John Berardi
- Thread starter kurnia38
- Start date
Well, lets not sell him short too quickly. I think what he is trying to get across is this:
1) It's ok to eat protein and carbs together
2) It's ok to eat protein and fat together
3) it's not ok to eat carbs and fat together
In in general, he's absolutely right, especially if you are at caloric balance or above.
However, things start to change once you drop caloric intake below maintainance.
1) It's ok to eat protein and carbs together
2) It's ok to eat protein and fat together
3) it's not ok to eat carbs and fat together
In in general, he's absolutely right, especially if you are at caloric balance or above.
However, things start to change once you drop caloric intake below maintainance.
D
Dianabol
Guest
*Throws hat into the fray*
To add to that, I've read that post-prandial insulin levels take 4-5 hours to return to baseline, depending on the size and type of meal ingested.
Based on this, how can eating a P+F meal 3 hours after a P+C meal be much less "fattening"? Slightly less fattening maybe? I suppose every little advantage adds up.
Still, If I were in a bulking phase, I'd still feel pretty full after 4 hours, and if I were eating every 3 hours, when do I have my P+F meals then? Maybe, I shouldn't have much F to begin with? Just by eating "clean", you do get a fair bit of fat even with chicken breasts alone...
I think what's really bugging me is that I can't have my spaghetti ala carbonara if I go with the food combining rules, even when bulking
To add to that, I've read that post-prandial insulin levels take 4-5 hours to return to baseline, depending on the size and type of meal ingested.
Based on this, how can eating a P+F meal 3 hours after a P+C meal be much less "fattening"? Slightly less fattening maybe? I suppose every little advantage adds up.
Still, If I were in a bulking phase, I'd still feel pretty full after 4 hours, and if I were eating every 3 hours, when do I have my P+F meals then? Maybe, I shouldn't have much F to begin with? Just by eating "clean", you do get a fair bit of fat even with chicken breasts alone...
I think what's really bugging me is that I can't have my spaghetti ala carbonara if I go with the food combining rules, even when bulking
I dont agree with Bryan, but neither does lyle either
THere is research done on it, (overweight women) and this showed no real difference
But the main thought is if keto diets make no real difference in the amount of fat loss, and higher carb diets make no difference in the mount of fat lossed, how is eating both, within the same time period going to make any difference at all
THere is research done on it, (overweight women) and this showed no real difference
But the main thought is if keto diets make no real difference in the amount of fat loss, and higher carb diets make no difference in the mount of fat lossed, how is eating both, within the same time period going to make any difference at all
Be more specific. If you are talking about caloric intakes below maintainance, then you are simply restating what I said. If you are talking about intakes above maintainance, explain in more detail your and Lyle's reasoning.[b said:Quote[/b] (Aaron_F @ Jan. 06 2004,6:45)]I dont agree with Bryan, but neither does lyle either
THere is research done on it, (overweight women) and this showed no real difference
If you have time, reference a few studies showing no difference between high carb+fat diets in overfeeding studies compared to carb only, fat only, or either combination with protein.
I havent got any handy (at least keto vs high carb if there is any with matched protein and energy intakes), but overfeeding an normal mixed diet with either makes little difference from the available research.
But it still provides no evidence for berardis diet, because his diet is a moderately high carb, moderate fat high protein.
His carb recomemndations are usually relatively high compared to most current bbing paradigms as well.
How is splitting it up going to make a measureable difference from the exactly teh same diet, but with mixed macronutrients?
But it still provides no evidence for berardis diet, because his diet is a moderately high carb, moderate fat high protein.
His carb recomemndations are usually relatively high compared to most current bbing paradigms as well.
How is splitting it up going to make a measureable difference from the exactly teh same diet, but with mixed macronutrients?
D
Dianabol
Guest
I suppose JB's diet is based on the premise that you'd be having a fair bit of fat in the diet.
What if we decided to eliminate fat by not adding fat when cooking and also, trimming all meat to their leanest?
This would leave us with just P+miniscule F or P+C+miniscule F.
We do need some fat in the diet, and whatever we get in the leanest of meats would suffice, especially if we increase protein intake by increasing meat.
If we simply counted calories, then it matters not the meal combination. But it isn't as simple as that. We are aware that there are subtle and not so subtle hormonal effects of food. I feel that combining C+F is a cocktail for obesity - a simple biochemical analysis will conclude that P+C, P alone, C alone or F alone is not biased towards fat storage as much as C+F.
P+F could potentially be a cocktail for obesity especially if you consider a protein's food insulin index. It is already acknowledge that between the macronutrients, there are biochemical differences. To name one, the thermic effect of feeding - gram for gram, protein is most metabolically costly to assimilate with fat on the other end of the scale. Thus, combining these macronutrients will also have different biochemical effects.
My real issue with food combining is this - someone on a bulking diet who keeps it "clean" would be on a relatively low-fat diet anyhow. Ample starchy carbohydrates, lean meat, fresh fruit and vegetables - quality calories. The rare occasions where I'd have a C+F combination would be: french fries, pizza, milkshakes (non-skim), pasta in cream, fried rice/noodles, pancakes with butter/cream, ice-cream, cream puffs, donuts and such C+F combos. And I'd save these treats for a once-a-week binge too, depending on how good I've been on my diet preceding the binge.
So really, C+F is no issue if one's bulking diet is clean, since all meals would simply be P+C+miniscule F.
As for the research done on overweight women, is this even relevant? Are they lifting weights 3x a week and HIIT 3x a week? And how much were they overfed? Was it just in a caloric sense or did they have a diet of P:C of 50-50 or...? An overweight sedentary person is perhaps, not the best test subject for something that healthy people would employ.
What is interesting is that - if I overate protein, at the same time overate on carbs, the former is energetically expensive to assimilate while the latter would be more biased towards fat storage. Would the greater thermogenic effect of one negate the greater lipogenic effect of the other? Yes, why not? Why shouldn't it? P+C doesn't magically become a hybrid nutrient - it still is P and C. We could calculate the effect of taking P alone, then C alone, and postulate from there the effect of taking P+C.
Now, it would be fun to to take the day's worth of P in the morning, and then, the day's worth of C in the afternoon. In a total calorie sense, it's the same. But I would safely say that you'd be protein overloaded in the morning, then protein starved from noon to night. The reverse is true for carbs. Should I conclude that this is the same as taking the same amounts of P+C throughout the day? Of course not. Common sense tells us that it cannot be the same. Should I demand references for this? No - some things can be analyzed and thought through logically without the incessant need for references. And some things can't be referenced if we are theorizing based on what's been published.
At one point, it was about bigger muscle being the authority. At another, it was about the bigger bench-press poundage being the authority. At some point, it is about the number of references being the authority. Any of these is counter-productive to a forum that should be a science-based think-tank but where ideas can be shared and discussed without fear of being gunned-down by the "referencing police".
References - research - is good since it gives us an idea as to the past, and an aid as to looking towards the future assuming more research is being continued based on old research. To get hung up on references alone to justify an argument is simply to be hiding in the past, or perhaps, just hiding.
I must attend to lunch now.
Godspeed, and happy HSTing
What if we decided to eliminate fat by not adding fat when cooking and also, trimming all meat to their leanest?
This would leave us with just P+miniscule F or P+C+miniscule F.
We do need some fat in the diet, and whatever we get in the leanest of meats would suffice, especially if we increase protein intake by increasing meat.
If we simply counted calories, then it matters not the meal combination. But it isn't as simple as that. We are aware that there are subtle and not so subtle hormonal effects of food. I feel that combining C+F is a cocktail for obesity - a simple biochemical analysis will conclude that P+C, P alone, C alone or F alone is not biased towards fat storage as much as C+F.
P+F could potentially be a cocktail for obesity especially if you consider a protein's food insulin index. It is already acknowledge that between the macronutrients, there are biochemical differences. To name one, the thermic effect of feeding - gram for gram, protein is most metabolically costly to assimilate with fat on the other end of the scale. Thus, combining these macronutrients will also have different biochemical effects.
My real issue with food combining is this - someone on a bulking diet who keeps it "clean" would be on a relatively low-fat diet anyhow. Ample starchy carbohydrates, lean meat, fresh fruit and vegetables - quality calories. The rare occasions where I'd have a C+F combination would be: french fries, pizza, milkshakes (non-skim), pasta in cream, fried rice/noodles, pancakes with butter/cream, ice-cream, cream puffs, donuts and such C+F combos. And I'd save these treats for a once-a-week binge too, depending on how good I've been on my diet preceding the binge.
So really, C+F is no issue if one's bulking diet is clean, since all meals would simply be P+C+miniscule F.
As for the research done on overweight women, is this even relevant? Are they lifting weights 3x a week and HIIT 3x a week? And how much were they overfed? Was it just in a caloric sense or did they have a diet of P:C of 50-50 or...? An overweight sedentary person is perhaps, not the best test subject for something that healthy people would employ.
What is interesting is that - if I overate protein, at the same time overate on carbs, the former is energetically expensive to assimilate while the latter would be more biased towards fat storage. Would the greater thermogenic effect of one negate the greater lipogenic effect of the other? Yes, why not? Why shouldn't it? P+C doesn't magically become a hybrid nutrient - it still is P and C. We could calculate the effect of taking P alone, then C alone, and postulate from there the effect of taking P+C.
Now, it would be fun to to take the day's worth of P in the morning, and then, the day's worth of C in the afternoon. In a total calorie sense, it's the same. But I would safely say that you'd be protein overloaded in the morning, then protein starved from noon to night. The reverse is true for carbs. Should I conclude that this is the same as taking the same amounts of P+C throughout the day? Of course not. Common sense tells us that it cannot be the same. Should I demand references for this? No - some things can be analyzed and thought through logically without the incessant need for references. And some things can't be referenced if we are theorizing based on what's been published.
At one point, it was about bigger muscle being the authority. At another, it was about the bigger bench-press poundage being the authority. At some point, it is about the number of references being the authority. Any of these is counter-productive to a forum that should be a science-based think-tank but where ideas can be shared and discussed without fear of being gunned-down by the "referencing police".
References - research - is good since it gives us an idea as to the past, and an aid as to looking towards the future assuming more research is being continued based on old research. To get hung up on references alone to justify an argument is simply to be hiding in the past, or perhaps, just hiding.
I must attend to lunch now.
Godspeed, and happy HSTing
How so? do you have any evidence that it is a recipe for obesity?[b said:
How so, if fat can store itself easily in the absence of insulin, how does it have any effect?[b said:
To quote one of the top researchers on TEF states that TEF has no input to the development of obesity, how is it going to do anything. Going from 20-40% TE from protein, adds approxmately 2-5% to TEE, so if you add that much protein to your diet, there is very little change.[b said:
Um, a large proportion of the protien would be oxidised, ie burnt to form energy. So protien will 'make you fain fat' the same way that carbs do. Not by direct lipogenesis but by providing energy that would otherwise come from fat.[b said:
that sounds like a comment berardi would say, and is a cop out. If obese subject, who have much more fat to lose, not have any difference in fat loss, why should a bodybuilder who has so comparably little fat to lose? hormonal changes[b said:
if you want ot find a diet study containing weights multiple times per week and Hiit go ahead, there is none.
This concept of eating has been around since the early 90s, it hasnt changed much at all.
D
Dianabol
Guest
Some replies don't make grammatical sense, or maybe they have yet to be referenced.
Those that do are the same rhetoric that no one else bothers to use since the intention is not to split hairs.
For whatever reason, a simple flip through any half-decent biochem textbook tells me different, certains things that tends to be claimed. Mind you, the textbook is amply referenced, but to have a competition of references would really defeat the whole purpose of this already proven pointless exercise.
Godspeed, and happy HSTing.
Those that do are the same rhetoric that no one else bothers to use since the intention is not to split hairs.
For whatever reason, a simple flip through any half-decent biochem textbook tells me different, certains things that tends to be claimed. Mind you, the textbook is amply referenced, but to have a competition of references would really defeat the whole purpose of this already proven pointless exercise.
Godspeed, and happy HSTing.
Berardi's food combos are based on GI/Insulin responses to foods. As Ol' John usually does he has SUPPORT data for his theories but no support his theories make a SD. One of his cronies sent me a study once with high GI CHO sources with = calories and macros versus one with low GI, = calories and macros. After 5 months, I believe the difference was one pound of fat loss. There was no mention of exercise and its' effects in relation to this. I mentioned that the daily caloric "difference" b/t the two diets was 20 calories/day, (aka, no room for error, two extra bites of anything would negate this). As Lyle says, when idealism meets reality it is never pretty.
I think we are getting a little off track here.
The only question that needs to be answered is, is there an effect of eating different combinations of macronutrients? Or does the body even it all out in the wash?
So, does the effect of glucose on genetic expression effect the body's propensity to store fat?
Does insulin have any effect on lipogenesis or the genes associated with it?
Does the absence of insulin have any effect on lipogenesys or the genes associated with it?
Does glucose have any effect on lipolysis?
Does insulin have any effect on lipolysis?
What effect does creating a caloric deficit have on the all of this?
What effect does overfeeding have on all of this?
And just to humor me, what effect does physical activity (i.e. exercise) have on all of this?
Now keep in mind that the only way these questions can be answered is with a study or two. Sometimes these studies won't answer the question directly, but they may still provide enough data to predict with great accuracy the answer.
The only question that needs to be answered is, is there an effect of eating different combinations of macronutrients? Or does the body even it all out in the wash?
So, does the effect of glucose on genetic expression effect the body's propensity to store fat?
Does insulin have any effect on lipogenesis or the genes associated with it?
Does the absence of insulin have any effect on lipogenesys or the genes associated with it?
Does glucose have any effect on lipolysis?
Does insulin have any effect on lipolysis?
What effect does creating a caloric deficit have on the all of this?
What effect does overfeeding have on all of this?
And just to humor me, what effect does physical activity (i.e. exercise) have on all of this?
Now keep in mind that the only way these questions can be answered is with a study or two. Sometimes these studies won't answer the question directly, but they may still provide enough data to predict with great accuracy the answer.
When one begins to diet, meaning, you aren't eating enough calories to maintain your bodyweight, there is much less impact of eating sugars and fats. This is because the body then increases its ability to burn whatever fuel is available, thus compensating for a large variety of macronutrient ratios in the diet.[b said:
In short (I always say that then ramble on and on), when you are dieting, there is very little difference in the end result of a low carb diet or a low fat diet. Each has its pros and cons, but it really does come down to calories in vs calories out.
From a practicle standpoint, some peopel do much better with low carb diets, and some people do much better with a low fat diet. Both diets only work "really" well with lots of cardio/exercise.
However, when you overfeed, things change. The body will shift its genetic expression towards fuel storage and thermogenesis. This is where eating high-fat & high-carb makes you fatter than eating high protein with lessor amounts of either "fuel" carbs or fat.
Bryan, and how significant do you think this might be?[b said:
I can't say I noticed any difference when I used his concept (other than half my meals tasted horrible).
And I've never seem any abstracts showing any difference in fat gain resulting from food combining, but I've never seen any stating the opposite either. Have you?
can do, but so does ASP[b said:
increases in fat oxidation, but if you are in a hypercaloric situation (keto with high fat) ASP will increase re-esterification of lysed fats (simply reducing fatty acid output from the adipocyte) and will increase fatty acid uptake into the adipocyte. In short, +ve fat balance or the ever popular lipogenesis[b said:
not usually, largely mediated thru insulin[b said:
Increases lipolysis, but if hypercaloric, the situation above takes place, so while lipolysis at the TAG level is happening, ASP is stimulating the re-esterification of these fatty acids back into TAGS and 're-stored'[b said:
-ve fat balance[b said:
+ve fat balance[b said:
to a degree, nutrient partitioning away from adipocytes, towards myocytes, but in general, there will still be a +ve fat balance (unless you have the ability to supplement with hormones)[b said:
there are plenty out there, a wonderful fat review on ASP is also available, but I dont have the reference in front of me.[b said:
Just because there is pathways noted in a biochem text book, doesnt mean they are significiant in humans. If it was denovo lipogenesis would be a big pathway in humans, but it aint.[b said:
the origonal concept berardi put forward was eating alternating p+c, with p+f the metabolic effects of a large p+C meal (some of his examples were low GI and ~75-100g carbs) would still be around for the p+f (and sometime after - some low gi work on RER still how a raised RER 8hrs post prandial after a low GI meal) But even so, take your high fat meal,and by the time the chylomicrons peak in the blood your right in the smack of the next meal.
But now he seems to do a more P+C in morning, train then P+F until sleep, and to quote lyle from a conversation ages ago
I would add in more comments from lyle but they would just show up as #### ##$##$@ $@#$#@[b said:
Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2000 Apr;24(4):492-6.
Similar weight loss with low-energy food combining or balanced diets.
Golay A, Allaz AF, Ybarra J, Bianchi P, Saraiva S, Mensi N, Gomis R, de Tonnac
N.
Division of Therapeutic Patient Education for Chronic Diseases, University
Hospital Geneva, Switzerland. [email protected]
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.
Similar weight loss with low-energy food combining or balanced diets.
Golay A, Allaz AF, Ybarra J, Bianchi P, Saraiva S, Mensi N, Gomis R, de Tonnac
N.
Division of Therapeutic Patient Education for Chronic Diseases, University
Hospital Geneva, Switzerland. [email protected]
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.
Right. When you "diet", it is difficult to alter the rate of fat loss by manipulating macronutrients.
And in support of "it doesn't really matter what you eat" is the following study:
Br J Nutr. 2000 Aug;84(2):233-45.
Comment in: Br J Nutr. 2002 Sep;88(3):331-2.
Effects of isoenergetic overfeeding of either carbohydrate or fat in young men.
Lammert O, Grunnet N, Faber P, Bjornsbo KS, Dich J, Larsen LO, Neese RA, Hellerstein MK, Quistorff B.
Department of Sports Sciences and Clinical Biomechanics, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Southern Denmark, Denmark.
Ten pairs of normal men were overfed by 5 MJ/d for 21 d with either a carbohydrate-rich or a fat-rich diet (C- and F-group). The two subjects in each pair were requested to follow each other throughout the day to ensure similar physical activity and were otherwise allowed to maintain normal daily life. The
increase in body weight, fat free mass and fat mass showed great variation, the mean increases being 1.5 kg, 0.6 kg and 0.9 kg respectively. No significant differences between the C- and F-group were observed. Heat production during sleep did not change during overfeeding. The RQ during sleep was 0.86 and 0.78 in the C- and F-group respectively. The accumulated faecal loss of energy, DM, carbohydrate and protein was significantly higher in the C- compared with the
F-group (30, 44, 69 and 51% higher respectively), whereas the fat loss was the same in the two groups. N balance was not different between the C- and F-group and was positive. Fractional contribution from hepatic de novo lipogenesis, as
measured by mass isotopomer distribution analysis after administration of [1-(13)C]acetate, was 0.20 and 0.03 in the C-group and the F-group respectively. Absolute hepatic de novo lipogenesis in the C-group was on average 211 g per 21
d. Whole-body de novo lipogenesis, as obtained by the difference between fat mass increase and dietary fat available for storage, was positive in six of the
ten subjects in the C-group (mean 332 (SEM 191)g per 21 d). The change in plasma leptin concentration was positively correlated with the change in fat mass.
Thus, fat storage during overfeeding of isoenergetic amounts of diets rich in carbohydrate or in fat was not significantly different, and carbohydrates seemed to be converted to fat by both hepatic and extrahepatic lipogenesis.
This is why Lyle is such a cynic.
However due to studies like the following I prefer to restric my fat intake when overfeeding.
Am J Clin Nutr. 1995 Jul;62(1):19-29.
Fat and carbohydrate overfeeding in humans: different effects on energy storage.
Horton TJ, Drougas H, Brachey A, Reed GW, Peters JC, Hill JO.
Center for Human Nutrition, University of Colorado Health Sciences Center, Denver 80262, USA.
Both the amount and composition of food eaten influence body-weight regulation. The purpose of this study was to determine whether and by what mechanism excess dietary fat leads to greater fat accumulation than does excess dietary carbohydrate. We overfed isoenergetic amounts (50% above energy requirements) of fat and carbohydrate (for 14 d each) to nine lean and seven obese men. A whole-room calorimeter was used to measure energy expenditure and nutrient oxidation on days 0, 1, 7, and 14 of each overfeeding period. From energy and nutrient balances (intake-expenditure) we estimated the amount and composition of energy stored. Carbohydrate overfeeding produced progressive increases in carbohydrate oxidation and total energy expenditure resulting in 75-85% of excess energy being stored. Alternatively, fat overfeeding had minimal effects on fat oxidation and total energy expenditure, leading to storage of 90-95% of excess energy. Excess dietary fat leads to greater fat accumulation than does excess dietary carbohydrate, and the difference was greatest early in the overfeeding period.
It's just easier for the body to get rid of a bit more excess carbs than it can fat...so, if I need to add calories, I add either protein or carbs and leave my fat intake pretty much the same all the time.
As you can see, one could argue that it matters or it doesn't. As we tend to respond differently to excess carbs/fat it is a good idea to try both aproaches and see what happens.
Br J Nutr. 2000 Aug;84(2):233-45.
Comment in: Br J Nutr. 2002 Sep;88(3):331-2.
Effects of isoenergetic overfeeding of either carbohydrate or fat in young men.
Lammert O, Grunnet N, Faber P, Bjornsbo KS, Dich J, Larsen LO, Neese RA, Hellerstein MK, Quistorff B.
Department of Sports Sciences and Clinical Biomechanics, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Southern Denmark, Denmark.
Ten pairs of normal men were overfed by 5 MJ/d for 21 d with either a carbohydrate-rich or a fat-rich diet (C- and F-group). The two subjects in each pair were requested to follow each other throughout the day to ensure similar physical activity and were otherwise allowed to maintain normal daily life. The
increase in body weight, fat free mass and fat mass showed great variation, the mean increases being 1.5 kg, 0.6 kg and 0.9 kg respectively. No significant differences between the C- and F-group were observed. Heat production during sleep did not change during overfeeding. The RQ during sleep was 0.86 and 0.78 in the C- and F-group respectively. The accumulated faecal loss of energy, DM, carbohydrate and protein was significantly higher in the C- compared with the
F-group (30, 44, 69 and 51% higher respectively), whereas the fat loss was the same in the two groups. N balance was not different between the C- and F-group and was positive. Fractional contribution from hepatic de novo lipogenesis, as
measured by mass isotopomer distribution analysis after administration of [1-(13)C]acetate, was 0.20 and 0.03 in the C-group and the F-group respectively. Absolute hepatic de novo lipogenesis in the C-group was on average 211 g per 21
d. Whole-body de novo lipogenesis, as obtained by the difference between fat mass increase and dietary fat available for storage, was positive in six of the
ten subjects in the C-group (mean 332 (SEM 191)g per 21 d). The change in plasma leptin concentration was positively correlated with the change in fat mass.
Thus, fat storage during overfeeding of isoenergetic amounts of diets rich in carbohydrate or in fat was not significantly different, and carbohydrates seemed to be converted to fat by both hepatic and extrahepatic lipogenesis.
This is why Lyle is such a cynic.
However due to studies like the following I prefer to restric my fat intake when overfeeding.
Am J Clin Nutr. 1995 Jul;62(1):19-29.
Fat and carbohydrate overfeeding in humans: different effects on energy storage.
Horton TJ, Drougas H, Brachey A, Reed GW, Peters JC, Hill JO.
Center for Human Nutrition, University of Colorado Health Sciences Center, Denver 80262, USA.
Both the amount and composition of food eaten influence body-weight regulation. The purpose of this study was to determine whether and by what mechanism excess dietary fat leads to greater fat accumulation than does excess dietary carbohydrate. We overfed isoenergetic amounts (50% above energy requirements) of fat and carbohydrate (for 14 d each) to nine lean and seven obese men. A whole-room calorimeter was used to measure energy expenditure and nutrient oxidation on days 0, 1, 7, and 14 of each overfeeding period. From energy and nutrient balances (intake-expenditure) we estimated the amount and composition of energy stored. Carbohydrate overfeeding produced progressive increases in carbohydrate oxidation and total energy expenditure resulting in 75-85% of excess energy being stored. Alternatively, fat overfeeding had minimal effects on fat oxidation and total energy expenditure, leading to storage of 90-95% of excess energy. Excess dietary fat leads to greater fat accumulation than does excess dietary carbohydrate, and the difference was greatest early in the overfeeding period.
It's just easier for the body to get rid of a bit more excess carbs than it can fat...so, if I need to add calories, I add either protein or carbs and leave my fat intake pretty much the same all the time.
As you can see, one could argue that it matters or it doesn't. As we tend to respond differently to excess carbs/fat it is a good idea to try both aproaches and see what happens.