I'm not skinny, but I'm not dead fat, what to do?

[skunkworks]

I also think the P+F and P+C meals nonsense that John Berardi advocates is... well, nonsense. The rest of his stuff is very good.

[rider_1]

Meh, it worked for me as a general rule in eating. For me the biggest advantage came from the fact that I ate smaller meals more frequently, thus maintaining 4000+ calorie intake. I think this regimen forces your body to maximize insulin/calories ingested. In other words, you're getting the same amount of insulin as you would eating P+C+F, but consuming fewer calories per meal. Of course, you could always go buy insulin at the drug store, inject (not too much or you may die) and screw timing your meals.

Its just commonsense really, you eat more often=more insulin release=more growth.

[skunkworks]

rider, no doubt about the smaller meals being a good thing. Also, it just happens that carb + saturated fat meals cause a disproportionate insulin response, so saying C+F meals are bad isn't horribly wrong, it's just wrong sometimes. I just don't think anyone should have any problem with having one of their 6 meals of the day being oatmeal + peanut butter based on this advice, you know?

[rider_1]

Of course not, nor did I follow these guidelines religiously. I was simply giving a guideline, to map out an entire diet on this forum (or any other) would be dumb. I don't actually know if there are scientific studies on the P+F/P+C insulin response, but I'm sure there is some evidence supporting this (John B. is a PhD, I trust he does some research before spewing articles all over tnation).
Again, this is simply a guideline to prevent someone from consuming 2000+ Calories in one meal because they heard that the only way to gain mass is eat more.
Usually, I try to limit the amount or either C or F in a meal, not cutting out one or the other completely.

[Thremp]

rider,

There are plenty of educated people who have no clue what they are talking about. Take Stephen Hawking and his view of blackholes for the last 25 years v his view of them today. Worse yet he is the foremost expert on the plant. Imagine the damage a little bit of knowledge can do.

Cliff Notes: I don't place his PhD above others. Protein naturally blunts IR. His diet is busto.

[rider_1]

[ QUOTE ]
rider,

There are plenty of educated people who have no clue what they are talking about. Take Stephen Hawking and his view of blackholes for the last 25 years v his view of them today. Worse yet he is the foremost expert on the plant. Imagine the damage a little bit of knowledge can do.

Cliff Notes: I don't place his PhD above others. Protein naturally blunts IR. His diet is busto.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ummm, OK. I didn't say I valued his opinion over others, nor that his diet was the end-all-discussions best diet out there. I was merely stating that his articles are almost always based on scientific evidence, he cites articles from peer reviewed journals, unlike most hoaky shyt in the latest issue of Musclemag. He is not the only one who bases his advice on science and he is not the foremost nutritional expert for athletes.
However, I respect his opinion as I repect anyone else who bases what they say on facts not myths (like being sore after a workout). I believe in causation, not correlation.

You are entitled to your opinions and I respect that.