PDA

View Full Version : Benefits of frequent feedings...



Cackerot69
08-16-2001, 10:45 AM
OK, it is often said that more meals are superior to less when it comes to dieting.

Some of the arguements are that frequent feedings keep the metabolism high throughout the day. But, let's look at this closer. Each macronutrient consumed requires some number of calories to digest, and this number doesn't change. So, say you eat 3000 cals in 6 meals, each meal = 500 cals. So, the whatever amount of cals needed to digest that meal would be burned. What if you ate 3000 cals in 2 meals? That's 1500 cals per meal, so the body would have to burn however many cals it takes to digest that meal. The metabolic rate is not changed.

Another arguement is that frequent feedings are required to keep amino acids available at all times. But, if you eat, for example, 30g of protein it will take about 2-3 hours to digest (depending on the protein source). But, if you were to eat 100g, it would take much longer to digest, for the sake of arguement let's say 6-8 hours (although it's prolly more). So, regardless amino acids are in the blood stream the same amount of time.

Another arguement is that the body will go into "starvation mode" if you don't frequently eat. But, if you are eating enough calories to maintain your weight then why would the body think it's starving? Remember, you still have the same amount of nutrients in the body between feedings, metabolic reaction is equal, etc...so that arguement is flawed.

OK so you like eating often, why not? Well, eating carbs often keeps insulin high. You may be thinking, "but insulin release will be the same". Perhaps, but insulin is release as a "spike", meaning it rises and falls quite rapidly. So, while a larger meal would have a higher spike it would return to normal before the next feeding. With frequent meals the spike may be lower, but since you are eating more often you keep the spike high, not letting it return to normal. High insulin = less ability to burn fat and higher potential for fat storage.

You may also be thinking that because the body can only absorb so much food at one time you will store fat with big meals. True, but if you don't eat often this newly stored fat will just be metabolized and used as energy later on. No harm done.

Less meals also means more hGH, which is a fat burning hormone...better yet.

I really don't see the benefits....

(Note that I choose to eat frequent meals for unrelated reasons)

Cackerot69
08-16-2001, 12:35 PM
Yeah, that's what I thought.

Proteen
08-16-2001, 12:41 PM
Eating more is fun!:D Take that Cack!

Proteen
08-16-2001, 12:47 PM
Oh yeah,:


But, if you were to eat 100g, it would take much longer to digest, for the sake of arguement let's say 6-8 hours (although it's prolly more).

Find me a source that the average joe can use 100 grams of protein in one sitting to effectively repair muscle. I seriously think eating frequently gives you one benefit and that is to keep your amino acid pool full at all times.

Cackerot69
08-16-2001, 12:49 PM
Not all of it will repair muscle, but neither will all 30 you eat every 3 hours.

The total amounts are the same, remember.

Yaz
08-16-2001, 12:55 PM
Cackerot... the body can only use so much of a particular nutrient at one time. This has been proven. You are more likely to utilize more of the aminos and whatnot in your proteins by allowing your body to digest and use a little bit at a time for it's purpose.

As I understand, stored fat cannot be used to repair muscle.

Cackerot69
08-16-2001, 12:59 PM
This where you're wrong.

Protein not used for repair isn't stored as fat, it's converted to glucose via gluconeogenesis and used as energy. Only if you are eating too much can protein be stored as fat. So, like I said, caloerie levels are the same, thus net fat gain is equal.

100g of protein is 100g of protein and is used as 100g of protein regardless if it's one sitting or 3.

Avatar
08-16-2001, 02:01 PM
Some of the arguements are that frequent feedings keep the metabolism high throughout the day. But, let's look at this closer. Each macronutrient consumed requires some number of calories to digest, and this number doesn't change. So, say you eat 3000 cals in 6 meals, each meal = 500 cals. So, the whatever amount of cals needed to digest that meal would be burned. What if you ate 3000 cals in 2 meals? That's 1500 cals per meal, so the body would have to burn however many cals it takes to digest that meal. The metabolic rate is not changed.


**I agree.


Another arguement is that frequent feedings are required to keep amino acids available at all times. But, if you eat, for example, 30g of protein it will take about 2-3 hours to digest (depending on the protein source). But, if you were to eat 100g, it would take much longer to digest, for the sake of arguement let's say 6-8 hours (although it's prolly more). So, regardless amino acids are in the blood stream the same amount of time.

**Thats very debatable.

Another arguement is that the body will go into "starvation mode" if you don't frequently eat. But, if you are eating enough calories to maintain your weight then why would the body think it's starving? Remember, you still have the same amount of nutrients in the body between feedings, metabolic reaction is equal, etc...so that arguement is flawed.


**maybe.

OK so you like eating often, why not? Well, eating carbs often keeps insulin high. You may be thinking, "but insulin release will be the same". Perhaps, but insulin is release as a "spike", meaning it rises and falls quite rapidly. So, while a larger meal would have a higher spike it would return to normal before the next feeding. With frequent meals the spike may be lower, but since you are eating more often you keep the spike high, not letting it return to normal. High insulin = less ability to burn fat and higher potential for fat storage.

**I believe the spike will return to normal within 3 hours. Because its not that big to begin with.

You may also be thinking that because the body can only absorb so much food at one time you will store fat with big meals. True, but if you don't eat often this newly stored fat will just be metabolized and used as energy later on. No harm done.


**I disagree. How do you know all that stored fat will be used as energy later on? Excess carbs --> fat. No good.

Less meals also means more hGH, which is a fat burning hormone...better yet.


**Gotta agree with that. But if the other statements are incorrect then it would be stupid to not eat frequent for just hGH production.

I'll stick with what every other successful body builder has done for years and years. And thats eat frequently.
Thx info.

Cackerot69
08-16-2001, 02:04 PM
I'm not saying that it;'s bad, just not necessary to eat every 2-3 hours. And everything I said is factual :)

gino
08-16-2001, 02:30 PM
Do you believe in "carb sensitivity" cack, as it relates to insulin production?

body
08-16-2001, 02:51 PM
"Some of the arguements are that frequent feedings keep the metabolism high throughout the day. But, let's look at this closer. Each macronutrient consumed requires some number of calories to digest, and this number doesn't change. So, say you eat 3000 cals in 6 meals, each meal = 500 cals. So, the whatever amount of cals needed to digest that meal would be burned. What if you ate 3000 cals in 2 meals? That's 1500 cals per meal, so the body would have to burn however many cals it takes to digest that meal. The metabolic rate is not changed. "

though not having a total max for amount of eg protien can be absorbed in one sitting, the more protein you eat the less % is absorbed therefore eating smaller meals will have a greater thermic effect than eating 3 larger meals. due to high % being absorbed. the human body can not keep absorbing food indefiently otherwise it would get fat over a week. which does not happen. it takes to get fat.

"Another arguement is that frequent feedings are required to keep amino acids available at all times. But, if you eat, for example, 30g of protein it will take about 2-3 hours to digest (depending on the protein source). But, if you were to eat 100g, it would take much longer to digest, for the sake of arguement let's say 6-8 hours (although it's prolly more). So, regardless amino acids are in the blood stream the same amount of time. "

it make to tkae longer to digest but after 3-4 hours you start post starvation period when you body switches off its fisrt anabolic stages and start to go catabolic as to preserve life as it does not know when it next meal is. so when this happens insulin levels decrease therfore the body is not going to increase amino acid uptake into the muscles as the last thing it wants to do if its not ging to get anyfood for a while is increase its metabolic rate. also it will increase the amount of fat storage enzymes as fat is a good source of fuel storage, better than muscle so when you next eat more is likley to be stored as fat than muscle(if ewating enough cals) if not eating enough cals than you are not going to be gaining muscle as i said above muscle is not good for starvation.

"Another arguement is that the body will go into "starvation mode" if you don't frequently eat. But, if you are eating enough calories to maintain your weight then why would the body think it's starving? Remember, you still have the same amount of nutrients in the body between feedings, metabolic reaction is equal, etc...so that arguement is flawed. "

as i said above it will go into starvation mode as it does not know when its next meal is. and if your eating enough cals than that excess prtoein can be converted to fat as well.

"OK so you like eating often, why not? Well, eating carbs often keeps insulin high. You may be thinking, "but insulin release will be the same". Perhaps, but insulin is release as a "spike", meaning it rises and falls quite rapidly. So, while a larger meal would have a higher spike it would return to normal before the next feeding. With frequent meals the spike may be lower, but since you are eating more often you keep the spike high, not letting it return to normal. High insulin = less ability to burn fat and higher potential for fat storage. "

well remeber insulin sensitivity. smaller meals help increase senivity so you need less insulin to get the same amount of amino acids uptaken by the muscle thereofre. this is why steriods are effective as they alter insulin sensitvity allowing more amino acids to be uptaken with lower insulin levels.

"You may also be thinking that because the body can only absorb so much food at one time you will store fat with big meals. True, but if you don't eat often this newly stored fat will just be metabolized and used as energy later on. No harm done. "

if you do not eat enough then you will not gain muscle either. and above the context you were writing is was in regards to eating enough cals for anabolism. so the harm will be doen as your body will be in catabolic mode thereore loose muscles.

"Less meals also means more hGH, which is a fat burning hormone...better yet.

I really don't see the benefits.... "

less meals lower metabolic rate, insulin production not in its best gear for gianing muslce, also for using stored fat. so to either increase fat buring if dieting or muscle gain if eating excess cals i would lots of small meals.

'Note that I choose to eat frequent meals for unrelated reasons"

i agree with this statement as i get to paid to eat and its my hobby.

cack you will have to get your biochemistry bookd read a bit more throughly. i would use better temionlogy but i had to do this off the top of my head from writing this 3 1/2 years ago.

after the psot starvation takes smaples and compare ketone bodies, and other cheicla in the blood related to catabolims they start to go up.

Wide Guy
08-16-2001, 05:33 PM
Originally posted by Cackerot69
OK so you like eating often, why not? Well, eating carbs often keeps insulin high. You may be thinking, "but insulin release will be the same". Perhaps, but insulin is release as a "spike", meaning it rises and falls quite rapidly. So, while a larger meal would have a higher spike it would return to normal before the next feeding. With frequent meals the spike may be lower, but since you are eating more often you keep the spike high, not letting it return to normal. High insulin = less ability to burn fat and higher potential for fat storage.

But isn't insulin anabolic? So it would be better to keep insulin levels constant as much as possible to facilitate the building of muscle?

And if you are eating complex carbs, you are not "keep[ing] the spike high", you are maintaining a reasonable level of insulin throughout the day, avoiding spikes and troughs as much as possible.

Also, after eating a large meal and getting a spike, your body will overcompensate and you will "crash". This is the tired feeling you get after an overly large, carb loaded meal.

(On a more pedantic, semantic point, it is not possible to "keep the spike high" anyway. If it is kept high, it is not a spike, but a plateau or new base level.)

Wizard
08-16-2001, 07:48 PM
Hey! WTF!
Cackerot came up with one of the best threads.That's what I was thinking of,for the last week.
And so,I gave it a try.
It works wonders.Even with only one meal,late at night.
Wtf do you mean that the body can't asborb more than X amount of macros each time?
If your glycogen stores are depleted,then where do yo think the carbs will go?
Then,the use of protein is better because -I 'm sure for it- even with a lower amount of protein but for only one time per day,you do a -so called- protein cycling method,where your body will make a better proteinosynthesis as it was starving.(of protein)
Throw in there 10grams of glutamine in the morning and you have a superior GH boost.(because it's on an empty stomach)
While having all the day low blood sugar levels,you can't care too much about being in a catabolic state.
You can take some enzymes to avoid the bloat if you experience it.
There are many other facts that prove that 5-6 meals is not the way to go....
If you are open-minded you can try it and then talk to me about whether it works or not. ;)

Bam Bam
08-16-2001, 08:49 PM
i finally posed a good question im so proud

Yaz
08-17-2001, 05:51 AM
You are less likely to overstuff glycogen stores by taking in gradual amounts, letting it deplete a bit with some activity... and taking in a bit more.

Avatar
08-17-2001, 07:21 AM
Originally posted by Blackalpha

If you are open-minded you can try it and then talk to me about whether it works or not. ;)

LMAO, someone was actually silly enough to try it. Well before you decide if its the new holy grail or not, you should be on it for at least 4 weeks. While you do so, the rest of us can sit back and laugh.:evillaugh

Wizard
08-17-2001, 08:26 AM
And I can sit back and laugh while seeing you spending your money on protein supps while I keep growing,not fattening.. :evillaugh :evillaugh

Tryska
08-17-2001, 08:26 AM
blackalpha....i'm confused...why did you do this?


btwn the lack of energy from low blood sugar, and the metabolism slowdown that occurs to keep you motoring (barely) through the day, it isn't a good plan.


but then again, I ate that way for 13 years.....and it sucked. Eating on a more regular basis now, has definitely made a great impact on my energy levels, and muscle tone among other things....

Wizard
08-17-2001, 08:40 AM
I did it beacuse I always want to explore new things,and I liked it because it worked for me.No lack of energy.
Again,as Cackerot said,
"Another arguement is that frequent feedings are required to keep amino acids available at all times. But, if you eat, for example, 30g of protein it will take about 2-3 hours to digest (depending on the protein source). But, if you were to eat 100g, it would take much longer to digest, for the sake of arguement let's say 6-8 hours (although it's prolly more). So, regardless amino acids are in the blood stream the same amount of time.

Another arguement is that the body will go into "starvation mode" if you don't frequently eat. But, if you are eating enough calories to maintain your weight then why would the body think it's starving? Remember, you still have the same amount of nutrients in the body between feedings, metabolic reaction is equal, etc...so that arguement is flawed.
you won't have a metabolic shutdown.You still burn calories to digest the food you ate whether you ate ex. 10 or 100 grams of protein.
And of course,you can still have a metabolic shutdown if you eat 100 meals per day but carb-free.The abscence of carbs cause this shutdown and not the meals frequency.A diet that doesn't affect t3 levels has all the chances to be successful if of course you eat above maintenance levels if you want to cut up or over maint. levels if you want to bulk up.

Gyno Rhino
08-17-2001, 09:07 AM
I'd love to see what would happen to Ronnie Coleman's physique if he just started eating one meal a day at night.

This is bollox.

BTW, just found this quote you made over in Sinep's journal a week or two ago, Cack.

Mullet-boy said:

Metabolism boosting techniques are simple...

Eat frequent, smaller meals - This means the body has to digest food more often, which expends calories. Less food to digest means more will be utilized by the body, too.


Now, this totally contradicts what you said on the start of this thread. Explain.

Wizard
08-17-2001, 09:32 AM
Originally posted by Gyno Rhino
I'd love to see what would happen to Ronnie Coleman's physique if he just started eating one meal a day at night.

This is bollox.

:evillaugh
That's funny...
If you want to talk about
"roid machines" then it's ok.

Wizard
08-17-2001, 09:34 AM
Then,the power of frequent, smaller meals on metabolism's enhancement is bollox next to the power of GH to burn fat.

Maki Riddington
08-17-2001, 09:39 AM
I would stick with eating frequent meals, it allows for a greater thermogenic effect as well as increase in your Resting Metabolic Rate.

Yaz
08-17-2001, 09:43 AM
Gyno,

To start a disagreement. DUH. :D

Gyno Rhino
08-17-2001, 09:47 AM
GH, AS, Insulin, etc.. Ain't gonna do nothing unless you eat.

PowerManDL
08-17-2001, 12:57 PM
Just to make a small point--

The levels of hGH you'll experience by avoiding insulin are so small that they won't make a difference. Circulating hGH doesn't have very much effect on the body except *possibly* during certain circumstances, such as right after a workout. As far as its fat burning effects on a daily basis, don't put too much faith in that.

You're better off eating more meals.

Ronan
08-17-2001, 02:16 PM
Ok I didnt even bother to read everything.

Frequent high protein meals 8 times a day for me(and anyone) is vastly superior in creating and mentaining muscle mass and keeping your metabolsim burning fast.

Avatar
08-17-2001, 02:23 PM
Originally posted by Blackalpha
And I can sit back and laugh while seeing you spending your money on protein supps while I keep growing,not fattening.. :evillaugh :evillaugh

ROFL.

Wizard
08-17-2001, 03:00 PM
Originally posted by Avatar


ROFL.
ROFLMAO

Wizard
08-17-2001, 03:07 PM
Growth Hormone concentration in the blood can be increased by fasting (Source: J Clin Endocrinol Metab 1988 Mar; 66(3): 489-494)

Maki Riddington
08-17-2001, 03:30 PM
Yes it can but to what extent? Enough so that it overrides the catobolic state the body has been pushed in? I mean as far as muscle being the aim of a individual I don't think that would be the best approach?

body
08-17-2001, 03:44 PM
the warriors diet is not the way to go.

You can only absorb so much food in one sitting, I am not on about 40 grams protien is your max level of intake. but the more macros you eat in one sitting the less is absorbed for metabolism. you can not consume 5,000 cals in one meal and expect to have the same % of cals available for metabolism as if you broke that meal down into 5 portions.
your insulin levels will also drop therefore allowing more mobilization of alinine to be convert to glucose, while glutamine serves as energy source for the intestines and kidneys.

PowerManDL
08-17-2001, 03:50 PM
Originally posted by Blackalpha
Growth Hormone concentration in the blood can be increased by fasting (Source: J Clin Endocrinol Metab 1988 Mar; 66(3): 489-494)

That doesn't matter if the hGH concentration doesn't do anything. Which it doesn't.

Wizard
08-17-2001, 04:52 PM
Originally posted by Maki Riddington
Yes it can but to what extent? Enough so that it overrides the catobolic state the body has been pushed in? I mean as far as muscle being the aim of a individual I don't think that would be the best approach?
It's expectable to notice an increase in cortisol levels,but not such a big one to worry about.
Again,that's why glutamine may help some more.
The fact is that this diet gives you the opportunity to choose among a bigger variety of food choices and you can use it as a way to enjoy some foods you have been missing and in big portions,if you can't manipulate it so that it could be your diet of choice in your road to get rid of the unwanted bodyfat.
I started it while having in my mind the first one approach but I found that it can work wonders for the second one too.

body
08-17-2001, 04:57 PM
black aphla wrote"The fact is that this diet gives you the opportunity to choose among a bigger variety of food choices and you can use it as a way to enjoy some foods you have been missing "

How does eating all your food in one meal give you a bigger varitey of food than some one who lots of small meals?
i eat 5-9 meals a day and have plenty of variety in my diet. its just that most poeple choose to eat the same meal all the time you do not have to as i do not.

Wizard
08-17-2001, 05:05 PM
Variety:Pizzas,hamburgers etc stuff that you can't include in an ordinary diet.
I don't like the variety: oatmeal/potato/chicken breast/brown rice etc... I'm bored of it..

PowerManDL
08-17-2001, 05:11 PM
Originally posted by Blackalpha

It's expectable to notice an increase in cortisol levels,but not such a big one to worry about.
Again,that's why glutamine may help some more.


The hGH levels won't be nearly high enough to override the cortisol.

How will glutamine help if its not being consumed with the other essential aminos? The body can't use aminos unless all of them are present in the bloodstream.

benchmaniac2
08-17-2001, 05:16 PM
i thought that the body could only digest a certain amount of calories at one time:confused:

cack..are you saying thats not true?

Maki Riddington
08-17-2001, 05:55 PM
Glutamine does not have any hard evidence supporting it's role in promoting growth hormone.

Post some and I will take a look at them.

I never said it wouldn't work, what I said was that it probally isn't the most effective method.

Yaz
08-17-2001, 08:08 PM
benchmaniac,

The body can only store a certain number of each macronutrient per sitting. I know what you meant though.

Cackerot69
08-17-2001, 09:13 PM
I still feel more meals is better, because of more stable energy levels, lower cravings, less cortisol release, etc

The more meals speed your metabolism is because you can eat more, fuck if I can eat 1500 cals in one sitting of good food.

But suffice to say that all of your arguements are flawed...perhaps I'll go through it all later.

Maki Riddington
08-17-2001, 09:20 PM
Originally posted by Cackerot69
But suffice to say that all of your arguements are flawed...perhaps I'll go through it all later.


*** Any arguement put forth pertaining to Fitness is flawed.
Therefore your statement is flawed.

Cackerot69
08-17-2001, 09:21 PM
Angry drunken asians are flawed.

Cackerot69
08-18-2001, 08:12 AM
"though not having a total max for amount of eg protien can be absorbed in one sitting, the more protein you eat the less % is absorbed therefore eating smaller meals will have a greater thermic effect than eating 3 larger meals. due to high % being absorbed. the human body can not keep absorbing food indefiently otherwise it would get fat over a week. which does not happen. it takes to get fat."

All protein is absorbed no matter what if it stays in your body. Thus that is incorrect. Just to back myself up on more meals not increasing metabolism....

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Link&db=PubMed&dbFrom=PubMed&from_uid=9155494

"it make to tkae longer to digest but after 3-4 hours you start post starvation period when you body switches off its fisrt anabolic stages and start to go catabolic as to preserve life as it does not know when it next meal is. so when this happens insulin levels decrease therfore the body is not going to increase amino acid uptake into the muscles as the last thing it wants to do if its not ging to get anyfood for a while is increase its metabolic rate. also it will increase the amount of fat storage enzymes as fat is a good source of fuel storage, better than muscle so when you next eat more is likley to be stored as fat than muscle(if ewating enough cals) if not eating enough cals than you are not going to be gaining muscle as i said above muscle is not good for starvation."

What do you mean it doesn't know when it's next meal is? If you always eat at the same time then it will "know" when it's next meal would be. Insulin may be anabolic, but it also increases fat storage more than anything. The key is to know whento spike insulin, such a time is post workout. So, you would have one of your 2 meals post workout, or even just one meal for the whole day and have it post workout.

"as i said above it will go into starvation mode as it does not know when its next meal is. and if your eating enough cals than that excess prtoein can be converted to fat as well."

OMG enough with this "excess protein is converted to fat" bullshit! Excess protein is converted to carbs via gluconeogensis! Only when you overeat carbs AND protein AND have a caliorie surplus AND meet repair requirements does protein get stored as fat. And as I stated above your "starvation mode" thing is incorrect.

"well remeber insulin sensitivity. smaller meals help increase senivity so you need less insulin to get the same amount of amino acids uptaken by the muscle thereofre. this is why steriods are effective as they alter insulin sensitvity allowing more amino acids to be uptaken with lower insulin levels."

I don't see how more meals with the same amount and type of carb increases insulin sensitivity. Some things that do are weight training, aerobics, omerga 3's, ALA, chronium, etc...and things we often take to help fat loss like ECA and ketogenic diets can decrease insulin sensitivity, so personally, I don't think it's such a big deal.

"if you do not eat enough then you will not gain muscle either. and above the context you were writing is was in regards to eating enough cals for anabolism. so the harm will be doen as your body will be in catabolic mode thereore loose muscles."

If you eat enough for anabolism then you will grow, regardless of the amount of meals. The digestion time difference is huge, you will still have amino's, glucose and EFA's circulating through your blood and getting used for a loooong time with larger meals.

"less meals lower metabolic rate, insulin production not in its best gear for gianing muslce, also for using stored fat. so to either increase fat buring if dieting or muscle gain if eating excess cals i would lots of small meals."

Nope, as explained above.

"But isn't insulin anabolic? So it would be better to keep insulin levels constant as much as possible to facilitate the building of muscle?

And if you are eating complex carbs, you are not "keep[ing] the spike high", you are maintaining a reasonable level of insulin throughout the day, avoiding spikes and troughs as much as possible.

Also, after eating a large meal and getting a spike, your body will overcompensate and you will "crash". This is the tired feeling you get after an overly large, carb loaded meal."

Insulin is anabolic, but just as much so fat promoting. I agree about the spikes fooking with energy levels, but due to hGH release and adrenaline/norepinepherin release this may or may not be a problem, personally I think it is a problem...thus why I recommend frequent meals.

"You are less likely to overstuff glycogen stores by taking in gradual amounts, letting it deplete a bit with some activity... and taking in a bit more."

Nah.

"I would stick with eating frequent meals, it allows for a greater thermogenic effect as well as increase in your Resting Metabolic Rate."

Bollox.

"the warriors diet is not the way to go.

You can only absorb so much food in one sitting, I am not on about 40 grams protien is your max level of intake. but the more macros you eat in one sitting the less is absorbed for metabolism. you can not consume 5,000 cals in one meal and expect to have the same % of cals available for metabolism as if you broke that meal down into 5 portions.
your insulin levels will also drop therefore allowing more mobilization of alinine to be convert to glucose, while glutamine serves as energy source for the intestines and kidneys."

This would all be true IF you didn;'t eat enough...but if you do, then this is all bollox.

"i thought that the body could only digest a certain amount of calories at one time

cack..are you saying thats not true?"

THE BODY DIGESTS ANYTHING YOU PUT INTO IT!!!!

A lot of you guys who frown upon this are people who used to eat like this and were in shit shape. During this time you also probably ate shit food, didn;t train or trained incorrectly, etc...usually an increase in meal frequency corresponds with an increase in healthy lifestyle, which is why it works so well.

I am NOT saying to just start eating 1-2 meals per day, I'm just questioning some of the reasons behind it, and whether or not it's necessary or even better than more meals.

Another thing to consider that a lot of us have been doing this eating every 3 hours thing for a while, and our body basically expects food at the time, so we have to keep doing it.

BTW, you might wanna look up "theory" in the dictionary.

And yes, I posted this primarily to start up a big arguement...cuz I was bored.....but also just to make some of you guys question what you preach, and see if you could back it up with anything...

:evillaugh

Proteen
08-18-2001, 08:51 AM
I posted this primarily to start up a big arguement

Mission accomplished. I still think its stupid, and "lazy" to eat all you caories and macros in 1 to 2 meals. Basically if you believe that it takes the "right" nutrients to build muscle, lets say for example oats as prime carbohydrate choice, you would have to eat alot of oats in one sitting to get your carbohydrates in for that day. Eating 1 cup in the morning makes me feel as if I'm going to explode. As the great ARNOLD put it, "Eat more frequent, high protein meals to avoid expanding the stomach." I think I'll take Arnolds approach.

body
08-18-2001, 10:00 AM
i still say that eating small meals is better, but even if cack is write macro which he is not there are micronutrients to be consirderd as well. and the larger a meal the smaller % of amount of the micornutreitns will be absorbed. also different micro nutrients will compete with each other. the more there is to compete the less of some will be abosrbed. plus natural chemical like phytates will also hinder absorption of certain micronutrients where if you spread the meals out, you can have meals low in phytates to get round this problem. while if eating less meals you are going to be consuming lots of phytates all in one go otherwise you will have constipation as the phytates come with the fibre.
So before writing all this about macronutrients they do not do shi* if your you do not eat adequate micronutrients.
which smaller meals will benifit. i know about vit and mineral tablets but there are many phyto chemicals etc in food that are not available in tablets which have health benefits.

Wizard
08-18-2001, 10:08 AM
Originally posted by Proteen
"Eat more frequent, high protein meals to avoid expanding the stomach

Bollox

High protein meals cause bloating.Who can doubt it?


Originally posted by Cackerot 69

even just one meal for the whole day and have it post workout.
That's when I eat the huge meal.



Originally posted by Yaz

"You are less likely to overstuff glycogen stores by taking in gradual amounts, letting it deplete a bit with some activity... and taking in a bit more."

NO WAY tuttut
It's the same.

Proteen
08-18-2001, 11:03 AM
Originally posted by BlackAlpha


I take other peoples opinions and regard them as trash.

:nod:

Wizard
08-18-2001, 11:31 AM
It's your opinion but you can't quote things that I haven't said.
If you were personally offended by my post you could express it with a different way.
But I ask you to let me express my own opinions.
Thank you.

Cackerot69
08-18-2001, 11:35 AM
If you're going to take Arnold's approach you might as well go all out, drugs, high volume routines, etc...if what he did is superior.

body where the hell you pulling this shit from? Phytochemicals are in any plant food, be it oats, bread, cow turds, whatever....

Proteen, about it being almost impossible to eat all your cals and macro's from clean food sources in one meal is another reason I think more meals is better. Some people have a hard time eating frequently and basically force themselves to do it, which, IMO, isn't necessary.

benchmaniac2
08-18-2001, 12:07 PM
From 'The doctors medical library' -

HERE (http://209.15.81.144/sites/framer.html?/sites/_proteins_in_nutrition.html)


"The liver breaks excess protein down into urea which is excreted through the kidneys. In circumstances of excessive protein intake, excessive quantities of urea pass through the kidneys. Urea is a diuretic, which means that water is made to exit along with urea, and this water loss means the simultaneous loss of minerals. The most important mineral lost is calcium."
:p

Cackerot69
08-18-2001, 12:13 PM
You don't excrete protein, urea is a byproduct of protein digestion and only occurs when the protein is absorbed and thus used (for something). Solution to water loss - drink water. Solution to mineral and vitamin loss - take a multivitamin/mineral supps.

Proteen
08-18-2001, 12:13 PM
It was justa joke BlackAlpha. I respect the fact that you do what you do and you get results from it. Speaking of that, I dont think it matters how you eat, sleep, train, or whatever just as long as you look in the mirror and are happy with your progress.:p

Ronan
08-18-2001, 01:03 PM
Cack: if the body does not excrete excess protein where does it go?

PowerManDL
08-18-2001, 01:18 PM
Ok, lets examine this from a practical standpoint.

For example, you need 3000 calories a day. Out of two meals, that's 1500 calories each.

Just the simple fact that its damn hard to eat 1500 calories at once makes this mode impractical.

Secondly, the things you'd have to eat to get 1500 calories at one sitting aren't going to be the most healthy.

Thirdly, that insulin response you're so afraid of is going to kick in like a mofo. The body's going to take what it needs from that meal, and store all the leftovers. Which is going to be a lot.

If you think that eating a big meal is going to slow down digestion long enough to make it last, uh-uh. That meal may take an hour, two at the most to digest. By then, all the bad metabolic stuff will have kicked in, and your basically screwed.

Regardless of the thermic effect of digestion and the precious hGH/insulin antagonism, you aren't doing yourself a favor by eating that way.

Cackerot69
08-18-2001, 01:32 PM
It goes to tissue repair, burned for energy, or stored as glycogen, Ronan.

"For example, you need 3000 calories a day. Out of two meals, that's 1500 calories each.

Just the simple fact that its damn hard to eat 1500 calories at once makes this mode impractical.

Secondly, the things you'd have to eat to get 1500 calories at one sitting aren't going to be the most healthy."

Agreed. Some people actually find this easier, though...so they would be better off with this approach.

"Thirdly, that insulin response you're so afraid of is going to kick in like a mofo. The body's going to take what it needs from that meal, and store all the leftovers. Which is going to be a lot."

Yes, but at the end of the day the result will be the same.

"If you think that eating a big meal is going to slow down digestion long enough to make it last, uh-uh. That meal may take an hour, two at the most to digest. By then, all the bad metabolic stuff will have kicked in, and your basically screwed."

Bollox.

"Regardless of the thermic effect of digestion and the precious hGH/insulin antagonism, you aren't doing yourself a favor by eating that way."

That depends.

PowerManDL
08-18-2001, 01:45 PM
Originally posted by Cack-ass
"Thirdly, that insulin response you're so afraid of is going to kick in like a mofo. The body's going to take what it needs from that meal, and store all the leftovers. Which is going to be a lot."

Yes, but at the end of the day the result will be the same.


Not if 85% of those calories were stored as fat, whereas if you had eaten them across several meals, you'd have left your insulin levels stable and kept the nutrients where they were needed.


"If you think that eating a big meal is going to slow down digestion long enough to make it last, uh-uh. That meal may take an hour, two at the most to digest. By then, all the bad metabolic stuff will have kicked in, and your basically screwed."

Bollox.

BS. You go eat two meals with 1500 calories each and tell me you don't get fat. I don't mean big, I mean *fat.* This is about that nutrient partitioning effect you've mentioned before. If you eat them all at once, the slower digestion isn't enough to offset the fact that, at the moment, you've consumed more calories than you need. They will be stored as fat.

If you spread them out, the body's momentary need for nutrients is being met, and the food is being "partitioned" to where its needed, i.e., bodily functions and repair, as opposed to fat stores.

The process doesn't even out.


"Regardless of the thermic effect of digestion and the precious hGH/insulin antagonism, you aren't doing yourself a favor by eating that way."

That depends.

On what? Whether you want to get fat or whether you want to get muscular?

Wizard
08-18-2001, 02:03 PM
Originally posted by Cackerot69
"Thirdly, that insulin response you're so afraid of is going to kick in like a mofo. The body's going to take what it needs from that meal, and store all the leftovers. Which is going to be a lot."

Yes, but at the end of the day the result will be the same.

That's the point.At the end of the day the result will be the same.
You may store some fat after eating a huge meal,but if it's quite low fat (~20%of calories) then the amount of stored fat is not gonna be big.All the carbs will be converted to glucose,as excessive protein will do,and then they will be stored in the glycogen stores.If glycogen stores are full then and only then,they will be stored in the adipose tissue.(fat)And you know that this happens even if you eat 5-8 meals per day.
But let's say that you stored some fat.This stored fat,and even more stored fat is going to burned by your body until it gets the other meal the next day.(assuming that you have one meal per day.)
Between these meals you can have a small amount of omega3's so that you enhance lipolysis but not a high amount to cause high blood lipid levels which restrict the amount of circulating GH in blood.

body
08-18-2001, 02:09 PM
protein abosrption. problems with protein absorption are 1) the physical or chemical structure are resitant to proteolytic attack and therefore pass through the intestine small intestine relatively unchanged. this will not make a difference between one meal a day or 10, but shows why protein abosrption is not 100%. 2) free amino aciods and peptides may not absorbed particulary if gut functions are imparied. this will make a difference between larger and small meals as with smaller meals the gut can still handle the amount of food, where as larger meals the volume will be to much for a impared gut to handle. 3) antinutritonal factor such as lectins and trypsins present in foods that if eating larger meals you are more likley to contain as they are there with fibre so aless you wnat constipation its better to eat small meals in which foods these are not present in.
metabolism by the colonic micorflora then occurs but amino acids are no longer available by this stage.

so to minimise the effects of points two and three smaller meals are better. can any one here tell me there gut is working 100% effeciently.

cack wrote"OMG enough with this "excess protein is converted to fat" bullshit! Excess protein is converted to carbs via gluconeogensis! Only when you overeat carbs AND protein AND have a caliorie surplus AND meet repair requirements does protein get stored as fat. And as I stated above your "starvation mode" thing is incorrect. "

once the protien has done its job for anabolism and excess cals are consumed wether protien,fat, carbs or alcohol or any other calorific compound, then yes protien will be converteed to fat. though it does go by glucogensis, you can fill up your glycogen stores by this way. then the excess will be converted to fat from the excess glycogen. you can do this if you eat enough protien by its self. Its not the most effeicent method but it can and will happen if to much protien is consumed.

cack wrote "What do you mean it doesn't know when it's next meal is? If you always eat at the same time then it will "know" when it's next meal would be. Insulin may be anabolic, but it also increases fat storage more than anything. The key is to know whento spike insulin, such a time is post workout. So, you would have one of your 2 meals post workout, or even just one meal for the whole day and have it post workout. "
so what happens if you miss a meal then? it does not think like that it can not as this not suited for survival. as soon as it relaise its got no food intake it starts to prepare for famine. otheriwise it survival will be severly shortend. your brain may no you are going to eat but biochemiacally your body will not beable to sustain hormone levels to maintain anabolism, so it will do its best to survive.

cack wrote"I don't see how more meals with the same amount and type of carb increases insulin sensitivity. Some things that do are weight training, aerobics, omerga 3's, ALA, chronium, etc...and things we often take to help fat loss like ECA and ketogenic diets can decrease insulin sensitivity, so personally, I don't think it's such a big deal. "
well fisrt off you want to increase insulin sesenitivity therefore requiring your body to produce less insulin to get the same amount of amino acids into the cells. diabetes is a disease brought on by insulin resticance 9p[lus other ways)eg cells have lower sensivity thereofore making the body work hard to produce the same amount of insulin.
smaller meals of the same type and total amount of carbs over the day will not ask to produce so much insulin in one go therefore stressing it less. less stress will mean its less likely to stop working thereofre decreasing your chances of diabetes and help maintian increased insulin sensitivity.

cack wrote"If you eat enough for anabolism then you will grow, regardless of the amount of meals. The digestion time difference is huge, you will still have amino's, glucose and EFA's circulating through your blood and getting used for a long time with larger meals. "
no one said you can not grow by eating 3 meals a day its just more optimal to eat more smaller meals. as you said above you may be eating 2 meals so that leaves at least 12 hours between meals. your body will have not be in a anabolic state for that long as it will have finished absorbing nutrients so it will act if not going to eat agian therfore initiate its survival mechanisms.
you will have some glucose circulating in your blood if you do not eat for the next month just the maount of ketone bodies will be a lot greater.

body
08-18-2001, 02:33 PM
blackalpha - when you have restored your glycogen stores, you will start to deplete them stright away. eg walking, will start to use them up, so where is the new glycogen going to come from? will glucogenisis occur? yep so therfore you are going to be loosing muscle, yes some tof this will come from fat, so if loosing weight, you will loose fat as well, but you will also loose muscle as well. this will go to you next eat. if thats 20 hours away in your case that a long time to be loosing muscle. for for aless sleeping it will be about 0 hrs so i will start to replensih my glycogen stores as soon as the last meal has stoped providing glycogen for me.
when you go to the gym you will not have the energy of as lower storages aless you have lost more muscle so therfore i will be growing better than if i ate one meal a day.

here is a question for one meal a day people, lots of poeple are getting fatter? correct. But lots of children are skipping breakfast? correct. ebven though they are getting fatter as they are eating to much but they are not having breakfast thats means they are getting sufficient macronutrients? yep. but how come they have lower IQ's and not do as well at school? because they insulin levels drop to low so they have to little blood sugar therfore in a catabolic mode as they have not eaten enough. the lower insulin levels does not allow them to concentrate properly so do poorer at school. blackaphla and cack can you explain this to me, as they eat to much as getting fatter, but they insulin levels have droped to low to provide adequate energy. this will cause catabolism as amino acids will go through glucogenisis

the doc
08-18-2001, 03:47 PM
damn body those are some damn good points

Wizard
08-18-2001, 04:31 PM
Sure,very good point.

when you go to the gym you will not have the energy of as lower storages aless you have lost more muscle so therfore i will be growing better than if i ate one meal a day

Having very low blood sugar levels makes you feel lethargic and of course you don't have adequate energy levels but it has not do to with more frequent meals but with macros in meals.If the meal you ate was primaly fat and a little protein,you'll feel the same crap.


But lots of children are skipping breakfast? correct. even though they are getting fatter as they are eating to much but they are not having breakfast thats means they are getting sufficient macronutrients? yep. but how come they have lower IQ's and not do as well at school? because they insulin levels drop to low so they have to little blood sugar therfore in a catabolic mode as they have not eaten enough. the lower insulin levels does not allow them to concentrate properly so do poorer at school

That's right because they don't fuel their brain with glucose and their performances suck.If you want to combine the poor performance at school with the poor performance at gym due to lack of concentration ,I get your point and you're right again.Though I kept allmost the same lifts,I feel less concentrated at gym.Some people's lifts will suffer as individual's reactions to diet changes vary.

Yaz
08-18-2001, 05:26 PM
How is eating 100g of carbs per sitting and having say 40 of them stored as triglycerides more efficient than eating 50g of carbs in two sittings, depleting 40g worth from moderate activity in 2.5 hours, eating another 50 and having, say, perhaps... 10g more than you should have in the form of triglycerides?

10 < 40. What happens if you eat that meal, and all the sudden you break your leg? Now you can't depend on your activity to burn off the fat storage. It's just better overall management of calories and energy. I agree to the point that a person can maintain their weight by eating a huge meal a day, but in no way can you efficiently build muscle like this, nor can you balance hormonal levels in the body with it. Leveled off blood sugar levels can aid in the process of lipolysis, directly by regulating insulin in the body, and indirectly by killing off cravings before they start.

It's just a win-win situation to eat more frequently.

Yaz
08-18-2001, 05:32 PM
Also why is PowerMan's statement about high insulin levels after a meal jam-packed with calories bollox? As I understand, 50g of dextrose causes more of a spike than 20.

So of course 300g of carbs in one meal is going to cause a heavier spike than 50g of carbs in 6. I know you know what happens when you spike the insulin, Cack. This is related to energy levels too, aside the fat storage. Spikes will give you energy for a little bit of time, but they come down and also induce sleepiness. So yes, your performance will suck in comparison.

Tryska
08-18-2001, 05:49 PM
not to mention running the risk of developing insulin resistance.

you send that large amoung of carbs into the stomach, and get blood glucose levels from hell, and insulin rushes out to flood the receptors right? so what happens when the recptors just stop firing as nicely, and you need to flood more and more insulin into the bloodstream to set them off?


eating that one meal before bed is a recipe for disaster...remember, insulin - glucagon....insulin stores fat, glucagon sets it free. you eat all your carbs at once, you set an insulin spike....right about when you go to sleep. and you metabolism slows to a crawl.....and that insulin stores all that glucose that doesn't go to glycogen (which is finite) as fat.

Maki Riddington
08-18-2001, 05:56 PM
Originally posted by Cackerot69
[b]"Just to back myself up on more meals not increasing metabolism....

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Link&db=PubMed&dbFrom=PubMed&from_uid=9155494




*** Abstracts = little to be told about the actually study.
Find some studies and post them so they can be looked at.
I skimmed through 5 or 6 of the abstracts and they really don't say much.
You read into things too much.

Cackerot69
08-19-2001, 04:34 AM
I feel great with little to no blood glucose, so no problem there.

The confusion seems to be how much food the body can utilize without fat spill-over, and there is an amount. But, while this fat storage will take place, the newly stored fat will just be used as energy later in the day because your food intake isn't above maintenance.

Maki, look them up yourself...or what that be reading into things too much?

Frankster
08-19-2001, 07:48 AM
Originally posted by Cackerot69
But, while this fat storage will take place, the newly stored fat will just be used as energy later in the day because your food intake isn't above maintenance.



I don't agree .. why would the body not use muscle as an energy source?... that would be the efficient thing for the body to do since its not gonna get any calories for a long while... it would decrease its metabolism.

Cackerot69
08-19-2001, 07:59 AM
Muscle is only used as energy to a significant extent during activity while carb depleted....you won't be carb depleted in 6-8 hours, but liver glyocogen likely will be, so cardio ain't a good idea.

w8lifter
08-19-2001, 08:01 AM
Originally posted by Cackerot69

OMG enough with this "excess protein is converted to fat" bullshit!


Does anyone else find it hilairious that Cack said OMG? LMAO http://members.home.net/lwynne2/supergrin.gif

Frankster
08-19-2001, 08:50 AM
Originally posted by Cackerot69
Muscle is only used as energy to a significant extent during activity while carb depleted....you won't be carb depleted in 6-8 hours, but liver glyocogen likely will be, so cardio ain't a good idea.

Why won't you be carb depleted?

you just said:

''But, while this fat storage will take place, the newly stored fat will just be used as energy later in the day because your food intake isn't above maintenance. ''

Cackerot69
08-19-2001, 08:55 AM
??

Because carb depletion takes longer than that.

Proteen
08-19-2001, 09:12 AM
If protein is stored as glucose when repair is no longer an issue in your body, then why do people on keto diets walk around glycogen depleted?:confused:

Cackerot69
08-19-2001, 09:21 AM
Because the high fat intake forces the body to use fat for fuel, which prevents protein -- carb conversion and makes dietary and bodyfat the main source for fuel.

PowerManDL
08-19-2001, 10:41 AM
Originally posted by Frankster


Why won't you be carb depleted?

you just said:

''But, while this fat storage will take place, the newly stored fat will just be used as energy later in the day because your food intake isn't above maintenance. ''

You're right, Frankster-- Cack-ass's logic is flawed in this case. I don't care how much you ate in that big meal, the excess carbs are largely going to fat. And the next time your blood sugar drops below a certain level, which will happen in a few hours, that glucose is coming from muscle.

Wizard
08-19-2001, 10:48 AM
Why?
It takes days to deplete your glycogen stores.(take as an example the keto diets)
So,you have stored fuel.(and depending on the activity,you burn more or less bodyfat or glycogen).

PowerManDL
08-19-2001, 10:57 AM
Its not about glycogen stores. Its about the level in the bloodstream. That's what causes the insulin response, not the level in the muscles or liver.

Wizard
08-19-2001, 11:05 AM
I didn't say that insulin's response is because of the high levels of glycogen in the muscles or in the liver but I don't understand why the body would prefere to burn the muscles for energy,while it has stored energy(bodyfat and glycogen)

PowerManDL
08-19-2001, 11:16 AM
While at rest, the body isn't working the the glycolytic state. Its not using glycogen for energy. Its using the oxidative pathway. And guess where oxidation gets its energy from?

Wizard
08-19-2001, 11:37 AM
I don't wanna guess...
:cry:

Maki Riddington
08-19-2001, 12:11 PM
Originally posted by Cackerot69

Maki, look them up yourself...or what that be reading into things too much?


*** I don't need to look them up myself because I know what I will find. Misinterpertation of the facts pertaining to the studies.

the doc
08-19-2001, 12:32 PM
Originally posted by PowerManDL
While at rest, the body isn't working the the glycolytic state. Its not using glycogen for energy. Its using the oxidative pathway. And guess where oxidation gets its energy from?

umm let me guess!!

Could it be oxidative phosphorylation from the metabolism of FAT?

PowerManDL
08-19-2001, 12:34 PM
If the fat's being lipolysized, say during cardio. Its not at rest. The energy comes from catabolized muscle protein.

Cackerot69
08-19-2001, 12:43 PM
Maki go drink some more alcohol......

Powerman: bollox.

If you ain't liver glycogen depleted during cardio you aren't going to lose muscle. ST fibers use oxidative phosphorylation like doc said, and that means FAT is used for energy. So shut your drunken ass too...

PowerManDL
08-19-2001, 12:46 PM
Originally posted by Cack-ass

Powerman: bollox.

If you ain't liver glycogen depleted during cardio you aren't going to lose muscle. ST fibers use oxidative phosphorylation like doc said, and that means FAT is used for energy. So shut your drunken ass too...

Oh really? You need to go read some more on interval training, mullet lad.

ST fibers may use oxidative phosphorylation, but do you care to explain to me how lipolysis is occuring without stimulus, assuming you're at or above caloric maintenance?

And that still doesn't account for the fact that without a threshold level of serum glucose, muscle catabolism will occur.

Prick.

Cackerot69
08-19-2001, 12:49 PM
LOL, I'm talking about aerobic based cardio, not Interval anaerobic/aerobic training....

I said not to do ANY cardio when if you haven't eaten, but lifting would be OK.

PowerManDL
08-19-2001, 12:50 PM
That's besides the point. THe point is I made you and your mind controlling mullet look bad regarding multiple feedings.

Bam Bam
08-19-2001, 01:44 PM
no one has answered my ? that started this big ass thread if i eat 6 meals opposed to 9 a day could i still lose weight effectively??




also power man i beleiv you mean #1 stunta

(stunting is high rollin or showing off) stunna makes no sense bra

Maki Riddington
08-19-2001, 01:55 PM
Yes Bam Bam, it will be fine.

body
08-19-2001, 02:07 PM
eating a large meal after training is important, but one meal will not be as good as small meals for glycogen replenishment. to maintain glycogen synthesis you have to have a steady flow of carbohydrates. you do not want to flow to come from glucogensis. plus its more efficent to eat the carbs than to do it be conversition from glucogenisis. If this flow is interpruted even for a few hours that if eating 3 or less meals a day this will occur glycogen replenishemnt will decrease. The slow down is caused by the fact that the storage enzyme (glycogen synthase) is dependant on a steady flow of insulin. If this level drops to low replenishement is slowed.
If glycogen levels are not restored proir to exercise then sub maximal lifts will occur. Plus when glycogen levels are high it puts the body is less likely to catabolic mode so it will also help preserve existing muscle.
If you do not for a while than glycogen stores will be slowly used up while walking, even sleeping will use some up. you may be have eatne X amount of cals in your 3 meals a day. You will replensih the total glycogen stores quicker due to more cals but once they are restored where is the new glycogen going to come from while you walk around etc. some will come from adipose tissue while some will come from glucogenisis.

Also when you are on about eating you are talking about 2,500-3,000 cals which is consiredablyu easier to eat in two meals. but if eating 4,000+ cals plus eating a day its harder to eat than in little meals especially after a hard leg day. when you feel like crap afterwards as your temperature is soaring and do not feel like eating you try and eat 4,000 clas when all you want is water.

A minor part to eating lots of small meals is that you may get more tooth decay. well i am to brush and floss.lol

There lots i can write pro's and con's (though con's) was a sentance. but its show unbiased.

conclusion

If want bigger muscles and stronger body eat smaller meals. if you want better dental hyginie eat smaller meals. the choice is yours.

body
08-22-2001, 12:49 PM
cack"body where the hell you pulling this **** from? Phytochemicals are in any plant food, be it oats, bread, cow turds, whatever.... "
they are not in dairy, meat, fish and protein shakes products so they do hinder with iron, calcuim etc absortpion. so in some of the six meals you eat you do not have to include the plant food in the product so you do not get it in all your meals whereas if you eat one meal you will defenitily get phytates in there.
Cack the reason why you think you have crap genetics is as you are the only person here who eat cow turds.

Cackerot69
08-22-2001, 02:36 PM
I said they are in any plant food.

No, cow turds are highly anabolic.

Sun
08-22-2001, 02:39 PM
Depending on what the cow has eaten, you can also get an EFA source out of some nuts.

pwb69
09-18-2001, 01:05 PM
This is a really interesting topic, I've been doing the 5-6 meals for about 2 years and with the talk of the warrior diet, as well as reading from other sources I question it's value. A few things I'd like to address, 1st off a post by BODY about low blood sugar in children not eating breakfast and them being less intelligent. If you want to look at a real reason then look at the omega-3 fatty acid deficienies that are present in almost everyone's diet. It's a proven fact these fats are necessary for proper brain development and function, and it's necessary to get the right quantity of these fats for the brain to develop and work properly. The fat in mothers milk is 80% omega-3. There's plenty of research PROVING that omega-3's are necessary yet there almost non-existant in most childrens diets. It's b/c of all the crap people are fed like cereal, etc. But also meats, who naturally have a high n-3 quantity on a natural diet, have low levels b/c of the grain they are fed which throws their fatty acid profile up. This has nothing to do with skipping breakfast and low blood sugar.
OK, i'm sorry but if one has adapted to a low carb diet, and effeciently uses fat for fuel, the body will not prefferably burn muscle if you dont eat every 3 hours. We havent changed more than 1% genetically in the past 150,000 years, even longer, and food was never that readily available. Our body is built for self preservation and survival and following a natural diet, humans didnt sit around eating all day, what they did eat they had to work for and hunt. Its know we had a preference for meat but it had to be hunted, then it was eaten. I thoroughly believe in the warrior diet, even on the discovery channel there was a special on Neanderthals, Cromagnons and they said 85% of our diet was meat based, and similar to a wolf's diet. Well a wolf hunts as well, and eats one big meal. It doesnt graze, eating throughout the day, and it's a carnivore. This is my diet and i've been losing fat and building muscle ever since. Workout then eat a 2-3lb steak. Maybe some nuts or spinach, but thats about it. Eating even a small quantity of carbs in a meal raises insulin levels for up to 8 hours. Well if you eat every 3 hours imagine the cumulative effect, with insulin high fat loss is non-existant. On top of that insulin causes artery damage, insulin resistance which leads to diabetes, fat storage, as well as shortening your life span. Check at http://www.mercola.com/2001/jul/14/insulin.htm for a great article on how insulin shortens your life. I have more to discuss but I must go.

PowerManDL
09-18-2001, 01:26 PM
<SARCASM>
Ancient man was also very huge and muscular, so you must have a point. You've seen the Flintstones, right? Who wouldn't want Fred's body?
</SARCASM>

hemants
09-18-2001, 01:33 PM
I question the logic that says if 40g of protein takes 1 hour to digest that 100g of protein will take 2 1/2 hours to digest.

Using that logic, we could just eat 200g of protein at one meal and let it digest slowly over the course of the whole day.

Avatar
09-18-2001, 01:36 PM
pwb69, our ancestors didn't lift weights and didn't have as much muscle mass as a lot of us today who eat 5-6x / day. Therefore, teir muscle mass wouldn't have been readily used as energy as much as it could be for us today.

pwb69
09-18-2001, 01:46 PM
To PowermanDL, if you believe that the Flintstones are representative of the bodies that our ancestors had, then you need more help than I can provide. Funny, but actually ancient man was very lean and muscular, with more dense bones than we do have today. I do agree that we didnt lift weights, but people had to endure strenuous activity. The idea that only a certain amount of protein can be absorbed at one time is complete bullshit and never has been supported in a single study. Ori Hofmekler makes a good point talking about the classic Greek and Roman sculptures and painting, how their physiques are lean and muscular for a long period of time, and believes that is how their bodies looked. I agree that they weren't anywhere near as large as bodybuilders today, but taking steroids isnt natural or healthy either. Yes there are differences, I agree, but if one is concerned with health as well as beauty, natural food eaten infrequently is a good option. In terms of having more muscle mass, why would the body all a sudden want to eat more muscle just because there's more present? Muscle is necessary for survival, its the reason people enter ketosis while their carbs are low. The body would rather use fat and it's derivative, ketones, to fuel the body in order to preserve muscle. Again, it's survival. In terms of an example for bodybuilders, Serge Nubret, who I consider to have a set of the best abs ever, and one of the best physique's ever, would fast during the day, work out intensely in the evening, and eat one huge meal consisting of red meat, salad and oil before going to bed. Rocky Marciano followed the same approach, eating a salad at lunch and steak and salad for dinner.

PowerManDL
09-18-2001, 02:18 PM
Do a little research on the diets of the Greeks and Romans.

body
09-20-2001, 06:51 PM
pwb69 - so blood sugar levels have nothing to do with concentrations?
so the fact that school children who have breakfast do better than those children who do not have breakfast is to do with omega-3's. I forgot all school children in the Uk have kippers and mackeral for breakfast. They do not eat cearels giving a helping maintain homoestasis blood sugar levels.

muscle is not the most essential thing in the body. fat is a better store of energy than muscle. Muscle will help keep the metabolic rate up, fat use about 2% of the energy to maintian a kg of fat. so if you use up the fat fisrt then muscle. you have a lot shorter life than if you keep fat levels high and use up muscle.
avatar was making the point the greater level of muscle/fat ratio the greater amount of muscle will be used for energy as it helps with survival. the body need to preserve heart and the brain.
I doubt any one in the roman era were as big and strong as reg park, john griemik etc. these people did not take steroids.

humans may not have changed much over the last 1,000 years but life span and quality certainly have. Do you think the people in the scupulture of rome with the rich people or poor people? I doubt they were not well off. so aforded to eat lots of food.
If you want to get eating lots of small meal is optimal way to go about it.
Another reaosn why they are muscular is they did not sit on theire butts all day like lots of people do. also if you look at workmen etc some of them are quite lean and muscular.

The warroir diet is not the optimal way to get big and strong. you can not eat 4,000+ kcals in a one meal.

You eat small meals throughout the day to help decrease the spikes of inuslin therefore not leading to insulin resitance. You do this so you glycogen levels remain high to allow you to lift heavily.

you will loose weight at fisrt as you will loose water. this is as glycogen holds water so as your glycogen levels decrease your water levels go dso so you look leaner.

PowerManDL
09-21-2001, 01:45 AM
Well, since nobody did research on the Greco-Roman diet, this is what is up:

They ate mainly grain/bread, with that and vegetables being the mainstay. Only the rich were able to eat meat. And only on occasion were the non-wealthy able to eat more than one meal a day.

Hardly acceptable for the modern bodybuilder.

body
09-21-2001, 11:18 AM
Thanks for the history lesson.
This warrior diet could be retitled " why humans were smaller, reached puberty later, died of more infections, higher infant mortalility etc diet thousands of years ago"
but calling it that would hardly sell books would it. So lets call it the warrior diet as its sound really macho!

A point about roman sculpture being muscular. Look at action man and some other toys. If i remember correctly that if action man was 6 foot tall his arms would be 18-20 inch(if kept in proportian with height gain). But most soldier do not have 18 inch arms do they? so if we exxeragete the muscleness of out roys why could roman sculputure not do the same with the poeple they sculputed?

Tryska
09-21-2001, 11:22 AM
not to mention greco-roman culture had this interesting homosexual componenet to it, so it would make sense that their sculptures of men idealized the male form.

(hated to have to be the one to say it, but umm..there you go.)