"Grazing" for bodybuilder eating... does it work?

[240 is Back]

'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.

[_aj_]

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.

[Icelord]

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).

[wes]

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.

[_aj_]

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...

[wes]

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 ! 

[dustin]

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.

[Icelord]

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".

[Icelord]

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 ! 

Bingo. I chose my words carefully.

[wes]

Bingo. I chose my words carefully.

Yes you did. 

[Tapeworm]

With few meals I crave & cave.  I'll eat any old garbage if I work up an appetite and haven't eaten in awhile.

[sean]

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.

[Simple Simon]

'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.

[The Abdominal Snoman]

Didn't Zane eat just one or two meals a day?

[snx]

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.

[polychronopolous]

Didn't Zane eat just one or two meals a day?

I think Serge Nubret as well.

[Icelord]

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/

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

Is there an actual hard number? Probably not. It's based on your lean weight and protein needs more than anything, probably.

[Icelord]

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.

[TEH boob]

 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

[_aj_]

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/

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

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.

[Icelord]

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.

[snx]

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.

[_aj_]

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.

[Melkor]

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.

 

[the trainer]

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.