[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
DeadlySting81 wrote:
Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
And let’s not forget about beans and legumes that are also very good choices.
Given the fact beans contain anti-nutrients and are not always digested that easily by some people, would the main thing making them a “better” choice than grains in all but the most carb-tolerant be the fact they’d spike blood sugar far less than grains?
Where would you place sweet poatatoes and yams in the pecking order after fruits and fibrous veggies? Would you rather see a person choose beans first and only then go to sweet potatoes or yams?
Here is what I consider to be the order of carb sources that are ideal for body comp.
non-green veggies, but no starch (yams, potatoes)
berries
fruits with a low glycemic index
other fruits
yams or potatoes, but only post-workout
legumes and beans in moderation
grains (the most ‘‘natural’’ ones)
other grains (if you have no choice)
pasta
sugar/junk[/quote]
Mr. Thibaudeau,
I know, or am lead to believe, that quinoa is not a true grain although typically classified as one. Would you still include it in the grains category (#7)? And if so would it be a good first choice if choosing to incorporate “grains” into the diet? I hope this hasn’t been covered, if so I apologize for missing it.
[quote]pumped340 wrote:
Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
Not true. But you can believe what you want, I don’t care either way!
Fruits:
have more micronutrients and phytonutrients than grains and other complex carbs. These have a myriad of health benefits
are easier to digest. This is especially true of grains which are highly allergenic. And if it hads gluten, it’s even worse. Gluten can change the shape of the digestige mucosa which decreases OVERALL (all nutrients) absorption.
grains are acid-promoting which can be negative for several metabolic processes including fat loss, energy production and muscle growth.
i am not trying to just believe whatever i want, i am just trying to understand the reasoning behind your statements. my main concern is not necessarily with the health aspect, but more so its affect on muscle and fat gain.
I see that acid promoting is bad and fruits have high health benefits but what about minimizing fat gain? again i am not trying to not believe you, it’s just that the article i posted explained exactly why fruit can cause the liver glycogen to fill up and cause fat gain easier than good complex carbs.
After doing the ws4sb program for a while i would like to change to a program that rotates acclumation and intensification phases every 3 weeks, and i believe you wrote an article on this topic a while back but i can’t seem to locate it…do you recall which article this might be? Thanks for all the info you provide on here its great stuff
Hey CT, I saw before that you said for a lean individual to get ripped, a targeted carbs diet to lose fat is what u prefer. Would this just entail eating a low carbs diet while having 1 serving of Surge PWO?
lol that first statement made me laugh. i agree to a point, but it was just funny.
thanks for that article, about fructose not raising insulin much i heard that was because it can go into the liver without insulin then be converted to fat and put back into the blood stream which is the only reason it has a low GI
hm i havent heard much about the “fruit debate” in awhile
Coach,
this is something i’ve been thinking about that i’d really appreciate some recommendation to if you can. I’m going to harvard for a month this summer and will have to do my best there with the gym and food i have access to.
I think the quality will be okay for the most part but i obviously wont be able to count calories. since i am looking to put on lean weight do you suggest something like a big breakfast with some carbs first thing in the morning then P+F the rest of the meals, and on workout days have the carbs peri-workout and P+F the rest of the time? unfortunately it seems i’ll have to estimate the portion sizes. Thanks a lot
[quote]daffyduck wrote:
hey CT, I saw before that you said for a lean individual to get ripped, a targeted carbs diet to lose fat is what u prefer. Would this just entail eating a low carbs diet while having 1 serving of surge PWO?[/quote]
It means not eating carbs besides post-workout. The amount of carbs ingested at that time will vary depending on the individual’s response to carbs.
The composition of the meal will depends on the amount of carbs. Eg. if the individual is to only consume 50g of carbs, then SURGE is the best option. If it’s 100g then it can either be 2 servings of SURGE or 1 serving of SURGE + 50g of solid carbs. If it’s more than 100g then it will normally be SURGE + solid carbs.
[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
The composition of the meal will depends on the amount of carbs. Eg. if the individual is to only consume 50g of carbs, then SURGE is the best option.
If it’s 100g then it can either be 2 servings of SURGE or 1 serving of SURGE + 50g of solid carbs. If it’s more than 100g then it will normally be SURGE + solid carbs.[/quote]
Thib,
At what point/amount of carbohydrates would you choose to consume a second PW meal an hour to an hour and a half later instead of consuming all the carbs immediately PW?
And while the fiber content is minimal in higher GI fruits, would the content slow down the absorbtion of the shake enough to matter or would the amount of ingested carbs and insulinogenic aminos provide for such a significant rise in insulin as to render the effect of minor amounts of fiber minimal, at best?
I read recently that if you take L-Glutamine with your PWO protein shake that the glutamine will not be absorbed properly. Instead you’re supposed to take in the glutamine around 30 min prior to the protein shake. What do you think?
No offense, but don’t even think about teaching in an academic environment. With your tone and attitude, you’d be out on your ass in nothing flat.[/quote]
No offense but get off your f’n self righteous, judgmental high horse! This ISN’T an academic environment. Which is a good thing because you would be out on your ass in nothing flat for all that talking you did in the butt sex thread! Do you behave and speak of the same things in the classroom that you do here? NO! I doubt CT would either. See the number of posts under CT’s pic? 11,000! Just imagine how many of those are stupid questions or people too lazy to find info for themselves or they don’t take the time to truly comprehend the response they are given.
YOU might get a little impatient and short with people too if you were in CT’s shoes. Besides, we all adjust our behaviour accordingly to some degree based on those we are interacting with. What you said was just silly.
Forgive me Coach if I’m out of line. I certainly don’t think you need me to stick up for you. I just could not help but respond for various reasons.
In your last articles you greatly explained why isolastion is important (everybody has their dominant and weaker parts).
But would you recommend even bother with isolation until the strength level of at least 1.5xbw bench, 2xbw dl and squat is reached doing simple routines with only compound lifts ?
In your last articles you greatly explained why isolastion is important (everybody has their dominant and weaker parts).
But would you recommend even bother with isolation until the strength level of at least 1.5xbw bench, 2xbw dl and squat is reached doing simple routines with only compound lifts ?[/quote]
Yes. Muscle imbalances don’t wait strength development. True, a beginner will have problems evaluating which muscles are underdeveloped compared to others, however the biomechanics of the individual (body type) can still give us some ideas of muscles that will potentially be lagging or harder to develop.
I find it idiotic to wait for muscle imbalances to show up before correcting them. Why? Because once the imbalances are there it will be much harder to correct them. That is because the body will have developed neural patterns that de-emphasize these weaker muscles.
Correcting an imbalance problem is MUCH harder and longer than preventing such problems by including some isolation work right from the start.
I read recently that if you take L-Glutamine with your PWO protein shake that the glutamine will not be absorbed properly. Instead you’re supposed to take in the glutamine around 30 min prior to the protein shake. What do you think?
[/quote]
That’s hogwash! The human body doesn’t work like that. Glutamine is actually one of the easiest amino acid to absorb and it actually enhance the absorption of the other ingredients in the post-workout shake.
[quote]SouthsideMayhem wrote:
At what point/amount of carbohydrates would you choose to consume a second PW meal an hour to an hour and a half later instead of consuming all the carbs immediately PW?[/quote]
It depends on several factors, there is no universal rule that applies.
As a general rule of thumb, I stick to a maximum of 0.75g of carbs per pound of bodyweight in the post-workout shake.
NOTE: for those who tend to misinterpret what I write, this DOESN’T MEAN that Thib recommend using 0.75g of carbs post-workout.
The amount of carbs you include in your post-workout meal(s) depends on your goal, level of insulin sensitivity, leaness, etc. With some I recommend 0g of carbs, with others as much as 1.5g of carbs.
What I AM saying is that the limit to be consumed in the post-workout meal/shake itself is 0.75g of carbs. So if an individual has to have 1.0g of carbs in the post-workout period then he would have 0.75 with his post-workout shake and 0.25g 60-90 minutes later.
However this is just a very broad guideline. I always adjust my recommendations based on the individual. For example his capacity to digest a high amount of carbs at once (or not), the tendency to become hypoglycemic if he has too much carbs at once, etc.
[quote]SouthsideMayhem wrote:
And while the fiber content is minimal in higher GI fruits, would the content slow down the absorbtion of the shake enough to matter or would the amount of ingested carbs and insulinogenic aminos provide for such a significant rise in insulin as to render the effect of minor amounts of fiber minimal, at best?
[/quote]
Unless we are talking about 6-8 cups of fruit at once (which would be excessive anyway) then no, there will be no ill effect.
[quote]AliR wrote:
I know, or am lead to believe, that quinoa is not a true grain although typically classified as one. Would you still include it in the grains category (#7)? And if so would it be a good first choice if choosing to incorporate “grains” into the diet? I hope this hasn’t been covered, if so I apologize for missing it.
Many thanks,
AliR[/quote]
Yes I would still consider it as a grain. It is one of the ‘‘least bad’’ grains, but not good enough to go higher up on the list.
No offense, but don’t even think about teaching in an academic environment. With your tone and attitude, you’d be out on your ass in nothing flat.[/quote]
Thanks for the tip… but with my two offices, dozens of yearly seminars and hundreds of clients I am managing pretty well.
Also, do not take it personally. I have established some rules a LONG while ago, way before this Q&A thread. This is actually my 7th Q&A thread. I had to start some new ones because as the other ones go too big, they took forever to load.
As I mentioned I explained a zillion years ago that I did not have time to answer every single question sent my way (heck, I often have clients from 7am to 7pm, my own training and then writing articles… I normally answer questions in the 15 min. between my clients). When I don’t answer, it doesn’t mean that I have something against the question being asked or the individual; however when someone has the attitude that ‘‘I must answer him’’ then I DO take is personal. I spend hours of my free time each week to help you guys out for free. The last thing I need is to be put down for not being perfect at it.
[quote]pumped340 wrote:
my main concern is not necessarily with the health aspect, but more so its affect on muscle and fat gain. [/quote]
See, this is just dumb. NOTHING is more important than your health. You are probably young and don’t care too much about it right now, but it should be first on your list. Now, if something can help you be healthier and have a better body, then it’s even better!
But to get back to this thing you don’t care about (health), understand that the ‘‘healthier’’ a body is, the more efficient its functions are. Better immune, digestive, hormonal, neural systems WILL lead to better strength and size gains, less injuries and more fat loss.
[quote]pumped340 wrote:
I see that acid promoting is bad and fruits have high health benefits but what about minimizing fat gain?
[/quote]
Mild acidosis WILL make many metabolic processes INCLUDING ANABOLISM (muscle growth) and FAT MOBILISATION/UTILISATION(fat loss) much less efficient. In other word if your body is acidic for too long, then it will become harder and harder to gain muscle and lose fat.
Protein itself is acid-promoting, so if you are eating like a bodybuilder you are already leaning toward an acidic profile. The last thing you need is to consume even more acid-promoting compounds (grains).
You need to consume alkaline foods like veggies (especially green veggies) and fruits, neutral foods like nuts and supplements that help to get rid of the acid (glutamine).
No offense, but don’t even think about teaching in an academic environment. With your tone and attitude, you’d be out on your ass in nothing flat.[/quote]
Talk about rude good lord! You’re not paying him like your students are so stop acting like he owes you anything. He didn’t answer my last two questions, yet I went through his Q&A sections (current, past, and old) and found similar answers to my questions.
I suggest you doing the same. For a professor you sure suck at research.