the day would have a different effect on metabolism than eating a diet with the same number of calories, but mostly junk, once a day?

wufwugy wrote:
Jinx Me wrote:
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.

i know what you said, and i remember you agreeing with the majority of what i said.

i disagree with the nutrient timing stuff. why? for the same reasons that i disagree with anything in this thread.

[/quote]

96

Bump.

What a phenomenal thread. Nice to see an honest discussion as opposed to the usual ass-kissing around here.

97

[quote]futuredave wrote:
Bump.

What a phenomenal thread. Nice to see an honest discussion as opposed to the usual ass-kissing around here.[/quote]

Agreed, i just wish the topic of nutrient timing in relation to PC/PF was discussed… I have been wondering about how are bodies “dont handle carbs well at night” …

98

[quote]Cthulhu wrote:
Fat will only be stored if there is fat present. Malonyl -CoA exists in high amounts when there is plenty of metabolic fuel present. Thus, carnitine acyltransferase is inhibited and
this in turn prevents acyl-CoA from crossing into the cell?s mitochondria. Another enzyme is inhibited by the presence of NADH and Thiolase is also inhibited by the presence of Acetyl-COA. In short, when a lot of glucose is present, fatty acid metabolism is inhibited.

It is the last sentence that clues us in here. Basically, a cell will not convert fats into energy if there is glucose present. When the cell has carbs and sugar to work on, it will not convert the fat to energy, thus the fat gets stored.

This is why the low carb diets work, with little to zero carbohydrates and
subsequently glucose to work on, the fat will be used for energy. This is exactly why the high carb diet works too. When no or little fat is present, it won’t be stored as fat.

In addition to this, it is important to realize that it costs the body quite a bit of energy to take carbs and store them as fat. This alone is actually a positive. There really needs to be some form of fat present to make it easier.

[/quote]

You seem to be very knowledgeable about human metabolism so I have a question. If you’re low-carb dieting and carbs are extremely low and your body is well into ketosis then if you were to run say sprints or engage in another anaerobic activity would gluconeogenesis occur on amino acids and possibly muscle tissue? I know at the upper end of anaerobic intensity carbohydrates and glycogen is almost 100% of your body energy source and fatty acid oxidation can keep up at those intensites. So therefore would you use protein and perhaps muscle tissue broken in amino acids as energy? If so then it only makes sense to engage in long duration aerobics on restricted carbs and any high intensity cardio would be detremental.

99

Is this thread back to life?

While it attempted to present itself as a nice discussion of the topic, it wasn’t, plain and simple.

Most of the world understands the issues surrounding insulin, insulin resistance, refined carbs and how they play a large role in various metabolic processes.

Playing the cals in/cals out oversimplificaton on this topic is just annoying.

Can we let this TSB die already?

100

[quote]vroom wrote:
Can we let this TSB die already?[/quote]

Bump.

Ha ha!