Massive Eating

Discussion in 'Diet & Nutrition' started by CNoyes, Sep 14, 2004.

  1. CNoyes

    CNoyes New Member

    I recently read an article called Massive Eating:

    It suggests that to minimize fat gain, your meals should consist of protein plus carbs or protein plus fat. Carbs and fat should not be in the same meal. Has anybody tried this, or does anybody have any thoughts on this?
  2. baby a

    baby a New Member

    It is complete BS.
  3. CNoyes

    CNoyes New Member

    a little more detail/reasoning?
  4. Although I haven't read that article, I do like to read his articles, next to Bryan he is my 2nd favorite. From just what I had skimmed over there are some truths to this. As a matter of personal preference I do not mix fat with carbs when I eat, except where it is unavoidable. But, the main jist of any nutrition plan is clean calories, no matter how you stack or unstack, overall it is clean calories that dictate.
  5. Aaron_F

    Aaron_F New Member

    Its not BS

    but its not magic

    It just provides no benefit over any other way of combining foods
  6. RipStone

    RipStone New Member

    I did P+F, P+C for a few months, stopped, the started again like 2 months ago. It's sorta a pain in the butt to eat like that but I eat alot of veggies with my P+F meals, which JB says is ok(see massive eating reloaded). Honestly, I don't know if this method works or not but either way I don't think combining fats and carbs is that good of an idea.
  7. MrNasty

    MrNasty New Member

    I know several BBers & Trainees who swear by it. P+C meals in the mornings and P+F meals in the evenings. I've tried it once. It was ok, as mentioned though, it was a little hard to configure and keep in order. I dropped 13lbs of Fat, though, in less than 1&1/2 months. My LBM seemed uneffected.
  8. Dont_quit

    Dont_quit New Member

    What do you guys think about his calorie calculations for Massive Eating? too much or would it work better than lower amounts?

    I read over all his stuff one weekend. It's got the science to back it up but I just wonder how much of a difference you'll really see by not combining fats and carbs in a meal?
  9. Aaron and I had a discussion loosely based on this whole principle. BTW thanks Aaron for your time. After that discussion, I doubt in any normal amounts it would make enough of a difference to justify it. Now if you are inhaling fats and carbs then that's a leopard with spots of a different color.
  10. MrNasty

    MrNasty New Member

    It just depends on your goals. I cant see this diet working for peoople who want to gain. I can, on the other hand, see it working for people who are trying to lose - especially BF. The reason being because it calls for a, some what, tapering of carbs - not so much taper, but fluctuation throughout the day - in the evenings.

    I know, however, people who use this type diet soly in efforts to gain, maintain, and/or BULK, so to speak, on a regular basis.
  11. Dont_quit

    Dont_quit New Member

    I weigh 148, and want to bulk. I play soccer 4x a week (about 1.5hrs each time) so that bumps up my calories significantly.

    my activity level is moderate, 1.3, i'm a student

    Massive eating would have me eating in the range of 4500 calories. bryan's eating for size article would have me more in the range of 3000. The trouble is, both guys have loads of studies behind them. The only difference is the fact that berardi accounts for TEF (thermic effect of feeding) and MET activity values, like pumping iron and cardio and such.

    the base RMR calculation method in both is the same, as is the activity level calculation (1.2, 1.3 etc)

    it seems like bryan's eating for size article just didn't include exercise and perhaps would require you to manually put it in, but then he has the sample diets which are obviously for weight lifters, but do not have the activity kcals added in that you'd burn in a workout/cardio

    which should i pick and why? thanks!
  12. Aaron_F

    Aaron_F New Member

    No, its because Berardi confused himself somehow, and added some factors in 1-2x

    he added in TEF, which was already included in his activity factor

    and then he added in activity that was already included in the activity factor.

    and which ever way, start at the 3000 and adjust to changes, as no matter what, they are only caloric ESTIMATIONs, not perfection.
  13. Dont_quit

    Dont_quit New Member

    thanks for clearing that up aaron. i'll heed your advice.
  14. Tom Treutlein

    Tom Treutlein New Member

    So there is science behind both. I've heard that fats and carbs is bad due to an insulin spike resulting from the carbs, which shuttles fat into storage. This is bad.

    Basic knowledge of biomechanics, though, seems to tell us otherwise. Fats take awhile to digest, so the spike will have dissipated by the time the fats enter the bloodstream.

    Which is correct? I'd real like to hear a definitive answer to this. I know SC (Swolecat) teaches people never to combine them, but I can't see the difference in results being anything but insignificant.
  15. Aaron_F

    Aaron_F New Member

    It overlaps somewhat but if you have a mixed meal

    the carbs will be in and over within ~2-3hrs and the fats will be peaking at 3-4hrs
  16. Tom Treutlein

    Tom Treutlein New Member

    So isn't it better to mix them and leave four hour spaces or so between meals? If you have one meal with fat, and then a carb meal later, you end up having fats peaking (3-4 hours) as you eat your next meal and the carbs get into your blood.
  17. Aaron_F

    Aaron_F New Member

    It doesnt matter what you do, your body is smarter than you are...

Share This Page