Calorie Prioritization - Yes, a calorie is a calorie….
Replies
-
From the article. DEPENDING ON THE PERSONMine is logical because it says it can matter, but it also it depends on variables of the individual and what they are doing, when they had their last food intake too.
Yours is more specific about protein at least that's I see and gather and says protein timing does not matter, it's even what you quoted. But once again, I could care about protein I hit my goals there regardless.
Once again you always find something...
LOL did you miss the six hour window part? So yea if I work out from 4 to 5:30 then I have until 11:30 at night to eat which is ridiculous beucase I will eat dinner at 7pm anyway ...
It also clearly said that carb timing did not matter, or is your argument that carbs are not nutrients?
It would be beneficial to read the full text of studies that you link.
I would suggest you also read @LolBroScience response to said study.
Nutrients as a whole.
By the time I can read one response and respond to it, there is 9 more. I am not going to sit here and read and reply to them all. LOL
maybe you should realize the reason that you are getting so many responses is because your entire premise is wrong and is not based on any evidence. Almost every thing you have linked us to runs counter to what you are arguing.
Maybe you should take the time to go back and actually read what you are linking us to.
Actually I linked evidence many times, people with average knowledge, no certificates in training or degrees, nutritional background said it was wrong.
yes, and the "evidence" that you linked ran counter to your argument, or have you not realized that yet?
and your credentials are?
at least the people in this thread have actually run successful bulk/cut cycles, which you, at your own admission, have never done.
The evidence I showed is on the back of certain protein powders, creatine and preworkout itself. Also, one study doesn't undo 50 years of what is tried and true, by bodybuilders natural and unnatural, even celebrities for movies. Especially when you can type it in a search engine and comes up that meal timing is important on many sites with people with credentials.
I don't need credentials when you are trying to tell me the information I post is wrong, ( and the information is by people with credentials) that is your job to conclude that is it wrong, but you couldn't do that because of doubt, and it could work. It either can or can't and it seems it can, depending on variables. The end.
wait, so we have to have credentials, but you are free to post pseudo and bro science and don't need any? Totally legit argument.
And everything that you posted actually disproved your argument...or have you still not realized that?
I am not saying the information you are posting from links is wrong, you are, and those links are from people with credentials so yes you have to prove them wrong not me. I am just the relayer of information, since people asked for links, then when they got them it was not true, how convenient. What have I said that disproved any argument?
what I am saying is that the very links you posted have refuted your own argument. You said nutrient timing was important and posted a study that said it was not and that a six hour window was suitable for most....
also see @senecarr explanation above...
Actually the link I posted said it was still possible but it varied, you took the protein part of both articles (which said that particular macro doesn't matter), and make it seem like it overal food timing wouldn't matter because of that and ran with it.
go back and read the full study.
Five other people in this thread read it and came to the same conclusion that I did, so I guess we are all wrong and lack "credentials"...
"On the other hand, there are others who might train before lunch or after work, where the previous meal was finished 4–6 hours prior to commencing exercise. This lag in nutrient consumption can be considered significant enough to warrant post-exercise intervention if muscle retention or growth is the primary goal."
This is all I need to say.
way to take out one snipet...
I would direct you to @LolBroScience post a few pages back...
they clearly said that a six hour window was suitable which totally throws your argument out the window...0 -
In that case, I guess you could say it comes down to what the RDA is vs what it should be.ForecasterJason wrote: »
Lol, the dosage they mentioned (8,895 IUs) is over 1000% of the RDA. Hence why I said earlier "within reason". There's a huge difference between almost 8900 vs consuming 1,000 IUs. While it is true that they concluded the current RDA is wrong, 600 IUs is still the official recommendation right now. So if one is to follow the RDA for all nutrients, when it comes to vitamin D 600 IUs is what it is.ForecasterJason wrote: »
This does not make sense. If you need more than 600 IUs of vitamin D for sufficient levels (which is what the article is saying), you're trying to say that getting more than that won't result in the body's ability to absorb any more? How can the body's blood level of the vitamin be increased without the body first absorbing more of it?ForecasterJason wrote: »
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4210929/ForecasterJason wrote: »
I don't think anyone's suggesting otherwise. But I had alluded to this earlier - getting a little over 100% of the RDA may provide more benefit. Again, this is within reason, and it's not to say that there are massive health benefits by doing so.
Yes, food quality matters - if you don't any micronutrients, again, you'll die. That doesn't mean getting 5,000% of the RDA for micronutrients is better than 100%. In some cases, it will definitely be worse.Mine is logical because it says it can matter, but depends on variables of the individual and what they are doing, when they had their last food intake too.
Yours is more specific about protein at least that's what I see and gather and says protein timing does not matter, it's even what you quoted. But once again, I could care about protein I hit my goals there regardless.
Once again you always find something...
please link us to evidence showing that your body can absorb more than 100% of the RDA for micros...
that is vitamin D and that does not say that you can absorb more than 100% of it...it is saying that the calculation to get to the recommended dosage is not correct....
ummm becuase the RDA is wrong, which is their premise..
they also add this caveat:
As this dose is far beyond the range of studied doses, caution is warranted when interpreting this estimate.
again, that is because their premise is that the RDA is wrong. So if you are consuming the wrong RDA then you are not getting 100% of it in the first place, right?
if someone tells me to eat 50 grams of protein because that is the 100% RDA for me, but it is really 100 grams, then that means that I have been consuming 50% of what the real RDA should be...
0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
Lol, the dosage they mentioned (8,895 IUs) is over 1000% of the RDA. Hence why I said earlier "within reason". There's a huge difference between almost 8900 vs consuming 1,000 IUs. While it is true that they concluded the current RDA is wrong, 600 IUs is still the official recommendation right now. So if one is to follow the RDA for all nutrients, when it comes to vitamin D 600 IUs is what it is.ForecasterJason wrote: »
This does not make sense. If you need more than 600 IUs of vitamin D for sufficient levels (which is what the article is saying), you're trying to say that getting more than that won't result in the body's ability to absorb any more? How can the body's blood level of the vitamin be increased without the body first absorbing more of it?ForecasterJason wrote: »
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4210929/ForecasterJason wrote: »
I don't think anyone's suggesting otherwise. But I had alluded to this earlier - getting a little over 100% of the RDA may provide more benefit. Again, this is within reason, and it's not to say that there are massive health benefits by doing so.
Yes, food quality matters - if you don't any micronutrients, again, you'll die. That doesn't mean getting 5,000% of the RDA for micronutrients is better than 100%. In some cases, it will definitely be worse.Mine is logical because it says it can matter, but depends on variables of the individual and what they are doing, when they had their last food intake too.
Yours is more specific about protein at least that's what I see and gather and says protein timing does not matter, it's even what you quoted. But once again, I could care about protein I hit my goals there regardless.
Once again you always find something...
please link us to evidence showing that your body can absorb more than 100% of the RDA for micros...
that is vitamin D and that does not say that you can absorb more than 100% of it...it is saying that the calculation to get to the recommended dosage is not correct....
ummm becuase the RDA is wrong, which is their premise..
they also add this caveat:
As this dose is far beyond the range of studied doses, caution is warranted when interpreting this estimate.
again, that is because their premise is that the RDA is wrong. So if you are consuming the wrong RDA then you are not getting 100% of it in the first place, right?
if someone tells me to eat 50 grams of protein because that is the 100% RDA for me, but it is really 100 grams, then that means that I have been consuming 50% of what the real RDA should be...
I think this could be a bit of an argument stemming from the semantics of RDA. Forcaster is saying RDA as in USDA's RDA. At a given time, the RDA could be wrong, and if so, it will be revised. More typical, the RDA as on nutritional label represents a normal person's diet. Any athlete, including people doing strength training as usually happens in a bulk, probably has a higher RDA for some nutrients, but again, no one needs megadoses of anything. Nor does getting more of it from whole sources contribute to hypertrophy or nutrient partitioning. Your cells don't see extra material and think "oh, someone gave us extra calcium from a broccoli, guess that means I should just now decide to make more muscle despite the fact that I already had all the calcium, calories, other micros, and micro-trauma to already stimulate that. I was just waiting on a random nutrient that only comes from a whole food."0 -
Well I'm at the gym now, so just pretend I c&p'd the OP here0
-
From the article. DEPENDING ON THE PERSONMine is logical because it says it can matter, but it also it depends on variables of the individual and what they are doing, when they had their last food intake too.
Yours is more specific about protein at least that's I see and gather and says protein timing does not matter, it's even what you quoted. But once again, I could care about protein I hit my goals there regardless.
Once again you always find something...
LOL did you miss the six hour window part? So yea if I work out from 4 to 5:30 then I have until 11:30 at night to eat which is ridiculous beucase I will eat dinner at 7pm anyway ...
It also clearly said that carb timing did not matter, or is your argument that carbs are not nutrients?
It would be beneficial to read the full text of studies that you link.
I would suggest you also read @LolBroScience response to said study.
Nutrients as a whole.
By the time I can read one response and respond to it, there is 9 more. I am not going to sit here and read and reply to them all. LOL
maybe you should realize the reason that you are getting so many responses is because your entire premise is wrong and is not based on any evidence. Almost every thing you have linked us to runs counter to what you are arguing.
Maybe you should take the time to go back and actually read what you are linking us to.
Actually I linked evidence many times, people with average knowledge, no certificates in training or degrees, nutritional background said it was wrong.
yes, and the "evidence" that you linked ran counter to your argument, or have you not realized that yet?
and your credentials are?
at least the people in this thread have actually run successful bulk/cut cycles, which you, at your own admission, have never done.
The evidence I showed is on the back of certain protein powders, creatine and preworkout itself. Also, one study doesn't undo 50 years of what is tried and true, by bodybuilders natural and unnatural, even celebrities for movies. Especially when you can type it in a search engine and comes up that meal timing is important on many sites with people with credentials.
I don't need credentials when you are trying to tell me the information I post is wrong, ( and the information is by people with credentials) that is your job to conclude that is it wrong, but you couldn't do that because of doubt, and it could work. It either can or can't and it seems it can, depending on variables. The end.
wait, so we have to have credentials, but you are free to post pseudo and bro science and don't need any? Totally legit argument.
And everything that you posted actually disproved your argument...or have you still not realized that?
I am not saying the information you are posting from links is wrong, you are, and those links are from people with credentials so yes you have to prove them wrong not me. I am just the relayer of information, since people asked for links, then when they got them it was not true, how convenient. What have I said that disproved any argument?
what I am saying is that the very links you posted have refuted your own argument. You said nutrient timing was important and posted a study that said it was not and that a six hour window was suitable for most....
also see @senecarr explanation above...
Actually the link I posted said it was still possible but it varied, you took the protein part of both articles (which said that particular macro doesn't matter), and make it seem like it overal food timing wouldn't matter because of that and ran with it.
go back and read the full study.
Five other people in this thread read it and came to the same conclusion that I did, so I guess we are all wrong and lack "credentials"...
"On the other hand, there are others who might train before lunch or after work, where the previous meal was finished 4–6 hours prior to commencing exercise. This lag in nutrient consumption can be considered significant enough to warrant post-exercise intervention if muscle retention or growth is the primary goal."
This is all I need to say.
way to take out one snipet...
I would direct you to @LolBroScience post a few pages back...
they clearly said that a six hour window was suitable which totally throws your argument out the window...
"Thus, despite conflicting evidence, the potential benefits of post-exercise supplementation cannot be readily dismissed for those seeking to optimize a hypertrophic response. By the same token, widely varying feeding patterns among individuals challenge the common assumption that the post-exercise “anabolic window of opportunity” is universally narrow and urgent."
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Mine is logical because it says it can matter, but it also it depends on variables of the individual and what they are doing, when they had their last food intake too.
Yours is more specific about protein at least that's I see and gather and says protein timing does not matter, it's even what you quoted. But once again, I could care about protein I hit my goals there regardless.
Once again you always find something...
LOL did you miss the six hour window part? So yea if I work out from 4 to 5:30 then I have until 11:30 at night to eat which is ridiculous beucase I will eat dinner at 7pm anyway ...
It also clearly said that carb timing did not matter, or is your argument that carbs are not nutrients?
It would be beneficial to read the full text of studies that you link.
I would suggest you also read @LolBroScience response to said study.
Nutrients as a whole.
By the time I can read one response and respond to it, there is 9 more. I am not going to sit here and read and reply to them all. LOL
maybe you should realize the reason that you are getting so many responses is because your entire premise is wrong and is not based on any evidence. Almost every thing you have linked us to runs counter to what you are arguing.
Maybe you should take the time to go back and actually read what you are linking us to.
Actually I linked evidence many times, people with average knowledge, no certificates in training or degrees, nutritional background said it was wrong.
yes, and the "evidence" that you linked ran counter to your argument, or have you not realized that yet?
and your credentials are?
at least the people in this thread have actually run successful bulk/cut cycles, which you, at your own admission, have never done.
The evidence I showed is on the back of certain protein powders, creatine and preworkout itself. Also, one study doesn't undo 50 years of what is tried and true, by bodybuilders natural and unnatural, even celebrities for movies. Especially when you can type it in a search engine and comes up that meal timing is important on many sites with people with credentials.
I don't need credentials when you are trying to tell me the information I post is wrong, ( and the information is by people with credentials) that is your job to conclude that is it wrong, but you couldn't do that because of doubt, and it could work. It either can or can't and it seems it can, depending on variables. The end.
wait, so we have to have credentials, but you are free to post pseudo and bro science and don't need any? Totally legit argument.
And everything that you posted actually disproved your argument...or have you still not realized that?
I am not saying the information you are posting from links is wrong, you are, and those links are from people with credentials so yes you have to prove them wrong not me. I am just the relayer of information, since people asked for links, then when they got them it was not true, how convenient. What have I said that disproved any argument?
The links you have cited do not support your claims.
I guess the real question is what would support the claims.
If people have credentials and have studied the information, and if it's not good enough what more can you do?
You are misunderstanding. I find the link you cited about nutrient timing quite compelling, and I respect the authors.
It just doesn't say what you seem to think it says.0 -
I'm sad to see that a post I was interested in got derailed so badly
It can be hard trying to get 4000 calories into my kids, and I'm always interested to read about bulking and nutrition.
For @juggernaut1974 here was the OP:Seeing the whole calorie is not a calorie thing come up a few times in this forum, so just wanted to lay out some thoughts on the subject for everyone.
From an energy standpoint, all calories are created equally; however, this does not mean that all calories are nutritionally the same.
So while 100 calories of carrots = 100 calories of cookies from an energy standpoint, they are not nutritionally the same.
What this means when one is bulking is that one should prioritize calorie intake into three tiers.
Tier One = make sure that you eat nutritionally dense foods like vegetables, fish, rice, etc, so that one gets adequate micronutrients (nutrition)
Tier Two = deals with macronutrients and making sure that one is hitting protein and fat minimums.
tier three = filling in the rest of your day with calorie dense foods to make sure that one is getting into a caloric surplus. The recommendation is that after one gets micronutrients and protein and fat minimums, that the rest of your day should be filled in with carbs.
So over the course of the day one should be meeting micronutrient goals, hitting macronutrients, and then fill in with calorie dense foods to get into a surplus.
This does NOT mean that I am saying eat 2500 calories of pizza or donuts, as it would then be impossible to get adequate nutrition and hit macros.
enjoy the bulking!0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
In that case, I guess you could say it comes down to what the RDA is vs what it should be.ForecasterJason wrote: »
Lol, the dosage they mentioned (8,895 IUs) is over 1000% of the RDA. Hence why I said earlier "within reason". There's a huge difference between almost 8900 vs consuming 1,000 IUs. While it is true that they concluded the current RDA is wrong, 600 IUs is still the official recommendation right now. So if one is to follow the RDA for all nutrients, when it comes to vitamin D 600 IUs is what it is.ForecasterJason wrote: »
This does not make sense. If you need more than 600 IUs of vitamin D for sufficient levels (which is what the article is saying), you're trying to say that getting more than that won't result in the body's ability to absorb any more? How can the body's blood level of the vitamin be increased without the body first absorbing more of it?ForecasterJason wrote: »
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4210929/ForecasterJason wrote: »
I don't think anyone's suggesting otherwise. But I had alluded to this earlier - getting a little over 100% of the RDA may provide more benefit. Again, this is within reason, and it's not to say that there are massive health benefits by doing so.
Yes, food quality matters - if you don't any micronutrients, again, you'll die. That doesn't mean getting 5,000% of the RDA for micronutrients is better than 100%. In some cases, it will definitely be worse.Mine is logical because it says it can matter, but depends on variables of the individual and what they are doing, when they had their last food intake too.
Yours is more specific about protein at least that's what I see and gather and says protein timing does not matter, it's even what you quoted. But once again, I could care about protein I hit my goals there regardless.
Once again you always find something...
please link us to evidence showing that your body can absorb more than 100% of the RDA for micros...
that is vitamin D and that does not say that you can absorb more than 100% of it...it is saying that the calculation to get to the recommended dosage is not correct....
ummm becuase the RDA is wrong, which is their premise..
they also add this caveat:
As this dose is far beyond the range of studied doses, caution is warranted when interpreting this estimate.
again, that is because their premise is that the RDA is wrong. So if you are consuming the wrong RDA then you are not getting 100% of it in the first place, right?
if someone tells me to eat 50 grams of protein because that is the 100% RDA for me, but it is really 100 grams, then that means that I have been consuming 50% of what the real RDA should be...
^ And that's valid at least from a discussion standpoint.
Just to cite an example, the RDA for protein is pathetic, and we have plenty of evidence (actual papers) pointing to benefits by exceeding it.0 -
blankiefinder wrote: »I'm sad to see that a post I was interested in got derailed so badly
It can be hard trying to get 4000 calories into my kids, and I'm always interested to read about bulking and nutrition.
For @juggernaut1974 here was the OP:Seeing the whole calorie is not a calorie thing come up a few times in this forum, so just wanted to lay out some thoughts on the subject for everyone.
From an energy standpoint, all calories are created equally; however, this does not mean that all calories are nutritionally the same.
So while 100 calories of carrots = 100 calories of cookies from an energy standpoint, they are not nutritionally the same.
What this means when one is bulking is that one should prioritize calorie intake into three tiers.
Tier One = make sure that you eat nutritionally dense foods like vegetables, fish, rice, etc, so that one gets adequate micronutrients (nutrition)
Tier Two = deals with macronutrients and making sure that one is hitting protein and fat minimums.
tier three = filling in the rest of your day with calorie dense foods to make sure that one is getting into a caloric surplus. The recommendation is that after one gets micronutrients and protein and fat minimums, that the rest of your day should be filled in with carbs.
So over the course of the day one should be meeting micronutrient goals, hitting macronutrients, and then fill in with calorie dense foods to get into a surplus.
This does NOT mean that I am saying eat 2500 calories of pizza or donuts, as it would then be impossible to get adequate nutrition and hit macros.
enjoy the bulking!
I knew I could count on you guys to spot me!
Now if someone could help me with these pink Dumbbells...0 -
From the article. DEPENDING ON THE PERSONMine is logical because it says it can matter, but it also it depends on variables of the individual and what they are doing, when they had their last food intake too.
Yours is more specific about protein at least that's I see and gather and says protein timing does not matter, it's even what you quoted. But once again, I could care about protein I hit my goals there regardless.
Once again you always find something...
LOL did you miss the six hour window part? So yea if I work out from 4 to 5:30 then I have until 11:30 at night to eat which is ridiculous beucase I will eat dinner at 7pm anyway ...
It also clearly said that carb timing did not matter, or is your argument that carbs are not nutrients?
It would be beneficial to read the full text of studies that you link.
I would suggest you also read @LolBroScience response to said study.
Nutrients as a whole.
By the time I can read one response and respond to it, there is 9 more. I am not going to sit here and read and reply to them all. LOL
maybe you should realize the reason that you are getting so many responses is because your entire premise is wrong and is not based on any evidence. Almost every thing you have linked us to runs counter to what you are arguing.
Maybe you should take the time to go back and actually read what you are linking us to.
Actually I linked evidence many times, people with average knowledge, no certificates in training or degrees, nutritional background said it was wrong.
yes, and the "evidence" that you linked ran counter to your argument, or have you not realized that yet?
and your credentials are?
at least the people in this thread have actually run successful bulk/cut cycles, which you, at your own admission, have never done.
The evidence I showed is on the back of certain protein powders, creatine and preworkout itself. Also, one study doesn't undo 50 years of what is tried and true, by bodybuilders natural and unnatural, even celebrities for movies. Especially when you can type it in a search engine and comes up that meal timing is important on many sites with people with credentials.
I don't need credentials when you are trying to tell me the information I post is wrong, ( and the information is by people with credentials) that is your job to conclude that is it wrong, but you couldn't do that because of doubt, and it could work. It either can or can't and it seems it can, depending on variables. The end.
wait, so we have to have credentials, but you are free to post pseudo and bro science and don't need any? Totally legit argument.
And everything that you posted actually disproved your argument...or have you still not realized that?
I am not saying the information you are posting from links is wrong, you are, and those links are from people with credentials so yes you have to prove them wrong not me. I am just the relayer of information, since people asked for links, then when they got them it was not true, how convenient. What have I said that disproved any argument?
what I am saying is that the very links you posted have refuted your own argument. You said nutrient timing was important and posted a study that said it was not and that a six hour window was suitable for most....
also see @senecarr explanation above...
Actually the link I posted said it was still possible but it varied, you took the protein part of both articles (which said that particular macro doesn't matter), and make it seem like it overal food timing wouldn't matter because of that and ran with it.
go back and read the full study.
Five other people in this thread read it and came to the same conclusion that I did, so I guess we are all wrong and lack "credentials"...
"On the other hand, there are others who might train before lunch or after work, where the previous meal was finished 4–6 hours prior to commencing exercise. This lag in nutrient consumption can be considered significant enough to warrant post-exercise intervention if muscle retention or growth is the primary goal."
This is all I need to say.
way to take out one snipet...
I would direct you to @LolBroScience post a few pages back...
they clearly said that a six hour window was suitable which totally throws your argument out the window...
"Thus, despite conflicting evidence, the potential benefits of post-exercise supplementation cannot be readily dismissed for those seeking to optimize a hypertrophic response. By the same token, widely varying feeding patterns among individuals challenge the common assumption that the post-exercise “anabolic window of opportunity” is universally narrow and urgent."
Right... So again, not narrow and urgent. Like said multiple times, eating within a reasonable timeframe around or after a workout.
Perceive "reasonable" however you want. I bet if you took all the effort that you put into forming poor arguments and applied it to accumulating work capacity in the gym.... Your results would be more beneficial from the latter compared to fretting about whether or not your whey shake needs to be consumed 30 mins PWO vs 4 hours.0 -
LolBroScience wrote: »
From the article. DEPENDING ON THE PERSONMine is logical because it says it can matter, but it also it depends on variables of the individual and what they are doing, when they had their last food intake too.
Yours is more specific about protein at least that's I see and gather and says protein timing does not matter, it's even what you quoted. But once again, I could care about protein I hit my goals there regardless.
Once again you always find something...
LOL did you miss the six hour window part? So yea if I work out from 4 to 5:30 then I have until 11:30 at night to eat which is ridiculous beucase I will eat dinner at 7pm anyway ...
It also clearly said that carb timing did not matter, or is your argument that carbs are not nutrients?
It would be beneficial to read the full text of studies that you link.
I would suggest you also read @LolBroScience response to said study.
Nutrients as a whole.
By the time I can read one response and respond to it, there is 9 more. I am not going to sit here and read and reply to them all. LOL
maybe you should realize the reason that you are getting so many responses is because your entire premise is wrong and is not based on any evidence. Almost every thing you have linked us to runs counter to what you are arguing.
Maybe you should take the time to go back and actually read what you are linking us to.
Actually I linked evidence many times, people with average knowledge, no certificates in training or degrees, nutritional background said it was wrong.
yes, and the "evidence" that you linked ran counter to your argument, or have you not realized that yet?
and your credentials are?
at least the people in this thread have actually run successful bulk/cut cycles, which you, at your own admission, have never done.
The evidence I showed is on the back of certain protein powders, creatine and preworkout itself. Also, one study doesn't undo 50 years of what is tried and true, by bodybuilders natural and unnatural, even celebrities for movies. Especially when you can type it in a search engine and comes up that meal timing is important on many sites with people with credentials.
I don't need credentials when you are trying to tell me the information I post is wrong, ( and the information is by people with credentials) that is your job to conclude that is it wrong, but you couldn't do that because of doubt, and it could work. It either can or can't and it seems it can, depending on variables. The end.
wait, so we have to have credentials, but you are free to post pseudo and bro science and don't need any? Totally legit argument.
And everything that you posted actually disproved your argument...or have you still not realized that?
I am not saying the information you are posting from links is wrong, you are, and those links are from people with credentials so yes you have to prove them wrong not me. I am just the relayer of information, since people asked for links, then when they got them it was not true, how convenient. What have I said that disproved any argument?
what I am saying is that the very links you posted have refuted your own argument. You said nutrient timing was important and posted a study that said it was not and that a six hour window was suitable for most....
also see @senecarr explanation above...
Actually the link I posted said it was still possible but it varied, you took the protein part of both articles (which said that particular macro doesn't matter), and make it seem like it overal food timing wouldn't matter because of that and ran with it.
go back and read the full study.
Five other people in this thread read it and came to the same conclusion that I did, so I guess we are all wrong and lack "credentials"...
"On the other hand, there are others who might train before lunch or after work, where the previous meal was finished 4–6 hours prior to commencing exercise. This lag in nutrient consumption can be considered significant enough to warrant post-exercise intervention if muscle retention or growth is the primary goal."
This is all I need to say.
way to take out one snipet...
I would direct you to @LolBroScience post a few pages back...
they clearly said that a six hour window was suitable which totally throws your argument out the window...
"Thus, despite conflicting evidence, the potential benefits of post-exercise supplementation cannot be readily dismissed for those seeking to optimize a hypertrophic response. By the same token, widely varying feeding patterns among individuals challenge the common assumption that the post-exercise “anabolic window of opportunity” is universally narrow and urgent."
Right... So again, not narrow and urgent. Like said multiple times, eating within a reasonable timeframe around or after a workout.
Perceive "reasonable" however you want. I bet if you took all the effort that you put into forming poor arguments and applied it to accumulating work capacity in the gym.... Your results would be more beneficial from the latter compared to fretting about whether or not your whey shake needs to be consumed 30 mins PWO vs 4 hours.
And to clarify my post before I get called a "mean person".... I meant this in a majoring in the minors sort of way, not that he has poor results.0 -
LolBroScience wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »
From the article. DEPENDING ON THE PERSONMine is logical because it says it can matter, but it also it depends on variables of the individual and what they are doing, when they had their last food intake too.
Yours is more specific about protein at least that's I see and gather and says protein timing does not matter, it's even what you quoted. But once again, I could care about protein I hit my goals there regardless.
Once again you always find something...
LOL did you miss the six hour window part? So yea if I work out from 4 to 5:30 then I have until 11:30 at night to eat which is ridiculous beucase I will eat dinner at 7pm anyway ...
It also clearly said that carb timing did not matter, or is your argument that carbs are not nutrients?
It would be beneficial to read the full text of studies that you link.
I would suggest you also read @LolBroScience response to said study.
Nutrients as a whole.
By the time I can read one response and respond to it, there is 9 more. I am not going to sit here and read and reply to them all. LOL
maybe you should realize the reason that you are getting so many responses is because your entire premise is wrong and is not based on any evidence. Almost every thing you have linked us to runs counter to what you are arguing.
Maybe you should take the time to go back and actually read what you are linking us to.
Actually I linked evidence many times, people with average knowledge, no certificates in training or degrees, nutritional background said it was wrong.
yes, and the "evidence" that you linked ran counter to your argument, or have you not realized that yet?
and your credentials are?
at least the people in this thread have actually run successful bulk/cut cycles, which you, at your own admission, have never done.
The evidence I showed is on the back of certain protein powders, creatine and preworkout itself. Also, one study doesn't undo 50 years of what is tried and true, by bodybuilders natural and unnatural, even celebrities for movies. Especially when you can type it in a search engine and comes up that meal timing is important on many sites with people with credentials.
I don't need credentials when you are trying to tell me the information I post is wrong, ( and the information is by people with credentials) that is your job to conclude that is it wrong, but you couldn't do that because of doubt, and it could work. It either can or can't and it seems it can, depending on variables. The end.
wait, so we have to have credentials, but you are free to post pseudo and bro science and don't need any? Totally legit argument.
And everything that you posted actually disproved your argument...or have you still not realized that?
I am not saying the information you are posting from links is wrong, you are, and those links are from people with credentials so yes you have to prove them wrong not me. I am just the relayer of information, since people asked for links, then when they got them it was not true, how convenient. What have I said that disproved any argument?
what I am saying is that the very links you posted have refuted your own argument. You said nutrient timing was important and posted a study that said it was not and that a six hour window was suitable for most....
also see @senecarr explanation above...
Actually the link I posted said it was still possible but it varied, you took the protein part of both articles (which said that particular macro doesn't matter), and make it seem like it overal food timing wouldn't matter because of that and ran with it.
go back and read the full study.
Five other people in this thread read it and came to the same conclusion that I did, so I guess we are all wrong and lack "credentials"...
"On the other hand, there are others who might train before lunch or after work, where the previous meal was finished 4–6 hours prior to commencing exercise. This lag in nutrient consumption can be considered significant enough to warrant post-exercise intervention if muscle retention or growth is the primary goal."
This is all I need to say.
way to take out one snipet...
I would direct you to @LolBroScience post a few pages back...
they clearly said that a six hour window was suitable which totally throws your argument out the window...
"Thus, despite conflicting evidence, the potential benefits of post-exercise supplementation cannot be readily dismissed for those seeking to optimize a hypertrophic response. By the same token, widely varying feeding patterns among individuals challenge the common assumption that the post-exercise “anabolic window of opportunity” is universally narrow and urgent."
Right... So again, not narrow and urgent. Like said multiple times, eating within a reasonable timeframe around or after a workout.
Perceive "reasonable" however you want. I bet if you took all the effort that you put into forming poor arguments and applied it to accumulating work capacity in the gym.... Your results would be more beneficial from the latter compared to fretting about whether or not your whey shake needs to be consumed 30 mins PWO vs 4 hours.
And to clarify my post before I get called a "mean person".... I meant this in a majoring in the minors sort of way, not that he has poor results.
It's amazing how my results improved for the better once I started majoring in the majors of things.......0 -
LolBroScience wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »
From the article. DEPENDING ON THE PERSONMine is logical because it says it can matter, but it also it depends on variables of the individual and what they are doing, when they had their last food intake too.
Yours is more specific about protein at least that's I see and gather and says protein timing does not matter, it's even what you quoted. But once again, I could care about protein I hit my goals there regardless.
Once again you always find something...
LOL did you miss the six hour window part? So yea if I work out from 4 to 5:30 then I have until 11:30 at night to eat which is ridiculous beucase I will eat dinner at 7pm anyway ...
It also clearly said that carb timing did not matter, or is your argument that carbs are not nutrients?
It would be beneficial to read the full text of studies that you link.
I would suggest you also read @LolBroScience response to said study.
Nutrients as a whole.
By the time I can read one response and respond to it, there is 9 more. I am not going to sit here and read and reply to them all. LOL
maybe you should realize the reason that you are getting so many responses is because your entire premise is wrong and is not based on any evidence. Almost every thing you have linked us to runs counter to what you are arguing.
Maybe you should take the time to go back and actually read what you are linking us to.
Actually I linked evidence many times, people with average knowledge, no certificates in training or degrees, nutritional background said it was wrong.
yes, and the "evidence" that you linked ran counter to your argument, or have you not realized that yet?
and your credentials are?
at least the people in this thread have actually run successful bulk/cut cycles, which you, at your own admission, have never done.
The evidence I showed is on the back of certain protein powders, creatine and preworkout itself. Also, one study doesn't undo 50 years of what is tried and true, by bodybuilders natural and unnatural, even celebrities for movies. Especially when you can type it in a search engine and comes up that meal timing is important on many sites with people with credentials.
I don't need credentials when you are trying to tell me the information I post is wrong, ( and the information is by people with credentials) that is your job to conclude that is it wrong, but you couldn't do that because of doubt, and it could work. It either can or can't and it seems it can, depending on variables. The end.
wait, so we have to have credentials, but you are free to post pseudo and bro science and don't need any? Totally legit argument.
And everything that you posted actually disproved your argument...or have you still not realized that?
I am not saying the information you are posting from links is wrong, you are, and those links are from people with credentials so yes you have to prove them wrong not me. I am just the relayer of information, since people asked for links, then when they got them it was not true, how convenient. What have I said that disproved any argument?
what I am saying is that the very links you posted have refuted your own argument. You said nutrient timing was important and posted a study that said it was not and that a six hour window was suitable for most....
also see @senecarr explanation above...
Actually the link I posted said it was still possible but it varied, you took the protein part of both articles (which said that particular macro doesn't matter), and make it seem like it overal food timing wouldn't matter because of that and ran with it.
go back and read the full study.
Five other people in this thread read it and came to the same conclusion that I did, so I guess we are all wrong and lack "credentials"...
"On the other hand, there are others who might train before lunch or after work, where the previous meal was finished 4–6 hours prior to commencing exercise. This lag in nutrient consumption can be considered significant enough to warrant post-exercise intervention if muscle retention or growth is the primary goal."
This is all I need to say.
way to take out one snipet...
I would direct you to @LolBroScience post a few pages back...
they clearly said that a six hour window was suitable which totally throws your argument out the window...
"Thus, despite conflicting evidence, the potential benefits of post-exercise supplementation cannot be readily dismissed for those seeking to optimize a hypertrophic response. By the same token, widely varying feeding patterns among individuals challenge the common assumption that the post-exercise “anabolic window of opportunity” is universally narrow and urgent."
Right... So again, not narrow and urgent. Like said multiple times, eating within a reasonable timeframe around or after a workout.
Perceive "reasonable" however you want. I bet if you took all the effort that you put into forming poor arguments and applied it to accumulating work capacity in the gym.... Your results would be more beneficial from the latter compared to fretting about whether or not your whey shake needs to be consumed 30 mins PWO vs 4 hours.
And to clarify my post before I get called a "mean person".... I meant this in a majoring in the minors sort of way, not that he has poor results.
It's amazing how my results improved for the better once I started majoring in the majors of things.......
For real..eat big, lift big, hit micros and macros ..no need to over complicate....0 -
LolBroScience wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »
From the article. DEPENDING ON THE PERSONMine is logical because it says it can matter, but it also it depends on variables of the individual and what they are doing, when they had their last food intake too.
Yours is more specific about protein at least that's I see and gather and says protein timing does not matter, it's even what you quoted. But once again, I could care about protein I hit my goals there regardless.
Once again you always find something...
LOL did you miss the six hour window part? So yea if I work out from 4 to 5:30 then I have until 11:30 at night to eat which is ridiculous beucase I will eat dinner at 7pm anyway ...
It also clearly said that carb timing did not matter, or is your argument that carbs are not nutrients?
It would be beneficial to read the full text of studies that you link.
I would suggest you also read @LolBroScience response to said study.
Nutrients as a whole.
By the time I can read one response and respond to it, there is 9 more. I am not going to sit here and read and reply to them all. LOL
maybe you should realize the reason that you are getting so many responses is because your entire premise is wrong and is not based on any evidence. Almost every thing you have linked us to runs counter to what you are arguing.
Maybe you should take the time to go back and actually read what you are linking us to.
Actually I linked evidence many times, people with average knowledge, no certificates in training or degrees, nutritional background said it was wrong.
yes, and the "evidence" that you linked ran counter to your argument, or have you not realized that yet?
and your credentials are?
at least the people in this thread have actually run successful bulk/cut cycles, which you, at your own admission, have never done.
The evidence I showed is on the back of certain protein powders, creatine and preworkout itself. Also, one study doesn't undo 50 years of what is tried and true, by bodybuilders natural and unnatural, even celebrities for movies. Especially when you can type it in a search engine and comes up that meal timing is important on many sites with people with credentials.
I don't need credentials when you are trying to tell me the information I post is wrong, ( and the information is by people with credentials) that is your job to conclude that is it wrong, but you couldn't do that because of doubt, and it could work. It either can or can't and it seems it can, depending on variables. The end.
wait, so we have to have credentials, but you are free to post pseudo and bro science and don't need any? Totally legit argument.
And everything that you posted actually disproved your argument...or have you still not realized that?
I am not saying the information you are posting from links is wrong, you are, and those links are from people with credentials so yes you have to prove them wrong not me. I am just the relayer of information, since people asked for links, then when they got them it was not true, how convenient. What have I said that disproved any argument?
what I am saying is that the very links you posted have refuted your own argument. You said nutrient timing was important and posted a study that said it was not and that a six hour window was suitable for most....
also see @senecarr explanation above...
Actually the link I posted said it was still possible but it varied, you took the protein part of both articles (which said that particular macro doesn't matter), and make it seem like it overal food timing wouldn't matter because of that and ran with it.
go back and read the full study.
Five other people in this thread read it and came to the same conclusion that I did, so I guess we are all wrong and lack "credentials"...
"On the other hand, there are others who might train before lunch or after work, where the previous meal was finished 4–6 hours prior to commencing exercise. This lag in nutrient consumption can be considered significant enough to warrant post-exercise intervention if muscle retention or growth is the primary goal."
This is all I need to say.
way to take out one snipet...
I would direct you to @LolBroScience post a few pages back...
they clearly said that a six hour window was suitable which totally throws your argument out the window...
"Thus, despite conflicting evidence, the potential benefits of post-exercise supplementation cannot be readily dismissed for those seeking to optimize a hypertrophic response. By the same token, widely varying feeding patterns among individuals challenge the common assumption that the post-exercise “anabolic window of opportunity” is universally narrow and urgent."
Right... So again, not narrow and urgent. Like said multiple times, eating within a reasonable timeframe around or after a workout.
Perceive "reasonable" however you want. I bet if you took all the effort that you put into forming poor arguments and applied it to accumulating work capacity in the gym.... Your results would be more beneficial from the latter compared to fretting about whether or not your whey shake needs to be consumed 30 mins PWO vs 4 hours.
And to clarify my post before I get called a "mean person".... I meant this in a majoring in the minors sort of way, not that he has poor results.
It's amazing how my results improved for the better once I started majoring in the majors of things.......
For real..eat big, lift big, hit micros and macros ..no need to over complicate....
Just no carbs after 6pm.......
0 -
Holy crap, go to a christmas lunch and dumpster fire occurs.
In all honesty, I question how any of this disproves what the OP actually states.
Overall, there should be basic protocol to follow and several areas of concern prior to addressing meal timing. Essentially, meal timing is not going to matter in terms of muscle building if you aren't getting enough calories, your training is not structured in a way that will stimulate muscle breakdown, if your macros do not address your goals, and so much more.
I always felt this was a solid video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAvW6xBZjSk&list=PLcWkawz_rjvoN9VldbChVvykGCy0LYYSm&index=1 0 -
Hahaha. Looking at this thread overall, I feel like my objection to how one aspect of the statement, "a calorie is a calorie" was misrepresenting and would be misunderstood, turned an original post that is a pretty good piece of advice for the people who come here looking to begin their muscle gaining journey, into a thread so argumentative, academic, and varied that I can't see it doing anything but totally confusing a beginner. I can't take total credit for this mess of course, but really, if you followed the basic advice of the origanal post, and you were an average beginner, it would be hard to screw up your diet very badly.
So, RESET! Go back to the original post and take advice from it if it suits you, but don't forget that while a calorie is a calorie in the sense that a pound of feathers weighs the same as a pound of lead, different foods, even within the same macronutrient class, can effect your metabolism and energy systems differently, but this is not something to focus on right now.0 -
Holy crap, go to a christmas lunch and dumpster fire occurs.
In all honesty, I question how any of this disproves what the OP actually states.
Overall, there should be basic protocol to follow and several areas of concern prior to addressing meal timing. Essentially, meal timing is not going to matter in terms of muscle building if you aren't getting enough calories, your training is not structured in a way that will stimulate muscle breakdown, if your macros do not address your goals, and so much more.
I always felt this was a solid video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAvW6xBZjSk&list=PLcWkawz_rjvoN9VldbChVvykGCy0LYYSm&index=1
0 -
LolBroScience wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »
From the article. DEPENDING ON THE PERSONMine is logical because it says it can matter, but it also it depends on variables of the individual and what they are doing, when they had their last food intake too.
Yours is more specific about protein at least that's I see and gather and says protein timing does not matter, it's even what you quoted. But once again, I could care about protein I hit my goals there regardless.
Once again you always find something...
LOL did you miss the six hour window part? So yea if I work out from 4 to 5:30 then I have until 11:30 at night to eat which is ridiculous beucase I will eat dinner at 7pm anyway ...
It also clearly said that carb timing did not matter, or is your argument that carbs are not nutrients?
It would be beneficial to read the full text of studies that you link.
I would suggest you also read @LolBroScience response to said study.
Nutrients as a whole.
By the time I can read one response and respond to it, there is 9 more. I am not going to sit here and read and reply to them all. LOL
maybe you should realize the reason that you are getting so many responses is because your entire premise is wrong and is not based on any evidence. Almost every thing you have linked us to runs counter to what you are arguing.
Maybe you should take the time to go back and actually read what you are linking us to.
Actually I linked evidence many times, people with average knowledge, no certificates in training or degrees, nutritional background said it was wrong.
yes, and the "evidence" that you linked ran counter to your argument, or have you not realized that yet?
and your credentials are?
at least the people in this thread have actually run successful bulk/cut cycles, which you, at your own admission, have never done.
The evidence I showed is on the back of certain protein powders, creatine and preworkout itself. Also, one study doesn't undo 50 years of what is tried and true, by bodybuilders natural and unnatural, even celebrities for movies. Especially when you can type it in a search engine and comes up that meal timing is important on many sites with people with credentials.
I don't need credentials when you are trying to tell me the information I post is wrong, ( and the information is by people with credentials) that is your job to conclude that is it wrong, but you couldn't do that because of doubt, and it could work. It either can or can't and it seems it can, depending on variables. The end.
wait, so we have to have credentials, but you are free to post pseudo and bro science and don't need any? Totally legit argument.
And everything that you posted actually disproved your argument...or have you still not realized that?
I am not saying the information you are posting from links is wrong, you are, and those links are from people with credentials so yes you have to prove them wrong not me. I am just the relayer of information, since people asked for links, then when they got them it was not true, how convenient. What have I said that disproved any argument?
what I am saying is that the very links you posted have refuted your own argument. You said nutrient timing was important and posted a study that said it was not and that a six hour window was suitable for most....
also see @senecarr explanation above...
Actually the link I posted said it was still possible but it varied, you took the protein part of both articles (which said that particular macro doesn't matter), and make it seem like it overal food timing wouldn't matter because of that and ran with it.
go back and read the full study.
Five other people in this thread read it and came to the same conclusion that I did, so I guess we are all wrong and lack "credentials"...
"On the other hand, there are others who might train before lunch or after work, where the previous meal was finished 4–6 hours prior to commencing exercise. This lag in nutrient consumption can be considered significant enough to warrant post-exercise intervention if muscle retention or growth is the primary goal."
This is all I need to say.
way to take out one snipet...
I would direct you to @LolBroScience post a few pages back...
they clearly said that a six hour window was suitable which totally throws your argument out the window...
"Thus, despite conflicting evidence, the potential benefits of post-exercise supplementation cannot be readily dismissed for those seeking to optimize a hypertrophic response. By the same token, widely varying feeding patterns among individuals challenge the common assumption that the post-exercise “anabolic window of opportunity” is universally narrow and urgent."
Right... So again, not narrow and urgent. Like said multiple times, eating within a reasonable timeframe around or after a workout.
Perceive "reasonable" however you want. I bet if you took all the effort that you put into forming poor arguments and applied it to accumulating work capacity in the gym.... Your results would be more beneficial from the latter compared to fretting about whether or not your whey shake needs to be consumed 30 mins PWO vs 4 hours.
And to clarify my post before I get called a "mean person".... I meant this in a majoring in the minors sort of way, not that he has poor results.
It's amazing how my results improved for the better once I started majoring in the majors of things.......
For real..eat big, lift big, hit micros and macros ..no need to over complicate....
The funny thing is, if I had just seen you write this I would have probably said, "Fxck yeah! Just hitting it with everything you got is more important than worrying about failing because you chose peptopro over whey isolate or vise versa for your periworkout shake, and other paralysis by analysis. Quit talking endlessly about getting results, and just go out there and get results!" Hahaha. I think we invested way too much of ourselves in this "dumpster fire".0 -
ryanflebbe wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »
From the article. DEPENDING ON THE PERSONMine is logical because it says it can matter, but it also it depends on variables of the individual and what they are doing, when they had their last food intake too.
Yours is more specific about protein at least that's I see and gather and says protein timing does not matter, it's even what you quoted. But once again, I could care about protein I hit my goals there regardless.
Once again you always find something...
LOL did you miss the six hour window part? So yea if I work out from 4 to 5:30 then I have until 11:30 at night to eat which is ridiculous beucase I will eat dinner at 7pm anyway ...
It also clearly said that carb timing did not matter, or is your argument that carbs are not nutrients?
It would be beneficial to read the full text of studies that you link.
I would suggest you also read @LolBroScience response to said study.
Nutrients as a whole.
By the time I can read one response and respond to it, there is 9 more. I am not going to sit here and read and reply to them all. LOL
maybe you should realize the reason that you are getting so many responses is because your entire premise is wrong and is not based on any evidence. Almost every thing you have linked us to runs counter to what you are arguing.
Maybe you should take the time to go back and actually read what you are linking us to.
Actually I linked evidence many times, people with average knowledge, no certificates in training or degrees, nutritional background said it was wrong.
yes, and the "evidence" that you linked ran counter to your argument, or have you not realized that yet?
and your credentials are?
at least the people in this thread have actually run successful bulk/cut cycles, which you, at your own admission, have never done.
The evidence I showed is on the back of certain protein powders, creatine and preworkout itself. Also, one study doesn't undo 50 years of what is tried and true, by bodybuilders natural and unnatural, even celebrities for movies. Especially when you can type it in a search engine and comes up that meal timing is important on many sites with people with credentials.
I don't need credentials when you are trying to tell me the information I post is wrong, ( and the information is by people with credentials) that is your job to conclude that is it wrong, but you couldn't do that because of doubt, and it could work. It either can or can't and it seems it can, depending on variables. The end.
wait, so we have to have credentials, but you are free to post pseudo and bro science and don't need any? Totally legit argument.
And everything that you posted actually disproved your argument...or have you still not realized that?
I am not saying the information you are posting from links is wrong, you are, and those links are from people with credentials so yes you have to prove them wrong not me. I am just the relayer of information, since people asked for links, then when they got them it was not true, how convenient. What have I said that disproved any argument?
what I am saying is that the very links you posted have refuted your own argument. You said nutrient timing was important and posted a study that said it was not and that a six hour window was suitable for most....
also see @senecarr explanation above...
Actually the link I posted said it was still possible but it varied, you took the protein part of both articles (which said that particular macro doesn't matter), and make it seem like it overal food timing wouldn't matter because of that and ran with it.
go back and read the full study.
Five other people in this thread read it and came to the same conclusion that I did, so I guess we are all wrong and lack "credentials"...
"On the other hand, there are others who might train before lunch or after work, where the previous meal was finished 4–6 hours prior to commencing exercise. This lag in nutrient consumption can be considered significant enough to warrant post-exercise intervention if muscle retention or growth is the primary goal."
This is all I need to say.
way to take out one snipet...
I would direct you to @LolBroScience post a few pages back...
they clearly said that a six hour window was suitable which totally throws your argument out the window...
"Thus, despite conflicting evidence, the potential benefits of post-exercise supplementation cannot be readily dismissed for those seeking to optimize a hypertrophic response. By the same token, widely varying feeding patterns among individuals challenge the common assumption that the post-exercise “anabolic window of opportunity” is universally narrow and urgent."
Right... So again, not narrow and urgent. Like said multiple times, eating within a reasonable timeframe around or after a workout.
Perceive "reasonable" however you want. I bet if you took all the effort that you put into forming poor arguments and applied it to accumulating work capacity in the gym.... Your results would be more beneficial from the latter compared to fretting about whether or not your whey shake needs to be consumed 30 mins PWO vs 4 hours.
And to clarify my post before I get called a "mean person".... I meant this in a majoring in the minors sort of way, not that he has poor results.
It's amazing how my results improved for the better once I started majoring in the majors of things.......
For real..eat big, lift big, hit micros and macros ..no need to over complicate....
The funny thing is, if I had just seen you write this I would have probably said, "Fxck yeah! Just hitting it with everything you got is more important than worrying about failing because you chose peptopro over whey isolate or vise versa for your periworkout shake, and other paralysis by analysis. Quit talking endlessly about getting results, and just go out there and get results!" Hahaha. I think we invested way too much of ourselves in this "dumpster fire".
Welcome to mfp.....0 -
ryanflebbe wrote: »but don't forget that while a calorie is a calorie in the sense that a pound of feathers weighs the same as a pound of lead, different foods, even within the same macronutrient class, can effect your metabolism and energy systems differently, but this is not something to focus on right now.
No one has ever said that foods are the same. That's a willful misunderstanding.0 -
Holy crap, go to a christmas lunch and dumpster fire occurs.
In all honesty, I question how any of this disproves what the OP actually states.
Overall, there should be basic protocol to follow and several areas of concern prior to addressing meal timing. Essentially, meal timing is not going to matter in terms of muscle building if you aren't getting enough calories, your training is not structured in a way that will stimulate muscle breakdown, if your macros do not address your goals, and so much more.
I always felt this was a solid video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAvW6xBZjSk&list=PLcWkawz_rjvoN9VldbChVvykGCy0LYYSm&index=1
^ that's quite possibly the best video series on YouTube. Training one too.
Eric Helms and co. Have released pre-sale on the upcoming book on this same topic as well.0 -
Just because you don't accepted it, doesn't make it not true. There are plenty of diets that will just make you lose weight (twinkie diet, all the MLM's with tons of supplements,etc...). And in many cases they will improve all your blood test and make you healthier, but some come at an expense (loss of muscle from inadequate protein and resistance training) but for some that might be acceptable (ie- if you are 300 lbs, any weight loss will generally help).
Personally, I think you are looking too much into the word plain calories. I believe it was referencing any type of calories, not empty calories or anything of the alike.stevencloser wrote: »
That. Plain calories means "not caring wheter they're from carbs, fat or protein."
Also even if you were to take that approach, unless you have a very one-sided diet you'll still be in acceptable macros probably, the minimum amount of fats and protein required for a sedentary person isn't so high they need to pay extra attention to it. Usually.
Quoted both due to the same answer.
I'm not trying to split hairs over wording, just saying in my view most decisions should be goal oriented, always seeing the forest despite the trees.
Assume in this case a person already has all the nutritional needs covered, and still has 500 calories in hand to eat for the day. What do you eat? For me, I think short term goal. If I'm still hungry as crap some proteins in the form of some meat, maybe a couple eggs, and if there is room maybe some toast. If I'm stuffed from my other eating, anything calorie dense that doesn't sit in my stomach heavy. If I'm craving some sweets, a big old freaking donut or something.
I also agree that in most diets where people eat a variety, things will often balance out more without trying. But based on the OP, I'd assume that the goal posts were set unique to a specific goal and that there would at least be reason to think that macro partitioning and priorities would come into the picture without always being effortless.
And for the record, I actually think the original post would be as useful or even more useful in the weight loss and maintenance sections. Consideration of macros and body composition goals should always be included with calories IMO. And really a bulking type diet is the easiest to hit, because you have more room to play to get your nutrition in. People at maintenance or in deficit have less room to play, especially the smaller people.
The thought of trying to get a big delicious donut into a 1200-1300 calorie diet is a lot tougher than doing it with twice or more calories to deal with. And they don't sell a 1/2 size everything at the burger joint. Even kids meals would be kinda large at times.0 -
robertw486 wrote: »Just because you don't accepted it, doesn't make it not true. There are plenty of diets that will just make you lose weight (twinkie diet, all the MLM's with tons of supplements,etc...). And in many cases they will improve all your blood test and make you healthier, but some come at an expense (loss of muscle from inadequate protein and resistance training) but for some that might be acceptable (ie- if you are 300 lbs, any weight loss will generally help).
Personally, I think you are looking too much into the word plain calories. I believe it was referencing any type of calories, not empty calories or anything of the alike.stevencloser wrote: »
That. Plain calories means "not caring wheter they're from carbs, fat or protein."
Also even if you were to take that approach, unless you have a very one-sided diet you'll still be in acceptable macros probably, the minimum amount of fats and protein required for a sedentary person isn't so high they need to pay extra attention to it. Usually.
Quoted both due to the same answer.
I'm not trying to split hairs over wording, just saying in my view most decisions should be goal oriented, always seeing the forest despite the trees.
Assume in this case a person already has all the nutritional needs covered, and still has 500 calories in hand to eat for the day. What do you eat? For me, I think short term goal. If I'm still hungry as crap some proteins in the form of some meat, maybe a couple eggs, and if there is room maybe some toast. If I'm stuffed from my other eating, anything calorie dense that doesn't sit in my stomach heavy. If I'm craving some sweets, a big old freaking donut or something.
I also agree that in most diets where people eat a variety, things will often balance out more without trying. But based on the OP, I'd assume that the goal posts were set unique to a specific goal and that there would at least be reason to think that macro partitioning and priorities would come into the picture without always being effortless.
And for the record, I actually think the original post would be as useful or even more useful in the weight loss and maintenance sections. Consideration of macros and body composition goals should always be included with calories IMO. And really a bulking type diet is the easiest to hit, because you have more room to play to get your nutrition in. People at maintenance or in deficit have less room to play, especially the smaller people.
The thought of trying to get a big delicious donut into a 1200-1300 calorie diet is a lot tougher than doing it with twice or more calories to deal with. And they don't sell a 1/2 size everything at the burger joint. Even kids meals would be kinda large at times.
No one has ever said that you shouldn't eat towards your goal. The whole purpose of the 1st post was clearly aligned in that manor... eating nutritionally dense foods (which generally means fruits, veggies, dairy, whole grains, lean proteins, fish, etc...), then eating in a manor to address your macronutrient and micronutrient goals and then fill in the rest.0 -
robertw486 wrote: »Just because you don't accepted it, doesn't make it not true. There are plenty of diets that will just make you lose weight (twinkie diet, all the MLM's with tons of supplements,etc...). And in many cases they will improve all your blood test and make you healthier, but some come at an expense (loss of muscle from inadequate protein and resistance training) but for some that might be acceptable (ie- if you are 300 lbs, any weight loss will generally help).
Personally, I think you are looking too much into the word plain calories. I believe it was referencing any type of calories, not empty calories or anything of the alike.stevencloser wrote: »
That. Plain calories means "not caring wheter they're from carbs, fat or protein."
Also even if you were to take that approach, unless you have a very one-sided diet you'll still be in acceptable macros probably, the minimum amount of fats and protein required for a sedentary person isn't so high they need to pay extra attention to it. Usually.
Quoted both due to the same answer.
I'm not trying to split hairs over wording, just saying in my view most decisions should be goal oriented, always seeing the forest despite the trees.
Assume in this case a person already has all the nutritional needs covered, and still has 500 calories in hand to eat for the day. What do you eat? For me, I think short term goal. If I'm still hungry as crap some proteins in the form of some meat, maybe a couple eggs, and if there is room maybe some toast. If I'm stuffed from my other eating, anything calorie dense that doesn't sit in my stomach heavy. If I'm craving some sweets, a big old freaking donut or something.
I also agree that in most diets where people eat a variety, things will often balance out more without trying. But based on the OP, I'd assume that the goal posts were set unique to a specific goal and that there would at least be reason to think that macro partitioning and priorities would come into the picture without always being effortless.
And for the record, I actually think the original post would be as useful or even more useful in the weight loss and maintenance sections. Consideration of macros and body composition goals should always be included with calories IMO. And really a bulking type diet is the easiest to hit, because you have more room to play to get your nutrition in. People at maintenance or in deficit have less room to play, especially the smaller people.
The thought of trying to get a big delicious donut into a 1200-1300 calorie diet is a lot tougher than doing it with twice or more calories to deal with. And they don't sell a 1/2 size everything at the burger joint. Even kids meals would be kinda large at times.
No one has ever said that you shouldn't eat towards your goal. The whole purpose of the 1st post was clearly aligned in that manor... eating nutritionally dense foods (which generally means fruits, veggies, dairy, whole grains, lean proteins, fish, etc...), then eating in a manor to address your macronutrient and micronutrient goals and then fill in the rest.
It just floors me that everyone who has tried to debate the merits of the OP misses this, the obvious point of the OP.0 -
juggernaut1974 wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »Just because you don't accepted it, doesn't make it not true. There are plenty of diets that will just make you lose weight (twinkie diet, all the MLM's with tons of supplements,etc...). And in many cases they will improve all your blood test and make you healthier, but some come at an expense (loss of muscle from inadequate protein and resistance training) but for some that might be acceptable (ie- if you are 300 lbs, any weight loss will generally help).
Personally, I think you are looking too much into the word plain calories. I believe it was referencing any type of calories, not empty calories or anything of the alike.stevencloser wrote: »
That. Plain calories means "not caring wheter they're from carbs, fat or protein."
Also even if you were to take that approach, unless you have a very one-sided diet you'll still be in acceptable macros probably, the minimum amount of fats and protein required for a sedentary person isn't so high they need to pay extra attention to it. Usually.
Quoted both due to the same answer.
I'm not trying to split hairs over wording, just saying in my view most decisions should be goal oriented, always seeing the forest despite the trees.
Assume in this case a person already has all the nutritional needs covered, and still has 500 calories in hand to eat for the day. What do you eat? For me, I think short term goal. If I'm still hungry as crap some proteins in the form of some meat, maybe a couple eggs, and if there is room maybe some toast. If I'm stuffed from my other eating, anything calorie dense that doesn't sit in my stomach heavy. If I'm craving some sweets, a big old freaking donut or something.
I also agree that in most diets where people eat a variety, things will often balance out more without trying. But based on the OP, I'd assume that the goal posts were set unique to a specific goal and that there would at least be reason to think that macro partitioning and priorities would come into the picture without always being effortless.
And for the record, I actually think the original post would be as useful or even more useful in the weight loss and maintenance sections. Consideration of macros and body composition goals should always be included with calories IMO. And really a bulking type diet is the easiest to hit, because you have more room to play to get your nutrition in. People at maintenance or in deficit have less room to play, especially the smaller people.
The thought of trying to get a big delicious donut into a 1200-1300 calorie diet is a lot tougher than doing it with twice or more calories to deal with. And they don't sell a 1/2 size everything at the burger joint. Even kids meals would be kinda large at times.
No one has ever said that you shouldn't eat towards your goal. The whole purpose of the 1st post was clearly aligned in that manor... eating nutritionally dense foods (which generally means fruits, veggies, dairy, whole grains, lean proteins, fish, etc...), then eating in a manor to address your macronutrient and micronutrient goals and then fill in the rest.
It just floors me that everyone who has tried to debate the merits of the OP misses this, the obvious point of the OP.
Yes, this.
It's almost like someone just wants to argue!0 -
Sorry to get back on topic lol but...
A calorie is a calorie since it's a unit of energy, but that doesn't mean that 200 calories from potato chips will have the same effect on body composition as 200 calories from lean protein and veggies.
My OP stated that they give you the same energy; however, they do not contain the same nutritional profile.
Here would be my question back to you. If I have hit macro minimums, and micro nutrients, then what does it matter if i hit my surplus with 500 calories of ice cream or 500 calories of vegetables?
Assuming you've truly hit your macros/micros/fiber etc. and the ice cream fits into those totals then that's fine from a muscle building/fat loss perspective.0 -
Sorry to get back on topic lol but...
A calorie is a calorie since it's a unit of energy, but that doesn't mean that 200 calories from potato chips will have the same effect on body composition as 200 calories from lean protein and veggies.
My OP stated that they give you the same energy; however, they do not contain the same nutritional profile.
Here would be my question back to you. If I have hit macro minimums, and micro nutrients, then what does it matter if i hit my surplus with 500 calories of ice cream or 500 calories of vegetables?
Assuming you've truly hit your macros/micros/fiber etc. and the ice cream fits into those totals then that's fine from a muscle building/fat loss perspective.
we agree ..:)0 -
BUMP and pinching to link.0
-
bumping for the new bulkers0
-
bumping for the newbs0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions