Distribution of macros throughout the day...

Options
13

Replies

  • mistesh
    mistesh Posts: 243 Member
    Options
    There is no reason from a weight loss perspective of eating breakfast or of cutting off carbs, or any macronutrient before you go to bed.

    Since you (but not OP) brought up weight loss, how about this recent study?

    "Results: Late lunch eaters lost less weight and displayed a slower weight-loss rate during the 20 weeks of treatment than early eaters."

    Timing of food intake predicts weight loss effectiveness
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23357955
  • Sarauk2sf
    Sarauk2sf Posts: 28,072 Member
    Options
    There is no reason from a weight loss perspective of eating breakfast or of cutting off carbs, or any macronutrient before you go to bed.

    Since you (but not OP) brought up weight loss, how about this recent study?

    "Results: Late lunch eaters lost less weight and displayed a slower weight-loss rate during the 20 weeks of treatment than early eaters."

    Timing of food intake predicts weight loss effectiveness
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23357955

    Interesting - will pull the full text and read.

    Edited: well, I would pull the full text if I could! Do you have access to it?
  • CookyBell
    CookyBell Posts: 22
    Options
    Regarding anabolism/catabolism and meal frequency, i would think that you would have to show research indicating that a relevant population given adequate protein intake for the day under different protein distributions per meal, resulted in a different net gain or loss of skeletal muscle over time. Then we would want to consider context to see how relevant it really is.

    Agreed; the point I was trying to make is that short term studies using obese sedentary subject groups using various diet regimes in relation to weight loss should not be applied to a completely different population in real world scenarios.
    I'm not in the least bit concerned over micromanaging acute states/phases of anabolism/catabolism because given any sort of real world scenario where an individual is eating 2-5 mixed meals, I really don't believe you're going to see a big difference in net change in lbm. If you're eating the appropriate total intake of protein to support lbm needs, getting it in 2 large doses vs 5 moderate doses won't likely have a huge impact since larger doses will have longer durations of anticatabolism.

    Again I agree with your statement. As I previously mentioned I do what works for me and when I discuss this topic with others I always inform them to do what works for them; however there are a number of benefits to spreading out your meal consumption in real life scenarios; see above post.
    Regarding breakfast and glycogen: as long as you have enough glycogen to meet training demands you're golden. Many people can train like a beast in a fasted state.

    I myself use fasted state training sessions, when concentrating on fat loss phases, however I ensure that I do eat a balanced breakfast ASAP afterwards.
  • CookyBell
    CookyBell Posts: 22
    Options
    Exactly which ones are you seeing says meal frequency has any impact on weight loss?

    Please feel to read them at your leisure.

    Also if you read the OP and my replies they are about managing energy levels and not directly linked to weight loss; however by maintaining ones energy levels you then have the energy to perform exercises that can assist in losing weight and body re composition. How you achieve these energy levels is up to the individual, as I previously stated 'do what works for you', and my preference is increased MF.

    A-C: Are all health benefits
    D: DOES NOT lead to weight gain if calorie intake remain stable not sure what you're getting at but it is early for me and I'm tired
    E: I may not have wrote the statement so let me try again: May help people control their calorie intake more effectively

    for example:

    1: eating more often/snacking can lead to a flatter hunger profile meaning people do not/are less likely to gorge at mealtimes
    2: presents more opportunity to compensate for any deficits or excesses; adjust frequency and meal size whereas 3 x meals per day can only adjust meal size
  • Sarauk2sf
    Sarauk2sf Posts: 28,072 Member
    Options
    Exactly which ones are you seeing says meal frequency has any impact on weight loss?

    Please feel to read them at your leisure.

    Also if you read the OP and my replies they are about managing energy levels and not directly linked to weight loss; however by maintaining ones energy levels you then have the energy to perform exercises that can assist in losing weight and body re composition. How you achieve these energy levels is up to the individual, as I previously stated 'do what works for you', and my preference is increased MF.

    A-C: Are all health benefits
    D: DOES NOT lead to weight gain if calorie intake remain stable not sure what you're getting at but it is early for me and I'm tired
    E: I may not have wrote the statement so let me try again: May help people control their calorie intake more effectively

    for example:

    1: eating more often/snacking can lead to a flatter hunger profile meaning people do not/are less likely to gorge at mealtimes
    2: presents more opportunity to compensate for any deficits or excesses; adjust frequency and meal size whereas 3 x meals per day can only adjust meal size

    Lol.....my question stands

    Your initial comments were about far more than managing energy balance, which point I am pretty sure we agree on. Example - you mentioned you like to train fasted - so do I. Some do not like it at all. Personal preference and individual reactions.

    A - C: for everyone? And all of them?
    D: we may be talking at cross purposes (or saying the same thing)
    E: Never said I disagreed with this. However, many people control their intake more effectively by eating less frequently also.

    ETA: I actually think we are more or less saying the same thing here at the end of the day.
  • CookyBell
    CookyBell Posts: 22
    Options
    Lol.....my question stands

    A - C: for everyone?

    Geez Sara I don't think I've never met anyone that is as bloody quick as you with their replies! lol! :)

    Personally speaking I'd have thought that everyone would benefit from lower blood cholesterol; a steady stream nutrients etc throughout the day and a smoother insulin response that is beneficial to for blood glucose control; or is that just my mere male thinking? :)
  • CookyBell
    CookyBell Posts: 22
    Options
    Time for a cuppa! :)
  • Sarauk2sf
    Sarauk2sf Posts: 28,072 Member
    Options
    Lol.....my question stands

    A - C: for everyone?

    Geez Sara I don't think I've never met anyone that is as bloody quick as you with their replies! lol! :)

    Personally speaking I'd have thought that everyone would benefit from lower blood cholesterol; a steady stream nutrients etc throughout the day and a smoother insulin response that is beneficial to for blood glucose control; or is that just my mere male thinking? :)

    lolz - I obviously spend too much time on here :wink: . I have not seen anything that these actually show a benefit for people without medical issues and there is a lot of (nothing compelling that I have seen however) studies that indicate some version of fasting improves blood markers. The concept of a steady stream of nutrients (I am assuming micronutrients here so correct me if you meant macronutrients) is an interesting one but not one I have seen anything about with regards to it being more beneficial than say being bolused (I think I just made that word up). I may have to do some google fu on that.

    I am going to leave the obvious response about male thinking alone in the interests of playing nice :tongue:

    Edited for typo.
  • Sarauk2sf
    Sarauk2sf Posts: 28,072 Member
    Options
    Time for a cuppa! :)

    Milk no sugar please. :happy:
  • CookyBell
    CookyBell Posts: 22
    Options
    Time for a cuppa! :)

    Milk no sugar please. :happy:
    Sorted! 1% milk ok with you?

    Edited to discuss dairy requirements
  • Sarauk2sf
    Sarauk2sf Posts: 28,072 Member
    Options
    Time for a cuppa! :)

    Milk no sugar please. :happy:
    Sorted! 1% milk ok with you?

    Edited to discuss dairy requirements

    Good with me - thank you :flowerforyou:
  • jessetmia
    jessetmia Posts: 19
    Options
    simple,

    more energy, basic easy to manage prepare and shop for diet, and i can retain muscle whilst doing it -

    Not sure why you asked the question. Those would definitely not be the case for me.

    Low carb is not any better for body composition than moderate carbs long term assuming protein is kept constant.

    Not that I'm an expert or anything, having low glycogen stores before jumping on a treadmill or going for a light "cardio" workout, you would definitely benefit from the lack of carbs, as your body will move to it's fat stores. /broscience

    edit by carbs, I'm referring to that and glycogen stores. That's why it's such a good idea to run when you first wake up, etc.

    Low glycogen stores =/= no glycogen store.

    Also, that really depends on how well you work our fasted. People get very caught up in micromanaging their meal intake, but at the end of the day, the biggest impact on your weight loss is adherence, energy levels and gym performance.

    Won't argue the low vs no, I agree with you. However, it's my understanding that the more glycogen you have reserved for energy the longer you have to work out before your body starts turning towards the fat. So slamming back a pre wo meal loaded in carbs and then getting a treadmill/going for a walk at a slow pace, you're mainly working off the carbs you ate. It's not optimal. (It still works, I would just argue that you'd be better off with less carbs.) I eat carbs before my wo mainly because I'm hitting the weights well before I get on the treadmill/elliptical. Next week I'm taking a week off from lifting and will be on a keto diet so when I get on the treadmill I'm not working off carbs.

    As far as the latter is concerned. I agree, completely. The worse part is that it takes time to get a good idea of how your body will respond to your diet/exercise. Many people want to see the weight drop instantly, etc. That's why services like this are so great. You can track your progress and adjust as your body tells you is necessary. I'm sure a lot of what I say is mainly broscience(problem #2 with d/e), but it's been working pretty well for me.
  • SideSteel
    SideSteel Posts: 11,068 Member
    Options

    You can't out trick your body, it's smarter than you.


    Generally agree with this.

    I don't think substrate utilization during training is all that important in terms of trying to manipulate it to cause a greater net fat loss. At least, I've never seen anything demonstrating this to a significant degree. You can probably find examples of this happening acutely but I bet when you look at larger time frames it's going to roughly balance out.
  • jessetmia
    jessetmia Posts: 19
    Options
    It doesn't work that way... Lets say your TDEE is 2,500 and your glycogen stores are empty(for the sake of argument), and you hae 3 people who are eating 2,000 calories.

    Person 1: 2000 calories carbs
    Person 2: 2000 calories protein (glycogen stores full)
    person 3: 2000 calories of fat (glycogen stores full).

    Person 1: will refill their glycogen stores up to 2000 calories. Burning 500 calories through their TDEE.
    Person 2. Will use some amino acids and store the excess protein as fat through gluconeogensis. Also burning 500 calories through their TDEE.
    Person 3.: They will limit fat oxidation because they will be burning the fat they ate or storing it. They will do this up to 2,000 calories. Then they will burn 500 calories through TDEE.

    in all cases, they will burn 500 calories through their TDEE, doesn't matter if glycogen stores are low or high. I even completely limited fat oxidation through higher levels of fat calories yet you will still burn 500 calories.

    The more carbs you eat, the more carbs you will burn, the more protein you will eat the more protein you will burn, the more fat you eat the ore fat you will burn. The only way to avoid this is to just eat "less calories."

    You can't out trick your body, it's smarter than you.

    I agree with the overall aspect, but I've read many, many, many things that say that all things equal, you lose more weight on a ketogenic diet.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15148063

    Yes, a calorie is a calorie and the weight is loss via a deficit. That part I'm not arguing. However, to me it makes sense that if your body is already burning fat (ketosis) then it would be easier to for your body to move to it's fat reserves over breaking down protein.

    I realize that the forum link I'm about to post is generally full of broscience and people who have no idea what they are talking about, but this seems to be a very thoroughly researched and written post that I believe is worth merit: http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=132598293

    Also, if what you say is true, why is it generally recommended to run when you first wake up and your glycogen stores are low?

    Again, I'm no expert, I'm just basing everything on what I've read/experienced and it generally tells me differently.
  • jessetmia
    jessetmia Posts: 19
    Options
    Pu, very solid reply. I guess its time to do some more research. If I could rep you I would.
  • JosieRawr
    JosieRawr Posts: 788 Member
    Options
    I have more control and less over eating if I eat my first meal around 3-4pm(I get up ~10am-noon) then I have one more large meal and a couple of snacks after that. I think the best thing is what helps you adhere to your plan/macros/calorie goals. Just my humble, personal opinion. :)
  • mistesh
    mistesh Posts: 243 Member
    Options
    There are two stages of digestion, the anabolic stage and the catabolic stage.

    "Anabolic stage is when you’re eating and digesting. It’s like fueling your car. This is the stage when you are filling up the gas tank! In this stage, you are breaking down food and turning it into… you!"

    "When you stop eating you enter the catabolic stage. This is the stage when we are driving the car and burning off the gas! We are burning off what we have stored and saved from the food we have digested."

    "But what makes us feel better is eating again because it stops the catabolic stage which stops that the healing process which is making us feel uncomfortable and puts us back into the anabolic stage. And now because we are feeling better we think that the bad feeling was hunger!"

    Stop Food Addiction, Lose Weight, True Hunger vs Toxic Hunger
    http://www.anewdayanewme.com/dr-fuhrman-stop-food-addiction-lose-weight-true-hunger-vs-toxic-hunger/

    That feeling is not true hunger, but toxic hunger, and when we give in to it, we start the cycle over halfway through. Instead of burning off what we have stored, we feel like eating again. In other words, snacking is bad, and meal frequency does matter.
  • SideSteel
    SideSteel Posts: 11,068 Member
    Options
    There are two stages of digestion, the anabolic stage and the catabolic stage.

    "Anabolic stage is when you’re eating and digesting. It’s like fueling your car. This is the stage when you are filling up the gas tank! In this stage, you are breaking down food and turning it into… you!"

    "When you stop eating you enter the catabolic stage. This is the stage when we are driving the car and burning off the gas! We are burning off what we have stored and saved from the food we have digested."

    "But what makes us feel better is eating again because it stops the catabolic stage which stops that the healing process which is making us feel uncomfortable and puts us back into the anabolic stage. And now because we are feeling better we think that the bad feeling was hunger!"

    Stop Food Addiction, Lose Weight, True Hunger vs Toxic Hunger
    http://www.anewdayanewme.com/dr-fuhrman-stop-food-addiction-lose-weight-true-hunger-vs-toxic-hunger/

    That feeling is not true hunger, but toxic hunger, and when we give in to it, we start the cycle over halfway through. Instead of burning off what we have stored, we feel like eating again. In other words, snacking is bad, and meal frequency does matter.


    Oversimplification with a conclusion not supported by available information. You can snack frequently and still cause fat oxidation given appropriate total intake.
  • mistesh
    mistesh Posts: 243 Member
    Options
    You can snack frequently and still cause fat oxidation given appropriate total intake.

    I wonder if you could let us in on what "appropriate total intake" entails. For now this:

    Nighttime snacking reduces whole body fat oxidation and increases LDL cholesterol in healthy young women
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23174861
  • SideSteel
    SideSteel Posts: 11,068 Member
    Options
    You can snack frequently and still cause fat oxidation given appropriate total intake.

    I wonder if you could let us in on what "appropriate total intake" entails. For now this:

    Nighttime snacking reduces whole body fat oxidation and increases LDL cholesterol in healthy young women
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23174861

    By appropriate intake I mean an energy deficit.

Categories