[quote]wufwugy wrote:
michael2507 wrote:
I see. Does this mean that you see no virtue in concepts like nutrient timing, P&C and P&F meals, special peri-workout nutrition, etc.?
What if a person were to consume his daily (high) carbs in the form of sugar (while getting adequate protein, EFAs, …)? The question is not if the person would gain weight, rather if the weight gain would manifest as a favourable change in body composition (as opposed to mainly fat gain), or better yet, not far off from the most favourable change possible. Otherwise, the initial statement would be off base. As I said before, I don’t consider “blowing up” meaning getting fat in the given context.
RE peri-workout
im not sure about the peri-workout stuff. it seems that nobody knows how long the ‘window’ lasts or even if it’s of importance. hypertrophy is a product of availiable nutrients and getting stronger. growth is not exclusive to peri-workout window stuff; it happens days and weeks and under elite training circumstances even months after training. peri-workout stuff doesn’t seem to have much bearing on getting stronger, and if you get stronger and provide nutrition despite the timing you’ll grow.
but that doesn’t mean that there isn’t anything to peri-workout. i do it and never even think about it. research has shown some benefits, but it’s possible that those benefits are simply from an increase in daily nutrients.
my personal experience with peri-workout is that it doesn’t make much difference, but because my anecdote applies only to me i wont go into detail.
a question to ask is: if twins were both trained by Chris Thibaudeau and one of them used peri-workout protocols while the other didn’t (yet added the nutrients to a different meal in the day) and they did this for five years, would the peri-workout guy have made more progress?
im thinking no, but if there was a difference it would be very minute.
RE nutrient timing
very similar to peri-workout, but a little broader. i dont think it really matters. it’s the basis for thinking that 6 meals a day is better than 3. anecdote for some people has shown 6 to be better, but the hard evidence has shown that 6 is no different than 3. this means that the anecdote is misunderstanding the cause of the effect (which is common wrt anecdote).
other avenues of nutrient timing are eating meals with different macro composition at different times and how this affects something or other. i’ll later explain why i dont buy any of this.
again, personal experience has led me to believe nutrient timing to be of little importance, but, again, i wont go into details due to the anecdotal nature of it.
another issue with nutrient timing is that people tend to think that food digests quickly. yes, a really small meal digest quickly, but a huge meal of dense foods digests very slowly. this means that you dont have to eat as often to adhere to nutrient timing.
even though there isn’t evidence for this, because of personal experience and general knowledge i doubt that one meal a day is any different than eight meals a day (wrt body composition) if the cals/macros/micros stay the same. this is just my unbacked opinion, though (and it’s unrealistic for a heavy individual).
RE P&C, P&F meals
this is diet strategy called food combining. since the beginning of dieting there have been food combining ideas. AFAIK, all have been shown to be 100% hogwash under normal circumstances. some of the more recent ones can be found at your local hippie market.
the most recent, though, is the P&C, P&F stuff as popularized by JB. i dont know where he gets his information wrt P&C, P&F, but there IS evidence that it works as purported…albeit, under glycogen depleted/carb refeed circumstances. this is different than normal, non-glycogen depleted circumstances, and shouldn’t be applied to the normal and non-glycogen depleted.
basically, P&C, P&F is only relevant when applied to refeeding carbs into depleted muscles. although, it’s not quite P&C, P&F, but more like ‘dont mix fats and carbs.’ this is because the body doesn’t store fat when carbing up during depletion unless fat is consumed with. a little bit of fat in refeeds doesn’t deleteriously affect, though, it’s only when there’s a bit more than a little bit.
RE protein, EFAs, and sugar
it’s kinda funny that Lyle McDonald’s diet expertise is mentioned in this thread then you ask the question (not verbatim) 'what if a person were to consume only sugar, protein, and EFAs…would his body composition changes be more fatty than muscley?
Lyle has said many, many times that somebody who is consuming adequate protein and EFAs can get ripped on table sugar. alhough, he deals mainly with fat loss this applies to gaining muscle as well.
dont misunderstand Lyle’s ideology though, protein, EFAs, and sugar is not a diet he would recommend, but that doesn’t change the fact that it’s possible to get ripped or swole on it. notice that this diet is not considered ‘healthy’ (or even realistic). body composition and health are not always going together.
basically, my point in this thread is that foods dont make fat, calorie surplus (and genetics/drugs) make fat. although, things change when malnutrition is factored in.[/quote]
Interesting thoughts. Now I can see where our opinions differ.
As for the part regarding personal experience with nutrient timing, food combining, etc., I have experienced a significant difference with regard to body composition. I also don’t recall making any significant changes in other training, nutritional and recovery parameters at that time which could have effected the outcome to a greater extent.