PDA

View Full Version : The right caloric intake at the end of the day makes no sense.



Behemoth
07-01-2003, 11:00 PM
This is mostly a question for Bradley, he's the one that's taught me what I know about this so far, so hopefully he can help me figure this out.

Bradley, you've said many times that "calories at the end of the day is whats going to determind weightloss/gain" right?

Well to me this makes no sense. Because you lose weight all throughout the day. It's not like your body totals up the calories in the last 24 hours and figures out your macro's right after you finish your last meal of the day.

Well lets say you diet on 2000 calories. And for the first day you spread that out between 6 meals. And you're eating a 40/40/20 ratio of good fats, adequate protein and complex carbs. I don't think anybody is going to dispute that for that day you will lose weight.

Now say day 2 of your diet rolls around. And you eat one giant breakfast of 2000 calories, coming from pizza. Now for the proceeding couple hours after that you're surely not going to be losing weight. But once your body digests and burns those calories. It's now going to be starved for the remainder of the day, in which place major catabolism will most likely take place.

Grant it those are 2 VERY drastic days. But it goes to show you that differences other than caloric intake at the end of the day will make a difference.

Saint Patrick
07-01-2003, 11:43 PM
I have pondered this myself and I agree w/ you.

It's NOT ALL ABOUT calories in vs. calories out.

as0l0
07-02-2003, 01:02 AM
i reckon over a week and a month it would all balance out...looking forward to the response...

bradley
07-02-2003, 03:13 AM
Originally posted by Behemoth
Bradley, you've said many times that "calories at the end of the day is whats going to determind weightloss/gain" right?

Yes, although with extreme examples you could see slight difference, but for the most part yes.:)



Well to me this makes no sense. Because you lose weight all throughout the day. It's not like your body totals up the calories in the last 24 hours and figures out your macro's right after you finish your last meal of the day.


Well your body is not a calculator so to speak, but if you eat larger meals you are more likely to store some of the meal as fat, than if you were to eat smaller meals. Since you are eating larger meals less frequently the body will pull some energy from stored fat due to the amount of time between meals. With the smaller meals you would not be storing as many cals as fat and you would be using the calories from the smaller meals for your bodies energy requirements at that specific time. With this in mind the body is kind of keeping track with the calories that you consume.

large meals = more fat stored and also more fat burned
small meals = less fat stored and less fat used



Well lets say you diet on 2000 calories. And for the first day you spread that out between 6 meals. And you're eating a 40/40/20 ratio of good fats, adequate protein and complex carbs. I don't think anybody is going to dispute that for that day you will lose weight.

Meal frequency is not that important, but that is another topic:)



Now say day 2 of your diet rolls around. And you eat one giant breakfast of 2000 calories, coming from pizza. Now for the proceeding couple hours after that you're surely not going to be losing weight. But once your body digests and burns those calories. It's now going to be starved for the remainder of the day, in which place major catabolism will most likely take place.


I see your point, but if you were to eat 2,000 cals in one sitting then you would definitely store some of those cals as fat, and then if you didn't eat for 6-8 hours you would probably be in a catabolic state. Although I would argue that you would probably not lose any significant bf over the course of the day, because your body would have to use the fat stored at that one large meal.

Like you said this is an extreme example and anyone that eats only one meal per day is going to be catabolic somewhere along the way.



Grant it those are 2 VERY drastic days. But it goes to show you that differences other than caloric intake at the end of the day will make a difference.

Sure that specific example might show a difference, but anyone that eats one meal per day is going to lose muscle regardless. This sounds like more of an argument for meal frequency rather than calories in/calories out, which studies have already shown that this does not have the effect that people once thought.

I am not saying that with strict monitoring and adherence to a diet that you coud manipulate the macros and lose a little more weight at the same calorie intake, but I still do not think this is going to make much of a significant difference.

JuniorMint6669
07-03-2003, 02:57 AM
I agree, it isnt really about calories in/out at the end of the day for weight loss. It is more like calories in/out within a set period of time, or at least thats my opinion.

For example, if in a one month period of time, you create a caloric deficit of 20000 calories, you are going to lose ~5.5 pounds. Now lets assume you created that deficit within a span of 10 days by starving yourself, and the other 20 days you ate at maintainance. Arent you going to be catabolic like whoa for 10 days, especially compared to creating a daily deficit of 650 calories?

But again, that is an extreme example. The question that should be asked, is how long after a meal does it take for us to enter a catabolic state? If it happens in a very short period of time, meal frequency would be important. If it happens after a long period of time, it would be less important. But since bradley says so, and because I know many healthy people who eat 2 or 3 meals a day only, Im guessing its not very important.

Moral of the story? If you care about your health, dont starve yourself for 10 days or eat 2000 calories worth of pizza for breakfast.

bradley
07-03-2003, 03:41 AM
Originally posted by JuniorMint6669
But again, that is an extreme example. The question that should be asked, is how long after a meal does it take for us to enter a catabolic state? If it happens in a very short period of time, meal frequency would be important. If it happens after a long period of time, it would be less important. But since bradley says so, and because I know many healthy people who eat 2 or 3 meals a day only, Im guessing its not very important.


Here are some studies that Maki posted in another thread that relate to meal frequency:)

Frequency of feeding, weight reduction and energy metabolism.

Verboeket-van de Venne WP, Westerterp KR.

Department of Human Biology, University of Limburg, Maastricht, The Netherlands.

A study was conducted to investigate the effect of feeding frequency on the rate and composition of weight loss and 24 h energy metabolism in moderately obese women on a 1000 kcal/day diet. During four consecutive weeks fourteen female adults (age 20-58 years, BMI 25.4-34.9 kg/m2) restricted their food intake to 1000 kcal/day. Seven subjects consumed the diet in two meals daily (gorging pattern), the others consumed the diet in three to five meals (nibbling pattern). Body mass and body composition, obtained by deuterium dilution, were measured at the start of the experiment and after two and four weeks of dieting. Sleeping metabolic rate (SMR) was measured at the same time intervals using a respiration chamber. At the end of the experiment 24 h energy expenditure (24 h EE) and diet-induced thermogenesis (DIT) were assessed by a 36 h stay in the respiration chamber. There was no significant effect of the feeding frequency on the rate of weight loss, fat mass loss or fat-free mass loss. Furthermore, fat mass and fat-free mass contributed equally to weight loss in subjects on both gorging and nibbling diet. Feeding frequency had no significant effect on SMR after two or four weeks of dieting. The decrease in SMR after four weeks was significantly greater in subjects on the nibbling diet. 24 h EE and DIT were not significantly different between the two feeding regimens

Effect of the pattern of food intake on human energy metabolism.

Verboeket-van de Venne WP, Westerterp KR, Kester AD.

Department of Human Biology, University of Limburg, Maastricht, The Netherlands.

The pattern of food intake can affect the regulation of body weight and lipogenesis. We studied the effect of meal frequency on human energy expenditure (EE) and its components. During 1 week ten male adults (age 25-61 years, body mass index 20.7-30.4 kg/m2) were fed to energy balance at two meals/d (gorging pattern) and during another week at seven meals/d (nibbling pattern). For the first 6 d of each week the food was provided at home, followed by a 36 h stay in a respiration chamber. O2 consumption and CO2 production (and hence EE) were calculated over 24 h. EE in free-living conditions was measured over the 2 weeks with doubly-labelled water (average daily metabolic rate, ADMR). The three major components of ADMR are basal metabolic rate (BMR), diet-induced thermogenesis (DIT) and EE for physical activity (ACT). There was no significant effect of meal frequency on 24 h EE or ADMR. Furthermore, BMR and ACT did not differ between the two patterns. DIT was significantly elevated in the gorging pattern, but this effect was neutralized by correction for the relevant time interval. With the method used for determination of DIT no significant effect of meal frequency on the contribution of DIT to ADMR could be demonstrated.

Influence of the feeding frequency on nutrient utilization in man: consequences for energy metabolism.

Verboeket-van de Venne WP, Westerterp KR.

Department of Human Biology, University of Limburg, Maastricht, The Netherlands.

A study was conducted to investigate whether there is a diurnal pattern of nutrient utilization in man and how this is affected by meal frequency to explain possible consequences of meal frequency for body weight regulation. When the daily energy intake is consumed in a small number of large meals, there is an increased chance to become overweight, possibly by an elevated lipogenesis (fat synthesis and accumulation) or storage of energy after the meal. Thirteen subjects, two males and eleven females, were fed to energy balance in two meals per day (gorging pattern) and seven meals per day (nibbling pattern) over 2-day intervals. On the second day on each feeding regimen, the diurnal pattern of nutrient utilization was calculated from simultaneous measurements of oxygen consumption, carbon dioxide production and urinary nitrogen excretion over 3 h intervals in a respiration chamber. A gorging pattern of energy intake resulted in a stronger diurnal periodicity of nutrient utilization, compared to a nibbling pattern. However, there were no consequences for the total 24 h energy expenditure (24 h EE) of the two feeding patterns (5.57 +/- 0.16 kJ/min for the gorging pattern; 5.44 +/- 0.18 kJ/min for the nibbling pattern). Concerning the periodicity of nutrient utilization, protein oxidation during the day did not change between the two feeding patterns. In the gorging pattern, carbohydrate oxidation was significantly elevated during the interval following the first meal (ie from 1200 h to 1500 h, P less than 0.01) and the second meal (ie from 1800 h to 2100 h, P less than 0.05). The decreased rate of carbohydrate oxidation observed during the fasting period (from rising in the morning until the first meal at 1200 h), was compensated by an increased fat oxidation from 0900 to 1200 h to cover energy needs. In the nibbling pattern, carbohydrate and fat oxidation remained relatively constant during the active hours of the day.

***As long as you are eating a meal upon waking and a meal before going to bed, I believe that meal frequency will not be that important. Eating only 2 meals per day would probably lead to some LBM losses, but there will not be much difference between 3 meals as compared to 6. A larger meal will take longer to digest/absorb than a smaller meal which should also be taken into account.

bradley
07-03-2003, 06:01 AM
Originally posted by bradley
Eating only 2 meals per day would probably lead to some LBM losses,

Here is a study that goes along with what I was saying above:)


Effects of meal frequency on body composition during weight control in boxers.

Iwao S, Mori K, Sato Y.

First Division of Health Promotion Science, Graduate School of Medicine, Nagoya University, Japan.

The effects of meal frequency on changes in body composition by food restriction were investigated. Twelve boxers were divided between a two meals day-1 group (the 2M group) and a six meals day-1 group (the 6M group). Both groups ingested 5.02 MJ (1200 kcal) day-1 for 2 weeks. Although there was no difference in change of body weight by food restriction between the two groups, the decrease in lean body mass (LBM) was significantly greater in the 2M group than in the 6M group. The decrease in urinary 3-methylhistidine/creatinine was significantly greater in the 6M group than in the 2M group. These results suggest that the lower frequency of meal intake leads to a greater myoprotein catabolism even if the same diet is consumed.

JuniorMint6669
07-04-2003, 12:12 AM
Sorry, but Im seriously confused now.

"There was no significant effect of the feeding frequency on the rate of weight loss, fat mass loss or fat-free mass loss."

"the decrease in lean body mass (LBM) was significantly greater in the 2M group than in the 6M group."

Dont these two studies contradict eachother?

as0l0
07-04-2003, 12:15 AM
oooo, trouble a brewin

restless
07-04-2003, 12:21 AM
Originally posted by JuniorMint6669
Sorry, but Im seriously confused now.

"There was no significant effect of the feeding frequency on the rate of weight loss, fat mass loss or fat-free mass loss."

"the decrease in lean body mass (LBM) was significantly greater in the 2M group than in the 6M group."

Dont these two studies contradict eachother?

If you take in consideration that in the second study they weren't having any breakfast so they were probably fasting for more than 12 hours, with a extra meal the difference wouldn't probably be significant to the more frequent feedings group. Of course 1200 Kcalories is very low so I don't think you can extrapotale the results to what should be expected with a slight reduction of calories as in a typical bodybuilding cut.

bradley
07-04-2003, 03:42 AM
Originally posted by JuniorMint6669
Sorry, but Im seriously confused now.

"There was no significant effect of the feeding frequency on the rate of weight loss, fat mass loss or fat-free mass loss."

"the decrease in lean body mass (LBM) was significantly greater in the 2M group than in the 6M group."

Dont these two studies contradict eachother?

I was basically just trying to show you that going for an extended period of time without eating can cause LBM losses as was shown in the study with the boxers (2 meals per day).

Although with 3 meals per day you will not see much difference as opposed to 6 meals.

The studies do not contradict each other because one was using 2 meals compared to 6 meals and the other study was using 3 meals compared to 6 meals.:)

ebrunner
07-07-2003, 09:54 PM
One thing I would like to know is the macronutrient percentages of the meals eaten in the strudies in Bradley's first post. Standard bodybuilding mantra is for the purposes of preserving lean mass, PROTEIN must be ingested at frequent intervals throughout the day. If the "nibblers" increased their meal frequency by snacking on fruit and granola bars, the added meal frequency may not be providing the same lean mass preserving benefits as someone eating frequent protein-containing meals.

What I would like is to find a study where one group eats 6 high carb meals, another eats 6 high fat meals, and another eats 6 high protein meals. In addition, it would be nice to have a set of 3 groups eating the same types of meals, high carb, high fat, high protein, but consuming their calories in only 2 feedings. Then, one could compare the effects of both meal composition and meal frequency on changes in lean mass.

ebrunner
07-07-2003, 10:07 PM
Behemoth,

I think the main reason most bodybuilders eat frequent, balanced meals is not to lose more weight, but rather to lose more FAT, while preserving lean mass.

I would hypothesize that in your extreme example of a typical bodybuilder's day, and a typical pizza-binger's day, both people would initially lose a similar amount of weight. However, the pizza-binger would suffer from catabolism, and over several weeks his/her reduced lean body mass would cause a reduction in metabolic rate. Therefore, he/she would not be seeing the same rate of weight loss on 2,000 calories as the "better" dieter.

bradley
07-08-2003, 03:16 AM
Originally posted by ebrunner
One thing I would like to know is the macronutrient percentages of the meals eaten in the strudies in Bradley's first post. Standard bodybuilding mantra is for the purposes of preserving lean mass, PROTEIN must be ingested at frequent intervals throughout the day. If the "nibblers" increased their meal frequency by snacking on fruit and granola bars, the added meal frequency may not be providing the same lean mass preserving benefits as someone eating frequent protein-containing meals.

I am not really seeing your point. The two groups were eating the exact same foods, but one group ate the food over more meals. The following quote was taken from the second study:

"There was no significant effect of the feeding frequency on the rate of weight loss, fat mass loss or fat-free mass loss. Furthermore, fat mass and fat-free mass contributed equally to weight loss in subjects on both gorging and nibbling diet. Feeding frequency had no significant effect on SMR after two or four weeks of dieting."

It takes a while for protein to be digested/absorbed so the whole supplying the body with a constant stream of aminos argument is not really valid. This would depend on the type of protein consumed, seeing as how proteins like whey will be digested quite rapidly.




What I would like is to find a study where one group eats 6 high carb meals, another eats 6 high fat meals, and another eats 6 high protein meals.

Well you would still need to provide adequate protein and EFAs, and I am unsure if you are saying that the groups should eat mixed meals or meals that all consist of one macronutrient.



In addition, it would be nice to have a set of 3 groups eating the same types of meals, high carb, high fat, high protein, but consuming their calories in only 2 feedings. Then, one could compare the effects of both meal composition and meal frequency on changes in lean mass.

I did post one study that compared eating 2 meals to eating 6 meals, which showed that the 2 meal group lost more LBM.

bradley
07-08-2003, 05:40 AM
Originally posted by ebrunner
I think the main reason most bodybuilders eat frequent, balanced meals is not to lose more weight, but rather to lose more FAT, while preserving lean mass.

The studies show that this is really not an issue, assuming that you are eating a meal upon waking and before bed. This is due to the overnight fast, but otherwise there is not going to be much difference between 3 meals and 5, 6, 7, or 8 meals per day. Although more frequent meals could be better for appetite control.




I would hypothesize that in your extreme example of a typical bodybuilder's day, and a typical pizza-binger's day, both people would initially lose a similar amount of weight. However, the pizza-binger would suffer from catabolism, and over several weeks his/her reduced lean body mass would cause a reduction in metabolic rate. Therefore, he/she would not be seeing the same rate of weight loss on 2,000 calories as the "better" dieter.

I agree that one meal per day would lead to muscle catabolism as it has already been shown that two meals per day leads to muscle catabolism.

bradley
07-08-2003, 05:47 AM
Here is one comparing a higher protein diet with a lower protein diet. Just though it might be of interest:D

Effects of energy-restricted diets containing increased protein on weight loss, resting energy expenditure, and the thermic effect of feeding in type 2 diabetes.

Luscombe ND, Clifton PM, Noakes M, Parker B, Wittert G.

University of Adelaide, Department of Physiology, South Australia.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of a high-protein (HP) diet compared with a low-protein (LP) diet on weight loss, resting energy expenditure (REE), and the thermic effect of food (TEF) in subjects with type 2 diabetes during moderate energy restriction. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In this study, 26 obese subjects with type 2 diabetes consumed a HP (28% protein, 42% carbohydrate) or LP diet (16% protein, 55% carbohydrate) during 8 weeks of energy restriction (1,600 kcal/day) and 4 weeks of energy balance. Body weight and composition and REE were measured, and the TEF in response to a HP or LP meal was determined for 2 h, at weeks 0 and 12. RESULTS: The mean weight loss was 4.6 +/- 0.4 kg (P < 0.001), of which 4.5 +/- 0.4 kg was fat (P < 0.001), with no effect of diet (P = 0.6). At both weeks 0 and 12, TEF was greater after the HP than after the LP meal (0.064 vs. 0.050 kcal x kcal(-1) energy consumed x 2 h(-1), respectively; overall diet effect, P = 0.003). REE and TEF were reduced similarly with each of the diets (time effects, P = 0.02 and P < 0.001, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with type 2 diabetes, a low-fat diet with an increased protein-to-carbohydrate ratio does not significantly increase weight loss or blunt the fall in REE.

AJ_11
07-08-2003, 10:15 PM
This is how I look at it, we are bodybuilders, not you regular joe. It is importart to keep feeding your system with nutriets so that every thing is absorbed. Certain vitamans and minerals don't like each other and arn't absorbed when eaten together. Too much carbs will cause and insulin response and there is a greater chance that it will make you gain a bit more fat:Muscle ratio as only so much will be used for glucose. Too much protein will also cause an insulin response. Thus is your only eating 2 meals a day you will have you highs and you will have your lows. If in cal def. you will lose weight, but exactly how much of that will be muscle.

bradley
07-09-2003, 02:45 AM
Originally posted by AJ_11
This is how I look at it, we are bodybuilders, not you regular joe. It is importart to keep feeding your system with nutriets so that every thing is absorbed. Certain vitamans and minerals don't like each other and arn't absorbed when eaten together. Too much carbs will cause and insulin response and there is a greater chance that it will make you gain a bit more fat:Muscle ratio as only so much will be used for glucose. Too much protein will also cause an insulin response. Thus is your only eating 2 meals a day you will have you highs and you will have your lows. If in cal def. you will lose weight, but exactly how much of that will be muscle.

I think everyone agrees that eating less than 3 meals a day will lead to LBM losses.

dirty-c
07-10-2003, 08:36 AM
One of the first things I learned (whether right or wrong remains to be seen) when I started bodybuilding was that we can only absorb so much protein at a time. The number I was told was about 40gm every 4 hours. I think most people would agree that bodybuilders should be eating close to 1gm of protein per pound of LBM. If eating only 3 meals per day was okay, then it would seem that only 120gm of protein a day could be utilized. This would fall short of the desired protein goal for the entire day.

I must say bradely, I respect your opinion and your use of scientific studies to back up your positions, but do you REALLY believe that 3 meals a day is adequate? As for the studies that you posted, a number of members have made some really good points about the studies' possible flaws.

For instance, what was the macronutrient profile of these meals? It is possible that if total daily protein consumption was inadequate, and total daily carb intake was high enough to ellicit too strong of an insulin response (meaning, even if divided into 6 meals, it still resulted in too much carb per meal), then its possible that both diets were fundamentally flawed anyway.

If a diet doesnt contain enough protein, and contains too many carbs, I don't imagine theres any portion control scheme (2 vs. 6 meals) that could make the diet effective at fat loss, improved SMR, lean body mass preservation/improvement, etc.

Holto
07-10-2003, 09:08 AM
in the spirit of knowledge


Originally posted by AJ_11
This is how I look at it, we are bodybuilders, not you regular joe. It is importart to keep feeding your system with nutriets so that every thing is absorbed. Certain vitamans and minerals don't like each other and arn't absorbed when eaten together. Too much carbs will cause and insulin response

*** any amount of carbs will cause an insulin response

and there is a greater chance that it will make you gain a bit more fat:Muscle ratio as only so much will be used for glucose. Too much protein will also cause an insulin response.

*** any amount of protein will cause an insulin response

Thus is your only eating 2 meals a day you will have you highs and you will have your lows. If in cal def. you will lose weight, but exactly how much of that will be muscle.

Holto
07-10-2003, 09:41 AM
Originally posted by dirty-c
One of the first things I learned (whether right or wrong remains to be seen) when I started bodybuilding was that we can only absorb so much protein at a time

there is a limit to what can be absorbed by muscle and the amino acid pool, yes, but the rest will be used as energy or converted to fat

bradley
07-10-2003, 11:11 AM
Originally posted by dirty-c
One of the first things I learned (whether right or wrong remains to be seen) when I started bodybuilding was that we can only absorb so much protein at a time. The number I was told was about 40gm every 4 hours. I think most people would agree that bodybuilders should be eating close to 1gm of protein per pound of LBM. If eating only 3 meals per day was okay, then it would seem that only 120gm of protein a day could be utilized. This would fall short of the desired protein goal for the entire day.

I just don't believe and have not seen any proof that there is a magic number of protein that can be digested in one sitting. There are many factors that would need to be determined such as bodyweight, previous meal composition, etc.

Proteins digest at different rates, and whole food protien can take 3+ hours to digest and proteins such as casein will still have AAs above baseline level at 6+ hours.

As Holto state above, all protein will be used for some purpose by the body, whether it be for energy, muscle repair, etc.



I must say bradely, I respect your opinion and your use of scientific studies to back up your positions, but do you REALLY believe that 3 meals a day is adequate? As for the studies that you posted, a number of members have made some really good points about the studies' possible flaws.

For instance, what was the macronutrient profile of these meals? It is possible that if total daily protein consumption was inadequate, and total daily carb intake was high enough to ellicit too strong of an insulin response (meaning, even if divided into 6 meals, it still resulted in too much carb per meal), then its possible that both diets were fundamentally flawed anyway.


I do not know what the macronutrient ratio was for the meals, but
I don't really see your logic because both of the diets consisted of the same amount of calories, macronutrients, etc. There was no difference between bf losses between the 3 meal group and the 6 meal group.

I agree but I am assuming that the diets contained adequate amounts or protein, and the point I made above about the different rates of protein digestion should help clarify that taking in protein every 3 hours is not necessary IMO. That is of course unless you are using whey or some other fast digesting protein as your primary protein source.



If a diet doesnt contain enough protein, and contains too many carbs, I don't imagine theres any portion control scheme (2 vs. 6 meals) that could make the diet effective at fat loss, improved SMR, lean body mass preservation/improvement, etc.

I agree and whether you are consuming 3 or 6 meals you should still be taking in adequate protein and EFAs.

fuzz
12-05-2003, 01:10 PM
^^