Diet, Nutrition and SupplementationPost here for supplement reviews or nutritional advice. If you're trying to get "ripped abz" THIS is where you should be.
I didn't catch that it was you writing that part of the article. I absolutely agree with your idea that increased meal frequency is mostly rubbish. I'm sure it may help some people in certain situations (such as the diabetic, which you stated) and it may help some to feel more full. But, in terms of its effect on body composition I think its pretty irrelevant.
I'm reading through the thread now. It's amazing how peoples preconcieved notions don't like to be presented with ideas that contradict them. Oh, how they fight!
I can't seem to formulate an opinion on this. I am, and have always been, inclined to think that there is at least some validity to increased meal frequency. Here is a good example of why. I'm not saying that I'm right, and I'm not saying that people can't lose fat without eating frequently, because I do believe in the calories in vs. calories out in that respect, but I still am swayed towards the arguments that more frequent is better. That being said, what's your take on this comment? It's one of the posts on there and it's part of why I always lean in that direction.
I do think that it's often better for some people because it keeps their hunger at bay. But then again, smaller meals might be less filling and make it worse for others. So in that sense, I guess it depends. I'm really interested in the scientific reasoning though. Anyway, here's the post.
Quote:
greekdawg wrote:
Nominal Prospect wrote:
greekdawg wrote:
The point is if I'm eating 3,000 calories a day, it makes no difference if I eat 2 meals of 1,500 each or 6 meals of 500 cal.
It absolutely does make a difference.
Explain your logic.
Ever work on a farm? Hear of something called "feed efficiency"? You ought to google it.
Do you think your body runs an automated spreadsheet at the end of each day to determine your total caloric consumption and adjusts your weight accordingly? BS. Your body uses nutrients as you provide them. Provide them infrequently, and you will be adapting your body to store whatever it gets. Not to mention, you'll hamper your digestive system by trying to condense 6 meals into 2. It simply doesn't work that way. It's not just calories in vs out, and even if it was, it would be calories in vs out all the time, not merely, "by the day". If your body needs energy right now, and you don't provide it, do you really think it's going to wait until you get your second meal of the day in before running its spreadsheet and choosing between the anabolism and catabolism switches?
worzel wrote:
Myth Busting Request!
Sarcomere Hypertrophy & Sarcoplamic Hypertrophy?
This has been and is currently being debated by the members but no conclusive evidence has been presented. It has however been hypothesized in Supertraining (Siff) & Science and Practice of Strength Training (Zatsiorsky), which carry a lot of weight (no pun intended in the strength training field.
It would be great if someone on the T-Nation team could look into this and present their findings in the next installment.
I have made numerous posts about this, some very recent. Check my post history. You may also look up Al Shades on BB.com forums.
The term "sarcoplasmic hypertrophy" is not the best fit because it doesn't include glycogen super-saturation, which can be a significant contributor to size gains.
For this reason, I propose eschewing that term in favor of the less-scientific-but-more-accurate "fluid hypertrophy".
I'm the guy who popularized the latter term, so if you see it being used anywhere, you can trace the source back to me. "
So I just read it that and it didn't really help me at all. The only conclusive study was that resistance training while fasting is bad for protein synthesis and inhibiting protein breakdown.
All of the other ones show either inconclusive results, some completely contradictory results, not enough subjects tested, too extreme of conditions, etc. What was I supposed to get out of that?
Do you think your body runs an automated spreadsheet at the end of each day to determine your total caloric consumption and adjusts your weight accordingly? BS. Your body uses nutrients as you provide them. Provide them infrequently, and you will be adapting your body to store whatever it gets. Not to mention, you'll hamper your digestive system by trying to condense 6 meals into 2. It simply doesn't work that way. It's not just calories in vs out, and even if it was, it would be calories in vs out all the time, not merely, "by the day". If your body needs energy right now, and you don't provide it, do you really think it's going to wait until you get your second meal of the day in before running its spreadsheet and choosing between the anabolism and catabolism switches?
This is mostly retarded:
Quote:
Do you think your body runs an automated spreadsheet at the end of each day to determine your total caloric consumption and adjusts your weight accordingly?
Yes it is. You eat less than you need and you lose weight. Eat more than you need and you gain weight. That's a fact. There ARE factors that are going to modify the equation but the bottom line is still the same. There's a maintenance level and there's an above\below that level.
Quote:
Your body uses nutrients as you provide them. Provide them infrequently, and you will be adapting your body to store whatever it gets.
It takes several hours to digest a meal. You're providing energy\nutrients that entire time. It's like freaking magic.
Quote:
Not to mention, you'll hamper your digestive system by trying to condense 6 meals into 2
*Most* don't recommend 2 meals a day as there is evidence that your body doesn't really like that. On 3+ a day the meal frequency is more of a matter of comfort and habit than anything else. If you're eating at a calorie deficit (especially a big one) then eating 6+ times a day will probably make you want to gnaw off your leg. It's much more satisfying to eat 3 larger meals...thus more success. If you're eating at a big surplus you may very much feel like you're going to freaking die if you eat 3 meals. IF you're eating on a human level then your digestive system isn't going to be "hampered" either way. If you eating like you're training for a hotdog eating contest...well, that's where the comfort thing comes in.
Quote:
It simply doesn't work that way. It's not just calories in vs out, and even if it was, it would be calories in vs out all the time, not merely, "by the day". If your body needs energy right now, and you don't provide it, do you really think it's going to wait until you get your second meal of the day in before running its spreadsheet and choosing between the anabolism and catabolism switches?
Mostly repeat. If you're not a retard you're eating (yeah...just eating) and providing your body with energy for several hours at a go. The only time that *this* is an issue is if you're NOT eating within normal human eating patterns (or just woke up). That can be solved by *drumroll* eating something! Again you don't just eat food and it's magically done all it's going to do in 15min. You eat two hours ago and workout. Fortunately you're still providing yourself with all the carbs and protein you need. Think you need some more? Take it. Who cares. You're not going to go concentration camp victim if you don't though.
Oh yeah my bad about that. I didn't even realize you were responding to that because I was so hung up on the other article. Thanks. So you don't think the body adapts at all to meal frequency? Theoretically it does make sense that you would be prone to store more if you give your body food less often. Or is that where your 2 meals/day comment comes in?
I still don't like that other article at all.
I did read something recently that said amino acids only get delivered for 5 to 8 hours. Granted, that doesn't really take effect for someone who is eating 3 vs. 6-7 meals a day, but it would matter for IF.
Oh yeah my bad about that. I didn't even realize you were responding to that because I was so hung up on the other article. Thanks. So you don't think the body adapts at all to meal frequency?
Quote:
Theoretically it does make sense that you would be prone to store more if you give your body food less often. Or is that where your 2 meals/day comment comes in?
If you give your body food less often you would be prone to burn more, too, right?
Your body is constantly in a deficit or surplus. One or the other. Even if you eat at maintenance it's just the average over a period of time. In that time, you had periods of surplus (after you eat) and deficit (when your body runs out of available nutrients "floating around" from the last meal.
For the most part, what you do in the gym is going to determine what happens in the deficit and surplus periods. Your body "wants" to conserve muscle tissue if it needs it, so lift progressively heavier or more vigorously, and protect your muscle mass.
Oh yeah my bad about that. I didn't even realize you were responding to that because I was so hung up on the other article. Thanks. So you don't think the body adapts at all to meal frequency? Theoretically it does make sense that you would be prone to store more if you give your body food less often. Or is that where your 2 meals/day comment comes in?
I still don't like that other article at all.
I did read something recently that said amino acids only get delivered for 5 to 8 hours. Granted, that doesn't really take effect for someone who is eating 3 vs. 6-7 meals a day, but it would matter for IF.
That was the 2 meals a day comment. In theory if you're eating 3+ times a day (spaced out reasonably) then your body is getting all the nutrients it needs all the time or at the very least any periods of catabolism (or whatever) is going to be so short that it's not going to matter anyway. If you eat less often than 3x then there's potential for peculiar things to happen HOWEVER if you're training during that window that nutrients are available then it's probably not going to be the end of the world. Especially combined with it being difficult to overeat when you're limited to two meals ESPECIALLY if those two meals involve fruits and vegetables. So any adaptations that are going to be seen probably wouldn't rear their ugly heads until you start eating more frequently and most likely overeat in addition to the greater frequency(double whammy).
So yes to the adaptations to frequency. But if you're consistent and make sure you have nutrients when you need them it doesn't matter. If you're eating at least three times a day you're going to have nutrients when you need them.
I train => I burn calories => I eat what I burn = I stay constant
I train => I burn calories => I don't eat what I burn = I lose weight
Granted that's rowing excluding weights (for that I just add 500kcals on top of what I burn). It's the same argument as eating before bed, if I have only eaten 1000kcals and eat 2000kcals before bed and I am still in deficit I will lose weight. If I eat 5000kals before 1200 I am still going to be fat if I have my thumb up my a*** the whole day.
I train => I burn calories => I eat what I burn = I stay constant
I train => I burn calories => I don't eat what I burn = I lose weight
Granted that's rowing excluding weights (for that I just add 500kcals on top of what I burn). It's the same argument as eating before bed, if I have only eaten 1000kcals and eat 2000kcals before bed and I am still in deficit I will lose weight. If I eat 5000kals before 1200 I am still going to be fat if I have my thumb up my a*** the whole day.
Yeah, that's true, but it's not really what I'm talking about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lost Dog
If you give your body food less often you would be prone to burn more, too, right?
Your body is constantly in a deficit or surplus. One or the other. Even if you eat at maintenance it's just the average over a period of time. In that time, you had periods of surplus (after you eat) and deficit (when your body runs out of available nutrients "floating around" from the last meal.
For the most part, what you do in the gym is going to determine what happens in the deficit and surplus periods. Your body "wants" to conserve muscle tissue if it needs it, so lift progressively heavier or more vigorously, and protect your muscle mass.
Well see now isn't that where the whole frequency thing comes in? If you're eating more frequently, the theory is that your body doesn't run out of available nutrients, no? I mean I thought that's what the point was, so that didn't happen. If that's not true, then I guess you're right. I'm not trying to be argumentative, just trying to understand it all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gobbla
That was the 2 meals a day comment. In theory if you're eating 3+ times a day (spaced out reasonably) then your body is getting all the nutrients it needs all the time or at the very least any periods of catabolism (or whatever) is going to be so short that it's not going to matter anyway. If you eat less often than 3x then there's potential for peculiar things to happen HOWEVER if you're training during that window that nutrients are available then it's probably not going to be the end of the world. Especially combined with it being difficult to overeat when you're limited to two meals ESPECIALLY if those two meals involve fruits and vegetables. So any adaptations that are going to be seen probably wouldn't rear their ugly heads until you start eating more frequently and most likely overeat in addition to the greater frequency(double whammy).
So yes to the adaptations to frequency. But if you're consistent and make sure you have nutrients when you need them it doesn't matter. If you're eating at least three times a day you're going to have nutrients when you need them.
Yeah I hear you but you're bringing in the factor of eating more than because you're eating more frequently. That was another stupid thing about that article - it wasn't calorie controlled. I'm talking about in a calorie controlled scenario. Assume that no one is going to overeat or undereat as a result of their meal frequency. I want to know about the purely physiological effects, not pyschological - how the body adapts (or doesn't) to the changes, not the mind.
Well see now isn't that where the whole frequency thing comes in? If you're eating more frequently, the theory is that your body doesn't run out of available nutrients, no? I mean I thought that's what the point was, so that didn't happen. If that's not true, then I guess you're right. I'm not trying to be argumentative, just trying to understand it all.
It's going to happen no matter. If you have 100% nutrient intake 100% of the time you're going to be at a surplus 100% of the time. If you weren't at a surplus then you're going to be at a deficit, that's just the way it works. You're never going to be perfect unless you're eating constantly, as in constantly not frequently.
The point that I think you're getting at is minimizing the periods of deficit...ie eating more frequently. In practice you have to really think about what a deficit is and what kind of deficit you're talking about. Calories available are going to be +\- and it doesn't really matter which it is one way or the other. Vitamin\Minerals aren't going to go from 100% to 0% in the course of a day. Your body only needs so much at any given time and you're resupplying regularly so no big deal.
Generic Protein\Fat\Carbs MAY need to be partitioned if you're a serious workout person and you do run the risk of bottoming out (or you don't eat around your workouts at all). But chances are, it's not going to be an issue if you're not working out in a fasted state OR not working our for a couple hours every day (where the hormonal fluctuations might assist nutrient uptake at certain times). But in the later scenario it's not frequency that's going to be the key so much as timing itself. The former is remedied by "not working out in a fasted state".
Quote:
Yeah I hear you but you're bringing in the factor of eating more than because you're eating more frequently. That was another stupid thing about that article - it wasn't calorie controlled. I'm talking about in a calorie controlled scenario. Assume that no one is going to overeat or undereat as a result of their meal frequency. I want to know about the purely physiological effects, not pyschological - how the body adapts (or doesn't) to the changes, not the mind.
The psychological factor is probably THE golden bullet in diet, but I get what you're saying. From what I've seen assuming calories are equal there will be very little metabolic impact in regards to meal frequency. An article that you might like.
The psychological factor is probably THE golden bullet in diet, but I get what you're saying. From what I've seen assuming calories are equal there will be very little metabolic impact in regards to meal frequency. An article that you might like.
I did like that article, a lot . That was so much more helpful than the other one. Thanks a lot. Anything regarding diet that is not calorie controlled is almost pointless IMO. This, however, addressed all sides of that. Thanks again.
Thanks for the references. It's great to knock down the dogma that you have eat 5-6 meals a day, which is so prevalent in everything I read. It's always been a pain to carry enough food for 6 meals that most of the time I never did it.
__________________
"You want science and studies? F**k you. I’ve got scars and blood and vomit." -Jim Wendler
Why would you only do IF on some days? Isn't that a diet that you have to stick to consistently?
I do it on a regular basis, which is why I feel like I can call it Intermittent Fasting. More than every day or so and it stops being intermittent, less than "on a regular basis" and it's just a missed meal.
From the way you're talking, it seems like you just do IF when you feel like it, like you'll do it for a few days and then stop. That seems utterly pointless. If that's not what you're doing, then feel free to correct me, but if it is, I don't get it at all.
From the way you're talking, it seems like you just do IF when you feel like it, like you'll do it for a few days and then stop. That seems utterly pointless. If that's not what you're doing, then feel free to correct me, but if it is, I don't get it at all.
Why is that "utterly pointless"?
It creates a caloric deficit, allows him to focus on things other than food (it's amazing how much time you save when skipping meals) and the workouts maintain the muscle.
Once a person has trained for a while and knows how they respond to different protocols of strength training and nutrition, there's no reason they can't do this type of plan and manage it on their own.
Disclosure: I skipped lunch today. Because I felt like it.
__________________ Megaloi -- My Blog
"Every society honors its live conformists and its dead troublemakers."
- Mignon McLaughlin
I don't think you've got a grasp of IF and the various ways it can be done.
What if I told you that I fasted REGULARLY from 7PM (post dinner) Tues to 4PM Wed and from 7PM Thurs to 4PM Fri. Would that be pointless because it is only every few days? I think not. It seems perfectly reasonable to me if that worked for my schedule.
I don't think you've got a grasp of IF and the various ways it can be done.
What if I told you that I fasted REGULARLY from 7PM (post dinner) Tues to 4PM Wed and from 7PM Thurs to 4PM Fri. Would that be pointless because it is only every few days? I think not. It seems perfectly reasonable to me if that worked for my schedule.
You're right, I don't know a lot about IF, but from what I understood, it should be done every day. If that's not true than I stand corrected.
It if is true, than as far as doing it for a purpose other than convenience, yes it would be pointless. It's great because it works for your schedule, but if for instance, you were focused on fat loss, one would think that you need to stick to something for that to have any benefit beyond eating "normally"
That's like saying you can change your training routine every few days because you know that they're all good programs.
Yes, that's actually what I did for a while:
Monday was closed chain and prehab.
Tuesday was Olympic/explosive lifting.
Thursday was strength day, usually deadlifts.
Friday was bodybuilding day (isolation movements, lots of reps)
Did I huge improvements in even one of those areas? Not really. But it was fun and I maintained my fitness levels.
Random IF is the same thing for me, nutritionally. It may not be the optimized plan for any given bulk/cut/recomp goal, but I can use it to make general progress or at least hold off unintentional fat gain.
__________________ Megaloi -- My Blog
"Every society honors its live conformists and its dead troublemakers."
- Mignon McLaughlin
mythbusters
in the strength training field. 
. That was so much more helpful than the other one. Thanks a lot. Anything regarding diet that is not calorie controlled is almost pointless IMO. This, however, addressed all sides of that. Thanks again.
Linear Mode
