PDA

View Full Version : How much Protein can the body digest per hour?



rob_crossley
04-22-2006, 06:59 AM
Hi Fairly new to this forum,

But my question is how much protein can the body digest per hour?
Ive been training since I was 16 and im now 21 but my eating isnt exactly on point. Its much better than it was but I have had mixed answers about how much protein the body can take.

Cheers R. Bank$

Unreal
04-22-2006, 07:14 AM
As much as you swallow.

drew
04-22-2006, 10:02 AM
How much ya got?

SkinnySadMan
04-22-2006, 11:57 AM
Is it that myth that any more than 30 g of protein in an hour is a waste?

RedSpikeyThing
04-22-2006, 01:53 PM
I would tend to say yes it is a myth simply because I don't know where the protein would go! I mean it sits in your stomach and eventually it will get used...its the same with any other food you eat.

To answer the OP: I have no idea how much protein the "body can take", but I don't think you could eat enough to give yourself problems! Most people say at least 1 g of protein per lb of bodyweight per day is how much you should be eating.

As far as I know it doesn't matter if you eat all in one sitting, though it might make you feel sick lol

method115
04-22-2006, 09:10 PM
I'm pretty sure I read your body can only take like 85%-90% of what you take at one time. I'm not exactly sure though can't remember.

body
04-23-2006, 03:32 AM
I'm pretty sure I read your body can only take like 85%-90% of what you take at one time. I'm not exactly sure though can't remember.

its a little higher than that. around the mid 90's in normal people

Songsangnim
04-23-2006, 04:11 AM
The misinformation in this thread is terrible.

1. There is NO set rate. Period. It depends on the person

2. It depends on the amount of protein eaten. A big meal will take longer to digest than a small meal. It also depends on the macronutrients, the temperature of the food, whether it is solid or liquid...

And the myth that Mr. SkinnySadMan is talking about, not quite. The myth is more than 30 grams of protien per MEAL (not hour) is a waste. And yes it is a myth.

To the OP. This is not something you should worry over. Aim for one gram of protein per pound of bodyweight per day. Per hour is meaningless.

PredatorX
04-24-2006, 02:44 AM
To the OP. This is not something you should worry over. Aim for one gram of protein per pound of bodyweight per day. Per hour is meaningless.

I agree for the most part, but you will be better off spreading the protein out at least somewhat throughout the day, as opposed to say, eating nothing then ingesting 200 grams of protein before bed. Dont worry about eating too much protein at any one time, worry about eating too little at any one time.

Slim Schaedle
04-24-2006, 12:53 PM
I would tend to say yes it is a myth simply because I don't know where the protein would go!
Down the alimentary canal and out the anus.

(through the stomach, small intestine, large intestine)

If not absorbed, of course.

Songsangnim
04-25-2006, 01:39 AM
I agree for the most part, but you will be better off spreading the protein out at least somewhat throughout the day, as opposed to say, eating nothing then ingesting 200 grams of protein before bed. Dont worry about eating too much protein at any one time, worry about eating too little at any one time.




And I never said otherwise.

"per day" means spreading it out throughout the day.

Alex.V
04-25-2006, 07:55 AM
Down the alimentary canal and out the anus.

(through the stomach, small intestine, large intestine)

If not absorbed, of course.


Of course, this is usually only observed in terminally ill patients, or ones with severe colon/GI disorders.

Beef101
04-25-2006, 08:49 AM
Of course, this is usually only observed in terminally ill patients, or ones with severe colon/GI disorders.

also bioavailability, only 67% of the protein in your red meat is able to be utalised by the body.

Alex.V
04-25-2006, 09:04 AM
That number was totally pulled out of your ass.

Read:

http://www.jacn.org/cgi/content/full/19/suppl_2/191S

Gives you a nice background on the basics of PER, NPU, and other metrics, as well as the fate of undigested amino acids.

Davidelmo
04-25-2006, 10:42 AM
also bioavailability, only 67% of the protein in your red meat is able to be utalised by the body.

Oh man, I'd heard it was 67.53427812%... I've been protein deficient for years!!



:rolleyes:

gator
04-25-2006, 11:10 AM
They dont have any idea yet, I know of some people who are currently conducting studies on this at the University of Illinions. They are trying to see how much protein can be used at each meal and at what point does it become too much. They are also doing a couple other tests in this area too, these guys are the leaders in amino acid metabolization research.

smalls
04-25-2006, 11:37 AM
LOL, the research that the leaders in amino acid metabolization would not be conducting a study as the one you described. Maybe you screwed it up or dumbed it down considerably but the study you designed doesnt need to be done because there are too many confounding variables for the results to mean anything.
And i'm sure researchers on this topic would understand there is no limit to how much is used at each meal (btw, used for what? care to expound) It's going to depend on a number of things. So either get back to us with the actual guidelines of the study or dont post horribly generic BS.

Eszekial
04-25-2006, 02:38 PM
Smalls should have his own television show.

Slim Schaedle
04-25-2006, 05:53 PM
Of course, this is usually only observed in terminally ill patients, or ones with severe colon/GI disorders.
haha, yeah...I was just providing an alternative route

Stumprrp
04-25-2006, 06:40 PM
iono guys, i once had a 50 gram shake and 30 gram bar at the same time and got nasty gas stomach ache pains near the kidneys and the runs, lol.

PredatorX
04-25-2006, 08:27 PM
iono guys, i once had a 50 gram shake and 30 gram bar at the same time and got nasty gas stomach ache pains near the kidneys and the runs, lol.

My flatmate consumed 1kg of chicken a few nights ago, about 250grams of protein and 100 grams of fat in a single meal. He felt a bit bloated, but didnt suffer any adverse effects.

Beef101
04-25-2006, 08:36 PM
That number was totally pulled out of your ass.

Read:

http://www.jacn.org/cgi/content/full/19/suppl_2/191S

Gives you a nice background on the basics of PER, NPU, and other metrics, as well as the fate of undigested amino acids.

ok ok, 67% might not be enirely acurate for meat, however like ur article said, NPU is dependent on many physiological factors and im willing to bet just like everything else there is genetic and cultural aspects involved also, However here in Australia the Australian-Dietry-guidlines say that as a benchmark the average NPU of meat is .75-.80www.nhmrc.gov.au/publications/_files/n33.pdf

cts122
04-25-2006, 09:21 PM
If we don't know where the limit is or don't know if it makes a difference why not consume all cals in 3 or less meals as long as you are capable of eating that many calories in only a few meals.

I'm not second guessing anyone, just wondering why this is.

RedSpikeyThing
04-25-2006, 09:56 PM
If we don't know where the limit is or don't know if it makes a difference why not consume all cals in 3 or less meals as long as you are capable of eating that many calories in only a few meals.

I'm not second guessing anyone, just wondering why this is.

Ignoring the whole protein debate for a sec, someone who is eating 6000 cals is going to have trouble eating 3 meals of 2000 cals...thats a lot in one sitting. Also, it keeps your digestive system going, which is supposed to be good for you.

If you are on a cut, you want to get the most out of your precious few calories, so spreading them out is usually a good idea.

smalls
04-25-2006, 10:09 PM
Smalls should have his own television show.


LOL. I agree, but it would most likely get cancelled cuz it would be boring.



Ignoring the whole protein debate for a sec, someone who is eating 6000 cals is going to have trouble eating 3 meals of 2000 cals...thats a lot in one sitting. Also, it keeps your digestive system going, which is supposed to be good for you.

If you are on a cut, you want to get the most out of your precious few calories, so spreading them out is usually a good idea.


Agreed. But when it comes down to it, 3 meals or 6 meals arent going to make a difference except for comfort. People overemphasize the awesomeness of many small meals.

Holto
04-26-2006, 02:56 PM
If we don't know where the limit is or don't know if it makes a difference why not consume all cals in 3 or less meals as long as you are capable of eating that many calories in only a few meals.

I'm not second guessing anyone, just wondering why this is.

Answer:

The Amino Acid Pool

The human body has no means to store protein. When amino's enter the blood the amino acid pool increases. When the amino acid pool increases faster than it's depleted the body converts amino's to energy.

So basically the mags have it backwards. We don't want a huge rush of amino's because they will not all get used to build muscle.

The body slowly takes amino's from the amino acid pool to build muscle. The idea is to replace them at the rate they are used. The best way to do this is slow digesting protein (At Large) and frequent meals.

Eszekial
04-26-2006, 03:24 PM
Holto, your insight is very helpfull.

Edit: Although leaves me asking more questions - :D

smalls
04-26-2006, 03:32 PM
Answer:

The Amino Acid Pool

The human body has no means to store protein. When amino's enter the blood the amino acid pool increases. When the amino acid pool increases faster than it's depleted the body converts amino's to energy.

So basically the mags have it backwards. We don't want a huge rush of amino's because they will not all get used to build muscle.

The body slowly takes amino's from the amino acid pool to build muscle. The idea is to replace them at the rate they are used. The best way to do this is slow digesting protein (At Large) and frequent meals.


It's a good point but only to a certain extent. Cuz if your diet is set up half descent it will be digesting over a long period of time. Meaning the amino acid pool will be replenished as the protein is digested. And bigger meals mean slower digestion, so your body kind of does it for you.

Not saying frequent meals are a bad thing it's just less meals isnt really a bad thing either.

Davidelmo
04-26-2006, 05:40 PM
Yes, it all depends on what you mean by "used"

All protein will be USED somehow. your body isn't just going to ignore it or waste it.

No chance will all of that protein go towards muscle building. But it might go towards gluconeogenesis (making glucose) or lipogenesis (fat storage) etc.

My advice would be not to worry about it and just eat your total protein requirement for the day. Spacing it out probably *would* be better but as others have said, it's going to take a while to digest anyway so I doubt it matters if you eat 3 meals of 6 meals.

Jordanbcool
04-27-2006, 09:04 AM
Yes, it all depends on what you mean by "used"

All protein will be USED somehow. your body isn't just going to ignore it or waste it.

No chance will all of that protein go towards muscle building. But it might go towards gluconeogenesis (making glucose) or lipogenesis (fat storage) etc.

My advice would be not to worry about it and just eat your total protein requirement for the day. Spacing it out probably *would* be better but as others have said, it's going to take a while to digest anyway so I doubt it matters if you eat 3 meals of 6 meals.

I dont know why everyone is saying is dosent really matter if you eat 3 big meals or 6 smaller ones. I've always gotten out that you should always eat more frequent smaller meals. I always think of your body as a fire. If you throw in a huge log the fire will get bogged down and will take longer to use the food (wood or energy if that makes it easier). If you give it more but smaller logs your body can stay at a more consistant state constantly being supplied nutrients and energy. I dont like to get into all the numbers and all that I just like to use common reasoning. I mean if i shove down a 3000 calorie meal my body is going to store a ton of that in fat for later. Also your teaching your body the gorge/starve stages which is terrible for your metabolism. It really does count more about calories and WHAT you eat. But im a huge believer that most of the time; timeing is what people go wrong when they have good diets and they still arent looking any better.

-jordan

P.S. Just my two cents. And im a horrible speller

smalls
04-27-2006, 10:38 AM
I mean if i shove down a 3000 calorie meal my body is going to store a ton of that in fat for later. Also your teaching your body the gorge/starve stages which is terrible for your metabolism. It really does count more about calories and WHAT you eat. But im a huge believer that most of the time; timeing is what people go wrong when they have good diets and they still arent looking any better.



Why is it that you constantly post completely incorrect info, as a complete newb, with no educational or anacdotal background as fact?

Prove even half of what you posted about and I'll give you a cookie. What you think and the truth has yet to be the same thing from any of the posts I have seen you make.

Getting more meals is good for plenty of reasons, metabolism, stoking a fire, and minizing fat gain are none of them.

These are not opinion based subjects bro, keep that stuff to general chat and what your favorite foo foo tri blaster is.

Jordanbcool
04-27-2006, 10:51 AM
Why is it that you constantly post completely incorrect info, as a complete newb, with no educational or anacdotal background as fact?

Prove even half of what you posted about and I'll give you a cookie. What you think and the truth has yet to be the same thing from any of the posts I have seen you make.

Getting more meals is good for plenty of reasons, metabolism, stoking a fire, and minizing fat gain are none of them.

These are not opinion based subjects bro, keep that stuff to general chat and what your favorite foo foo tri blaster is.

So your telling me your metabolism slows with each meal you eat?

Your telling me i'd gain less fat if i ate one large meal then if i ate 6 smaller meals.

I'd really like to hear your logic on what you just said cus it sounds like a bunch of BS.

I've never ever heard anyone say what you just said. I've never heard anyone say that the reasons i listed as being benifits of eating more smaller frequent meals were not true. Obviously i said calories and what you eat are more important but timing is a HUGE part of a diet. I think everyone on this board would agree with that statement.

-jordan

smalls
04-27-2006, 11:34 AM
So your telling me your metabolism slows with each meal you eat?


Your telling me i'd gain less fat if i ate one large meal then if i ate 6 smaller meals.

I'd really like to hear your logic on what you just said cus it sounds like a bunch of BS.

I've never ever heard anyone say what you just said. I've never heard anyone say that the reasons i listed as being benifits of eating more smaller frequent meals were not true. Obviously i said calories and what you eat are more important but timing is a HUGE part of a diet. I think everyone on this board would agree with that statement.

-jordan

As to the first question, I said the exact opposite. You insinuated that more meals = increased metabolism, which has been proven false. The metabolism doesnt react that quckly to a "gorge/starve" system. I would drudge up the studies done on fasting and metabolism, but YOUR the one who needs to prove your points, as you decided to come here with specifics and not back them up.

1 meal vs 6 has never been brought up except by you. I stated the idea of 3 vs 6, so WTF are you talking about. And no you will not store more fat with 3 meals than 6. Just like even you said, CALORIES are what is more important.

Timing has it's place, but to say it has a HUGE part do diet is ludicrous. Total calories are a HUGE part, macro breakdown is a HUGE part. Timing is probably the least important aspect of diet after everything else is taken into consideration.

Instead of continuing your rampage of opinion based ignorance and "this is what everyone else says" how bout you actually research these topics. Or how the body digests, stores, and utilizes nutrients. You sound like a muscle and fitness mag bro.

ddegroff
04-27-2006, 12:48 PM
Getting more meals is good for plenty of reasons, metabolism, stoking a fire, and minizing fat gain are none of them.


what are these reasons? (just curious)

smalls
04-27-2006, 12:56 PM
From a dieting perspective the greatest benefit for me is it keeps you satiated. Meaning less chance of hunger and cheating, less discomfort. Same thing for bulking really, eating more smaller meals meals usually leads to less discomfort from bloating. It's really really hard for me to get 8000 cals in anything less than 7 meals. 8 or 9 is what I aim for though. Also keeping blood sugar levels stable (although the body kind of does this on it's own, meal sizing does help slightly)
Also some people have digestive issues and eating less at a time helps them, this isnt a problem for me though.

Jordanbcool
04-27-2006, 12:58 PM
As to the first question, I said the exact opposite. You insinuated that more meals = increased metabolism, which has been proven false. The metabolism doesnt react that quckly to a "gorge/starve" system. I would drudge up the studies done on fasting and metabolism, but YOUR the one who needs to prove your points, as you decided to come here with specifics and not back them up.

1 meal vs 6 has never been brought up except by you. I stated the idea of 3 vs 6, so WTF are you talking about. And no you will not store more fat with 3 meals than 6. Just like even you said, CALORIES are what is more important.

Timing has it's place, but to say it has a HUGE part do diet is ludicrous. Total calories are a HUGE part, macro breakdown is a HUGE part. Timing is probably the least important aspect of diet after everything else is taken into consideration.

Instead of continuing your rampage of opinion based ignorance and "this is what everyone else says" how bout you actually research these topics. Or how the body digests, stores, and utilizes nutrients. You sound like a muscle and fitness mag bro.

Dude your an ass.

Please someone else (slim or built) respond to my post because i seriously dont know what "smalls" is talking about. To say your metabolism is not affected at all by how often you eat sounds ******ed to me. I've looked and found 100000000000000 sites that back up what I said but they arent hardcore studies that he wants. So before I spend hours trying to give him a link i'd like someone else to say something.

-jordan

HOLY CRAP R3TARD IS BLOCKED AS A CURSE WORD BUT ASS ISNT. whos running this site..

ddegroff
04-27-2006, 12:59 PM
Smalls:
Cool thanks, thats what i was thinking (wasn't sure if they're were more).

ddegroff
04-27-2006, 01:05 PM
jordan:

Please read (http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/cabi/bjn/1993/00000070/00000001/art00013?token=004c19216cd038fc24e26634a492f2530332976335a666f3a7b2f53406376316b65477d663f1). Its an old study but it'll do the trick.

smalls
04-27-2006, 01:07 PM
Dude your an ass.

Please someone else (slim or built) respond to my post because i seriously dont know what "smalls" is talking about. To say your metabolism is not affected at all by how often you eat sounds ******ed to me. I've looked and found 100000000000000 sites that back up what I said but they arent hardcore studies that he wants. So before I spend hours trying to give him a link i'd like someone else to say something.

-jordan

HOLY CRAP R3TARD IS BLOCKED AS A CURSE WORD BUT ASS ISNT. whos running this site..

Who cares what it SOUNDS like. Go learn something, Built and Slim dont have all the answers (they would be the first to admit this, intelligent people always are). And I hope they do contribute.

Jordan, why are there no studies backing those things up. Do you know how to use pubmed.com. Try it out, it should really help out your situation.

The many meals=faster metabolism is an old myth that has been debunked for ages. Only muscle mags continue to perpetuate such garbage. Well and all those sites you read, I guess. This isnt even something to argue about, it's really nothing to worry about, but it drives me nuts when people post opinionated garbage as fact because thats what they have HEARD all their life.

And how bout we keep the name calling to a minimum eh, no need to test out the censors, they work just fine.

Jorge Sanchez
04-27-2006, 01:11 PM
Dude your an ass.

Please someone else (slim or built) respond to my post because i seriously dont know what "smalls" is talking about. To say your metabolism is not affected at all by how often you eat sounds ******ed to me. I've looked and found 100000000000000 sites that back up what I said but they arent hardcore studies that he wants. So before I spend hours trying to give him a link i'd like someone else to say something.

-jordan

HOLY CRAP R3TARD IS BLOCKED AS A CURSE WORD BUT ASS ISNT. whos running this site..

It has been proven (repeatedly) that 3 vs. 6 meals does not have a significant effect on the metabolism.

I think Smalls' point is that you should refrain from posting if you need other people to come and back up your opinions -- eventhough I doubt anyone would on this particular subject.

Jordanbcool
04-27-2006, 01:28 PM
It has been proven (repeatedly) that 3 vs. 6 meals does not have a significant effect on the metabolism.

I think Smalls' point is that you should refrain from posting if you need other people to come and back up your opinions -- eventhough I doubt anyone would on this particular subject.

Yea but seriously. What do we know except what other people tell us?

Nothing at all.

I've been raised and lead to believe that your metabolism ALWAYS increases each time you each something with calories in it.

My point is that I thought I was posting common knowledge/fact. If every textbook told us we were the fifth planet from the sun who could argue?

I mean for gazillions of years we thought the earth was the center of the universe..

-jordan

Jorge Sanchez
04-27-2006, 01:32 PM
That's true to a certain extent. The fact of the matter is that I have been told, by several scientific studies, that increasing the number of meals I eat will not increase my metabolism. I have been told, by several excercise magazines, that increasing the number of meals will increase my metabolism.

I will accept what I learn from the former everytime. Just because people believe something to be true, and repeat it often, does not make it so. For a long time people thought the Sun revolved around the Earth. Then science proved it to be the other way around.

This forum is good because it dispells myths by basing advice on scientifically verifiable facts rather than simply perpetuating a myth because it is what everyone says.

ddegroff
04-27-2006, 01:35 PM
jordan did you look at the article I posted? i want to read that.

Jordanbcool
04-27-2006, 01:45 PM
jordan did you look at the article I posted? i want to read that.

Yea I just did. It explains everything.

-jordan

ddegroff
04-27-2006, 01:47 PM
cool, i found that on pubmed.com its an awesome site (answers a lot of questions).

Jordanbcool
04-27-2006, 04:17 PM
cool, i found that on pubmed.com its an awesome site (answers a lot of questions).

Why does everyone still say it affects metabolism when it dosent and in this day in age we have science to prove that.

-jordan

ddegroff
04-27-2006, 04:44 PM
we'll the first place its probably mind over matter. the first time i heard of 3v6meals was the body for life diet. Most diets also claim few smaller meals is better than the "3 square meals" a day. What a lot of people don't realise is its the exercise thats increasing they're metabolism, not how many meals they are eating. I would say a lot of what we "hear" is Diet hype, and a gymic to sell they're product.

Jordanbcool
04-27-2006, 07:13 PM
we'll the first place its probably mind over matter. the first time i heard of 3v6meals was the body for life diet. Most diets also claim few smaller meals is better than the "3 square meals" a day. What a lot of people don't realise is its the exercise thats increasing they're metabolism, not how many meals they are eating. I would say a lot of what we "hear" is Diet hype, and a gymic to sell they're product.

I agree kinda. I think eating more smaller meals is just better in general because your getting more consistant nutrients and you wont be hungry all the time if your always eating smaller healthier meals. Most people eat 3 huge meals and gorge themselves.

I was seriously surprised when you guys said eating more smaller meals doesnt increase your metabolism. EVERYTHING i've read said otherwise. My fitness magazines, an underground bodybuilding site and a dietician even said so!

-jordan

Slim Schaedle
04-27-2006, 07:51 PM
Please someone else (slim or built) respond
I think smalls in handling this well.



Built and Slim dont have all the answers (they would be the first to admit this, intelligent people always are).
that's right, I sure don't.

Jordanbcool
04-27-2006, 08:11 PM
Dosent your metabolism increase when you eat more calories though??? Im really confused about all this.

ddegroff
04-27-2006, 10:42 PM
^ i think your forgetting a very important variable. EXERCISE! Like I said most people start eating 4-6meals a day at the same time as they start going to the gym. I think the time in the gym is the more important thought. More muscles = more calories burned. So after a month of eating 4-6meals and exercising they start to notice they can eat more. Most assume its the meals.

smalls
04-27-2006, 11:32 PM
Dosent your metabolism increase when you eat more calories though??? Im really confused about all this.

In simple terms, kinda. Your Basal Metabolic rate is set by a number of things. Total intake of Calories is something that can effect it (TOTAL cals). Also there is TEF thermic effect of food, which is "increment in energy expenditure above resting metabolic rate due to the cost of processing food for storage and use" Basically the increased demand taken in just to digest and use the food you eat. One big meal means one big TEF and many smaller meals mean many smaller TEF. That's a horrible way to describe it but I gotta get back to work.

Calories effect your metabolic rate, but it takes days of dieting before this effect takes place and even then the amount of total calories over periods of time are what truly effect it.

sCaRz*Of*PaiN
04-28-2006, 01:21 AM
Dosent your metabolism increase when you eat more calories though??? Im really confused about all this.Partially due to thermogenesis. But it won't make a damn bit of difference for weight loss if you're taking in more calories than you're expending.

Holto
04-28-2006, 09:38 AM
Im really confused about all this.

Stop reading fitness mags. They are full of innacuracies.

Jordanbcool
04-28-2006, 11:19 AM
In simple terms, kinda. Your Basal Metabolic rate is set by a number of things. Total intake of Calories is something that can effect it (TOTAL cals). Also there is TEF thermic effect of food, which is "increment in energy expenditure above resting metabolic rate due to the cost of processing food for storage and use" Basically the increased demand taken in just to digest and use the food you eat. One big meal means one big TEF and many smaller meals mean many smaller TEF. That's a horrible way to describe it but I gotta get back to work.

Calories effect your metabolic rate, but it takes days of dieting before this effect takes place and even then the amount of total calories over periods of time are what truly effect it.

Then if what your saying is true it seems your agreeing with what I said previously about eating more smaller meals then eating one large one as your metabolism would HAVE to increase to be able to simply process the food. Obviously calories is the bigger factor, but an increase.....is an increase.

Im not trying to be a pain im just still hard-pressed to find out that the body would not raise your metabolism each time you eat. It just dosent seem to make sense to me. Your metabolism regulates how you burn/store energy. It would make sense that it would have to increase (even slightly) to handle more food that is being put into its system.

As to HOLTO. The amount of relevant information I get in some of those magazines is vital for my workouts. To date this will be the ONLY "mistake" or "myth" i've found in my muscle and fitness magazines. Everything else from alcohol consumption to lat rows has been right and has helped me countless times. I guess you just have to know what to overlook (the advertisements) and what to focus on (excersizes mostly). I think im one of the few if not only person on this board that has a favorite magazine that im loyal to and look forward to reading each month. But meh its all up to whatever floats your boat.

-jordan

smalls
04-28-2006, 11:23 AM
One big meal means one big TEF and many smaller meals mean many smaller TEF. That's a horrible way to describe it but I gotta get back to work.



Read over that again. Basicaly your looking at
5 X 3
vs 3 X 5

3 large meals have larger metabolic demand in order to digest, or 5 smaller meals that have slightly smaller metabolic demands (but more of these demands throughout the day) From a mathmatical perspective you end up with 15.

I'm a freakin math wizz.

Holto
04-28-2006, 11:30 AM
Smalls meals cause small increases in metabolic rate.

Large meals cause large increases in meatabolic rate.

Over a given day the *total boost* is equal wether you eat 3 or 6 meals, 2 or five meals.

The fact that the people who write magazines are unaware of this well known clinical data is a good indicator that they don't know what they are talking about.

Most fitness articles are based on other fitness articles. The same myths keep popping up. How can the average Joe (or Jordan) not believe something they read hundreds of times?

Best block, no be there.



As to HOLTO. The amount of relevant information I get in some of those magazines is vital for my workouts. To date this will be the ONLY "mistake" or "myth" i've found in my muscle and fitness magazines.

That is the problem.

Each issue has about 100 statements/proclomations that are dead wrong.

You have stated tons of myths on this site as fact and been called out for it. The problem is you are very evasive and tend not to listen.

Jordanbcool
04-28-2006, 02:47 PM
Smalls meals cause small increases in metabolic rate.

Large meals cause large increases in meatabolic rate.

Over a given day the *total boost* is equal wether you eat 3 or 6 meals, 2 or five meals.

The fact that the people who write magazines are unaware of this well known clinical data is a good indicator that they don't know what they are talking about.

Most fitness articles are based on other fitness articles. The same myths keep popping up. How can the average Joe (or Jordan) not believe something they read hundreds of times?

Best block, no be there.



That is the problem.

Each issue has about 100 statements/proclomations that are dead wrong.

You have stated tons of myths on this site as fact and been called out for it. The problem is you are very evasive and tend not to listen.

Im talking about one magazine right now and most of the stuff i brought up on this site was from dumb friends rather then anything i've read.

Anyways then it really depends if the smaller meals and larger meals you are eating add up calorie wise. If they do not add up like they do in clinical trials and such then the results are obviously skewed. I'd never use the 3x5 or 5x3 anology when your talking about food. Unless you count out everything to the last ounce/calorie.

-jordan

Davidelmo
04-28-2006, 04:49 PM
Hey jordan.. since I started all of this with your quoting my post, I guess I'd better chip in ;)

Honestly I think the "timing" factor is overplayed.

There ARE benefits of more small meals - especially if you're sticking to a strict cutting diet - things like satiety, hunger etc. Meal timing does have an influence on some factors but (as I'm sure you now know from our last huge discussion together) even if you ate one huge meal of 3000kcal you wouldn't gain weight if your maintenance is 5000kcal. Your body still has to get that energy from somewhere, so you wouldn't store a load of it as fat for later.

Smaller meals also stop you from feeliing starving and then binge eating later etc etc

I would also be willing to bet that effects on your metabolism will be negligible. There are studies out there about meal frequency (3 vs 6) that show there is no difference between them. You said yourself, CALORIES are more important. You wont get fat in calorie deficit.


I dont know why everyone is saying is dosent really matter if you eat 3 big meals or 6 smaller ones. I've always gotten out that you should always eat more frequent smaller meals. I always think of your body as a fire. If you throw in a huge log the fire will get bogged down and will take longer to use the food (wood or energy if that makes it easier). If you give it more but smaller logs your body can stay at a more consistant state constantly being supplied nutrients and energy. I dont like to get into all the numbers and all that I just like to use common reasoning. I mean if i shove down a 3000 calorie meal my body is going to store a ton of that in fat for later. Also your teaching your body the gorge/starve stages which is terrible for your metabolism. It really does count more about calories and WHAT you eat. But im a huge believer that most of the time; timeing is what people go wrong when they have good diets and they still arent looking any better.

-jordan

P.S. Just my two cents. And im a horrible speller

Jordanbcool
04-28-2006, 06:31 PM
Hey jordan.. since I started all of this with your quoting my post, I guess I'd better chip in ;)

Honestly I think the "timing" factor is overplayed.

There ARE benefits of more small meals - especially if you're sticking to a strict cutting diet - things like satiety, hunger etc. Meal timing does have an influence on some factors but (as I'm sure you now know from our last huge discussion together) even if you ate one huge meal of 3000kcal you wouldn't gain weight if your maintenance is 5000kcal. Your body still has to get that energy from somewhere, so you wouldn't store a load of it as fat for later.

Smaller meals also stop you from feeliing starving and then binge eating later etc etc

I would also be willing to bet that effects on your metabolism will be negligible. There are studies out there about meal frequency (3 vs 6) that show there is no difference between them. You said yourself, CALORIES are more important. You wont get fat in calorie deficit.

I know but this is more on metabolism in general not really about calorie defictis and what not.

This is what im getting out of all this. And please correct me if im wrong.

Your metabolism DOES increase each time you eat, however it is not the simple fact that you are eating more often but more of how many calories you eat per meal. Lets say if i ate 2 meals consisting of 1500 calories each or if i consumed 6 meals of 500 calories. You guys are saying the end result would be the same in that I would not burn any MORE calories just because I split them up into smaller meals but rather i'd burn the SAME calories as if I ate it all at once. I guess thats what most magazines/people mean when they say eat more often because it keeps your metabolism elevated. However, I was under the assumption you actually burned MORE (when eating more often I should say) calories the more you ate (because your body is simply trying to keep up).

Now when people cut CALORIES very low then your metabolism would slow to a crawl. An example of this would be if I ate 1500 calories a day in lettuce. Everyone knows that you'd be barfing your brains out if you tried to eat all that at once. However if you spaced it out during a whole day it could be done. You would feel full, but your metabolism would slow because of the calorie drop.

Ok it may sound confusing but hopefully everyone can deduce what im saying. Basically its the calories themselves that increase your metabolism not the simple fact that you are eating something (like if i drank 50 gallons of water a day. i'd feel full but my metabolism would suffer.)

Just a few examples...i dunno. Please comment. Im late for a party so im out.

Only 4 beers for me :( :whiner: Cutting sucks!

-jordan

Jordanbcool
04-29-2006, 12:47 AM
Wow no one at all replied to my comment?

Bump till someone replys to it.

Also. Tonight I didnt drink any beer. Good news for my cut/body i guess.

Bad news. I got rubbed out by some douche. Working out has not got me women at all so far. Maybe it will change this summer but god damned. I always seem to get out gunned by anyone with a dick. I have a nice car, good body, smell good...the works baby the works.:bang: :bang:

What a terrible night. Hopefully she'll still let me take her out to dinner..

-jordan

smalls
04-29-2006, 12:56 AM
I know but this is more on metabolism in general not really about calorie defictis and what not.

This is what im getting out of all this. And please correct me if im wrong.

Your metabolism DOES increase each time you eat, however it is not the simple fact that you are eating more often but more of how many calories you eat per meal. Lets say if i ate 2 meals consisting of 1500 calories each or if i consumed 6 meals of 500 calories. You guys are saying the end result would be the same in that I would not burn any MORE calories just because I split them up into smaller meals but rather i'd burn the SAME calories as if I ate it all at once. I guess thats what most magazines/people mean when they say eat more often because it keeps your metabolism elevated. However, I was under the assumption you actually burned MORE (when eating more often I should say) calories the more you ate (because your body is simply trying to keep up).

Now when people cut CALORIES very low then your metabolism would slow to a crawl. An example of this would be if I ate 1500 calories a day in lettuce. Everyone knows that you'd be barfing your brains out if you tried to eat all that at once. However if you spaced it out during a whole day it could be done. You would feel full, but your metabolism would slow because of the calorie drop.

Ok it may sound confusing but hopefully everyone can deduce what im saying. Basically its the calories themselves that increase your metabolism not the simple fact that you are eating something (like if i drank 50 gallons of water a day. i'd feel full but my metabolism would suffer.)

Just a few examples...i dunno. Please comment. Im late for a party so im out.

Only 4 beers for me :( :whiner: Cutting sucks!

-jordan


From a basic perspective I think you pretty much nailed it right there.

Jordanbcool
04-29-2006, 10:24 AM
From a basic perspective I think you pretty much nailed it right there.

Ok good.

-jordan

Holto
04-29-2006, 04:53 PM
...it's like ....sniffle.....he's...growing up ....so...fast....

Good on you Jordan.

People who are paid to write fitness articles are not paid to dispense factual information. They are paid to put a spin on common topics.

This can't be conducive to good learning, good marketing perhaps but you must realize that magazines are not in the education business.

Buy books instead. If you want to look at hotties, use google.

sCaRz*Of*PaiN
04-29-2006, 06:01 PM
...it's like ....sniffle.....he's...growing up ....so...fast....

Good on you Jordan.

People who are paid to write fitness articles are not paid to dispense factual information. They are paid to put a spin on common topics.

This can't be conducive to good learning, good marketing perhaps but you must realize that magazines are not in the education business.

Buy books instead. If you want to look at hotties, use google.:withstupi

Jordanbcool
04-29-2006, 09:06 PM
...it's like ....sniffle.....he's...growing up ....so...fast....

Good on you Jordan.

People who are paid to write fitness articles are not paid to dispense factual information. They are paid to put a spin on common topics.

This can't be conducive to good learning, good marketing perhaps but you must realize that magazines are not in the education business.

Buy books instead. If you want to look at hotties, use google.

Well i mean on this certain topic they arent really wrong but are oversimplifying it. Saying that your metabolism increases everytime you eat for the most part is true but not all the time. Like the examples i gave of eating lettuce or water....or anything else with little to no calories. Your metabolism does not increase simply because you are physically putting something in your mouth but rather increases because of the calories you consume. It is actually pretty misleading because I was always under the assumption that your metabolism increased no matter what went in your mouth simply to process the food or liquid (water, salt come to mind. things that you can eat/drink with no calories).

In this actual thread I made the mistake of confusing that and the number of meals in a day in relation to metabolism. O well, now I know. Like I said, this site makes everything click. Good job everyone.

-jordan

Holto
04-30-2006, 10:48 AM
Well i mean on this certain topic they arent really wrong but are oversimplifying it.

I get what you are saying, however, I have read about 10,000 times in fitness articles that you will lose fat faster by eating more frequently. This is false.

.

Jordanbcool
04-30-2006, 03:40 PM
I get what you are saying, however, I have read about 10,000 times in fitness articles that you will lose fat faster by eating more frequently. This is false.

.

I really think it depends on what magazine. I only read muscle and fitness. I dont know if i've already stated this but they have a great history for being a very reliable and informative magazine. Not only that but they've been around for a looong time. Mostly i get that magazine for the color photos explaining different excersizes. Thats my bread and butter. The black and white pictures and small photos you get online dont cut it. Plus I can read them whenever i need some time to kill. Like at the docs.

-jordan

Optimum08
04-30-2006, 04:04 PM
I really think it depends on what magazine. I only read muscle and fitness. I dont know if i've already stated this but they have a great history for being a very reliable and informative magazine. Not only that but they've been around for a looong time. Mostly i get that magazine for the color photos explaining different excersizes. Thats my bread and butter. The black and white pictures and small photos you get online dont cut it. Plus I can read them whenever i need some time to kill. Like at the docs.

-jordan

no matter how informative or what a magazines' history is, the magazine is still there to promote or sell something, because thats how they make money. thus i believe it foolish to base all of ones basic information off of a BB mag. maybe this is why you always post incorrect information in threads and then proceed to not believe when other members correct your blatant misinformation.

Jordanbcool
04-30-2006, 05:16 PM
no matter how informative or what a magazines' history is, the magazine is still there to promote or sell something, because thats how they make money. thus i believe it foolish to base all of ones basic information off of a BB mag. maybe this is why you always post incorrect information in threads and then proceed to not believe when other members correct your blatant misinformation.

I dunno about all that. Plus thats what this sites for.

Learning.

-jordan


Good posts Jordan.

To the original poster:

If your not counting cals you will put on more fat than you want to.


^^

I actually like this post, Jordan, good points for the overanalysers among us. (aka me)


Nice post jordan. hehe wasn't that kid "Little hercules"? Genetic freak.

Crunch - How tall are you ?


wow, for once i actually agree with jordanbcool!

:) I do have some good posts every once in a while....

Optimum08
04-30-2006, 05:29 PM
im not saying you don't have anything to offer to this board, but some of the "information" you put up as answers to peoples questions, is blatantly wrong, and when someone calls you out on it you proceed to get very defensive and call for scientific backup, when you yourself are the one that actually needs the backup for your claims.

Jordanbcool
04-30-2006, 05:39 PM
im not saying you don't have anything to offer to this board, but some of the "information" you put up as answers to peoples questions, is blatantly wrong, and when someone calls you out on it you proceed to get very defensive and call for scientific backup, when you yourself are the one that actually needs the backup for your claims.

Because I dont pull things out of my ass. I mean alot of people might think that but I try and read up as much as possible. Sometimes the information I get is just plain wrong. Sometimes it isnt wrong but I misinterpret it and start saying things about it that are wrong (like in this thread).

Its like another thread concerning the biovalibility or whatever of eggs when you eat them raw vs. cooking them. I've read a few articles from certified doctors that disagreed with some of the people on this forum who were right. I just blame it on mis-information. For every right idea theres about 20 articles of the wrong idea. I've learned that alot while joining here.

-jordan

Optimum08
04-30-2006, 07:30 PM
Because I dont pull things out of my ass. I mean alot of people might think that but I try and read up as much as possible. Sometimes the information I get is just plain wrong. Sometimes it isnt wrong but I misinterpret it and start saying things about it that are wrong (like in this thread).

Its like another thread concerning the biovalibility or whatever of eggs when you eat them raw vs. cooking them. I've read a few articles from certified doctors that disagreed with some of the people on this forum who were right. I just blame it on mis-information. For every right idea theres about 20 articles of the wrong idea. I've learned that alot while joining here.

-jordan

in total agreement with that statement, now that i know that your not just pulling stuff out of your ass, and you've admitted to where you've gotten misconstrued evidence etc. you have earned my respect (take that however you want). that is what this site is for, is to fix the misconceptions.

Jordanbcool
04-30-2006, 07:57 PM
in total agreement with that statement, now that i know that your not just pulling stuff out of your ass, and you've admitted to where you've gotten misconstrued evidence etc. you have earned my respect (take that however you want). that is what this site is for, is to fix the misconceptions.

I mean; really everyone out there is just trying to help. Im one of those people. I posted in this thread to be helpful. But if I were posting an actual article, i'd be doing TONS of research and have my sources in order before I'd even consider making a website or article. I really think there should be a seal of approval by some agency that monitors the truthfulness of a website. Kinda like a "seal of freshness" on food nowadays. Something thats easy to find and shows you right then and there that everything in that site/article is good. The websites would be checked with a fine tooth and comb to make sure no misleading information is put out. I really think the government should do that. It would make the world so much better. It also wouldnt stop people from making their own articles but they wouldnt cause so much frustration by posting stupid stuff. Just a thought.

-jordan

Jorge Sanchez
04-30-2006, 08:18 PM
It's called critical thinking.

Jordanbcool
04-30-2006, 08:54 PM
It's called critical thinking.

Like I said. We only know what people tell us. So its really not that easy. Just because you have sources does not by any means make the information you write anymore real. I've done college papers before where i've actually made up a source or two. No joke. Was i caught? No. I mean dont get me wrong sources are a great indication of the information being authentic. But how many people (excluding us) actually read the peoples sources? Hardly anyone. Plus when you have certified doctors telling you something why argue? They went to college for YEARS to be called a doctor but again that does not make them all knowing. The basic flaw is us being human and making mistakes/being lazy. The website agency i proposed would not be immune from that but it would be the closest thing to it. I just wish there was a bigger push for factual knowledge then internet freedom. I think one person said it best.

"Take everything with a grain of salt"

Something like that. But yea, i've made my point.

-jordan

ddegroff
04-30-2006, 09:22 PM
doctors hardly know anything about nutrition, most have a intro class and thats about it. but i see where your going with this.

Jorge Sanchez
04-30-2006, 09:34 PM
That's what critical thinking is for. In fact, I think you just unwittingly demonstrated it.

Jordanbcool
05-01-2006, 07:20 AM
That's what critical thinking is for. In fact, I think you just unwittingly demonstrated it.

Im starting to critically think you read absolutly nothing that I posted.

I'd define critical thinking as thinking outside the "box".

Of course one must reason or find out rather what the "box" actually is, before you can think outside it.

-jordan

Holto
05-01-2006, 10:04 AM
I'd define critical thinking as thinking outside the "box".


Instead of coming up with your own definition why not take 10 seconds and google it.

This is a classic example of being pre-conclusive. You read something in a magazine and decide it's correct. Well if 25 different authors agree it must be scientific fact. You pull stuff out and post it all the time.

You need to get a system for authenticating information. Don't be pre-conslusive, gather the facts.

----------------------------------------------------------------

I've been reading M&F since you were in diapers. In the industry it's called Myth and Fiction for a reason.

I still pick up an issue once or twice a year. Updates on who won the Olympia and what not.

If you think it's a good source of reliable information it is definitely screwing you up.

Do you think it's a conicidence that ALL the heavy vets here don't consider it scientifically accurate?

Jordanbcool
05-01-2006, 10:45 AM
Instead of coming up with your own definition why not take 10 seconds and google it.

This is a classic example of being pre-conclusive. You read something in a magazine and decide it's correct. Well if 25 different authors agree it must be scientific fact. You pull stuff out and post it all the time.

You need to get a system for authenticating information. Don't be pre-conslusive, gather the facts.

----------------------------------------------------------------

I've been reading M&F since you were in diapers. In the industry it's called Myth and Fiction for a reason.

I still pick up an issue once or twice a year. Updates on who won the Olympia and what not.

If you think it's a good source of reliable information it is definitely screwing you up.

Do you think it's a conicidence that ALL the heavy vets here don't consider it scientifically accurate?


I doubt I need a magazine to define critical thinking. Since you seem to know what it is why dont you give us one of your expert examples. My post is geared more towards the internet. This pretty much has nothing to do with that magazine.

For the record, nothing said on this forum has ever gotten me to stop reading muscle and fitness. Its a personal choice. Leave it be because its not going to change. Like I said the information I get is wrong but I have NOT gotten any wrong information to date (or atleast that i posted) from those magazines.

You are fighting a losing battle. I can reason with facts but its you and everyone on this forums opinion that M&F is a poor magazine. It just is. So just let it be.

To say that magazine has nothing to offer is just wrong. Atleast I think it is. I already told you guys I use it for the color photos of different excersizes.

-jordan

gator
05-01-2006, 01:05 PM
LOL, the research that the leaders in amino acid metabolization would not be conducting a study as the one you described. Maybe you screwed it up or dumbed it down considerably but the study you designed doesnt need to be done because there are too many confounding variables for the results to mean anything.
And i'm sure researchers on this topic would understand there is no limit to how much is used at each meal (btw, used for what? care to expound) It's going to depend on a number of things. So either get back to us with the actual guidelines of the study or dont post horribly generic BS.

If you dont want to believe me thats fine layne Norton (grad student at Illinois and bodybuilder) along with Dr. Donald K. laymen a professor at Illinios and regarded as the leader in amino acid metabolization are either currently undertaking this study or will be doing it. Your right it is very complex, they expect this to take over 2 years to complete.

here is a little bit of info http://www.nutrsci.uiuc.edu/faculty/profile.cfm?id=59