An advocates opinion on combining P, F and C...Stirring the pot up again...

[AbsolutelyLethal]

The following is from here... http://forums.1fast400.com/?showtopic=671

"Honestly, I think it's about 99% Made-up, Non-Scientifically-Based, Voodoo-Bull**** Nutrition.

Reasoning:

- Fat consumption slows gastric emptying which will-- in some instances-- lower the insulin response to a meal, not raise it...

- Digested fatty acids can store themselves independent of insulin

- Furthermore, mobilizing bodyfat is regulated by HSL (hormone sensitive lipase), and every time you eat, no matter what it is (carbs, protein, fat, or any mixture of the three), you will activate HSL, so by not eating carbs with a meal, it's not like you're making bodyfat any more 'easy' to mobilize or utilize for energy. Yes, eating P+F meals will give you lower resting insulin levels for maybe a few hours or so (not to mention generally more stable blood sugar), but in the grand scheme of things, this is of very little import compared to your overall energy balance (really the only exceptions to this are around your workout time, which is when-- with a few very specific exceptions-- you want elevated insulin levels).

- Unless you are in ketosis, your body is never burning 'pure glucose.' That's simply not how the body works. Dietary macronutrient intake will determine the ratio of glucose:fat burned, but it can never dictate what will be burned & what will be stored when...

- Saying not to consume "Carbs & Fat" together as a blanket statement is just assinine. There is a big difference (in terms of your body's response and the effects on the body) between eating--

1 8 oz. Sweet Potato & 10g of Fish Oil

vs.

1 Bowl of Pasta Alfredo

People should be intelligent and not eat calorie-dense foods containing carbs & fats together. It's the actual food choices (Muffins, Pizzas, Doughnuts, etc.) that combine unsatiating, highly refined, high II & GI carbs with high amounts of fat and no protein that is promoting the obesity epidemic, not the practice of eating carbs & fats together. They may seem/sound like one and the same, but they're completely not. Lastly, your body struggles to adapt even to keep track of 24-Hour energy balance, and there is simply no way that eating carbs & fats together (especially if they resemble the first meal example I illustrated above) can be said to be that detrimental, and-- provided energy in (calories) is not > energy burned-- eating carbs/fat together will contribute no more to weight gain than eating them separately...

if you simply look at the science, you will see there is simply no basis for this approach whatsoever outside of steering people away from calorically-dense foods, most of which often contain large amounts of F + refined CHO (think a piece of cheese-cake)...

So to reiterate, Loki has concluded that a.) Humans were never intended to eat this way and b.) With the only exception being periods where you're eating amounts of food RIDICULOUSLY HIGHER THAN YOUR MAINTENANCE CALORIE INTAKE, following said practice isn't going to make a friggity' **** of a difference...

If anyone is really still adamant about still adhering to the P+F & P + C nutritional approach after reading the above, I say enjoy, and I also have a patented 'Anti-Tiger Rock' that I'm selling at a highly competitive price. PM me if you're interested...

Basically, what I'm saying is, what Berandi wanted to do with the PF/PC thing was to make people eat healthy diets. It's actually quite hard to eat unhealthy if you adhere rigidly to the plan because you can't eat most junkfood if you stick to the regimen as he has it laid out. But what annoys me is the fact that he basically made up this whole scientific basis just to brainwash readers into thinking that there was 'more too it' than that. The only goal is to make you eat a healthy diet, and the fact is, if you ARE eating a healthy diet, then it makes NO SENSE to split up your macronutrient consumption like that...

IN FACT, in terms of EFA consumption (Fish Oil, Olive Oil, Sesamin), it is much BETTER to consume them with carbohydrates than to take them without carbs, because there is a higher chance they will be temporarily incorporated into your phospholipid membrane if you take them with glucose (rather than being almost immediately oxidized by the body). Really, when you're eating carbs is the BEST TIME to eat essential fats. But, obviously, if you're sticking to P + F / P + C, you can't reap that benefit.

It's all about long-term energy balance, really, and PF/PC is so unnecessary it's not even funny...."

[SwoleCat]

To each his own!

I've my beliefs and reasoning, others have theirs. I've no idea who wrote this (I know the name and have seen writings like this from this user before), however it'd be nice to see a photo album of said person to see if he/she sets in motion what he/she believes to be true on paper. Often times people speak, but never experiment with what was spoken. Not saying that is the case here, but often times it is.

Boils down to doing what works for you. There are many methods to eating/bulking/fat loss/etc. Find what works for you and go w/it. Many with less than "average" metabolisms and/or ideal insulin responses, benefit greatly from grouping certain foods together. To say they don't is absurd, but like I said I could go on forever rebutting this, but to me there really is no need to! If I rebutted every statement that was off or could be torn apart, I'd have carpel tunnel from h*ll.


~SC~

[Kim2884]

I think I'd have to agree with the author of that thread. I'm not so sure of the effects of carb/fat separation in a hypercaloric diet, but I think it should not make a difference when there is a negative energy balance. The theory is all about preventing fat storage...now, I hate to sound like i'm saying "a calorie is a calorie," but ultimately, that's what it boils down to. If you're eating fewer calories than you are expending, fat storage doesn't seem likely. I do think insulin regulation is important, but this can be just as well accomplished with low-GI carbs in a meal containing fat as with omission of carbs. Also, I think the way most of us here eat (many small meals a day) prevents our bodies from needing to store excess macronutrients. We eat only what we need for energy if not less than we need until our next meal.

[SwoleCat]

Many don't think about WHAT the calories consist of. A calorie is not a calorie in regards to eating under maintenance and making progress. I.E. 2000 kcals a certain way is more productive in changing a body in terms of fat/muscle ratio, than 2000 kcals another way. Just because you are under maintenance does not mean you will automatically lose fat and not muscle, you must create that environment and make it happen.

For reference, one may wish to read "WHY I DON'T COUNT CALORIES" in my V.X. Library located @ my site.

~SC~

[rambo]

Just because you are under maintenance does not mean you will automatically lose fat and not muscle, you must create that environment and make it happen.

[bigsd67]

personally i think it's getting to be a tired arguement...if you really dont believe in it then dont do it and post results....easy enuf....like Swole said to each his own and do whatever makes u happy

[LeanMeOut]

personally i think it's getting to be a tired arguement...if you really dont believe in it then dont do it and post results....easy enuf....like Swole said to each his own and do whatever makes u happy

I totally agree

[longhornDr]

I think I'd have to agree with the author of that thread. I'm not so sure of the effects of carb/fat separation in a hypercaloric diet, but I think it should not make a difference when there is a negative energy balance. The theory is all about preventing fat storage...now, I hate to sound like i'm saying "a calorie is a calorie," but ultimately, that's what it boils down to. If you're eating fewer calories than you are expending, fat storage doesn't seem likely. I do think insulin regulation is important, but this can be just as well accomplished with low-GI carbs in a meal containing fat as with omission of carbs. Also, I think the way most of us here eat (many small meals a day) prevents our bodies from needing to store excess macronutrients. We eat only what we need for energy if not less than we need until our next meal.

Emerging research in the field of obesity/metabolism is showing that the idea that "a calorie is a calorie" is actually quite wrong. There is no single unit of energy....the body processes and utilizes protein/fat/carbs in distinct ways. Amino acids and carbohydrates are tightly regulated while fat is believed to be metabolically invisible.

For example, carbohydrates stimulate the use of carbohydrates for fuel, so whether you are in a calorie defecit or excess can depend on the composition of the meals you are eating, not just the number of calories.

Additionally, it has been shown that carbohydrates are only sparingly converted to fat in normal individuals, and the majority of fat accumulation comes from dietary fats consumed in the presence of carbohydrates.

Nutrient partitioning is emerging as a vital key to manipulating adipose tissue....look at Swolecat's clients, if you run SGX right you WILL get stronger, maybe even a little bigger, and at the same time the fat will be melting off.

What happens when you just cut calories and eat normal mixed meals in a calorie defecit? You just end up looking like a smaller, weaker version of yourself, no real body composition change.

[SwoleCat]

I wanted to say "excellent explanation" (I swear) even before you gave me credit for the work of my programs/clients, thank you for that. I swear I really did, and I know that no one is going to believe me, so why am I typing this, hahahha?????? At least I can post whore...

Well put and good use of imagery in your final assessments, as that is very true!

~SC~

[usualsuspect]

Good post Longhorn!