Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: 240 is Back on March 28, 2014, 07:37:23 AM
-
'Grazing' Appears No Better for Weight Loss Than Standard Meals
http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=177509
THURSDAY, March 27, 2014 (HealthDay News) -- For weight loss, some swear by "grazing" -- eating several small meals throughout the day -- instead of eating fewer meals at more traditional mealtimes.
Now, a small study comparing both approaches finds it doesn't matter which tactic you use, as long as you reduce total calories.
Women who ate five meals on one test day and two regular meals on another (consuming the same total calories each day) burned the same amount of calories both days, researchers found.
Despite folklore that grazing somehow revs up your metabolism, it doesn't appear to be the case, said study researcher Dr. Milan Kumar Piya.
"If you eat two meals or five, as long as it's the same number of calories; there is no difference in energy expenditures, so there is no effect on weight loss," said Piya, a clinical lecturer with the U.K. National Institute for Health Research, at University Hospital Coventry and University of Warwick.
He presented the findings Tuesday at a Society for Endocrinology meeting in Liverpool, England.
Those hoping to lose weight can choose the approach they prefer, Piya said. Based on the new findings, he said he would now tell patients trying to lose weight: "You have your own ways of eating and doing things. As long as you eat fewer calories [to lose weight], you will be fine."
He compared the approaches in 24 women, including some who were normal weight and some who were obese. The lean women, on average, were age 34, while the obese women, on average, were 42.
The women were given either two meals or five meals on two separate days, and the researchers measured calories burned, comparing each woman's own individual daily results. Both obese and lean women burned virtually the identical number of calories over a 24-hour period, regardless of which day was analyzed.
-
The IF folks would say that grazing keeps insulin levels fluctuating wildly all day long.
IF has been getting shat upon as of late (and I am sure that TA will float in here with a picture of a pecan pie and a "you're all idiots"), but it seems to me that if one assumes that:
- eating shifts insulin levels
- shifting insulin levels make an anabolic environment hard to predict
Then minimizing the insulin shift might be important. I didn't mind fasted training, but felt a LITTLE be better unfasted.
-
Here's the problem: The test subjects are people who don't exercise and have sedentary lifestyles.
The average weight lifter can only absorb about 60-70g of protein per sitting. The rest is considered excess and either gets secreted in urine or turns into fat (over time). So eating 300g of protein a day in two meals wouldn't just be unhealthy, it wouldn't work for tissue repair and the other things protein does for the body. The reason bodybuilders historically ate 6-8 meals, besides insulin stability, was to properly apportion protein intake across the day. The metabolic-promotion angle was always a minor consideration and didn't really factor into it since they burn a lot of calories anyway by virtue of their muscle tissue (and supplements).
-
Here's the problem: The test subjects are people who don't exercise and have sedentary lifestyles.
The average weight lifter can only absorb about 60-70g of protein per sitting. The rest is considered excess and either gets secreted in urine or turns into fat (over time). So eating 300g of protein a day in two meals wouldn't just be unhealthy, it wouldn't work for tissue repair and the other things protein does for the body. The reason bodybuilders historically ate 6-8 meals, besides insulin stability, was to properly apportion protein intake across the day. The metabolic-promotion angle was always a minor consideration and didn't really factor into it since they burn a lot of calories anyway by virtue of their muscle tissue (and supplements).
Yup..............staying in a positive nitrogen balance.
-
Here's the problem: The test subjects are people who don't exercise and have sedentary lifestyles.
The average weight lifter can only absorb about 60-70g of protein per sitting. The rest is considered excess and either gets secreted in urine or turns into fat (over time). So eating 300g of protein a day in two meals wouldn't just be unhealthy, it wouldn't work for tissue repair and the other things protein does for the body. The reason bodybuilders historically ate 6-8 meals, besides insulin stability, was to properly apportion protein intake across the day. The metabolic-promotion angle was always a minor consideration and didn't really factor into it since they burn a lot of calories anyway by virtue of their muscle tissue (and supplements).
I am not sure, but I thought that "protein absorption limit" was debunked. Can't remember where I read it tho...
-
I am not sure, but I thought that "protein absorption limit" was debunked. Can't remember where I read it tho...
The bigger a bodybuilder is,the more protein he`ll need and be able to absorb if he`s training balls out.
A smaller guy,not as much.
I think ! :D
-
The IF folks would say that grazing keeps insulin levels fluctuating wildly all day long.
IF has been getting shat upon as of late (and I am sure that TA will float in here with a picture of a pecan pie and a "you're all idiots"), but it seems to me that if one assumes that:
- eating shifts insulin levels
- shifting insulin levels make an anabolic environment hard to predict
Then minimizing the insulin shift might be important. I didn't mind fasted training, but felt a LITTLE be better unfasted.
I don't like the IF crowd, but I do like IF. I think it's the most sensible and accessible way for people to control glucose management and insulin sensitivity. Even if people don't fully subscribe to it, an intermittent fast once per week can do wonders.
I used to eat 6-8 meals per day like it was my religion. But every now and again when I got stuck at work and accidentally fasted, it would greatly affect my composition. I was so scared of "losing my gains" but I always looked better. Work got crazy one year and I fasted all the time and that's when I got my most ripped. Now I try fasting all the time, but I break the fast if I really need to. I don't follow ultra rigid dietary restrictions because it's my life and I'll do whatever the fuck I want. I'm lean enough to afford breaking the fast, but for ultra fatties they'd want to commit to fasting as much as possible and then eat during a small feeding window.
-
I am not sure, but I thought that "protein absorption limit" was debunked. Can't remember where I read it tho...
Not at all. What's been debunked is the idea that everyone has a limit on how much they can consume.
Ronnie used to drink his No-Xplode with 7 scoops. Pretty sure most of it got absorbed into his muscle tissue.
If I did that, I'd be running to the toilet shitting my guts out. Hence why I said "the average weight lifter" and not "all human beings".
-
The bigger a bodybuilder is,the more protein he`ll need and be able to absorb if he`s training balls out.
A smaller guy,not as much.
I think ! :D
Bingo. I chose my words carefully. :)
-
Bingo. I chose my words carefully. :)
Yes you did. :)
-
With few meals I crave & cave. I'll eat any old garbage if I work up an appetite and haven't eaten in awhile.
-
Here's the problem: The test subjects are people who don't exercise and have sedentary lifestyles.
The average weight lifter can only absorb about 60-70g of protein per sitting. The rest is considered excess and either gets secreted in urine or turns into fat (over time). So eating 300g of protein a day in two meals wouldn't just be unhealthy, it wouldn't work for tissue repair and the other things protein does for the body. The reason bodybuilders historically ate 6-8 meals, besides insulin stability, was to properly apportion protein intake across the day. The metabolic-promotion angle was always a minor consideration and didn't really factor into it since they burn a lot of calories anyway by virtue of their muscle tissue (and supplements).
I dont doubt this to be true. The number used to be "30 grams at one sitting" if you recall. But im interested to see what information backs up the above. In case you have it, im curious to read more into it.
-
'Grazing' Appears No Better for Weight Loss Than Standard Meals
http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=177509
THURSDAY, March 27, 2014 (HealthDay News) -- For weight loss, some swear by "grazing" -- eating several small meals throughout the day -- instead of eating fewer meals at more traditional mealtimes.
Now, a small study comparing both approaches finds it doesn't matter which tactic you use, as long as you reduce total calories.
Women who ate five meals on one test day and two regular meals on another (consuming the same total calories each day) burned the same amount of calories both days, researchers found.
Despite folklore that grazing somehow revs up your metabolism, it doesn't appear to be the case, said study researcher Dr. Milan Kumar Piya.
"If you eat two meals or five, as long as it's the same number of calories; there is no difference in energy expenditures, so there is no effect on weight loss," said Piya, a clinical lecturer with the U.K. National Institute for Health Research, at University Hospital Coventry and University of Warwick.
He presented the findings Tuesday at a Society for Endocrinology meeting in Liverpool, England.
Those hoping to lose weight can choose the approach they prefer, Piya said. Based on the new findings, he said he would now tell patients trying to lose weight: "You have your own ways of eating and doing things. As long as you eat fewer calories [to lose weight], you will be fine."
He compared the approaches in 24 women, including some who were normal weight and some who were obese. The lean women, on average, were age 34, while the obese women, on average, were 42.
The women were given either two meals or five meals on two separate days, and the researchers measured calories burned, comparing each woman's own individual daily results. Both obese and lean women burned virtually the identical number of calories over a 24-hour period, regardless of which day was analyzed.
all the data and tests in the world mean absolutely nothing to an individual.
We all need to find what works for us ourselves.
-
Didn't Zane eat just one or two meals a day?
-
Why not just generally eat when you want, if you're hungry.
Eat what you want, as long as you're not being a total ass about what you eat (i.e. go eat from the four food groups, eat lots of good foods, not too much junk, just like mom would tell you). Follow the grandmother approach - if your grandma was a little girl again in the 1940's and wouldn't recognize the food you're eating, you probably shouldn't eat it.
Most importantly, as this study points out (and the lion's share of studies point out): DO NOT EAT MORE THAN YOU NEED TO EAT OR YOU WILL GET FAT
God, we love to over-complicate what is actually a simple concept. Solutions are only beautiful when they're simple. Dieting is the same way. It can be extremely simple, and should be.
It's not rocket science. And we all know it. But we are enamored with complexity, shiny new things, and what we think we might be missing out on.
-
Didn't Zane eat just one or two meals a day?
I think Serge Nubret as well.
-
I dont doubt this to be true. The number used to be "30 grams at one sitting" if you recall. But im interested to see what information backs up the above. In case you have it, im curious to read more into it.
I've seen that number get revised a few times over the years depending on the study.
This article mentions consumption of protein per hour rather than per meal and cites a health care professional's opinion.
http://www.livestrong.com/article/532626-how-much-protein-can-be-digested-per-hour/ (http://www.livestrong.com/article/532626-how-much-protein-can-be-digested-per-hour/)
This one also cites 10g/per hour, like the article above. I found at least 8 other links that say the same thing.
http://muscle-insider.com/content/can-we-absorb-more-30-g-protein (http://muscle-insider.com/content/can-we-absorb-more-30-g-protein)
Is there an actual hard number? Probably not. It's based on your lean weight and protein needs more than anything, probably.
-
Why not just generally eat when you want, if you're hungry.
That's the Tom Prince method. But it's not a philosophy for naturals who want to lose fat or gain muscle. You have to know what you're eating. It's easy to overdo it when you're not being very clinical about it. Just look at the average person: They eat whenever they want, and that's why they get fat.
-
So people think, "oh, so I need to eat smaller meals more often, to increase my metabolism, because metabolism increases whenever you eat a meal." Metabolism is to process and digest food. Your body metabolizes 5 apples if you eat five apples at one meal or at five meals. It revs up in response to the amount of food....not the amount of meals.
Plus, who would want to graze? What a frustrating way to eat
-
I've seen that number get revised a few times over the years depending on the study.
This article mentions consumption of protein per hour rather than per meal and cites a health care professional's opinion.
http://www.livestrong.com/article/532626-how-much-protein-can-be-digested-per-hour/ (http://www.livestrong.com/article/532626-how-much-protein-can-be-digested-per-hour/)
This one also cites 10g/per hour, like the article above. I found at least 8 other links that say the same thing.
http://muscle-insider.com/content/can-we-absorb-more-30-g-protein (http://muscle-insider.com/content/can-we-absorb-more-30-g-protein)
Is there an actual hard number? Probably not. It's based on your lean weight and protein needs more than anything, probably.
These articles appear to be citing a rate at which protein can be absorbed. I didn't see where it mentioned that protein in excess of [N] would bypass the normal protein metabolization pathways and be metabolized as fat.
-
These articles appear to be citing a rate at which protein can be absorbed. I didn't see where it mentioned that protein in excess of [N] would bypass the normal protein metabolization pathways and be metabolized as fat.
Yeah, that was just to answer the question of absorption rate per hr.
The actual result of protein intake in excessive amounts is a broscience thing. I don't have any studies to back up what happens other than my personal experience and that of other guys I know who were chugging down 8 protein shakes a day thinking it would make them bigger than if they just drank 2. They put on weight. So it's empirical, not scientific, evidence. The best seems to be 50-70g per meal, which is what Cutler, Coleman, etc. consumed per intake on their diets in their videos. Then you have Nasser who said he used to take in as much as 600g of protein/day precontest. Like Simon said, there's no way to make a rule about it. But it's hard to believe you can eat 5lbs of meat a day when you're a natural hardgainer and use every gram of it for muscle repair. The rest goes somewhere else, logically fat tissue.
-
That's the Tom Prince method. But it's not a philosophy for naturals who want to lose fat or gain muscle. You have to know what you're eating. It's easy to overdo it when you're not being very clinical about it. Just look at the average person: They eat whenever they want, and that's why they get fat.
I disagree with the bolded part of your statement.
But that's the internet for ya...not much point arguing.
-
The rest goes somewhere else, logically fat tissue.
I am not sure. Since the digestive tract is a slow-moving system where nutrients are slowly leached out of the food, I would assume that slow-to-digest meals (such as ones with large protein composition) would signal the digestive tract to go slower so as to allow more nutrients to be extracted. And, if at the end, there is still unextracted nutrients, they would be excreted.
Anecdotally, we see this in animals, where cat shit is mostly (80%) cat food, which is mostly protein. That's why my idiot dogs look at the cat's box as an hors d'oeuvres tray.
-
The age old bodybuilding question about how much protein our bodies can absorb in a single meal.
Ultimately, homeostasis rules the day. Total protein consumption over the course of a day (or a few days or a week) is what matters. Millions of years of evolution has saw to it that our bodies can adapt to use the fuel and nutrients we consume appropriately.
Everyone's body has a protein demand i.e. daily requirement of X grams of protein - this is determined by muscle mass, training status, injury, stress/illness etc. You meet that daily demand by consuming protein - your body will take and use what it needs, whether you eat all your protein in 1 or 8 meals per day. Excess protein is de-aminated (the nitrogen is removed and converted into urea for excretion - most expensive piss on the planet).
Following the removal of the amino-group, it is converted into a fuel molecule (just like a carb or fat). This fuel molecule is either burned or stored as fat depending on the state of your energy balance (i.e. calories in vs calories out). Because of the extra steps involved in converting an amino acid into a fuel source, protein is an inefficient fuel source for the body, hence its preference to burn carbs first, then fat, then protein last.
-
I use to eat 6 meals a day and as i got busy i drop it to 3 meals and increase the amount of calories i consume in the three meals and I did not see an increase in bodyfat, my body looked the same as when i was eating 6 times per day.
-
The bigger a bodybuilder is,the more protein he`ll need and be able to absorb if he`s training balls out.
The successful bodybuilder always trains with his balls out.
-
The successful bodybuilder always trains with his balls out.
:D
-
This is a very difficult thing to prove........you have Nasser and Ronnie eating ultra high protein.......you have yates eating moderately high protein......you have mentzer and padilla eating 60-70 grams of protein and boyer coe eating 150-200 grams protein......my point is.....how do we know what is right or wrong???
many successful bbers with totally different dieting philosophies.......I guess we must go through trial and error to figure out what works best for us individually.
-
If tons of huge people can get by on little protein, I think that should be proof enough. Steroids and other PEDs increase protein synthesis, so serious bodybuilders who are juiced up would be able to get by with even less.
As well, people don't create pounds of muscles each night when their body slowly repairs damaged muscle tissues. We're talking about microscopic amounts. This is why you don't need to eat pounds of protein each day. It's probably in the milligram or microgram range anyway. I don't see why people kill their kidneys with a half pound of protein a day. Fucking stupid if you think about it. Protein is so expensive. Instead of focusing on a shitload, focus on a smaller amount of higher quality protein.
-
If tons of huge people can get by on little protein, I think that should be proof enough. Steroids and other PEDs increase protein synthesis, so serious bodybuilders who are juiced up would be able to get by with even less.
As well, people don't create pounds of muscles each night when their body slowly repairs damaged muscle tissues. We're talking about microscopic amounts. This is why you don't need to eat pounds of protein each day. It's probably in the milligram or microgram range anyway. I don't see why people kill their kidneys with a half pound of protein a day. Fucking stupid if you think about it. Protein is so expensive. Instead of focusing on a shitload, focus on a smaller amount of higher quality protein.
It's hard not to eat enough protein..
Quality is another story
-
I would prob feel like shit when I consume 4400 kcals in only 3 meals.
-
I think Serge Nubret as well.
Serge was natural also... ::)
-
When you think about it, during starvation the body still needs energy and uses fat stores as a source.
I guess ???
-
Your body is highly effective at storing calories so for the purposes of human bodily functioning 1 large meal over 24 hrs is effectively the same as 6 smaller ones.
This shouldn't surprise anyone, it costs barely any calories to digest food as all the work is enzymatic. Gut peristalsis never stops anyway or you would develop fatal bowl obstruction. Muscles and the brain are the only things in the body that burn shitloads of calories.
The reason IF works is because, no shit, you're not eating 75% of the time so you're eating less.
The primary reason for increased frequency of meals is attempting to increase muscle protein synthesis by saturating the body with available amino acids. I.E. trying to increase muscle mass.
-
my .02
we arent farmers. genetically we are hunter/ gatherers. we'd go thru days with no food, make a kill, drag it back to camp and feed everyone and repeat the cycle.
as we evolved so did the 'way' we ate. but it is not optimal for losing weight.
when dieitng, eating 5-6 times a day might actually be counter productive. every time you eat your body releases insulin. insulin inhibits a function of the body that is lypolisis- the ability to burn fat essentially.
given that then, eating once or twice a day, with fasted periods, makes sense to me for weight loss, and working with your body.
i also used to subscribe to the 'eat when hungry' mantra too as snx does, but i found several things will trigger hunger than actually being hungry, thus causing you to take in cals your body really didnt need or want.
as for ther needing protein 5-6 times a day- what happens if you only eat it twice a day? is it less effective for muscle growth? does it not get partitioned effectively? if the body needs it it will not get wasted but be used to hypertrophy and muscle repir regardless of how much you eat or when.
i've made the best gains of my life by doing what we are not supposed to do. because we all do what we are 'supposed to do' out of not knowing anythign different. its just the way its done.
but what it 'just the way its done' is wrong- what if theres something better?
-
btw my post has nothing to do with the system of eating that gal and i came up with.
even though it prolly is the most best fucking thing to ever happen to dieting ever since it is a platform and way of eating that can be tailormade for your own specific needs and requirements it is not the be all end all in 'dieting'
in fact i dont think there is a be all end all in dieting. i dont think there is 'a way'. i think everyone is individual- what works for me wont work for you, so why expect someone to suffer thru something you might find a breeze?
i think you have to find what works for you. think about it- in 7 decades of bbing why hasnt the definitive diet that guarantees results for everyone been created yet? cause the individual determines its results. he might find a diet you breeze thru boring, too much of a challenge, not flexible enough, too flexible etc and if you cant stay on it it isnt going to work.
thats why i like threads like this. there is no one right answer. but 800 poeple have looked at this thread and read the posts and if my above post causes someone to just stop and *think* about why they eat the way they do, why they eat the food they do, why they just follow a diet cause its just what you do, then i have done my job.
cause any diet will work. its finding the one that works for you, and more often or not you have to create it. so get off your asses and start doing it cause your sure as fuck not going to find the answer on a message board. what you'll find is the information you need to create your own. and if you dont take the time or energy to do so, then you'll always fail and always be fat and always looking for the next big thing that will never come along.
this guy does this. this guy does that. so fucking what. who cares what they do. get back to me with how it worked for you. not so good right or else you wouldnt be looking for the 'answer' sitting there at your computer with that spare tire you've tried to lose for the past 10 years of 'dieting'.
-
i dont think there is 'a way'. i think everyone is individual- what works for me wont work for you
Totally agree.
People ask me how I eat, what I take and watch me train, and then moan if them doing the same produces different results.
Find out what works for you then go with it.
-
Totally agree.
People ask me how I eat, what I take and watch me train, and then moan if them doing the same produces different results.
Find out what works for you then go with it.
exactly.
it all ties in. your personality. the way your body reacts to certain foods. all of it.
everyone wants an answer. fuck i've been doing this 20 years and im still trying to figure it out. :D
-
If tons of huge people can get by on little protein, I think that should be proof enough. Steroids and other PEDs increase protein synthesis, so serious bodybuilders who are juiced up would be able to get by with even less.
As well, people don't create pounds of muscles each night when their body slowly repairs damaged muscle tissues. We're talking about microscopic amounts. This is why you don't need to eat pounds of protein each day. It's probably in the milligram or microgram range anyway. I don't see why people kill their kidneys with a half pound of protein a day. Fucking stupid if you think about it. Protein is so expensive. Instead of focusing on a shitload, focus on a smaller amount of higher quality protein.
You're forgetting about factors like age and slowing metabolism. There's a difference between what bodybuilders did to get most of their size and what they do to maintain or gain mass as a slower pace.
I each less protein now than I did 15-20 years ago (and fewer calories overall). Yet, I can make decent gains or maintain my bodyweight around 225-230. Back in the day, there's no way I would have even broken 200 lb eating the way I eat now.
Mike Francois was one of my favorite bodybuilders in the 90s. He told of how he send about 2 years on a 10,000-per-day diet, which got him from competing as a light-heavyweight to a BIG heavyweight (superheavyweight, by today's standards). He bulked up to 265 or 270, carved down to 230 and started kicking butt at the national level, eventually winning the NPC Nationals in 1993.
But, as he started competing as a pro (winning his first two shows, including the 1994 NOC), he stated he no longer ate ten grand in calories. He didn't need it to keep his size.
-
You're forgetting about factors like age and slowing metabolism. There's a difference between what bodybuilders did to get most of their size and what they do to maintain or gain mass as a slower pace.
I each less protein now than I did 15-20 years ago (and fewer calories overall). Yet, I can make decent gains or maintain my bodyweight around 225-230. Back in the day, there's no way I would have even broken 200 lb eating the way I eat now.
Mike Francois was one of my favorite bodybuilders in the 90s. He told of how he send about 2 years on a 10,000-per-day diet, which got him from competing as a light-heavyweight to a BIG heavyweight (superheavyweight, by today's standards). He bulked up to 265 or 270, carved down to 230 and started kicking butt at the national level, eventually winning the NPC Nationals in 1993.
But, as he started competing as a pro (winning his first two shows, including the 1994 NOC), he stated he no longer ate ten grand in calories. He didn't need it to keep his size.
I call bullshit on these claims, eating 10,000 cals a day for a long period of time is impossible, the amount of food you have to not only eat but shit out is ridiculous.
I challenge anyone to eat 10,000 a day for a week.
-
I call bullshit on these claims, eating 10,000 cals a day for a long period of time is impossible, the amount of food you have to not only eat but shit out is ridiculous.
I challenge anyone to eat 10,000 a day for a week.
Eating 10,000 in calories in a chore but not impossible, especially when you can drink a lot of your calories in protein shakes.s\
In college, I spend about 3-4 months taking in 5000-6000 calories per day. Half of that was either from shakes like Mega Mass 2000 or homemade protein shakes made from eggs and milk.
-
Eating 10,000 in calories in a chore but not impossible, especially when you can drink a lot of your calories in protein shakes.s\
In college, I spend about 3-4 months taking in 5000-6000 calories per day. Half of that was either from shakes like Mega Mass 2000 or homemade protein shakes made from eggs and milk.
Thanks for validating my point.
-
The age old bodybuilding question about how much protein our bodies can absorb in a single meal.
Ultimately, homeostasis rules the day. Total protein consumption over the course of a day (or a few days or a week) is what matters. Millions of years of evolution has saw to it that our bodies can adapt to use the fuel and nutrients we consume appropriately.
Everyone's body has a protein demand i.e. daily requirement of X grams of protein - this is determined by muscle mass, training status, injury, stress/illness etc. You meet that daily demand by consuming protein - your body will take and use what it needs, whether you eat all your protein in 1 or 8 meals per day. Excess protein is de-aminated (the nitrogen is removed and converted into urea for excretion - most expensive piss on the planet).
Following the removal of the amino-group, it is converted into a fuel molecule (just like a carb or fat). This fuel molecule is either burned or stored as fat depending on the state of your energy balance (i.e. calories in vs calories out). Because of the extra steps involved in converting an amino acid into a fuel source, protein is an inefficient fuel source for the body, hence its preference to burn carbs first, then fat, then protein last.
Best explanation I have seen on this. Thank you!
-
Thanks for validating my point.
Not really! I stated 3-4 months, simply because my goal at that time (during that particular semester) was to reach 200 lbs, starting at a bodyweight of 189. I ended up at 210, far exceeding my goal. But, it's not as if I went back to eating 2000 calories a day when that semester ended.
Perhaps, I should have clarified that. I didn't spend a mere 3-4 months (out of my entire time in college) eating like that. Counting summer breaks and factoring in the transition time from being in school to finding a summer job (and the financial impact that goes with it), I'd say I followed such a diet for at least 18 months.
-
The IF folks would say that grazing keeps insulin levels fluctuating wildly all day long.
IF has been getting shat upon as of late (and I am sure that TA will float in here with a picture of a pecan pie and a "you're all idiots"), but it seems to me that if one assumes that:
- eating shifts insulin levels
- shifting insulin levels make an anabolic environment hard to predict
Then minimizing the insulin shift might be important. I didn't mind fasted training, but felt a LITTLE be better unfasted.
The problem I see with eating small meals all day, especially ones containing complex carbs is that your body is always processing the carbs via an insulin response and whatever fat you eat ends up in storage.
In other words, complex carbs are doing fat's job, providing a stable, slow burning source of energy, and fats end up on the bench.
-
Not really! I stated 3-4 months, simply because my goal at that time (during that particular semester) was to reach 200 lbs, starting at a bodyweight of 189. I ended up at 210, far exceeding my goal. But, it's not as if I went back to eating 2000 calories a day when that semester ended.
Perhaps, I should have clarified that. I didn't spend a mere 3-4 months (out of my entire time in college) eating like that. Counting summer breaks and factoring in the transition time from being in school to finding a summer job (and the financial impact that goes with it), I'd say I followed such a diet for at least 18 months.
You said eating 10, 000 calories consistently for months on end was not impossible. To "support" your claim you provided an anecdote about how you ate 5000-6000 calories for a couple months.
Can you see the discrepancy?
-
Not really! I stated 3-4 months, simply because my goal at that time (during that particular semester) was to reach 200 lbs, starting at a bodyweight of 189. I ended up at 210, far exceeding my goal. But, it's not as if I went back to eating 2000 calories a day when that semester ended.
Perhaps, I should have clarified that. I didn't spend a mere 3-4 months (out of my entire time in college) eating like that. Counting summer breaks and factoring in the transition time from being in school to finding a summer job (and the financial impact that goes with it), I'd say I followed such a diet for at least 18 months.
You were eating 5-6000 not 10,000, that was your validation of my point. ;)
-
Why not just generally eat when you want, if you're hungry.
Eat what you want, as long as you're not being a total ass about what you eat (i.e. go eat from the four food groups, eat lots of good foods, not too much junk, just like mom would tell you). Follow the grandmother approach - if your grandma was a little girl again in the 1940's and wouldn't recognize the food you're eating, you probably shouldn't eat it.
Most importantly, as this study points out (and the lion's share of studies point out): DO NOT EAT MORE THAN YOU NEED TO EAT OR YOU WILL GET FAT
God, we love to over-complicate what is actually a simple concept. Solutions are only beautiful when they're simple. Dieting is the same way. It can be extremely simple, and should be.
It's not rocket science. And we all know it. But we are enamored with complexity, shiny new things, and what we think we might be missing out on.
Excellent post!!! I agree with you wholeheartedly!