Jump to content

Meal Timing


tgzerozone

Recommended Posts

Effect of the pattern of food intake on human energy metabolism. "Subjects 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. With the method used for determination of DIT no significant effect of meal frequency on the contribution of DIT to ADMR could be demonstrated".
The effect of meal frequency and protein concentration on the composition of the weight lost by obese subjects.

-"protein:energy value is more important than meal frequency in the preservation of lean tissue.

-here was no evidence that meal frequency or protein concentration affect the rate of fat loss."

Frequency of feeding, weight reduction and energy metabolism.

-Seven subjects consumed the diet in two meals daily (gorging pattern), the others consumed the diet in three to five meals (nibbling pattern)

-Feeding frequency had no significant effect on SMR after two or four weeks of dieting

-24 h Energy expenditure and Dietary induced thermogenesis were not significantly different between the two feeding regimens

Compared with nibbling, neither gorging nor a morning fast affect short-term energy balance in obese patients in a chamber calorimeter.

-In the short term, meal frequency and a period of fasting have no major impact on energy intake or expenditure but energy expenditure is delayed with a lower meal frequency compared with a higher meal frequency. This might be attributed to the thermogenic effect of food continuing into the night when a later, larger meal is given

The above are a few that stand out as clear evidence that meal frequency has no effect on total energy expenditure, metabolic rate and TEF.

In terms of body composition, like I mentioned earlier there are too many confounding factors to really determine the effect of increased meal frequency in the absence of all those positive things, some of which I mentioned in a previous post (satiety/convenience). This is why dieting is more related to what is manageable in the long term for a given individual. If they are more able to stick at the diet for the long term then they are more likely to see a positive effect.

Like I said I'm not here to write a review the literature, I CBF and the truth is there is about just as much evidence on either side of the fence. HOWEVER, when you take into account various factors in a critical analysis: definition of meal size, protein content, physical activity, age, study design and the self reporting nature of most of the studies in this area results become insignificant as they can be accounted for by these factors. I'm not going to shoot down every single article you post because you could pick holes in studies on the other side as well due to many of the factors I've mentioned above. But both those studies have a few HUGE limitations which I'll outline below (focusing on the second study but some can be applied to the first as well):

1. Participants diets were self reported and therefore exact timing/food type/portion size etc are all subject to large bias. Especially seeing as the food they ate was unweighed.

2. the food diary also means meal frequency may change each day for some individuals as they were not split into specific intervention groups and told what/when to eat.

3. Skin fold thickness as measured by calipers is notoriously inaccurate in determining body composition, most good studies will use a DEXA scanner.

4. The cross sectional nature of the study means that the studied cohort may not be representative of the rest of the population. There may be some environmental confounding factors

especially considering they were recruited from a workplace where people are likely to eat similar things (workplace cafeteria, local shops etc) and spend a large portion of the day together.

5. The researchers even acknowledge that increased physical activity may also account for the positive changes that were observed with increased eating frequency, this is a big one and is something I outlined earlier.

The absence of compelling evidence in support of either a low meal frequency or a high one points towards meal frequency as being irrelevant to body composition; when you're just talking about meal frequency. All those confounding factors which have been mentioned previously may explain positive changes that might be observed with increased meal frequency. however if someone finds dieting easier by consuming 3 meals as opposed to 6 then they are more likely to have favorable results and vice versa because frequency on its own is irrelevant in light of the lack of evidence to support either method.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 120
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

i havnt read every post because i dont think theres a point. at the end of the day, I think its more than just a coincedence that EVERY mr olympia competitor eats regular meals. i think theres a reason why so many of them wake up throughout the night for shakes, and i think theres a reason why a lot of them (jay cutler etc) have meals 1 through 10 and not just breakfast lunch and dinner.

not to mention keeping the body in an anabolic environment throughout the day is also important for maximum muscle growth. hense having regular protein meals and amino's etc.

oh yeah and just to mention..."studies" also say that weight trainers are required to have no more than 1.6-1.7 grams of protein per kg of bodyweight per day..so a 100kg bodybuilder is supposed to have no more than 170grams of protein in a 24 hr period...LOL, you gonna believe that too? :roll:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anectodely if frequency didn't matter I'm sure Sumo wrestlers would eat their massive calorie intake in more than 2 sittings, and still map after each one.

Anecdotely, when the World Health Organisation, all the Athletic Performance institutes, bodybuilders worldwide cotton on to this wonderful IF concept that smaller meals more often doesnt produce different results I'll switch, srs Ill go with anecdotal evidence of the masses and join you. Not taking the piss becos I want the best results too.

Cheers for the intellectual stimulation guys

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Effect of the pattern of food intake on human energy metabolism. "Subjects 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. With the method used for determination of DIT no significant effect of meal frequency on the contribution of DIT to ADMR could be demonstrated".
The effect of meal frequency and protein concentration on the composition of the weight lost by obese subjects.

-"protein:energy value is more important than meal frequency in the preservation of lean tissue.

-here was no evidence that meal frequency or protein concentration affect the rate of fat loss."

Frequency of feeding, weight reduction and energy metabolism.

-Seven subjects consumed the diet in two meals daily (gorging pattern), the others consumed the diet in three to five meals (nibbling pattern)

-Feeding frequency had no significant effect on SMR after two or four weeks of dieting

-24 h Energy expenditure and Dietary induced thermogenesis were not significantly different between the two feeding regimens

Compared with nibbling, neither gorging nor a morning fast affect short-term energy balance in obese patients in a chamber calorimeter.

-In the short term, meal frequency and a period of fasting have no major impact on energy intake or expenditure but energy expenditure is delayed with a lower meal frequency compared with a higher meal frequency. This might be attributed to the thermogenic effect of food continuing into the night when a later, larger meal is given

The above are a few that stand out as clear evidence that meal frequency has no effect on total energy expenditure, metabolic rate and TEF.

In terms of body composition, like I mentioned earlier there are too many confounding factors to really determine the effect of increased meal frequency in the absence of all those positive things, some of which I mentioned in a previous post (satiety/convenience). This is why dieting is more related to what is manageable in the long term for a given individual. If they are more able to stick at the diet for the long term then they are more likely to see a positive effect.

Like I said I'm not here to write a review the literature, I CBF and the truth is there is about just as much evidence on either side of the fence. HOWEVER, when you take into account various factors in a critical analysis: definition of meal size, protein content, physical activity, age, study design and the self reporting nature of most of the studies in this area results become insignificant as they can be accounted for by these factors. I'm not going to shoot down every single article you post because you could pick holes in studies on the other side as well due to many of the factors I've mentioned above. But both those studies have a few HUGE limitations which I'll outline below (focusing on the second study but some can be applied to the first as well):

1. Participants diets were self reported and therefore exact timing/food type/portion size etc are all subject to large bias. Especially seeing as the food they ate was unweighed.

2. the food diary also means meal frequency may change each day for some individuals as they were not split into specific intervention groups and told what/when to eat.

3. Skin fold thickness as measured by calipers is notoriously inaccurate in determining body composition, most good studies will use a DEXA scanner.

4. The cross sectional nature of the study means that the studied cohort may not be representative of the rest of the population. There may be some environmental confounding factors

especially considering they were recruited from a workplace where people are likely to eat similar things (workplace cafeteria, local shops etc) and spend a large portion of the day together.

5. The researchers even acknowledge that increased physical activity may also account for the positive changes that were observed with increased eating frequency, this is a big one and is something I outlined earlier.

The absence of compelling evidence in support of either a low meal frequency or a high one points towards meal frequency as being irrelevant to body composition; when you're just talking about meal frequency. All those confounding factors which have been mentioned previously may explain positive changes that might be observed with increased meal frequency. however if someone finds dieting easier by consuming 3 meals as opposed to 6 then they are more likely to have favorable results and vice versa because frequency on its own is irrelevant in light of the lack of evidence to support either method.

Awesome post.....................................

But Androids overall position is correct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get significantly stronger and leaner when doing IF, even when eating the exact same food and calories/macros that I eat when not doing IF. That's all the evidence I need.

i havnt read every post because i dont think theres a point. at the end of the day, I think its more than just a coincedence that EVERY mr olympia competitor eats regular meals. i think theres a reason why so many of them wake up throughout the night for shakes, and i think theres a reason why a lot of them (jay cutler etc) have meals 1 through 10 and not just breakfast lunch and dinner.

Don't some of these guys eat like 7000 calories a day? If so then it may not be a question of whether fewer meals would work for them, but more like they can't eat all their food within 2-3 meals as it would be too hard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get significantly stronger and leaner when doing IF, even when eating the exact same food and calories/macros that I eat when not doing IF. That's all the evidence I need.
i havnt read every post because i dont think theres a point. at the end of the day, I think its more than just a coincedence that EVERY mr olympia competitor eats regular meals. i think theres a reason why so many of them wake up throughout the night for shakes, and i think theres a reason why a lot of them (jay cutler etc) have meals 1 through 10 and not just breakfast lunch and dinner.

Don't some of these guys eat like 7000 calories a day? If so then it may not be a question of whether fewer meals would work for them, but more like they can't eat all their food within 2-3 meals as it would be too hard

This, like I said before this is more than a 1 dimensional issue, who the hell could fit in 5000+cal into one or 2 meals? you would have to have a ridiculously huge appetite. There are also cultural/traditional aspects to consider in the sumo wrestler case. Sumo wrestlers eat 20,000cal+ a day, I challenge anyone to eat that even in 10 meals a day and not put on weight lol. Its important to note that there are many positives to eating frequently but when you tease out the effects on body composition alone, it just does not matter whether you eat 6 or 3 meals a day and this is what we are talking about lets be honest. I don't think anyone here is wanting to eat only one meal a day (although it has been done before).

i havnt read every post because i dont think theres a point. at the end of the day, I think its more than just a coincedence that EVERY mr olympia competitor eats regular meals. i think theres a reason why so many of them wake up throughout the night for shakes, and i think theres a reason why a lot of them (jay cutler etc) have meals 1 through 10 and not just breakfast lunch and dinner.

not to mention keeping the body in an anabolic environment throughout the day is also important for maximum muscle growth. hense having regular protein meals and amino's etc.

oh yeah and just to mention..."studies" also say that weight trainers are required to have no more than 1.6-1.7 grams of protein per kg of bodyweight per day..so a 100kg bodybuilder is supposed to have no more than 170grams of protein in a 24 hr period...LOL, you gonna believe that too? :roll:

Lol'd at anabolic environment. Somebody's been reading too many flex magazines :pfft: the only anabolic environment is the one induced from multiple grams of gear. While I'm not completely disregarding anecdotal evidence, you can't compare natural physiology to someone on gear, plain and simple. When on gear you really are in an "anabolic environment" and therefore eating large and frequently is the best way to go. Considering that almost all pro bodybuilders are enhanced I would suggest and common sense would suggest that what they do with regards to meal frequency is completely irrelevant to a natural guy.

Seriously you still believe this bullshit about needing one million grams of protein per day to grow? You seriously have some reading to do, Those numbers are based on actual research and not some IFBB bro trying to push a supplement companies products (no hate for the pros but its part of the deal of being sponsored). It's a well recognised fact that protein requirements that you are told about in bodybuilding mags and by supplement companies are complete horse shit. In fact it is in their best interest to tell you you need ridiculous amounts of protein in order to sell more of their product. Anyone with half a brain can see that protein requirements are massively overstated. It absolutely astounds me how people can believe this crap. Again this all changes if you are enhanced.

Think about it, how much muscle can you put on in a day? Even if it was as much as 500g (which obviously its not) 70% of that is water which means 150g of it is actual protein, at most. Now protein is important not just as a substrate but for inducing protein synthesis but all that is required is around 20-30g in around 3-4 meals/day which at most adds upto 120g. Add this to the requirement as substrate and you get a number that is around 1.6-1.7g/kg of body weight.

Awesome post.....................................

But Androids overall position is correct.

Prove it (srs)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anecdotely, when the World Health Organisation, all the Athletic Performance institutes, bodybuilders worldwide cotton on to this wonderful IF concept that smaller meals more often doesnt produce different results I'll switch, srs Ill go with anecdotal evidence of the masses and join you. Not taking the piss becos I want the best results too.

Cheers for the intellectual stimulation guys

No one's saying that a lower meal frequency is a better approach, that it gives superior results and everyone should eat that way.

This is why dieting is more related to what is manageable in the long term for a given individual. If they are more able to stick at the diet for the long term then they are more likely to see a positive effect.

^This is the key.

We've been arguing that you can get the same results, regardless of meal frequency. The diet you can stick to is the one that will give you the best results. My whole interest in the subject of IF/Low meal frequency came about because I despised eating small meals frequently. I didn't enjoy it when trying to gain weight, and when trying to lose weight I found myself ravenous all the time. Switching to a lower meal frequency made both gaining and losing weight easier and more enjoyable for me, and it fit with my lifestyle and timetable much better. Why stress about trying to get in 6-8 meals a day if I didn't have to, and could do just as well on 2-3?

I've said before it's not for everyone, but it's definitely an option and if people struggle to fit in so many meals a day, or if it gets in the way of their job/education/social life then why not try a different approach that fits better? How many of you eating 6-8+ meals a day have gotten stressed out if you were too busy to fit one in, or missed a lecture because you had to eat, or decided not to spend the day with friends because you were worried about fitting all your meals in?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Far out Ricarrdo, too much protein really?

Obviously you and I are talking about different levels of success and effort. And no I don't mean enhanced.

The NZ boxer going to the Olympics this year weighs 51kg and she has 6 small meals a day with 20g protein each one. That's 2.4 per kg, as prescribed by the Australian Institute of Sport. And get this. She can't afford to put on muscle or she'll miss her weight. Now where is that AIS reasoning in your books?

This is reality Ricarrdo, not throretical success and not enhanced as u seem to repeat.

Greemah made a good point, he leaned up and got stronger on IF. Great, but bodybuilding is about muscle size, we don't know whether he lost LBM or not which is another goal of bodybuilders.

This is like the Emporers new clothes...

Take the point that meal timings don't matter and introducing your less-protein concept as valid...sounds like we can all get back to regular 3 meals a day and still grow big. But then there's no cool new concept to sell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Found this. It isn't so much about timing, but ensuring you have enough protein in each meal. Only uses 3x a day meals though:

Research shows that adult skeletal muscle synthesis is fully stimulated when protein intake reaches about 15 grams of essential amino acids or 30 grams of total protein per meal (5,6). Since dietary protein

recommendations are often represented as a percentage of a person’s total daily calorie intake (typically 10-20 percent), adults may not be able to achieve adequate protein intake per day when following a restricted calorie diet. Other individuals at potential risk for protein shortages could include

vegetarians and high-performance athletes.

A. Optimal Protein Distribution

B. Skewed Protein Distribution

~60 g

Protein Distribution at Meals

Research shows that the consumption of 90 grams of protein per day, distributed evenly over three meals, stimulates maximal protein synthesis and is more likely to provide a greater protein anabolic response in 24 hours.

5. Paddon-Jones D, Rasmussen BB. Dietary protein recommendations and

the prevention of sarcopenia. Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care 2009;12:86-90.

6. Rasmussen BB, Tipton KD, Miller SL, Wolf SE, Wolfe RR. An oral essential amino acid-carbohydrate supplement enhances muscle protein anabolism after resistance exercise. J Appl Physiol 2000;88:386-92.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I got sent a text this afternoon:

The debate on the meal timing thread is awesome... I think THAT is what's been missing [from the site]. Good intelligent debate. Should be recognised as discussion of the month or something.

Couldn't agree more. Good stuff guys. :clap:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Far out Ricarrdo, too much protein really?

Obviously you and I are talking about different levels of success and effort. And no I don't mean enhanced.

The NZ boxer going to the Olympics this year weighs 51kg and she has 6 small meals a day with 20g protein each one. That's 2.4 per kg, as prescribed by the Australian Institute of Sport. And get this. She can't afford to put on muscle or she'll miss her weight. Now where is that AIS reasoning in your books?

This is reality Ricarrdo, not throretical success and not enhanced as u seem to repeat.

Greemah made a good point, he leaned up and got stronger on IF. Great, but bodybuilding is about muscle size, we don't know whether he lost LBM or not which is another goal of bodybuilders.

This is like the Emporers new clothes...

Take the point that meal timings don't matter and introducing your less-protein concept as valid...sounds like we can all get back to regular 3 meals a day and still grow big. But then there's no cool new concept to sell.

Again you appear to be building my argument up to be something its not. I'm not saying you can't get good results on 6 meals a day with a ridiculous amount of protein. What I'm saying is it doesn't matter whether you eat 3 or 6 meals depending on your individual preferences. This is backed up by the inability for any research to categorically show a link between meal frequency and body composition in a context where confounding factors can be excluded from the equation. In fact there is growing evidence that increased meal frequency has zero effect on body comp by itself (as shown in the studies I posted above regarding the effects on metabolism). This represents more than just an "I dunno therefore we cant say either way" hypothesis.

My point about protein is entirely valid and was in response to TLAF's claim that 1.6-1.7g of protein/kg of BW is insufficient. In the case of your boxer I cannot comment as I don't know what the rest of her diet is like however protein has a host of other benefits and if she can't afford to put on weight well then that is more likely a matter of caloric intake and physical activity (possibly accounted for in the rest of her macronutrient profile) than it is the amount of protein she is eating. BRB eating 2000calories all from protein and getting huge. BTW the AIS is not some infallible magical institution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anecdotely, when the World Health Organisation, all the Athletic Performance institutes, bodybuilders worldwide cotton on to this wonderful IF concept that smaller meals more often doesnt produce different results I'll switch, srs Ill go with anecdotal evidence of the masses and join you. Not taking the piss becos I want the best results too.

Cheers for the intellectual stimulation guys

No one's saying that a lower meal frequency is a better approach, that it gives superior results and everyone should eat that way.

This is why dieting is more related to what is manageable in the long term for a given individual. If they are more able to stick at the diet for the long term then they are more likely to see a positive effect.

^This is the key.

We've been arguing that you can get the same results, regardless of meal frequency. The diet you can stick to is the one that will give you the best results. My whole interest in the subject of IF/Low meal frequency came about because I despised eating small meals frequently. I didn't enjoy it when trying to gain weight, and when trying to lose weight I found myself ravenous all the time. Switching to a lower meal frequency made both gaining and losing weight easier and more enjoyable for me, and it fit with my lifestyle and timetable much better. Why stress about trying to get in 6-8 meals a day if I didn't have to, and could do just as well on 2-3?

I've said before it's not for everyone, but it's definitely an option and if people struggle to fit in so many meals a day, or if it gets in the way of their job/education/social life then why not try a different approach that fits better? How many of you eating 6-8+ meals a day have gotten stressed out if you were too busy to fit one in, or missed a lecture because you had to eat, or decided not to spend the day with friends because you were worried about fitting all your meals in?

Bingo!!

As this is exactly why infrequent meals works best for phedders particular personality type. The amount of "stress" and "worry" that multipule meals a day causes some people, far out weighs any benifit they may recieve from having a steady supply of aminos in the bloodstream (this is why its so important to deal with each person as a unique individual).

Cortisol (the stress hormone) as we all know is the bodies most catabolic hormone. Nothing will eat into your precious muscle tissue faster than cortisol. The bodies endocronogical state only exists in the "present". It reacts only to the here and now, either through external stimuli as illustrated in this real life scenario (RLS)...

You are driving along the road on the way to work ,there is a surplus of amino acids (and insulin as insulin is needed here) in your bloodstream from the breakfast you have just eaten. When there is a surplus like this the body always tries to re establish blood levels to baseline levels. It will do whatever it deems necerssary to pull those aminos out of the bloodstream.

Now because of that big squat workout you performed yesterday the physiological stimulus is "currently" present for some of those aminos to be shunted into your leg muscles to help assist in the recovery process (and hopefully facilitate growth). So to pull some of these "excess" aminos out of the bloodstream your body switches on "protien synthesis" and congratulations you are currently "anabolic" and laying down new muscle.

You pull up at the lights and you notice the hottest chick in the shortest mini skirt you have ever seen standing on the footpath. Bang!! your body responds within seconds! A surge of testosterone and other hormones has just hit your bloodstream.You can feel the testosterone racing through your body, exciting the androgen receptors and thier associated neurons in your brain, instantly giving you sexual thoughts of what you would like to do to her and giving you that familar tingling through your genitals.

Due to this testosterone surge and the other "anabolic" components that are "currently present" you are not only feeling sexually aroused but the higher test level is signaling even more of the aminos to be pulled out of the bloodstream and pushed into muscle cells! Bonus!! Its a good day and your currently growing................ for the next 15 mins you are steadily laying down new muscle. Your test level is starting to diminish slightly now though, so although your test isnt quite signaling the creation of new muscle to the extent it was 10 minutes ago it is still contributing to the process...

All of a sudden somone directly in front of you switches lanes! No indicator nothing. FUUUCKK!!! Your sympathetic nevous system is activated instantly whithout you even thinking about it! Your hypothalamus and andrenal glands have just gone into overdrive. You slam on your brakes and your car skids along the motorway.You stop within centremetres of the car in front of you, a near miss.

But on an endocronological scale the damage is done, cortisol and adrenaline are now coursing through your viens stopping your "anabolic state" in is tracks. The body instantly stops all non essential processes (and believe me your body does not think its essential for you to have 20 inch arms :pfft: ) in order to deal with what could have been a life threatening situation. Digestion halts, making you suddenly concious of the food in your stomach and making you feel slightly nauseous. You slam your horn and raise your fist shaking it while a barage of expletives that would make a sailor blush leaves your lips. The driver in front of you sees you in his rear vision mirror and responds with the one finger salute. Instantly this reaction releases even more adrenalin and cortisol. You are so angry now you are beside yourself. The rest of the drive to work you continue with the analaysis of the situation in your head (or perhaps even talking out load to yourself) The conversation may go something like this- DUMB FUCKEN BASTARD!! Does he think he owns the fucken road!! And then he gives me the finger!! As if im in the wrong!!! Mother f*cker! I should get out at the lights and smash his fucken head in! ............... of course by now you are highly catabolic, but your current state is being vastly prolonged because of your particular individual reaction to the situation.

And because of it going over and over in your mind and therefore working you up it has now become "internal stimuli".

This of course is the same process (although on a lower scale) of internal stimuli that causes people like phedder to release cortisol when he starts to "worry" about when he can fit his fourth meal of the day in. So for him he truly is better off only having 2 or 3 meals a day.

As you can see from the RLS example the human body only reacts to the here and now.The endocronological system is not psychic. It does not say im not going to go catabolic and break down muscle tissue right now because at 6pm tonight im going to get a huge surplus of food so everything is ok. The human body is not a time traveller that waits untill the end of each 24 hour time frame and then decides what it is going to do with the food provided to it. That is just madness!!

There are thousands of biochemical functions and reactions that happen inside the body every second! If it had to wait untill the end of each day to partition and allocate its energy requiements you couldnt function as a human being.You couldnt talk, you couldnt walk, you couldnt breathe.

Lets say for the sake of argument that you are eating 2 meals a day. You have your first meal at 2pm and the other at 9pm. During the morning your amino acid levels have dropped below baseline as it has been 12 hours since your last meal. Your body signals the breakdown of mucles tissue for its immediate energy requirements (whatever that may be).

Do you think that come 3pm when the 2pm meal has saturated your bloodstream with aminos that it is going to think "oh thats right I took 20g of muscle of my triceps this morning when I had that cortisol release so I best be putting that back quick smart before I do anything else" :nod: I mean REALLY, is that what you think happens?? "Oh and while Im at it i will add another 10g on my triceps as the poor buggers have been raped all day due to my lack of protien intake".

As illustrated earlier (in our RLS)everthing has to be available at once for the body to become "anabolic".There has to be a amino acid "surplus" within the bloodstream for Protein Synthesis to be switched on. Protein Synthesis does not occur while circulating amino levels are at baseline (yes fast absorbing proteins like WPI can cause blood amino levels to drop below baseline, but thats a whole other thread)

The larger each individual caloric dump the greater likelihood that alot of those calories will be stored as bodyfat for use at a later date, why? Because this is the easiest way the body has of removing anything in excess from the bloodstream. Sure with each pass through the liver the liver will filter alot of these excess aminos out, but when to large an excess is encounted (and resparation, urinary expulsion, and perspiration cant remove them fast enough either) then body fat storge is the fatest way to clear the bloodstrem, as illustrated earlier "protein synthesis" can and would hopefully be activated during this time (providing the necerssary stimulus was in place)but but if the caloric dump was large enough even protein synthesis would not be adequite to clear the blood stream.

So why only provide your muscles with the necessary surplus of aminos for a few hours a day when the body is constantly functioning every second of every day?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great post about the anabolic requirements and effects of catabolism. How do you about my tingling in the .... nvm. Obviously someone who understands real life :clap:

And yes! You do need to be swimming in a pool of amino acids "if you want the best results for your efforts in the gym".

Great explanation and summary HP

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tried researching this on facebook and came up with nothing... therefore, it doesn't exist.

God I wish I could get the time back I have spent reading this.

It's like an argument over common sense stuff.

Nicely explained HP.... can't wait til you get asked to provide documented tests and double blind studies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lets say for the sake of argument that you are eating 2 meals a day. You have your first meal at 2pm and the other at 9pm. During the morning your amino acid levels have dropped below baseline as it has been 12 hours since your last meal. Your body signals the breakdown of mucles tissue for its immediate energy requirements (whatever that may be).Do you think that come 3pm when the 2pm meal has saturated your bloodstream with aminos that it is going to think "oh thats right I took 20g of muscle of my triceps this morning when I had that cortisol release so I best be putting that back quick smart before I do anything else" I mean REALLY, is that what you think happens?? "Oh and while Im at it i will add another 10g on my triceps as the poor buggers have been raped all day due to my lack of protien intake". As illustrated earlier (in our RLS)everthing has to be available at once for the body to become "anabolic".There has to be a amino acid "surplus" within the bloodstream for Protein Synthesis to be swithched on. Protein Synthesis does not occur while circulating amino levels are at baseline (yes fast asorbing proteins like WPI can cause blood amino levels to drop below baseline, but thats a whole other thread) The larger each individual caloric dump the greater likelihood that alot of those calories will be stored as bodyfat for use at a later date, why? Because this is the easiest way the body has of removing anything in excess from the bloodstream. Sure with each pass through the liver the liver will filter alot of these excess aminos out, but when to large an excess is encounted (and resparation, urinary expulsion, and perspiration cant remove them fast enough either) then body fat storge is the fatest way to clear the bloodstrem, as illustrated earlier "protein synthesis" can and would hopefully be activated during this time (providing the necerssary stimulus was in place)but but if the caloric dump was large enough even protein synthesis would not be adequite to clear the blood stream. So why only provide your muscles with a the necesarry surplus of aminos for a few hours a day when the body is constantly functioning every second of every day?

Holy wall of text batman :P .

Fuckn sweet post man, unfortunately this is an overly simplistic view of whole body protein metabolism and not fully representative of what actually happens. Firstly there is a constant circulating pool of amino acids from normal metabolism/protein turnover that occurs throughout your body, combined with amino acids from the diet, the rate of protein synthesis will rarely outweigh the availability of substrate. Secondly growth hormone is released in response to fasting and is anti catabolic causing energy to be obtained via lipolysis. This is why people who eat more frequent meals tend to burn more carbohydrate as fuel as opposed to fat. Lastly, protein is your body's last stop for a substrate for energy, acute fluctuations in cortisol are not going to rob you of precious muscle. Only chronically elevated cortisol will have any appreciable effect. responses to steroid hormones take a long time to evolve, this is why steroid cycles last more than a couple of weeks. In fact a study found that acute fluctuations in anabolic hormones eg testosterone do not affect body composition. This is why I don't put an inch on my arms everytime I get a boner. This of course is still a simplistic view of what actually happens in your body but highlights that there is more than one linear pathway controlling protein metabolism.

Your body doesn't want to break down protein and brief fasted periods of a couple hours or whatever are not going to cause you to go "catabolic state". The very definition of an "anabolic state" is a positive nitrogen balance over a 24hr period. Also the effect aminos have on protein synthesis becomes refractory for several hours, there was a study done where subjects were given multiple bolus doses of EAAs in different regimens and where another group was given a constant infusion of EAAs (an IV drip) and guess what? No difference in protein synthesis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe the people who think IF is inferior should try Leangains for a month, changing nothing except the meal frequency and see how they find it. My bet is they will see better results. Seems nearly everyone who tries it likes it

Greemah made a good point, he leaned up and got stronger on IF. Great, but bodybuilding is about muscle size, we don't know whether he lost LBM or not which is another goal of bodybuilders.

Sorry didn't make it clear, yes I gained muscle doing this, I am 3kg of LBM heavier now than I was a year ago (bodyfat the same judging by pics) - this is doing same routine and doing a slow bulk along with a recent short cut

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe the people who think IF is inferior should try Leangains for a month, changing nothing except the meal frequency and see how they find it. My bet is they will see better results. Seems nearly everyone who tries it likes it

Greemah made a good point, he leaned up and got stronger on IF. Great, but bodybuilding is about muscle size, we don't know whether he lost LBM or not which is another goal of bodybuilders.

Sorry didn't make it clear, yes I gained muscle doing this, I am 3kg of LBM heavier now than I was a year ago (bodyfat the same judging by pics) - this is doing same routine and doing a slow bulk along with a recent short cut

that's awesome mate but I assumed you just leaned up. I mean you didn't make those 3kg gains at the same time you leaned up...did you ?

You lost 3.5kg body fat inside an 8 week cut (according to your earlier posts) end of last year was the 3kg gain of LBM in the same 8 weeks?

If so, WOW, freaky genetics!

If not, why correct me above and imply you made huge gains while leaning up and getting stronger.

Only a teenager with rampant hormones and weighing 70-80kg could get away with those numbers. e.g. JOSEPH K :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With the olympics looming, can any of the IF enthusiasts please name a current olympic athlete that follows this method. Can ayone name me a professional or even semi pro rugby player doing this or even anyone in the NFL, NHL,NBA... fuckit name anyone besides the the 4 or 5 skinny ass guys and girls that was posted in this thread earlier. Im just curious cause i couldnt find any. Maybe my researching skills are crap i dont know.

All iknow is that if i go without food for 2-3 hours i physically and mentally cannot function. So fasting is out for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well intermittent fasting is a fairly new concept however we aren't necessarily talking about IF, we are talking about meal frequency in general. Did you read the previous posts? Not being a dick but most of the points you bought up can be answered by previous posts. Others have pointed out that athletes, particularly endurance athletes eat a large amount of calories and fitting these calories into some sort of fasting paradigm would be near impossible given that you would need an enormous appetite. Not to mention there are many other benefits to eating regularly. Having said that there are also benefits of fasting. I've done intermittent fasting while dieting and it did work just like I've used a high frequency feeding approach and that worked too. On balance I prefer IF. It suits me better as most days I can't stand to eat breakfast, my appetite is huge in the evening. I'm bigger and stronger than I have ever been, weighing 96kg at deadlifiting 270kg squatting over 200kg I would by no means call myself skinny.

What I'm getting at is either method will work and you should use whatever suits you the best as you will see the best results. I can see 100% why people (particularly athletes) would prefer to eat 6-8 small meals a day. I'm not saying this approach won't work, what I am saying is it is not necessary to see the best results (excluding enhanced athletes). Unfortunately because there is no research that emphatically proves meal frequency to be relevant to body composition I doubt you will see any olympic athletes switching from what they know works and has worked in the past.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another great post Riccardo :nod:

With the olympics looming, can any of the IF enthusiasts please name a current olympic athlete that follows this method. Can ayone name me a professional or even semi pro rugby player doing this or even anyone in the NFL, NHL,NBA... fuckit name anyone besides the the 4 or 5 skinny ass guys and girls that was posted in this thread earlier. Im just curious cause i couldnt find any. Maybe my researching skills are crap i dont know.

All iknow is that if i go without food for 2-3 hours i physically and mentally cannot function. So fasting is out for me.

Any devout Muslim athlete.

I'm sure you've heard of Ramadan, if not I suggest reading up on it. For the entire month of Ramadan, muslims refrain from eating or drinking during daylight hours. The muslim calender operates on a lunar cycle (instead of our solar cycle) and thus their months shift slightly through the seasons each year. This year, Ramadan happens to fall between the 20th of July and the 18th of August, which just so happens to coincide with the Olympics. I'm sure some Muslim athletes will find ways to justify not abiding by Ramadan, but many will still fast during the daylight hours. I'll definitely be interested to see if there's any appreciable differences from their personal bests for those that do fast throughout.

Many of the studies done on the effects of fasting have been done on Muslims during ramadan, especially ones relating to body composition and athletic performance.

Those 'Skinny ass guys and girls' are lean, strong, and as far as I know, natural. Don't let your perception be warped by enhanced athletes. Here's Martin Berkhan, who's pictures I posted and is the guy behind LeanGains, deadlifting 600lb for 4 reps, whilst fasted, and at around 5% bf.

I'd just like to point something out about the epidemiological studies posted earlier. Epidemiological studies do not prove anything they merely show correlations. Yes there is a correlation between eating breakfast and being leaner, or eating more meals and being leaner. This does not mean that eating breakfast or more meals, causes you to be leaner. This is why the term correlation does not equal causation is so important to always remember when looking at any data. There are other confounding factors in those studies which can account for the subjects being leaner. Hell, using epidemiological data I can 'prove' that drinking coffee causes lung cancer. Yep, that's right, your precious coffee that the world thrives on is causing lung cancer. Or, maybe it's that when people go for a coffee break, they might also smoke a cigarette too. Na, must be the coffee :roll:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...



  • Popular Contributors

    Nobody has received reputation this week.

×
×
  • Create New...