I've read several places that it pays to separate your carbs from your fats when you eat.

Can someone point me to why or show me some research? Not being able to have Carbs with fats would make a lot of food I consider very healthy off limits.

-Allen

The general train of thought is not that you cannot combine the two, you just don't want to combine them in large amounts. For example, if you have a higher fat meal, the general recommendaiton is to keep carbs below 10g etc.

This is an idea mainly pioneered, to the best of my knowledge, by PhD candidate (did he get that PhD yet?) John Berardi - www.johnberardi.com - who is a sharp guy (I had the benefit to meet him when he lectured with Ian King years ago) ... at any rate, his site has plenty of articles with more references to actual studies/trials/etc than most people can stomach so enjoy it!

Jeremy

I've read several places that it pays to separate your carbs from your fats when you eat.

Can someone point me to why or show me some research? Not being able to have Carbs with fats would make a lot of food I consider very healthy off limits.

-Allen

So, thinks like: Stir-Fried vegetables (in sesame oil, for example),
Whole Wheat Bread + Peanut Butter, Green Salad + Olive Oil, etc, Are not good to take together?

I know its not the end of the world if I do, but that would require big rethinking of my diet.

What bad or non-optimal thing is supposed to happen to you when you combine these?

-Allen
P.S. And thank you Jeremy!

It has to do with insulin, blood sugar, glucogen, etc. John gets into gritty details on his site, but basically his emphasis is that fat + carb = a recipe for insulin + fat storage.

Jeremy

So, thinks like: Stir-Fried vegetables (in sesame oil, for example),
Whole Wheat Bread + Peanut Butter, Green Salad + Olive Oil, etc, Are not good to take together?

I know its not the end of the world if I do, but that would require big rethinking of my diet.

What bad or non-optimal thing is supposed to happen to you when you combine these?

-Allen
P.S. And thank you Jeremy!

this is probly the stupidest theory ever, maybe if you combine butter with sugar(sat fat + high-GI carbs) you will store fat, but there is NO reason to seperate fat and carbs, its a bad blanket state ment.... i'll pull up some quotes from a few very knowledgeable people

TR, bear with me on this, because i'm about to explain why you are oversimplifying this issue, and why you are largely incorrect. feel free to question my logic & science if i ain't makin it across the great divide here.

the answer to this issue is contingent upon specific conditions. to blanketly say that you should always separate carb from fat intake makes you sound like suzanne somers, ripe & ready to somersize your way to slimmer hips & thighs. heh, jus playin playa, but hopefully you'll see what i mean.

let's look at the conditions here, and gain a better understanding of the critical factors.

condition #1 - negative energy balance:

you can combine oprah's lard with sugar, and even throw in your dad's sweat socks for fiber all day long, and you will not gain bodyfat if you're in the midst of a calorie deficit. to be fair (especially since we're being somewhat theoretical here) there's actually a snowflakes chance in hell that you can gain bodyfat in an energy deficit if you can someway induce rapid loss of body protein, by perhaps consuming as little protein as possible and as much fat as possible while maintaining that hypocaloric state.. but that scenario is far fetched, to say the least. bottom line is that it rarely - if ever - matters to any real-world degree whether or not you combine carbs & fat in a hypocaloric state.

condition #2 - positive energy balance:

let's say you don't realize it, but you're about to consume 500 more calories for the day than you'll actually burn. this scenario has a little more complexity, so step through it slowly.. if that meal is 100% carbs, depending upon the carb, you will generate varying magnitudes of insulin at varying rates. the greater the surge, the greater potential for fat storage. BUT, imposed demand (type of training, type of stress vectors, recuperation intervals) will determine whether that caloric surplus of carb will be partitioned towards muscle glycogen or converted to triacylglycerol for adipose storage, so again, it depends upon your training state.. now, if that 500kcal was 100% fat, unsaturated fats will be easily dissembled for hormone, myelin, & eye/brain tissue maintenance. and of course a certain amount - but not all of it - will be shuttled into the adipose & intramuscular space. on the other hand, saturated fats (less reactive & more kinetically stable due to a lack of fragile double bonding rendering them resistant to chemical reassembly into other compounds) will in fact be preferentially partitioned towards adipose storage.......... take a deep breath............ now for the kicker. let's say this 500kcal is an even 50/50 combination of carbs & fat (i'm being very liberal here; fat proportion of purposely mixed meals is usually much lower). first off, whether or not the fat is saturated, the insulin potential of the carbs will blunted through at least 3 mechanisms: gastric emptying delay from the fat, absorption competition with the fat within the small intestine, and a potential 3rd mechanism where less insulin will be required for glucose disposal due to a heightened cellular receptivity/sensitivity created by chronic intake of omega-3 fatty acids. due to the presence of fat during digestion & absorption, that insulin response from the carbs gets significantly suppressed. this is BY FAR a better scenario than the previous 2, especially if the fats are for the most part unsaturated, and the carbs have a low insulinemic/glycemic profile --- much like slow cooked oats + peanutbutter.

um what was that about fat ingestion raising blood fats? depends upon the fat. some fats are highly conducive to net thermogenesis, and cannot be typcasted in the classical view, but that's another lecture. forget about acute conditions, let's look at chonic ones. under many conditions, carbs can hike up blood triacylglycerols, and keep them up in the resting state. one way to combat this: have some unsaturated fat with your carbs, and stop trying to somersize, lol.

in all fairness, i haven't personally read berardi's philosophy on never eating carbs & fats together, and i may be missing some contingencies of his stance on this --- but if he in fact put it in a blanket way like you did --- berardi is wrong.

there are several articles like the following that have shown the potential of saturated fat to raise insulin when combined with carbs:


Am J Clin Nutr. 1983 Jun;37(6):941-4. The effect of coingestion of fat on the glucose, insulin, and gastric inhibitory polypeptide responses to carbohydrate and protein.

Collier G, O'Dea K.

In the present study we examined the effect of coingestion of 50 g fat (butter) on the postprandial glucose, insulin, and gastric inhibitory polypeptide responses to 50 g carbohydrate (potato) or 50 g protein (low fat veal) in eight normal subjects. The coingestion of fat with either carbohydrate or protein resulted in greatly increased gastric inhibitory polypeptide responses, the effect being more pronounced with carbohydrate. The addition of fat to a carbohydrate meal also reduced the postprandial glucose response. This could have been due to several factors including a delayed glucose absorption, secondary to a fat-induced inhibition of gastric emptying. However, despite the lower blood glucose levels in the presence of fat the insulin response was not reduced, suggesting a potentiation of insulin secretion in the presence of fat. Thus, despite the apparent improvement in glucose tolerance when carbohydrate is ingested together with fat, the accompanying potentiation of insulin secretion could form the basis of long-term changes in insulin sensitivity which accompany alterations in dietary fat intake.

HOWEVER - and this plays right into my point about the fact that it depends upon what kind of fat you're talking about - the less saturated the fat, the lower the insulin response:

Am J Clin Nutr. 1997 May;65(5):1427-33. How the degree of unsaturation of dietary fatty acids influences the glucose and insulin responses to different carbohydrates in mixed meals.

Joannic JL, Auboiron S, Raison J, Basdevant A, Bornet F, Guy-Grand B.

Department of Internal Medicine, Hotel-Dieu Hospital, Paris, France.

The association of fats with carbohydrates results in a lower glucose response but the influence of the nature of the dietary fatty acids has not been investigated clearly. We examined the effect of the degree of dietary fatty acid unsaturation on the postprandial glucose and insulin responses to a mixed meal. Eight young normolipidemic men consumed four different meals in random order. The meals differed in the nature of their oils and in the type of their main carbohydrates. The meals contained either a high ratio of monounsaturated to polyunsaturated n-6 fatty acids (MUFA) or a low ratio (PUFA) and either potatoes or parboiled rice. Proteins and saturated and polyunsaturated n-3 fatty acid contents were not different among meals. Blood samples were collected every 30 min for 3 h after the test meal. The glucose response was significantly lower 30 min after the parboiled rice-PUFA meal than after parboiled rice-MUFA or potato-MUFA (P < 0.05) meals. The insulin response was lower after parboiled rice-PUFA than after potato-MUFA (P < 0.05) meals. Similarly, an effect of fat appeared after 30 min. Glucose responses (F = 1.4, P < 0.01) and insulin responses (F = 5.3, P < 0.05) to both carbohydrates were significantly lower with dietary PUFA compared with dietary MUFA. In conclusion, the degree of dietary fatty acid unsaturation (18:1 compared with 18:2) may influence the glucose and insulin responses to mixed meals.

this next study sums up what zackary, sawstea, and myself have been trying to convey to you.. healthy fat (unsaturated) can reliably lower insulin response when mixed with carbs, and do so by delaying gastric emptying & aither blunting or antagonizing insulinotropic agents:

The effects of fiber enrichment of pasta and fat content on gastric emptying, GLP-1, glucose, and insulin responses to a meal.

Frost GS, Brynes AE, Dhillo WS, Bloom SR, McBurney MI.

Nutrition and Dietetic Research Group, Hammersmith Hospital, London, UK. gfrost@ic.ac.uk

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether the addition of viscous fiber at an amount recommended by the US FDA to allow a 'low saturated fat, cholesterol, soluble fiber and coronary heart disease', health claim label on a food package (1.7 g psyllium) and/or fat (30 g sunflower oil and 3 g sodium propionate) to a pasta meal would affect gastric emptying, postprandial glucose, insulin and GLP-1 concentrations. DESIGN: Ten subjects participated in a two-by-two single blind randomized crossover study. Four meals containing 50 g of available carbohydrate were consumed: pasta with or without psyllium enrichment served with a tomato sauce with (520 kcal per meal) and without (240 kcal per meal) fat. Blood samples were taken for 240 min following the meal and all subjects consumed a buffet meal at the end of the study. Gastric emptying was measured using the paracetamol absorption test. Blood was analysed for glucose, insulin, GLP-1. Visual analog scales were used to record feelings of hunger, pleasantness and nausea. RESULTS: The psyllium-enriched pasta had no significant effect on gastric emptying or the incremental area under the curve (IAUC) for GLP-1, insulin or glucose compared with the control pasta. The addition of polyunsaturated fat and sodium propionate significantly increased the IAUC for GLP-1 (P<0.001), delaying gastric emptying (P<0.002), and decreasing glucose (P<0.002). CONCLUSIONS: A dose of 1.7 g psyllium did not evoke measurable effects on gastric emptying, postprandial GLP-1, insulin or glucose metabolism. However the addition of 30 g of oil and 3 g of sodium propionate to the pasta did reduce gastric emptying, increase GLP-1 and reduce glucose and insulin concentrations. While this short-term study may have implications in terms of reducing the risk of diabetes and improving coronary risk factor profiles the long term effects of these nutrients need to be studied.


after ripping through some of those butter studies that substantiate berardi's claim, most if not all of the studies looking at unsaturated fats vs butter show a DECREASE in insulin response when combined with carbs. my guess is that unsaturated plant-based fats does not activate glucose-insulinotropic peptide the way dairy fat does.

finally, here's the abstract of the study showing prime examples of the inconsistency of GI & insulin response, in this case, it's various types of milk:

Am J Clin Nutr. 2001 Jul;74(1):96-100. Inconsistency between glycemic and insulinemic responses to regular and fermented milk products.

Ostman EM, Liljeberg Elmstahl HG, Bjorck IM.

Department of Applied Nutrition and Food Chemistry, Center for Chemistry and Chemical Engineering, Lund University, Sweden. elin.ostman@inl.lth.se

BACKGROUND: Foods with a low glycemic index are increasingly being acknowledged as beneficial in relation to the insulin resistance syndrome. Certain organic acids can lower the glycemic index of bread products. However, the possible effect of acids in fermented milk products on the glycemic index and on insulinemic characteristics has not been addressed. The metabolic effects of fermented milk or pickled products used as additives to mixed meals have also not been addressed. OBJECTIVES: One objective was to characterize the glycemic and insulinemic responses after intake of regular or fermented milk products (study 1). In addition, the acute metabolic effect of fermented milk (yogurt) and pickled cucumber as supplements to a traditional breakfast based on a high-glycemic index bread was evaluated (study 2). DESIGN: Ten healthy volunteers were served different breakfast meals after an overnight fast. Capillary blood samples were collected before and during 2 (study 1) or 3 (study 2) h after the meal. White-wheat bread was used as a reference meal in both studies. RESULTS: The lactic acid in the fermented milk products did not lower the glycemic and insulinemic indexes. Despite low glycemic indexes of 15-30, all of the milk products produced high insulinemic indexes of 90-98, which were not significantly different from the insulinemic index of the reference bread. Addition of fermented milk (yogurt) and pickled cucumber to a breakfast with a high-glycemic index bread significantly lowered postprandial glycemia and insulinemia compared with the reference meal. In contrast, addition of regular milk and fresh cucumber had no favorable effect on the metabolic responses. CONCLUSIONS: Milk products appear insulinotropic as judged from 3-fold to 6-fold higher insulinemic indexes than expected from the corresponding glycemic indexes. The presence of organic acids may counteract the insulinotropic effect of milk in mixed meals.


EVERYONE, PLEASE KEEP IN MIND THAT THESE ARE SINGLE-MEAL EXPERIMENTAL DESIGNS, SO THEIR APPLICABILITY IS LIMITED. in real life, not all meals in the diet are gonna be strictly saturated fat/carb combos. in fact, i don't know of any bodybuilder who eats like this EVER. but if they did, unsaturated fats can definitely lower insulin response when combined with carbs.. peanutbutter & oats, anyone?

source (http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=263317)

some more...


> Thanks alot for replying Lyle. Its amazing who he has overstated the
> case/misrepresented data. I have one question for you though. Do you
> think his rationale for meal combining in this article makes any
> sense? I've tried to convince a friend of mine that t-mag is full of
> shit and trying to sell supps but he believes in this diet as
> articulated by berardi here:
>
> http://www.testosterone.net/html/147mass.html
>
> Do you think his article has any merits?

Standard voodoo nutrition food combining bullshit IMO. The body is
simply way to smart to make stuff like this work. I've only seen one
study looking specifically at food combining (they compared a food
combining diet, and Berardi gives the standard set of rules to a
non-food combining diet at the same weight loss calorie levels). End
result: no difference. The body simply has too many redundant pathways
to make stuff like this work.

Fats alone can stimulate TG synthesis (and FFA uptake into adipocytes)
in an insulin independent nature. So separating out fats from carbs
doesn't magically eliminate one's ability to get fat.

There's this little bitch of a metabolic pathway called the Acylation
Stimulation Protein (ASP) pathway which allows this to happen. It's
stimluated by one of the apoproteins on the chylomicrons and allows fat
storage even in the complete absence of lipoprotein lipase (LPL,
previously thought to be the rate limiting step for FFA uptake and fat
synthesis).

That is, the old picture was that insulin increased LPL activity (as
well as inhibiting HSL, hormone sensitive lipase which is the rate
limiting step for fat breakdown and release into the bloodstream) and
that's all that mattered for fat storage. But it's out of date.
Chlyomicrons (produced from teh digestion of fat in the gut) stimulate
FFA uptake and triglyceride synthesis into fat cells all by themselves,
even in the absence of insulin. Because our bodies hate us.

As well, it only takes tiny, tiny amounts of insulin to active fat
storage in fat cells (even the levels after an overnight fast inhibit
fat breakdown by half of the maximal rate) so the protein stimulated
insulin release will have an effect.



#4 07-17-2004, 12:01 AM
lylemcd
Administrator Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 9,833

Quote:
Originally Posted by mfornero
What a lot of the food combining jedi seem to be missing is that fact that nutrient storage/utilization is not instantaneous.

When you consume a meal, fat does not instantly appear in your bloodstream, nor do carbs-- everything must be digested. Bear in mind also that varying amounts of fiber/fat/protein will greatly affect digestion time, and fat goes through a different pathway to reach the bloodstream than protein/carbs.

So if you were to eat oatmeal with peanut butter and MPI, for example, the fats in the peanut butter reaching the bloodstream would not necessarily coincide with the insulin release due to the protein/carbs.

Throughout the course of the day, fat is always being stored and released, and the ratio of carb:fat oxidation is never really absolute (especially on a mixed diet) So with only P+C/P+F, you swing the ratio in one direction for part of the day, the other for the rest of the day. With P+C+F, the ratio remains fairly constant throughout the day. But for the same given daily macronutrient breakdown, the total amounts oxidised are going to pretty much be the same.

The only real exception would be the workout time period, where you want to avoid fats due to the slowing of gastric emptying.

FWIW, my breakfast is almost always some combo of protein/carbs/fats (usually either oatmeal/PB/cottage cheese or english muffin/eggs/ham); most of my other non-workout meals are similar, and I've noticed no difference whatsoever vs P+C/P+F.

--------------------

All good points. You'll note that most of the pain in the ass schemes I construct (UD2, low-carb bulk) deal with what's going on over a 24 hour span, not on a meal to meal basis.

Note that complicated food rules change how much people eat. If you can only eat carbs at 3 meals/day and fat at 3 meals/day, you're eating less total calories (usually) than if you allow both at each meal. This is, fundmantally, the 'trick' behind voodoo food combining bullshit.

Beyond that, putting calories around your workout is nothing new, neither is keeping insulin low and stable the rest of the day. But why doesn't Berardi take it to the logical extreme, high calorie TKD; keto meals all day and carbs around workouts only? Or if he's concerned about insulin storing dietary fat, just do high/carb low fat all day and skip the fat entirely?

I mean, if you only want lots of carbs around workout, why have P+C meals at all? If you're so goddamned worried about fat intake, just cut it out. Why this complicated nonsense where you do one thing at one meal and another thing at another.

I mean, other than because he's making shit up and wants to make it look symmetrical and sciency and because folks confuse complicated with correct.

I'll adress Marion's post and the rest in a couple of days, I need to make one final library crawl.

What Michael Jordan has to do with fat metabolism is beyond me except to point out that shitty analogies can make any idea sound good.

Oh yeah, the fact that it 'works' is irrelevant. Lots of moronic shit works, that doesn't mean it's correct or not moronic.

Lyle

------------------------------

#6 07-17-2004, 01:28 AM
lylemcd
Administrator Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 9,833

Quote:
Originally Posted by zafh
"Therefore I recommend eating most of your daily carbs when your body’s carbohydrate storage capacity is highest — during the few hours (4-6 hours) post-exercise."



Lots of carbs post-workout? ****ing revolutionary I say.

Quote:
During the remainder of the day, when insulin and glucose tolerance are lower and more carbohydrates are likely to be converted to lipids in the liver, sent to adipose tissue, or promote a larger (lipolysis decreasing) insulin response, P+F meals would be ingested.



"converted to lipids in the liver"? I think the boy needs some remedial reading by Hellerstein.

Quote:
Very low glycemic carbohydrates also can be ingested during P+F meals. Of course, I’ve written before about some low GI foods that actually provoke a big insulin response, so not all low GI foods are acceptable when combined with P+F meals. (11) As a result, I typically reserve veggies, fruits, and beans as "Massive Eating Approved" during P+F meals.



Am I the only one laughing here?

Now low GI carbs can be eaten with fat and protein?

What did he think people were doing in the first ****ing place, eating dextrose with their fat and protein? Maybe he needs to look at some actual values for insulin and fat cell metabolism, he might learn something.

But basically he's gone to immense lengths to come up with what bodybuilders recommended all ****ing long. HIgh GI around training, insulin stable but above basal with a combo of low GI + protein + fat + fiber at other meals. If he jumps on using MCTs at each meal, he'll have 'invented' what Parillo has been harping on for 20 years.

Oh yeah, and eat a lot of calories if you can't gain weight. The man is a ****ing revolutionary in the area of sports nutrition.

Quote:
And you basically have your lean bulking diet.

What a total ****tard.
Edit: Not you, him.

But I saw how it could be read either way.

Lyle



Here's his reply to Berardi's little bitch Joel Marion:

You know, Joel, I sort of had respect for you until this thread. I liked your training ideas, the site was good, I agreed with most of what was written.

No longer. I'll make sure that my post is gramattically correct and perfectly spelled, don't want to give you an easy way out.

Instead of actually defending real criticisms of your article (as several point out, you understanding of fat transport and storage is woefully incorrect), you fall back on all of the strategies used by weasels who know that they are slinging bs but won't admit it.

Aaron asked you several direct questions about fatty acid transport and storage into the fat cell.
Instead of adressing them, you try to distract everyone by commenting on his spelling, his grammar, what he's said in other posts.

When it's obvious you've lost, you 'bow out'.

When backed into a corner, you fall back on the old "Well it works and that's all that matters."

All the while never adressing his direct questions.
Why won't you answer his direct questions, Joel?
Seriously, if you believe that you are right and he is wrong, just answer his direct questions and demonstrate to your forum members that you are. This is easy.

If you're going to pretend to be scientific (as you do on much of this website), be scientific. But at least know what you're talking about (and be man enough to admit when you have no clue what you're talking about). What you're doing is playing a clever game, invoking science when it suits you and falling back on a "Science doesn't have all the answers, it works so shut up" when you clearly have no idea what you're talking about. It ensures that you can't ever 'lose' an argument because you can always change the rules mid-stream: when someone uses science that you don't like, you'll use empirical data; when they invoke empirical data, you'll throw a study at them.

This is the behavior of a weasel and a conman. And a weak mind. Mel Siff did it a lot so you're in good company.

Guess what, a lot of stuff 'works' but that doesn't mean its scientifically valid. A lot of stuff works in spite of itself.

Get someone to eat a lot of food, they will make progress no matter how you combine it or not.
the fact that Berardi's ideas 'work' (amazing, gain mass by eating a ton) don't make them scientifically valid. I get results with people too, so do peple who don't use voodoo food combining ideas. Hey, Poliquin gets amazing results with his athletes, he thinks food combining is BS. So who's right, Berardi or Poliquin? If you're going to fall back on the weak "He gets better results with himself/his athletes than you do", you better be prepared to take it all the way.

But Berardi is claiming that his ME and food combining ideas are based on science. You would appear to be defending that in your article.

They aren't, the whole separate fats and carbs thing is based on a decades old model of fat storage (the insulin model) that is no longer correct.

And where is the logic behind doing half P+F and half P+C or whatever the original ME/food combining thing was? Other than to make it look sciency and stuff because people are drawn to symmetry?

If you only want high insulin around workouts, why not just do P+F at every meal and then spike insulin around training? That would at least be logical. It would also be identical to the Targeted Ketogenic Diet I wrote about 8 years ago but with higher calories.

I note that Berardi has now amended his ideas, now he allows low GI carbs with the P+F meals.
What did he (or you) think people were eating with their P+F, dextrose? Maybe he or you should actually look at insulin dynamics and the fat cell, see just how little insulin it takes to profoundly affect fat cell metabolism.

Oh yeah, and eating veggies at each meal is truly revolutionary.

So is putting a lot of calories into the post-workout meal.

All he's done is recreated what every bodybuilding author for the last 30 years or so has suggested. Keep insulin low and stable during the day, spike it with a lot of high GI carbs and calories around workouts. Go back and read Bodypus, see what Duchaine wrote: same thing.

If Berardi jumps on the MCT bandwagon, he'll have invented what Parillo has been suggesting for about 20+ years.

So of course his 'new' ME guidelines work because they are nothing new at all. He's taken out the voodoo food combining part of it with his new amendments (veggies shouldn't have counted as carbs in the first place, suggesting low GI as your carb source is old news and should have been allowed from day 1).

So now ME is High calories, lots of protein, a mix of low GI carbs + veggies + protein + fat at most of your meals, spike insulin around training. The man is truly a revolutionary in the field of sports nutrition, isn't he?

Of course that works because it's always worked and he's created nothing new. He's just gone to immense lengths and used a lot of nonsense science to reach old conclusions.

His old food combining ideas where you had to keep fats away from carbs was simply nonsense, it showed such an utter non-understanding of fat cell physiology as to make it laughable that he's getting his PhD.

Ok, I've checked my spelling a few times although I'm sure I missed one.

I'm sure you'll find some way to weasel out of the issues I brought up above; perhaps it will point out to your forum members the type of 'guru' you actually are. I can imagine what you'll try to do but I don't want to give you any ideas. I'll let you come up with some weasel tactic yourself.

Yeah, you can forget about the second part of insulin resistance. You've shown the type of person you are in this thread, I have no desire to be associated with that type of weak minded weasel.

this is probly the stupidest theory ever, maybe if you combine butter with sugar(sat fat + high-GI carbs) you will store fat, but there is NO reason to seperate fat and carbs, its a bad blanket state ment.... i'll pull up some quotes from a few very knowledgeable people

I agree 100%. I must admit though, there is no way in hell I'm reading all those quotes! :p

This is an idea mainly pioneered, to the best of my knowledge, by PhD candidate (did he get that PhD yet?) John Berardi - www.johnberardi.com - who is a sharp guy (I had the benefit to meet him when he lectured with Ian King years ago) ... at any rate, his site has plenty of articles with more references to actual studies/trials/etc than most people can stomach so enjoy it!

Jeremy

Actually John will admit there is no scientific evidence.

He did indeed get his PhD.

Scientific research and studies aside, doesn't that theory just make sense? So much of the food we consider to be junk food is high GI carb and fat heavy. I don't really agree with taking it to the extreme, like total seperation regardless of the carb source, but I think at some point it just seems to make sense that high carbs and high fats shouldn't be eaten together.

this is probly the stupidest theory ever, maybe if you combine butter with sugar(sat fat + high-GI carbs) you will store fat, but there is NO reason to seperate fat and carbs, its a bad blanket state ment.... i'll pull up some quotes from a few very knowledgeable people

I don't believe posting this sort of ‘discussion’ is in the interest of this site. I’m not quite sure what possesses you to be so vehemently opposed to some peoples opinions. Is there some ‘history’ in the industry we should be made aware of? I guess it is played out on other forums like bb.com which I have seen mentioned quite a bit.

And, damn, Taffer I’m glad you know some ‘very knowledgeable people’ so you can tell us all what we are doing wrong and how we could aspire to be just like you. Seriously, though, I’m glad that you must feel like you are having fantastic success with your efforts and that you couldn’t be doing anything better to help you achieve your goals. It must be nice to know all these people with their hands on scientific facts so you can always do what is optimal for you.

Anyway a lot of people have got ripped eating fats and carbs together, just as many do by not training or eating ‘properly’. What does that prove? Nothing! The p+c, p+f is just another thing to try. If it works for you great. Maybe it worked just because you planned your meals more effectively – great. Quite honestly though most people here are open-minded enough to want different opinions on things, that they can try for themselves, rather than be presented with ‘scientific fact’ on the ‘correct’ way of doing things.

I have to say that I read a lot of scientific papers (not nutritional) and you get tuned in to sifting the bogus with the reasonable. The style of writing on those posts from ‘very knowledgeable people’ is dubious at best and downright offensive at worst. I am surprised that you chose them to form any basis of any argument that you might have. Saying it is stupid and then posting a bunch of fairly offensive and poorly written material inter-dispersed with some science is not going to help anyone decide if they want to try this.

The most reasonable and interesting is from Alan, at the end of which he states:
in all fairness, i haven't personally read berardi's philosophy on never eating carbs & fats together

I guess you have never tried it because it is the ‘stupidest theory ever’ and your ‘very knowledgeable’ friends told you not too. Good thing too, or you might learn something from your very own real-life experiences.

I think the moral of the story is:

Don't eat fudge.

I think the moral of the story is:

Don't eat fudge.

/cry my Mom makes the BEST fudge :mad:

-Allen

Heh seriously though fudge is possibly the pinnacle of what not to eat when following a no carb fat mixing diet.

At one point I was counting exact amounts of carbs. After getting demoralised, I realised that was because I wasn't enjoying eating any more. Trying to micromanage carbs fats and proteins for different meals was sucking up much time, and the pleasure one should get from eating.

To be honest, even if mixing carbs and fats slowed down my weight loss (lets say roughly 5-6 pounds a month) by 1 pound every month, I wouldn't stop mixing, because eating with such restrictions would make the whole experience far less tolerable.
But thats just me.

And, damn, Taffer I’m glad you know some ‘very knowledgeable people’ so you can tell us all what we are doing wrong and how we could aspire to be just like you. Seriously, though, I’m glad that you must feel like you are having fantastic success with your efforts and that you couldn’t be doing anything better to help you achieve your goals. It must be nice to know all these people with their hands on scientific facts so you can always do what is optimal for you.


is this a personal attack or what? i've tried seperating carbs + fats, it makes no difference either way, the only advantage in it is stacking all your carbs around your workout, and fats later, which is nothing new, JB didnt "invent" that, its just common sense


Anyway a lot of people have got ripped eating fats and carbs together, just as many do by not training or eating ‘properly’. What does that prove? Nothing! The p+c, p+f is just another thing to try. If it works for you great. Maybe it worked just because you planned your meals more effectively – great. Quite honestly though most people here are open-minded enough to want different opinions on things, that they can try for themselves, rather than be presented with ‘scientific fact’ on the ‘correct’ way of doing things.


fine try it if you want, if your cutting, you will probly have to seperate the 2 just so you get your carbs around your workout, then dont starve later at night because you dont have many calories to play with, but i see more problems with this program if you are bulking, trying to fit 300-400g of carbs over 3-4meals? im not sure many people can do that, so they will probly eat less, gain less fat, and so on... i wouldnt let this theory limit my diet, if i gotta have a peanut butter sandwich at night, then i will


I have to say that I read a lot of scientific papers (not nutritional) and you get tuned in to sifting the bogus with the reasonable. The style of writing on those posts from ‘very knowledgeable people’ is dubious at best and downright offensive at worst. I am surprised that you chose them to form any basis of any argument that you might have. Saying it is stupid and then posting a bunch of fairly offensive and poorly written material inter-dispersed with some science is not going to help anyone decide if they want to try this.


the things i posted were replys in forums, im sure if it was in a proper article it would be alot better written, however the facts are still there, i strongly trust the credibility of alan aragon and lyle mcdonald, also several other people who not only mix carb + fat, and are successful, but also have a very good scientific background, its not like someone just made up all this science, so its not like you can say "its only science" it comes from real world studies and basic physiology


The most reasonable and interesting is from Alan, at the end of which he states:
in all fairness, i haven't personally read berardi's philosophy on never eating carbs & fats together

I guess you have never tried it because it is the ‘stupidest theory ever’ and your ‘very knowledgeable’ friends told you not too. Good thing too, or you might learn something from your very own real-life experiences.

berardi's philosophy isnt very complex... dont combine fats and carbs... i dont think he had to read the whole article to understand it, and i think he did end up reading it anyway :)

once again i have tried it, i dont know why you assume i havent, the only difference is that not combining fats + carbs limits your diet, it doesnt provide any "anti fat storing" magic other than you have to limit your calories to accomidate for it

I don't believe posting this sort of ‘discussion’ is in the interest of this site. I’m not quite sure what possesses you to be so vehemently opposed to some peoples opinions. Is there some ‘history’ in the industry we should be made aware of? I guess it is played out on other forums like bb.com which I have seen mentioned quite a bit.

And, damn, Taffer I’m glad you know some ‘very knowledgeable people’ so you can tell us all what we are doing wrong and how we could aspire to be just like you. Seriously, though, I’m glad that you must feel like you are having fantastic success with your efforts and that you couldn’t be doing anything better to help you achieve your goals. It must be nice to know all these people with their hands on scientific facts so you can always do what is optimal for you.

Anyway a lot of people have got ripped eating fats and carbs together, just as many do by not training or eating ‘properly’. What does that prove? Nothing! The p+c, p+f is just another thing to try. If it works for you great. Maybe it worked just because you planned your meals more effectively – great. Quite honestly though most people here are open-minded enough to want different opinions on things, that they can try for themselves, rather than be presented with ‘scientific fact’ on the ‘correct’ way of doing things.

I have to say that I read a lot of scientific papers (not nutritional) and you get tuned in to sifting the bogus with the reasonable. The style of writing on those posts from ‘very knowledgeable people’ is dubious at best and downright offensive at worst. I am surprised that you chose them to form any basis of any argument that you might have. Saying it is stupid and then posting a bunch of fairly offensive and poorly written material inter-dispersed with some science is not going to help anyone decide if they want to try this.

The most reasonable and interesting is from Alan, at the end of which he states:
in all fairness, i haven't personally read berardi's philosophy on never eating carbs & fats together

I guess you have never tried it because it is the ‘stupidest theory ever’ and your ‘very knowledgeable’ friends told you not too. Good thing too, or you might learn something from your very own real-life experiences.yo NEdge,

your response seems a bit heated. but that's okay, it's a very natural reaction to the status quo of your current knowledge base being challenged. not to mention, lyle's wording/style was a bit inflammatory --- nevertheless he is absolutely correct.

in defense of taffer, he is a true-to-heart student of the game. he has no formal nutrition degrees to my knolwedge, but i'd bet $$$ that he could school many of my students (who are registered dietitians) on many aspects of sports nutrition & diet.

sites like this one are basically knowledge-sharing forums. the knowledge shared from personal experience is great, but it's invariably more biased then research knowledge. you cannot depend upon opinion/hearsay alone to guide you through your path to your potential. just be more open-minded to the science of it, because the majority of what we know in sports nutrition today has a foundation in science.

those are actually very useful posts that taffer offered. if more folks read through that info, & forced the voluntary blinders off, there would be so much less controversy & confusion about this issue.

with that, let me conclude with another research tidbit (anti-science types need not read it, just tune out):
____________________________________

Golay A, Allaz AF, Ybarra J, Bianchi P, Saraiva S, Mensi N, Gomis R, de Tonnac N. Similar weight loss with low-energy food combining or balanced diets. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2000 Apr;24(4):492-6.

OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to evaluate the effect of two diets ('food combining' or dissociated vs balanced) on body weight and metabolic parameters during a 6-week period in an in-hospital setting.

SUBJECTS AND DESIGN: 54 obese patients were randomly assigned to receive diets containing 4.5 MJ/day (1100 kcal/day) composed of either 25% protein, 47% carbohydrates and 25% lipids (dissociated diet) or 25% protein, 42% carbohydrates and 31% lipids (balanced diet). Consequently, the two diets were equally low in energy and substrate content (protein, fat and carbohydrate) but widely differed in substrate distribution throughout the day.

RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the amount of weight loss in response to dissociated (6.2 +/- 0.6 kg) or balanced (7.5 +/- 0.4 kg) diets. Furthermore, significant decreases in total body fat and waist-to-hip circumference ratio were seen in both groups, and the magnitude of the changes did not vary as a function of the diet composition. Fasting plasma glucose, insulin, total cholesterol and triacylglycerol concentrations decreased significantly and similarly in patients receiving both diets. Both systolic and diastolic blood pressure values decreased significantly in patients eating balanced diets. The results of this study show that both diets achieved similar weight loss. Total fat weight loss was higher in balanced diets, although differences did not reach statistical significance. Total lean body mass was identically spared in both groups.

CONCLUSION: In summary at identical energy intake and similar substrate composition, the dissociated (or 'food combining') diet did not bring any additional loss in weight and body fat.