John Berardi Carbs, and Energy Demands - Help.

Nutrition
21

I’ve used the P+C/P+F idea before and honestly I noticed I gained more fat when I was having 100+g carbs in several meals with trace fat (and vice versa) than when I combine fat and carbs more evenly in a meal.

For instance, I used to wake up and have a huge smoothie than had at least 150g carbs in it with almost no fat. These days I prefer to have an omelet with whole eggs, veggies, and some sort of meat, and then some fruit mixed into some oatmeal. Works like a charm.

Like others have mentioned, the issue with combining fat and carbs comes up when you have a large insulin spike in the presence of fat, not so much when you have a slower source of each, both in more moderate quantities. At least that’s what I’ve noticed with experimenting on my own body.

That being said, I make an exception around my workouts.

22

I don’t think the whole preworkout nutrition thing is exactly brand new. In Black Book of Training Secrets, CT recommended a serving of Surge before and after training.

Shugart had his double dosing Surge protocol. The Nutrient Timing guys recommended some carbs and protein before workouts.

CT and Biotest took it way beyond and maximized preworkout nutrition. I like to go with some before and some after, is working out great for me.

I agree with BlakedaMan’s statement about p+c/f is more about insulin management. I still seperate to a degree, but I don’t really eat many heavy carb sources anyway. I mite mix some at breakfast, say eggs, vege, meat and some fats. then thirty mins later, oatmeal, whey, and berries. So still kind of seperated.

Also eat a lot of beans throughout the day and don’t really worry about them being a carb. Also, they help you stretch the meat when the budget is tight. Really helped me when i was in college or sometimes right before payday.

23

[quote]BlakedaMan wrote:
I’ve used the P+C/P+F idea before and honestly I noticed I gained more fat when I was having 100+g carbs in several meals with trace fat (and vice versa) than when I combine fat and carbs more evenly in a meal.

For instance, I used to wake up and have a huge smoothie than had at least 150g carbs in it with almost no fat. These days I prefer to have an omelet with whole eggs, veggies, and some sort of meat, and then some fruit mixed into some oatmeal. Works like a charm.

Like others have mentioned, the issue with combining fat and carbs comes up when you have a large insulin spike in the presence of fat, not so much when you have a slower source of each, both in more moderate quantities. At least that’s what I’ve noticed with experimenting on my own body.

That being said, I make an exception around my workouts. [/quote]

Yeah, but if you dropped 100g carbs from each day, you essentially started eating 400 calories LESS than before, unless you replaced those calories with another macro source. I would assume that eating 100g protein (instead of the 100g carbs) would have less impact on body composition because up to 30% of protein is supposedly used up to metabolize it.

Again, I think in many cases people will “notice” an effect of a nutrition strategy but the effect may or may not be directly due to what they were concerned with. In your case, if 100g less carbs means you started eating 400 cals less and did NOT replace those calories, then you were eating less calories. Simple.

24

Would a ratio of 30/45/25 be superior to the one CT laid out in his article Carb Cycling Codex?

According to his calculation system for bulking my ratios worked out to be ~30/35/35 on a high day with fats going as high as 45% on a low day.

Should i just shift more calories to carbs? or better yet just push my protein intake up to 1.75g/lb and then adjust my carbs/fats based off that?

25

Well CT is talking about carb cycling while a general macro ratio is an everyday thing. Superior depends on your bodytype and what your goals are. If you are looking to carb cycle then go for it and not tinker with what CT has laid out.

But on a day to day basis, 30/45/25 is a pretty decent way to go.

26

The breakfast changes were just an example. I combine all of my meals, and since I moved to using CT’s original workout nutrition from simply taking in 3 scoops SR post-workout, my calories are at the very least 500 higher than before. So basically, I maintained the same macro breakdown, but simply spread it out evenly throughout meals rather than breaking up carbs and fat, and the additional calories come from a change in workout nutrition.

Let me reiterate though that I only noticed increased fat gains when my carb meals were pushing 150g carbs and fat meals 40-50g of fat (I have a really high metabolism unfortunately!). So for me, it works better that I have a bunch of meals with 50-75g carbs and 15-30g fat.

[quote]PonceDeLeon wrote:

[quote]BlakedaMan wrote:
I’ve used the P+C/P+F idea before and honestly I noticed I gained more fat when I was having 100+g carbs in several meals with trace fat (and vice versa) than when I combine fat and carbs more evenly in a meal.

For instance, I used to wake up and have a huge smoothie than had at least 150g carbs in it with almost no fat. These days I prefer to have an omelet with whole eggs, veggies, and some sort of meat, and then some fruit mixed into some oatmeal. Works like a charm.

Like others have mentioned, the issue with combining fat and carbs comes up when you have a large insulin spike in the presence of fat, not so much when you have a slower source of each, both in more moderate quantities. At least that’s what I’ve noticed with experimenting on my own body.

That being said, I make an exception around my workouts. [/quote]

Yeah, but if you dropped 100g carbs from each day, you essentially started eating 400 calories LESS than before, unless you replaced those calories with another macro source. I would assume that eating 100g protein (instead of the 100g carbs) would have less impact on body composition because up to 30% of protein is supposedly used up to metabolize it.

Again, I think in many cases people will “notice” an effect of a nutrition strategy but the effect may or may not be directly due to what they were concerned with. In your case, if 100g less carbs means you started eating 400 cals less and did NOT replace those calories, then you were eating less calories. Simple.[/quote]

27

[quote]mch60360 wrote:
Well CT is talking about carb cycling while a general macro ratio is an everyday thing. Superior depends on your bodytype and what your goals are. If you are looking to carb cycle then go for it and not tinker with what CT has laid out.

But on a day to day basis, 30/45/25 is a pretty decent way to go. [/quote]

Ive used carb cycling before for leaning out and it has worked extremely well for me.
When it comes to gaining muscle I havent fluctuated my intakes based on workout and nonworkout days, I would eat x amount of food every day regardless.

CT’s plan is pretty simple, I just think im going to go with 2g/lb protein instead of 1.5g/lb

28

[quote]PonceDeLeon wrote:
Berardi incorrectly based the whole F+C thing on the idea that insulin would store excess carbs as fat. It doesn’t really work that way.

Unless you have a HUGE surpless of calories (surplus = way over maintenance) your body will not store a macro (one that is not fat) as fat. Look up De Novo Lipogenesis.

Now, calorically dense foods are usually C+F (usually, this is junk food) and people tend to overeat these foods because they taste good and are readily available, so by those virtues it is easy to get an excess of calories. So, when you are finally in the “excess” category of calorie consumption, that’s when C+F foods are “dangerous.”

Otherwise, don’t worry about it. Berardi has been wrong about a few things (not bashing his knowledge or his products) but so have been a lot of gurus: Waterbury, Poliquin, even CT. Sometimes they even parrot what another guru says - without verifying the research themselves - and later retract their own words because that original guru was flat wrong (e.g., the whole C+F macro combination thing).

In short: hit your protein goal and worry about your “excess” cals (if you’re bulking) in the form of peri-workout (that’s peri-, not para-, guys) nutrition. Is it that easy? Yes.

PM me your email address and I’ll send you a few good articles.[/quote]

That’s not what he based it on. He based it on the belief that fat in the blood in the presence of insulin, secreted into the blood because of carb consumption, can cause this fat to be taken up by fat cells.

And the thing you said above IS true. EXCESS carbs make people fat and insulin is secreted after carb consumption.

The criticism of the scheme is that fatty acids are taken up by fat cells in the absence of insulin.

29

Am I the only one who has to cut WAAAYYY back on Berardi’s caloric recommendations in order to make sure that I don’t add a ton of fat?

Is anyone able to actually eat his recommended number of calories?

30

[quote]NZ RABBIT wrote:
has anyone seen if Berardi has made any comments in regards to the recent pre-training carbs recommendation as opposed to post-training as he has advised for years?[/quote]

When asked his thoughts, he referenced this article: www.johnberardi.com/articles/qa/afc/afc_sep212001.htm in his forum, precisionnutrition. He also listed how his current pre/peri/post supp routine.

31

What I find ironic is the people who fuss over carbs and insulin response are the same ones trying to use the Schrodinger equation to set up their meals as P+C and P+F, when the overall blood sugar response of a meal is likely LOWER if carbs are added to a P+F meal or fats added to a P+C meal.

Also, no author has ever addressed the scenario of eating below maintenance (say, 20-30% below) AND eating carbs when glycogen stores are supposedly full. Does the body still put on fat? I don’t think so but am not sure.

32

[quote]PonceDeLeon wrote:

Also, no author has ever addressed the scenario of eating below maintenance (say, 20-30% below) AND eating carbs when glycogen stores are supposedly full. Does the body still put on fat? I don’t think so but am not sure.[/quote]

Why would you put on fat in a 25% caloric deficit? Even if the carbs caused you to put on fat you’d burn it off anyways…