Calorie Prioritization - Yes, a calorie is a calorie….
Replies
-
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...
Logical doesn't mean "agrees with my pre-existing biase".
At extremes, everything matters.
Yes, there is an anabolic window - if you never eat anything at all, you'll stop being anabolic, you'll go so catabolic you'll die because you're not eating. No, it doesn't exist in the sense that you'll lose your workout's effect if you don't chug protein shakes before, during, or after your workout.
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.
Whether a paper briefly acknowledges those things doesn't make it logical or not. It doesn't even make it rational or not.0 -
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!
^^ This is good general advice to anyone new to or struggling with bulking or gaining weight. I hope those that need that sort of basic guidance find this info useful, and don't get too bogged down in the various unrelated sidebar arguments.
(figured it made sense to repeat myself since we're on a new page now and all...)0 -
Do you have any clue that both articles have Alan Aragon and Brad Schofield on them? Do you seriously not realize that, and that your own article goes, once again, against what you're trying to show? That the one linked by NDJ is a meta-analysis (meaning it is a higher standard of evidence than a single study because it synthesizes the existing knowledgebase of studies)?
So, does that make it any untrue, or invalid, if both people are on them? It also does not go against what I am showing because it depends on how I work out, how I eat, when I eat (the individual). Just because it doesn't concur with your schedule/beliefs it doesn't make it any less true.0 -
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.
0 -
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.0 -
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.
0 -
Actually I linked evidence many times, people I assume have average knowledge, no certificates in training or degrees, nutritional background said it was wrong.
FIFY.
And I can absolutely guarantee that is incorrect.
0 -
3dogsrunning wrote: »
Maybe, but until that proof comes it's just speculation.0 -
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.
please link us to evidence showing that your body can absorb more than 100% of the RDA for micros...0 -
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.0 -
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4210929/
please link us to evidence showing that your body can absorb more than 100% of the RDA for micros...
0 -
please link us to evidence showing that your body can absorb more than 100% of the RDA for micros...
It doesn't matter anyway. It would just mean that maybe some feel better aiming for 110% or 200% -- it's not like most actually track it. That would be encompassed in your step 1 for those people.
It really does seem like there's a lot of nitpicking going on or that people are arguing without having read the excellent first post.0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
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....0 -
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.0 -
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?
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....0 -
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?0 -
So, does that make it any untrue, or invalid, if both people are on them? It also does not go against what I am showing because it depends on how I work out, how I eat, when I eat (the individual). Just because it doesn't concur with your schedule/beliefs it doesn't make it any less true.
In your own mind it might not go against what you've said, but for most people reading this thread, it goes against what you've conveyed.
So a few (not exhaustive, the rather probable) possibilities are
1. You're not expressing yourself very well.
2. All the other people in this thread have reading comprehension issues.
3. You don't actually understand what you're posting as proof, or don't understand what you, yourself, are claiming.
Given the times you've posted studies that people have shown you actually contradict your point and show theirs, explanation number 2 is very unlikely, and 3 is highly likely. Particularly when you're posting a nutrition author as proof against his own claims.
The fact that you weight a general study higher than a meta-analysis because it agrees with you instead of the usual weight giving to studies also points towards #3.0 -
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?0 -
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?
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.0 -
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.0 -
Hurry up and get to page 9...I'm leaving for the gym soon and copy & pasting the OP is a pain in the tookus on my phone.0
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »
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?0 -
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...0 -
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?
the credentialed people that you are referring to did not support your claims, because the links you posted ran counter to your argument. Again, maybe you should go back and read the full study.0 -
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 or even 2000 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.
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.
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.
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 -
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, overal food timing wouldn't matter because of that and ran with it.0 -
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"...
0 -
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. Did you essentially just say you get your evidence off the back of a cereal box?0 -
From the article. DEPENDING ON THE PERSON
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.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 396.1K Introduce Yourself
- 44.1K Getting Started
- 260.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.3K Food and Nutrition
- 47.6K Recipes
- 232.8K Fitness and Exercise
- 448 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.3K Motivation and Support
- 8.2K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 4.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 16 News and Announcements
- 18 MyFitnessPal Academy
- 1.4K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions