Thread: your thoughts on John Berardi excerpt

To some extent I kind of agree. I try and eat all three macro's in every meal but if I have a meal that has really high fat I will lower the carbs slightly and vice versa if the meal is higher in carbs. But I still try and get all three in there. I think berardi is a smart guy though and his way is just one way in a variety of different approaches.

Here is what I think. If you are losing weight, your blood lipid levels will be increasing regardless of what you eat because you should be releasing them from their stores. Now, if you ingest carbs and protein while at the same time releasing triglycerides from your fatness, would it not make sense that insulin would put this fat right back where it came from? the answer is that it depends. It depends on what every other diet depends on, whether or not you are ingesting more than you are burning. This brings us back to the only REAL thing you need to worry about, Cals in and Cals out.

It works in my body; I don't as a rule combine large amounts of complex carbs or sugars with fat. Nor is it simply a matter of calories in and out. I've been recording my diet and exercise since 2002, and I know that "bad" combinations (if eaten over a sustained period -- not once or twice) will cause me to gain fat weight even if my caloric ceiling remains the same.

However, since every other "rule" of diet appears to apply only to certain people and not to others, I would not recklessly say that this is true of everyone. Try it and see.

Originally Posted by Akateros

It works in my body; I don't as a rule combine large amounts of complex carbs or sugars with fat. Nor is it simply a matter of calories in and out. I've been recording my diet and exercise since 2002, and I know that "bad" combinations (if eaten over a sustained period -- not once or twice) will cause me to gain fat weight even if my caloric ceiling remains the same.

However, since every other "rule" of diet appears to apply only to certain people and not to others, I would not recklessly say that this is true of everyone. Try it and see.

One could argue that it is ALWAYS cals in versus cals out. In your example, your body is more efficient at using a certain form of energy over another. This would lead to you "running" better on some way of eating. It is still cals in vs cals out, it is just that your metabolism works less efficiently on some form or combination of food. Through trial and error (Which you have obviously done) you figure out what you are meant for.

The point is, cals in and cals out are the only true constants in diet. Even in the complete absence of carbohydrates, a person will gain weight if cals out is less than cals in. Plus they will prolly be generally sluggish anyway.

I suppose my orginal statement was worded poorly.

Originally Posted by Dale Mabry

Here is what I think. If you are losing weight, your blood lipid levels will be increasing regardless of what you eat because you should be releasing them from their stores. Now, if you ingest carbs and protein while at the same time releasing triglycerides from your fatness, would it not make sense that insulin would put this fat right back where it came from? the answer is that it depends. It depends on what every other diet depends on, whether or not you are ingesting more than you are burning. This brings us back to the only REAL thing you need to worry about, Cals in and Cals out.

there is a lot more to losing weight and maintaing LBM than Cals in and Cals out especially if you are concerned about performance.

if you are losing weight (body fat) there is not neccessarily a corresponding increase in serum lipids espcially if you are active. those FFA's will be oxidized.

I'm not sold on the cals in cals out either. If that was the case, then I'd be able to loose body fat eating whatever I want providing I stay under maintenance, and that is not the case. I believe the body requires the proper nutrient to lose actually stimulate fat loss.

Originally Posted by LAM

there is a lot more to losing weight and maintaing LBM than Cals in and Cals out especially if you are concerned about performance.

if you are losing weight (body fat) there is not neccessarily a corresponding increase in serum lipids espcially if you are active. those FFA's will be oxidized.

Wouldn't the last part of this statement be the calories out part of the equation, only helping to prove my point?

Originally Posted by Jodi

I'm not sold on the cals in cals out either. If that was the case, then I'd be able to loose body fat eating whatever I want providing I stay under maintenance, and that is not the case. I believe the body requires the proper nutrient to lose actually stimulate fat loss.

I see both sides of it......I feel that yes, cals in vs. cals out is what is important. I feel that I could diet and still eat candy bars or wafles or whatever, provided I figure them into the daily calori intake and i am under (I beilieve Lyle McDonald proved this). Why don't I do it? Because, like LAM said, us here are concerned about performance and retaining LBM. If I dieted like that and ate junk food I would loose a lot more muslce than if I ate properly and maintained the same caloric defecit. I think what is most important is Macros in vs. Macros out.

Originally Posted by Dale Mabry

Wouldn't the last part of this statement be the calories out part of the equation, only helping to prove my point?

weight loss improves blood lipids so there will be a decrease in HDL...

Here is how I will sum it up...

Can you lose weight eating at a caloric surplus(cals in>cals out) without drugs?

Will you gain weight eating at a caloric deficit(cals in<cals out) without drugs?

So there is my point, it is a constant. No matter what macros you eat, these hold true. One may make the argument that they run better on carbs. Sure, this could be true, but then this would alter the carbs out and thus, your calculation on cals burned. On the other hand, say you don't digest fat properly and don't absorb it. Then the calories do not actually enter the system and cals in needs to be readjusted. It is still a cals in vs cals out scenario no matter how you put it.

i've always thought that the macros definitely matter (and will vary some by individual). i'm still undecided as to whether the combination of the macros at particular meals matters.

Originally Posted by LAM

weight loss improves blood lipids so there will be a decrease in HDL...

Your point was that if you are ACTIVE, then the serum lipids would be oxidized. Isn't this cals out? Those lipids would not be oxidized if you were at a caloric surplus, correct?

It sounds to me like this idea has some supporting facts behind it, but I'm not declaring a dietary revolution just yet. I don't like the idea of depriving my body of necessary nutrients for very long. I would rather eat fewer calories but get a steady supply of carbs and fats throughout the day. I feel like crap very quickly if I don't get a nice mix of all those macro sources.

Also, it seems to me like it is not the best idea to cram more carbs into fewer meals because you are more likely to spill past your glycogen stores. It seems to me like this would negate at least some of the benefit of splitting up your macros this way.

I'm sure this approach works well for some, but I am more concerned about eating balanced meals throughout the day than I am about having competition body fat levels.

Originally Posted by Dale Mabry

Your point was that if you are ACTIVE, then the serum lipids would be oxidized. Isn't this cals out? Those lipids would not be oxidized if you were at a caloric surplus, correct?

true...but if there was a caloric surplus there would be no rise in FFA's that were mobilized from stored fats...

So what would happen to the fat that was liberated in the event of a caloric surplus. IMO it would go right back where it was.

I think I am very much like Cowpimp in that I eat pretty much the same macros throughout the day. This is easiest for me because say I have a sugar craving, I will have a portion of something that satisfies that with something more healthy. I hate having to figure out if I need to have a P+F meal and so forth.

I don't think most people on this board are trying to increase performance. They like to think they are, but they are not. Most are strictly trying to improve strength. Right now I am just trying to get my ass into the gym, I hate summer.

Isn't it that cals in/cals out count and just depending on your macro break down and when you eat those macros determine what weight you gain or lose?
Your cals in cals out can change for each individual too depending on your activity level and and what foods you decide to eat and when you eat them

I love reading John Berardi, He is a regular over there at Testosterone and has written tones of articles for them. I actually have a link to his website in my sig if anyone wants to check it out, I recommend it. peace