Distribution of macros throughout the day...
Replies
-
Here are a couple that you appear to have overlooked:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9155494
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19943985
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17483007
If you read into these articles you will find that in all instances the subject groups were 'obese' and based on this my question to you is:
Can studies on obese individuals have any correlation to athletic individuals living a healthy and energetic lifestyle? Surely if I wanted to understand the potential impact of MF on myself I would need to find studies that used subjects similar to myself and living a similar lifestyle?
I appreciate the sentiment of 'do what works for you' and over the years of my life I have tried numerous approaches to diet etc and I find (here we go with the hearsay bit again) that adapting a grazing lifestyle around my physical activity helps me to achieve the best results.You cannot look at the body at the a point in without regard to what is happening for the whole day.
Totally agree with this statement; don't know why you had to restate it?
Also as a point to note is that the above studies used obese individuals as their subject groups and doesn't indicate whether the subjects were sedentary or active. So assuming, and one should never assume, they were sedentary obese individuals; how could the results be relevant to individuals that are active and living a healthy lifestyle?
To me these studies were used to support the views of the individuals that wrote the articles and thus the articles are written with a certain amount of bias and are not relevant to individuals that do not fall within the tested subject groups.0 -
simple,
more energy, basic easy to manage prepare and shop for diet, and i can retain muscle whilst doing it -
Low carb is not any better for body composition than moderate carbs long term assuming protein is kept constant.
eat moderate carbs and you defeat the object of the exercise....ketosis
Lol - I realize that.
Oh !! iget it now , you were just playing !!
Errr..no.0 -
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.0 -
Here are a couple that you appear to have overlooked:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9155494
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19943985
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17483007
If you read into these articles you will find that in all instances the subject groups were 'obese' and based on this my question to you is:
Can studies on obese individuals have any correlation to athletic individuals living a healthy and energetic lifestyle? Surely if I wanted to understand the potential impact of MF on myself I would need to find studies that used subjects similar to myself and living a similar lifestyle?
I appreciate the sentiment of 'do what works for you' and over the years of my life I have tried numerous approaches to diet etc and I find (here we go with the hearsay bit again) that adapting a grazing lifestyle around my physical activity helps me to achieve the best results.You cannot look at the body at the a point in without regard to what is happening for the whole day.
Totally agree with this statement; don't know why you had to restate it?
Because you seemed to be arguing against that statement with your comments.
Re the studies - yes I have read them. What leads you to believe that the premise if false for lean individuals? Do you have anything that would indicate otherwise?
You made the comment that there were no studies linked - there were. You have yet to cite your references.0 -
Here are a couple that you appear to have overlooked:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9155494
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19943985
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17483007
Re the studies - yes I have read them. What leads you to believe that the premise if false for lean individuals? Do you have anything that would indicate otherwise?
When reading clinical study reports there are a number of pointers one should be aware of:
1: Who sponsored the study?
2: Did the researchers have any potential bias going into the study?
3: Is the study ground breaking or is the objective to confirm/deny the results of a previous study?
4: Read 3 then read 1 and 2 again
5: What is my own personal bias when reading the study?
All the above can have an impact on study results, publications and summaries with conclusions.
That aside we then move onto the subject groups. Research companies do like to use target subject groups for a reason; they are trying to find out the how XYZ may potentially affect a certain cross section of the population. To assume that the results found in an obese and sedentary subject group/s would crossover to a segment of the population that is lean, athletic with efficient metabolisms is bad science.
You're one that is assuming studies on obese, sedentary individuals in a controlled environment apply to a greater portion of the population (not under controlled conditions); so I ask you what empirical evidence do you have that supports this argument?0 -
Here are a couple that you appear to have overlooked:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9155494
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19943985
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17483007
Re the studies - yes I have read them. What leads you to believe that the premise if false for lean individuals? Do you have anything that would indicate otherwise?
When reading clinical study reports there are a number of pointers one should be aware of:
1: Who sponsored the study?
2: Did the researchers have any potential bias going into the study?
3: Is the study ground breaking or is the objective to confirm/deny the results of a previous study?
4: Read 3 then read 1 and 2 again
5: What is my own personal bias when reading the study?
All the above can have an impact on study results, publications and summaries with conclusions.
That aside we then move onto the subject groups. Research companies do like to use target subject groups for a reason; they are trying to find out the how XYZ may potentially affect a certain cross section of the population. To assume that the results found in an obese and sedentary subject group/s would crossover to a segment of the population that is lean, athletic with efficient metabolisms is bad science.
You're one that is assuming studies on obese, sedentary individuals in a controlled environment apply to a greater portion of the population (not under controlled conditions); so I ask you what empirical evidence do you have that supports this argument?
So, on reading the studies, what conclusions did you come to pertaining to your points 1 through 5?
Again, please could you cite your sources for the assertion you made.
I do understand that peer reviewed studies need to be looked at in context. However, I would suggest that you look at the rest of the thread that I linked. There are reviews of studies by highly respected and credentialed individuals in the industry - not just some random internet people - they link numerous studies. There is nothing to indicate that the assertions are incorrect, and you have yet to provide a single source of reference in any situation for your assertions.0 -
Meal timing is not important. It never has been and never will be proved to be.
I'd have to disagree with this. The majority of studies I have read have highlighted the need to replace expended energy and assist with recovery after exercise all help to reduce muscle catabolism. Catabolism, as Im sure you are aware is the breaking down of large molecules into smaller ones; an energy replacement process. If you do a workout your body enters into a state of catabilsm and therefore needs fuel to alter this biochemical process. Therefore meal timing after a workout is important. Likewise timing a meal prior to a workout, in order to ensure that you have sufficient energy reserves to meet the demands about to be placed on your body is also important.Eating breakfast first thing in the morning is not important..
Again I would have to disagree with this statement. Numerous studies have proven that individuals that eat a proper nutritionally balanced breakfast benefit from this, with regards to restocking glycogen levels etc after 8 - 12 hours of fasting,, and that unhealthy 'snacking' is less likely to occur. It also helps to get the body into a proper nitrogen fuelled state. I suppose you could argue that the statement 'first thing in the morning' is open to discussion with regards to what is the correct window of opportunity.
.This thread should have ended after this post...Distribute your meals and you macros how you want based on preference, satiation, lifestyle and energy levels.
I agree somewhat with this statement however (and there's always an however) its not always easy to listen to your body due to hectic lifestyles and depending upon how interpret it this statement also agrees with my posts. After all lifestyle and energy levels etc will be impacted by sleepi, working, training plans/intensity etc and establishing a meal/macro plan can help to instil discipline and make it easier to achieve goals.
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.
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.
I'm not convinced that acute shifts matter. What matters is the net difference between muscle protein synthesis and muscle protein breakdown. And nitrogen balance isn't necessarily a good proxy for this because protein turnover happens in non skeletal muscle.
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.
Edit: replying from a cell phone while on Benadryl. Please excuse any incoherence
0 -
So, on reading the studies, what conclusions did you come to pertaining to your points 1 through 5?
Without going into a deeper reading of the studies and knowing/understanding the sponsors, researchers and authors I am not in a position to discuss their motives. However as with all things to do with research one has to try and read the findings objectively. And, as a lot of abstracts do they are not always very definitive in their summary and use terms such as:
'are likely to be' - ' does not promote greater body weight loss under the conditions described in the present study'
and the last one where the hypocaloric meal was administered to 3 groups of obese test groups in reading the conclusion all groups had changes in weight, body composition, resting metabolic rate, and nitrogen balance. So in theory either approach to dieting will have the desired effect. However when I refer to MF it is in relation to active individuals that require a constant flow of energy to exercise and physical demands not obese sedentary individuals; so I'm still not convinced.
I know that a nutritional/dietary plan consisting of 5-6 meals per day built around my daily activities work for me with regards to weight management, energy expenditure and recovery. I suppose you could say that is my bias.Again, please could you cite your sources for the assertion you made
Unfortunately the studies I refer to are, hopefully, still stored somewhere in the vast overcrowded space of my loft; and I aint going crawling around up there for this discussion; however please see the studies listed below.
1: de Groot CP, van Staveren WA (2002) Undernutrition in the European SENECA studies. Clinical Geriatric Medicine 18:699-707
2: Kirk TR & Cursiter MC (1999) Long-term snacking intervention did not lead to weight gain in free-living man. Scandinavian Journal of Nutrition 2 (Suppl 34): 3-17
3: Jenkins DJA, Wolever TMS, Vuksan V, Brighhen F, Cunnane SC, RAo AVet al (1989)Nibbling versus gorging: metabolic advantages of an increased meal frequency. New England Journal of Medicine 321:929-34
4: Titan SMO, Bingham S, Welch A, Luben R, Oakes S, Day N Khaw KT (2001) Frequency of eating and concentrations of serum cholesterol in the Norfolk population of the European prospective investigation into cancer (EPIC-NORFOLK) cross sectional study. British Medical Journal 323:1-5
5: Jenkins DJ (1997) Carbohydrate tolerance and food frequency. British Journal of Nutrition 77 (Suppl 1) S71-81
6: Position of the American Dietetic Association, Dietitians of Canada and the American College of Sports Medicine on Nutrition and athletic performance (2000). Journal of the American Dietetic Association100:1543-56
I'm sure I could find more but my fingers are getting tired with all this typing!I do understand that peer reviewed studies need to be looked at in context. However, I would suggest that you look at the rest of the thread that I linked. There are reviews of studies by highly respected and credentialed individuals in the industry - not just some random internet people. There is nothing to indicate that the assertions are incorrect, and you have yet to provide a single source of reference in any situation for your assertions.
Copied from the original link in your post:In conclusion: Do what works best for you. Strictly from a metabolic standpoint when looking only at expenditure(<-- please note the bold), it's not going to matter how you partition your calories.
LASTLY: Gym performance and preferential aspects of dieting should absolutely be considered. This article is strictly discussing the myth that frequent feeding boosts metabolism.
If you read my original post you will see that I advised Johnny of the following:
As with most things when it comes to diets you need to find, not only, what works for you but the diet regime that fits in with your lifestyle and one that believe in; but base it on actual results!
Which agrees with the final statement/conclusion of SideSteel. His article is written purely from a perspective of Strictly from a metabolic standpoint when looking only at expenditure and (unless I am reading his final note incorrectly) gym performance and preferential aspects of dieting should be considered; something I was trying to put across. And failed abysmally by the look of it!
On a final note:
The benefits of incorporating snacks into a meal plan or increasing meal frequency (may) also include:
A: Produce a lower level of blood cholesterol
B: Spread the absorption of nutrients
C: A smoother insulin response/blood glucose control
Not lead to weight gain if calorie intake remains stable
E: Help control calorie intake more effectively through discipline
F: Help individuals with a higher energy/calorific need to meet their requirements (athletic or fitness lifestyle)
G: Help those with a small appetite meet their energy/calorific requirements (children or elderly)0 -
Of your above lettered points, I've never seen anything on A but I'm interested in that if its correct. Many of the other items are highly preferential/individual. That doesn't make them invalid, it just means that I would expect the moderately attentive athlete to monitor the behavioral side of things that meal frequency interacts with and adjust accordingly.
Things like thermogenesis or protein synthesis can't readily be monitored in this fashion so we rely on a mix of studies and some anecdote, perhaps. Things like "do I need snacks to help me meet my lofty caloric requirements" or "does a higher meal frequency increase satiety" are easily monitored. Or at least they should be.
I just want to be clear here to differentiate between things that are clearly physiologically superior in terms of a given metric vs things that will vary based on the individual. My assertion is that meal frequency and nutrient timing will matter a great deal to certain individuals in certain contexts but there are few if any statements you could make about MF to claim that a given MF is superior, within the confines of real world eating patterns.
I think the distinction is important because we have a mountain of dietary myths still running wild, like skipping breakfast will slow your metabolism, or if you don't chug a protein shake the moment you stop curling in the squat rack you'll lose dem gains, etc.0 -
I know that a nutritional/dietary plan consisting of 5-6 meals per day built around my daily activities work for me with regards to weight management, energy expenditure and recovery. I suppose you could say that is my bias.
I specifically said, as does the thread linked, that meal timing should be based on energy levels. With regard to weight management directly - there is no evidence that suggests that it impacts it in any way, unless you would like to provide some.Unfortunately the studies I refer to are, hopefully, still stored somewhere in the vast overcrowded space of my loft; and I aint going crawling around up there for this discussion; however please see the studies listed below.
1: de Groot CP, van Staveren WA (2002) Undernutrition in the European SENECA studies. Clinical Geriatric Medicine 18:699-707
2: Kirk TR & Cursiter MC (1999) Long-term snacking intervention did not lead to weight gain in free-living man. Scandinavian Journal of Nutrition 2 (Suppl 34): 3-17
3: Jenkins DJA, Wolever TMS, Vuksan V, Brighhen F, Cunnane SC, RAo AVet al (1989)Nibbling versus gorging: metabolic advantages of an increased meal frequency. New England Journal of Medicine 321:929-34
4: Titan SMO, Bingham S, Welch A, Luben R, Oakes S, Day N Khaw KT (2001) Frequency of eating and concentrations of serum cholesterol in the Norfolk population of the European prospective investigation into cancer (EPIC-NORFOLK) cross sectional study. British Medical Journal 323:1-5
5: Jenkins DJ (1997) Carbohydrate tolerance and food frequency. British Journal of Nutrition 77 (Suppl 1) S71-81
6: Position of the American Dietetic Association, Dietitians of Canada and the American College of Sports Medicine on Nutrition and athletic performance (2000). Journal of the American Dietetic Association100:1543-56
I'm sure I could find more but my fingers are getting tired with all this typing!
Exactly which ones are you seeing says meal frequency has any impact on weight loss?
[/quote]Copied from the original link in your post:In conclusion: Do what works best for you. Strictly from a metabolic standpoint when looking only at expenditure(<-- please note the bold), it's not going to matter how you partition your calories.
LASTLY: Gym performance and preferential aspects of dieting should absolutely be considered. This article is strictly discussing the myth that frequent feeding boosts metabolism.
If you read my original post you will see that I advised Johnny of the following:
As with most things when it comes to diets you need to find, not only, what works for you but the diet regime that fits in with your lifestyle and one that believe in; but base it on actual results!
Whch agrees with the final statement/conclusion of SideSteel. His article is written purelfy from a perspective lf looking only at calrie expenditure and (unless I am reading his final note incorrectly) gym performance and preferential aspects of dieting should be considered; something I was trying to put across. And failed abysmally by the look of it!
On a final note:
The benefits of incorporating snacks into a meal plan or increasing meal frequency (may) also include:
A: Produce a lower level of blood cholesterol
B: Spread the absorption of nutrients
C: A smoother insulin response/blood glucose control Not lead to weight gain if calorie intake remains stable
E: Help control calorie intake more effectively through discipline
F: Help individuals with a higher energy/calorific need to meet their requirements (athletic or fitness lifestyle)
G: Help those with a small appetite meet their energy/calorific requirements (children or elderly)
A - C How or why is this relevant? how would it lead to weight gain is calories stay the same - please show how it would
E: Not sure why there is a difference here re MF
F - G: I never disagreed with this and neither does the thread linked.
Edited for atrocious typing0 -
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/233579550 -
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?0 -
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.0 -
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 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 size0 -
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 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? 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.0 -
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? 0 -
Time for a cuppa! 0
-
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
. 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
Edited for typo.0 -
Time for a cuppa!
Milk no sugar please. :happy:0 -
Sorted! 1% milk ok with you?Time for a cuppa!
Milk no sugar please. :happy:
Edited to discuss dairy requirements0 -
Sorted! 1% milk ok with you?Time for a cuppa!
Milk no sugar please. :happy:
Edited to discuss dairy requirements
Good with me - thank you :flowerforyou:0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
Pu, very solid reply. I guess its time to do some more research. If I could rep you I would.0
-
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. 0
-
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.0 -
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.0 -
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/231748610 -
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.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.9K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.1K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.9K MyFitnessPal Information
- 15 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.7K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions