TESTOSTERONE NATION | Puncturing Popular Broscience Myths

Join date: Dec 2007
Location:
Posts: 319

I'm not overly familiar with pre-contest water/sodium manipulation, however the first two points on general nutrition were basically spot on correct. This article seems like something Alan Aragon would write (albeit a bit worse) so I'd have to give it a thumbs up.

Report

comperic2004
Level 1

Join date: Dec 2008
Location:
Posts: 3

Dr. John Berardi has been professing the evils of combining carbs and fat for years. Are you calling Dr. John Berardi a Bro? Overall, I thought the article was excellent but I am a little disappointed. I was hoping you would address adrenal fatigue. Maybe next time?

Report

SkyNett
Level 4

Join date: Sep 2004
Location: New York, USA
Posts: 3316

So Berardi is "Bro-science" now? Because the whole carbs & fat thing was espoused by him for a long time.

It really never made sense anyway...

Report

Join date: Dec 2007
Location:
Posts: 319

comperic2004 wrote:
Dr. John Berardi has been professing the evils of combining carbs and fat for years. Are you calling Dr. John Berardi a Bro? Overall, I thought the article was excellent but I am a little disappointed. I was hoping you would address adrenal fatigue. Maybe next time?

He stopped claiming such stupidity about 2 years ago. Too bad that he was obsessed with the idea for like five years however.

Report

Ghrelin
Level 4

Join date: Apr 2007
Location: New York, USA
Posts: 35

Very interesting article, and I have a few comments about Myth #1:

Like many others on this site, I have been avoiding eating Fat and Carbs in the same meal for many years after being convinced of the deleterious effects by Dr. John Berardi.

You had written that since meals are typically eaten every 2-3 hours that they act together any way . However most nutrition advice I have seen and follow suggests more of a temporal pattern; Carbs in the AM (or only post work-out) and Fats in the PM (or everything other time besides the post-workout window). Wouldn't that limit the cross over effect for most of us following this "dissociative" strategy?

Also, I am not sure that the Golay, et al study you cite can be generalized to a "T-Nation-like" population. The study had non-exercising obese inpatients on a very low calorie (1,100 kcal/day), low protein (25%, ~68 g/day) diet. Exercise, increased muscle mass, "normal" levels of body fat, higher % of protein, and a less calorie restricted diet all greatly effect insulin levels. For an obese patient, just about any low calorie diet will result in fat loss. However most of us who read this site and follow macronutrient combining are already "foundational-sound" nutritionally and we are just looking to enhance our results. I know you said there is little evidence supporting food combining but are there other studies against it that may be more readily generalized to the T-Nation crowd?

I do agree that some unsaturated fats in a C + P meal or some lower GI carbs in F + P meals is okay, maybe even advantageous, but so much of the nutrition advice I have been following (mostly from this site, JB, thib, etc) over the last 10 years or so involve keeping those to a minimum.

Again very interesting article, I would be interested in reading a roundtable discussion on this topic to get some input from Berardi, Lowery, etc.

Report

forbes
Level 0

Join date: May 2008
Location:
Posts: 1749

I really hope this becomes a new series.

Next topic (or myth I should say):.........I really don't know, but I'll think of one.

Report

dijo
Level 0

Join date: Aug 2008
Location:
Posts: 32

This is the best issue since T-Nation changed to the magazine format.

Report

Join date: Dec 2008
Location: Ontario, CAN
Posts: 2703

Broscience! AHWOOT!! This was sick!

Thanks for the read Jim. You better write another article.

This really got me "Broscience Myth #4: Sodium Makes Your Body Hold Water"

so your saying that we shouldnt bother regulating our sodium levels at all because our bodies will just do their own thing and store it if needed?

Report

Join date: Dec 2008
Location: Ontario, CAN
Posts: 2703

Ghrelin wrote:
Carbs in the AM (or only post work-out) and Fats in the PM

I read the opposite. 'Carbs make you sleepy so eats fats and protein in the morning.'

Report

Nicky_Boy28
Level 4

Join date: Mar 2009
Location: Quebec, CAN
Posts: 151

Don't we all love when someone wants to denounce what he percieves as broscience, he always end up citing one single studie in which a 10-y/o kid could poke wholes in the methodology?

Come on Jimmy, obese people non training on 1100 kcal/day? If they were eating 3000 a day before, well it's no wonder that Both groups lost equivalent weight...and while the dissociative-diet group did lose and average of 1kg more than the balanced-diet counterparts, I wonder what the results would have been if the diet would have been more similar to the target audience of such theory, like a 40% protein/35% fat/25% carbs or less diet. At nearly 50% of caloric intake from carbs with no info on food G.I, I'm tempted to say no wonder we didn't see ''significant'' differences.

Not saying you're wrong, and although I do not agree with your article on that matter (and on the sodium depletion, for that matter; who the hell increases carb intake a week out of contest prep I ask you), but i'm open to have my mind changed....that is, should you present more convincing datas to help me change it.

Report

The Opal
Level 0

Join date: Jul 2004
Location:
Posts: 20

You are full of shit bud.

"From a physiological standpoint, there's no difference between "clean" or "dirty" eating, provided that your macronutrients are kept in line with your goals."

Report

Join date: Nov 2005
Location: Connecticut, USA
Posts: 679

The Opal wrote:
You are full of shit bud.

"From a physiological standpoint, there's no difference between "clean" or "dirty" eating, provided that your macronutrients are kept in line with your goals."

A) No I'm not.

B) It's not like I'd recommend that someone eats pizza every day in their diet but to sit there and say that all you can eat when you're trying to get lean is brown rice and oatmeal is dumb. Provided that the foods provide good nutritional value anything is game within a diet. Again, within reason, you can eat a bagel or whole wheat toast or white rice and still get shredded.

There's very little difference between 15 grams of carbs from a Snickers bar than there is from brown rice when you compare carbs to carbs. If you eat the whole Snicker bar then we have a issue or is you want to eat it every day there's a problem but for the most part 15 grams of carbs is 15 grams of carbs. Again, the more nutrition choices the better.

Let's not blow this up and say "Jimmy recommends Snickers bars" because I don't.

Report

Join date: Nov 2005
Location: Connecticut, USA
Posts: 679

Nicky_Boy28 wrote:
Don't we all love when someone wants to denounce what he percieves as broscience, he always end up citing one single studie in which a 10-y/o kid could poke wholes in the methodology?

Come on Jimmy, obese people non training on 1100 kcal/day? If they were eating 3000 a day before, well it's no wonder that Both groups lost equivalent weight...and while the dissociative-diet group did lose and average of 1kg more than the balanced-diet counterparts, I wonder what the results would have been if the diet would have been more similar to the target audience of such theory, like a 40% protein/35% fat/25% carbs or less diet. At nearly 50% of caloric intake from carbs with no info on food G.I, I'm tempted to say no wonder we didn't see ''significant'' differences.

Not saying you're wrong, and although I do not agree with your article on that matter (and on the sodium depletion, for that matter; who the hell increases carb intake a week out of contest prep I ask you), but i'm open to have my mind changed....that is, should you present more convincing datas to help me change it.

I see your point with the study but it's all we have to work with.

There's some of the top names in natural bodybuilding that, at times, have increased carbs leading into a contest in order to increase fullness. No one gets leaner the week of the show, so why not fill out? The best precontest approach is to not do anything too drastic.

That is don't deplete water or sodium or don't go from a keto diet to large influxes of carbs like most people do. Your body wants to maintain what's normal for it. Fact is, more people screw themselves up trying to follow some dumb notion that they can drastically change their body in the days and hours before a show.

Show up shredded and it doesn't matter what you do the week of. I believe it was Dave Goodin, now IFBB pro but possibly the best natural bodybuilder ever who says that he never changes his approaches the week out.

Dorian Yates has said numerous times that he didn't do anything different the week of, same with Lee Haney. You can find "bros" every where who drink no water, have no sodium and eat no carbs the week before a show and look great because they showed up shredded. Then you have a guy like Dr. Joe K, himself a natural pro who raises carbs and sodium for some of his clients the week out and his guys either place top 5 or win the show every time.

Key point? Show up shredded! If you "hold water" you're fat.

Can't change your mind though, there's no data that will make you happy because the majority of studies are done on fat or untrained people.

Jimmy
http://www.buildmuscleandsixpa...

Report

Join date: Dec 2007
Location:
Posts: 319

You're the idiot, no offense. "Clean eating" is a subjective term that is applied differently by different people. Food is carbohydrate, protein, fat (obviously all the subcategories of these as well), fiber (most of the time a carbohydrate), vitamins, minerals, antioxidants, other benificial nutrients, anti-nutrients, etc. No food is "dirty" or "clean," they are just what they are. The total sum of the food components ingested is the only thing that has any meaning, and not if individual foods are "clean" or "dirty." All clean eating usually means is nutrient dense, but honestly depending on who you ask the definition can be anything from "Whole foods," to "Low Calorie Density," to "Low fat" and "Low Carb."

Honestly, if you think foods are magically dirty or clean, then you don't understand the most fundamental ideas in nutrition. Assuming constant macronutrient amounts, similar nutrient timing (EXTREMELY LESS relevant), and similar amounts of vitamins, minerals, and other beneficial chemicals, two diets will be almost identical in terms of both results in the body composition and health departments. Sure, high quality, nutrient-dense foods should likely make the bulk of one's diet (as it will ensure adequate intake of the essential vitamins, minerals, antioxidants, etc), however if there is room for some "dirty" foods that fit into one's daily macros, it won't really affect results too much.

Report

Join date: Nov 2005
Location: Connecticut, USA
Posts: 679

andrew_live wrote:
Broscience! AHWOOT!! This was sick!

Thanks for the read Jim. You better write another article.

This really got me "Broscience Myth #4: Sodium Makes Your Body Hold Water"

so your saying that we shouldnt bother regulating our sodium levels at all because our bodies will just do their own thing and store it if needed?

Thanks, buddy.

I'll be writing more.

Well you should keep sodium (sea salt) high or moderate in your diet anyway for various health reasons. No sodium effects both your performance and look. Too much potassium will have the exact same negative effects as no sodium. Your better off having some sodium in your diet. It's such a good performance enhancer.

Jimmy
http://jimmysmithtraining.com/...math-made-easy/

Report

Join date: Nov 2005
Location: Connecticut, USA
Posts: 679

dijo wrote:
This is the best issue since T-Nation changed to the magazine format.

Thanks

Jimmy
http://jimmysmithtraining.com/...-lose-fat-diet/

Report

Join date: Nov 2005
Location: Connecticut, USA
Posts: 679

forbes wrote:
I really hope this becomes a new series.

Next topic (or myth I should say):.........I really don't know, but I'll think of one.

Will if you think of one, please hit me up. I have every intention of making this a series.

Jimmy
http://jimmysmithtraining.com/...is-jimmy-smith/

Report

Join date: Nov 2005
Location: Connecticut, USA
Posts: 679

Ghrelin wrote:
Very interesting article, and I have a few comments about Myth #1:

Like many others on this site, I have been avoiding eating Fat and Carbs in the same meal for many years after being convinced of the deleterious effects by Dr. John Berardi.

You had written that since meals are typically eaten every 2-3 hours that they act together any way . However most nutrition advice I have seen and follow suggests more of a temporal pattern; Carbs in the AM (or only post work-out) and Fats in the PM (or everything other time besides the post-workout window). Wouldn't that limit the cross over effect for most of us following this "dissociative" strategy?

Also, I am not sure that the Golay, et al study you cite can be generalized to a "T-Nation-like" population. The study had non-exercising obese inpatients on a very low calorie (1,100 kcal/day), low protein (25%, ~68 g/day) diet. Exercise, increased muscle mass, "normal" levels of body fat, higher % of protein, and a less calorie restricted diet all greatly effect insulin levels. For an obese patient, just about any low calorie diet will result in fat loss. However most of us who read this site and follow macronutrient combining are already "foundational-sound" nutritionally and we are just looking to enhance our results. I know you said there is little evidence supporting food combining but are there other studies against it that may be more readily generalized to the T-Nation crowd?

I do agree that some unsaturated fats in a C + P meal or some lower GI carbs in F + P meals is okay, maybe even advantageous, but so much of the nutrition advice I have been following (mostly from this site, JB, thib, etc) over the last 10 years or so involve keeping those to a minimum.

Again very interesting article, I would be interested in reading a roundtable discussion on this topic to get some input from Berardi, Lowery, etc.

In carbs to carbs in the am and fats in the pm. First, it comes from the thought that "carbs are bad" and it just spun out of control from there. So and so said that you can only eat them post workout so people just followed that person and preached without any real world practice or investigative work. It's the high school "cool" kid appeal all over again.

Second, a lot of what gets written is a general statement to give a general audience a frame work.

Third- Most people that read information online are beginners- beginning stage intermediate trainers, thus they'll get by with simplistic approaches. There's very few advanced trainees. Most people need to eat cleaners and lift smarter so the information can be very simple and people will get results. Hence the old forum post of "what bodyfat am I?"

Everyone says "8%" when in reality the person is probably like 12-13%.

Now I know people on TMUSCLE aren't the average lifter but you get my point, I hope.

No it wouldn't like the cross over effect at all. Everything, for the most part, has carbs/fat/protein in it. So just because you had oatmeal for breakfast(which contains around 5 grams of fat, btw) and cottage cheese at night(which contain a decent amount of carbs) doesn't mean that carb/fat in those specific foods won't interact. Just because you didn't have cheese and bread, doesn't mean that you're not eating carbs/fat.

In regard to study, I know people want to poke holes in everything (not you but others have/will) but there's very few studies done on "T-Nation" level trainees.

A lot of people have been following some of the nutrition advice on this site for years and have gotten great results but you can always try something new and do something different. Those approaches will work and will get you lean but if you ever want to get shredded, you'll have to track your macronutrients.

Jimmy

http://www.jimmysmithtraining....

Report

hYperTrOphY_07
Level 0

Join date: Jun 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 96

I really liked this article. Just a couple of questions though.

1. If there is nothing wrong with combining carbs and fats, why would you never recommend combining both at a large amount in the same meal?

2. You say that there is 'very little difference between 15 grams of carbs from a Snickers bar than there is from brown rice' but that it is not OK to eat a whole Snickers bar or to eat one everyday. Similarly to my first question, if the difference between a Snickers bar and brown rice is so minimal, why could one not eat the whole Snickers bar?

I was just left slightly confused because in your article you seemed to be advocating that there is nothing wrong with C+F meals, and nothing wrong with 'dirty' carb sources, but, at the same time, making recommendations that suggested there might be something wrong with both.

Thanks.

Report

Join date: Dec 2007
Location:
Posts: 319

hYperTrOphY_07 wrote:
I really liked this article. Just a couple of questions though.

1. If there is nothing wrong with combining carbs and fats, why would you never recommend combining both at a large amount in the same meal?

That's mostly Jimmy's own share of broscience. Provided total carbohydrate and fat amounts are constant, it doesn't matter that damn much if a lot of carbohydrates/fat are ingested in one meal. As a consequence, less fat/carbohydrate would likely have to be consumed at other meals in order to hit your macronutrient goals. What you have to realize is that the body does not work on a 3 hour clock, but results are determined by the sum of what is done over a period of days, weeks, months, and years. Most people tend to look at minutae before looking at the large variables that makes up 90%+ of the equation. Those large variables (in terms of body composition) are total daily calories and macronutrient amounts (which need not necessarily be set as strict static numbers) and for health are ensuring adequate micronutrition (vitamins, minerals, antioxidants, other benificial nutrients, fiber). 90%+ of results are received through getting the basics down packed.
Calorie/Macronutrient cycling, nutrient timing, meal frequency, workout nutrition, glycemic index/load, etc, etc are smaller variables that often don't matter too damn much or work equally well a few different ways. I can go on about this as there is a lot to say but I'll basically end here.

2. You say that there is 'very little difference between 15 grams of carbs from a Snickers bar than there is from brown rice' but that it is not OK to eat a whole Snickers bar or to eat one everyday. Similarly to my first question, if the difference between a Snickers bar and brown rice is
so minimal, why could one not eat the whole Snickers bar?

The point that is being made is that 15g of glucose from a Snicker's bar (although Snicker's likely has sucrose) is NO DIFFERENT than 15g of glucose from brown rice. Ofcourse a Snicker's bar also has a lot of fat and total calories compared to a small portion of brown rice, however what Jimmy correctly ascertains is that basically food is nothing more than it's constituents, and that it is the total sum of these constituents from all the foods in a diet that matters. If you are eating 200g of carbohydrates, it is not overly relevant if some of the glucose comes from a Snicker bars vs. brown rice. The difference is that the Snicker's bar will contain higher calories/more fat (thus it provides a contribution to fat intake unlike brown rice), may not provide as much satiety as brown rice (relevant in a fat loss situation), and may not have the same quality of micronutrition compared to the brown rice.

Report

hYperTrOphY_07
Level 0

Join date: Jun 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 96

Josh Rider wrote:
That's mostly Jimmy's own share of broscience. Provided total carbohydrate and fat amounts are constant, it doesn't matter that damn much if a lot of carbohydrates/fat are ingested in one meal. As a consequence, less fat/carbohydrate would likely have to be consumed at other meals in order to hit your macronutrient goals. What you have to realize is that the body does not work on a 3 hour clock, but results are determined by the sum of what is done over a period of days, weeks, months, and years. Most people tend to look at minutae before looking at the large variables that makes up 90%+ of the equation. Those large variables (in terms of body composition) are total daily calories and macronutrient amounts (which need not necessarily be set as strict static numbers) and for health are ensuring adequate micronutrition (vitamins, minerals, antioxidants, other benificial nutrients, fiber). 90%+ of results are received through getting the basics down packed.
Calorie/Macronutrient cycling, nutrient timing, meal frequency, workout nutrition, glycemic index/load, etc, etc are smaller variables that often don't matter too damn much or work equally well a few different ways. I can go on about this as there is a lot to say but I'll basically end here.

So, you're saying there is no reason why large amounts of fats and carbs cannot be included in the same meal? If it is true that there is nothing wrong with C+F meals, it would seem that this is correct. That's why I'm interested to see why the author recommends they be avoided.

That makes sense. But does it then follow that if the fat and calories contained in a Snickers bar fit within one's macro ratios for the day, there is no difference at all in eating a Snickers bar and protein shake vs. a protein shake with oats and cocunut milk (assuming the macros and calories were idential)? If so, why would the author, again, recommend not eating a whole Snickers bar.

Not disputing anything, just seeking clarification.

Report

Join date: Dec 2008
Location: Ontario, CAN
Posts: 2703

Jimmy Smith wrote:
So just because you had oatmeal for breakfast(which contains around 5 grams of fat, btw) and cottage cheese at night(which contain a decent amount of carbs) doesn't mean that carb/fat in those specific foods won't interact. Just because you didn't have cheese and bread, doesn't mean that you're not eating carbs/fat.

In regard to study, I know people want to poke holes in everything (not you but others have/will) but there's very few studies done on "T-Nation" level trainees.

^^^This. Problem solved.
Glad to see how you deal with the neh sayers.
The problem with finding "T-Nation" level trainees willing to engage in risky studies is that non of us want to risk losing what we have by say ... eating carbs and fats together. Showing us a study that reinforces what you say is a good policy but shouldnt have been necessary.

I liek the bread and cheese concept though.

Report

Join date: Dec 2007
Location:
Posts: 319

hYperTrOphY_07 wrote:
So, you're saying there is no reason why large amounts of fats and carbs cannot be included in the same meal? If it is true that there is nothing wrong with C+F meals, it would seem that this is correct. That's why I'm interested to see why the author recommends they be avoided.

I think the author is trying to be conservative in some ways. There are various reasons why eating a large amount of one's carbohydrate/fat intake in one meal in the absence of protein may not be ideal for a given individual all the time. For instance, such an approach may not be ideal for a specific person in terms of satiety or may leave for instance a person who is on a restricted carbohydrate diet with too little carbohydrates when they actually need them. My point is that one should begin with generalizations, and taper the specifics to the individual and their specific situation.

Calories: 271
Total Fat: 14g (5g saturated fat)
Total Carbohydrate: 35g (30g sugar, 1g fiber)
Total Protein: 4g

These are the bare-bones nutrition facts of a Snickers bar. The fat is about 1/3 saturated and the other 2/3 some type of polyunsaturated fat. The carbohydrate source is mostly sucrose (meaning 50% glucose/50% fructose), and the small amount of protein does not contain all of the essential amino acids. Obviously, in analyzing this specific food, one realizes that the food is calorie dense (about 5.2 calories/g of food), high in sugar, and relatively high in fat. Also, there isn't an overly high abundance of vitamins/minerals in a Snickers bar. If you were to eat snickers bars as your sole source of carbohydrates/fat (especially on a fat loss diet), you'd be ingesting ridiculous amounts of sugar and polyunsaturated/saturated fat and as a result there would be these possible consequences:

1. You would be missing the vitamins/minerals/antioxidants/nutrients found in higher quality carbohydrate sources (from a micronutrition perspective).
2. You wouldn't be getting any omega-3 fat or monounsaturated fat from the diet.
3. You'd likely be hungrier than if you got your carbohydrates/fat from less calorie dense sources
4. The predominance of sucrose (and therefore fructose) as a primary carbohydrate source will likely promote hunger and negative nutrient-partitioning.

So, using typical logic, a Snickers bar is therefore "dirty" and cannot be included in the diet, correct? However, take this example:

You have a 200 pound guy who eats 200g of protein, 200g of carbohydrates, and 50g of fat daily attempting to lose fat. 75% of his carbohydrates come from unprocessed high quality carbohydrate sources, he gets adequate amounts of essential fatty acids, and eats lots of fruits/vegetables (and has adequate micro nutrition from his diet). Basically, this guy has all his bases covered. If he has room left in his macronutrient/caloric amounts, it seriously would not hurt him if he went for a scoop of ice cream or a snickers bar (provided you count them towards daily goals) say after his workout.

Do you have an idea of what I'm trying to say?

Report