Macros for Abs?
Options
Replies
-
RAD_Fitness wrote: »...I said at the end of it that I wasn't trying to relate it to a specific instance, I was trying to explain what I meant with my point that meal timing can be more efficient.
More efficient for what? And what do you define as "perfect" meal timing? And what science/research do you rely upon to back that claim?0 -
RAD_Fitness wrote: »...I said at the end of it that I wasn't trying to relate it to a specific instance, I was trying to explain what I meant with my point that meal timing can be more efficient.
More efficient for what? And what do you define as "perfect" meal timing? And what science/research do you rely upon to back that claim?
You continue to ignore my question about what I said that went against basic physiology.
But I will continue to answer your questions.
More efficient in terms of maximizing fat loss (in a weight loss scenario) or minimizing fat gain (in a weight gain scenario).
I never said I had a perfect meal timing protocol. I am making a point that proper nutrient timing (pre workout, post workout, types of nutrients) can make your efforts more efficient.
My claim is based on the research done about the pre and post workout feeding.0 -
RAD_Fitness wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »...I said at the end of it that I wasn't trying to relate it to a specific instance, I was trying to explain what I meant with my point that meal timing can be more efficient.
More efficient for what? And what do you define as "perfect" meal timing? And what science/research do you rely upon to back that claim?
You continue to ignore my question about what I said that went against basic physiology.
But I will continue to answer your questions.
More efficient in terms of maximizing fat loss (in a weight loss scenario) or minimizing fat gain (in a weight gain scenario).
I never said I had a perfect meal timing protocol. I am making a point that proper nutrient timing (pre workout, post workout, types of nutrients) can make your efforts more efficient.
My claim is based on the research done about the pre and post workout feeding.
If you can't understand what part of what I quoted goes against basic physiology, it's probably not worth trying to explain or debate with you, so no - I won't even bother. Suffice it to say that fat loss vs. muscle loss would have a lot more to do with overall protein intake than it would with meal timing.
As far as pre and post workout feeding, now you've completely moved the goal posts. Of course meal timing can be relevant to workout performance, but that effect is also subjective and varies with the individual. The original topic was fat loss (and specifically in the OP, which was over four years ago, spot reducing the midsection/abs). Nutrient timing is completely irrelevant in that context unless you have studies to post which prove otherwise. You're the one that made the claim, you get to defend it.
If you're arguing for an "anabolic window" around workout performance as far as substrate intake, the science is very murky and undecided on that also. You can start here, it's completely relevant since it addresses the research done around pre and post workout feeding: https://jissn.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1550-2783-10-5
2 -
RAD_Fitness wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »livingleanlivingclean wrote: »livingleanlivingclean wrote: »
The link I posted was written after this article (did you miss this part at the top? "Note to readers: We wrote this article in 2009. Since then, based on the latest scientific research and lots of client experience, we’ve updated and refined our position on nutrient timing. To read our most recent thoughts on this topic, check out: Is nutrient timing dead? And does “when” you eat really matter?")
Ok so the article and link further supports my idea that their is no size that fits all and that studies have shown people who time their food did see a greater response in dropping fat loss. It could be a case of finding which your body responds well to.
Again ITS JUST AN IDEA ITS NOT THE HOLY GRAIL
It does also say that for the average person it may not matter, but its not hard to give it a go and see how a body responds to it.
People who time their food at breakfast.... Or at dinner... Pretty sure it explains that its fairly irrelevant when you eat.
It is not fairly irrelevant. It either makes a difference or not. It 100% does, our bodies don't work on some set schedule (daily, weekly, monthly, yearly) to say "okay, I have burned X calories and I have consumed Y calories, so I will gain/lose this much weight". Our bodies work on a moment by moment basis, you are either catabolic or anabolic in any given moment, and by feeding your body at appropriate times, and in the right amounts, you will see a benefit in performance, fat loss, muscle gain.
I am not saying this is an end all be all, but it does make a difference. Just because you've lost weight and fat or put on weight and muscle doesn't mean you did it most efficiently and could have gotten there faster. I agree, for a good majority of people on here, it doesn't really matter when you eat because you have a ton of weight to lose and it's not worth the effort to lose a bit more. But to say that meal timing is irrelevant is just not true. The quality of the weight loss/weight gain will be different depending on your nutrient timing. Yes if you eat at a (lets just say) PERFECT 500 calorie deficit, you would lose 1lb of pure fat a week if you only lost fat. But if your meal timing is off of perfect, you may only be in a 450 calorie deficit from fat, and 50 from muscle mass. In 2 weeks you will have lost 1.8lbs of fat and about 0.45lbs of muscle. The scale will show you're down 2.2lbs but you've also not been as efficient with your fat loss.
Not using this example as exact numbers for a specific person, just trying to explain what I mean by my point that the efficiency of your weight loss/ weight gain is effected by the timing of your meals.
It's not "fairly irrelevant" It's totally irrelevant.
The rest of that is broscience and woo.
What part of that is untrue?
The complete misunderstanding of metabolism and basic physiology, for starters.
Point out something I said that is not basic physiology.
Let's start with this bunch of unsubstantiated nonsense:The quality of the weight loss/weight gain will be different depending on your nutrient timing. Yes if you eat at a (lets just say) PERFECT 500 calorie deficit, you would lose 1lb of pure fat a week if you only lost fat. But if your meal timing is off of perfect, you may only be in a 450 calorie deficit from fat, and 50 from muscle mass. In 2 weeks you will have lost 1.8lbs of fat and about 0.45lbs of muscle. The scale will show you're down 2.2lbs but you've also not been as efficient with your fat loss.
Then maybe you could define what you consider "perfect" meal timing, and what evidence led you to that definition. And how it's relevant to the vast majority of people.
Maybe we could start by looking at Alan Aragon's definitions of when meal timing is or isn't important. He's reputed to maybe know a thing or two about nutrition and may have done a bit of study in his time:
Lets take it one at a time here. What did I say in that quote you posted that went against basic physiology?
I said at the end of it that I wasn't trying to relate it to a specific instance, I was trying to explain what I meant with my point that meal timing can be more efficient.
How about that you said that the time you eat can change whether you lose fat or muscle without even taking the words "protein intake" or "exercise" in your mouth.2 -
RAD_Fitness wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »livingleanlivingclean wrote: »livingleanlivingclean wrote: »
The link I posted was written after this article (did you miss this part at the top? "Note to readers: We wrote this article in 2009. Since then, based on the latest scientific research and lots of client experience, we’ve updated and refined our position on nutrient timing. To read our most recent thoughts on this topic, check out: Is nutrient timing dead? And does “when” you eat really matter?")
Ok so the article and link further supports my idea that their is no size that fits all and that studies have shown people who time their food did see a greater response in dropping fat loss. It could be a case of finding which your body responds well to.
Again ITS JUST AN IDEA ITS NOT THE HOLY GRAIL
It does also say that for the average person it may not matter, but its not hard to give it a go and see how a body responds to it.
People who time their food at breakfast.... Or at dinner... Pretty sure it explains that its fairly irrelevant when you eat.
It is not fairly irrelevant. It either makes a difference or not. It 100% does, our bodies don't work on some set schedule (daily, weekly, monthly, yearly) to say "okay, I have burned X calories and I have consumed Y calories, so I will gain/lose this much weight". Our bodies work on a moment by moment basis, you are either catabolic or anabolic in any given moment, and by feeding your body at appropriate times, and in the right amounts, you will see a benefit in performance, fat loss, muscle gain.
I am not saying this is an end all be all, but it does make a difference. Just because you've lost weight and fat or put on weight and muscle doesn't mean you did it most efficiently and could have gotten there faster. I agree, for a good majority of people on here, it doesn't really matter when you eat because you have a ton of weight to lose and it's not worth the effort to lose a bit more. But to say that meal timing is irrelevant is just not true. The quality of the weight loss/weight gain will be different depending on your nutrient timing. Yes if you eat at a (lets just say) PERFECT 500 calorie deficit, you would lose 1lb of pure fat a week if you only lost fat. But if your meal timing is off of perfect, you may only be in a 450 calorie deficit from fat, and 50 from muscle mass. In 2 weeks you will have lost 1.8lbs of fat and about 0.45lbs of muscle. The scale will show you're down 2.2lbs but you've also not been as efficient with your fat loss.
Not using this example as exact numbers for a specific person, just trying to explain what I mean by my point that the efficiency of your weight loss/ weight gain is effected by the timing of your meals.
It's not "fairly irrelevant" It's totally irrelevant.
The rest of that is broscience and woo.
What part of that is untrue?
The complete misunderstanding of metabolism and basic physiology, for starters.
Point out something I said that is not basic physiology.
You can't lose a pound of pure fat under any scenario1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 401 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 994 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions