[quote]michael2507 wrote:
fahd wrote:
michael2507 wrote:
fahd wrote:
michael2507 wrote:
fahd wrote:
Its time to debunk some of the myths that most people in T-Nation still holds true.
Which specific “myths” are you thinking of?
There are a few, but the biggest ones are:
-
necessity of high GI carbs in every single post-workout drink of the week for athletes
-
Various food combining and nutrition timing concepts
Fahd
Feel free to debunk those “myths”. I guess JB’s and LL’s Locker Rooms would be a good place to start.
I urge you to visit a number of other highly respected forums/websites and search ‘Berardi’ or ‘pwo drink’ and understand their opinion on it as well as the T-Nation opinion on these matters. You see, they are only one click away.
Out of respect for T-Nation, I will not post any websites, but feel free to PM me on this matter.
Fahd
I’ll do that.
The question still remains: As you consider this a clear cut issue and those boards mentioned in your post obviously provide you with sufficient information for the task, why don’t you debunk those myths here?
Or is it rather a case of differing opinions and not an unambiguous case of “myths” versus “the truth” (the point I am trying to make as opposed to defending some sort of dogma which by no means is my objective)?[/quote]
michael,
i would gladly spend my time debunking every ‘myth’ i came across on any diet/training site i regularly visit if i did this professionally and was getting paid for it. i would then have an assload of references from pubmed of properly performed studies on these topics.
the references would do my job for me because they’re much more proof than the anecdote, misused studies, and misunderstood studies of others.
there are a number of people who could do this, but everyone of these people i know don’t like this site and dont want to bother, and have spent much more time than most debunking these myths on other sites.
in case you’re interested i’ll provide a list of brainstormed diet topics that i consider to be myths perpetuated in part on this site. although, i wont provide any reasons why these are myths because if i did that i’d spend much more time searching for the undisputable sources of this information than i care to…
-
P&C, P&F food combining allows for greater fat loss than non-food combining protocols with the same calorie intake.
-
metabolic rate raises with consumption enough to offset raise in consumption. IOW, it’s possible to eat more and lose weight (although, if eating more means that malnutrition is eliminated then this may be the case).
-
basal metabolic rate can be permanently changed without alteration in body composition.
-
adding muscle mass raises metabolic rate a lot.
-
eating often (at least 6X/day) wards off catabolism.
-
muscle catabolism is something to worry about when eating adequate protein and lifting.
-
more than 0.8-1.0g/lbs body weight is optimal protein intake.
-
low GI and high GI affect the body differently (i could be wrong about this one, but i dont think i am).
-
if a certain amount is good, then more is better (kinda like how people think that because zinc raises T in deficiency models that more zinc in efficiency models will raise T).
-
anecdote is reliable. dieters dont regularly underestimate calories consumed and overestimate energy expended.
-
counting calories is too simplistic (WTF does ‘simplistic’ mean anyway?).
-
Carrot Top is big.
-
what the authors say is fact.
P.S. i could be wrong on a couple of these, but im not attempting to back these assertions up 100% so it’s all good. i just wanted to aid your interest in figuring out why anybody would believe these things to be false.
[quote]Atlas Knox wrote:
So strength athletes don’t require carbohydrates post workout? If a calorie is a calorie, a macro is a macro and a carb is a carb then stating sugar post workout extends to all carbohydrates.
If it’s not advantageous to consume sugar post workout then by “a calorie is a calorie” it’s the same thing as stating it’s not advantageous to consume any carbohydrate post workout.
Furthermore, it extends to all food period since calories and thus macros and thus food are created equal.
Now are calories all equal or are carbohydrates all equal? It would seem that the case is being made that the latter is the case as the distinction is being made that fats are different and so too is protein. And if carbohydrates are equal then of course the Glycemic and insulin indices have no relevance. [/quote]
the ‘calorie is a calorie’ debate has been skewed on forums because many misunderstand that the debate does not apply to malnourished circumstances. under malnutrition, a calorie is most definately not a calorie, but that isn’t the real debate.
the real debate is “do calories from protein or from fat or from carbs affect a well nourished model?” the answer is no. AFAIK, the proponents of ‘calorie is not a calorie’ like to take studies done on deficiency models and apply them to efficiency models.
[quote]wufwugy wrote:
michael2507 wrote:
fahd wrote:
michael2507 wrote:
fahd wrote:
michael2507 wrote:
fahd wrote:
Its time to debunk some of the myths that most people in T-Nation still holds true.
Which specific “myths” are you thinking of?
There are a few, but the biggest ones are:
-
necessity of high GI carbs in every single post-workout drink of the week for athletes
-
Various food combining and nutrition timing concepts
Fahd
Feel free to debunk those “myths”. I guess JB’s and LL’s Locker Rooms would be a good place to start.
I urge you to visit a number of other highly respected forums/websites and search ‘Berardi’ or ‘pwo drink’ and understand their opinion on it as well as the T-Nation opinion on these matters. You see, they are only one click away.
Out of respect for T-Nation, I will not post any websites, but feel free to PM me on this matter.
Fahd
I’ll do that.
The question still remains: As you consider this a clear cut issue and those boards mentioned in your post obviously provide you with sufficient information for the task, why don’t you debunk those myths here?
Or is it rather a case of differing opinions and not an unambiguous case of “myths” versus “the truth” (the point I am trying to make as opposed to defending some sort of dogma which by no means is my objective)?
michael,
i would gladly spend my time debunking every ‘myth’ i came across on any diet/training site i regularly visit if i did this professionally and was getting paid for it. i would then have an assload of references from pubmed of properly performed studies on these topics.
the references would do my job for me because they’re much more proof than the anecdote, misused studies, and misunderstood studies of others.
there are a number of people who could do this, but everyone of these people i know don’t like this site and dont want to bother, and have spent much more time than most debunking these myths on other sites.
in case you’re interested i’ll provide a list of brainstormed diet topics that i consider to be myths perpetuated in part on this site. although, i wont provide any reasons why these are myths because if i did that i’d spend much more time searching for the undisputable sources of this information than i care to…
-
P&C, P&F food combining allows for greater fat loss than non-food combining protocols with the same calorie intake.
-
metabolic rate raises with consumption enough to offset raise in consumption. IOW, it’s possible to eat more and lose weight (although, if eating more means that malnutrition is eliminated then this may be the case).
-
basal metabolic rate can be permanently changed without alteration in body composition.
-
adding muscle mass raises metabolic rate a lot.
-
eating often (at least 6X/day) wards off catabolism.
-
muscle catabolism is something to worry about when eating adequate protein and lifting.
-
more than 0.8-1.0g/lbs body weight is optimal protein intake.
-
low GI and high GI affect the body differently (i could be wrong about this one, but i dont think i am).
-
if a certain amount is good, then more is better (kinda like how people think that because zinc raises T in deficiency models that more zinc in efficiency models will raise T).
-
anecdote is reliable. dieters dont regularly underestimate calories consumed and overestimate energy expended.
-
counting calories is too simplistic (WTF does ‘simplistic’ mean anyway?).
-
Carrot Top is big.
-
what the authors say is fact.
P.S. i could be wrong on a couple of these, but im not attempting to back these assertions up 100% so it’s all good. i just wanted to aid your interest in figuring out why anybody would believe these things to be false.[/quote]
Interesting list. I consider it somewhat flawed, though, beyond the aspects mentioned in your post.
The way I see it, this is not about some young skinny newbie harping about how huge Carrot Top is, neither is it about people who aren’t able to distinguish between facts, opinions and theories (these have become rather common here recently, I grant you that).
Conversely, you mentioned topics which definitely pertain to the subject at hand and seem to be a matter of debate. Nevertheless (due to obvious reasons, I know), some of these are presented in a rather general and oversimplified (or should I say simplistic?) manner. It seems like you conceptualised them the way they may have been understood and reproduced by some of the members on this site, yet not necessarily the way they are meant to be understood by the respective authors.
As for debunking the alleged myths, I don’t have much if anything to gain in this context either. I can think of people who would, though. Seeing that at least some of these “other boards” sell supplements as well or have some other professional interest in the field and assuming that they had the knowledge to do so, why wouldn’t they bother to point out some of the alleged flaws of the concepts mentioned earlier on other platforms and boards? They probably would have more to gain than when presenting their information on their “home boards” multiple times to people who to a great extent will be following their advice and buying their products anyway.
Lastly, to set this straight, nowhere have I stated that the information presented on this site is sacrosanct or inherently true. The term “myth” is used somewhat loosely on this thread for my taste, though.
[quote]michael2507 wrote:
Interesting list. I consider it somewhat flawed, though, beyond the aspects mentioned in your post.
The way I see it, this is not about some young skinny newbie harping about how huge Carrot Top is, neither is it about people who aren’t able to distinguish between facts, opinions and theories (these have become rather common here recently, I grant you that).
Conversely, you mentioned topics which definitely pertain to the subject at hand and seem to be a matter of debate. Nevertheless (due to obvious reasons, I know), some of these are presented in a rather general and oversimplified (or should I say simplistic?) manner. It seems like you conceptualised them the way they may have been understood and reproduced by some of the members on this site, yet not necessarily the way they are meant to be understood by the respective authors.
As for debunking the alleged myths, I don’t have much if anything to gain in this context either. I can think of people who would, though. Seeing that at least some of these “other boards” sell supplements as well or have some other professional interest in the field and assuming that they had the knowledge to do so, why wouldn’t they bother to point out some of the alleged flaws of the concepts mentioned earlier on other platforms and boards? They probably would have more to gain than when presenting their information on their “home boards” multiple times to people who to a great extent will be following their advice and buying their products anyway.
Lastly, to set this straight, nowhere have I stated that the information presented on this site is sacrosanct or inherently true. The term “myth” is used somewhat loosely on this thread for my taste, though.[/quote]
the Carrot Top comment was a joke.
you get my PM?
[quote]wufwugy wrote:
michael2507 wrote:
Interesting list. I consider it somewhat flawed, though, beyond the aspects mentioned in your post.
The way I see it, this is not about some young skinny newbie harping about how huge Carrot Top is, neither is it about people who aren’t able to distinguish between facts, opinions and theories (these have become rather common here recently, I grant you that).
Conversely, you mentioned topics which definitely pertain to the subject at hand and seem to be a matter of debate. Nevertheless (due to obvious reasons, I know), some of these are presented in a rather general and oversimplified (or should I say simplistic?) manner. It seems like you conceptualised them the way they may have been understood and reproduced by some of the members on this site, yet not necessarily the way they are meant to be understood by the respective authors.
As for debunking the alleged myths, I don’t have much if anything to gain in this context either. I can think of people who would, though. Seeing that at least some of these “other boards” sell supplements as well or have some other professional interest in the field and assuming that they had the knowledge to do so, why wouldn’t they bother to point out some of the alleged flaws of the concepts mentioned earlier on other platforms and boards? They probably would have more to gain than when presenting their information on their “home boards” multiple times to people who to a great extent will be following their advice and buying their products anyway.
Lastly, to set this straight, nowhere have I stated that the information presented on this site is sacrosanct or inherently true. The term “myth” is used somewhat loosely on this thread for my taste, though.
the Carrot Top comment was a joke.[/quote]
The sad thing is, you and I think so, but some others don’t…
No. It should be working, though.
I just realized something:
If a calorie is a calorie: you still need fiber, esential fatty acids & other fats, 2g/kg protein, carbs (to ward of slugeshness). To me, this could be that a calorie is a calorie BUT … Which means a calorie really isn’t a calorie, if you follow what I’m saying.
And, if a carb is a carb, (ie, oatmeal is no different from sugar), yet large ammounts of sugar after every time you work out isn’t good for you, either the same caloric ammount of oatmeal after a work out would provoke the same reaction/response & it would too not be good for you. Or, a Carb is Not a Carb.
Finally, as to the post work out sugar being not good for you, it was stated that this is mainly for people like powerlifters and springters, yet it was alright for bodybuilders. While there are a fair ammount of powerlifters on this site, most people here (and the purpose of the suplements) are for bodybuilders.
[quote]Nomancer wrote:
I just realized something:
If a calorie is a calorie: you still need fiber, esential fatty acids & other fats, 2g/kg protein, carbs (to ward of slugeshness). To me, this could be that a calorie is a calorie BUT … Which means a calorie really isn’t a calorie, if you follow what I’m saying.
[/quote]
You are confusing energy content of foods (calories) with nutrient content. Calories measure thermal energy, nothing else. You’re conflating 2 different issues.
The point is that, given adequate nutrients, a calorie is a calorie. Of course some foods are more nutrient dense than others – like table sugar compared to broccoli. However, if I’m meeting all my nutrient requirements and still need a few hundred extra calories, from an energy balance standpoint it doesn’t matter where they come from.
Note I said energy balance, not health or anything else. If I got those extra calories from broccoli I would get some extra fibre and nutrients. If I got them from sugar I wouldn’t get any additional nutrients. If I got them from trans fat my blood lipid profile might suffer a bit. None of this is going to have any noticeable effect on energy balance.
[quote]Nomancer wrote:
I just realized something:
If a calorie is a calorie: you still need fiber, esential fatty acids & other fats, 2g/kg protein, carbs (to ward of slugeshness). To me, this could be that a calorie is a calorie BUT … Which means a calorie really isn’t a calorie, if you follow what I’m saying.[/quote]
I write:
this is all part of the malnutrition thing i hit on. a calorie is a calorie only when added after properly nourished macro/micro status is achieved. once you have adequate macro/micro it then doesn’t matter where the rest of the cals come from. there is no substantial enough evidence to suggest otherwise.
the body can only be nourished so much. i have come across no evidence to suggest that 3g/kg protein will make muscle building/fat loss efforts any easier than 1.7g/kg protein if cals are the same.
[quote]
Nomancer wrote:
And, if a carb is a carb, (ie, oatmeal is no different from sugar), yet large ammounts of sugar after every time you work out isn’t good for you, either the same caloric ammount of oatmeal after a work out would provoke the same reaction/response & it would too not be good for you. Or, a Carb is Not a Carb.[/quote]
I write:
exactly. the most reasonsable explanation for why people thought that oatmeal affects body composition differently than cane syrup is because whenever they ate cane syrup they got fatter, and whenever they ate oatmeal they didn’t. they mistakingly assume the high GI is the culprit. they also mistakingly ignore that when they were consuming high GI they were comsuming more cals than when they were consuming low GI.
[quote]
Nomancer wrote:
Finally, as to the post work out sugar being not good for you, it was stated that this is mainly for people like powerlifters and springters, yet it was alright for bodybuilders. While there are a fair ammount of powerlifters on this site, most people here (and the purpose of the suplements) are for bodybuilders.[/quote]
I write:
i dont recall fahd mentioning that it’s beneficial for BBers and not PLers. any BBer burning the amount of cals/carbs that lots of high GI drinks add will only make progress if he’s on drugs. even then…
when you break it down, very successful PLers and BBers dont really train that differently. only sport-specifically do they train differently.
none of this means that lots of high GI is deleterious post workout, though. im of the opinion that one of the reasons that newbs see benefits by PWO is because they’re consuming more daily cals when doing this.
i think Charlie Francis’ comment about high GI PWO was for body composition purposes and the fact that his athletes were already consuming enough nutrition via healthier foods. i dont know though.
nevermind
Quoted from Lyle Mcdonald on Francis’ site.
"Previous work on glycogen restoration has suggested intakes of 1.5 g/kg immediately after and again 2 hours later. Protein at 1/3rd of that is a common suggestion. That’s where those numbers are coming from. Look up anything by John Ivy or Ed Coyle.
Note (this in reference to comments later in the thread) that these types of studies are looking at glycogen depletin exercise, exhaustive endurance stuff, high rep/high volume bodybuilding stuff. Their relevance to the types of low volume, CNS dominant work in many sprinting/maximal weight training methods is questionable.
That is ,a bodybuilding doing 20+ sets of high rep work is depelting lot of glycogen, stimulating protein synthesis; an endurance athlte doing 40 minutes at LT or 2+ hours aerobically is as well. A sprinter running short repeats on a full recovery is not.
Nutritional recommendations have to be based on the metabolic requirements of the athlete and the training being done.
I don’t think a high GI/protein drink is necessary or beneficial following pure CNS work. Restoration of fluids and maybe creatine or something.
Following extensive work in the glycolytic range, absolutely.
For bodybuilders wanting hypertrophy, absolutely.
For endurance athletes, absolutely.
It’s all about specificity.
Hyperinsulinemia + hyperaminoacidemia have syneergistic effects in terms of storing glycogen, inhibiting catabolism and promoting protein synthesis. Do a medline search on Biolo to get started. Hence the emphassis on high GI, insulin spiking compounds.
Again, this is more important for an athlete involved in training that depletes glycogen and strongly promotes protein synthesis, far less so for a CNS dominant athlete. As Charlie pointed out, save the high GI + protei nstuff for the extensive sprinting workouts, special endurance and that stuff."
First of all, I want to say you guys have probibly read a lot more than I have, and I’m mostly just throwing ideas out.
[quote]wufwugy wrote:
Nomancer wrote:
I just realized something:
If a calorie is a calorie: you still need fiber, esential fatty acids & other fats, 2g/kg protein, carbs (to ward of slugeshness). To me, this could be that a calorie is a calorie BUT … Which means a calorie really isn’t a calorie, if you follow what I’m saying.
I write:
this is all part of the malnutrition thing i hit on. a calorie is a calorie only when added after properly nourished macro/micro status is achieved. once you have adequate macro/micro it then doesn’t matter where the rest of the cals come from. there is no substantial enough evidence to suggest otherwise.
[/quote]
Ok, saying “a calorie is a calorie only when added after properly nourished macro/micro status is achieved” to me, is pretty much saing a calorie isn’t a calorie. It’s like saing:
A calorie is a calorie*
*= Given proper:
-protien intake (as a proportion of body weight)
-fat intake inc:
-EFAs
-omega 3 to omega 6 ratio
-proper sat fat intake
-carbs enough not to feel slugish
- and there’s probibly a few others that I’m missing.
SO: For some people (mostly beginners) these macronutrient ratios/breakdowns targets aren’t easily achievable/obtaniable (thats the key), hence the differentiation between carbs, fat and protein. And its not only beginners who have trouble achiveing/maintaining targets.
So, I guess what I’m saying is if you look at almost all new lifters (not just new lifters tho), you could call them malnourished (but I wouldn’t call them generally malnourished, they are generally fairly healthy), as they probibly don’t have the right protein, and EFA intake, at least.
I guess this might just be a difference of definitions.
[quote]Nomancer wrote:
Ok, saying “a calorie is a calorie only when added after properly nourished macro/micro status is achieved” to me, is pretty much saing a calorie isn’t a calorie. It’s like saing:
A calorie is a calorie*
*= Given proper:
-protien intake (as a proportion of body weight)
-fat intake inc:
-EFAs
-omega 3 to omega 6 ratio
-proper sat fat intake
-carbs enough not to feel slugish
- and there’s probibly a few others that I’m missing.
SO: For some people (mostly beginners) these macronutrient ratios/breakdowns targets aren’t easily achievable/obtaniable (thats the key), hence the differentiation between carbs, fat and protein. And its not only beginners who have trouble achiveing/maintaining targets.
So, I guess what I’m saying is if you look at almost all new lifters (not just new lifters tho), you could call them malnourished (but I wouldn’t call them generally malnourished, they are generally fairly healthy), as they probibly don’t have the right protein, and EFA intake, at least.
I guess this might just be a difference of definitions.[/quote]
i touched on this a little bit previously, and it’s an essential point of the ‘calorie is a calorie’ debate. that point is: the ‘calorie is a calorie’ debate takes proper nutrtion for granted. IOW, it’s debating about whether or not a calorie is a calorie once added to already properly nourished models. many have misunderstood this, and think that it applies to malnourished models.
this is like how many lifters think that if they take zinc then their testosterone will increase. this is true only if they’re deficient in zinc. if they already have sufficient zinc then taking a zinc supp wont help them. this is applying deficiency models to efficiency/sufficiency models. this is a very common mistake.
eating sufficient macros/micros is very possible at lower than maintenance calories. ‘calorie is a calorie’ is concerned with only those extra calories on top of the fundamental ones.
i think you’re confused because you’re misunderstand what the ‘calorie is a calorie’ debate applies to.
I hear what you are saing, but I don’t think you understand what I’m saying.
Yes, I agree (until I find contrary information) that a calorie is a calorie in nourished models only.
HOWEVER, how easy is it to underconsume different macros (especially for beginners). This is where the debate matters.
Also, if you say: A calorie is a calorie*, the asterix can change the whole statement. The whole statement, therefore, is an oversimplification.
Which is to say: a calorie is not a calorie except if fully norished.
I think the above is a better statement.
I could be wrong…
your question isn’t really about the ‘calorie is/isn’t a calorie’ topic, but more like an ‘adequate consumption of macros/micros’ topic.
i dont have an answer for that other than: eat meat, eat veggies, supplement fish oil, take a multivitamin, and eat whatever else you want to achieve you caloric goal. the rest you’re gonna hafta find out on your own because i dont have the answers.
there are general rule of thumbs (1g/lbs protein, 1:2:1 sat:mono:poly fats, 3g EPA/DHA), but i dont know all of them and am probably not accurate on some of the ones i do know, and even then, rule of thumbs probably aren’t 100% accurate.
I think we’ve gotten off topic… let me set it right again.
WHO IS THE NUTRITION GURU?
aceto gets my vote.
[quote]wufwugy wrote:
i think you’re confused because you’re misunderstand what the ‘calorie is a calorie’ debate applies to.[/quote]
It gets difficult because some calorie containing nutrients are essential.
Calories from protein are indispensible, not because they contain calories, but nitrogen in the form of essential amino acids.
Just as calories from LA and ALA are indespensible, not for its calories but the fatty acids that may provide energy.
In a sense these calories are different than others, but not becuase of its caloric content.
However in terms of calories, only Essential amino acids and the two essential fatty acids are different.