Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: Roger Bacon on October 12, 2011, 12:02:58 PM
-
Is it a myth that eating five or six smaller meals per day speeds up your metabolism?
I've tried to find proof on google. Cannot find anything but opinions from fitness industry types.
???
-
myth.
says Dr Dutch..
-
,
-
myth.
says Dr Dutch..
As far as I can tell, the only way to naturally speed up metabolism is to build more muscle mass, and that some foods/drinks can minorly contribute, and only temporarily. That's it?
-
,
That explains it! ;D
-
I think most mammals are programmed to eat 1 - 2 times per day. Take a look at wild animals for example, the food availability that we have now was not normal when we evolved.
I think eating many meals does not have any benefits.
-
As far as I can tell, the only way to naturally speed up metabolism is to build more muscle mass, and that some foods/drinks can minorly contribute, and only temporarily. That's it?
That's it..
-
That's it..
Thanks Doc!
-
I think most mammals are programmed to eat 1 - 2 times per day. Take a look at wild animals for example, the food availability that we have now was not normal when we evolved.
I think eating many meals does not have any benefits.
Makes Sense
-
Is it a myth that eating five or six smaller meals per day speeds up your metabolism?
I've tried to find proof on google. Cannot find anything but opinions from fitness industry types.
???
it's a little more specific than that....the meals have to be clean in nature, and the portions need to be controlled...it's more he pattern that will aid in increasing he MR...just as eating once or twice a day will make the body go into conservation mode and lower the MR to compensate.
Fats and carbs are more satisfying to the system as opposed to protein and veggies...thus the reason you're hungry after eating Chinese food after an hour...unlike pizza, which you can eat a few slices and be good for half a day.
-
not so, according to Lyle MacDonald www.bodyrecomposition.co m/research-review/meal-frequency-and-energy-balance-research-review.html
-
Is it a myth that eating five or six smaller meals per day speeds up your metabolism?
I've tried to find proof on google. Cannot find anything but opinions from fitness industry types.
???
That would make as much sense as fueling up 5-6 times a day saves gas. Your getting it backwards, if you eat to much at one time your body has to slow down to digest to much food. As blood flow must go to the gut.
Also there is alot of logic that you can eat less the more often you eat, because your body can better adjust to what it needs at the time. I.E. if you haven't decided whether or not your going to the gym in 3 hours, your stuck you either eating to much and don't go or you eat too little and end up starving yourself. If you have two meals instead you can eat now, and cut back or add for the second meal.
-
it's a little more specific than that....the meals have to be clean in nature, and the portions need to be controlled...it's more he pattern that will aid in increasing he MR...just as eating once or twice a day will make the body go into conservation mode and lower the MR to compensate.
Fats and carbs are more satisfying to the system as opposed to protein and veggies...thus the reason you're hungry after eating Chinese food after an hour...unlike pizza, which you can eat a few slices and be good for half a day.
That's interesting, helpful way to put it. Thanks bob!
-
I think most mammals are programmed to eat 1 - 2 times per day. Take a look at wild animals for example, the food availability that we have now was not normal when we evolved.
I think eating many meals does not have any benefits.
Depends on the animals. How higher fat/protein levels of the food are, the less often the animal eats. Carnivores 1 time a day or less, herbivores like deer/cows all day long. Humans are in between, depending on diet. Masai are/were meat eaters on the one side, vegetarian people who eats low quality like lots of corn are on the other side. With Western high level foods 3 meals a day is adequate..
-
Eat 2 or 3 times a day and see what that's like. Then eat six times a day. You will eventually process all of that food and even be hungry.
I think that's what is meant by metabolism although that might not me the "correct" way to define it.
Simple answer. Yes. Try it for yourself and see.
-
not so, according to Lyle MacDonald www.bodyrecomposition.co m/research-review/meal-frequency-and-energy-balance-research-review.html
Internet fitness marketers make lots of money from you idiots when they come up with something different than the norm.
-
I think most mammals are programmed to eat 1 - 2 times per day. Take a look at wild animals for example, the food availability that we have now was not normal when we evolved.
I think eating many meals does not have any benefits.
Yes but in old days your metabolism would slow down the less food there was to be had. When food is plentiful the body is able to burn more fuel as their is less risk of starvation.
-
The body is very adaptable when it comes to adjusting the MR in order to function...and yes, it will increase when the pattern has been established that regular food intake is frequent...it will do exactly the opposite as well...which is why man obese people really don't eat that much...often eating jus once or twice a day....bad food as well. Their metabolism has slowed down to nothing as a compensation method...and their body becomes a fat storing machine. They have established the pattern of little coming in, and so their body has adapted to a slower MR. Unfortunately, for many..they believe the answer is to REDUCE intake, which only enhances the problem worse....
-
Yes but in old days your metabolism would slow down the less food there was to be had. When food is plentiful the body is able to burn more fuel as their is less risk of starvation.
This does not apply to humans, only to cold blooded animals and to mammals that hibernate..
-
not so, according to Lyle MacDonald www.bodyrecomposition.co m/research-review/meal-frequency-and-energy-balance-research-review.html
Hmmm... This is interesting:
Perhaps one of the longest standing dogmas in the weight loss and bodybuilding world is the absolute necessity of eating frequently for various reasons. Specific to weight loss, how many times have you heard something along the lines of “Eating 6 times per day stokes the metabolic fire.” or “You must eat 6 times per day to lose fat effectively.” or “Skipping even one meal per day will slow your metabolic rate and you’ll hoard fat.” Probably a lot
Aha! Eat more frequently and metabolic rate goes up more, right? Because you’re stimulating TEF more often. Well, no. Here’s why:
Say we have two people, both eating the same 3000 calories per day from identical macronutrients. One eats 6 meals of 500 calories/meal while the other eats 3 meals of 1000 calories/meal and we’ll assume a TEF of 10%. So the first will have a TEF of 50 calories (10% of 500) 6 times/day. The second will have a TEF of 100 calories (10% of 1000 calories) 3 times/day. Well, 6X50 = 300 calories/day and 3X100 = 300 calories/day. There’s no difference.
Of course, if you increase food intake from, say, 1500 calories to 2000 calories, you will burn more with TEF; but this has nothing to do with meal frequency per se, it has to do with eating more food. I only bring this up because I’ve seen people (try to) argue the positive effect of TEF by dredging up studies where folks ate more total calories. Of course TEF goes up, but not because they are eating more frequently; rather it’s because they are eating more food in total.
Assuming an average 10% TEF, increasing food intake from 1500 calories to 2000 calories per day will increase caloric expenditure by 50 calories. But you had to eat 500 more calories to get it. So even if you burn 50 calories more, you’re still consuming 450 more calories than you would have otherwise.
-
This is one of the biggest myths and misconceptions that I hear all the time in mainstream media and people trying to tell me how to eat healthy. Ask any trainer, nutritionist, doctor, diet guru…or whoever and they will probably all tell you the same thing “You need to eat small meals through out the day to speed up/keep your metabolism going”.
Really? Is that how it works? Our metabolism accelerates based on meal to meal frequency during a day? I don’t think so.
In fact, next time you hear someone say that just ask them to explain it in more detail and hear what they have to say then. In the meantime let’s go over what is happening and dispel this myth (as I have people who are overweight telling me that they need to eat 6x a day inorder to lose weight because some hollywood trainer wrote it in his latest book and that I am wrong).
Eating 6x a Day “Can” Help You Lose Weight ….. BUT …….
Hey, I will be the first to admit it that eating 6x a day “can” work. Many people have proved it. But what people neglect to look at is WHY it works. It’s NOT because of some magical accelerated metabolic process associated with eating more often. Most people call this thermogenesis, where the body expels energy in the form of heat through what it has to do (such as the energy of digestion).
But here’s the fun part, if you eat the same amount of food in 6 meals…or 3 meals…isn’t that the same amount of digestion? So how can there be any advantage due to thermogenesis? (getting a bit ahead here)
But let’s go back to the REAL reasons eating 6x a day works:
People are recommended to eat more fibrous vegetables and protein to keep fuller
Eating more often can help curb cravings and binge eating
Smaller meals in right portions of carb/protein/fat can keep blood sugar/insulin stable and encourage more fat burning while in the “fed” state all day long
At the end of the day people who get success are still in calorie deficit
So there you have it, eating 6x a day works only because it is calorie deficit at heart. So now one has to ask that if you can still eat the same amount of calories in 3 meals then wouldn’t you get the same results?
I can hear all the nutrionists and trainers around the world yelling at me at once “You’re wrong”…”You’re going to crash your metabolism”…and all the other things you hear so often. But honestly folks, where did this train of thought start?
Could it be originally from the bodybuilding/supplement/diet industry (a multi billion dollar industry!!) that preys on the fear of going into a catabolic state and wasting away muscle…so you need to buy more protein powder, bars, etc. Or could it be from one of the many newer weight loss companies making billions selling prepared or portioned out foods/bars/shakes specifically for eating 5-6x a day?
Could it be this is the greatest marketing sales pitch in the diet world today? I think so!
Where’s the Proof?
That’s what I would ask anyone touting the 6 meals a day mantra. Really, where is the proof that is the ONLY way to lose weight (as I already talked about it can work, but it’s not the only way)? Where is the proof that is speeds up your metabolic rate at all (which is the only reason people are being encouraged to eat 6x a day)? I already said that anyone can lose weight eating 6x a day but they can also lose weight applying the same calorie deficit to 3 meals a day.
Personally when I tried to nibble from morning to night (when I was sold on this philosophy a long long time ago) I was hungry all day long! It made me miserable and starving all the time! There was no enjoyment….no wonder no one can stick with all those new diet books coming out preaching this concept. I mean, who wants to carry around 5-6 meals a day…who has time in their lives for eating eating eating? Are we living to eat, or shouldn’t we really be eating to live?
So you want proof, well here’s some that just shows there is none for the 6 meal a day preachers…..
Effects of meal frequency on energy utilization in rats.
Hill JO, Anderson JC, Lin D, Yakubu F. Department of Pediatrics, Vanderbilt University
“The effects of differences in meal frequency on body weight, body composition, and energy expenditure were studied in mildly food-restricted male rats. Two groups were fed approximately 80% of usual food intake (as periodically determined in a group of ad libitum fed controls) for 131 days. One group received all of its food in 2 meals/day and the other received all of its food in 10-12 meals/day. The two groups did not differ in food intake, body weight, body composition, food efficiency (carcass energy gain per amount of food eaten), or energy expenditure at any time during the study. Both food-restricted groups had a lower food intake, body weight gain, and energy expenditure than a group of ad libitum-fed controls. In conclusion, these results suggest that amount of food eaten, but not the pattern with which it is ingested, has a major influence on energy balance during mild food restriction.“
and……
Meal frequency and energy balance.
Br J Nutr. 1997 Apr;77 Suppl 1:S57-70.
“More importantly, studies using whole-body calorimetry and doubly-labelled water to assess total 24 h energy expenditure find no difference between nibbling and gorging. Finally, with the exception of a single study, there is no evidence that weight loss on hypoenergetic regimens is altered by meal frequency. We conclude that any effects of meal pattern on the regulation of body weight are likely to be mediated through effects on the food intake side of the energy balance equation.”
and…….
Thermogenesis in humans after varying meal time frequency
Wolfram G, Kirchgessner M, Miller HL, Hollomey S.
To a group of 8 healthy persons a slightly hypocaloric diet with protein (13% of energy), carbohydrates (46% of energy) and fat (41% of energy) was given as one meal or as five meals in a change-over trial. Each person was 2 weeks on each regimen. Under the conditions of slight undernutrition and neutral temperature the balances of nitrogen, carbon and energy were assessed in 7-day collection periods, and according to 48-hour measurements of gaseous exchange (carbon-nitrogen balance method) by the procedures of indirect calorimetry. Changes of body weight were statistically not significant. At isocaloric supply of metabolizable energy with exactly the same foods in different meal frequencies no differences were found in the retention of carbon and energy. Urinary nitrogen excretion was slightly greater with a single daily meal, indicating influences on protein metabolism. The protein-derived energy was compensated by a decrease in the fat oxidation. The heat production calculated by indirect calorimetry was not significantly different with either meal frequency. Water, sodium and potassium balances were not different. The plasma concentrations of cholesterol and uric acid were not influenced by meal frequency, glucose and triglycerides showed typical behaviour depending on the time interval to the last meal. The results demonstrate that the meal frequency did not influence the energy balance.
and there are many more…..but what you do see is the following trends:
There is no real truth to accelerated thermogenesis from increased meal frequency (with same calorie deficit load)
There is no real truth of improved body composition with increased meal frequency (with same calorie deficit load)
It’s still about the total calories for the day even with different insulin responses
Hunger is the biggest issue with any dieting and eating more often is supposed to help combat that (but it depends on what people are eating whether that is true or not)
People who eat more frequently may have lower insulin spikes for smaller fat burning throughout the day, but the smaller number of larger meals may have also more fat burning ability in the spaces between meals or fasting states….in the end it’s still the same amount of fat burned it seems…..wow, the body is an amazing piece of work….and we are really just beginning to understand it better.
Eating All Day Isn’t What I Want to Do
There are also some disadvantages (I mean besides making/storing/carrying around all the food and spending tons of money on supplements) to the eating 6x a day strategy including:
Can increase cravings if your food choices are not all veggies/fruits/meats
Does not help decrease insulin resistance (and may help increase it) if you are putting sugar in your body all day long from bars or other processed food choices
It is very easily to overeat calorie wise at a snack or meal and not put yourself in calorie deficit mode (therefore you do not lose weight). This is especially important for women who need much less then men for a meal or snack.
This is not a realistic ongoing lifestyle approach for people with real lives, working long hours and doing what we do today. (I mean if it works in the short term that’s one thing, but it has to be sustained to call it a true success. You can see many of those celebrities showing off how they lost all this weight doing some prepared meal plan….but do they keep it off? Many don’t.)
That Means There Can Be Another Way
So if you are looking for optimal fat loss you could also add in some Intermittent Fasting / Feeding (IF) and you get the additional benefits of:
No decrease in metabolic rate (in fact there is a slight increase due to more SNS hormonal responses)
Increased release of FFAs (free fatty acids) to burn when you are not eating (aka fasting state)
Increased GH pulsing (which can preserve muscle and help release FFAs)
No more worrying about food all day
No more preparing/carrying around Tupperware containers
No need for protein powders or shakes (if your goal is weight loss, for people wanting more muscle you still may need additional protein depending on how much you can eat in the feeding window)
Increased mental clarity
having a life outside of food and the gym
So there you have it. You can eat 6x a day, 3x a day, 10x a day…honestly that is your choice…..it appears that it won’t really matter when the calories are the same. When you add in some IF (intermittent fasting/feeding) and keep your eating on a more planned routine, you will see better responses to insulin sensitivity and FFA oxidation. No wonder many people who try IF are finding easy results and more importantly a new freeing way of life. Still lots of questions and much more research to be discovered on all these topics…but there is a better way it seems (if we can stop listening to all the myths in mainstream media that is driven by an industry financially dependent on having us all eat more often).
Update: If you enjoyed this be sure to read Part II of this series here for more info and commentary about this important subject.
-
Great article!
-
Yes, it is a very interesting article and seems to make sense.. I remember reading Swedish Viking's blog and his theory was that eating frequently consumed a lot of energy for digestion, so he didn't do it, and he was in great shape.
But, on the other hand, I feel physically best when I actually do eat 5-6 clean meals, so WTF do I know?
-
Eating more than 2 - 3 x a day is nothing more than a waste of time unless you are 'hormonized". A clean lifter will not yield a better result by eating 5-6 smaller meals through out the day. if you don't believe me try it for 8 weeks each. first 8 weeks eat your 5-6 small meals - second 8 weeks eat 1-2 meals (keeping the calories and macro-nutriants basically the same) all while training the same way, @ the same time each day and with the same intensity - keep all other factors the same.
You will be able to prove to yourself it does nothing extra.
Now if you are geared up your system has the ability to utilize more protein more often to achieve positive nitrogen balance. Eating more frequently would give you an advantage in this case in regards to muscle recovery and rebuilding.
-
This does not apply to humans, only to cold blooded animals and to mammals that hibernate..
That's totally false dude, there's load of neurological studies that show people metabolalisms, are directly effected by how the person thinks/how the persons is living. This is pretty new stuff but it is 100 percent real.
It might seem counter intuitive, but just think if your brain can control your sex drive, or your heart rate without your consent, why would it be any different with your metabolism. This is why being stress free is key to putting on mass.
-
i like eating frequent meals mainly because i tend to get hungry really quickly and get horrible hunger swings and cant function too well when hungry
-
That's totally false dude, there's load of neurological studies that show people metabolalisms, are directly effected by how the person thinks/how the persons is living. This is pretty new stuff but it is 100 percent real.
It might seem counter intuitive, but just think if your brain can control your sex drive, or your heart rate without your consent, why would it be any different with your metabolism. This is why being stress free is key to putting on mass.
That's nice in a lab, but in the real world it's irrelevant. Lots of stress increases stress hormone and adrenaline, but constant stress is pathological and that wasn't the topic..
-
myth.
says Dr Dutch..
Fuck off! Stop posting on Getbig you annoying asshole!
-
The Rimrat's back in town.....
-
Kill yourself, now!
-
(http://forums.adobe.com/servlet/JiveServlet/showImage/2-2975846-34212/Rat-Poison-Can.png)
-
it's a little more specific than that....the meals have to be clean in nature, and the portions need to be controlled...it's more he pattern that will aid in increasing he MR...just as eating once or twice a day will make the body go into conservation mode and lower the MR to compensate.
Fats and carbs are more satisfying to the system as opposed to protein and veggies...thus the reason you're hungry after eating Chinese food after an hour...unlike pizza, which you can eat a few slices and be good for half a day.
Welcome to 1997 but you are wrong.
There is no such thing as "clean" eating and don`t make me post Layne Norton`s dissertation of why meal frequency does not have any effect on Metabolic Rate.
There is no "Conservation Mode".
Satiety has more to do with Personal Preference and Water Content than anything else.
I Hope this helps (I doubt that it will).
-
Fuck off! Stop posting on Getbig you annoying asshole!
X2
-
Is it a myth that eating five or six smaller meals per day speeds up your metabolism?
I've tried to find proof on google. Cannot find anything but opinions from fitness industry types.
???
And what's wrong with that?
The mainstream scientific community is often DECADES behind, when it comes to sports nutrition. What they tout as "breakthroughs", old-school bodybuilders were doing long ago.
-
And what's wrong with that?
The mainstream scientific community is often DECADES behind, when it comes to sports nutrition. What they tout as "breakthroughs", old-school bodybuilders were doing long ago.
Uh, that is supplement companies touting "Breakthroughs". NOT the Scientific Community. The Scientific Community just reports their findings after a particular experiment.
-
So what is the correct meal frequency?
I've never eaten 6x per day...for me it's just too much, Perhaps if my dosages were significantly higher and it affected my appitite maybe.
-
Most wild animals graze all day long.
Ever see a fat deer,horse,goat,lion,tiger,leopard,etc. etc.,only if it has been domesticated by man.
Answer: graze,or eat frequent,portion controlled, clean meals as Bob said.
Oh yeah,fuck Lyle McDonald and his bigger uglier brother Ronald.
-
Uh, that is supplement companies touting "Breakthroughs". NOT the Scientific Community. The Scientific Community just reports their findings after a particular experiment.
And their experiments are often days late and dollars short.
"Millions of people are involved in exercise programs that involve strength training and aerobic exercise. High-protein diets are the craze. Arnold (Schwarzenegger) was doing that back in the '70s, in the 60s." - Bill Phillips, "Iron and Beyond", from the Pumping Iron: 25th Anniversary Edition DVD.
-
So what is the correct meal frequency?
I've never eaten 6x per day...for me it's just too much, Perhaps if my dosages were significantly higher and it affected my appitite maybe.
What does dosage have to do with appetite?
-
Also, Intermittent Fasting works EXTREMELY well for adding muscle and remaining ripped. I have done it for a while also. This site should shatter Bob Chick and the rest of the Myth Bearers of Meal Frequency.
http://www.leangains.com/p/my-transformation.html
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_dtaWqzV6d7M/SuMlTBIBAZI/AAAAAAAAAfI/2q8FdTPNy0k/s320/DSC00316.JPG)
-
Also, Intermittent Fasting works EXTREMELY well for adding muscle and remaining ripped. I have done it for a while also. This site should shatter Bob Chick and the rest of the Myth Bearers of Meal Frequency.
http://www.leangains.com/p/my-transformation.html
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_dtaWqzV6d7M/SuMlTBIBAZI/AAAAAAAAAfI/2q8FdTPNy0k/s320/DSC00316.JPG)
This is hardly anything new. Vince Gironda used to fast from time to time and recommended his clients do the same, to cleanse their systems, before going back on their mass-gaining diets (which were around 5-6 meals per day).
So, you haven't destroyed JACK!!!
-
(http://www.leighpeele.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/martins-clients.jpg)
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
The Leangains Guide
1:45 PM | Posted by Martin Berkhan
Share It's about time I compiled a comprehensive guide to my system, so here it is.
Intermittent fasting and Leangains
How does Leangains differentiate itself from some other intermittent fasting based diets? Here's a brief primer.
The basics
In-depth coverage of my approach, and the benefits of intermittent fasting, can be read about here.
A much shorter summary can be found here.
Fasting and feeding
My general position on the fasted phase is that it should last through the night and during the morning hours. Ideally the fast should then be broken at noon or shortly thereafter if you arise at 6-7 AM like most people. Afternoons and evenings are usually spent in the fed state.
However, the fast could also also be broken later in the day depending on your personal preferences and daily routine. I personally tend to break the fast as late as 4-6 PM since I work well into the night and rise later than most people with normal jobs.
The recommendation for fasting through the earlier part of the day, as opposed to the latter part of the day, is for behavioral and social reasons. Most people simply find it easier to fast after awakening and prefer going to bed satiated. Afternoons and evenings are times to unwind and eat. For adherence reasons during dieting, I've also found that placing the feeding phase later in the day is ideal for most people.
The protocols
I work with four different protocols depending on when my clients train. Depending on setup, one, two, or three meals are eaten in the post-workout period.
Fasted training
Training is initiated on an empty stomach and after ingestion of 10 g BCAA or similar amino acid mixture. This "pre-workout" meal is not counted towards the feeding phase. Technically, training is not completely fasted - that would be detrimental. The pre-workout protein intake, with its stimulatory effect on protein synthesis and metabolism, is a crucial compromise to optimize results. The 8-hour feeding phase starts with the post-workout meal.
Sample setup
11.30-12 AM or 5-15 minutes pre-workout: 10 g BCAA
12-1 PM: Training
1 PM: Post-workout meal (largest meal of the day).
4 PM: Second meal.
9 PM: Last meal before the fast.
Calories and carbs are tapered down throughout the day in the example above.
Early morning fasted training
Here's a sample setup for a client that trains early in the morning and prefers the feeding phase at noon or later. Read this for details regarding this protocol.
6 AM: 5-15 minutes pre-workout: 10 g BCAA.
6-7 AM: Training.
8 AM: 10 g BCAA.
10 AM: 10 g BCAA
12-1 PM: The "real" post-workout meal (largest meal of the day). Start of the 8 hour feeding-window.
8-9 PM: Last meal before the fast.
For the sake of conveniency, I recommend getting BCAA in the form of powder and not tabs. Simply mix 30 g of BCAA powder in a shake and drink one third of it every other hour starting 5-15 minutes pre-workout. Tabs are cheaper, but much more of a hassle (you're going to have to pop a lot of tabs). Check my supplements guide for specific brand recommendations.
One pre-workout meal
This is the most common setup for my younger clients that are still in college or have flexible working hours.
Sample setup
12-1 PM or around lunch/noon: Pre-workout meal. Approximately 20-25% of daily total calorie intake.
3-4 PM: Training should happen a few hours after the pre-workout meal.
4-5 PM: Post-workout meal (largest meal).
8-9 PM: Last meal before the fast.
Two pre-workout meals
This is the usual protocol for people with normal working hours.
Sample setup
12-1 PM or around lunch/noon: Meal one. Approximately 20-25% of daily total calorie intake.
4-5 PM: Pre-workout meal. Roughly equal to the first meal.
8-9 PM: Post-workout meal (largest meal).
Key points
* No calories are to be ingested during the fasted phase, though coffee, calorie free sweeteners, diet soda and sugar free gum are ok (even though they might contain trace amount of calories). A tiny splash of milk in your coffee won’t affect anything either (½-1 teaspoon of milk per cup at the most - use sparingly and sensibly if you drink a lot of coffee). Neither will sugar free gum in moderation (~20 g).
* The fast is the perfect time to be productive and get things done. Don’t sit around, get bored and brood about food.
* Meal frequency during the feeding phase is irrelevant. However, most people, including me, prefer three meals.
* The majority of your daily calorie intake is consumed in the post-workout period. Depending on setup, this means that approximately 95-99% (fasted training), 80% (one pre-workout meal) or 60% (two pre-workout meals) of your daily calorie intake is consumed after training.
* The feeding window should be kept somewhat constant due to the hormonal entrainment of meal patterns. We tend to get hungry when we're used to eating and maintaining a regular pattern makes diet adherence easier. If you're used to breaking the fast at 12-2 PM and ending it at 8-10 PM, then try to maintain that pattern every day.
* On rest days, meal one should ideally be the largest meal, as opposed to training days where the post-workout meal is the largest meal. A good rule of thumb is to make meal one on rest days at least 35-40% of your daily calorie intake. This meal should be very high in protein; some of my clients consume more than 100 g of protein in this meal.
* When working with clients I am always open to compromising on the above rule. If your preference is to eat a larger meal in the evening instead of noon, or whenever you break the fast, it's no great harm. Some people prefer to save the largest meal on rest days for dinner with their family instead of having a large lunch and that's fine by me if it makes them enjoy and adhere to their diet better.
* Macronutrients and calorie intakes are always cycled through the week. The specifics depends on the client's ultimate goal: fat loss, muscle gain or bodyrecomposition. The details will be revealed in the book. Generally speaking, carbs and total calorie intake is highest on training days. On rest days, carbs are lower and fat is higher. Protein is kept high on all days.
* Here are the supplements I recommend everyone to take on a daily basis: a multivitamin, fish oil, vitamin D and extra calcium (unless dairy is consumed on a regular and daily basis).
* For fasted training, BCAA or an essential amino acid mixture is highly recommended. However, if this feels like too much micromanaging or simply questionable from an economic standpoint, you could also make due with some whey protein. The importance of protein intake prior to fasted training is outlined in this and this post.
* People sometimes ask me which protocol is best. I tend to look at things from a behavioral perspective first and foremost, so my reply to that is to choose the protocol best suited to your daily routine and training preferences. When dealing with clients I make the choice for them. If you work a 9-5 job and your only option is to train after work, training fasted is generally a bad idea and I always choose the one or two meals pre-workout protocol.
* Even from a physiological perspective, each protocol has it's own strengths and theoretical benefits. With "physiological perspective" I mean in terms of nutrient partitioning, fat loss and muscle growth. This deserves an article on it's own. I have some interesting and compelling arguments that I think are very unique.
Below I'll list some other resources that I think will give you an idea of what Leangains is all about.
Diet methodology
Calories, foods and macronutrient choices play an important role in the optimal diet. The following articles will give you an insight into my philosophy on this topic.
Scorch Through Your Fat Loss Plateau
Maintaining Low Body Fat
Intermittent Fasting, Set-Point and Leptin
Diet psychology
The right mental attitude is a crucial factor for a successful diet and training routine. This is an area that is all too often overlooked. I've explored this subject through many different perspectives.
The Secret Benefit of Being Lean
The Marshmallow Test
How to Look Awesome Every Day
How People Fail Their New Year's Resolutions
Regarding comments
Commentators often ask me if this or that is fine or how they should optimize things. I simply don't have time or energy for that any longer. Understand that a lot of factors need to be taken into consideration when determining calorie intake and macronutrient cycling; body weight, body fat, activity level, training routine, gender, insulin sensitivity and so forth. That's why I have clients - optimizing a diet plan requires time and reflection, and being a perfectionist by nature I simply can't "okay" something without having all the facts in front of me.
-
http://www.leighpeele.com/martin-berkhan-and-intermittent-fasting-interview
-
Totally agree with TA on this. though it might be easier for some people to consume protein in smaller servings if they struggle to eat alot in one sitting. Can't believe people still believe this bro science..
-
Totally agree with TA on this. though it might be easier for some people to consume protein in smaller servings if they struggle to eat alot in one sitting. Can't believe people still believe this bro science..
Welcome to the board Mr. Sheep.
-
The body is very adaptable when it comes to adjusting the MR in order to function...and yes, it will increase when the pattern has been established that regular food intake is frequent...it will do exactly the opposite as well...which is why man obese people really don't eat that much...often eating jus once or twice a day....bad food as well. Their metabolism has slowed down to nothing as a compensation method...and their body becomes a fat storing machine. They have established the pattern of little coming in, and so their body has adapted to a slower MR. Unfortunately, for many..they believe the answer is to REDUCE intake, which only enhances the problem worse....
Fat people's metabolism is actually higher than skinnier people. There was a documentary about this on BBC where they measured individuals MR and fat people were always higher. So this isn't exactly true, at least your reasoning behind it. Not to mention I've never seen a fat person eat just one or two times a day. They are usually eating constantly, snacking on shit all day long.
-
Fat people's metabolism is actually higher than skinnier people. There was a documentary about this on BBC where they measured individuals MR and fat people were always higher. So this isn't exactly true, at least your reasoning behind it. Not to mention I've never seen a fat person eat just one or two times a day. They are usually eating constantly, snacking on shit all day long.
Bro-Science never seems to die.
-
Welcome to the board Mr. Sheep.
haha, cheers buddy. i've been reading this board for years just never bothered to sign up. plus i didn't want this crappy nickname but ron never approved my other nick :(
-
Totally agree with TA on this. though it might be easier for some people to consume protein in smaller servings if they struggle to eat alot in one sitting. Can't believe people still believe this bro science..
Yeah,but it`s most tons of junk food not clean food..............big difference in cals.
-
bob chick plz stop posting your dumb bro science-its quite obvious u are just a parrot repeating what youve read in flex magazine
-
Yeah,but it`s most tons of junk food not clean food..............big difference in cals.
Nothing wrong with junk food except the fact its calorie dense. if you controlled the calories and hit a certain amount for each day I don't think it would make any difference provided you had similar macronutrients. I'm in the wavelength / TA mindset on this but what do I know:)
-
Nothing wrong with junk food except the fact its calorie dense. if you controlled the calories and hit a certain amount for each day I don't think it would make any difference provided you had similar macronutrients. I'm in the wavelength / TA mindset on this but what do I know:)
I`m outta` here!!!!!!!!!!
I never win against Adonis and Wave anyway! :)
-
http://www.leangains.com/2011/01/better-blood-glucose-with-lower-meal.html
Monday, January 3, 2011
Better Blood Glucose with Lower Meal Frequency
7:27 PM | Posted by Martin Berkhan
A new study called "Effect of meal frequency on glucose and insulin excursions over the course of a day" questions the all too popular recommendation of eating every so often to keep blood sugar in check. It actually shows that such advice can be counterproductive, as high meal frequency leads to higher blood sugar levels compared to low meal frequency.
Yes, that's right - eating every 2-3rd hour to manage blood sugar is nonsense and a myth that's just about to die.
The World is Upside Down
It's funny how mainstream health advice in regards to diet and meal frequency gets turned upside down by new and more accurate research. In 2010 we learned that three meals is better for appetite control.
We also saw more hard evidence for the fact that a higher meal frequency does not "stoke your metabolism" or lead to better fat loss. Fortunately, some mainstream media outlets are starting to wake up and has enough sense to inform people - as we saw when the New York Times debunked the myth about meal frequency and fat loss. Sad thing is that they're more than a decade late. That's OK though. Hell, even I was late to finding out but I've been talking about this nonsense since 2005.
We also saw the New York Times cover the benefits of fasted training. Again, the NYT is late to the party - I summarized that study back in September.
(Furthermore, I've been training fasted, and have been using fasted training as part of diet regimens for myself and my clients since around 2006. Check out the "Fasted Training"-tag.)
We should be thankful that a big and influential newspaper like the NYT is relaying this information to its large audience. Indeed, as far as mainstream media outlets go you can say that they're "on the cutting edge" as far as new diet research is concerned...
...But if you want to stay on the true cutting edge, you better have Leangains bookmarked :D Or better yet, subscribe in a reader or by email.
I remember way back in the days when I first started talking and writing about meal frequency, fasting and fasted training on blogs and forums. Everyone thought I was crazy. Guess who's laughing now. But I digress; back to the topic.
The Meal Frequency Myth
As you have probably heard and read many times over - in the form of weight loss advices given by health enthusiasts and dietitians alike - eating small meals every second to third hour is supposed to keep your blood sugar in check. That's on top of other benefits that include boosting metabolism, improving appetite control, preventing muscle catabolism, and so forth.
If you are a regular reader of this site, you know that this is utter nonsense - and even in complete opposition to what actually happens. I thoroughly debunked these myths in "Top Ten Fasting Myths Debunked" (a must read if you haven't read it yet).
Blood Glucose and Health
Maintaining blood sugar within a healthy range is important, as higher blood sugar levels may predispose people to insulin resistance and glucose intolerance. That's on top of other diseases such as atherosclerosis and Alzheimer's. Furthermore, it as long been hypothesized that high blood sugar (blood glucose) may accelerate the aging process.
It should be noted that the aging-hypothesis, and the link between blood glucose and Alzheimer's, is based on animal and cell culture studies. As you can understand, it would be hard to establish a definitive link between blood glucose, aging and other diseases in free-living humans.
That said, it is not far fetched to assume that our bodies haven't adapted to the modern diet with its high calorie intakes and highly refined carb sources. The abundance of junk food and highly concentrated carb sources provides endless opportunities for spiking blood glucose to heights that we are ill equipped to deal with. That there will be a backlash for those who continuously maintain higher blood glucose may not be a wild theory.
In summary, maintaining blood sugar within a healthy range is very important for individuals with poor glucose tolerance and insulin sensitivity ("prediabetes"). However, it might also be of interest for just about anyone who wants to live a longer and disease-free life.
Blood Glucose and Meal Frequency
While debunking myths about meal frequency and metabolism is easy, the scientific literature on meal frequency and blood glucose (BG) is harder to explore and reach a conclusion on. For one thing, there is the issue of taking blood samples at the right time point in order to make a fair assessment on the result.
Let's say we want to track average BG levels during a day of either 3 or 6 meals. We split meals equally in terms of calories (i.e. 3 x 800 kcal vs 6 x 400 kcal) and measure BG at various time points. The first time point is one hour after the first meal. Needless to say, the first reading is going to show a higher value after the 800-kcal meal (3-meal group).
On the other hand, the 3-meal group will have a lower BG reading in the third and fourth hour of the experiment - just as the 6-meal group is eating or finishing the second meal.
The above is an example but illustrates the problem. Proper timing of sampling is a huge confounder - and this has been handled poorly in earlier studies on meal frequency, BG, and insulin. In order to make a fair assessment of the results, researchers need perfect timing in relation to meals or draw several blood samples throughout the day. Otherwise, the results will be highly misleading.
Another monumental confounder has been using different nutrient compositions of meals. Not standardizing calorie and macronutrient composition in the above mentioned context makes any conclusion drawn from results worthless. Each nutrient has an independent effect on BG and insulin. Carbs raise BG and insulin the most, protein much less so, and fat the least.
Feast your eyes upon this beauty. I ate a lot of cheesecake this Christmas. The events that transpired will not go unnoticed and I shall tell you more about it soon. Keep in mind that I don't recommend this practice for optimal blood glucose control. (You might wonder what a picture of a cheesecake slice is doing in the middle of a diet study review. First of all, your brain needed a break from the science-talk. Second of all, cheesecake is a hell of a lot better than lame graphs, a bodybuilder holding a dumbbell, or some chick doing yoga.)
The New Study: Greater Accuracy
The new study seeks to improve on the lacking methodology used in past studies. From the paper:
In contrast to previous research, this study used frequent blood sampling to track glucose and insulin concentrations to three and six subsequent nutrient ingestions.
OK, so let's look at how the study was conducted, what the results showed, and what we can take away from it all.
Method
The participants arrived to the laboratory fasted, after which baseline blood samples were taken. On three separate occasion, each participant was then fed the following 1500-kcal diets:
6 CHO: 65% carbs, 15% protein, 20% fat, split 250 kcal x 6.
3 CHO: 65% carbs, 15% protein, 20% fat, split 500 kcal x 3.
6 PRO: 35% carbs, 45% protein, 20% fat, split 250 kcal x 6.
Meals were taken in the form of liquids; carbs in the form of sucrose and corn syrup, protein in the form of soy protein. Fat came with the protein supplement. Certainly not "ideal" but liquid meals are standard in these types of experiments.
Meals were eaten every second hour starting at 7 A.M. for the 6-meal groups (6 CHO and 6 PRO) and every fourth hour starting at 7 A.M. for the 3-meal experiment (3 CHO). Blood samples were drawn every 15th minute during the study period (7 A.M. - 7 P.M). The results were added together and values for BG and insulin were then calculated to establish averages for each diet.
Results
Baseline (fasted) glucose and insulin values were similar across the three study days. Let's look at the average BG values for each diet-experiment.
6 CHO: 710.0 +-251.0 mmol/L*min
3 CHO: 522.7 +-99.3 mmol/L*min
6 PRO: 442 +- 121.0 mmol/L*min
The 6 CHO-experiment exhibited significantly higher BG values than the other groups. Despite identical carb and calorie-intakes, those who ate 6 meals had 30% higher blood sugar values than those who ate 3 meals. That's a rather striking difference considering the energy- and nutrient-matched condition.
The difference between 6 CHO compared to the high-protein experiment (6 PRO) was even more pronounced (60% higher), but this is not so strange considering the effect of protein on BG.
Insulin values were not significantly different between the CHO-groups and the PRO-group had the lowest values; again, this is not unexpected given that carbs are more insulinogenic than protein.
Summary
The authors of the paper sums up the results:
The present study is one of the first to investigate glucose and insulin excursions in response to altered meal frequency and macronutrient composition in healthy young adults over a 12 h period. Our primary finding is that consumption of 6 frequent meals in 12 h resulted in higher blood glucose levels over the course of the day than the consumption of 3 meals, although there was no difference in the insulin response between these two conditions.
The implication here is that it seems insulin was able to do its job better, that of lowering blood sugar, with less meals.
There has been considerable promotion both by the medical community and the lay press to consume 6 meals per day for weight loss or for glycemic control but our data indicate that the glucose AUC is 30% higher over the course of the day with a frequent high carbohydrate feeding than when consuming 3 meals per day.
This is just a nice way to say that mainstream diet advice is a bunch of bullshit.
This could potentially have profound implications for individuals with glucose intolerance or those with type 2 diabetes, and should be studied further in this population.
Not only is it bullshit, but it might even be counterproductive for some individuals.
My Thoughts
A few remarks:
1. The subjects were lean, healthy and young; 18-35 year old males and females with an average of 12% and 30% body fat respectively. Thus they were metabolically healthy and representative of the health-conscious crowd. If they saw a negative effect of high-frequent feedings, one can speculate about what someone in worse metabolic condition, i.e. poor glucose tolerance or insulin resistance, might experience.
2. Ironically, eating six meals a day is pretty much the norm among the fitness crowd - partly due to the belief that it will help be beneficial for blood sugar control...when it does the exact opposite.
3. While the study design was excellent, it can be argued that the sample size was fairly small (8 subjects). This makes the results less definitive than if the sample size were larger. However, this is still a larger sample size than some studies that have been cited when questionable claims of benefits of high meal frequency has been brought up (e.g, this widely cited study by Speechly, et al that used 7 subjects). Furthermore, a sample size of 7-10 subjects is quite typical in these kinds of studies.
4. There was considerable variance in the average BG values of subjects in response to the 6 CHO-diet; a whopping +-251 mmol/l*min compared to the +-99 mmol/l*min for the 3 CHO-diet. The implication of this is that it seems some subjects handled 6 meals very poorly while everyone handled 3 meals well, relatively speaking.
5. It's unfortunate that the researchers did not compare six high-protein meals to three high-protein meals by including a 3 PRO-experiment in the study. However, I'd be surprised if the results of such an experiment would differ much from those of the 6 CHO vs 3 CHO-experiments.
6. Another conclusion by the authors, or shall we say affirmation of fact, is that of the benefit of increasing protein intake relative to carb intake as an effective preventative measure against the metabolic syndrome and Diabetes Type 2. I've talked about the benefits of high-protein diets numerous times in the past, but usually as an effective diet strategy for maintaining low body fat and minimizing fat gain during overfeeding.
However, despite the fact that there is overwhelming scientific support for the positive effects of high-protein diets on fat loss, weight management and health markers, many medical professionals and dietitians are still hesitant to recommend high-protein diets. In the bizarre world of public health professionals, a high-carb (45-65%), low-protein diet (15-20%) is still recommended. Most recently, such dietary advice was given in this shameful publication: "The Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2010."
It's strange to see such ignorance given the growing waistlines of the American population (and elsewhere). When scientific evidence for the effectiveness of high-protein diets are discussed, it is lamely stated that "further research is warranted" - but this has been said for the last 30-40 years, ever since the beneficial effects of high-protein diets started to surface.
This is all strongly related to findings in dietary epidemiology, which is the cornerstone of public diet and health guidelines. But it's completely worthless. You easily can "prove" that higher protein intakes and meat causes weight gain. But like I've said many times in the past, correlation does not imply causation.
Public health recommendations must be given based on controlled studies - where diets are standardized and compared against each other in a controlled and methodological manner (such as the one discussed in this article). Only then can we draw conclusions based on the collected evidence.
For a thorough explanation of why the results of dietary epidemiology can be highly misleading, read "Top Ten Fasting Myths Debunked" where I discuss this in relation to meal frequency and breakfast. As you will note, results from interventional studies dispute the results found in dietary epidemiology.
7. Lastly, a disclaimer: As with every new finding in nutritional research, more studies are needed to to confirm the results found here. While this study was an improvement over older studies, due to better methodology and greater accuracy, nothing can be said with full certainty before the results are replicated (i.e. with a larger sample size).
There is always a chance, however slim, that some of the participants were significantly different from the Average Joe or Jane with identical characteristics. If that was the case, their results, be it that they were genetically wired to handle three meals better, not well suited for frequent feedings, or any combination thereof, would skew the average values for the group and perhaps falsely show statistical significance when there is none to be had.
That said, it would be unlikely that the results found in a future study would be in complete opposition to the ones found here. So for now, I think we can safely pronounce the blood sugar myth dead and state that the latest and best scientific research suggests that a lower meal frequency is superior for blood glucose.
Fake Diet Gurus
Take heed of diet gurus and "health experts" who claims that a high meal frequency is ideal for health, metabolism or fat loss. The advice has always been questionable from a physiological point of view, but the truths have remained hidden and obscured to the public. Buried in academic papers that are unavailable to the lay person or hard to decipher for anyone without solid understanding of the topic. (...And not the "solid understanding" displayed by the so-called experts.)
Remember, there was no incentive to talk about the meal frequency myth, but there has been, and still is, lots of monetary incentive to have people believe that smaller meals and frequent feeding is important. Supplement companies makes billions from people that gulp down protein shakes, bars and meal replacements in the false belief that it might be beneficial.
However, we've all been there, believing the myths. Eating breakfast, drinking whey shakes, watching the clock for the next meal, worrying about catabolism, etc. Given that the noise of those who have something to gain by keeping these myths alive is much higher than those who spread the right information, it's perfectly reasonable that we buy into the things we hear everyone saying. After all, it is not until fairly recently, in the last few years, that the myths has been exposed - by myself and others.
The evidence against any supposed benefits of high meal frequency is mounting, while the evidence that speaks for a lower meal frequency is emerging. The information has been presented - it is available. Now you just can't get a free pass if you keep spinning the same bullshit about how meal frequency stokes your metabolism and all that other nonsense.
In this day and age, anyone that claims to be a health or diet expert and keeps regurgitating these myths displays the mark of incompetence. Be wary of them. They are still around and their number is legion. Confront them when you can and watch them squirm when you ask them to back their claims up with scientific evidence. Ignorance is inexcusable today if you claim to be an expert.
That's all for tonight, folks.
-
I`m outta` here!!!!!!!!!!
I never win against Adonis and Wave anyway! :)
lol ;D to be fair i looked at your contest pictures and you're in better shape than me at the moment so whatever you're doing seems to be working
-
lol ;D to be fair i looked at your contest pictures and you're in better shape than me at the moment so whatever you're doing seems to be working
Thanks bro. :)
Adonis and Wave both look great also,so to each his own I guess.
-
Bro-Science never seems to die.
it is hilarious reading Bob's posts...guy who has been juicing for years with nothing but gym science
toughting about metabolic rate...read some research Bob...
Martin Berkham is changing peoples lives, all based on research, not bullshit
I enjoy the IF way as i always forced myself to eat breakfast and the multi meals...i would rather
eat a few huge meals...if someone prefers eating 6 times, do it, but there is no advantage unless
your goal is to increase your overall appetite
-
The funny thing is wavelength / TA look so much better than the majority of people I know at my gym who are natural who love slamming down the protein shakes timing their meals exactly and believing that you have to eat bland food like tins of tuna and dry chicken breasts to achieve a decent physique. Lifes to short to live like that if you train naturally and don't compete. masochists...
-
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_dtaWqzV6d7M/TMC_lQFY1SI/AAAAAAAAA5E/hiRn0jPhJbI/s400/Batman+and+Joker+Diet+Discussion.jpg)
-
it is hilarious reading Bob's posts...guy who has been juicing for years with nothing but gym science
toughting about metabolic rate...read some research Bob...
Martin Berkham is changing peoples lives, all based on research, not bullshit
I enjoy the IF way as i always forced myself to eat breakfast and the multi meals...i would rather
eat a few huge meals...if someone prefers eating 6 times, do it, but there is no advantage unless
your goal is to increase your overall appetite
People have been doing this for decades, steroids or no steroids. The "research" is called real-world experience. Berkhman hasn't proposed anything that hasn't been featured in other books or bodybuilding magazines decades prior.
-
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_dtaWqzV6d7M/TMC_lQFY1SI/AAAAAAAAA5E/hiRn0jPhJbI/s400/Batman+and+Joker+Diet+Discussion.jpg)
;D
-
No...its not a myth.
-
No...its not a myth.
You are right. Its a Miracle. ::)
-
:D
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_dtaWqzV6d7M/TMDFO4ZxnXI/AAAAAAAAA5M/DArHFhdoEIc/s400/Leangains+Intermittent+Fasting+Bulking.jpg)
One of my clients, showing symptoms of profound catabolism by impaired protein absorption and daily 16 hour periods of fasting.
-
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_dtaWqzV6d7M/TMC_lQFY1SI/AAAAAAAAA5E/hiRn0jPhJbI/s400/Batman+and+Joker+Diet+Discussion.jpg)
It's touted by real-world experience, people who've actually been there and done that, before this Berkham guy was even born.
-
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_dtaWqzV6d7M/TMC_lQFY1SI/AAAAAAAAA5E/hiRn0jPhJbI/s400/Batman+and+Joker+Diet+Discussion.jpg)
:D
-
Think you can really win this nutrition arguement TA?
-
Still believeing "a calorie is just a calorie" myth and still think all foods are broken down the same?
-
I thought BSN dropped Bob because his toupee kept falling off at the expos, not because he still touts mid 90's broscience.
Oh Lord.
-
I also meant absorbed the same as well.
-
Still believeing "a calorie is just a calorie" myth and still think all foods are broken down the same?
Uh, A Calorie is a Calorie, but a Macronutrient is not a Macronutrient as I have always said. Open your ears and eyes for once, I get tired of repeating myself.
-
I suspect most people criticizing research in this thread have never actually read any of the research articles in question or have much of an idea of what "research" is.
Research (or good research anyway) is about testing hypotheses, not presenting an observation. An observation is "doing X results in Y". A hypothesis is "doing X results in Y because of Z". It is an effort to explain why something happens or how something works, not to simply document what happens. You don't get a paper published in the Journal of Applied Physiology or whatever by saying "we fed some rats 2x a day and these other rats 10x a day, here's how much they weighed."
-
Haha, you have so many stories you can't keep them straight
-
Hulkotron, 80% of my off time is doing research.
TA, a macro is NOT a macro.
-
Hulkotron, 80% of my off time is doing research.
TA, a macro is NOT a macro.
LOL@ your "research".
What is with your poor comprehension? Scroll up to my previous post dim bulb.
-
Also, Intermittent Fasting works EXTREMELY well for adding muscle and remaining ripped. I have done it for a while also. This site should shatter Bob Chick and the rest of the Myth Bearers of Meal Frequency.
http://www.leangains.com/p/my-transformation.html
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_dtaWqzV6d7M/SuMlTBIBAZI/AAAAAAAAAfI/2q8FdTPNy0k/s320/DSC00316.JPG)
Why should I believe anything this "natty" guy says?
-
LOL@ your "research".
What is with your poor comprehension? Scroll up to my previous post dim bulb.
How about picking up an actual book sometime instead of a cut and paste without a source. Do you realize how many "gurus" that are on the internet that boast about they're "knowledge" without any real practical experience and just get their "knowledge" from just the internet alone?
-
2:43 PM | Posted by Martin Berkhan
Share
My name is Martin Berkhan and I work as a nutritional consultant, magazine writer and personal trainer.
-
2:43 PM | Posted by Martin Berkhan
Share
My name is Martin Berkhan and I work as a nutritional consultant, magazine writer and personal trainer.
How about he clearly lists every single Journal where the research is derived from.
Roach, your brain is limited, I do realize this, but sometimes you ought not to wear such blatant stupidity on your sleeve.
-
Thanks guys, this is good!!
Please debate this Coach/Adonis!!!
-
In the offseason I eat six meals (including shakes) and I get fat.
Pre contest I eat six meals (including shakes) and I get lean
;D
-
if you want to look like wavelength and true adonis, then follow their 'ideas'.
if you want to look like you actually train and have muscle and be ripped at the same time, follow wes, or any other competitors dieting advise.
pretty simple concept.
at the end of the day, look who's doing the talking, see how much muscle they have/hold with their 'diet' and go from there.
-
if you want to look like wavelength and true adonis, then follow their 'ideas'.
if you want to look like you actually train and have muscle and be ripped at the same time, follow wes, or any other competitors dieting advise.
pretty simple concept.
at the end of the day, look who's doing the talking, see how much muscle they have/hold with their 'diet' and go from there.
::)
Roidface.
-
I just don't get it...
Why does the majority of the human population look like shit when they don't read Flex magazine, don't drink protein shakes, don't eat 6 meals a day, don't eat clean, i.e. they do exactly what today's nutrition "revolutioners" like TA say?! IF everything in old-school BB books, magazines etc. is a myth and bro-science, why do office workers look the same after years of "working out" in the local gym and eating a cake for breakfast, and why are people who follow a typical BB diet more muscular and in shape? ???
-
I just don't get it...
Why does the majority of the human population look like shit when they don't read Flex magazine, don't drink protein shakes, don't eat 6 meals a day, don't eat clean, i.e. they do exactly what today's nutrition "revolutioners" like TA say?! IF everything in old-school BB books, magazines etc. is a myth and bro-science, why do office workers look the same after years of "working out" in the local gym and eating a cake for breakfast, and why are people who follow a typical BB diet more muscular and in shape? ???
All or Nothing again are you? Most people do not train consistently and they overeat. Its really not that hard to figure out. I don`t know how this would elude you.
-
How about eating whenever your hungry?
Sounds logical to me, no?
-
How about picking up an actual book sometime instead of a cut and paste without a source. Do you realize how many "gurus" that are on the internet that boast about they're "knowledge" without any real practical experience and just get their "knowledge" from just the internet alone?
because its the Internet !! anyone can hold a phd in nothing and eveything ! in few years we may replace mr.o with mr.I
-
Is it a myth that eating five or six smaller meals per day speeds up your metabolism?
I've tried to find proof on google. Cannot find anything but opinions from fitness industry types.
???
complete myth. 3 meals per day= golden
-
complete myth. 3 meals per day= golden
Or 2 Or 1.
-
if you want to look like wavelength and true adonis, then follow their 'ideas'.
if you want to look like you actually train and have muscle and be ripped at the same time, follow wes, or any other competitors dieting advise.
pretty simple concept.
at the end of the day, look who's doing the talking, see how much muscle they have/hold with their 'diet' and go from there.
hahaha
-
Or 2 Or 1.
well serge nubret only ate once per day. so it cant be that bad. i prefer 3 meals.
-
if you want to look like wavelength and true adonis, then follow their 'ideas'.
if you want to look like you actually train and have muscle and be ripped at the same time, follow wes, or any other competitors dieting advise.
pretty simple concept.
at the end of the day, look who's doing the talking, see how much muscle they have/hold with their 'diet' and go from there.
yup
(http://www.t-nation.com/img/photos/2009/09-123-training/01.jpg)
-
I eat 3 solid meals and a few shakes. Following the 40/30/30 or whatever is all garbage. Just eat and lift. Stop overthinking a brainless activity such as weightlifting.
-
well serge nubret only ate once per day. so it cant be that bad. i prefer 3 meals.
I`m doing one currently (majority of Nutrients and Calories in one meal). I eat whatever I want of course. Well, One Pre-Workout meal which is 20 percent of my calories, then post workout I eat 70 percent of my calories, then before bed I eat the final 10 percent. I am eating 2500 calories so the first "Meal" is 500, Post-Workout is 1750 and the Final "meal" is 260 calories.
I am also fasting 16 hours each day. I used to do 12 but have since moved it up to 16. I am 190 and very lean. I think I will be ultra-ripped around 180 and it won`t be too long of a process. I am thinking around 8 weeks.
Also, I am training legs using the Smolov Plan which is pretty difficult. I noticed Layne had great results with it so I decided to give it a go. So far I am doing 50 lbs more on the Squat than my previous best.
Maybe a picture or two is in order.
-
Coach, why do you refuse to accept science?
-
Coach, why do you refuse to accept science?
Cause Coach is more of a faith kinda guy.
-
::)
Roidface.
ahahahahaha someone who looks like YOU (re: fucking ugly) making fun of someone whos face you've never seen.
very clever retort, stud.
::)
-
ahahahahaha someone who looks like YOU (re: fucking ugly) making fun of someone whos face you've never seen.
very clever retort, stud.
::)
You don`t have to remind us that you have never posted a picture. We all know this already.
-
GREAT FUCKING THREAD! :)
-
I`m doing one currently (majority of Nutrients and Calories in one meal). I eat whatever I want of course. Well, One Pre-Workout meal which is 20 percent of my calories, then post workout I eat 70 percent of my calories, then before bed I eat the final 10 percent. I am eating 2500 calories so the first "Meal" is 500, Post-Workout is 1750 and the Final "meal" is 260 calories.
I am also fasting 16 hours each day. I used to do 12 but have since moved it up to 16. I am 190 and very lean. I think I will be ultra-ripped around 180 and it won`t be too long of a process. I am thinking around 8 weeks.
Also, I am training legs using the Smolov Plan which is pretty difficult. I noticed Layne had great results with it so I decided to give it a go. So far I am doing 50 lbs more on the Squat than my previous best.
Maybe a picture or two is in order.
Adam,serious question bud....................I would think that eating 1750 cals at one sitting would make it almost impossible for the body to digest,assimilate,and absorb all the nutrients the meal/food contained,especially for a lighter person.
What are your thoughts regarding this ?
Vince Gironda (I know LOL ) :) used to call it "digestive overload" !!
-
Adam,serious question bud....................I would think that eating 1750 cals at one sitting would make it almost impossible for the body to digest,assimilate,and absorb all the nutrients the meal/food contained,especially for a lighter person.
what`s your thoughts on this.
Vince Gironda (I know LOL ) :) used to call it "digestive overload" !!
I`ll post some great studies addressing this and how it has been demonstrated to be optimal. Let me go dig them up.
-
After destroying the multiple meals frequency myth for bodybuilders, what about destroying the high protein myth for bodybuilders! ;D
http://www.healthfree.com/nutritional_power_myth.html
HOW MUCH PROTEIN IS "ENOUGH"
Human mother’s milk contains no more than 5% protein. This is enough protein to enable an infant to double it’s weight and size during the first 6 months of life! After that, the need for protein DECREASES. Independent researchers around the world agree that the human need for protein each day is only 25 - 35 GRAMS. (about 1 ounce). Many nutritionists feel that only 20 grams a day are more than enough. Meanwhile, the AVERAGE AMERICAN eats more than 100 GRAMS of protean a day - 5 times the actual need!
-
Is there a limit to how much protein the body can use in a single meal?
Posted by Alan Aragon on February 22nd, 2010
Introduction
A longstanding belief in fitness circles is that the body can only use a certain amount of protein per meal, and the excess is either oxidized or excreted. The ballpark range thrown around is 20-30 grams, with 30 grams being perhaps the most common figure.
This guideline has led many trainees to go through the pains of consuming multiple doses of protein throughout the day, banking that it will maximize muscle anabolism or muscle retention.
Well, true or not, this concept fits in nicely with another longstanding fitness “rule” that you have to eat at least six times per day in order to keep the body’s metabolism revving high. Since the meal frequency and metabolism dogma has been thoroughly debunked [1-5], it’s time to dig into the topic of whether there’s a limit to effective protein dosing, and if so, what that limit might be.
Looking at simple logic first
Let’s imagine an experiment involving two relatively lean 200 lb individuals. For the purposes of this illustration, I’ll assign a daily amount of protein known to adequately support the needs of the athletic population. We’ll give Person A 150 g protein spread over five meals at 30 g each. We’ll give Person B the same amount of protein, but in a single meal. Let’s say that this meal consists of a 16 oz steak, chased with a shake containing two scoops of protein powder.
If we really believed that only 30 g protein can be handled by the body in a single meal, then Person B would eventually run into protein deficiency symptoms because he supposedly is only absorbing a total of 30 g out of the 150 g we’re giving him. At 30 g/day, he’s only getting 0.33 g/kg of bodyweight, which isn’t even half of the already-low RDA of 0.8 g/kg. If the body worked this way, the human species would have quickly become extinct. The human body is more efficient and effective than we give it credit for.
The body will take all the sweet time it needs to effectively digest and absorb just about whatever dose you give it. Person A will have shorter digestion periods per meal in order to effectively absorb and utilize the small meals. Person B will have a longer digestion period in order to effectively absorb and utilize the large meal. While the truth in this logic seems self-evident, the important question is whether or not it’s supported by scientific research. Let’s look at the evidence, starting with immediate-effect (acute) studies, then move on to the longer-term trials.
Research examining speed of absorption
A thorough literature review by Bilsborough and Mann compiled data from studies by various investigators who measured the absorption rates of various protein sources [6]. Oddly, an amino acid mixture designed to mimic the composition of pork tenderloin made the top spot, at 10 g/hour, while whey took a close second at 8-10 g/hour. Other proteins fell in their respective spots below the top two, with little rhyme or reason behind the outcomes. As a matter of trivia, raw egg protein was the most slowly absorbed of them all at 1.3 g/hour.
It’s important to note that these data have some serious limitations. A major one is the variance of the methods used to determine the absorption rates (i.e., intravenous infusion, oral ingestion, ileal ingestion). Most of the methods are just too crude or far-fetched for serious consideration. Another limitation is that these figures could be skewed depending upon their concentration in solution, which can affect their rate of gastric evacuation. Another factor to consider is the timing of ingestion relative to exercise and how that might differentially affect absorption rates. Finally, short-term data leaves a lot open to question.
Short-term research supporting the magic limit
I’ve heard many folks parrot that the maximal anabolic effect of a single protein dose is limited to 20 grams, citing recent work by Moore and colleagues [7]. In this study’s 4-hour post-exercise test period, 40 g protein did not elicit a greater anabolic response than 20 g. I’d interpret these outcomes with caution. Fundamentally speaking, protein utilization can differ according to muscle mass. The requirements of a 140-lb person will differ markedly from someone who’s a lean 200. Additionally, a relatively low amount of total volume was used (12 sets total). Typical training bouts usually involve more than one muscle group and are commonly at least double that volume, which can potentially increase the demand for nutrient uptake. Finally, the conclusion of the authors is questionable. They state explicitly,
“…we speculate that no more than 5-6 times daily could one ingest this amount (~20 g) of protein and expect muscle protein synthesis to be maximally stimulated.”
So, they’re implying that 100-120 grams of protein per day is maximal for promoting muscle growth. Wait a minute, what? Based on both the bulk of the research evidence and numerous field observations, this is simply false [8,9].
In another recent study, Symons and colleagues compared the 5-hour response of a moderate serving of lean beef containing 30 g protein with a large serving containing 90 g protein [10]. The smaller serving increased protein synthesis by approximately 50%, and the larger serving caused no further increase in protein synthesis, despite being triple the dose. The researchers concluded that the ingestion of more than 30 g protein in a single meal does not further enhance muscle protein synthesis. While their conclusion indeed supports the outcomes of their short-term study, it’s pretty easy to predict the outcomes in muscle size and strength if we compared a total daily protein dose of 90 g with 30 g over a longer trial period, let alone one involving a structured exercise protocol. This brings me to the crucial point that acute outcomes merely provide grounds for hypothesis. It’s not completely meaningless, but it’s far from conclusive without examining the long-term effects.
Longer-term research challenging the magic limit
If we were to believe the premise that a 20-30 g dose of protein yields a maximal anabolic effect, then it follows that any excess beyond this dose would be wasted. On the contrary, the body is smarter than that. In a 14-day trial, Arnal and colleagues found no difference in fat-free mass or nitrogen retention between consuming 79% of the day’s protein needs (roughly 54 g) in one meal, versus the same amount spread across four meals [11].
Notably, this study was done on young female adults whose fat-free mass averaged 40.8 kg (89.8 lb). Considering that most non-sedentary males have considerably more lean mass than the female subjects used in the aforementioned trial, it’s plausible that much more than 54 g protein in a single meal can be efficiently processed for anabolic and/or anti-catabolic purposes. If we extrapolated the protein dose used in this study (79% of 1.67g/kg) to the average adult male, it would be roughly 85-95 g or even more, depending on just how close someone is to the end of the upper limits of muscular size.
When Arnal and colleagues applied the same protocol to the elderly population, the single-dose treatment actually caused better muscle protein retention than the multiple-dose treatment [12]. This raises the possibility that as we age, larger protein feedings might be necessary to achieve the same effect on protein retention as lesser amounts in our youth.
IF research nailing the coffin shut?
Perhaps the strongest case against the idea of a dosing limit beyond which anabolism or muscle retention can occur is the recent intermittent fasting (IF) research, particularly the trials with a control group on a conventional diet. For example, Soeters and colleagues compared two weeks of IF involving 20-hour fasting cycles with a conventional diet [13]. Despite the IF group’s consumption of an average of 101 g protein in a 4-hour window, there was no difference in preservation of lean mass and muscle protein between groups.
In another example, Stote and colleagues actually reported an improvement in body composition (including an increase in lean mass) after 8 weeks in the IF group consuming one meal per day, where roughly 86 g protein was ingested in a 4-hour window [14]. Interestingly, the conventional group consuming three meals spread throughout the day showed no significant body composition improvements.
Keep in mind that bioelectrical impedance (BIA) was used to determine body composition, so these outcomes should be viewed with caution. I’ve been highly critical of this study in the past, and I still am. Nevertheless, it cannot be completely written off and must be factored into the body of evidence against the idea of a magic protein dose limit.
Conclusion & application
Based on the available evidence, it’s false to assume that the body can only use a certain amount of protein per meal. Studies examining short-term effects have provided hints towards what might be an optimal protein dose for maximizing anabolism, but trials drawn out over longer periods haven’t supported this idea. So, is there a limit to how much protein per meal can be effectively used? Yes there is, but this limit is likely similar to the amount that’s maximally effective in an entire day. What’s the most protein that the body can effectively use in an entire day? The short answer is, a lot more than 20-30 g. The long answer is, it depends on several factors. In most cases it’s not too far from a gram per pound in drug-free trainees, given that adequate total calories are provided [8,9].
In terms of application, I’ve consistently observed the effectiveness of having approximately a quarter of your target bodyweight in both the pre- and post-exercise meal. Note: target bodyweight is a surrogate index of lean mass, and I use that to avoid making skewed calculations in cases where individuals are markedly over- or underweight. This dose surpasses the amounts seen to cause a maximal anabolic response but doesn’t impinge upon the rest of the day’s protein allotment, which can be distributed as desired. On days off from training, combine or split up your total protein allotment according to your personal preference and digestive tolerance. I realize that freedom and flexibility are uncommon terms in physique culture, but maybe it’s time for a paradigm shift.
In sum, view all information – especially gym folklore and short-term research – with caution. Don’t buy into the myth that protein won’t get used efficiently unless it’s dosed sparingly throughout the day. Hopefully, future research will definitively answer how different dosing schemes with various protein types affect relevant endpoints such as size and strength. In the mean time, feel free to eat the whole steak and drink the whole shake, and if you want to get the best bang for your buck, go for a quality protein blend such as Nitrean!
References
1. Smeets AJ, Westerterp-Plantenga MS. Acute effects on metabolism and appetite profile of one meal difference in the lower range of meal frequency. Br J Nutr. 2008 Jun;99(6):1316-21.
2. Taylor MA, Garrow JS. Compared with nibbling, neither gorging nor a morning fast affect short-term energy balance in obese patients in a chamber calorimeter. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2001 Apr;25(4):519-28.
3. Bellisle F, McDevitt R, Prentice AM. Meal frequency and energy balance. Br J Nutr. 1997 Apr;77 Suppl 1:S57-70.
4. Verboeket-van de Venne WP, Westerterp KR. Frequency of feeding, weight reduction and energy metabolism. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 1993 Jan;17(1):31-6.
5. Verboeket-van de Venne WP, Westerterp KR. Influence of the feeding frequency on nutrient utilization in man: consequences for energy metabolism. Eur J Clin Nutr. 1991 Mar;45(3):161-9.
6. Bilsborough S, Mann N. A review of issues of dietary protein intake in humans. Int J Sport Nutr Exerc Metab. 2006 Apr;16(2):129-52.
7. Moore DR, et al. Ingested protein dose response of muscle and albumin protein synthesis after resistance exercise in young men. Am J Clin Nutr. 2009 Jan;89(1):161-8.
8. Campbell B, et al. International Society of Sports Nutrition position stand: protein and exercise. J Int Soc Sports Nutr. 2007 Sep 26;4:8.
9. Tipton KD, Wolfe RR. Protein and amino acids for athletes. J Sports Sci. 2004 Jan;22(1):65-79.
10. Symons TB, et al. A moderate serving of high-quality protein maximally stimulates skeletal muscle protein synthesis in young and elderly subjects. J Am Diet Assoc. 2009 Sep;109(9):1582-6.
11. Arnal MA, et al. Protein feeding pattern does not affect protein retention in young women. J Nutr. 2000 Jul;130(7):1700-4.
12. Arnal MA, et al. Protein pulse feeding improves protein retention in elderly women. Am J Clin Nutr. 1999 Jun;69(6):1202-8.
13. Soeters MR, et al. Intermittent fasting does not affect whole-body glucose, lipid, or protein metabolism. Am J Clin Nutr. 2009 Nov;90(5):1244-51.
14. Stote KS, et al. A controlled trial of reduced meal frequency without caloric restriction in healthy, normal-weight, middle-aged adults. Am J Clin Nutr. 2007 Apr;85(4):981-8.
-
After destroying the multiple meals frequency myth for bodybuilders, what about destroying the high protein myth for bodybuilders! ;D
http://www.healthfree.com/nutritional_power_myth.html
HOW MUCH PROTEIN IS "ENOUGH"
Human mother’s milk contains no more than 5% protein. This is enough protein to enable an infant to double it’s weight and size during the first 6 months of life! After that, the need for protein DECREASES. Independent researchers around the world agree that the human need for protein each day is only 25 - 35 GRAMS. (about 1 ounce). Many nutritionists feel that only 20 grams a day are more than enough. Meanwhile, the AVERAGE AMERICAN eats more than 100 GRAMS of protean a day - 5 times the actual need!
I was at my friends store the other day and this juicer was there and says: you need 900g of protein a day! I said, that is not necessary but he told me he made great gains that way. Whatever, if someone wants to do that, let them, I find 100-150 fine but am also fine with only 50.
-
After destroying the multiple meals frequency myth for bodybuilders, what about destroying the high protein myth for bodybuilders! ;D
http://www.healthfree.com/nutritional_power_myth.html
HOW MUCH PROTEIN IS "ENOUGH"
Human mother’s milk contains no more than 5% protein. This is enough protein to enable an infant to double it’s weight and size during the first 6 months of life! After that, the need for protein DECREASES. Independent researchers around the world agree that the human need for protein each day is only 25 - 35 GRAMS. (about 1 ounce). Many nutritionists feel that only 20 grams a day are more than enough. Meanwhile, the AVERAGE AMERICAN eats more than 100 GRAMS of protean a day - 5 times the actual need!
HOLY SHIT!
I just read that entire page. What an eyeopener :o :o!! Are the sources legit? It's not some anti-meat site with a vegetarian agenda is it?
If everything in there is true, I will never ever buy another protein supplement. Nor will I keep eating eggs, tuna, chicken etc if I dont feel like it. Fuck that shit, I'm eating pizza everyday if that shit is true.
-
Coach, why do you refuse to accept science?
Alchemy is science too. But, let's see you turn lead into gold.
-
Coach, why do you refuse to accept science?
ALL of my training programming and nutrition is based on science with some commonsense. This is why very few get it right. I guaranty if me and adonis and everyone else out there who thinks they "know-it-all" they have another thing coming. Five different people, five different answers. Adonis is an internet wizard, I spend about $10k a year actually traveling to the people who actually write the research and do the actual case studies. This is why most of these debates are laughable. I know people who lurk on here once in a while who are true experts and they just come back to me laughing there asses off.
After 36 years of training and over 15 years of training actual athletes from a high school to and elite pro I feel I'm qualified enough to just look at someone's program and see if they REALLY know what their talking about.
-
After destroying the multiple meals frequency myth for bodybuilders, what about destroying the high protein myth for bodybuilders! ;D
http://www.healthfree.com/nutritional_power_myth.html
HOW MUCH PROTEIN IS "ENOUGH"
Human mother’s milk contains no more than 5% protein. This is enough protein to enable an infant to double it’s weight and size during the first 6 months of life! After that, the need for protein DECREASES. Independent researchers around the world agree that the human need for protein each day is only 25 - 35 GRAMS. (about 1 ounce). Many nutritionists feel that only 20 grams a day are more than enough. Meanwhile, the AVERAGE AMERICAN eats more than 100 GRAMS of protean a day - 5 times the actual need!
;D ;D ;D
-
HOLY SHIT!
I just read that entire page. What an eyeopener :o :o!! Are the sources legit? It's not some anti-meat site with a vegetarian agenda is it?
If everything in there is true, I will never ever buy another protein supplement. Nor will I keep eating eggs, tuna, chicken etc if I dont feel like it. Fuck that shit, I'm eating pizza everyday if that shit is true.
I agree that high protein is not needed, but that article is a joke in my opinion and has clearly a vegetarian agenda.
-
I have read so many "studies" on both sides of the fence regarding protein. Some say 60 grams if more than enough on the other extreme is a G or two per pound of bodyweight.
I will admit I wonder if it's a placebo effect with me. I seem to make better gains when I use whey isolate shakes but is it just due to hard work?
I remember a guy telling me back in the day he stopped taking all vitamins and protein shakes. The first few months he said he fell like crap but came to realize it was psychological. He never went back to supplements.
The only thing I can really point to that I can swear made a difference in my work outs was creatine.
Today I feel sorry for teenagers and young guys in their twenties. Every other page of bodybuilding magazines are fill with supplement ads showing drug bodybuilders claiming it's virtues. It's almost all snake oil. It will do nothing for your physique.
-
One of the problems is TA likes to post "studies" for that of a normal person who either doesn't train. Protein varies from person to person to activity to activity.
-
One of the problems is TA likes to post "studies" for that of a normal person who either doesn't train. Protein varies from person to person to activity to activity.
Well the one I posted contains studies of people who do train. I say do what works for you and what is optimal for your needs and goals.
-
A normal metabo can not be sped up by eating more food.
-
Bill Pearl did not believe in large amounts of protein... as a matter of fact, he hired scientists to study the smallest amounts, and they were effective
Vince Taylor ate 3 meals a day (granted he was "whore-moan-eyezd) and his meals were FAR from clean.
There is some empirical data out there to stack to the science.
-
Let me summarize the findings of this thread:
Building muscle, getting into shape is not 50% training-50% nutrition, but 95% training and 5% nutriton. No protein needed, no frequent meals needed, all u need to do is working out 3x a week. Still, most people in a gym look like shit.
-
Let me summarize the findings of this thread:
Building muscle, getting into shape is not 50% training-50% nutrition, but 95% training and 5% nutriton. No protein needed, no frequent meals needed, all u need to do is working out 3x a week. Still, most people in a gym look like shit.
This is pretty accurate. Nutrition will matter very little to a natural. The best you can do is restrict calories and train hard. How you look from there is up to your genetics.
-
A normal metabo can not be sped up by eating more food.
more food as in more volume, more portions..what? thanks. :)
-
Let me summarize the findings of this thread:
Building muscle, getting into shape is not 50% training-50% nutrition, but 95% training and 5% nutriton. No protein needed, no frequent meals needed, all u need to do is working out 3x a week. Still, most people in a gym look like shit.
Good post.
diet is fucking everything
-
One of the problems is TA likes to post "studies" for that of a normal person who either doesn't train. Protein varies from person to person to activity to activity.
one of TA's problems is that he looks like shit but still continues to try to act the authority on bodybuilding nutrition when he's the furthest thing from looking like someone who even trains.
-
How about eating whenever your hungry?
Sounds logical to me, no?
Phil Hernon agrees with you
-
IMO,nutrition is at least 75% of the battle.
Eat like the slob who lives next door to you,and you`ll look like the slob who lives next door to you.
As far as protein goes,1-1.5 grams per pound of lean bodyweight is good for most..................re member we tear down tissue everytime we train,20-60 grams just ain`t gonna` cut it when it comes to growth and repair,unless you are a fucking fat couch potato.
End of thread dammit!! lol ;D
-
more food as in more volume, more portions..what? thanks. :)
Neither.
-
(http://www.t-nation.com/img/photos/2009/09-123-training/01.jpg)
This is the best body in the history of bodybuilding! 8)
-
Neither.
lol ???
-
I am not, and have never juiced. I've tried eating multiple small meals throughout the day, weighed and measured macronutrients per each small meal, blah blah blah. My tendency is to gain weight very easily (muscle and fat), but leaning out comes not so easily.
I've also just eaten a couple of meals a day. I usually don't have much of an appetite, so the multiple meals thing really did take some getting used to. So I did both for about 4 months each. I was very diligent with the smaller more frequent eating style, making sure I got my 30g of protein per meal. I did not end up any leaner - just felt more tired and had less time in the day to get things done because I always seemed to be eating.
Two meals a day was really comfortable, didn't get fat, still gained nicely, and it was much easier to manage than eating frequently.
Just my two cents worth - I never found the results I was told I would with the smaller more frequent meals.
I do notice a difference when I up my protein though. Not to crazy proportions but it certainly adds some strength as far as I can tell.
And I think periodic fasting is fantastic for your health. Big big believer in it.
-
2 meals...
just having my second now did not work out today though
22:17
-
I am not, and have never juiced. I've tried eating multiple small meals throughout the day, weighed and measured macronutrients per each small meal, blah blah blah. My tendency is to gain weight very easily (muscle and fat), but leaning out comes not so easily.
I've also just eaten a couple of meals a day. I usually don't have much of an appetite, so the multiple meals thing really did take some getting used to. So I did both for about 4 months each. I was very diligent with the smaller more frequent eating style, making sure I got my 30g of protein per meal. I did not end up any leaner - just felt more tired and had less time in the day to get things done because I always seemed to be eating.
Two meals a day was really comfortable, didn't get fat, still gained nicely, and it was much easier to manage than eating frequently.
Just my two cents worth - I never found the results I was told I would with the smaller more frequent meals.
I do notice a difference when I up my protein though. Not to crazy proportions but it certainly adds some strength as far as I can tell.
And I think periodic fasting is fantastic for your health. Big big believer in it.
Post Quoted for Truth. The small meal diet/30 g of Protein per meal is pure bullshit and Bro-Science.
I do 16 hour fasts combined with my Adonis Principles. Its all you need.
-
Post Quoted for Truth. The small meal diet/30 g of Protein per meal is pure bullshit and Bro-Science.
I do 16 hour fasts combined with my Adonis Principles. Its all you need.
There really is no reason to fast other than wanting to.
-
There really is no reason to fast other than wanting to.
Fasting is Scientifically proven to reduce bodyfat, decreased blood Glucose levels, decreased insulin sensitivity, increased lipolysis, increased glucagon levels, increased Growth Hormone levels, increased norandrenaline levels, no increase in cortisol and increased testosterone as well as many other anti-aging effects just to name a few benefits of Intermittent Fasting. These all occur above your conventional diets and eating regimes.
If you are interested I can provide you with many studies on why IF is much better than your regular eating patterns.
-
Eating Five Or Six Meals Each Day Speeds Up Metabolism - MYTH?
More along the line that if you go for 8 hours or or more without eating anything, your body starts to remove protein from your skeletal muscles to turn it into glucose in the liver via gluconeogenesis since it prefers to use muscle tissue as energy instead of fat for several reasons. By burning your muscles, your body solves two problems at once: it provides energy for the starving body and decreases the caloric needs of the body since muscles cost energy to maintain. Less muscle means a lower basal metabolic rate which in turn makes you burn less fat. Only after the skeletal muscles have been reduced to the minimum necessary for functioning will the body start burning your bodyfat for energy. This is highly effective if you are starving, but it is terrible for muscle hypertrophy. Your body doesen't care about big muscles one bit: it cares about your survival. Your entire body has one prime directive: to supply the brain with Oxygen and glucose(which gets converted in the brain into lactate) or ketones if no carbohydrates are available. Keeping the brain alive is what matters to your entire body and it will do whatever it takes to accomplish this. If you are in the middle of a fire in the woods and start suffocating for lack of Oxygen, your legs and arms will start to go purple as your body will cut Oxygen supply to all your limbs so that your brain gets enough. If it gets worse, it will make you pass out as less Oxygen is needed if you are making no movements and so forth. In the case of starvation, your body will canibalize itself to supply your brain, which is you, with the sugar it needs, and skeletal muscles are the first thing to go as they are the least necessary thing in the body - much less important than your internal organs like the liver, kidneys and heart.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
More along the line that if you go for 8 hours or or more without eating anything, your body starts to remove protein from your skeletal muscles to turn it into glucose in the liver via gluconeogenesis since it prefers to use muscle tissue as energy instead of fat for several reasons. By burning your muscles, your body solves two problems at once: it provides energy for the starving body and decreases the caloric needs of the body since muscles cost energy to maintain. Less muscle means a lower basal metabolic rate which in turn makes you burn less fat. Only after the skeletal muscles have been reduced to the minimum necessary for functioning will the body start burning your bodyfat for energy. This is highly effective if you are starving, but it is terrible for muscle hypertrophy. Your body doesen't care about big muscles one bit: it cares about your survival. Your entire body has one prime directive: to supply the brain with Oxygen and glucose(which gets converted in the brain into lactate) or ketones if no carbohydrates are available. Keeping the brain alive is what matters to your entire body and it will do whatever it takes to accomplish this. If you are in the middle of a fire in the woods and start suffocating for lack of Oxygen, your legs and arms will start to go purple as your body will cut Oxygen supply to all your limbs so that your brain gets enough. If it gets worse, it will make you pass out as less Oxygen is needed if you are making no movements and so forth. In the case of starvation, your body will canibalize itself to supply your brain, which is you, with the sugar it needs, and skeletal muscles are the first thing to go as they are the least necessary thing in the body - much less important than your internal organs like the liver, kidneys and heart.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
::)
I hope this helps.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21410865?dopt=Abstract
Obes Rev. 2011 Jul;12(7):e593-601. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-789X.2011.00873.x. Epub 2011 Mar 17.
Intermittent versus daily calorie restriction: which diet regimen is more effective for weight loss?
These findings suggest that these diets are equally as effective in decreasing body weight and fat mass, although intermittent CR may be more effective for the retention of lean mass.
-
I hope this helps.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21410865?dopt=Abstract
Obes Rev. 2011 Jul;12(7):e593-601. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-789X.2011.00873.x. Epub 2011 Mar 17.
Intermittent versus daily calorie restriction: which diet regimen is more effective for weight loss?
These findings suggest that these diets are equally as effective in decreasing body weight and fat mass, although intermittent CR may be more effective for the retention of lean mass.
I would like to see what was the methodology of this study and how well controlled the parameters were. Was this study repeated? What were the conditions under which the participants undertook it? Were they taking medications that would alter their physiology in some way? I am not saying it isn't possible, but the first sign of starvation is an increased amount of ammonia, uric acid and also creatinine which are indicatives of protein breakdown. Since no protein is being ingested, it could only come from body tissues. This comes before ketones are increased in urine, which suggests that bodily tissue is catabolized before bodyfat stores are.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
Truth!
-
Just another thread to shake my head....fuck TA..."Broscience" hahaha. Do. You even have a clue?
-
Welcome to 1997 but you are wrong.
There is no such thing as "clean" eating and don`t make me post Layne Norton`s dissertation of why meal frequency does not have any effect on Metabolic Rate.
There is no "Conservation Mode".
Satiety has more to do with Personal Preference and Water Content than anything else.
I Hope this helps (I doubt that it will).
Yeah didn't Layne come to the conclusion that eating protein 4-5 hours apart was actually better than 2-3?
-
Good thread everyone, very informative!!!!
All the way helpful information!!!
-
Myth: Fasting tricks the body into "starvation mode".
Truth
Efficient adaptation to famine was important for survival during rough times in our evolution. Lowering metabolic rate during starvation allowed us to live longer, increasing the possibility that we might come across something to eat. Starvation literally means starvation. It doesn't mean skipping a meal not eating for 24 hours. Or not eating for three days even. The belief that meal skipping or short-term fasting causes "starvation mode" is so completely ridiculous and absurd that it makes me want to jump out the window.
Looking at the numerous studies I've read, the earliest evidence for lowered metabolic rate in response to fasting occurred after 60 hours (-8% in resting metabolic rate). Other studies show metabolic rate is not impacted until 72-96 hours have passed (George Cahill has contributed a lot on this topic).
Seemingly paradoxical, metabolic rate is actually increased in short-term fasting. For some concrete numbers, studies have shown an increase of 3.6% - 10% after 36-48 hours (Mansell PI, et al, and Zauner C, et al). This makes sense from an evolutionary perspective. Epinephrine and norepinephrine (adrenaline/noradrenaline) sharpens the mind and makes us want to move around. Desirable traits that encouraged us to seek for food, or for the hunter to kill his prey, increasing survival. At some point, after several days of no eating, this benefit would confer no benefit to survival and probably would have done more harm than good; instead, an adaptation that favored conservation of energy turned out to be advantageous. Thus metabolic rate is increased in short-term fasting (up to 60 hours).
Again, I have choosen extreme examples to show how absurd the myth of "starvation mode" is - especially when you consider that the exact opposite is true in the context of how the term is thrown around.
Origin
I guess some genius read that fasting or starvation causes metabolic rate to drop and took that to mean that meal skipping, or not eating for a day or two, would cause starvation mode.
-
Myth: Fasting tricks the body into "starvation mode".
Truth
Efficient adaptation to famine was important for survival during rough times in our evolution. Lowering metabolic rate during starvation allowed us to live longer, increasing the possibility that we might come across something to eat. Starvation literally means starvation. It doesn't mean skipping a meal not eating for 24 hours. Or not eating for three days even. The belief that meal skipping or short-term fasting causes "starvation mode" is so completely ridiculous and absurd that it makes me want to jump out the window.
Looking at the numerous studies I've read, the earliest evidence for lowered metabolic rate in response to fasting occurred after 60 hours (-8% in resting metabolic rate). Other studies show metabolic rate is not impacted until 72-96 hours have passed (George Cahill has contributed a lot on this topic).
Seemingly paradoxical, metabolic rate is actually increased in short-term fasting. For some concrete numbers, studies have shown an increase of 3.6% - 10% after 36-48 hours (Mansell PI, et al, and Zauner C, et al). This makes sense from an evolutionary perspective. Epinephrine and norepinephrine (adrenaline/noradrenaline) sharpens the mind and makes us want to move around. Desirable traits that encouraged us to seek for food, or for the hunter to kill his prey, increasing survival. At some point, after several days of no eating, this benefit would confer no benefit to survival and probably would have done more harm than good; instead, an adaptation that favored conservation of energy turned out to be advantageous. Thus metabolic rate is increased in short-term fasting (up to 60 hours).
Again, I have choosen extreme examples to show how absurd the myth of "starvation mode" is - especially when you consider that the exact opposite is true in the context of how the term is thrown around.
Origin
I guess some genius read that fasting or starvation causes metabolic rate to drop and took that to mean that meal skipping, or not eating for a day or two, would cause starvation mode.
I have no science to back this up so its just opinion...but I really don't think its a good idea to eat six meals a day in order to keep your metabolism burning.....I don't think its a good idea to have your body constantly burning......its like keeping your car engine on all the time....I think it could lead to premature death...you are literally working your organs to death
-
I have no science to back this up so its just opinion...but I really don't think its a good idea to eat six meals a day in order to keep your metabolism burning.....I don't think its a good idea to have your body constantly burning......its like keeping your car engine on all the time....I think it could lead to premature death...you are literally working your organs to death
it doesnt keep your metabolism burning. your metabolic rate is the same whether you eat one meal per day or 20.
-
Just reading "Purposeful primitive". Anybody read it? This discussion reminds me of the debate "Parillo" vs "Warrior" method in the book.
-
eating 5 meals a day does not speed up metabolize, nothing to do with it,
the reason bbs eat 5 meals ed cause of the calories consumption carb,protein,fat
is impossible consume 5000 calories in 2 meals your stomach will not absorb all this food at ones, cause your insulin goes up to the roof and u and up fat. that why we split it through the day. of course drugs needs to be in our blood all the time, other wise we and up fat after all this calories.
also eating 5 meals you get benefit for wightloss or balancing your wight, cause when you on 2k calories diet program you dont wont to put all 2k cal split it in 2meals, cause you will get more wight, is all about glycemic index.
-
Sir, you have certainly redeemed yourself for all the homosexuality, misguided political opinions, and bullshit you've spread here in the past.
I salute you!
Myth: Fasting tricks the body into "starvation mode".
Truth
Efficient adaptation to famine was important for survival during rough times in our evolution. Lowering metabolic rate during starvation allowed us to live longer, increasing the possibility that we might come across something to eat. Starvation literally means starvation. It doesn't mean skipping a meal not eating for 24 hours. Or not eating for three days even. The belief that meal skipping or short-term fasting causes "starvation mode" is so completely ridiculous and absurd that it makes me want to jump out the window.
Looking at the numerous studies I've read, the earliest evidence for lowered metabolic rate in response to fasting occurred after 60 hours (-8% in resting metabolic rate). Other studies show metabolic rate is not impacted until 72-96 hours have passed (George Cahill has contributed a lot on this topic).
Seemingly paradoxical, metabolic rate is actually increased in short-term fasting. For some concrete numbers, studies have shown an increase of 3.6% - 10% after 36-48 hours (Mansell PI, et al, and Zauner C, et al). This makes sense from an evolutionary perspective. Epinephrine and norepinephrine (adrenaline/noradrenaline) sharpens the mind and makes us want to move around. Desirable traits that encouraged us to seek for food, or for the hunter to kill his prey, increasing survival. At some point, after several days of no eating, this benefit would confer no benefit to survival and probably would have done more harm than good; instead, an adaptation that favored conservation of energy turned out to be advantageous. Thus metabolic rate is increased in short-term fasting (up to 60 hours).
Again, I have choosen extreme examples to show how absurd the myth of "starvation mode" is - especially when you consider that the exact opposite is true in the context of how the term is thrown around.
Origin
I guess some genius read that fasting or starvation causes metabolic rate to drop and took that to mean that meal skipping, or not eating for a day or two, would cause starvation mode.
-
If this was so cut and dry and black and white, why wouldn't you just move on a worry about something else?
It's like arguing about the existence of god or if abortion should be legal.
-
eating 5 meals a day does not speed up metabolize, nothing to do with it,
the reason bbs eat 5 meals ed cause of the calories consumption carb,protein,fat
is impossible consume 5000 calories in 2 meals your stomach will not absorb all this food at ones, cause your insulin goes up to the roof and u and up fat. that why we split it through the day. of course drugs needs to be in our blood all the time, other wise we and up fat after all this calories.
also eating 5 meals you get benefit for wightloss or balancing your wight, cause when you on 2k calories diet program you dont wont to put all 2k cal split it in 2meals, cause you will get more wight, is all about glycemic index.
Effect of meal frequency on glucose and insulin excursions over the course of a day
Background & aims
This study characterized the glucose and insulin responses to temporal alterations in meal frequency, and alterations in the macronutrient composition.
Methods
Eight subjects underwent three separate 12-h meal tests: three high carbohydrate (3CHO) meals, 6 high carbohydrate meals (6CHO), 6 high-protein meals (6HP). Blood samples were taken at 15-min intervals. Integrated area under the curve (AUC) concentrations for glucose and plasma insulin were determined (total, 4-h, and 2-h blocks) for each meal condition.
Results
Baseline glucose and insulin values were not different between study days. Peak glucose levels were highest on the 3CHO day; however the 12 h glucose AUC was higher during the 6CHO condition (p = 0.029) than 3CHO condition, with no difference in the insulin response. The 6HP condition resulted in a decreased glucose AUC (p = 0.004) and insulin AUC (p = 0.012) compared to 6CHO.
Conclusions
In non-obese individuals, glucose levels remained elevated throughout the day with frequent CHO meals compared to 3CHO meals, without any differences in the insulin levels. Increasing the protein content of frequent meals attenuated both the glucose and insulin response.
________________________ ________________________ ________________________ ________________________ _________
Myth: Eat small meals to keep blood sugar levels under control.
Truth
According to legions of diet and health "experts," eating small meals every so often will help you avoid hunger pangs, provide you with stable energy throughout the day and keep you mentally sharp. Contrary to what many people seem to believe, blood sugar is extremely well-regulated and maintained within a tight range in healthy people. It does not swing wildly up and down like a chimpanzee on meth and it doesn't plummet from going a few hours without food. Or even a full day without food. Or a week without food for that matter.
People seem to believe they will suffer severe hunger and mental impairment from not eating every so often. Consider for a second the evolutionary consequences for survival if this was true. Given that regular periods of fasting, even famine, was a natural part of our past, do you think we'd be here today if we were unable to function when obtaining food was most critical? I have seen healthy young males, bodybuilders nonetheless, complain of lethargy and mental haze if they didn't get to eat for a few hours. It's completely absurd. But I digress...
Maintaining blood sugar is of very high priority and we have developed efficient pathways that will make it happen even under extreme conditions. If you were to fast for 23 hrs and then go for a 90 min run at 70-75% VO2max, your blood sugar after the run would be identical to the same run performed in the fed state. It would take no less than three days or 84 hours of fasting to reach blood sugar levels low enough to affect your mental state; and this is temporary, as your brain adapts to the use of ketones. During 48 hours of fasting, or severe calorie deprivation, blood sugar is maintained within a normal range no measure of cognitive performance is negatively affected.
For more on blood sugar, read my review of Eat Stop Eat Expanded Edition, which includes a relevant excerpt. Also, keep in mind that the above cited studies are all performed under conditions that are much more extreme than the fasting protocol I, or Brad Pilon, recommends.
What about blood sugar and hunger? Blood sugar is one of many short-term feedback mechanisms used to regulate hunger and the notion which exists to say that low blood sugar may cause hunger is correct. Low just means lower range. This is subject to numerous confounders, such as your habitual diet, energy intake and genetics. Most importantly perhaps, it's subject to entrained meal patterns, regulated by ghrelin and other metabolic hormones. In essence, this means that blood sugar follows the meal pattern you are used to. This is relevant for those who fear blood sugar issues and hunger from regular periods of fasting, as it serves to explain why people can easily adapt to regular periods of fasting without negative effects.
Origin
Not sure how people came to believe that skipping a meal would dumb them down. There is some truth to blood sugar and hunger, but this is often taken out of context. There's no need to eat regularly to "maintain" blood sugar as it maintains itself just fine and adapts to whatever meal pattern you choose.
________________________ ________________________ ________________________ ________________________ ______
-
eating 5 meals a day does not speed up metabolize, nothing to do with it,
the reason bbs eat 5 meals ed cause of the calories consumption carb,protein,fat
is impossible consume 5000 calories in 2 meals your stomach will not absorb all this food at ones, cause your insulin goes up to the roof and u and up fat. that why we split it through the day. of course drugs needs to be in our blood all the time, other wise we and up fat after all this calories.
also eating 5 meals you get benefit for wightloss or balancing your wight, cause when you on 2k calories diet program you dont wont to put all 2k cal split it in 2meals, cause you will get more wight, is all about glycemic index.
Finally someone, who even have a clue about the matter. How nice ;D
-
Provide a link for these studies. Just don't cut and paste
-
As far as I can tell, the only way to naturally speed up metabolism is to build more muscle mass, and that some foods/drinks can minorly contribute, and only temporarily. That's it?
Well no , your body needs energy to digest and put that food to where its best used , its called TEF or Thermic Effect of Food and its well documented, the increase in metabolism is slight but over the course of a day you do burn more calories by taking in smaller feedings than if you were to take in 3 larger meals.
If you ate 3 large meals your metabolism would go up then drop right off - by smaller eating every few hours it keeps your metabilism raised.
-
Well no , your body needs energy to digest and put that food to where its best used , its called TEF or Thermic Effect of Food and its well documented, the increase in metabolism is slight but over the course of a day you do burn more calories by taking in smaller feedings than if you were to take in 3 larger meals.
If you ate 3 large meals your metabolism would go up then drop right off - by smaller eating every few hours it keeps your metabilism raised.
Well not true, every one have different metabolism, also depend on our lifestyle, age, stress, health. first we have to look what type of carbs and amount in this 3 meals before we force in our stomach, as I mention before is all about GI for more info http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glycemic_index, for example summo wrestlers consume 3 large meals some times 2 up to 5k cal a day including beer for extra cal, and look at them :)
-
Fasting is Scientifically proven to reduce bodyfat, decreased blood Glucose levels, decreased insulin sensitivity, increased lipolysis, increased glucagon levels, increased Growth Hormone levels, increased norandrenaline levels, no increase in cortisol and increased testosterone as well as many other anti-aging effects just to name a few benefits of Intermittent Fasting. These all occur above your conventional diets and eating regimes.
If you are interested I can provide you with many studies on why IF is much better than your regular eating patterns.
Eating a lower carb diet will do the same thing and you never have to feel hungry.
-
Just Eat, Work, Sleep, defecate, and fuck if your lucky. Thats all
-
Well not true, every one have different metabolism, also depend on our lifestyle, age, stress, health. first we have to look what type of carbs and amount in this 3 meals before we force in our stomach, as I mention before is all about GI for more info http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glycemic_index, for example summo wrestlers consume 3 large meals some times 2 up to 5k cal a day including beer for extra cal, and look at them :)
Its whats taught in exercise science classes all over the world dude , tested on athletes and everyday normal people - you are correct everyone of us has differences but you can not escape the fact that everytime you ingest something your metabolism is raised , 3 large meals a day puts spikes and plateaus in the TEF effects where as 6 - 7 smaller meals heightens your metabolism for the whole day..
Wiki vs Real tested and taught in ex sciences classes around the world - what do you pick :D
-
eating is fun
-
Eating a lower carb diet will do the same thing and you never have to feel hungry.
But you getting flat and we don't want that to happen?
-
But you getting flat and we don't want that to happen?
Explain flat? Remember I said lower not zero or low and we are talking health not BBing.
-
Look, "he/she has a slow metabolism" or " I have a fast metabolism" is usually in reference to how hard it is for someone to lose weight or gain or about how much food they can consume. But first you guys need to even define what "metabolism" is but SIMPLY put, your metabolic rate is the total energy expenditure of the body. Everything that the body does...breathing, heart beat, organ function, etc all require some amount of energy. The rate differs from person to person, you and someone else can have the same activity level, diet and weight but still gain or lose at different rates based on differences in metabolism.
Combining food with oxygen releases the energy needed to function. Every activity that happens requires some form of energy. The total of all of these actions is measured in calories (unit of heat). This is your metabolic rate (metabolism), the rate on which your body consumes energy.
60-70% is the largest and falls in your RMR (resting metabolic rate). Long story short (and I can go on ALL DAY). Three things have to come into play.....Resting metabolic rate (RMR - the sum of BMR + basic living), diet induced thermo (DIT) and energy of activity.
60-70% RMR
20-30% Activity induced
10% dietary
Quick example of TEF.....Fat has a low TEF of about 3-5% while protein is A LOT higher at about 30-35% (for those that understand TEF)
BTW, Disgusted has it right with the lower carbs.
-
Look, "he/she has a slow metabolism" or " I have a fast metabolism" is usually in reference to how hard it is for someone to lose weight or gain or about how much food they can consume. But first you guys need to even define what "metabolism" is but SIMPLY put, your metabolic rate is the total energy expenditure of the body. Everything that the body does...breathing, heart beat, organ function, etc all require some amount of energy. The rate differs from person to person, you and someone else can have the same activity level, diet and weight but still gain or lose at different rates based on differences in metabolism.
Combining food with oxygen releases the energy needed to function. Every activity that happens requires some form of energy. The total of all of these actions is measured in calories (unit of heat). This is your metabolic rate (metabolism), the rate on which your body consumes energy.
60-70% is the largest and falls in your RMR (resting metabolic rate). Long story short (and I can go on ALL DAY). Three things have to come into play.....Resting metabolic rate (RMR - the sum of BMR + basic living), diet induced thermo (DIT) and energy of activity.
60-70% RMR
20-30% Activity induced
10% dietary
Quick example of TEF.....Fat has a low TEF of about 3-5% while protein is A LOT higher at about 30-35% (for those that understand TEF)
BTW, Disgusted has it right with the lower carbs.
Absolutely correct, good explanation
-
Look, "he/she has a slow metabolism" or " I have a fast metabolism" is usually in reference to how hard it is for someone to lose weight or gain or about how much food they can consume. But first you guys need to even define what "metabolism" is but SIMPLY put, your metabolic rate is the total energy expenditure of the body. Everything that the body does...breathing, heart beat, organ function, etc all require some amount of energy. The rate differs from person to person, you and someone else can have the same activity level, diet and weight but still gain or lose at different rates based on differences in metabolism.
Combining food with oxygen releases the energy needed to function. Every activity that happens requires some form of energy. The total of all of these actions is measured in calories (unit of heat). This is your metabolic rate (metabolism), the rate on which your body consumes energy.
60-70% is the largest and falls in your RMR (resting metabolic rate). Long story short (and I can go on ALL DAY). Three things have to come into play.....Resting metabolic rate (RMR - the sum of BMR + basic living), diet induced thermo (DIT) and energy of activity.
60-70% RMR
20-30% Activity induced
10% dietary
Quick example of TEF.....Fat has a low TEF of about 3-5% while protein is A LOT higher at about 30-35% (for those that understand TEF)
BTW, Disgusted has it right with the lower carbs.
So...TEF is related to the food one eats and different macros have different thermic effects, nice.....but why would number of meals affect TEF in any way, when total calories and macronutrients are the same?
-
Provide a link for these studies. Just don't cut and paste
ITS COMMON SENSE. YOUR BODY NEEDS X AMOUNT OF CALORIES PER DAY. IF YOU HAVENT EATEN ALL DAY YOUR MUSCLES WILL BE EMPTY. SO WHEN YOU EAT A MASSIVE MEAL ALL THAT FOOD GOES DIRECTLY INTO THE MUSCLE. INSULIN SENSITIVITY IS DIRECTLY RELATED TO GLYCOGEN LEVELS. WHEN THEY ARE LOW, INSULIN SENSITIVITY IS HIGH. EMPTY MUSCLES= NO NEED FOR INSULIN RELEASE IN RESPONSE TO BIG CARBOHYDATE LOAD. YOU THINK YOU UNDERSTAND NUTRITION BUT YOU DONT KNOW JACK SHIT.
Well no , your body needs energy to digest and put that food to where its best used , its called TEF or Thermic Effect of Food and its well documented, the increase in metabolism is slight but over the course of a day you do burn more calories by taking in smaller feedings than if you were to take in 3 larger meals.
If you ate 3 large meals your metabolism would go up then drop right off - by smaller eating every few hours it keeps your metabilism raised.
TEF IS DETERMINED BY TOTAL AMOUNT OF FOOD EATEN... ITS A % OF CALORIES INGESTED... FOR EXAMPLE... 25 GRAMS OF PROTEIN TAKES ROUGHLY 20 CALORIES TO DIGEST.... REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THOSE 25 GRAMS WERE CONSUMED ALL AT ONCE, OR SPREAD OUT OVER 25 1 GRAM FEEDINGS... IF YOU EAT THE SAME AMOUNT OF FOOD, IT DOESNT MATTER HOW MANY MEALS YOU SPREAD IT OUT OVER IT WILL REQUIRE THE SAME AMOUNT OF ENERGY TO DIGEST
So...TEF is related to the food one eats and different macros have different thermic effects, nice.....but why would number of meals affect TEF in any way, when total calories and macronutrients are the same?
IT DOESNT.
-
Tbombz must of missed my post.
-
This ended quick!
-
Tbombz must of missed my post.
protein is more thermic than carbs or fats... is that yoru point ? so what.. what controls the basal metabolic rate ? thyroid hormone.. what controls thyroid hormone levels? mainly glucose intake.. idiot
-
LOL....I just caught this. Going to bed now. I'll tear answer apart tomorrow. lol
-
What's funny, I posted that right after you posted yours, you saw it and had all day to respond. Its takes along time to google something that isn't posted on the internet. lol
-
Well not true, every one have different metabolism, also depend on our lifestyle, age, stress, health. first we have to look what type of carbs and amount in this 3 meals before we force in our stomach, as I mention before is all about GI for more info http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glycemic_index, for example summo wrestlers consume 3 large meals some times 2 up to 5k cal a day including beer for extra cal, and look at them :)
You should have learn rule of thumb this forum: Fact's have nothing to do with the matter. It is all about who has the best endurance to rub it in. These guys doesn't understand even simplest facts, there isn't any capacity for that. This thread is good example, because even the first question is incorrect. Eating six meals a day is helps your body to absorb protein etc. from the food, and if that speed up your metabolism, it would be fucking nice thing to happen, but nobody eat six meas a day just for that. If you think you need 400g protein for day and you eat it on one meal, all it does is that your shit would be full of protein, because your body can't absorb it all it once. If you eat it in six meals, you at least give your body a change to absorb it. This can't be so hard to understand, but will they understand it ? No fucking way to do that ;D
-
You guys need to stop using "speed up" or "slow" metabolism. It doesn't work that way.
-
What's funny, I posted that right after you posted yours, you saw it and had all day to respond. Its takes along time to google something that isn't posted on the internet. lol
::) i dont spend all day on the computer retard... looking forward to another one of your assanine comments..
-
I PROMISE I'll school your ass tomorrow. Damn, you STILL have a lot to learn.
-
The problem with you idiots is that you read a single study, for which we know nothing about the methodology involved, and assume it is the bottom line on a subject. For instance, pharmaceutical companies make dozens of studies over many years using different protocols to determine the safety and effectiveness of a medication. The studies are rigorously controlled for extrinsic variables that may affect the result, are double-blind and placebo-controlled. You guys just read the excerpt from a single study on Pubmed and think that you know everything there is to know about it. Before we accept that intermitent fasting preserves mass better than multiple meals eaten throughout the day, we need to know exactly how this study was conducted and what were the methods and protocols used to arrive to this conclusion. How can they even measure this? Lean body mass change in a daily basis would be almost impossible to asses accurately.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
The problem with you idiots is that you read a single study, for which we know nothing about the methodology involved, and assume it is the bottom line on a subject. For instance, pharmaceutical companies make dozens of studies over many years using different protocols to determine the safety and effectiveness of a medication. The studies are rigorously controlled for extrinsic variables that may affect the result, are double-blind and placebo-controlled. You guys just read the excerpt from a single study on Pubmed and think that you know everything there is to know about it. Before we accept that internitent fasting preserve mass better than multiple meals eaten throughout the day, we need to know exactly how this study was conducted and what were the methods and protocals used to arrive to this conclusion. How can they even measure this? Lean body mass change in a daily basis would be almost impossible to asses accurately.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
It is then up to you to point out the problems with the particular study. Rather than just state that not all journal articles and their conclusions are accurate. Until then that peer reviewed article is valid and we can all accept it's conclusion.
-
TEF IS DETERMINED BY TOTAL AMOUNT OF FOOD EATEN... ITS A % OF CALORIES INGESTED... FOR EXAMPLE... 25 GRAMS OF PROTEIN TAKES ROUGHLY 20 CALORIES TO DIGEST.... REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THOSE 25 GRAMS WERE CONSUMED ALL AT ONCE, OR SPREAD OUT OVER 25 1 GRAM FEEDINGS... IF YOU EAT THE SAME AMOUNT OF FOOD, IT DOESNT MATTER HOW MANY MEALS YOU SPREAD IT OUT OVER IT WILL REQUIRE THE SAME AMOUNT OF ENERGY TO DIGEST
I think you misunderstood what I meant , TEF is best used by eating smaller more frequent meals as it keeps your metabolism raised above baseline levels throughout the day meaning you are constantly burning fat - 3 larger meals do not do this - you get peaks and plateaus and even drops below baseline by eating in that fashion , this is proven fact in many studies.
-
It is then up to you to point out the problems with the particular study.
How can I point all the problems with that study? I tried to open it and only the excerpt was available. And peer-reviewed just means that the study followed an acdpeted protocol to come to it's conclusion. It does not tell us what protocol it was or what were the methods involved. I can say, though, that accurately assesing lean body mass changes from day to day accurately would be almost impossible.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
ITS COMMON SENSE. YOUR BODY NEEDS X AMOUNT OF CALORIES PER DAY. IF YOU HAVENT EATEN ALL DAY YOUR MUSCLES WILL BE EMPTY. SO WHEN YOU EAT A MASSIVE MEAL ALL THAT FOOD GOES DIRECTLY INTO THE MUSCLE. INSULIN SENSITIVITY IS DIRECTLY RELATED TO GLYCOGEN LEVELS. WHEN THEY ARE LOW, INSULIN SENSITIVITY IS HIGH. EMPTY MUSCLES= NO NEED FOR INSULIN RELEASE IN RESPONSE TO BIG CARBOHYDATE LOAD. YOU THINK YOU UNDERSTAND NUTRITION BUT YOU DONT KNOW JACK SHIT.
TEF IS DETERMINED BY TOTAL AMOUNT OF FOOD EATEN... ITS A % OF CALORIES INGESTED... FOR EXAMPLE... 25 GRAMS OF PROTEIN TAKES ROUGHLY 20 CALORIES TO DIGEST.... REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THOSE 25 GRAMS WERE CONSUMED ALL AT ONCE, OR SPREAD OUT OVER 25 1 GRAM FEEDINGS... IF YOU EAT THE SAME AMOUNT OF FOOD, IT DOESNT MATTER HOW MANY MEALS YOU SPREAD IT OUT OVER IT WILL REQUIRE THE SAME AMOUNT OF ENERGY TO DIGEST
IT DOESNT.
Lets see your client list stud. You're not even in my realm dude and I'm not even CLOSE to joking.
-
Lets see your client list stud. You're not even in my realm dude and I'm not even CLOSE to joking.
Ask your Butt buddy John Berardi about Intermittent Fasting. He just released his results with it going form 10 percent to 4 percent using methods I have explained.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2011/10/12/prweb8874352.DTL&ao=2
http://www.precisionnutrition.com/intermittent-fasting
-
Ask your Butt buddy John Berardi about Intermittent Fasting. He just released his results with it.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2011/10/12/prweb8874352.DTL&ao=2
And here comes the other cut and paste idiot. I already read it....when he sent it to me! BTW, I thought you'd chime in sooner but I guess it took you a while to google shit.
Did you even read the whole thing TA or did you google intermittent fasting and Berardi's name just happen to come up? See dude, I get sent alot of stuff by him and this was sent to me right after he wrote it.
-
John Berardi
I consider this project a success because I accomplished the following:
I lost 20 lb: I dropped my body weight from 190 pounds to 170 pounds.
I lost 6% body fat: I dropped my body fat % from 10% to 4% (as measured via ultrasound device).
I lost minimal lean mass.
I maintained my weight in the 170-175 pound range for almost 4 months.
I found at least two different IF protocols that I could probably follow indefinitely – the one day per week fast and the 16/8 fasting.
Before IF:
(http://www.precisionnutrition.com/intermittent_fasting/img/JB-before900.jpg)
After IF:
(http://www.precisionnutrition.com/intermittent_fasting/img/JB-after900.jpg)
-
And here comes the other cut and paste idiot. I already read it....when he sent it to me! BTW, I thought you'd chime in sooner but I guess it took you a while to google shit.
Did you even read the whole thing TA or did you google intermittent fasting and Berardi's name just happen to come up? See dude, I get sent alot of stuff by him and this was sent to me right after he wrote it.
Your Own Boyfriend just Pwned the shit out of your bullshit arguments based on nonsense.
How do you like that?
-
Your Own Boyfriend just Pwned the shit out of your bullshit arguments based on nonsense.
How do you like that?
You didn't even read it did you dumbshit?
-
John Berardi
I consider this project a success because I accomplished the following:
I lost 20 lb: I dropped my body weight from 190 pounds to 170 pounds.
I lost 6% body fat: I dropped my body fat % from 10% to 4% (as measured via ultrasound device).
I lost minimal lean mass.
I maintained my weight in the 170-175 pound range for almost 4 months.
I found at least two different IF protocols that I could probably follow indefinitely – the one day per week fast and the 16/8 fasting.
Before IF:
(http://www.precisionnutrition.com/intermittent_fasting/img/JB-before900.jpg)
After IF:
(http://www.precisionnutrition.com/intermittent_fasting/img/JB-after900.jpg)
I love how his back muscles are ultra striated just because of IF.
Thats not intermittent fasting, that's CLEN + JUICE.
Oh wait, didn't Dorian used to claim back in the day that his "visualization techniques" helped him gain extra 20lbs of lbm ?!
liars gona lie
-
I love how his back muscles are ultra striated just because of IF.
Thats not intermittent fasting, that's CLEN + JUICE.
Oh wait, didn't Dorian used to claim back in the day that his "visualization techniques" helped him gain extra 20lbs of lbm ?!
liars gona lie
Fuck off. Berardi is natural.
-
You didn't even read it did you dumbshit?
Yep, and he made very good gains while simultaneously losing fat. I hope this helps.
-
Fuck off. Berardi is natural.
Ahahaha...hold on say that one more time.
Ask your Butt buddy John Berardi about Intermittent Fasting. He just released his results with it going form 10 percent to 4 percent using methods I have explained.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2011/10/12/prweb8874352.DTL&ao=2
http://www.precisionnutrition.com/intermittent-fasting
reading this...http://www.prweb.com/releases/prweb2011/10/prweb8874352.htm
“Data show that IF, when done properly, might help extend life, regulate blood glucose, control blood lipids, manage body weight, gain (or maintain) lean mass, and more.”
so what really happened
Data show that HGH, when done properly, might help extend life, regulate blood glucose, control blood lipids, manage body weight, gain (or maintain) lean mass, and more.
-
Yep, and he made very good gains while simultaneously losing fat. I hope this helps.
Actually I don't believe you did.
-
Actually I don't believe you did.
Your purported Butt Buddy Pwned you. Exit this thread you lost yet again.
-
Your purported Butt Buddy Pwned you. Exit this thread you lost yet again.
oooook. Still believe a calorie is a calorie and nutrients are not needed? (your words). You realize you usually lose every debate we get into right? And don't sit there and tell me you don't read Berardi's findings. Anyone who wants to learn usually does. Want to set up that debate TA? I can make it happen.
-
I think you misunderstood what I meant , TEF is best used by eating smaller more frequent meals as it keeps your metabolism raised above baseline levels throughout the day meaning you are constantly burning fat - 3 larger meals do not do this - you get peaks and plateaus and even drops below baseline by eating in that fashion , this is proven fact in many studies.
doesnt matter, all that matters is calories in vs. calories out.. TEF is the same regrdless of how meal frequency..
-
oooook. Still believe a calorie is a calorie and nutrients are not needed? (your words). You realize you usually lose every debate we get into right? And don't sit there and tell me you don't read Berardi's findings. Anyone who wants to learn usually does. Want to set up that debate TA? I can make it happen.
;D give me an example a nutrient free calorie ;D
-
;D give me an example a nutrient free calorie ;D
I said that? Where? You want to do this tbombz? really?
-
doesnt matter, all that matters is calories in vs. calories out.. TEF is the same regrdless of how meal frequency..
No it's not. Protein and fats for example (as I've said) have different TEF. PICK UP A FUCKING BOOK AND QUIT GOOGLING SHIT.
-
I said that? Where? You want to do this tbombz? really?
lmao.. do what ? read more of your contentless posts where you pretend that your going t post something of substance and then follow up with a lame attempt to sound superior with an ad hominem .. ;D
-
No it's not. Protein and fats for example (as I've said) have different TEF. PICK UP A FUCKING BOOK AND QUIT GOOGLING SHIT.
meal frequency has nothing to do with macronutirent composition of diet.
two diets, equal calories, proteins, carbs and fats.. one diet all of the food is consumed in one meal.... other diet the food is spread out evenly over 8 meals... TEF is exactly the same for both. and so will results be.
-
I'm starting to see a psychological similarity among all the hardcore lifetime "natural" bodybuilders, such as Layne, Big Ach and you Adonis. Maybe sometime later I'll write an expose on it...or a short story.
I really want to do a short story on Layne Norton. Just the extent to which he denies any drug usage or his constant claims of his natural status are almost like the constant denial of homosexuality rumors by those in the closet.
-
;D give me an example a nutrient free calorie ;D
a doughnut. Not free but might as well be.
-
meal frequency has nothing to do with macronutirent composition of diet.
two diets, equal calories, proteins, carbs and fats.. one diet all of the food is consumed in one meal.... other diet the food is spread out evenly over 8 meals... TEF is exactly the same for both. and so will results be.
LOL. I might be willing to help pay for your education. I usually give to the mentally disabled.
-
a doughnut. Not free but might as well be.
carbs, fats. both nutrients. sorry chump.
-
lmao.. do what ? read more of your contentless posts where you pretend that your going t post something of substance and then follow up with a lame attempt to sound superior with an ad hominem .. ;D
Lets put some money up Tbombz on who's right or wrong or who's better educated on this. what do you say?
-
carbs, fats. both nutrients. sorry chump.
What part of "NOT FREE BUT MIGHT AS WELL BE" did you miss??
-
Lets put some money up Tbombz on who's right or wrong or who's better educated on this. what do you say?
sure.. il put up the pink slip to my car.. its a 97 gt mustang.. 130k miles... lets say low ball its worth 3 grand... ill put that up against $1,500... shouldnt be too risky for a hollywood trainer like yourself.. what do you say coach.. man up and take the bet.. ive been wanting to get on some GH..
-
sure.. il put up the pink slip to my car.. its a 97 gt mustang.. 130k miles... lets say low ball its worth 3 grand... ill put that up against $1,500... shouldnt be too risky for a hollywood trainer like yourself.. what do you say coach.. man up and take the bet.. ive been wanting to get on some GH..
You're on. Lets start with metabolism. Do you agree that there is no such thing as a fast ot slow metabolism? BTW, let me remind you and everyone reading this you PM'd me for advise a while ago. BTW, I have no use for a 97 purple mustang :-\
-
You're on. Lets start with metabolism. Do you agree that there is no such thing as a fast ot slow metabolism? BTW, let me remind you and everyone reading this you PM'd me for advise a while ago. BTW, I have no use for a 97 purple mustang :-\
okay send me 1,500 now cuz i already owned you in this thread. LMAO.
-
okay send me 1,500 now cuz i already owned you in this thread. LMAO.
oooh no jr. Not that easy. You didn't own shit. You were wrong on a bunch of stuff. But I'll make it more affordable for you. We'll play golf at my club. I pay $650 month. You drive down we play. If you win you don't own a thing but if I win you pay for the month (plus beers ;D)
Answer the question.
-
that sounds good actually. youll need to cover my gas down, and buy us beers.
for one... meal frequency and TEF. not related. TEF is determined by the amount and type of food ingested. the statistics you posted earlier in the thread about proteins fats and carbs and the percentage of their calorie content needed for digestion was accurate. add up the total amounts of those nutrients, mulitply by their TEF %, and that gives you total TEF for the day. meal frequency doesnt effect it. ill explain literally..
pro= 20% carb= 10% fat=3% (rough estimates)
diet one= 200 grams protein (800 calories, 160 needed for digestion), 200 grams carbs(800 calories, 80 needed or digestion), 100 grams fats(900 calories, 27 needed for digestion). all in one meal. totaly calories(800+800+900)= 2,500. total TEF=(160+80+27)267.
diet two= 200 grams protein(800 calories, 160 needed for digestion), 200 grams carbs(800 calories, 80 needed or digestion), 100 grams fats(900 calories, 27 needed for digestion). spread evenly over 8 meals. total calorie(800+800+900)= 2,500. total TEF(160+80+27)= 267.
:)
-
that sounds good actually. youll need to cover my gas down, and buy us beers.
for one... meal frequency and TEF. not related. TEF is determined by the amount and type of food ingested. the statistics you posted earlier in the thread about proteins fats and carbs and the percentage of their calorie content needed for digestion was accurate. add up the total amounts of those nutrients, mulitply by their TEF %, and that gives you total TEF for the day. meal frequency doesnt effect it. ill explain literally..
pro= 20% carb= 10% fat=3% (rough estimates)
diet one= 200 grams protein (800 calories, 160 needed for digestion), 200 grams carbs(800 calories, 80 needed or digestion), 100 grams fats(900 calories, 27 needed for digestion). all in one meal. totaly calories(800+800+900)= 2,500. total TEF=(160+80+27)267.
diet two= 200 grams protein(800 calories, 160 needed for digestion), 200 grams carbs(800 calories, 80 needed or digestion), 100 grams fats(900 calories, 27 needed for digestion). spread evenly over 8 meals. total calorie(800+800+900)= 2,500. total TEF(160+80+27)= 267.
:)
That wasn't the question.
-
oooook. Still believe a calorie is a calorie and nutrients are not needed? (your words). You realize you usually lose every debate we get into right? And don't sit there and tell me you don't read Berardi's findings. Anyone who wants to learn usually does. Want to set up that debate TA? I can make it happen.
How many times do I have to post: "A Calorie is a Calorie but a Macro Nutrient is NOT a Macro Nutrient" before it sinks in?
Did all those drugs you did in the past rot your brain?
-
Fuck off. Berardi is natural.
Just like how you believed that Sporto guy was a lifetime natural right? :D
-
No it's not. Protein and fats for example (as I've said) have different TEF. PICK UP A FUCKING BOOK AND QUIT GOOGLING SHIT.
Its obvious the 3 macros have different TEF, but you still didn't answer how would number of meals affect TEF when protein, carbs & fats are the same.
-
Just like how you believed that Sporto guy was a lifetime natural right? :D
Its pathetic if you think its impossible to be insanely ripped at 170-175 lbs at 5`11. Furthermore, lifetime Naturals when dieted all the way down are WAY MORE RIPPED than their steroid counterparts. Its a fact.
-
No TA, you haven't always said that. I remember me, disgusted, mindspin, no one going round and round with you. Myself offered to set up a face to face debate with Berardi and mindspind offered to fly you out to one of the most beautiful beach towns in the country with dr connely and you pussed out
-
Is there a limit to how much protein the body can use in a single meal?
Posted by Alan Aragon on February 22nd, 2010
Introduction
A longstanding belief in fitness circles is that the body can only use a certain amount of protein per meal, and the excess is either oxidized or excreted. The ballpark range thrown around is 20-30 grams, with 30 grams being perhaps the most common figure.
This guideline has led many trainees to go through the pains of consuming multiple doses of protein throughout the day, banking that it will maximize muscle anabolism or muscle retention.
Well, true or not, this concept fits in nicely with another longstanding fitness “rule” that you have to eat at least six times per day in order to keep the body’s metabolism revving high. Since the meal frequency and metabolism dogma has been thoroughly debunked [1-5], it’s time to dig into the topic of whether there’s a limit to effective protein dosing, and if so, what that limit might be.
Looking at simple logic first
Let’s imagine an experiment involving two relatively lean 200 lb individuals. For the purposes of this illustration, I’ll assign a daily amount of protein known to adequately support the needs of the athletic population. We’ll give Person A 150 g protein spread over five meals at 30 g each. We’ll give Person B the same amount of protein, but in a single meal. Let’s say that this meal consists of a 16 oz steak, chased with a shake containing two scoops of protein powder.
If we really believed that only 30 g protein can be handled by the body in a single meal, then Person B would eventually run into protein deficiency symptoms because he supposedly is only absorbing a total of 30 g out of the 150 g we’re giving him. At 30 g/day, he’s only getting 0.33 g/kg of bodyweight, which isn’t even half of the already-low RDA of 0.8 g/kg. If the body worked this way, the human species would have quickly become extinct. The human body is more efficient and effective than we give it credit for.
The body will take all the sweet time it needs to effectively digest and absorb just about whatever dose you give it. Person A will have shorter digestion periods per meal in order to effectively absorb and utilize the small meals. Person B will have a longer digestion period in order to effectively absorb and utilize the large meal. While the truth in this logic seems self-evident, the important question is whether or not it’s supported by scientific research. Let’s look at the evidence, starting with immediate-effect (acute) studies, then move on to the longer-term trials.
Research examining speed of absorption
A thorough literature review by Bilsborough and Mann compiled data from studies by various investigators who measured the absorption rates of various protein sources [6]. Oddly, an amino acid mixture designed to mimic the composition of pork tenderloin made the top spot, at 10 g/hour, while whey took a close second at 8-10 g/hour. Other proteins fell in their respective spots below the top two, with little rhyme or reason behind the outcomes. As a matter of trivia, raw egg protein was the most slowly absorbed of them all at 1.3 g/hour.
It’s important to note that these data have some serious limitations. A major one is the variance of the methods used to determine the absorption rates (i.e., intravenous infusion, oral ingestion, ileal ingestion). Most of the methods are just too crude or far-fetched for serious consideration. Another limitation is that these figures could be skewed depending upon their concentration in solution, which can affect their rate of gastric evacuation. Another factor to consider is the timing of ingestion relative to exercise and how that might differentially affect absorption rates. Finally, short-term data leaves a lot open to question.
Short-term research supporting the magic limit
I’ve heard many folks parrot that the maximal anabolic effect of a single protein dose is limited to 20 grams, citing recent work by Moore and colleagues [7]. In this study’s 4-hour post-exercise test period, 40 g protein did not elicit a greater anabolic response than 20 g. I’d interpret these outcomes with caution. Fundamentally speaking, protein utilization can differ according to muscle mass. The requirements of a 140-lb person will differ markedly from someone who’s a lean 200. Additionally, a relatively low amount of total volume was used (12 sets total). Typical training bouts usually involve more than one muscle group and are commonly at least double that volume, which can potentially increase the demand for nutrient uptake. Finally, the conclusion of the authors is questionable. They state explicitly,
“…we speculate that no more than 5-6 times daily could one ingest this amount (~20 g) of protein and expect muscle protein synthesis to be maximally stimulated.”
So, they’re implying that 100-120 grams of protein per day is maximal for promoting muscle growth. Wait a minute, what? Based on both the bulk of the research evidence and numerous field observations, this is simply false [8,9].
In another recent study, Symons and colleagues compared the 5-hour response of a moderate serving of lean beef containing 30 g protein with a large serving containing 90 g protein [10]. The smaller serving increased protein synthesis by approximately 50%, and the larger serving caused no further increase in protein synthesis, despite being triple the dose. The researchers concluded that the ingestion of more than 30 g protein in a single meal does not further enhance muscle protein synthesis. While their conclusion indeed supports the outcomes of their short-term study, it’s pretty easy to predict the outcomes in muscle size and strength if we compared a total daily protein dose of 90 g with 30 g over a longer trial period, let alone one involving a structured exercise protocol. This brings me to the crucial point that acute outcomes merely provide grounds for hypothesis. It’s not completely meaningless, but it’s far from conclusive without examining the long-term effects.
Longer-term research challenging the magic limit
If we were to believe the premise that a 20-30 g dose of protein yields a maximal anabolic effect, then it follows that any excess beyond this dose would be wasted. On the contrary, the body is smarter than that. In a 14-day trial, Arnal and colleagues found no difference in fat-free mass or nitrogen retention between consuming 79% of the day’s protein needs (roughly 54 g) in one meal, versus the same amount spread across four meals [11].
Notably, this study was done on young female adults whose fat-free mass averaged 40.8 kg (89.8 lb). Considering that most non-sedentary males have considerably more lean mass than the female subjects used in the aforementioned trial, it’s plausible that much more than 54 g protein in a single meal can be efficiently processed for anabolic and/or anti-catabolic purposes. If we extrapolated the protein dose used in this study (79% of 1.67g/kg) to the average adult male, it would be roughly 85-95 g or even more, depending on just how close someone is to the end of the upper limits of muscular size.
When Arnal and colleagues applied the same protocol to the elderly population, the single-dose treatment actually caused better muscle protein retention than the multiple-dose treatment [12]. This raises the possibility that as we age, larger protein feedings might be necessary to achieve the same effect on protein retention as lesser amounts in our youth.
IF research nailing the coffin shut?
Perhaps the strongest case against the idea of a dosing limit beyond which anabolism or muscle retention can occur is the recent intermittent fasting (IF) research, particularly the trials with a control group on a conventional diet. For example, Soeters and colleagues compared two weeks of IF involving 20-hour fasting cycles with a conventional diet [13]. Despite the IF group’s consumption of an average of 101 g protein in a 4-hour window, there was no difference in preservation of lean mass and muscle protein between groups.
In another example, Stote and colleagues actually reported an improvement in body composition (including an increase in lean mass) after 8 weeks in the IF group consuming one meal per day, where roughly 86 g protein was ingested in a 4-hour window [14]. Interestingly, the conventional group consuming three meals spread throughout the day showed no significant body composition improvements.
Keep in mind that bioelectrical impedance (BIA) was used to determine body composition, so these outcomes should be viewed with caution. I’ve been highly critical of this study in the past, and I still am. Nevertheless, it cannot be completely written off and must be factored into the body of evidence against the idea of a magic protein dose limit.
Conclusion & application
Based on the available evidence, it’s false to assume that the body can only use a certain amount of protein per meal. Studies examining short-term effects have provided hints towards what might be an optimal protein dose for maximizing anabolism, but trials drawn out over longer periods haven’t supported this idea. So, is there a limit to how much protein per meal can be effectively used? Yes there is, but this limit is likely similar to the amount that’s maximally effective in an entire day. What’s the most protein that the body can effectively use in an entire day? The short answer is, a lot more than 20-30 g. The long answer is, it depends on several factors. In most cases it’s not too far from a gram per pound in drug-free trainees, given that adequate total calories are provided [8,9].
In terms of application, I’ve consistently observed the effectiveness of having approximately a quarter of your target bodyweight in both the pre- and post-exercise meal. Note: target bodyweight is a surrogate index of lean mass, and I use that to avoid making skewed calculations in cases where individuals are markedly over- or underweight. This dose surpasses the amounts seen to cause a maximal anabolic response but doesn’t impinge upon the rest of the day’s protein allotment, which can be distributed as desired. On days off from training, combine or split up your total protein allotment according to your personal preference and digestive tolerance. I realize that freedom and flexibility are uncommon terms in physique culture, but maybe it’s time for a paradigm shift.
In sum, view all information – especially gym folklore and short-term research – with caution. Don’t buy into the myth that protein won’t get used efficiently unless it’s dosed sparingly throughout the day. Hopefully, future research will definitively answer how different dosing schemes with various protein types affect relevant endpoints such as size and strength. In the mean time, feel free to eat the whole steak and drink the whole shake, and if you want to get the best bang for your buck, go for a quality protein blend such as Nitrean!
References
1. Smeets AJ, Westerterp-Plantenga MS. Acute effects on metabolism and appetite profile of one meal difference in the lower range of meal frequency. Br J Nutr. 2008 Jun;99(6):1316-21.
2. Taylor MA, Garrow JS. Compared with nibbling, neither gorging nor a morning fast affect short-term energy balance in obese patients in a chamber calorimeter. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2001 Apr;25(4):519-28.
3. Bellisle F, McDevitt R, Prentice AM. Meal frequency and energy balance. Br J Nutr. 1997 Apr;77 Suppl 1:S57-70.
4. Verboeket-van de Venne WP, Westerterp KR. Frequency of feeding, weight reduction and energy metabolism. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 1993 Jan;17(1):31-6.
5. Verboeket-van de Venne WP, Westerterp KR. Influence of the feeding frequency on nutrient utilization in man: consequences for energy metabolism. Eur J Clin Nutr. 1991 Mar;45(3):161-9.
6. Bilsborough S, Mann N. A review of issues of dietary protein intake in humans. Int J Sport Nutr Exerc Metab. 2006 Apr;16(2):129-52.
7. Moore DR, et al. Ingested protein dose response of muscle and albumin protein synthesis after resistance exercise in young men. Am J Clin Nutr. 2009 Jan;89(1):161-8.
8. Campbell B, et al. International Society of Sports Nutrition position stand: protein and exercise. J Int Soc Sports Nutr. 2007 Sep 26;4:8.
9. Tipton KD, Wolfe RR. Protein and amino acids for athletes. J Sports Sci. 2004 Jan;22(1):65-79.
10. Symons TB, et al. A moderate serving of high-quality protein maximally stimulates skeletal muscle protein synthesis in young and elderly subjects. J Am Diet Assoc. 2009 Sep;109(9):1582-6.
11. Arnal MA, et al. Protein feeding pattern does not affect protein retention in young women. J Nutr. 2000 Jul;130(7):1700-4.
12. Arnal MA, et al. Protein pulse feeding improves protein retention in elderly women. Am J Clin Nutr. 1999 Jun;69(6):1202-8.
13. Soeters MR, et al. Intermittent fasting does not affect whole-body glucose, lipid, or protein metabolism. Am J Clin Nutr. 2009 Nov;90(5):1244-51.
14. Stote KS, et al. A controlled trial of reduced meal frequency without caloric restriction in healthy, normal-weight, middle-aged adults. Am J Clin Nutr. 2007 Apr;85(4):981-8.
Does this mean my 300 gram protein shake is actually not a waste? :D
-
Its pathetic if you think its impossible to be insanely ripped at 170-175 lbs at 5`11. Furthermore, lifetime Naturals when dieted all the way down are WAY MORE RIPPED than their steroid counterparts. Its a fact.
That's only true if comparing to AAS/GH/Insulin users. AAS alone can get more ripped.
-
No TA, you haven't always said that. I remember me, disgusted, mindspin, no one going round and round with you. Myself offered to set up a face to face debate with Berardi and mindspind offered to fly you out to one of the most beautiful beach towns in the country with dr connely and you pussed out
Bullshit. I can pull up that very thread and I posted EXACTLY the same quote I just gave you. How much do you want to put on it?
-
That's only true if comparing to AAS/GH/Insulin users. AAS alone can get more ripped.
Disagree strongly.
-
Damn!
Just eat lots of protein whenever you want and train hard like crazy. Thats it!
-
No TA, you haven't always said that. I remember me, disgusted, mindspin, no one going round and round with you. Myself offered to set up a face to face debate with Berardi and mindspind offered to fly you out to one of the most beautiful beach towns in the country with dr connely and you pussed out
TA is very irritating, can't stand his style myself, but Berardi and Dr Connelly are just trying to sell bullshit and have no problem whoring for money. Berardi's nutrient timing magic helps Biotest sell a lot of whey and sugar powder.
Scammers both. TA is more right than them on a lot of this stuff.
Personally I feel that there's little to no metabolic advantage to eating frequently vs. infrequently. That's what the research says, and bodybuilders have gotten ripped on both. I say choose the one that you like most and which helps you stick to the diet the best.
-
Van, as much as you think Berardi is bullshit, he writes and gets published many of his own findings.
-
Disagree strongly.
I'm just comparing the pre steroid era to post. Steroid era bbers got more ripped, almost immediately. Sure there are some super ripped "natural" bbers of today, but that's a can of worms in itself. I see what you are saying compared to PED users who use everything though.
-
I say choose the one that you like most and which helps you stick to the diet the best.
THIS
End of long repetitious thread! :)
-
Disagree strongly.
Explain.