Why not eat fats with carbs?

Page 2 of 2 First 12

  1. Quote Originally Posted by Brent
    Derek is a well respected guy in the industry. He has two great companies, so he must know something.
    Don't get me wrong, I didn't say that he didn't know anything. Just that his understanding of insulin was lacking.

    For arguments sake, one could say that J Berardi is respected yet his theory on Fat and Carb exclusion is contradictory to Derek's. So who, if either, is right?


  2. Isn't Marc the owner of the two companies? Unless I missed something along the way...
    •   
       


  3. When you combine fat and carbohydrates, the fat encapsulates the carbohydrate and sloes down digestion, minimizing insulin spike.
    I can think of two ways of seeing this.

    A.) The total calorie content of the meal is kept constant. In order to add fat, one must then subtract a corresponding amount of carbs. The reduction in insulin response is arguably due to less carb intake than the combination of macros.

    B.) Carb content is kept constant and fat is added therefore increasing total calorie content (anyone see a problem here?). Since adding fat also adds to the glycemic load, the insulin 'spike' will increase more in duration than its peak will be lowered; overall area under the curve will be greater.

    IMO neither of these really validate the original statement of the addition of fat effecting lower insulin output.

    When you combine proteon and carbohydratesm it sends insulin skyrockting and can lead to the last thing you want when dieting, fat storage.
    So if P + C makes you fat but adding F to C does not, then adding more F to C should make you less fat? I dunno, call me skeptical...

  4. I for one, generally follow the P+C (generally morning/PWO) and P+F meal plans. The science can be debated with contradicoty theories/viewpoints/studies. For me, this approach has always been successful, whether I am clean bulking or cutting. Should mention that obviously caloric intake will have an overriding effect

    One other factor why I read J.Berardi's work is his emphasis on health (fruit/veg with every meal) which some diets clearly ignore.

  5. Quote Originally Posted by Nitrox
    I can think of two ways of seeing this.

    A.) The total calorie content of the meal is kept constant. In order to add fat, one must then subtract a corresponding amount of carbs. The reduction in insulin response is arguably due to less carb intake than the combination of macros.

    B.) Carb content is kept constant and fat is added therefore increasing total calorie content (anyone see a problem here?). Since adding fat also adds to the glycemic load, the insulin 'spike' will increase more in duration than its peak will be lowered; overall area under the curve will be greater.

    IMO neither of these really validate the original statement of the addition of fat effecting lower insulin output.


    So if P + C makes you fat but adding F to C does not, then adding more F to C should make you less fat? I dunno, call me skeptical...


    For me, F+C= much harder to cut, even if Im in cal deficit.
    •   
       


  6. Quote Originally Posted by Andrew69


    For me, F+C= much harder to cut, even if Im in cal deficit.
    First off, thanks for everybody's responses so far. I wasn't sure if I was going to get any or not from this thread.

    This leads me to another question. I know a calorie surplus is what can lead to fat gain (3500 = 1lbs). Some have said F+C lends itself more easily to result in fat. So does this mean that theoretically the right (or wrong) macro combination, although fewer than 3500 surplus calories, can still lead to a pound of fat? Does that question make sense? It was hard to spit out.

  7. Quote Originally Posted by stxnas
    This leads me to another question. I know a calorie surplus is what can lead to fat gain (3500 = 1lbs). Some have said F+C lends itself more easily to result in fat. So does this mean that theoretically the right (or wrong) macro combination, although fewer than 3500 surplus calories, can still lead to a pound of fat? Does that question make sense? It was hard to spit out.
    No you cannot gain a pound of fat with less than the '3500' calorie surplus. This is a consequence of energy conservation laws.

    The reason that some people say that C + F will lead to more fat gain is because that to build muscle the body needs protein for materials and energy for the building. Without available protein the body's only large scale storage option is fat. This is another reason why eating some protein with every meal is recommended.

  8. Quote Originally Posted by Brent
    From "Strength and Science"
    "Cut Diet Principles"
    Chuck Rudolph, Marc Lobliner, Derek Charlesbois.
    I disagree 100% with that. I really don't understand where he is coming from with that one at all.

    "When you combine fat and carbohydrates, the fat encapsulates the carbohydrate and sloes down digestion, minimizing insulin spike. When you combine proteon and carbohydratesm it sends insulin skyrockting and can lead to the last thing you want when dieting, fat storage."

    I don't understnad how a fat can encapsulate a carbohydate. This completely ignores the total glycemic load.

    Fats don't always slow down digestion either especially in a liquified form. There is a big difference in the digestion of solid fat (think steak) and the digestion of a shake with added fats.

    This just seems extremely generalized to me.
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.

  9. Quote Originally Posted by max silver
    Isn't Marc the owner of the two companies? Unless I missed something along the way...
    Correct.

  10. Quote Originally Posted by stxnas
    First off, thanks for everybody's responses so far. I wasn't sure if I was going to get any or not from this thread.

    This leads me to another question. I know a calorie surplus is what can lead to fat gain (3500 = 1lbs). Some have said F+C lends itself more easily to result in fat. So does this mean that theoretically the right (or wrong) macro combination, although fewer than 3500 surplus calories, can still lead to a pound of fat? Does that question make sense? It was hard to spit out.
    You can have a greater chance of storong fat with different macronutrients because of the chances of such macro being stored as fat. By definition fats are the easiest stored, carbs second, protein last. By the same token those same macors have different thermic values which in most nutrition books doen'st mean much but when you are taking 3-4 times the recommmended FDA guideline is can have an effect. Now in this case if you are eating excess calories the higher protein intake will help resist excess fat gain but it must be coupled with moderate and smart carb/fat choices while keeping the majority of your diet to whole foods (since the body digests and abosrbes whole foods better) and increase fiber intake (which helps regulate glucose leves). Now it does sound complimcated but the easiest way you can make this simple is to start form a 40/40/20 diet and adjust from there.
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.

  11. Quote Originally Posted by Bobo
    You can have a greater chance of storong fat with different macronutrients because of the chances of such macro being stored as fat. By definition fats are the easiest stored, carbs second, protein last. By the same token those same macors have different thermic values which in most nutrition books doen'st mean much but when you are taking 3-4 times the recommmended FDA guideline is can have an effect. Now in this case if you are eating excess calories the higher protein intake will help resist excess fat gain but it must be coupled with moderate and smart carb/fat choices while keeping the majority of your diet to whole foods (since the body digests and abosrbes whole foods better) and increase fiber intake (which helps regulate glucose leves). Now it does sound complimcated but the easiest way you can make this simple is to start form a 40/40/20 diet and adjust from there.
    Damn Bobo, you just answered all my questions that I had when I started this thread...and you did it in a way that I could understand! Thanks for it keeping simple. I'm no simpleton in any manner, but I have never studied any of this stuff before. Thanks again.
  •   

      
     

Similar Forum Threads

  1. REASONS WHY NOT TO EAT LIKE A HORSE ON CYCLE.
    By cardiobro in forum General Chat
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-10-2011, 02:07 PM
  2. Am i not eating enough carbs?
    By JKBB44 in forum Weight Loss
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 04-22-2009, 10:24 PM
  3. Replies: 414
    Last Post: 03-23-2009, 06:05 PM
  4. not eating carbs and fat at the same time
    By tommy91z in forum Weight Loss
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 06-10-2004, 01:23 AM
  5. Replies: 10
    Last Post: 03-02-2004, 11:08 AM
Log in
Log in