"300" vs. G-Flux

[XTrainer]

Catchy titles aside, I expect this to be no less than an epic thread. In my nearly obsessive quest for nutritional greatness, I've discovered what basically comes to two contradictory schools of thought:

The first approach, I'll refer to as GJCF (that is to say, Gym Jones, Cross Fit).

"We took the opposite route of calorie restriction to make them look like they lived off the land, in the wild, all sinewy and ripped. The diet was adequate to fuel effort and recovery, barely."

Link: http://www.gymjones.com/knowledge.php?id=35

Unfortuneately, this link (from which I pulled the above quote) has little to do with the topic at hand. If anyone can find one, post it up.

The second approach is outlined in Berardi's G-Flux article.

Energy balance is a roving parameter and as you'll learn, finding your highest energy balance point leads to the highest metabolic rate and the best body.

Full Article: http://www.johnberardi.com/articles/nutrition/g-flux.htm

THE QUESTION: WHICH APPROACH IS BETTER FOR THE COMBAT ATHLETE?

I'll post my thoughts soon, but feel free to get this started whenever.

 

[Sinister]

Whichever approach gets results best.

 

[XTrainer]

^That's the point of the discussion. I'm not looking for an absolute here, I'm looking for a good discussion on the merits and flaws of both approaches, in an effort to come out of this with new ideas, new perspectives, new knowledge.

 

[ThePitBull32]

One seems to be more for "looks" and the other for optimal performance. Calorie restriction is great if you want to be able to count all your veins. I worked through a month of that style training in June. I lost over 2% BF in that month and even showed strength gains (minimal, but I did lose ten pounds). Now I am more focused on the second theory. i am eating upwards of 5000 cals/ day and working on breaking lifting plateaus and performing better in bjj. I dont think that calorie restriction is a sustainable method, but can be used to "cut up" every once and awhile.

 

[XTrainer]

I knew this would come up, and meant to put something into the original post. For the sake of argument, CrossFit is not about aesthetics, yet they follow the first approach.

 

[Bamaispriceless]

Well, actually Crossfit's stance is "eat enough food to support exercise and fitness, but not support bodyfat". They also say to "eat healthy meats, vegetables, fruits, nuts, seeds, little starch, and no sugar". (both close paraphrases). They prefer a "Paleo Zone diet" stance, meaning the zone plan, just with little to no grains, very little milk, etc to Berardi. It's hard to argue with their results. Considering how many pro fighters, amatuer fighters, olympic athletes, gymnasts, and military units, and SOF operators use their program with great results, I'd say their diet ideas are a success.

On the other hand, no doubt John Berardi has some excellent thoughts/ideas and is full of top notch info, so both approaches are excellent. There are sooooooooo many different approaches to eating that are effective, that it would be impossible to rate them because everyones body responds differently to the different diets.

 

[XTrainer]

CrossFit endorses caloric restriction:

"Current research strongly supports the link between caloric restriction and an increased life expectancy. The incidence of cancers and heart disease sharply decline with a diet that is carefully limited in controlling caloric intake. “Caloric Restriction” is another fruitful area for Internet search. The CrossFit prescription is consistent with this research.
The CrossFit prescription allows a reduced caloric intake and yet still provides ample nutrition for rigorous activity"

http://www.crossfit.com/cf-info/start-diet.html

 

[Bamaispriceless]

^Well, constant caloric restriction is probably not a good idea long term. I have never read that, but Im sure the crossfit cult members all hype that up as the Gospel, but I only do caloric restrictions obviously when Im "cutting". I stay at maintenance the rest of the time. However, I will say that Intermittent Fasting is a form of caloric restriction, but it's an excellent way to eat. And the research on caloric restriction diets are true actually, so there probably is some merit there. If you want some serious diet advice/opinions/ideas, then hit up the www.performancemenu.com. They are the best when it comes to performance nutrition.

 

[spirez]

I enjoyed that g-flux article and it sounds like the sort of thing i need to be able to do weights/cardio in the morning and then 1.5-3 hours BJJ in the evening, or vice versa.

However how are you supposed to work out your energy expenditure etc? And how can you eat so much without breaking the bank?

 

[MikeMartial]

THE QUESTION: WHICH APPROACH IS BETTER FOR THE COMBAT ATHLETE?

IMO, it would obviously be the approach that does NOT include calorie restriction; cutting weight aside, the priorities would be for athletic performance and recovery. In this case, limiting calories (improperly) would hinder both, and greatly increase your chances of overtraining. I realize that Twight was saying "the opposite of" calorie restriction, but then he describes it as borderline calorie restriction.

It's not that it can't be done with either "method", but the chances of screwing yourself out of needed fuel would be greater with the first approach.

My 2 cents.

 

[Monger]

I'm in complete agreement with Mike.

 

[XTrainer]

^That's the way I feel, too. The only reason I think this is interesting is that, as fighters, we must be extremely concious of our weight, and I have seen some incredible strength/weight ratios from guys following the GJCF approach.