Challenging current nutritional notions

[andersons]

Hi again Buff, I’m not sure I follow all of your logic in your last post. But here are a couple points to consider:

---

" ‘Since protein foods have double the thermic effect of food verses carbohydrates or fats, it should be obvious that the metabolic rate will be higher when more protein is consumed. Again, functionally, a calorie is not a calorie!’

“Agreed! But that’s about the only thing i believe in.”

I’m curious why you believe in the thermogenic effect of protein, but not that fat is stored in the presence of elevated insulin. ?

---

" ‘When low glycemic carb diets are compared to high glycemic carb diets, it’s clear that the groups of individuals eating mostly high glycemic carbs have higher body fat percentages, higher fasting glucose and insulin levels, and have higher risks for cardiovascular disease.’

“Maybe people that eat high GI carbs simply eat more calories because they’re hungry faster? This is an argument for ‘a food is not a food’, not for ‘a calorie is not a calorie’.”

If high GI carbs were fattening only by increasing hunger, that alone would be a compelling reason to avoid them.

You quoted a description of a study. Unless the study was pathetically flawed, which I doubt, the researchers who designed it and analyzed the data knew how to account for effects of other variables. Calories from carbs would have to be constant for both groups (if it were an experiment), or accounted for with statistical regression analysis (if it were an observational study), making it a direct test of your donuts-vs-veggies hypothesis.

---

I’m not following Berardi’s exact dietary recommendations right now, but I enjoy reading his articles because 1) he is doing Ph.D.-caliber research and therefore is current on the latest findings of controlled research, and 2) he apparently designs effective programs for people in the real world. This combination is, in my mind, superior information, particularly compared to much of the other nutrition advice I’ve read over the years.

Berardi described one client who changed only food choices, leaving macronutrient calories the same, and started losing fat where he was formerly stalled. It’s evident from reading the forums that many others have followed his diets successfully. And finally, in my personal experience I have experimented with how much “bad” carbs I can eat and still lose fat; and for me there’s no comparison between broccoli and donuts.

If you can eat donuts and the like as your carb choices and still lose fat, I’d love to hear about your experiences in my “Consistently lean?” post.

Also, I have no problem with your questioning Berardi’s assertions, and I don’t think I flamed you.

[system]

buff bastard,

i will definitely agree that berardi’s stuff is often taken as gospel even though there is no proof for some of it. not to say that it doesn’t work. but usually other methods of nutrition are overlooked.

everyone here thinks that a post-workout shake of sugar is needed. I’m on a gaining cycle following the anabolic diet of di pasquale, and i feel great, workouts are great, and i’m up 2 lbs in a week (weighed at same time…monday morning, post-piss). gained 1/8" on my biceps, which corresponds to the 2 lbs pretty well. but the point is, i’m doing great without sugar drinks…something many people think is an absolute must. i’m also not getting all sorts of carbs during the week, either…something people also seem to think is needed for bulking for the most part.

now, this IS just me, but it shows that other stuff can work, too.

[Kinetix]

BB,

I’m not exactly sure what it is you are questioning here.

If you are purely interested in defying the “Berardi or nothing” mentality that is sometimes expressed in the forums then I fully support you. I don’t believe that separating carbs and fats is absolutely necessary for everyone. I personally don’t use this strategy on myself or with my clients.

However, it appears you are arguing two things. Can you eat fat with carbs and can you eat “unclean” foods and lose fat. I think these two questions need to be addressed separately.

[Dan_McVicker]

A simple test:

Go on a maintainance diet of crap for four weeks.

Go on a clean maintannace diet for four weeks.

Change nothing else.

Measure body composition.

You be the judge.

Dan “Theory works. IN THEORY.” McVicker

[ngorevic]

Ok, I’m nowhere close to an expert on this insulin/fat loss stuff, but I think you hit on it when you were talking about a food not being a food. There’s something that I’ve read about (not on t-mag) the insulin cycle created by high GI refined foods where at the end of the cycle, it makes you hungry again, and for more of the same types of food, so you end up eating a ton of calories. I’ve long ago forgotten the scientific process that causes that, but I was watching a special on dieting on the discovery channel a while ago that made it really make sense to me. I was prepared for the special to be filled with the usual mainstream ignorance, but the doctor running the show was actually right on target.

The way he explained it was that we eat all these foods that have very little actual nutrients in them because we refine them all out, making them “unclean”. He said that the body is not getting the vitamins and phytochemicals it wants (among other sciencey sounding things), so the body tells itself to eat more, hoping that you will eat something that gives you those nutrients. The more you eat the stuff that doesn’t have those nutrients, the more your body keeps telling you to eat, and the fatter you get, which falls in line with your caloric intake theory. So the idea is to eat food that don’t initiate that cycle. It makes a lot of sense really, when the body doesn’t get the right nutrients, it saps its energy (slows the metabolism) and makes it burn less fat. I’m all for science, but sometimes I think people make it a little more complicated than it needs to be.

As far as the whole P+F thing goes, I don’t think berardi really invented it. When swolecat was on here, he basically preached the same thing, right? I think it’s really more of the type of diet that top bodybuilders do to cut before a competition, and it’s been around for a long time. But me personally, I don’t bother. It’s just way too much of a pain in the ass, and I lose enough fat to satisfy me by eating lots of clean foods and especially omega 3’s.

Way to question the powers that be! We need more of that around here…

Nick

[Buff_Bastard]

andersons wrote:

You noted that the key factor differentiating donuts and veggies is insulin release. 500 calories of donut is gonna raise insulin a lot higher than 500 calories of veggies (assuming someone would even eat 500 calories of veggies). According to your reasoning, even if someone stored some fat in this elevated-insulin condition, he could just burn it off later. Storing and then burning off later would equal maintenance, though, not fat loss.

It’s about input vs. output. Energy is stored after a meal, but energy is retrieved throughout the day also. If it’s a hypocaloric diet, than more energy is retrieved than stored.

If you want to lose fat, it’s a heck of a lot better to use up the calories you eat when you eat them, and not to store them and burn them off later. After consuming veggies, since you have lower levels of blood sugar and insulin, you are more likely to be able to use all the blood sugar produced by the meal for immediate energy needs and muscle cells. Then you will never have to store, and then later liberate, those 500 calories.

Why is this better? You simply burn an X amount of calories in Y time. What does it matter where those X calories come from? Why is it better for those X calories to come directly from the intestines as opposed to from adipose tissue? Those same X calories are burned in the same timespan, no matter where those calories come from, right?

For people wanting to lose fat, the last thing in the world they need is to store more. They have already been storing more than they need.

When you eat, you always store energy, be it in the digestive track, the liver, the muscles, the blood or the adipose tissue. Once you put the food in your mouth it’s ‘inside the system’. In which of the many ‘buckets’ (digestive track, liver, muscles, blood, adipose tissue) of the system it is put isn’t relevant. You still burn the same amount of calories in a certain timespan, no matter where the calories come from.

If you want to lose fat, and therefore avoid storing fat, you want the blood sugar produced by your meals to be close to the amount your muscles (and other energy users, like your brain) can use at the time the sugar hits the bloodstream. Less than that amount, in fact, to create an energy deficit, and certainly not more.

Digestive track → usage
Digestive track → adipocyte → usage
I don’t see the problem. I could even argue that first storing and later retrieving it would burn more energy and thus be beneficial to fatloss

And that’s where the importance of insulin sensitivity comes in; it determines how much sugar your muscles can take in, which is limited at any given time.

I don’t think insulin sensitivity determines the maximum amount of glycogen that can be stored in the muscles. Doesn’t the amount of muscle mass determine maximum muscle glycogen? (And maybe the state of glycogen depletion, if a muscle is severely depleted, it can be supercompensated, i believe.)

The more sugar your muscles can use, the higher your levels of blood sugar and insulin can be before fat storage occurs.

Why do you assume all carbs are stored as glycogen first and that fat storage only occurs if glycogen stores are topped? I’m not sure if this is the case. Can anybody shed some light on this?

I’m curious why you believe in the thermogenic effect of protein, but not that fat is stored in the presence of elevated insulin. ?

I never denied that. Insulin facilitates store of macro nutrients, that’s what it is for. But i don’t understand why high insulin levels would make all energy go into adipose tissue. Insulin is used in storage as glycogen as well. Insulin is needed to quickly store alot of glucose as glycogen.

If high GI carbs were fattening only by increasing hunger, that alone would be a compelling reason to avoid them.

Agreed. But not all people have this (in fact, i think healthy, not overweight, regular exercising people shouldn’t, and usually don’t, have this). But if they do, than avoiding them would be smart, i agree. Although the psychological advantage of eating ‘unclean’ high GI carbs might outweigh the temporarily increased hunger.

You quoted a description of a study. Unless the study was pathetically flawed, which I doubt, the researchers who designed it and analyzed the data knew how to account for effects of other variables. Calories from carbs would have to be constant for both groups (if it were an experiment), or accounted for with statistical regression analysis (if it were an observational study), making it a direct test of your donuts-vs-veggies hypothesis.

Calories from carbs were the same, just the kind of carbs were different. And apparently those who consumed ‘cleaner’ carbs indeed lost more weight. But i still don’t exactly understand why. I doubt this is even known in detail. I bet you could find studies that ‘prove’ the opposite. Maybe i’ll do a search for them.

If you can eat donuts and the like as your carb choices and still lose fat, I’d love to hear about your experiences in my “Consistently lean?” post.

My experiance is that i can eat ‘crappy’ food and still loose weight. There were times i ate ice cream, popcorn and white bread in decent amounts on a daily basis and still lost weight, with no exercise and it wasn’t a starvation diet either. But today i started a totally clean, somewhat low carb (168 grams, from ‘clean’ sources) diet, so ask me in a few weeks if i loose weight much faster now. I’m not all-knowing ;), so i thought i’d just try it and see for myself if there really is a truth (for me) to eating only ‘clean’ food and cutting back on carbs. We’ll see.

Also, I have no problem with your questioning Berardi’s assertions, and I don’t think I flamed you.

True, you didn’t.

[Phill]

Buff,

My experiance is that i can eat ‘crappy’ food and still loose weight. There were times i ate ice cream, popcorn and white bread in decent amounts on a daily basis and still lost weight, with no exercise and it wasn’t a starvation diet either. But today i started a totally clean, somewhat low carb (168 grams, from ‘clean’ sources) diet, so ask me in a few weeks if i loose weight much faster now. I’m not all-knowing ;), so i thought i’d just try it and see for myself if there really is a truth (for me) to eating only ‘clean’ food and cutting back on carbs. We’ll see.

I think you have hit it on the head with the above post. As with all other aspects of training and diet this is very individual. The fact is that everyone reacts differently to what they consume, and how much they consume.

For example if I follow massine eating calculations to a T, the k/cal amounts and food partitioning I flat out gain to much weight from fat compared to lbm. But if I lower the carbs or k/cals I can get the results I want.

I do think that this thread could be very helpfull in the long run. It seems that many on this forumn follow Berardi’s P+C/P+F guidlines as gospel, as the end all be all of dieting. Fact is this is false. That being said, without taking anything from Berardi, and his nutritional theories, this just being one of them. From what I have read, and seems to be over looked by many, is that in several of his past articles he has stated that these guidlines are not, and should not be employed all the time. He came about these theories through experimentation on finding a way to pack on LBM, with minimal fat gain. It worked for him and some of his clients, so he shared this with the T nation (many thanks by the way). He didnt know that so many ppl would take it as far as they have. He has stated these guidlines are to be employed as just a single tool in the many we use in our fight for a superior state of nutrition and fitness.

[Phill]

I just wanted to add that I dont think it is bad to follow the P+F/P+C guidlines all the time. Fact is it works for both bulking and dieting depending on how it is tweaked, and is a very healthy way to eat.

Many find it much easier to stick to a single successful plan, like this one, full time instead of changing it up. Nothing wrong with that, just realize it isn’t the only way.

I also dont think it is bad to preach these guidlines to newbies, etc. asking for diet help. Once again, the plan works and they can benefit from using it. People are going to teach what they know, and with so many of us following these guidlines with success, this is what we know.

[system]

oh… now this topic is getting exciting- first one to start throwing insults has to eat his/her bodyweight of krispy kremes in one sitting…
(we don’t have Krispy Kremes in the UK either

A while ago Paul Chek brought out a load of videos basically saying here’s a tool for core function. Like many others I sat and watched them and pointed at the screen dribbling and squeaking “oh my god that’s sh*t cool! (but paul your choice of training shoes sucks ass)”

fast forward a few years and you get a paul chek/ core function backlash about how it doesn’t relate to athlete X or Y.

…But I don’t think Mr Chek was ever saying it was the one-stop-solution to everyone’s training, it’s just another tool in your arsenal.

can I now draw parallels between what happened with the above, and what has happened with some of the nutrition advice that has been presented here in T-Mag…

Bull

[yorik]

I had to throw 2 cents in too…

In which of the many ‘buckets’ (digestive track, liver, muscles, blood, adipose tissue) of the system it [energy] is put isn’t relevant.

On the contrary it is VERY important.

The body has several energy mechanisms, and fat metabolism is the last one to be used. In order, they are 1) stored ATP, 2) phospate-creatine stores, 3) anaerobic glycolysis, 4) lactic acid conversion, 5) aerobic glycolysis, and 6) fatty acid metabolism. If you never get all the way to step six, then fat is never “burned.” Fat is never utilized until the other stores are exhausted and lipolysis can take place.

Why do you assume all carbs are stored as glycogen first and that fat storage only occurs if glycogen stores are topped? I’m not sure if this is the case.

It’s not always the case. It depends on many factors.

We make a big deal about insulin, but in fact some people consider insulin to be an “emergency” hormone when blood sugar is too high. (see www.mercola.com and search on insulin.) Ideally you would need little or no insulin release (yes, that’s an over simplification.) The sole purpose of insulin is to lower blood sugar. It does this by 1) driving blood sugar into the cells that need it and 2) storing fat. Cells can only use so much blood sugar at a time; glycogen stores are only so big. If high levels of insulin constantly push blood sugar into cells, the cells fight back and reduce the number of glucose transporters on their cell membranes, becoming insulin resistant.

Fat storage is a last ditch effort to bring down blood sugar. Fat storage continues as long as insulin is present, regardless of what else is going on, even while glycogen storage is going on also. If “good” mechanisms lower the blood sugar faster, then less fat storage will occur. If the cell is insulin resistant, then mostly fat storage takes place. If you’re insulin resistant, then fat storage is the primary means of lowering blood sugar.

Finally there’s a common misconception that when you exercise your muscles will suck fat out of the adipocytes. Wrong! There is no direct connection between fat storage and energy expenditure; the connection is very indirect. The muscle cells extract triglycerides from the blood stream for energy, period. If you run low on triglycerides, you’re out of luck. The body has a set point for the triglyceride level, and maintains it via a separate control system. The fat cells are triggered to convert fat into triglycerides for release into the blood stream by the current concentration in the blood. The adipocytes have no idea how much exercise is going on.

What does this have to do with eating cleanly? 1) Eating “clean” discourages insulin release. It also discourages future insulin resistance. 2) Eating “clean” eliminates certain bad nutrients that interfere with the energy mechanisms and lipolysis.

At one time in my early 20’s I could eat anything and look good. Now that I’m older I’m suffering the consequences of our modern crappy diet.

It took me a couple of weeks to research this a while back and I’m sure somebody will correct me if I got it wrong.

[Buff_Bastard]

Good post, yorik! But i’m not sure i agree with/understand everything.

yorik wrote:

The body has several energy mechanisms, and fat metabolism is the last one to be used. In order, they are 1) stored ATP, 2) phospate-creatine stores, 3) anaerobic glycolysis, 4) lactic acid conversion, 5) aerobic glycolysis, and 6) fatty acid metabolism. If you never get all the way to step six, then fat is never “burned.” Fat is never utilized until the other stores are exhausted and lipolysis can take place.

Step 6 is ALWAYS reached on a hypocaloric diet. Otherwise it wouldn’t be a hypocaloric diet. If you eat less carbs (and protein (gluconeogenesis)) and more fat, step 6 is reached sooner, but the body will simply burn the dietary fat first, so lipolysis doesn’t occur sooner.

The sole purpose of insulin is to lower blood sugar. It does this by 1) driving blood sugar into the cells that need it and 2) storing fat.

And to stimulate glycogen synthesis.

Fat storage is a last ditch effort to bring down blood sugar.

So eating insulinogenic carbs (not just PWO) wouldn’t lead to much storage as adipose tissue as long as the amount totally fits in the muscles and liver as glycogen?

If the cell is insulin resistant, then mostly fat storage takes place. If you’re insulin resistant, then fat storage is the primary means of lowering blood sugar.

Why would only adipose tissue become insulin resistant and not the muscles?

Finally there’s a common misconception that when you exercise your muscles will suck fat out of the adipocytes. Wrong! There is no direct connection between fat storage and energy expenditure; the connection is very indirect. The muscle cells extract triglycerides from the blood stream for energy, period. If you run low on triglycerides, you’re out of luck.

Wouldn’t the body (liver? brain?) sense this low level of triglycerides in the blood and begin lipolysis? If you exercise the triglycerides are cleared (burned) faster from the bloodstream and so lipolysis continues.

2. Eating “clean” eliminates certain bad nutrients that interfere with the energy mechanisms and lipolysis.

Like what?

Correct me if i’m wrong (but that goes without saying).

[anon37909890]

Before all of this P+F & P+C meals following what did athletes do??? Nolan Ryan threw in the 100’s, Jim Brown would run people over, MJ would take anybody anytime, Wayne had his way with the entire league. I know MJ’s pre game meal before every game was a steak, baked potato and some veggies. He had this before every game. Its all individual. Its what your body responds to. You’ll never know what works unless you give it a real try. I tried the P+F/P+C diet and it didnt work for me. I feel much better physically eating a lower fat diet and having a little bit of P+C+F’s at every meal. When our country sends our men out into war do they worry or have ever worried about not having carbs in one meal and fats in another? Arnold’s body in pumping iron was one of the most amazingly proportioned bodies I have ever seen and I can bet he never split up carbs and fats.

Certain diets work for certain people and won’t work for others. Your life and lifestyle are to different from everyone elses to take any diet as law and say it will work for someone else. For me its everything in moderaion, except protein, works best for me.

[system]

buff bastard,

i’m gonna give my little explanation of why a clean healthy diet is something important, especially for elite atheletes. this is just my opinion, but i’m sure many will agree.

in order to maximize gains and performance, the body has to be healthy and working properly.

there are several clear examples:

if the adrenals are fatigued, we all know that it becomes harder (if not impossible) to lose fat and gain muscle.

adrenals can be stressed through diet. one good example is high intake of sugar. a high intake of sugar is stressful to the adrenals, and overconsumption can lead to adrenal fatigue. also, the intake of sugar inhibits the secretion of HCl in the stomach. this can further lead to adrenal fatigue as poor digestion stresses the adrenals as well.

as mentioned above, poor digestion can stress the adrenals. if you eat foods that have lots of preservatives, unatrual ingredients, etc, then that alone can harm digestion. a diet lacking nutrients also hinders digestion, as nutrients are needed for assimilation of nutrients, both micro and macro. also, there are certain foods that contain antinutrients and enzyme inhibitors that inhibit digestion. soy is a good example (if not properly prepared like in japan).

really, in short, if all bodily systems are not functioning correctly, maximum gains will not be reached.

look at junk food as essentially a mild poison. you can have a little and it won’t do anything, but the more you take, the more lethal it becomes. of course, junk food isn’t that deadly, but it does slowly kill you.

[system]

" Arnold’s body in pumping iron was one of the most amazingly proportioned bodies I have ever seen and I can bet he never split up carbs and fats."

he also drank a lot, did drugs, and partied hard…

[yorik]

Now we’re getting into some good questions, but I’m not sure I can answer them all.

Step 6 is ALWAYS reached on a hypocaloric diet. Otherwise it wouldn’t be a hypocaloric diet. If you eat less carbs (and protein (gluconeogenesis)) and more fat, step 6 is reached sooner, but the body will simply burn the dietary fat first, so lipolysis doesn’t occur sooner.

I left out gluconeogenesis, which is the breakdown of protein to form glucose. You might consider this a step 7 when lipolysis simply cannot occur fast enough. If insulin is really high and you’re not responding to insulin due to resistance, lipolysis cannot occur. Insulin suppresses glucagon which is necessary for fat release. You might be breaking down muscle protein if you can’t release the fat fast enough.

So eating insulinogenic carbs (not just PWO) wouldn’t lead to much storage as adipose tissue as long as the amount totally fits in the muscles and liver as glycogen?

Remember that the storage process is somewhat independent from the utilization process with insulin. They all occur at the same time (depending upon other undiscussed hormones which are out of my limited expertise), so some small amount of fat might be stored in response to insulin. It depends on which mechanism works the fastest. Even ol’ Berardi himself backs off somewhat from his recommendation for an insulin spike when obese people are involved.

Why would only adipose tissue become insulin resistant and not the muscles?

Actually, insulin resistance affects first the liver, then muscles cells and very late in the game, adipocytes (fat cells.) What happens is that when the muscles can’t take up the blood glucose due to insulin resistance, the adipocytes are left to do the majority of the job.

Wouldn’t the body (liver? brain?) sense this low level of triglycerides in the blood and begin lipolysis? If you exercise the triglycerides are cleared (burned) faster from the bloodstream and so lipolysis continues.

That’s what is supposed to happen when you are young and healthy. Continual “dirty” eating, after several years, will affect the liver as it tries to process the saturated fat and trans fats, plus it loses sensitivity to blood glucose levels itself. Eventually, it doesn’t respond to the triggers to produce glucagon.

[quote]Eating “clean” eliminates certain bad nutrients that interfere with the energy mechanisms and lipolysis.
Like what? [/quote]

OK, you got me there. I couldn’t identify any specific biochemical reactions from “dirty” eating. On the other hand, saturated fat and transfats are implicated in insulin resistance, but I couldn’t find the mechanism by which they do it. Maybe somebody else can contribute examples.

So instead let’s examine some examples from “dirty” eating. Usually “dirty” is associated with high saturated fat, high trans-fat and high insulinemic carbs, your average Krispy Kreme for example. Besides causing long-term insulin resistance, high insulin suppresses glucagon (fat releasing hormone) and growth hormone, prevents magnesium storage and interferes with nitric oxide (meaning high blood pressure and no erections if it gets out of hand in the long term.) The saturated fats are implicated in insulin resistance.

A significant problem is the lack of the omega-3 fats in an “dirty” diet. The benefits of omega-3s include an increase in fat oxidizing enzymes, improved cell membrane lipid profiles and more glucose transporters (better insulin sensitvity) and the inhibition of acetyl CoA, which is used for fat synthesis. In order to get the omega-3s and reduce the transfats, you almost have to eat “clean.”

There are a lot of other factors involved, like oxidative stress, which I know nothing about. This is just one dimension of the problem.

The bottom line is this: occasionally eating “dirty” won’t hurt you. You might not even notice any problems in the short term from constant “dirty” eating. The effects WILL be there in the long term if you can think that far ahead.

[system]

i’m amazed that people are still saying that saturated fat is part of “dirty” eating.

dumping saturated fat for unsaturated is a good way to reduce testosterone levels, and i think we all know the consequences of lowered T.

eat your steak and bask in the glory of real food!

[TenByson]

these posts are too long.

[yorik]

You’re absolutely right. Just saying “saturated fat is bad” is a gross oversimplification. It depends on the kind of saturated fat. Heck, we all know nowadays that coconut oil is a pretty damn good fat, and it’s saturated.

Maybe we can say “hydrogenated fats are bad”?

Of course, without simplications, these posts would be even longer.

[system]

“Of course, without simplications, these posts would be even longer.”

haha, true!

but yeah, i would agree that trans fats are bad for sure.

[TenByson]

what’s the diff between trans fats and saturated fats, structurally speaking.