PDA

View Full Version : I'm hungry...protein shake or real food?



HighSchoolGuy
09-05-2007, 03:56 PM
I just get home from school, I go straight to the basement into my weight room. I lift intensely for an hour, I come upstairs and realize I'm starving. Do I take a whey protein shake to get in that oh-so-needed protein quickly into my system? Or do I sit down and eat the chicken and potatoes that's on my table.
I read that after working out you have a certain time-window when it is better for you to take in a fast-acting protein such as whey rather than ..say caseine--so that is why I'm a little confused. Thanks.

jAy_Dub
09-05-2007, 04:00 PM
I dont think it really matters, nothing considerable that you would notice anyway.

Do whatever you feel like. Eat it up, then drink a shake afterward. As long as you get your daily intake of protein then you'll be fine.

Con
09-05-2007, 06:20 PM
Overall calories matter more than anything.

If you had an adequete Pre-wo meal, then PWO wont matter as much.

ProteinMonster
09-08-2007, 09:01 AM
what i would do if i was trying to gain, drink a protein shake before, then one right after so it shoots straight into my body. then eat my regular meal 30 mins after

live2lift
09-08-2007, 03:05 PM
what i would do if i was trying to gain, drink a protein shake before, then one right after so it shoots straight into my body. then eat my regular meal 30 mins after

I agree. Drink the shake immediately then 30 to 90 minutes later eat a big meal.

TonyCap
09-08-2007, 10:01 PM
I'd drink the shake first... later I'd eat the meal.

mikey4402
09-08-2007, 10:12 PM
why not drink the shake WITH a meal.

There my work here is done

sCaRz*Of*PaiN
09-08-2007, 10:15 PM
why not drink the shake WITH a meal.

There my work here is done:withstupi

1ManRiot
09-09-2007, 02:37 PM
why not drink the shake WITH a meal.

There my work here is done
Too many calories in one sitting would simply lead to unecessary fat storage my friend

Rodzilla
09-09-2007, 02:58 PM
what i would do if i was trying to gain, drink a protein shake before, then one right after so it shoots straight into my body. then eat my regular meal 30 mins after

Agree :thumbup:

VikingWarlord
09-09-2007, 04:00 PM
Too many calories in one sitting would simply lead to unecessary fat storage my friend

No it wouldn't. Too many calories eaten over a long period of time will lead to unnecessary fat storage.

There are ~3500 calories in a pound of fat. Are you saying that you're going to be eating enough in one sitting to make a noticeable difference? You don't get fat from eating a big PWO meal.

1ManRiot
09-10-2007, 02:37 PM
No it wouldn't. Too many calories eaten over a long period of time will lead to unnecessary fat storage.

There are ~3500 calories in a pound of fat. Are you saying that you're going to be eating enough in one sitting to make a noticeable difference? You don't get fat from eating a big PWO meal.

You didn't imply a time-frame, you implied that the OP drank his shake with his meal. If he does this over a long period of time, with every PWO meal, he will store unecessary fat.

If the OP is consuming for example a whey based shake containing 30g protein whilst consuming a meal also containing 30g protein, he is consuming 60g protein in one sitting, which is completely unnecessary for 99.9% of resistance trainers. This isn't even taking into account any carb or fat sources.

Post-prandial, and towards the end of the absorptive state, insulin levels actually peak later than blood glucose levels, so if you were to have a fast-acting PWO shake, this can then create a second window of maximised insulin levels, perfect for a PPWO meal. The timing of this as it will depend on the food source PWO, but whey and dex, you are looking at around the 45 mins to 1 hour mark for a perfect opportunity for another meal (IMO).

This suggests that it would make MUCH more sense to keep a PWO and PPWO protocol seperate, rather than unnecessarily over-consume.

1ManRiot
09-10-2007, 02:39 PM
what i would do if i was trying to gain, drink a protein shake before, then one right after so it shoots straight into my body. then eat my regular meal 30 mins after
Why? A half-decent nutrition regime would eliminate any need for this. Besides, the amino-acid pool is only a small factor of intense training, glycogen is the key factor.

eddie500
09-11-2007, 10:28 AM
Too many calories in one sitting would simply lead to unecessary fat storage my friend

This does make sense, I was thinking about this lately. If you ate all your calorie needs in one sitting, this would be inefficient and lead to fat storage.

Think about it, if your body can only build muscle so quickly and it can not convert fat into muscle, then when you eat a lot in one sitting you will digest the food in a short time and some would go to muscle building and then the rest would have to go into fat storage.

Its hard to explain but I'm not sure anybody really knows exactly whats going on in the body. The important question is can Excess fat be converted into muscle?

1ManRiot
09-11-2007, 11:22 AM
This does make sense, I was thinking about this lately. If you ate all your calorie needs in one sitting, this would be inefficient and lead to fat storage.

Think about it, if your body can only build muscle so quickly and it can not convert fat into muscle, then when you eat a lot in one sitting you will digest the food in a short time and some would go to muscle building and then the rest would have to go into fat storage.

Its hard to explain but I'm not sure anybody really knows exactly whats going on in the body. The important question is can Excess fat be converted into muscle?
You are correct. As you say, protein synthesis, lipid metabolism, carb metabolism, etc, they can only take place at a certain rate. If you over-consume any macronutrient, the body still has to do something with it. Once you have enough carbs to replenish glycogen, enough protein to repair tissue, enough fat to produce hormones, if you keep eating beyond that, it will need to be stored. Obviously different macros will follow different metabolic pathways, but you get the same end result: weight gain.

It is all about the caloire/energy balance.

cals in > cals out = weight gain
cals in < cals out = weight loss

You could eat lard all day, but if you still remained in a calorie deficit, you would lose weight.

Stumprrp
09-11-2007, 11:31 AM
real food, try to eat real food ALL THE TIME, there is to much relience on shakes.

mikey4402
09-11-2007, 02:06 PM
You didn't imply a time-frame, you implied that the OP drank his shake with his meal. If he does this over a long period of time, with every PWO meal, he will store unecessary fat.

If the OP is consuming for example a whey based shake containing 30g protein whilst consuming a meal also containing 30g protein, he is consuming 60g protein in one sitting, which is completely unnecessary for 99.9% of resistance trainers. This isn't even taking into account any carb or fat sources.

Post-prandial, and towards the end of the absorptive state, insulin levels actually peak later than blood glucose levels, so if you were to have a fast-acting PWO shake, this can then create a second window of maximised insulin levels, perfect for a PPWO meal. The timing of this as it will depend on the food source PWO, but whey and dex, you are looking at around the 45 mins to 1 hour mark for a perfect opportunity for another meal (IMO).

This suggests that it would make MUCH more sense to keep a PWO and PPWO protocol seperate, rather than unnecessarily over-consume.
Your wrong. How long do you think it takes to digest such food. Its around 4/5 hours for a average meal to be fully digested.

There is nothing wrong with Eatting that many calories and or protien in one sitting. Worring about your DAILY macros. That is what really matters for you long term gain.

Slim Schaedle
09-11-2007, 03:37 PM
You didn't imply a time-frame, you implied that the OP drank his shake with his meal. If he does this over a long period of time, with every PWO meal, he will store unecessary fat.

If the OP is consuming for example a whey based shake containing 30g protein whilst consuming a meal also containing 30g protein, he is consuming 60g protein in one sitting, which is completely unnecessary for 99.9% of resistance trainers. This isn't even taking into account any carb or fat sources.

Post-prandial, and towards the end of the absorptive state, insulin levels actually peak later than blood glucose levels, so if you were to have a fast-acting PWO shake, this can then create a second window of maximised insulin levels, perfect for a PPWO meal. The timing of this as it will depend on the food source PWO, but whey and dex, you are looking at around the 45 mins to 1 hour mark for a perfect opportunity for another meal (IMO).

This suggests that it would make MUCH more sense to keep a PWO and PPWO protocol seperate, rather than unnecessarily over-consume.

Dear Jesus

Slim Schaedle
09-11-2007, 03:40 PM
You could eat lard all day, but if you still remained in a calorie deficit, you would lose weight.

Which directly contradicts what you say about excess intake in one sitting (whatever the hell a sitting really is) leading to fatty acid synthesis.

sCaRz*Of*PaiN
09-11-2007, 05:14 PM
Too many calories in one sitting would simply lead to unecessary fat storage my friendPlease stop saying these kinds of things. It's simply wrong. And there's nothing "simple" about that.



It is all about the caloire/energy balance.

cals in > cals out = weight gain
cals in < cals out = weight loss

You could eat lard all day, but if you still remained in a calorie deficit, you would lose weight.But according to you, if you eat too much all at once, too many "cals in", you would gain unnecessary fat storage. Your body doesn't really give a s*** when you eat. It's using the food you eat all day long. I hope you're not also under the impression that eating after 6 will make you fat.

VikingWarlord
09-11-2007, 05:27 PM
The important question is can Excess fat be converted into muscle?

Absolutely not, and anyone that perpetuates this myth should kiss the end of a shotgun.

Fat is fat, muscle is muscle, either can be burned or gained, but they WILL NOT change from one to the other.

My other points were already handled, so there's no need to say anything else about them.

1ManRiot
09-12-2007, 01:00 PM
LOL ok then. You crack on and enjoy 1000+ calorie meals. It is too much. You will gain unecessary BF.

1ManRiot
09-12-2007, 01:05 PM
Your body doesn't really give a s*** when you eat. It's using the food you eat all day long.
Wrong. Absolutely wrong.


I hope you're not also under the impression that eating after 6 will make you fat.
Now you're just making lude assumptions.


if you eat too much all at once, too many "cals in", you would gain unnecessary fat storage
Correct. You can mismanage meals causing fat storage yet still remain in a cal deficit and lose weight regardless. Optimum and reality are two different things.


Which directly contradicts what you say about excess intake in one sitting (whatever the hell a sitting really is) leading to fatty acid synthesis.
No it doesn't.


Its around 4/5 hours for a average meal to be fully digested.
What is a sitting I get asked? WTF is an average meal? You are talking sh1t my friend. Learn how to spell.


There is nothing wrong with Eatting that many calories and or protien in one sitting.
Nobody has given any proper figure, apart from my example. If we are assuming the shake has the equivalent breakdown of of macros as an "average meal", add to that your "average meal" you are consuming much too much for one sitting.

SpecialK
09-12-2007, 05:08 PM
real food, try to eat real food ALL THE TIME, there is to much relience on shakes.

Why do you think that is a bad thing?

IIRC, BCC used an all-liquid diet while preparing for his most recent contest (well, most recently documented on WBB, which was quite awhile back).

Unholy
09-12-2007, 05:20 PM
Wrong. Absolutely wrong.

I present you with the "WBB I DON'T KNOW **** AND TYPE AWAY ANYWAY AWARD"

One simple answer here IF, look it up before making ridiculously incorrect posts that make any smart readers brain hurt.

Slim Schaedle
09-12-2007, 05:27 PM
Wrong. Absolutely wrong.


Now you're just making lude assumptions.


Correct. You can mismanage meals causing fat storage yet still remain in a cal deficit and lose weight regardless. Optimum and reality are two different things.


No it doesn't.


What is a sitting I get asked? WTF is an average meal? You are talking sh1t my friend. Learn how to spell.


Nobody has given any proper figure, apart from my example. If we are assuming the shake has the equivalent breakdown of of macros as an "average meal", add to that your "average meal" you are consuming much too much for one sitting.

Cue Belial

VikingWarlord
09-12-2007, 06:18 PM
Cue Belial

Oh, this should be fun.

Built
09-12-2007, 07:05 PM
:lurk:

sCaRz*Of*PaiN
09-12-2007, 07:59 PM
LOL ok then. You crack on and enjoy 1000+ calorie meals. It is too much. You will gain unecessary BF.You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. I eat 1,500+ calorie meals all the time and *gasp* I'm not gaining unnecessary BF. I must be some abomination of science. Let me go find my creator, Dr. Frankenstein. :rolleyes:

mikey4402
09-12-2007, 10:04 PM
You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. I eat 1,500+ calorie meals all the time and *gasp* I'm not gaining unnecessary BF. I must be some abomination of science. Let me go find my creator, Dr. Frankenstein. :rolleyes:

or do you know what sCarZ? maybe you, myself, Unholy,VikingWarlord,Slim and soon to be belial are just all wrong, and 1manriot is actualy right*gasp*

1ManRiot
09-12-2007, 11:00 PM
There is nothing wrong with Eatting that many calories and or protien in one sitting. Worring about your DAILY macros.
Ok then, tell me this, if you ate a calorie surplus in the morning, and a calorie deficit in the afternoon, where would that leave you? Other than a basic circadian rhythm, your body will not know what a 'day' of meals is. You can monitor cal + or cal - meal by meal, day by day, week by week.


or do you know what sCarZ? maybe you, myself, Unholy,VikingWarlord,Slim and soon to be belial are just all wrong, and 1manriot is actualy right*gasp*
Without blowing my own horn, I am indeed correct and find it amusing that all you cannot see beyond what you have preached to each other in the reletive conform of small BB website.


I eat 1,500+ calorie meals all the time
You will notice I said 99.9% of resistance trainers. The 0.1% that do are genetic freaks and AAS users. I still am willing to bet, based on your somewhat crude and immature responses, that your diet is sub-optimal.

As you seem insistant on creating conflict purely based on post count, link me to you daily eating schedules gentlemen and I will gladly mock away.

mikey4402
09-13-2007, 12:01 AM
Ok then, tell me this, if you ate a calorie surplus in the morning, and a calorie deficit in the afternoon, where would that leave you? Other than a basic circadian rhythm, your body will not know what a 'day' of meals is. You can monitor cal + or cal - meal by meal, day by day, week by week.

What is a calorie surplus in your world? you have to base it on a number for it to be a surplus. the rest of the world bases in on a maintenance number for the day.
Eat above maintenane (calorie surplus) you will gain weight.
eat bellow you lose weight. simple


Without blowing my own horn, I am indeed correct and find it amusing that all you cannot see beyond what you have preached to each other in the reletive conform of small BB website.
This is not a small BB website. Its is one of the most informative and close-nit website ever created. It also has the best supplement company backing it. If your not willing to learn from what other, more experinced lifters are trying to teach you , you might as well just leave. Or show some scientic evidence to back your ridiculous claim.


You will notice I said 99.9% of resistance trainers. The 0.1% that do are genetic freaks and AAS users. I still am willing to bet, based on your somewhat crude and immature responses, that your diet is sub-optimal. I guess sCaRz and I are both genetic freaks. we will take that as a complement. however saying that sCaRz diet is sub-optimal is out of line. especaily since you have no idea what his diet concests of


As you seem insistant on creating conflict purely based on post count, link me to you daily eating schedules gentlemen and I will gladly mock away. i really hope you take my advice from two lines up

Slim Schaedle
09-13-2007, 07:30 AM
Ok then, tell me this, if you ate a calorie surplus in the morning, and a calorie deficit in the afternoon, where would that leave you? Other than a basic circadian rhythm, your body will not know what a 'day' of meals is. You can monitor cal + or cal - meal by meal, day by day, week by week.


Without blowing my own horn, I am indeed correct and find it amusing that all you cannot see beyond what you have preached to each other in the reletive conform of small BB website.


You will notice I said 99.9% of resistance trainers. The 0.1% that do are genetic freaks and AAS users. I still am willing to bet, based on your somewhat crude and immature responses, that your diet is sub-optimal.

As you seem insistant on creating conflict purely based on post count, link me to you daily eating schedules gentlemen and I will gladly mock away.

Question: Where did you learn about nutrition.

Don't be sarcastic or borderline A-hole.

monkeyarms
09-13-2007, 10:23 AM
Too many calories in one sitting would simply lead to unecessary fat storage my friend

Eating 2500 cals/day is eating 2500 cals/day. It's all about long-term. After eating a large meal (say 1500cals), the body will initially need to store some of the "extra" as fat, but this will be burned later in the day because the other meals will be smaller to compensate for the larger one.


Think of your body as a checking account. Let's say you have a balance of zero dollars in there. You have an automatic withdrawal set up to take out $30 every day at noon to pay for your mortgage. Now let's say that once per week in order to cover these payments you deposit $210.

If you:

1) deposit the money every day in $30 increments at 11:59am, then you will pretty much always have a $0 balance.

2) deposit the whole $210 at the beginning of the week you will have a money surplus (weight gain) the whole week until the last payment for the week comes out.

3) wait until the end of the week to make the same payment then you will have a negative balance (weight loss) all week until the end.


So take situation #2--if you were to look at your checking account at any day of the week (except the last one) you would notice a positive balance. From this, you might conclude that when you make a large deposit at the beginning of the week you make money.

But you don't, because at the end of every single week you still have a $0 balance.

So I think talking about short term effects (which I assume is what you are talking about????) are completely useless and just adds to confusion.


BTW.........there is a study on pubmed.com (search for "17413096") that shows that daily calories being equal, eating 1 large meal a day instead of 3 smalls ones results in fat loss.....

1ManRiot
09-13-2007, 11:43 AM
Eating 2500 cals/day is eating 2500 cals/day. It's all about long-term. After eating a large meal (say 1500cals), the body will initially need to store some of the "extra" as fat
So you are agreeing with me. In this one sweeping statement, you have confirmed everything I have stated in this thread.


you have to base it on a number for it to be a surplus. the rest of the world bases in on a maintenance number for the day.
Utter garbage once again. There are no numbers in nutrition or bodybuilding. You can throw Harris-Benedict equations about all over the place but in reality, they mean little as every one has such different genetics/phenotypes.


Eat above maintenane (calorie surplus) you will gain weight.
eat bellow you lose weight. simple
You are repeating what I said about 3 posts ago.


It also has the best supplement company backing it.
What has that got to do with anything?


If your not willing to learn from what other, more experinced lifters are trying to teach you , you might as well just leave
Ths assumption amuses me. What/why/where have I indicated anything to do with my own experience? Who is trying to teach me anything? How is it relevant in the context of this discussion. I almost thought you were going to be a decent poster until you stated that.


however saying that sCaRz diet is sub-optimal is out of line. especaily since you have no idea what his diet concests of
Prey tell, you will have to quote me on that because I never said anyone's diet was sub-optimal; I said that I would bank on it being sub-optimal and that if he wanted to get personal then perhaps he should give us an example of his eating regime. If you think I am out of line, you need to take a little re-read of the thread and see how you and your close nit buddies respond to another poster airing his opinion.


Don't be sarcastic or borderline A-hole.
IIRC, I think I am the only person who has refrained from being the above mate.


that shows that daily calories being equal, eating 1 large meal a day instead of 3 smalls ones results in fat loss.....
I haven't once disputed that.

Over consumption in a single meal will lead to fat storage. Drinking a shake the equivalent of a meal alongside a meal in itself would cause excess storage. Whether that affects your daily/weekly calorie balance is another matter. Re-read my posts, I was careful with my words so as to distinguish this difference.


Or show some scientic evidence to back your ridiculous claim.
LOL once again, you are attempting to create conflict.


i really hope you take my advice from two lines up
Advice? Mate, you have thrown some silly assumptions around in a bid to make me look silly and yourself look like a peace-maker/wannabe moderator. All you have done is made yourself look silly on account of the fact that I am a nameless, faceless identity whom you know nothing about.

To conclude this particular post, I refer you all the my first line.

monkeyarms
09-13-2007, 11:56 AM
Over consumption in a single meal will lead to fat storage. Drinking a shake the equivalent of a meal alongside a meal in itself would cause excess storage. Whether that affects your daily/weekly calorie balance is another matter. Re-read my posts, I was careful with my words so as to distinguish this difference.

That is just ridiculous....you're saying that eating more than what the body can instantly use for energy requirements will result in storage......well, duh!!!! No one cares about fat storage on a time frame of a few seconds or minutes. There are 84,600 seconds in a day....should we all eat 84,600 meals each with 0.0296 calories per "meal" so that our body doesn't have any "excess storage"???? I mean, is this really what your basing your whole argument around?

That's why everyone else is talking long term. Long term you will not gain excess fat by eating large meals. End of story.

1ManRiot
09-13-2007, 12:08 PM
That is just ridiculous....you're saying that eating more than what the body can instantly use for energy requirements will result in storage......well, duh!!!! No one cares about fat storage on a time frame of a few seconds or minutes. There are 84,600 seconds in a day....should we all eat 84,600 meals each with 0.0296 calories per "meal" so that our body doesn't have any "excess storage"???? I mean, is this really what your basing your whole argument around?

That's why everyone else is talking long term. Long term you will not gain excess fat by eating large meals. End of story.
As stated in my 2nd/3rd post, no time-frame was indicated other than that of the OP was stating regularity and the following members indicated doing this every time. Yourself and every one of your bandits claimed you would not create bodyfat from over-consumption. In both of your last two posts, you have confirmed that this will happen.

You are now arguing schematics because I have turned around a load of "gang mentality" posts into a constructive debate.

Lets get the facts right as you clearly aren't taking onboard what I am saying:

I never said you couldn't over-consume but still lose weight overall

I said you will gain unecessary BF from over-consumption in one sitting. You have agreed with me on this twice.

Back to the original point of this thread, do you and your fellow bandits still think that having a PWO shake and PPWO meal in one go is suitable/optimal for the OP?

mikey4402
09-13-2007, 12:18 PM
As stated in my 2nd/3rd post, no time-frame was indicated other than that of the OP was stating regularity and the following members indicated doing this every time. Yourself and every one of your bandits claimed you would not create bodyfat from over-consumption. In both of your last two posts, you have confirmed that this will happen.

You are now arguing schematics because I have turned around a load of "gang mentality" posts into a constructive debate.

Lets get the facts right as you clearly aren't taking onboard what I am saying:

I never said you couldn't over-consume but still lose weight overall

I said you will gain unecessary BF from over-consumption in one sitting. You have agreed with me on this twice.

Back to the original point of this thread, do you and your fellow bandits still think that having a PWO shake and PPWO meal in one go is suitable/optimal for the OP?
why would it matter if you most of your calories in one meal as opposed to 6 smaller meals. as long as your total calories are under maintenance for the daily?
We are in it for the long term. If you agree that there is no differnce. then your original post was pointless, and just used to cause conflict

1ManRiot
09-13-2007, 12:21 PM
Q: Is there any reason why I can't just eat one or two huge protein meals per day rather than eating five or six small ones? I mean, is there some sort of storage spot in the body for this protein?

A: Simply put, eating one or two huge protein meals per day is a bad idea for weight trainers. First of all, there's a limit to how much protein can be digested and absorbed in the body, although no one has conclusively shown how much protein this is. But even when someone comes out with a number, it won't be applicable to everyone. This is because different individuals will be able to tolerate different protein loads based on body size and habitual level of protein intake. In other words, if you normally consume a high protein diet, then you'll probably be able to digest more protein than someone who eats a low protein diet.

Since we don't know what the upper limit is, and we do know that there's got to be an upper limit to how much protein can be digested in one sitting, we have to guess. Although I can't guess exactly how much this might be, I think it's safe to assume that if you're a 200-pound weightlifter trying to eat only two meals to get a protein intake of one gram per pound of bodyweight, you won't be fully digesting 100 grams of protein in one sitting.

Even if this protein was fully absorbed, there's no storage depot in the body for the absorbed amino acids like there is for carbohydrate (the liver and skeletal muscle) and for fat (adipose tissue and skeletal muscle). Excess amino acids that aren't incorporated into functional and structural proteins are simply deaminated (their amino group is torn off). The amino group is excreted and the carbon skeleton can be oxidized for energy or converted to carbohydrate or fat for storage.

Since this reaction can't move in the other direction (amino acids aren't readily formed from carbohydrates and fats), aminos aren't stored in the body. So, if there's a need for amino acids in the body and there aren't enough aminos floating around in the blood from a recent meal, the body will destroy the structural and functional proteins for their amino acd content. This may mean the destruction of some of your hard earned muscle.

Because of these two factors, it's important to eat smaller protein meals throughout the day so you constantly have amino acids in the blood when the body needs them. Personally, I try to limit myself to a maximum of about 50 or 60 grams of protein in any given meal. Future research should give us clues as to approximately how much protein can be digested in a single sitting.
John Beradi

1ManRiot
09-13-2007, 12:22 PM
why would it matter if you most of your calories in one meal as opposed to 6 smaller meals. as long as your total calories are under maintenance for the daily?
We are in it for the long term. If you agree that there is no differnce. then your original post was pointless, and just used to cause conflict

You my friend, although clearly still blind to it, are the people who created conflict. I will refrain from quoting all night as a quick flick to the first page will show you all you need to know.

mikey4402
09-13-2007, 12:45 PM
Too many calories in one sitting would simply lead to unecessary fat storage my friend
this is your quote for the first page.

You havnt answered my questions


You said there were no numbers in nutrition. well then what are you baseing your 'too much for one sitting' off of?

And if you do think it is optimal to base your caloric intake on a meal by meal bases, then wouldnt it be even better to base it on a hour by hour or a min by min bases, under your thinking?

1ManRiot
09-13-2007, 12:53 PM
this is your quote for the first page.

You havnt answered my questions


You said there were no numbers in nutrition. well then what are you baseing your 'too much for one sitting' off of?

And if you do think it is optimal to base your caloric intake on a meal by meal bases, then wouldnt it be even better to base it on a hour by hour or a min by min bases, under your thinking?

My quote is correct. Your matey-boy up there even agreed.

There are no numbers, there are a million and one variables that completely discount the need for numbers.


well then what are you baseing your 'too much for one sitting' off of?
On the assumption that the PWO shake would have the equivalent macro ratio as a protein/carb-rich meal.


And if you do think it is optimal to base your caloric intake on a meal by meal bases, then wouldnt it be even better to base it on a hour by hour or a min by min bases, under your thinking?
Schemantics once again.

My statement was a simple line that was factually correct, based on the information provided. (For example, if his shake was 10g of whey iso and his meal was 60g rice and 100g chicken, then consuming the shake wouldn't be excess.)

It was you and your friends who chose the route it took, and everything I have stated is factually correct. This you cannot dispute, though I have no doubt one of you will find something trivial and irrelevant to throw into the mix to try and establish some false credibility.

I am here to discuss and learn about nutrition. I am not here to troll, flame or receive insults.

mikey4402
09-13-2007, 01:02 PM
I am here to discuss and learn about nutrition. I am not here to troll, flame or receive insults.
Im dont mean to insult, if i came off that way i hope my apology is excepted. You seem to have some knowladge to offer to the table.

I do conclude that most of your post in this thread are factually based. However i still dont seem to grasp how a high calorie meal would be non-productive for a cutting cycle, aslong as it fit in the long term realm of your daily macros.

1ManRiot
09-13-2007, 01:15 PM
Im dont mean to insult, if i came off that way i hope my apology is excepted. You seem to have some knowladge to offer to the table.
Fair enough.


I do conclude that most of your post in this thread are factually based. However i still dont seem to grasp how a high calorie meal would be non-productive for a cutting cycle, aslong as it fit in the long term realm of your daily macros.
A high calorie meal and over-consumption are 2 different things :)
RE cutting, I'm not trying to be arsey, but the OP never mentioned his goals? Unless I missed that?

When bulking, we are always looking to over-consume, something we all agree on is that you need calories to grow, and a little fat gain is part and parcel of the course of building lean mass, as we all know.

Cutting by way of calorie-deficit is a different ball game because you are looking to carefully manage the insulin/glucagon balance in order to burn apidose tissue whilst carefully protecting our hard-earned skeletal muscle tissue. Some will choose to make sure every meal is slightly under requirements, some will take a different approach and eat some meals above or at maintenance and some below. In the grand scheme of things, it matters not, because a calorie deficit is a calorie deficit.

I think we both mean the same, but the real points got a little distorted above.

Con
09-13-2007, 01:17 PM
In the grand scheme of things, it matters not, because a calorie deficit is a calorie deficit.


BAM!

1ManRiot
09-13-2007, 01:20 PM
http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/AQUA/24-311~Bam-Margera-Posters.jpg

Chickenlegs
09-13-2007, 01:34 PM
I'm with manriot on this one. How long have we heard you should eat more smaller meals rather than fewer larger meals.

Slim Schaedle
09-13-2007, 02:31 PM
IIRC, I think I am the only person who has refrained from being the above mate.


I meant don't be a sarcastic A-hole in your response to my question about where/how you learned about nutrition....which you didn't answer.

Built
09-13-2007, 02:33 PM
I'm with manriot on this one. How long have we heard you should eat more smaller meals rather than fewer larger meals.


So you think meal frequency matters Chickenlegs?

1ManRiot
09-13-2007, 02:43 PM
I meant don't be a sarcastic A-hole in your response to my question about where/how you learned about nutrition....which you didn't answer.
You know as well as I know that there is no right answer for this. Whatever I put will simply provide flame ammunition and change the scope of the discussion. Not only that, it is somewhat irrelevant.

1ManRiot
09-13-2007, 02:44 PM
So you think meal frequency matters Chickenlegs?
Do you think it doesn't?

Slim Schaedle
09-13-2007, 02:54 PM
You know as well as I know that there is no right answer for this. Whatever I put will simply provide flame ammunition and change the scope of the discussion. Not only that, it is somewhat irrelevant.

It's a simple question dude....

Where/how did you learn what you know?

For example, self taught, formal university course(s), degree in biochemistry, etc.

Built
09-13-2007, 02:56 PM
Do you think it doesn't?

How and why would it matter? You have a budget. Spend accordingly.

One meal or twenty snacks - any difference in metabolism will be trivial at best. Just do whatever keeps you comfortable.

1ManRiot
09-13-2007, 03:42 PM
How and why would it matter? You have a budget. Spend accordingly.

One meal or twenty snacks - any difference in metabolism will be trivial at best. Just do whatever keeps you comfortable.
Right now, I need sleep, but have no fear, you will hear my opinions on this tomorrow :hello:

Chickenlegs
09-13-2007, 07:06 PM
So you think meal frequency matters Chickenlegs?

I don't claim to be an expert, but from what i read, the answer would be yes.

Built
09-13-2007, 07:10 PM
Fair enough. How come?

Clifford Gillmore
09-13-2007, 07:14 PM
Hey look everyone! Theres a table filled with small snacks and a seperate buffet table! Lets all run in different directions.



You know, I'm not learning :(

Chickenlegs
09-13-2007, 07:38 PM
Fair enough. How come?

To keep your metabolism fired up. Also, I believe your body can only digest so much protein at one sitting.

Built
09-13-2007, 07:49 PM
How does eating more frequently fire up your metabolism? And do you have anything to back up your belief?

Chickenlegs
09-13-2007, 08:14 PM
How does eating more frequently fire up your metabolism? And do you have anything to back up your belief?

From what I understand, your metabolism slows when your body goes into "starvation mode." Wouldn't it be better to eat frequent meals to avoid this?

sharkall2003
09-13-2007, 08:23 PM
From what I understand, your metabolism slows when your body goes into "starvation mode." Wouldn't it be better to eat frequent meals to avoid this?

Why are you asking a question of the statement you proposed?

theravingphycho
09-14-2007, 12:27 PM
How and why would it matter? You have a budget. Spend accordingly.

One meal or twenty snacks - any difference in metabolism will be trivial at best. Just do whatever keeps you comfortable.

Interesting i must say. I assume you know about nitrogen balance, insulin sensitivity not to mention hyperaminoacidemia. I would also assume you know that aminos in the blod stream dont stay there for more than few hours as well

1MR does know what hes talking about i can see that and backs up his debate quite nicely too, yet all im seeing from a lot of members here is silly analogies like "your body is a bank etc" if thats the case you think it closes at 5pm every day then?

If you want i could explain if you want on the benefits on eating more frequently

theravingphycho
09-14-2007, 12:30 PM
How does eating more frequently fire up your metabolism? And do you have anything to back up your belief?

Yes its called the thermic effect of food, not to mention the increased insulin sensitivity and blood sugar stabilisation eating smaller meals more frequently brings over eating less more calorie packed meals. Other elements come into play as well like cortisol release and leptin too. But i wont get too technical just yet. Instead ill ask you to back up your belief so i can understand where your views originate from

mikey4402
09-14-2007, 12:34 PM
Interesting i must say. I assume you know about nitrogen balance, insulin sensitivity not to mention hyperaminoacidemia. I would also assume you know that aminos in the blod stream dont stay there for more than few hours as well

1MR does know what hes talking about i can see that and backs up his debate quite nicely too, yet all im seeing from a lot of members here is silly analogies like "your body is a bank etc" if thats the case you think it closes at 5pm every day then?

If you want i could explain if you want on the benefits on eating more frequently

please do. because i dont feel manriot has explain well enough.

Built
09-14-2007, 12:59 PM
Yes - do go ahead and explain this for us newbs.

theravingphycho
09-14-2007, 01:09 PM
Well one of the benefits of eating smaller meals throughout the day if were talking about a mixed macro diet here is that of Nitrogen balance

Amino acids in protein when they are digested are freeform in the blood for a short time and never stay there for more than a couple of hours. A postive nitrogen balance means a anabolic environment which as you know is required for building muscle

You will and can build muscle using les meals but you will have less time being in a positive nitrogen balance due to the nature of amino acids in the blood. So eat more frequently and enjoy a better body composition

Another benefit is nutrient timing, as youre aware your body only needs so much at one sitting, if you give it excess it will turn into fat (if its got any cals left after building muscle etc). The body cannot build muscle from fat stores if it burns them for energy. Again this leads to a better body composition if eating more frequently is employed

Blood sugar level stabilisation, the best way i can get this point across is to have a look at hypoglycaemia and how its controlled

Insulin sensitivity, by eating huge portions of mixed macros when ti isnt necessary yuo cause a bigger than normal insulin spike which will lead to unecessary fat storage as the only time you need a spike really is PWO. All other times its about keeping insulin levels elevated not spiking them. Insulin is the greatest anabolic hormone out there, but its a dog that needs to be kept on a leash IMO as it can make or break a bulk or a cut

Cortisol, eating more frequently eliminates hunger pangs in the majority of people which limits if not ceases the production of cortisol which is a catabolic hormone which isnt something any BB'er wants

All in all you wil gain weight and muscle by eating bigger meals and less meals throughout the say thats a given but you will have a better body composition by eating more frequently and choosing your timings and nutrients right


P.S. Built you are far from a newb as i can see :hello:

Built
09-14-2007, 01:10 PM
Peer reviewed research please.

theravingphycho
09-14-2007, 01:12 PM
Peer revieved research on what?

The basic laws of thermodynamics?

Built
09-14-2007, 01:15 PM
Hmmmm. Up until now you didn't mention thermodynamics. You DID say things about nitrogen balance and body composition.

Got anything that shows that increasing meal frequency improves body composition when calories are controlled for?

theravingphycho
09-14-2007, 01:21 PM
If you read up on hyperaminoacidemia you should get a clearer understanding of where im coming from. As a pro im sure you know what nitrogen balance builds muscle so the more time you spend being in s a positive nitrogen balance the more muscle you will built

Anyone can put weight on but if your 10 lbs you gain on a bulk cycle could have a better ratio of lean mass to fat just by consuming the same amount of macros and calories spaced out more through the day would you do it?

Would you mind claryfying your views for me so i may gaina better understanding of what youre basing your POV on :)

Built
09-14-2007, 01:25 PM
Nothing to clarify. I'm just looking for more than your speculation.

Do you have anything to back up your conjecture?

theravingphycho
09-14-2007, 01:29 PM
I have just given you what to look for and to read up on if you wish to understand my opinion i have given

Which points do you require specific info on? Please let me know and i will quite happily point you in the right direction :)

If you have nothing to clarify your own POV why are you expecting me to do the same?

You seem quite content frmo what i have read in this thread to try and discredit/throw doubt on other peoples statements yet not once have i seen any proof your end on what you base your opinions on.

So what are you basing your opinions on, fact or fiction?

Built
09-14-2007, 01:31 PM
No, it doesn't work that way. You came in asserting that muscle mass will be larger and fat mass will be smaller with more frequent feedings.

You may be correct.

I'd like evidence.

theravingphycho
09-14-2007, 01:36 PM
Its a debate everyone puts across their POV right or wrong

If you think im wrong, prove it. Otherwise please stop trying to act like a wannabe mod and partisipate rather than trying to pick holes in what i say :)

If you want evidence dont expect me to spoon feed you, go out there, use google or a library and research what i have put across.

Built
09-14-2007, 01:38 PM
I've never read anything credible that supports your assertion.

I may have been missing out.

Enlighten me.

mikey4402
09-14-2007, 01:43 PM
Its a debate everyone puts across their POV right or wrong

If you think im wrong, prove it. Otherwise please stop trying to act like a wannabe mod and partisipate rather than trying to pick holes in what i say :)

If you want evidence dont expect me to spoon feed you, go out there, use google or a library and research what i have put across.
You are in the minority here and are purposing claims that arenít familiar with the rest of this community. If what you two are saying is the optimal way to go, then you should have no problem supporting your side of the debate with cited work.

theravingphycho
09-14-2007, 01:44 PM
i have stated the benefits and you can choose to spend 2-3 weeks researching what ive just essentially put into that paragraph if you dont believe me.

You asked for my opinion and i gave it. Which point did i raise in post 66 wasnt clear?

Built
09-14-2007, 01:46 PM
We'll start with meal frequency and body composition.

theravingphycho
09-14-2007, 01:49 PM
We'll start with meal frequency and body composition.

Am i missing something here, i dont quite get this. What in post 66 did i not explain to the boards satisfaction about those two points ?

Built
09-14-2007, 01:55 PM
You posted an excellent summary of your speculation.

"...it doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are -- if it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong." - R.P. Feynman

I'd like something that supports your claim. It's an interesting conjecture. Is it correct when tested?

theravingphycho
09-14-2007, 02:04 PM
You say im speculating yet you do not possess the knowledge to justify your statement.

So how do you know im speculating if you yourself do not know whether i am indeed right or wrong in the points i posted?

Please bullet point which points you have a issue with and ill answer them all at once rather than drag it out unecessarily

Built
09-14-2007, 02:20 PM
I indicated one above.

How about we start with body composition and meal frequency. What research have you read that supports your assertion that higher meal frequency leads to improved body composition?

Slim Schaedle
09-14-2007, 02:25 PM
theravingphycho, did you sign up for WBB simply to take part in this thread.


1Man Riot disappears today and suddenly you pop up

KingJustin
09-14-2007, 02:34 PM
I indicated one above.

How about we start with body composition and meal frequency. What research have you read that supports your assertion that higher meal frequency leads to improved body composition?

http://www.johnberardi.com/articles/qa/afc/afc_feb222002.htm
Refer to last question.

But I realize that 12 participants in a study is low, and I realize that meal frequency has been shown to not boost metabolism. I still think meal frequency affects body composition.

Keith
09-14-2007, 02:43 PM
theravingphycho, did you sign up for WBB simply to take in this thread.


1Man Riot disappears today and suddenly you pop up

Ha, beat me to it.

1ManRiot
09-14-2007, 04:31 PM
please do. because i dont feel manriot has explain well enough.
I haven't yet mentioned frequency myself.


theravingphycho, did you sign up for WBB simply to take part in this thread.
1Man Riot disappears today and suddenly you pop up
1ManRiot has a social life.

You seem to have issues with new members joining the board? Does everyone new get the same frosty reception? Do you want to scare new people away so that you can revel in narcissistic glory? Nobody here has brought attitude to the table but the long-term members.


What research have you read that supports your assertion that higher meal frequency leads to improved body composition?
The problem with the internet is that you can cite a reference to support nearly every theory. I have read both in favour of high frequency and against high frequency, I personally believe higher frequency will lead to a better body composition, and many great BB writers share the same opinion. Who do I believe? Chris Aceto? John Beradi? Or some nameless, faceless Dungeons & Dragons fans who seem more intent on flaming than polite discussion?

[/off topic]

Slim Schaedle
09-14-2007, 04:50 PM
1ManRiot has a social life.

You seem to have issues with new members joining the board? Does everyone new get the same frosty reception? Do you want to scare new people away so that you can revel in narcissistic glory?

:scratch:

Not sure where you got all that from.

You seem very defensive for me only mentioning that you "disappeared."


Where do you live?


In reference to my question about your credentials, I don't see how you can accuse others of being nameless/faceeless D and D fans, who seem to have no professional credibility in your view, but expect any of us to agree with or listen to anything you profess.

Of course, I understand that you state your view as being you personal opinion.

But really, why should we listen or care?

Give us a reason.


(Assuming that is you in your avatar...I see great irony in calling some of us faceless)

1ManRiot
09-14-2007, 05:14 PM
I'm not saying you should, it is a discussion, we all bring our hand to the table. Like I stated elsewhere, nutrition fascinates me and I enjoy learning, from text, from studies, from experts, from other people's opinions, so I go from board to board taking whatever I can from it and forming my own thoughts.


(Assuming that is you in your avatar...I see great irony in calling some of us faceless)
Nice spot, didn't think of that. Just a bit of 'armless fun, eh Slim? ;)

Built
09-14-2007, 05:40 PM
The problem with the internet is that you can cite a reference to support nearly every theory. I have read both in favour of high frequency and against high frequency, I personally believe higher frequency will lead to a better body composition, and many great BB writers share the same opinion. Who do I believe? Chris Aceto? John Beradi? Or some nameless, faceless Dungeons & Dragons fans who seem more intent on flaming than polite discussion?



You believe it, okay. I don't believe in fairy tales.

I have no reason to think meal frequency matters outside of comfort.

Macronutrient timing - now that's a different story. But I live in low-carb land most of the time, so getting the carbs in near when I lift matters for me. If I didn't limit carbs outside of this time frame, it wouldn't matter nearly so much.

I changed this year from "six meals a day" to "skip breakfast, eat first meal at 11 and second meal at 3, preworkout carbs and protein, the rest of my food after training" and the most I've noticed is that I'm more comfortable at night 'cause I get more food in the evening when I naturally want to eat more.

OcSurfDude
09-14-2007, 05:43 PM
always go for real food!

theravingphycho
09-15-2007, 04:15 AM
I indicated one above.

How about we start with body composition and meal frequency. What research have you read that supports your assertion that higher meal frequency leads to improved body composition?

Ok ill try and do my best here

The body can only use so much protein in one sitting, any excess aminos gets turned into glucose via gluceogenesis and thus if you dont need anymore glucose and then it gets turned into adipose tissue if youre not low on carbs to begin with

Granted there may be more hours in the day where that the excess fat will be burned up but eating say 3 meals vs 6 means you spend less time in a positive nitrogen balance and thus wont built as much muscle.

So 3 meals means half the time spend in a positive nitrogen balance vs the 6 = suboptimal body composition

Also we have the issue of blood sugar level stabilisation, 3 meals will not stabilise blood sugar levels as well as eating 6. Look at how hypoglycaemia is controlled and treated through diet, every one says eat more frequently. More controlled blood sugar with no dips means cortisol/glucagon does not enter the equation as much as the body will secrete these catabolic hormones if blood sugar drops too low

Eating more frequently in smaller meals as well means insulin isnt raised as much. Control insulin and control you gains and losses (depends on your goals again). Less frequent larger meals raise insulin higher than eating more smaller meals spaced out through the day. Keep insulin levels elevated but to a minimum and do not raise them any higher than necessary as this will lead to unecessary fat storage

Again my points are based on a mixed macro meals

As for my research im currently studying to be a dietician and have been reading about physiolgy for around 18 months now, along with various other studies which i dont have to hand. Again if you want proof, local library is waiting for you or you could seek out a person with the relevant qualifications and ask them the same questions :)

theravingphycho
09-15-2007, 04:17 AM
theravingphycho, did you sign up for WBB simply to take part in this thread.


1Man Riot disappears today and suddenly you pop up

No i joined up here for another reason. BTW thanks for the warm welcome, nice to see community spirit still exists :confused:

Built
09-15-2007, 10:49 AM
Ok ill try and do my best here

The body can only use so much protein in one sitting, any excess aminos gets turned into glucose via gluceogenesis and thus if you dont need anymore glucose and then it gets turned into adipose tissue if you're not low on carbs to begin with How much would this be, is it always the same, and what reference do you have to back this up? I hear this from dietetics students all the time, but nobody has ever cited a source to back it up and I'd really like to see some documentation because the general consensus among those in the bb community is that this is unsupported.


Granted there may be more hours in the day where that the excess fat will be burned up but eating say 3 meals vs 6 means you spend less time in a positive nitrogen balance and thus wont built as much muscle.
Source?



So 3 meals means half the time spend in a positive nitrogen balance vs the 6 = suboptimal body composition

Aren't you in a positive nitrogen balance for longer if you eat more protein though? Doesn't it take longer to digest a large meal than a small meal?




Also we have the issue of blood sugar level stabilisation, 3 meals will not stabilise blood sugar levels as well as eating 6. Look at how hypoglycaemia is controlled and treated through diet, every one says eat more frequently.
This depends tremendously upon meal composition. For example, me (I always use me, I know me well and it's ALL ABOUT ME!) I'm IR, less so now, but still - if I eat carbs in the AM (toast with my eggs, or oatmeal and protein powder, I've tried variations and they all suck) I chew my arm off all day. If I eat my usual protein and fat meal in the AM (usually cc with tuna and avocado, or sometimes a cheese omelette with butter), I'm fine until 2 in the afternoon.

More controlled blood sugar with no dips means cortisol/glucagon does not enter the equation as much as the body will secrete these catabolic hormones if blood sugar drops too low

Eating more frequently in smaller meals as well means insulin isnt raised as much. Control insulin and control you gains and losses (depends on your goals again). Less frequent larger meals raise insulin higher than eating more smaller meals spaced out through the day. Keep insulin levels elevated but to a minimum and do not raise them any higher than necessary as this will lead to unecessary fat storage

Again my points are based on a mixed macro meals
Maybe do this up again for protein+fat meals



As for my research im currently studying to be a dietician and have been reading about physiolgy for around 18 months now, along with various other studies which i dont have to hand. Again if you want proof, local library is waiting for you or you could seek out a person with the relevant qualifications and ask them the same questions :)

See, here's the deal. You're toeing the company line with regard to your education, but you're new here and posting in a community that eschews what you espouse. The onus is upon you to back up your assertions, not to merely spout what you learned in class and then assume we're all going to try to prove you right when we already don't think you are.

I've heard variations on this argument many times - but the effect does not seem to be borne out in practice and I'd really like to see documentation for it, please.

theravingphycho
09-15-2007, 11:11 AM
[QUOTE=Built;1785600]How much would this be, is it always the same, and what reference do you have to back this up? I hear this from dietetics students all the time, but nobody has ever cited a source to back it up and I'd really like to see some documentation because the general consensus among those in the bb community is that this is unsupported.
Source?

Figures vary based on a multitude of things such as amount of lean mass carried, genetics, AAS use, gender etc

Aren't you in a positive nitrogen balance for longer if you eat more protein though? Doesn't it take longer to digest a large meal than a small meal?

Yes you are in a positive nitrogen balance if you eat more protein but aminos dont stay in the blood for more than a few hours, same with sugars. Insulin gets produced and aminos get used. Hence why eating your protein requirements in more spaced out meals will ensure the time you spend being in a positive nitrogen balance will increase

Also a large meal will take slightly longer to digest but not that much. Fats will delay gastric emptying but most food leaves the stomach within 45-60 mins to be further processed and digested as stomach acid is only 1 part of digestion stage

This depends tremendously upon meal composition. For example, me (I always use me, I know me well and it's ALL ABOUT ME!) I'm IR, less so now, but still - if I eat carbs in the AM (toast with my eggs, or oatmeal and protein powder, I've tried variations and they all suck) I chew my arm off all day. If I eat my usual protein and fat meal in the AM (usually cc with tuna and avocado, or sometimes a cheese omelette with butter), I'm fine until 2 in the afternoon.

Whats IR if you dont mind me asking? Ive seen your diet and it looks like TKD most of the time as i see you only eat carbs around training. When the body goes into ketosis hunger isnt as great which is why people on keto diets dont eat as much or feel hungry.

Maybe do this up again for protein+fat meals

Can you elaborate as im slightly lost on this :)

See, here's the deal. You're toeing the company line with regard to your education, but you're new here and posting in a community that eschews what you espouse. The onus is upon you to back up your assertions, not to merely spout what you learned in class and then assume we're all going to try to prove you right when we already don't think you are.

With respect thinking im wrong and knowing im wrong are two different things. I honestly dont know how to back up over a years worth of reading in summary format. Im not asking anyone to prove me right, im asking for people to prove me wrong, to which no one has done yet. So does anyone have a argument to put forward to back up their claims or not?

mikey4402
09-15-2007, 12:22 PM
With respect thinking im wrong and knowing im wrong are two different things. I honestly dont know how to back up over a years worth of reading in summary format. Im not asking anyone to prove me right, im asking for people to prove me wrong, to which no one has done yet. So does anyone have a argument to put forward to back up their claims or not?like built and I have said before,it doesnt work that way.

theravingphycho
09-15-2007, 12:29 PM
I simply put forward my opinions based on what ive learn over time. Believe them or not, thats your choice. Like i said, any idea of how i can summarise over a years worth of reading and learning?

Slim Schaedle
09-15-2007, 12:38 PM
I hear this from dietetics students all the time, but nobody has ever cited a source to back it up and I'd really like to see some documentation because the general consensus among those in the bb community is that this is unsupported.

Yep

Most dietetics students, and registered dietitians for that matter, have their head completely up their ass.

(That is, if they buy into the standard lecture and preachings throughout their nutrition-specific coursework which is based off of ADA doctrine and standards.)


I know this, b/c I am one.

theravingphycho
09-15-2007, 12:49 PM
Goodie a registered dietician :)

Perhaps you could put in your two cents to this debate rather than being negative and unproductive :)

Built
09-15-2007, 01:31 PM
I was hoping you'd step up to the plate, Slim.

:)

Built
09-15-2007, 01:39 PM
We're not the ones making claims here - you are. Until you do, we will all continue to "know" what we already knew.

IR = insulin resistant, aka the metabolic syndrome. I used to take metformin, back in my lowfat, low protein, high complex carb and lots of jogging days. A RD friend of mine set me up on that programme, and it was a disaster, so you'll forgive me if I don't immediately warm to "off the shelf" dietetics doctrine.

I'm not TKD - ketosis isn't my goal, and my carbs don't generally go uber-low. High carb days are about 150-170g carb for me, low around 70g, and I carry about 115 lbs LBM, so these are low-ish carbs, but a little higher than a keto diet would afford.

Getting back to meal size - okay, so it leaves the stomach in an hour then continues along. How long in total until whatever protein was in my meal has been entirely assimilated?

HahnB
09-15-2007, 01:51 PM
Did someone just actually make a claim, then the only way they substantiated it was telling everyone else to prove them wrong? If you're making a claim, either state it as a pure opinion, or be prepared to show strong evidence to support it.

theravingphycho
09-15-2007, 01:52 PM
Cheers for clearing that up built, not good with acronyms personally :)

If those carbs are around training days then that can be classed as TKD. The brain requires 100g of glucose to run if its not on ketones, plus you put your weights in there or HIIT cardio and youre back down to under a total daily intake of 100g of carbs which will render you in a ketogenic state.

References to that statement can be found in Lyle Mcdonalds book about ketosis entitled The Ketogenic Diet

On the issue of meal size and time it takes for assimilation it varies from person to person. Only real way you can get definitive comparitive figures if if you take two identical twins and do a test on one with a small meal and one with a large meal to compare the results. Also depends on macros and portion sizes along with a lot of other variables, there is no definitive answer

My knowledge isnt all from off the shelf dietetics, i read books in libraries, studies, ebooks by various people liek John Berardi, Stuart Mcrobert, Lyle Mcdonald etc and i draw my own comclusions from the knowledge i accumulate.

Slightly off topic, how many carbs did you knock back to become insulin resistant, i was under the impression is was unlikely with slow carbs and IR was a side effect of spiking insulin high with fast carbs and other things like high intakes of Omega 6

Built
09-15-2007, 01:59 PM
The 100g thing is a bit overblown, I'm not glycogen depleted and I'm not very big.

I've done ketosis diets. Trust me this isn't one. And I'm well acquainted with the works of L. McD. We all are.

Regarding your off topic - you're ignoring the effect of estrogen. PS you're wrong. Fast carb or slow, it all requires insulin.

theravingphycho
09-15-2007, 02:06 PM
I know all carbs require insulin but slow carbs dont spike it like fast carbs do

Slow carbs raise insulin fast carbs tend to spike it.

Incidentally fat and protein require insulin as well, it just doesnt raise it as much as carbs do. Regarding yout diet, you know your own body better than any of us do, i was just going on what ive read and what ive seen in books etc, apologies if i got the wrong end of the stick :)

Edit: what effect of oestrogen am i missing, something i have not yet been exposed to, care to assist in my education by suggesting some good reads where i can learn about it :)

Built
09-15-2007, 06:01 PM
Go to pubmed and look for stuff with estrogen and insulin resistance. It's really interesting. Oversummarizing 'cause I'm in a hurry and I'm lazy, women are insulin resistant as compared to men and we are so from before we're born. Estrogen OC exacerbates this effect, leading to IR, Metabolic Syndrome, Type II diabetes, obesity, lower body adiposity yada yada yada...

I seriously can't control appetite if I eat starches all day (fruit and veggies with protein and fat, I'm fine). Lots of women have this problem - at least if the boards I frequent and mod are any indication. It gets worse as we age unless we weight train: lower bodyfat and higher LBM mitigate this effect tremendously; certainly in my experience.

VikingWarlord
09-16-2007, 12:01 PM
Its a debate everyone puts across their POV right or wrong

If you think im wrong, prove it. Otherwise please stop trying to act like a wannabe mod and partisipate rather than trying to pick holes in what i say :)

If you want evidence dont expect me to spoon feed you, go out there, use google or a library and research what i have put across.

This isn't the way debate works, homeboy. You make a claim, it's questioned, you are supposed to back it up with actual references. This is the meaning of civil discourse. Picking holes in what you say is precisely the point of argument.

Do you turn in a paper to an English professor and then say "you find the sources to back this **** up" and then expect anything other than a failing grade? If so, I want to go to that school.

I'd also like to see the research that backs up any of your claims, because my personal experience is that neither method works any better than the other at producing results that don't require a lab full of equipment to measure. The difference is just a comfort or convenience issue.


[With respect thinking im wrong and knowing im wrong are two different things. I honestly dont know how to back up over a years worth of reading in summary format. Im not asking anyone to prove me right, im asking for people to prove me wrong, to which no one has done yet. So does anyone have a argument to put forward to back up their claims or not?

No one else has really made any claims. You've already summarized your "research", and I say that because until it's substantiated, it's just conjecture. Now comes the part where you say "here is where I found this information" and provide links to credible studies that provide some kind of evidence.

Also, what the hell is a "phycho"?

Built
09-16-2007, 12:09 PM
... what the hell is a "phycho"?

ROFLMFAO I only just noticed this now!

1ManRiot
09-16-2007, 12:50 PM
pwned

sCaRz*Of*PaiN
09-16-2007, 01:35 PM
ROFLMFAO I only just noticed this now!LOL.


Thanks for pointing that out, Mr. Warlord.

VikingWarlord
09-16-2007, 01:49 PM
ROFLMFAO I only just noticed this now!


LOL.


Thanks for pointing that out, Mr. Warlord.

I don't know why I notice these things. One of my peeves is when people misspell "psycho". I don't know why, but it irks me when I see things like "physcho". Sound out the word and hear the error.

It was just a tangent.

theravingphycho
09-16-2007, 03:04 PM
its a play on words actually. Ever seen one of those tests where the words are mispelled you you still understand them as long as the beginning and ending letters are correct. My username is a play on that concept

I do know how to spell the word psycho, but my twisted sense of humour made me choose otherwise

I really dont know whats so funny about a blatant spelling error i did on purpose, you people really mustnt get out that much :)

With regards to where i obtained my knowledge i have said it before, its a combination of all different media, studies, books that arent available online, etc etc

if you dont understand what im saying then how can you then question me? I personally dont give a monkeys what any of you think as youre just as bad as me for now backing up your objections with other than IMO answers which in a debate mean precisely jack

For the record i am nobodies homeboy, the 90's were over a decade ago "bro" ;)

Also ironic that you accuse me of not being able to spell when you cant even spell My journal "Muh jrrnl"

VikingWarlord
09-16-2007, 03:22 PM
With regards to where i obtained my knowledge i have said it before, its a combination of all different media, studies, books that arent available online, etc etc

Well, if you can recall any of them, please share. I'm genuinely interested to see this information. As I said, my personal experience has shown no real difference between the two techniques. There's far too much information out there for anyone to find anything in particular by randomly searching.


if you dont understand what im saying then how can you then question me? I personally dont give a monkeys what any of you think as youre just as bad as me for now backing up your objections with other than IMO answers which in a debate mean precisely jack

Actually, this paragraph is really the only thing you've said that I don't understand. I understand the points you've tried to make, but don't agree with them based on my own personal experience and still want to see you back them up with some sort of verifiable source.

Are you saying that answers mean "precisely jack" in a debate? Verifiable sources are the only thing that lends credibility in a debate. Personal experience is sometimes acceptable, but only to introduce something as a possibility.


For the record i am nobodies homeboy, the 90's were over a decade ago "bro" ;)

I chose "homeboy" because I can and it's friendlier than the options I usually go with. Feel special, because I'm rarely cordial on purpose.

Since you didn't like that, then for the record, the 90s were over about 8 years ago. A decade is 10 years. My guess is you're not a math major. Given the structure of the middle paragraph I quoted above, my guess is you're not an English major either.

Because I'm going to try to keep things as civil as possible, I'll hit you with this nugget of wisdom: regardless of what the topic, any time someone says anything that challenges the standards, he'll be asked to back up what he says...that's just the way it is. That's how experts and revolutionaries get to where they are. Something to keep in mind for the future if you're going to stick around here. Sharing new ideas and information is good and it's how people grow as people, but only if it can be shown the ideas are logically sound and valid.

sCaRz*Of*PaiN
09-16-2007, 04:11 PM
its a play on words actually. Ever seen one of those tests where the words are mispelled you you still understand them as long as the beginning and ending letters are correct. My username is a play on that conceptNo it isn't. You simply misspelled the word psycho. That "concept" applies when the beginning and ending letters are correct, yes, but all the letters in that word have to be there as well, not extra or missing letters. You just invented your own concept there, guy. :idea:

mikey4402
09-16-2007, 05:30 PM
this is going nowhere. this debate is intresting, however he not going to provide any credible sources for his side of the argument. this thread should be closed

Keith
09-16-2007, 08:29 PM
It shouldn't be closed. It's very interesting and it should get back on track without the personal attacks.

theravingphycho
09-17-2007, 01:19 AM
http://www.skiplacour.com/frequent-meals.htm
http://www.diagnose-me.com/treat/T273701.html
http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/drobson75.htm (rule 1 where it talks about frequent meals)
http://diabetes.niddk.nih.gov/dm/pubs/hypoglycemia/
http://www.johnberardi.com/articles/qa/afc/afc_feb222002.htm
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=15640455&query_hl=3&itool=pubmed_docsum
http://www.ultrametabolism.com/blog/meal_frequency/

a few bits of info i trawled through the web this morning to try and back up my points with relevant data with my assertions in post 66.

Now can any member who said "no thats not right" please do the same :)

Please note IMO and IME dont count :D

theravingphycho
09-17-2007, 01:24 AM
Viking

My apologies if i seemed to come off as rude in my response, it wasnt my intention and if i offended i therefore apoligise :). I appreciate you being civil in the matter and will endevour to do the same.

No i didnt major in english, i got the best grades from science and music.

sCaRz*Of*PaiN
09-17-2007, 01:25 AM
You think bodybuilding.com is a source? Those sites you gave don't even have sources to back up their own claims. That's generally a bad sign of a site's reliability.

mikey4402
09-17-2007, 06:17 AM
try pubmed.com or something similar

Built
09-17-2007, 12:45 PM
Okay, neither of these proves to me that there is any real reason to switch to a less frequent feeding paradigm unless you find it more comfortable. All I'm doing is raising reasonable doubt that the gospel of "six times a day" is of paramount importance, given calories and macros are controlled for.

My personal feeling about these things is "plan the input for the day (ie sufficent protein, fat, fibre, calories...), trickle it in as your comfort dictates, at least make sure you get some carbs in around your lifting".
_________________________________________
A controlled trial of reduced meal frequency without caloric restriction in healthy, normal-weight, middle-aged adults

Kim S Stote, David J Baer, Karen Spears, David R Paul, G Keith Harris, William V Rumpler, Pilar Strycula, Samer S Najjar, Luigi Ferrucci, Donald K Ingram, Dan L Longo and Mark P Mattson

Source: American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. April 2007

Background:Although consumption of 3 meals/d is the most common pattern of eating in industrialized countries, a scientific rationale for this meal frequency with respect to optimal health is lacking. A diet with less meal frequency can improve the health and extend the lifespan of laboratory animals, but its effect on humans has never been tested.

Objective:A pilot study was conducted to establish the effects of a reduced-meal-frequency diet on health indicators in healthy, normal-weight adults.

Design:The study was a randomized crossover design with two 8-wk treatment periods. During the treatment periods, subjects consumed all of the calories needed for weight maintenance in either 3 meals/d or 1 meal/d.

Results:Subjects who completed the study maintained their body weight within 2 kg of their initial weight throughout the 6-mo period. There were no significant effects of meal frequency on heart rate, body temperature, or most of the blood variables measured. However, when consuming 1 meal/d, subjects had a significant increase in hunger; a significant modification of body composition, including reductions in fat mass; significant increases in blood pressure and in total, LDL-, and HDL-cholesterol concentrations; and a significant decrease in concentrations of cortisol.

Conclusions:Normal-weight subjects are able to comply with a 1 meal/d diet. When meal frequency is decreased without a reduction in overall calorie intake, modest changes occur in body composition, some cardiovascular disease risk factors, and hematologic variables. Diurnal variations may affect outcomes.
_________________________________________

And another:
_________________________________________

THE EFFECT OF MEAL FREQUENCY ON BODY COMPOSITION DURING 12-WEEKS OF STRENGTH TRAINING
Hansen ōyvind1, Fostervold Mathisen Therese2, Raastad
Truls 2
(Institute of Basic Medical Sciences, University of Oslo1,
Norwegian School of Sport Sciences2, Norway)

Human trials on the effect of meal frequency on body composition are scarce. Short-term studies show increased rate of protein synthesis immediately after intake of amino acids [1], and frequent meals are shown to aid in the preservation of lean body mass when dieting [2].

Consequently it could be hypothesised that in response to strength training, more frequent meals will give larger muscle mass accumulation and lower fat mass (FM) than fewer meals. The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of 3 vs. 6meals per day on changes in body composition in young men and women performing strength training over 12 weeks.

Men (n=33) and women (n=15) aged 21 to 35 with at least one year of previous strength training experience were randomly assigned to either a 6 meals a day group or a 3 meals a day group. The prescribed total dietary intake in both groups was equal and calculated to give a positive energy balance of approximately 1200 KJ/day, a protein intake of 1.5-1.7 g/kg/day and a carbohydrate intake of 5-7 g/kg/day. During the training period the dietary intake was controlled by repeated 24-hours recalls. All participants performed the same strength training program, training four times per week, giving each muscle group one heavy session and one light session per week. In the heavy sessions, training intensity varied between 10 and 3 RM sets, and 3-6 sets were performed in each exercise.
Determination of body composition was performed with DEXA at the beginning of and immediately after the training period. A total of 16 men and 11 women completed the project.

After multiple regression analysis the 3 meal group had a significant greater gain in lean body mass (LBM) than the 6 meal group when adjusted for gender and energy intake (p=0.04), when adjusted for gender and protein intake (p=0.03), and when adjusted for gender, protein intake, carbohydrate intake and fat intake* (p=0.01). (*: Fat intake in g/kg body weight/day showed significance on LBM, p=0.03). No significant differences in regional changes in LBM were observed, although there was a tendency towards a greater gain in the three meal group. There were no significant differences in change in fat mass (FM) between the groups, but a tendency towards a greater gain in the three meal group, 7.33% (-5.23, 19.90), p=0.24. The three meal group had a 2.87%(0.62, 5.12) larger weight gain than the six meal group, p=0.01.The participants had a 2.31% (0.83, 3.79), gain in bone mineral density of the spine during the twelve weeks of strength training, p<0.01, but there were no differences between the groups.

In this study, three meals per day resulted in larger muscle gain from strength training than six meals per day over a period of twelve weeks. The reason why 3 meals a day was superior to 6 meals a day in this study needs further investigation. More long-term studies are needed to determine the optimal meal frequency for gain in LBM from strength training.

1ManRiot
09-17-2007, 01:28 PM
One major flaw in that study Built.


normal-weight, middle-aged adults

Built
09-17-2007, 01:32 PM
Like I said, I'm not looking for proof either way. Just raising reasonable doubt that multiple meals are the One Truth. There are flaws in the studies proving multiple meals are better as well. Most studies don't truly control for calories, for example, or aren't done on bodybuilders.

The two studies I posted show there's no disadvantage for "normal people" and there's no disadvantage for weightlifters in eating less frequently - and in fact there may be advantages for both in terms of measurable health and body composition parameters.

Bottom line: if your day works out - if you don't go over or under and you stick to the planned macros more or less, just keep yourself comfortable. The trivial difference in body composition from micromanaging your whole day to death is not worth the bother unless you personally feel more comfortable that way.

1ManRiot
09-17-2007, 01:42 PM
The trivial difference in body composition from micromanaging your whole day to death is not worth the bother unless you personally feel more comfortable that way.
I'm inclined to agree with that, generally speaking. Though I still believe my optimal and your optimal are marginally different;)

Built
09-17-2007, 01:48 PM
Oh honey, optimal is for the individual.

That's why the exact same dietary structure and training protocols don't work for everybody.

You start with general truths and then tailor details to suit the the individual.