# Carbs and fats



## pengers84 (Dec 15, 2005)

Is it true you should avoid combining carbs and fats in the one meal?


----------



## The13ig13adWolf (Dec 15, 2005)

some subscribe to this method and some don't.


----------



## Emma-Leigh (Dec 15, 2005)

pengers84 said:
			
		

> Is it true you should avoid combining carbs and fats in the one meal?


Load of bollux with no **real** science behind it.

Yes - lots of saturated fats or trans fats, in combination with lots of HFCS or highly refined carbs can be a bad thing in a diet and can lead to insulin resistance and just general poor health (poor cholesterol, heart disease, fatty liver accumulation, visceral fat storage etc etc) but there is nothing wrong with having an appropriate serving of carbs (combinations of starchy/sugar and fibre) and an appropriate serving of healthy fats in the same meal (combined with protein). This is actually advantagous - it has many benefits for things such as satiety and your blood sugar/blood insulin response.


----------



## The13ig13adWolf (Dec 15, 2005)

Emma-Leigh said:
			
		

> Load of bollux with no **real** science behind it.


i totally disagree. Berardi is one of the best in the business and an example of someone who promotes p/c and p/f. research and science included. 

TONS of information here http://www.johnberardi.com/


----------



## Emma-Leigh (Dec 15, 2005)

The13ig13adWolf said:
			
		

> i totally disagree. Berardi is one of the best in the business and an example of someone who promotes p/c and p/f. research and science included.
> 
> TONS of information here http://www.johnberardi.com/


Well... Berardi USED to talk about this (in his first 'massive eating' serious the one he put out years ago which is completely stupid in terms of calorie prescriptions)..

But if you go and take a lot at his more 'recent' stuff (the 'updated' versions) he 'modified' this to "Remember that low GI carbs, and healthy fats are ok" after many 'less than positive comments' from other people in the business.


----------



## garethhe (Dec 15, 2005)

all i can add is what i've seen from my own experience--for months i've been making a point to have some carbs, fats and proteins in every single meal i eat (except PWO), and i'm quite happy with my results thus far on the program.


----------



## The13ig13adWolf (Dec 15, 2005)

Emma-Leigh said:
			
		

> Well... Berardi USED to talk about this (in his first 'massive eating' serious the one he put out years ago which is completely stupid in terms of calorie prescriptions)..
> 
> But if you go and take a lot at his more 'recent' stuff (the 'updated' versions) he 'modified' this to "Remember that low GI carbs, and healthy fats are ok" after many 'less than positive comments' from other people in the business.



he may have received less than positive feedback from various folk and i haven't read his 'modified' articles but there is still a significant amount of information promoting this method of dieting. i, for one, can say that this is the method i use (edit: that my coach uses with all of his clients. he just so happens to be friends with Berardi) which has resulted in the best results i've seen in my entire life in a _significantly_ shorter period of time. 

different strokes for different folks. p/c/f works well for some people. while p/f and p/c works for others.


----------



## Emma-Leigh (Dec 15, 2005)

garethhe said:
			
		

> all i can add is what i've seen from my own experience--for months i've been making a point to have some carbs, fats and proteins in every single meal i eat (except PWO), and i'm quite happy with my results thus far on the program.




 Except for PWO all the research out suggests that a combination of protein, some carbs (starchy/fruit/vegetable/fibre) and some healthy fats is always beneficial - regardless of whether you are cutting or bulking.


----------



## Emma-Leigh (Dec 15, 2005)

The information 'promoting' that method of dieting has no scientific merit - it is all 'testimonial' stuff only (eg: "I did the diet and I got ripped" or "I did the diet and I got HUUUGEEE")... 

But don't get me wrong - I never said the diet doesn't work... Infact, the diet can work... But this is because it is working 'despite the macro seperation' rather than because of it... In reality, anything that provides appropriate calories, sufficient protein, some healthy fats and some fibre and is not completely stupid will work... 

All I am saying there is no real (applicable, reliable, peer-reviewed, scientific) evidence for the suggestions at all.


----------



## The13ig13adWolf (Dec 15, 2005)

Emma-Leigh said:
			
		

> Except for PWO all the research out suggests that a combination of protein, some carbs (starchy/fruit/vegetable/fibre) and some healthy fats is always beneficial - regardless of whether you are cutting or bulking.


'all the research' is very broad. what references are you basing this on?


----------



## PreMier (Dec 15, 2005)

The13ig13adWolf said:
			
		

> he may have received less than positive feedback from various folk and i haven't read his 'modified' articles but there is still a significant amount of information promoting this method of dieting. i, for one, can say that this is the method i use (edit: that my coach uses with all of his clients. he just so happens to be friends with Berardi) which has resulted in the best results i've seen in my entire life in a _significantly_ shorter period of time.
> 
> different strokes for different folks. p/c/f works well for some people. while p/f and p/c works for others.




Have you ever used a p/c/f approach?  And if so, was it strict, and planned like the p/c p/f approach your using now?

P.S. my balls are steel


----------



## Emma-Leigh (Dec 16, 2005)

The13ig13adWolf said:
			
		

> 'all the research' is very broad. what references are you basing this on?


Here is the update of Massive Eating...

Here is a Food combining Study that showed no difference between the two diets (disociated or balanced).

There is another one Here where it was shown that three different diets (balanced, food-combining or low-carb) had similar results.

There is a great article here where they basically conclude that a moderate carb, high to moderate protein, low-ish fat diet (in terms of western diets anyway) is probably optimal in terms of hormonal influences on satiety and hunger.

And another Here - on appetite control. And a great article on regulation of food intake Here.

There are also many studies on the short and long term effects of the different macronutrients if you want to look them up - simply go to Pubmed or Highwire and type in any number of searches (eg: protein AND satiety OR macronutrients AND satiety etc) and you will get a stack of papers back.

eg:
protein satiety -
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/82/1/41

Carb and fibre satiety -
http://www.nutrition.org/cgi/content/full/130/2/272S?
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/72/6/1461?

Diet composition and dieting -
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/71/4/901?


Also - if you want to read a discussion on another board regarding food combining you could try here.


----------



## The13ig13adWolf (Dec 16, 2005)

PreMier said:
			
		

> Have you ever used a p/c/f approach?  And if so, was it strict, and planned like the p/c p/f approach your using now?
> 
> P.S. my balls are steel


you're missing my point entirely. that's irrelevant for the purpose of this argument. i'm simply stating that there is no one 'cookie cutter' method of dieting. both methods exist and neither is 'bollox'. there are success stories on both sides so how can one be more 'correct' than the other? that's just as asinine as saying bodypart training is the ONLY option...it's simply not.

how is it illogical to split up your meals in a way that enables your body to utilize the macronutrients it needs at the times they will be best put to use? your body simply does not need p/c/f all day in each meal. however, it would be naive of me to state eating all three in each meal doesn't work because clearly it does...it's just not the only way. let's be a little open minded here.


----------



## Jodi (Dec 16, 2005)

Don't be so defensive.  Actually, according to PreMiers comments I think that was the point he was trying to make - keep an open mind.

Nice post Emma


----------



## Thunder (Dec 16, 2005)

It's not really a defensive post. I see an open mind. She says cookie cutter doesn't work, there is more than one method of dieting, and people get results from more than one dietary approach. 



			
				The13ig13adWolf said:
			
		

> i'm simply stating that there is no one 'cookie cutter' method of dieting. both methods exist and neither is 'bollox'.



This is a true statement. 



> there are success stories on both sides so how can one be more 'correct' than the other? that's just as asinine as saying bodypart training is the ONLY option...it's simply not.



This is a true statement. 



> how is it illogical to split up your meals in a way that enables your body to utilize the macronutrients it needs at the times they will be best put to use? your body simply does not need p/c/f all day in each meal. however, it would be naive of me to state eating all three in each meal doesn't work because clearly it does...it's just not the only way. let's be a little open minded here.



And I guess this is a true statement too.


----------



## Thunder (Dec 16, 2005)

This really isn't complicated. Do you have to split of carbs and fats to see progress? Of course not. And it's correct that there's no published data to support it either. Mind you, there's really not any that directly refutes it either. Nor is there any published data that I'm aware of that supports something like say, carb/calorie cycling, yet many, many people find it more beneficial than static dieting. It is but ONE way of setting up a diet. Nothing magical, just a convenient way for some people to eat. 

It's also true that what tends to be most important is calories, adequate protein, adequate EFAs, etc. As someone said, (paraphrasing) anything that meets those qualifications and isn't stupid will work ... up to a point of course. 

I don't think anyone is saying macro splitting is magical. I don't think anyone HAS said that outside of hardcore JB followers back in the day. 

There ARE times during the day when you need and want certain macronutrients and times when these same nutrients are less than ideal, or even simply not really needed - and this really just reflects carb intake. Generally speaking, when consumed around greater periods of activity, nutrients tend to be absorbed and utilized more effectively. Everyone knows about the PWO hooplah, so suffice to say it's a period when you want what ideally? Protein and carbs. Not fat. I think everyone (most) will agree with that. Extend that to the Post PWO meal - still going to be predominately protein and carbs depending on goals for many people. 

Outside of the hours following an intensive workout, our bodies aren't so cooperative when it comes to making efficient use of nutrients. Once the effects of the workout have worn off, we return to normal physiological functioning, which is characterized by normal insulin sensitivity/resistance and a relative reduction in anabolic hormone levels. The rest of the day has the greatest variability obviously, but for the average person, while protein is a constant, quite simply, you don't _need _as many carbs, so you can use fat (say fruit as well) as a caloric ballast to help you meet your daily caloric goals and aid in recovery. Basically low carb meals because they're really not needed. 

That's it. One way of timing macros according to your training. Not magic. It's not about the magic of macro splitting. It's simply a method of timing macros around periods you need them most.


----------



## Pirate! (Dec 16, 2005)

pengers84 said:
			
		

> Is it true you should avoid combining carbs and fats in the one meal?


No, that is not true. Almost every source of carbs has fat, even oatmeal, so it is almost impossible to keep the two seperate. As stated above, some find trying to has benefited them. For someone seeking anabolism, I don't recommend trying to completely eliminate fat from meals with carbs. Whey isolate and skim milk would be about the only protein sources you could have with carbs.


----------



## Thunder (Dec 16, 2005)

PirateFromHell said:
			
		

> No, that is not true. Almost every source of carbs has fat, even oatmeal, so it is almost impossible to keep the two seperate. As stated above, some find trying to has benefited them. For someone seeking anabolism, I don't recommend trying to completely eliminate fat from meals with carbs. Whey isolate and skim milk would be about the only protein sources you could have with carbs.



The point isn't really to have 0 carbs in a fat meal or 0 fat in a carb meal as like you said, that's almost impossible to do. The take home point with that 'method' is to minimize (not eliminate) carbs in fat meals and minimize (not eliminate) fats in carb meals for example, which again, of course is definitely not necessary to success.


----------



## The13ig13adWolf (Dec 16, 2005)

Jodi said:
			
		

> Don't be so defensive.


where specifically in my post do i come off defensive? you've misread a bit.


----------



## The13ig13adWolf (Dec 16, 2005)

Thunder said:
			
		

> This really isn't complicated. Do you have to split of carbs and fats to see progress? Of course not. And it's correct that there's no published data to support it either. Mind you, there's really not any that directly refutes it either. Nor is there any published data that I'm aware of that supports something like say, carb/calorie cycling, yet many, many people find it more beneficial than static dieting. It is but ONE way of setting up a diet. Nothing magical, just a convenient way for some people to eat.
> 
> It's also true that what tends to be most important is calories, adequate protein, adequate EFAs, etc. As someone said, (paraphrasing) anything that meets those qualifications and isn't stupid will work ... up to a point of course.
> 
> ...


nice post


----------



## PreMier (Dec 16, 2005)

Captian obvious says Thunder's your coach.  He doesnt post here on IM for over 8 months, and now that you are a mod, he comes to post.. backing your/his opinion.  Thats funny


----------



## Thunder (Dec 16, 2005)

PreMier said:
			
		

> Captian obvious says Thunder's your coach.  He doesnt post here on IM for over 8 months, and now that you are a mod, he comes to post.. backing your/his opinion.  Thats funny



Why is it funny? So she told me about the thread, big deal.


----------



## PreMier (Dec 16, 2005)

The13ig13adWolf said:
			
		

> you're missing my point entirely. that's irrelevant for the purpose of this argument. i'm simply stating that there is no one 'cookie cutter' method of dieting. both methods exist and neither is 'bollox'. there are success stories on both sides so how can one be more 'correct' than the other? that's just as asinine as saying bodypart training is the ONLY option...it's simply not.
> 
> how is it illogical to split up your meals in a way that enables your body to utilize the macronutrients it needs at the times they will be best put to use? your body simply does not need p/c/f all day in each meal. however, it would be naive of me to state eating all three in each meal doesn't work because clearly it does...it's just not the only way. let's be a little open minded here.



I wasnt missing the point.  I was wondering if you had a biased opinion on the subject at hand.  IE: never trying the other method..  So basically making an opinionated statement and not a factual one.  So you're a success story on one side, thats all.. I never said there was one correct method, but having your meals split up int p/c p/f doesnt mean that the macros in those meals are being better used.  Dont fucking question my open mindedness.. I was simply asking a question.


----------



## The13ig13adWolf (Dec 16, 2005)

PreMier said:
			
		

> Captian obvious says Thunder's your coach.  He doesnt post here on IM for over 8 months, and now that you are a mod, he comes to post.. backing your/his opinion.  Thats funny


missing your point. did you have something to add pertaining to the topic?


----------



## PreMier (Dec 16, 2005)

Thunder said:
			
		

> Why is it funny? So she told me about the thread, big deal.


Its funny because I question where the statements are coming from now.  Can you say:







Tell Robert you should be a mod here too.


----------



## The13ig13adWolf (Dec 16, 2005)

PreMier said:
			
		

> having your meals split up int p/c p/f doesnt mean that the macros in those meals are being better used.



re-read my post. my point is that there is more than one option...not that one is superior to the other.



> Dont fucking question my open mindedness.. I was simply asking a question.



is the cursing necessary? we're all adults here...


----------



## wild (Dec 16, 2005)

PreMier said:
			
		

> I wasnt missing the point.  I was wondering if you had a biased opinion on the subject at hand.  IE: never trying the other method..  So basically making an opinionated statement and not a factual one.  So you're a success story on one side, thats all.. I never said there was one correct method, but having your meals split up int p/c p/f doesnt mean that the macros in those meals are being better used.  Dont fucking question my open mindedness.. I was simply asking a question.



I've tried both. Done pre-comp both ways. I got way leaner by eating P+C & P+F

EDIT: and didn't have to do nearly as much cardio.


----------



## The13ig13adWolf (Dec 16, 2005)

PreMier said:
			
		

> Its funny because I question where the statements are coming from now.  Can you say:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


so are you a parrot for siding with emma?

get over yourself jake.


----------



## Thunder (Dec 16, 2005)

PreMier said:
			
		

> Its funny because I question where the statements are coming from now.  Can you say:
> 
> Tell Robert you should be a mod here too.



Will you find it funny when Wild shows up all of a sudden?  

Listen, don't start talking about parrotting here, since I've got quite a counter to that. 

Kristen has learned some stuff from me. Does that make her a parrot? Because some of what she says might sound similar to some of what I might say? Do 'students' learn from 'teachers'? Do you know how many parrots post on message boards? Even here? Everyone learns from someone else. I'm really not understanding the problem with that.


----------



## Arnold (Dec 16, 2005)

PreMier said:
			
		

> Tell Robert you should be a mod here too.



I actually own two parrots, and they have more intelligent things to say than the crap you're posting in this thread.


----------



## PreMier (Dec 16, 2005)

The13ig13adWolf said:
			
		

> so are you a parrot for siding with emma?
> 
> get over yourself jake.



Where did I side with anyone?  I asked a question, I was merely curious 

And language, fuck you 



			
				Thunder said:
			
		

> Will you find it funny when Leah shows up all of a sudden?
> 
> Listen, don't start talking about parrotting here, since I've got quite a counter to that.
> 
> Kristen has learned mostly from me most likely. Does that make her a parrot? Because some of what she says might sound similar to some of what I might say? Do 'students' learn from 'teachers'? Do you know how many parrots post on message boards? Even here? Everyone learns from someone else.



Nope, I wont.. she was stating what worked for her, thats great.  Plus Leah has been her far more than either of you.. so maybe she does actually read IM  
If you look above, I was merely asking a question.  And like I said before, I thought it was just funny that you start posting here again after she became a mod.  I know she has her own opinion, and she is an intelligent woman.. but you being her coach and then popping in all of a sudden when she is debating with people made me wonder if you were telling her what to say or not is all.


----------



## PreMier (Dec 16, 2005)

Robert DiMaggio said:
			
		

> I actually own two parrots, and they have more intelligent things to say than the crap you're posting in this thread.



Thanks Prince, I love you too.  Sorry you didnt like my opinion earlier, but I might as well be honest with ya.


Im done with the bickering here.. its pointless, and it will continue on forever over small technicalities.


----------



## wild (Dec 16, 2005)

PreMier said:
			
		

> Where did I side with anyone?  I asked a question, I was merely curious
> 
> And language, fuck you



What happened to frick?


----------



## Thunder (Dec 16, 2005)

PreMier said:
			
		

> Nope, I wont.. she was stating what worked for her, thats great.  Plus Leah has been her far more than either of you.. so maybe she does actually read IM



Not too likely. 



> If you look above, I was merely asking a question.



I'm aware of this. 



> And like I said before, I thought it was just funny that you start posting here again after she became a mod.  I know she has her own opinion, and she is an intelligent woman.. but you being her coach and then popping in all of a sudden when she is debating with people made me wonder if you were telling her what to say or not is all.



1. She told me she became a mod here, yes. 
2. I came over, looked around, posted a couple times. 
3. She told me about this thread ... after she was already involved in it. I came over to read it and replied. Anything wrong with voicing my two cents?
4. I can honestly tell you that I did not feed her what to say Jake.


----------



## Arnold (Dec 16, 2005)

PreMier said:
			
		

> Thanks Prince, I love you too.  Sorry you didnt like my opinion earlier, but I might as well be honest with ya.



as I am being honest with you.


----------



## The13ig13adWolf (Dec 16, 2005)

PreMier said:
			
		

> you being her coach and then popping in all of a sudden when she is debating with people made me wonder if you were telling her what to say or not is all.


right...because i all of a sudden lost the ability to think for myself


----------



## wild (Dec 16, 2005)

Hi Prince  

(just thought I'd say hi while I'm here  )


----------



## Arnold (Dec 16, 2005)

wild said:
			
		

> Hi Prince
> 
> (just thought I'd say hi while I'm here  )



hi, nice abs!


----------



## wild (Dec 16, 2005)

Robert DiMaggio said:
			
		

> hi, nice abs!



Old pic...they got better...but thanks


----------



## Thunder (Dec 16, 2005)

wild said:
			
		

> Old pic...they got better...but thanks



Post one from this morning ... er, wait, don't do that.


----------



## wild (Dec 16, 2005)

Thunder said:
			
		

> Post one from this morning ... er, wait, don't do that.



ha

ha

ha


...ok...they got better...and then they got really bad...whatever, there's no photographic evidence of fatness


----------



## P-funk (Dec 16, 2005)

pengers84 said:
			
		

> Is it true you should avoid combining carbs and fats in the one meal?




I always combine them....and look how great I turned out!!


----------



## myCATpowerlifts (Dec 16, 2005)

Dang, some major ownage being passed out in this thread.

I think it is smart to lessen carbs slightly when you are hours away, or hours after activity, as carbs are mainly a source of energy during activity.
While fat is (from what I have read) predominately used as energy while at rest.
So during times when not training, fat should be used more.

However, trying to split the macro's in every meal, is just plain moronic, and goes against our own bodies.

PreMier ownz.


----------



## Jodi (Dec 16, 2005)

P-funk said:
			
		

> I always combine them....and look how great I turned out!!


----------



## Emma-Leigh (Dec 16, 2005)

Damn it... That is what I get for living on the other side of the world - I miss all the action!


----------



## The13ig13adWolf (Dec 16, 2005)

Emma-Leigh said:
			
		

> Damn it... That is what I get for living on the other side of the world - I miss all the action!


...i'm actually ready for a nap.


----------



## remmy (Dec 16, 2005)

PreMier said:
			
		

> And language, fuck you



Been lurking here a few days, and I can already tell who the little bitch is on this board...


----------



## Seanp156 (Dec 16, 2005)

Well, that was an entertaining read...


----------



## Pirate! (Dec 16, 2005)

Thunder said:
			
		

> The point isn't really to have 0 carbs in a fat meal or 0 fat in a carb meal as like you said, that's almost impossible to do. The take home point with that 'method' is to minimize (not eliminate) carbs in fat meals and minimize (not eliminate) fats in carb meals for example, which again, of course is definitely not necessary to success.


I understand this and I understand the logic behind the method, which I used for about 3 months. The orginal question asked if something is true and the answer to that is no. I think one should do whatever works for that person, but there is obviously a danger in dealing with absolutes. True/False quesitons simply don't work for many issues.

I have discussed this issue with some of the top nutritional scientists at the University of Texas, where I am working on completing a B.S. in Nutrition and Health, and I can assure you that this theory of not eating fat and carbs together providing any benefit (anabolism, fat loss, nutrient partitioning, health improvement etc) has been tested and holds no water at all. Having said that, I still find nothing wrong with it if that is what one prefers.

BTW, I'm surprised to see you on this board, Thunder. I thought I was on a lot of boards, but you are everywhere I go.


----------



## Pirate! (Dec 16, 2005)

remmy said:
			
		

> Been lurking here a few days, and I can already tell who the little bitch is on this board...


LOL, someone used their first post to call PreMier a bitch.


----------



## Thunder (Dec 16, 2005)

PirateFromHell said:
			
		

> I understand this and I understand the logic behind the method, which I used for about 3 months. The orginal question asked if something is true and the answer to that is no. I think one should do whatever works for that person, but there is obviously a danger in dealing with absolutes. True/False quesitons simply don't work for many issues.



Like I said, nowhere did I say it was the end all be all. I said it was one method and it is NOT about macro splitting but about timing macros around periods when they're most efficiently used. I agree with you however, that each person has to find out what works best for themselves. 



> I have discussed this issue with some of the top nutritional scientists at the University of Texas, where I am working on completing a B.S. in Nutrition and Health, and I can assure you that this theory of not eating fat and carbs together providing any benefit (anabolism, fat loss, nutrient partitioning, health improvement etc) has been tested and holds no water at all.



John Ivy? Richard Kreider? 

Tested? There's published research on macro splitting? Not aware of this. Do you have a reference? Thanks.


----------



## thajeepster (Dec 16, 2005)

and the end all answer to the question in the first place????

Some things work for some and some work for others.... experiment and find what works for you.

I know i have no "cred" like many of the other poster's here, but common sense should dictate that every one is different, and no single nutritional program will work for everyone.


----------



## Thunder (Dec 16, 2005)

thajeepster said:
			
		

> and the end all answer to the question in the first place????





I guess the answer to the original question would be no, you don't have to separate carbs and fats. 



> I know i have no "cred" like many of the other poster's here, but common sense should dictate that every one is different, and no single nutritional program will work for everyone.



Indeed.


----------



## Pirate! (Dec 16, 2005)

Kreider is at The University of Memphis, and if Ivy is at UT, I have yet to come across him. I intended to say in my last post that I don't have studies for reference.

I'm not contenting that people shouldn't split their macro-nutrients if that is what they want, but I can tell you that the vast majority of those with formal education in nutrition would not answer yes to the orginal question. 

There will always be fads, lore, and opinions when it comes to this kind of stuff. In a few years, there will be something just as big that takes the place of the last thing.

It isn't hard for one to find studies on the benefits of eating some fat with a meal that has a significant amount carbohydrates. In fact, the epedimic of obsesity in the Former Soviet Union is in large part contributed to this. Just looking at the GI aspect of things, reasonable amounts of healthy fats help to keep blood sugar from spiking when ingesting carbs. This is just one example of the benefits from having fat with your carbs. There are many more, which are supported by research.


----------



## The13ig13adWolf (Dec 16, 2005)

well, that was easy enough


----------



## Emma-Leigh (Dec 16, 2005)

Thunder said:
			
		

> I guess the answer to the original question would be no, you don't have to separate carbs and fats....



 Didn't I say that in my first few posts??!


> don't get me wrong - I never said the diet doesn't work... Infact, the diet can work... But this is because it is working 'despite the macro seperation' rather than because of it... In reality, anything that provides appropriate calories, sufficient protein, some healthy fats and some fibre and is not completely stupid will work...
> 
> All I am saying there is no real (applicable, reliable, peer-reviewed, scientific) evidence for the suggestions at all.



That is: Do it if you want - if you are getting what you need it will work... But no, you don't have to do it.



ps: if you want a few studies on food combining (basic ones, but studies none the less) then look at the post I posted above with all the links.... there are a few studies on the difference between balanced and food combining diets and they do not show a difference.


----------



## The13ig13adWolf (Dec 16, 2005)

Emma-Leigh said:
			
		

> Didn't I say that in my first few posts??!


you actually called separating carbs and fats _bollox_...which is the ONLY reason i had a problem with your original post.


----------



## Thunder (Dec 16, 2005)

PirateFromHell said:
			
		

> Kreider is at The University of Memphis, and if Ivy is at UT, I have yet to come across him. I intended to say in my last post that I don't have studies for reference.



Memphis? Last I talked to him he was at Baylor heading up the ESN lab. Ivy is at UT and is the head of the Kines. & Health Education department there. 

Out of curiosity, who are the top nutritional scientists you're referring to? I'm pretty good with names on the academic side. 

Didn't think there was a reference given your post stated that basically it was  already tested and disproved ... 



> I'm not contenting that people shouldn't split their macro-nutrients if that is what they want, but I can tell you that the vast majority of those with formal education in nutrition would not answer yes to the orginal question.



No arguements there. 

But let's remember (just for fun) that it is not those with university education in nutrition that are the leaders in sports nutrition - it's exercise physiologists. Most of the big names in academia/industry are exercise physiologists. University nutrition programs do not really teach 'sports nutrition'. _Most _are preparatory programs for a future dietetics/RD classification. 

Again though, there is no magic to macro splitting. No doubt. But it is not illogical to time macros (ie eat most of your carbs around workouts or during periods of higher IS for example) when you need them, and eat less carbs when you don't need them. 



> Just looking at the GI aspect of things, reasonable amounts of healthy fats help to keep blood sugar from spiking when ingesting carbs. This is just one example of the benefits from having fat with your carbs. There are many more, which are supported by research.



The GI is completely overrated in the grand scheme of things in my opinion (not from a health standpoint as low GI carbs tend to be 'healthy' carbs). Delayed gastric emptying does not automatically equal suppressed insulin response. You could look at the corresponding II for various low GI foods as an example. But again, doesn't really matter to this discussion, but interesting food for thought. 

Good discussion.


----------



## emunah (Dec 16, 2005)

not arguing either side, but the both of the food combining studies were done on obese subjects and only measure weight loss, not LBM.  Results then can't really be extrapolated to bodybuilders or non-obese subjects who are looking to gain LBM while either losing or gaining minimal fat.  the other studies only talk about overall ratios not individual meals.


----------



## Emma-Leigh (Dec 16, 2005)

The13ig13adWolf said:
			
		

> you actually called separating carbs and fats _bollox_...which is the ONLY reason i had a problem with your original post.


Yes - which is just my short hand way of saing "no, you do not need to seperate carbs and fats. There is no scientific evidence to suggest it is necessary in the least and it is not going to instantly turn you into a marshmellow should you combine the two".


----------



## P-funk (Dec 16, 2005)

the fact that the term bollox has now been used three times in one thread is beyond me.


----------



## wild (Dec 16, 2005)

Emma-Leigh said:
			
		

> Yes - which is just my short hand way of saing "no, you do not need to seperate carbs and fats. There is no scientific evidence to suggest it is necessary in the least and it is not going to instantly turn you into a marshmellow should you combine the two".



Tell that to my belly...I checked my pastries...fat _and_ carbs...no wonder I'm a fatty now


----------



## The13ig13adWolf (Dec 16, 2005)

Emma-Leigh said:
			
		

> Yes - which is just my short hand way of saing "no, you do not need to seperate carbs and fats. There is no scientific evidence to suggest it is necessary in the least and it is not going to instantly turn you into a marshmellow should you combine the two".


then forgive me for misunderstanding because in Britain it's used figuratively to mean _nonsense, poor quality or useless_.


----------



## Thunder (Dec 16, 2005)

emunah said:
			
		

> not arguing either side, but the both of the food combining studies were done on obese subjects and only measure weight loss, not LBM.  Results then can't really be extrapolated to bodybuilders or non-obese subjects who are looking to gain LBM while either losing or gaining minimal fat.  the other studies only talk about overall ratios not individual meals.



True. As well, can't quite remember the details, but weren't the studies based on food (self) reporting as well. Wait, actually I think that was for the studies that showed a difference b/w low carb and high carb eating. Ah well, who cares?


----------



## Thunder (Dec 16, 2005)

Now, I think everyone in this thread should post pictures of their physiques to support their positions. We all know that's the real way to debate the efficacy of any strategy.  None of this science mumbo jumbo 

Kris - you're a pic wh0re. You can start.

:frantically running away:


----------



## The13ig13adWolf (Dec 16, 2005)

_"hello pot, this is kettle.....you're black"_

_I'M_ a picture whore....LOL.


----------



## Thunder (Dec 16, 2005)

The13ig13adWolf said:
			
		

> _"hello pot, this is kettle.....you're black"_
> 
> _I'M_ a picture whore....LOL.



Umm yes. Precisely.


----------



## Pirate! (Dec 16, 2005)

Dr. Lagowski, Dr. Iverson, Dr. Davis, Dr. Kohl, Dr. Meadows, and to some extent Dr. Brilley and Dr. Loop. 

It is well understood that most medium and long chains fats are absorbed through the lymphatic system. It can take ~16 hours from ingestion for these fats to be released into the blood. The fats travel from the lymphatic vessels to the thoracic duct behind the heart. From the thoracic duct, the fats pass through the subclavian vein and into the heart. This process takes lots of time, again ~16 hours. Why does this matter? Because you can have your pro/fat meal at bedtime and the fat will be entering your bloodstream as you ingest carbs at lunch or even during your PWO shake, God forbid! Fat isn???t like carbs, where 3 hours later it is out of your blood. There aren???t many, if any, studies about what you call macro splitting, because there are way too many things that have been extensively studied and show that not only are there benefits to combing the foods you suggest to separate, but that the reasoning behind the splitting it based on a flawed understanding of digestion, absorption, and utilization of nutrients???such as the example above. To quote one my nutrition textbooks, ???The art of ???food separation??? represents faulty logic and gross underestimation of the body???s capabilities. In fact, the contrary is often true; foods eaten together can enhance each other???s use by the body???. It continues to list a myriad of reasons for combing foods, such as the improved absorption of iron in the presence of vitamin C. To think that fat won???t be used for energy as opposed to stored as fat because one hasn???t eaten carbohydrates for 3 hours is preposterous. I realize that is only a part of the reasoning of the ???method???. In reality, you don???t know when you have much fat in your blood.  Ever have blood work done after fasting all night? Guess what, plenty of triglycerides are present. I could go on and on. If you want to know why you can't find studies about this macro splitting method, it could be because all the people that fund such studies (usually universities) already know that it simply doesn???t make any sense in light of what has been determined from all previous studies about nutrient absorption, digestion, and utilization. 

I still say, if it works for you, go and enjoy it. Maybe there are some advantages. IMO, nutrient timing is much more important than separation. The fact remains that there is an overwhelming amount of data from studies that totally debunk the faulty reasoning behind the hypothesis such that no one cares to test it. You can???t get past the hypothesis stage when the reasoning for the hypothesis simply doesn???t add up. This is a fad that has come and gone over the decades. Sorry.


----------



## The13ig13adWolf (Dec 16, 2005)

PirateFromHell said:
			
		

> IMO, nutrient timing is much more important than separation.


although, timing is taken into consideration with separation as well. just a thought.


----------



## Thunder (Dec 16, 2005)

PirateFromHell said:
			
		

> Dr. Lagowski, Dr. Iverson, Dr. Davis, Dr. Kohl, Dr. Meadows, and to some extent Dr. Brilley and Dr. Loop.
> 
> It is well understood that most medium and long chains fats are absorbed through the lymphatic system. It can take ~16 hours from ingestion for these fats to be released into the blood.



MCTs can take 16 hours to reach the blood? LCTs require a lot of bile acids and digestive steps to be digested into smaller units before they can be absorbed into the bloodstream - conventional fats are transported as chylomicrons, but MCTs are transported directly to the liver where they are oxidized extensively to produce energy. 



> There aren???t many, if any, studies about what you call macro splitting,



:sigh:

Once again, if you'll review my posts I have said more than once that it is NOT about macro splitting, but about timing macros to periods where they're most needed. You know? Nutrient timing?



> because there are way too many things that have been extensively studied and show that not only are there benefits to combing the foods you suggest to separate, but that the reasoning behind the splitting it based on a flawed understanding of digestion, absorption, and utilization of nutrients???such as the example above.



Are you reading any of my posts?



> To think that fat won???t be used for energy as opposed to stored as fat because one hasn???t eaten carbohydrates for 3 hours is preposterous.



When did I say this?



> I realize that is only a part of the reasoning of the ???method???. In reality, you don???t know when you have much fat in your blood.  Ever have blood work done after fasting all night? Guess what, plenty of triglycerides are present. I could go on and on. If you want to know why you can't find studies about this macro splitting method, it could be because all the people that fund such studies (usually universities) already know that it simply doesn???t make any sense in light of what has been determined from all previous studies about nutrient absorption, digestion, and utilization.



You're talking to me like you're the only one with a university education here.  



> IMO, nutrient timing is much more important than separation. The fact remains that there is an overwhelming amount of data from studies that totally debunk the faulty reasoning behind the hypothesis such that no one cares to test it. You can???t get past the hypothesis stage when the reasoning for the hypothesis simply doesn???t add up. This is a fad that has come and gone over the decades. Sorry.



I almost feel like you're in a different conversation than everyone else here. 
I think you might want to go back and reread some of the earlier posts.


----------



## Thunder (Dec 16, 2005)

This post for example. 



			
				Thunder said:
			
		

> This really isn't complicated. *Do you have to split of carbs and fats to see progress? Of course not. And it's correct that there's no published data to support it either*. Mind you, there's really not any that directly refutes it either. Nor is there any published data that I'm aware of that supports something like say, carb/calorie cycling, yet many, many people find it more beneficial than static dieting. *It is but ONE way of setting up a diet. Nothing magical, just a convenient way for some people to eat. *
> 
> It's also true that what tends to be most important is calories, adequate protein, adequate EFAs, etc. As someone said, (paraphrasing) anything that meets those qualifications and isn't stupid will work ... up to a point of course.
> *
> ...


----------



## Pirate! (Dec 16, 2005)

Thunder said:
			
		

> University nutrition programs do not really teach 'sports nutrition'.


I intent no offense by saying this, but this is blatantly incorrect. We take classes on sports nutrition and advanced sport nutrition topics. Who do you think works with the UT football team? I personally counseled nationally ranked tennis players on their diet about 3 weeks ago. I'm not bragging nor am I accredited. But, I am intimately involved with the sports nutrition program at UT. I realize that some programs are geared toward becoming an RD, but that is only two of the ~7 nutrition majors, and not the program I am in. I have yet to meet Ivy, but hopefully I will have him for some of my upcoming classes and possibly do some post-grad work with him. It appears he will only be teaching kinesiology, not sports nutrition. However, his Condition For Competitive Athletes class were certainly touch upon sports nutrition.


----------



## Pirate! (Dec 16, 2005)

The thread was originally about splitting meals into p/c and p/f. I was addressing that. I understand the importance of macro timing, and I've said nothing that contridicts it.


----------



## Thunder (Dec 16, 2005)

PirateFromHell said:
			
		

> The thread was originally about splitting meals into p/c and p/f. I was addressing that. I understand the importance of macro timing, and I've said nothing that contridicts it.



I realize that, but you're replying to me are you not? Considering you answered my questions about the profs (none that I'm very familiar with) I can only assume the 'you' in your posts is directed at me.  

And I am not the one who's talking about macro splitting or any mysticism behind it. I have been talking about timing the entire time.


----------



## Pirate! (Dec 16, 2005)

> MCTs can take 16 hours to reach the blood?


 Sometimes,yes.


> conventional fats are transported as chylomicrons


True, and it is a long slow process for them to get into your blood streem, as the lymphatic system has no pump.
I'm not intending to talk down to you or suggest that you don't know the science behind it. Most of what I'm including is for other readers who aren't familiar with the basics.


----------



## Thunder (Dec 16, 2005)

PirateFromHell said:
			
		

> Sometimes,yes.



Just for fun and the sake of discussion ....

You said:
"It is well understood that most medium and long chains fats are absorbed through the lymphatic system. It can take ~16 hours from ingestion for these fats to be released into the blood."

A couple things

1. It's not well understood that MCTs are absorbed through the lymphatic system. They're traditionally brought right to the liver. They're more water-soluble and are able to get into the bloodstream quicker because of their shorter lengths.

2. What are the situations where this occurs? (the lymphatic/16hr for MCT thing) You had first mentioned it's well understood, but now say just sometimes. Legitimate question, since I either don't know the answer or quite simply can't remember it. 



> I'm not intending to talk down to you or suggest that you don't know the science behind it.



Ahh, not at all. No worries there. I'm not offended. I enjoy this kind of discusion.


----------



## Pirate! (Dec 16, 2005)

Thunder said:
			
		

> you answered my questions about the profs (none that I'm very familiar with) .


They aren't experts in kinesiology or sports nutrtion. Some head the Biology, Chemsistry, and Nutrition colleges. I've gotta hit the hay. I agree with almost everything you have said, Thunder. As you said, there is no magic to the macro splitting. In fact, I wasn't refuting anything you said. I was being presumptuous, believing that some of the other posters' reasoning was the same that these fad diets like Protein Power and other books have put forward, making claims on macro splitting. I apologize if I've offended you and I enjoyed having an engaging discussion about my favorite subject, nutrition. Night!


----------



## Thunder (Dec 16, 2005)

PirateFromHell said:
			
		

> They aren't experts in kinesiology or sports nutrtion. Some head the Biology, Chemsistry, and Nutrition colleges. I've gotta hit the hay. I agree with almost everything you have said, Thunder. As you said, there is no magic to the macro splitting. In fact, I wasn't refuting anything you said. I was being presumptuous, believing that some of the other posters' reasoning was the same that these fad diets like Protein Power and other books have put forward, making claims on macro splitting. I apologize if I've offended you and I enjoyed having an engaging discussion about my favorite subject, nutrition. Night!



Cool stuff. See ya next time.


----------



## Seanp156 (Dec 16, 2005)

*The End*


----------



## Pirate! (Dec 16, 2005)

Thunder said:
			
		

> Just for fun and the sake of discussion ....
> 
> You said:
> "It is well understood that most medium and long chains fats are absorbed through the lymphatic system. It can take ~16 hours from ingestion for these fats to be released into the blood."
> ...


 You are correct. MTC are water-soluble and are able to get into the bloodstream quicker because of their shorter lengths. I was incorrect. MTC (6-10 carbons) and short chain FA (<6 carbons) are mostly found in dairy products and make up a relatively small amount of the fat we injest. Long chain fatty acids (12 to 24 carbons) make up the vast majority of fats consumed, as they come from meats and fish.


----------



## myCATpowerlifts (Dec 16, 2005)

Emma-Leigh said:
			
		

> Load of *bollux* with no **real** science behind it.



Get it fucking right! She said Bollux, NOT Bollox!
Fuck people.


----------



## boilermaker (Dec 17, 2005)

I have found this thread to be a poor representation of IM.  Especially considering the number of moderators involved.  I'm surprised that someone didn't take control and squash the childsplay that went on here.  This is meant to be an informative section of the site.  Each moderator brings their own base of knowledge and opinion to IM.  It is a poor representation of IM to have persons associated with the site to be bickering amongst themselves.  Some of you should be ashamed.


----------



## Emma-Leigh (Dec 17, 2005)

Sorry steve....


----------



## The13ig13adWolf (Dec 17, 2005)

boilermaker said:
			
		

> I have found this thread to be a poor representation of IM.  Especially considering the number of moderators involved.  I'm surprised that someone didn't take control and squash the childsplay that went on here.  This is meant to be an informative section of the site.  Each moderator brings their own base of knowledge and opinion to IM.  It is a poor representation of IM to have persons associated with the site to be bickering amongst themselves.  Some of you should be ashamed.


IMO, as a result of the bickering....there is a TON of useful information throughout this thread and none of it got too far out of hand. a little debate is healthy now and again. just my .02.


----------



## Pirate! (Dec 17, 2005)

I want to formally apologize. I made an idiot of myself last night. Not that it is any excuse, but I am in the middle of finals and was completely sleep deprived. I hardly even remember half the stuff I said. It is a great topic to debate, but my argument was a total disaster from my first post. Hopefully, in the near future we can start the debate fresh and have it be more thought provoking. I owe it to the readers of this board and to myself (I do have a reputation to maintain) to make reasonable claims and back them sufficiently. I failed to do so last night. My time would have been better spent sleeping, too. Peace to all...


----------



## Thunder (Dec 17, 2005)

PirateFromHell said:
			
		

> I want to formally apologize. I made an idiot of myself last night. Not that it is any excuse, but I am in the middle of finals and was completely sleep deprived. I hardly even remember half the stuff I said. It is a great topic to debate, but my argument was a total disaster from my first post. Hopefully, in the near future we can start the debate fresh and have it be more thought provoking. I owe it to the readers of this board and to myself (I do have a reputation to maintain) to make reasonable claims and back them sufficiently. I failed to do so last night. My time would have been better spent sleeping, too. Peace to all...



LOL

I think the only crazy thing you said was that macro splitting cures cancer or something like that. 

Take a nap and good luck on your finals.


----------



## 1xDeatHsHeaDx3 (Dec 17, 2005)

Seanp156 said:
			
		

> Well, that was an entertaining read...



Both educating and entertaining, something all posts should contain


----------



## Dale Mabry (Dec 20, 2005)

emunah said:
			
		

> not arguing either side, but the both of the food combining studies were done on obese subjects and only measure weight loss, not LBM.  Results then can't really be extrapolated to bodybuilders or non-obese subjects who are looking to gain LBM while either losing or gaining minimal fat.  the other studies only talk about overall ratios not individual meals.



Post them please.


----------



## emunah (Dec 20, 2005)

See Emma's post.  I was referring to those studies.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Dec 20, 2005)

emunah said:
			
		

> not arguing either side, but the both of the food combining studies were done on obese subjects and only measure weight loss, not LBM.  Results then can't really be extrapolated to bodybuilders or non-obese subjects who are looking to gain LBM while either losing or gaining minimal fat.  the other studies only talk about overall ratios not individual meals.




Sort of...The combining study showed that fasting glucose, insulin, triglyceride and cholesterol all dropped significantly, but equally in both groups.  This should be applicable to non-obese folk as well.

I think I am becoming IR again.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Dec 20, 2005)

boilermaker said:
			
		

> I have found this thread to be a poor representation of IM.  Especially considering the number of moderators involved.  I'm surprised that someone didn't take control and squash the childsplay that went on here.  This is meant to be an informative section of the site.  Each moderator brings their own base of knowledge and opinion to IM.  It is a poor representation of IM to have persons associated with the site to be bickering amongst themselves.  Some of you should be ashamed.




Would a sausage on sausage hug from min0 lee make you feel better?


----------



## thajeepster (Dec 21, 2005)

I dont think the body is THAT complicated.  Im no big guy, and have no credentials or more than 2-3 years of real experience.  But I think its far better to get in your neccessary fats/carbs/protein's efa's minerals and vitamins each day.  The rest isnt going to make that big a difference, unless of course (like many of you guys are) you are competing.  No science or studies to back that up, just common sense.  I dont think the science of nutrition has been around that long, and there have always been great physiques throughout history.


in summary, eat however you want as long as you are eating healthy, and its working.  If its not working, try something else.


----------



## The13ig13adWolf (Dec 21, 2005)

thajeepster said:
			
		

> I dont think the body is THAT complicated.  Im no big guy, and have no credentials or more than 2-3 years of real experience.  But I think its far better to get in your neccessary fats/carbs/protein's efa's minerals and vitamins each day.  The rest isnt going to make that big a difference, unless of course (like many of you guys are) you are competing.  No science or studies to back that up, just common sense.  I dont think the science of nutrition has been around that long, and there have always been great physiques throughout history.
> 
> 
> in summary, eat however you want as long as you are eating healthy, and its working.  If its not working, try something else.


the human body is actually very complex.


----------



## thajeepster (Dec 21, 2005)

sigh.....


I guess I'll shut up now.


----------

