boilermaker

Please tell me again why skipping meals, especially breakfast is a bad idea for me on a cut. Kinda stuck on this last 10 pounds and i think i need the reminder.

My Journal: Are We Almost There Yet?

DOMS

It'll slow down your metabolism, thus making it harder to lose weight on less food. Plus, you'll be more likely to binge.

DOMS

Oh, and it'll make your body more inclined to cannibalize your muscles for energy.

nadirmg

doms beat me to it. yep. you may not be eating anything for breakfast but just because you don't doesn't mean your body won't.
"mmm those biceps looks very juicy. aaah, luscious lats. yummm." muscle is the first thing your body will go after - not fat.

w/o log
5'5" - currently bulking - 143lb on 5/02
weight goal I: 150 :: flat bench goal II:170 :: squat goal I: 235 :: weighted chin goal II: +20 x 5 x 5

boilermaker

thanks, that's what i needed to hear to finish losing this weight properly, i think.

My Journal: Are We Almost There Yet?

Built

I always put off eating as long as I can in the AM. I'd rather eat more of my food later in the day.

Really? I find it a lot easier to manage appetite. I wait until about 10 before I eat, and never any carbs in the am - only protein and fat - usually cottage cheese, avocado and tuna. Fills me up for HOURS.

I can't see how waiting a few hours can slow down metabolism! I mean, I eat at bedtime, go to bed with a full tummy at midnight, eat at 10. How is this different from eating my last meal at 8, going to bed hungry and eating at 7?

Again, how? It's not like the OP is starving here. We're not talking about not eating - just about not eating first thing in the AM.

Nahhh. It isn't THAT bad. Really.

Now I know this is a really common piece of bb folklore, but there's plenty of buzz around intermittent fasting - and a lot of us are finding it a LOT easier to manage appetite when we eat this way.

You can read more about IM all over the place: intermittent fasting - Google Search

boilermaker

hmmmm, this thread is now very confusing. So, Built, you are saying that as long as I eat my calorie requirement for the day in fairly evenly distributed amounts, it doesn't matter when I begin eating that day?

My Journal: Are We Almost There Yet?

Built

Actually, I'm saying as long as you eat your calorie requirement for the day - and I don't care if you eat 8 tiny meals or three big honkin' ones from seven to midnight - it doesn't matter when you begin eating that day.

The only timing that really matters is the workout window. Train fed, then feed the damage you did at the gym. The rest simply comes down to appetite control and comfort. Personally, I'm a LOT more comfortable staying a little hungry in the daytime; I eat as little as I can given I think for a living and have to be able to concentrate. If I train at seven, I do most of my eating between 6 and midnight.

DOMS

Basic physiology.

Built

Hmmm? You mean about slowing metabolism by not eating frequently? That one turned out to be a myth. It doesn't matter how many meals you eat. It all comes down to the calories - and to me at least, comfort.

Biggly

Small frequent meals are known to increase metabolism but you have to go for extended periods to lower it from normal.

The simple fact of eating will rev your body up as you burn calories simply digesting etc.

Regarding AM nutrition I believe the body is more sophisticated than we tend to give it credit for - it knows it has only just woken up and that there's a major difference between sleeping and being awake. As such despite the lack of medical evidence many people find they can shift flab better with early morning cardio on an empty belly. Technically it shouldn't make any difference and studies are inconclusive but too many people (including me) have found it an effective fat burner to ignore.



B.

Biggly Bodybuilding Software 1/2 price for May "The sensation of hunger can often be alleviated and even mitigated entirely with the consumption of food.[citation needed]" Wiki

Built

Re the "frequent meals increase the metabolism" mantra: I thought so too, back in the day. This was one of those things that circulated in the industry for a while, but it turned out not to be true. The TEF heats us up post-prandially of course, but it's commensurate with the meal size: a small meal heats you up a little; a large meal heats you up a lot. There is no net difference, so do whichever makes you comfortable. [reference]

For many, while bulking, it's more comfortable to eat frequently through the day than it is to try to stuff those surplus calories into three already-large meals. And although some dieters like the "grazing" approach, others prefer to at least feel full a few times a day. Kinda doesn't feel like dieting, at least for a few hours a day.

Either rationale and approach is of course quite valid - and very individual.
Like so many things in this industry, there's what the science supports, and then there's observation. If you see someone doing something that looks better than what you're using, try it and if you find something that's working for you, use it.

Rhyno84

To start with hello

How effective is your body at utilising all of the food that you eat in large vs. small meals.

Please correct me if i am wrong, I thought that your body would be better at extracting nutrients and energy better from smaller meals rather than large ones. But i am only basing this off of the presumption that your body only uses what it needs when it needs it.

Biggly

Built, you're quite right regarding observation versus 'science'. One of the reason I gave up quoting references was that for every reference you find saying one thing someone will find one saying the other.

The human body is still not really understood, though the genome project should hopefully let us move forward a lot.

Science is great in theory and often in practise but often it is what is not asked that matters more than the answers to what is.

Even something as simple as metabolic rate - what does it really mean? The plain vanilla version is basically just how many calories you burn over a 24 hour period but on that basis any exercise "increases your metabolic rate". Others would argue it refers only to the basal rate that excludes activity, others mean the resting metabolic rate, others just mean the overall calorie burn including general activity or even exercise.

Bottom line, does eating small frequent meals either boost muscle growth or help cutting, or at least preventing/reducing fat gain?

To that question the answer is yes. Be it simply because you're revving the body up to digest frequently, the physical actions of eating, heck it could be the extra calories of cooking and washing up - or perhaps it's the lowered insulin release, the more frequent topping up of protein - whatever. Fact is that as a technique it's well-proven and established.

For me personally I know it helps because I tend to make a large stir-fry in an even larger wok, thus already have suitable meals handy. If nothing else that ensures I eat clean and can monitor easily!

For some people a 'boosted metabolic rate' tends to mean burning more calories, which is technically correct, yet if it works for others simply by killing their hunger pangs on a deficit then it's worth doing.

Bodybuilders don't always make as much effort as they perhaps should to look at the science, though I too went down the route of ignoring the magazines and just looking through the journals. Only to discover the journals often disagree with each other more than the magazines do.

You'll often find studies that seem convincing - until you find one that dealt with experienced weight trainers rather than newbys (or the other way round). For example without even looking at your reference I find myself asking "Is that including those doing weight training? What kind of weight training? What was their protein intake? Did they do cardio as well? Were any on creatine? Other supplements? Steroids? Or did they just get a bunch of 40 year old housewives who've never worked out in their lives?

No, at first glance it shouldn't make any difference to basal metabolic rate. But basal metabolic rate (BMR) doesn't include digestion anyway, you need to fast for 12 hours before it can be measured.

So how do you measure the effect of frequent digestion then? Sure you can use the resting rate but how does that account for weight trainers, ie people doing exercise? Even if the subjects were experienced weight trainers, did they continue training as normal or did those that pigged out in just a couple of meals then retire to the couch and stay there until the sugar-rush wore off, skipping their workout?

There's just too many variables to place any great certainty on studies but when it comes to actively weight-training people with high protein intakes, ie bodybuilders, we know that frequent meals seem to work best - for the simple reason that that is exactly what the more successful tend to do. Maybe they are all wrong for doing it but I find it hard to dimiss decades of proven results.

Sure you can argue they are not 'scientific' results but the whole point of science is to find flaws and iron out disagreements - and since they often disagree on such things scientists haven't exactly cracked all the questions just yet.

In your reference, which is a couple of quotes but it'll do, not only is there disagreement within the quotes but as 2 pointed out, energy levels are affected. Small frequent meals = more greater 'energy levels'. What's energy? Yeah, calories. Hello?

So no difference - IF we allow for the fact those on small frequent meals tend to be more active and energetic? That's like saying dwarfism doesn't make people short, as long as you match them against other people of the same height. Then there's no difference whatsover.


B.

Biggly Bodybuilding Software 1/2 price for May "The sensation of hunger can often be alleviated and even mitigated entirely with the consumption of food.[citation needed]" Wiki

Biggly

Rhyno84,

Generally the body can use (including storing it as fat) all of the 3 macronutrients, but it can only store protein as fat. It cannot store it as usuable protein for more than a few hours, so where protein is concerned you need at least 3 meals a day containing complete protein. Otherwise at some point during the day you're going without protein, generally regarded as a bad thing, at least by the vast majority of bodybuilders.


B.

Biggly Bodybuilding Software 1/2 price for May "The sensation of hunger can often be alleviated and even mitigated entirely with the consumption of food.[citation needed]" Wiki

Built

I don't think there's any validity to "frequent meals stimulate metabolism" though. There is certainly no evidence that it does, and we have to start out with the null hypothesis here.

Go right ahead and perform a randomized trial on seasoned athletes; as a trained statistician I'd be delighted to help you design the experiment. If there is an effect in this subgroup, I'll be charmed to help uncover it.

That being said, to me the most important thing comes down to this:
Is the cost of doing business worth the gain?

I'll say where I'm going here.

Suppose I would burn off an extra, ohhh... say 60 calories a day by eating every three hours as opposed to eating the way I currently do (late breakfast, a few large meals late in the day, high protein, fairly high fat, carbs around my workouts).

The way I eat WORKS, and it's COMFORTABLE.

Eating every three hours, eating carbs in the AM, yada yada yada isn't comfortable for me - these things stimulate too much hunger in my body. I'd rather forgo the 60 calories and eat in a way that keeps me satiated, yanno?

If you LIKE eating this way, it's good to know there's no HARM in it. But it's not optimal for a lot of people - not if it means we either have to struggle with our diets, or risk cheating on them.

Oh, and we do store protein - it's in our muscles. We're just not used to thinking of them as protein storage receptacles. Beyond a certain point, consumed protein of course simply turns into expensive carbohydrate - but protein suppresses ghrelin like a sonofabitch, a VERY welcome perk to those of us former fatties whose fat-cells demand constant feedings otherwise, yanno?

Biggly

I'm the opposite, I find no matter how large the meal within a few hours I'll be hungry again. Yet fairly small meals keeps my hunger at bay quite happily.

One thing I keep meaning to look into more deeply, I dunno if you or someone else has noticed this, but if I have an extra large meal late at night I awake the next day absolutely starving. I thought perhaps it was MSG in eatery food but while doing a short bulk recently I noticed the exact same thing with home-cooking. Logically it doesn't make sense; if anything I should wake up still a bit stuffed. Doesn't work that way though?

You say your way of doing things works for you and I'm sure it does - that's why I push monitoring so much. Different people react differently. They even change over time - what suited you at 18 may not work so well at 38.

Another point worth noting is that the body seems happier to put energy into fat storage than to remove it again. It seems it would rather trigger hunger pangs than draw on its fat reserves. Yes, some fat cells are constantly filled and emptied all the time but the whole problem of obesity tends to come down to how it's easier to store than to burn off. That's pretty much the definition, an excess of stored fat.

In theory then a fat person should never grow hungry, at least not until they get truly lean and ripped, then they'd feel hungry? Not so, we get hungry before then. Yet large meals spike insulin and create fat storage, arguably more than is going to be burnt through the rest of the day. Instead you'll feel hungry later while much of that stored fat will stay there, in storage.

We can argue 'just calories in versus calories out' but why restrict our thinking to 24 hour periods? If too many calories a day makes you fat then why not too many calories in 12 hours, or 2 hours? Sure, over time if we don't eat any more then in theory we'd burn it off again. In theory. Yet if we eat too much for 24 hours or 24 months we can't just 'not eat' for the next 24hours or 24 months and undo the fat storage.

Whether it be metabolic rate or just 'helps you get slim', small frequent meals works for a lot of people. I suspect the 2nd part (..containing protein") has much to do with it as well.

Some nutritional stuff can be really counter-inuitive. For example here in Asia a lot of people eat coconut oil as a slimming technique. Yep, they'll glug a spoon of pure saturated coconut fat - to lose weight. Again in theory this does not make sense, as if anything it should lead to fat storage, if over your normal calorie intake. Yet it seems eating fat convinces the body it is OK to release and burn fat, whereas a low fat diet can have the opposite effect.

You may find your happy acceptance of high fat levels is what allows you to go long periods between meals without problem, while someone else on the same number of calories (etc) might find they'd be driven mad with hunger or other symptoms. This is the sort of thing that makes me point out that food ratios do matter.


B.

Biggly Bodybuilding Software 1/2 price for May "The sensation of hunger can often be alleviated and even mitigated entirely with the consumption of food.[citation needed]" Wiki

Built

Hmm... I think we may be getting hung up on the anchors.

The ratio of fat to total calories is a silly notion for bodybuilders and dieters because we change our total calories by so much.

The ratio of dietary fat and dietary protein to lean mass, however, is a useful paradigm because it ensures sufficient fat and protein even in a caloric deficit: see, lean mass may change by a percentage point or two over a period of months, but calories can drop nearly in half from bulking to cutting:

For example, a 180 lb man with a 3000 calorie a day maintenance may bulk on 4000 calories a day and cut on 2000 calories a day.

If he has 150 lbs of lean mass, his minimums for protein and fat under a "LBM-targeted dosing" approach will be 150g for protein and 75g for fat. Note that these may certainly go higher, but not lower.

Under a macronutrient ratio approach, he's targeting protein and fat to total calories. So he gets HALF as much protein while cutting as he does while bulking? That's a horrible idea!

Do you see why I don't track "percentage of total calories" for these now, biggly?

Built

PS I use a lot of coconut fat in my cooking - coconut milk is wonderful in curry, one of my favourite types of things to eat while cutting because it's so rich and satisfying. Keeps me full for HOURS.

Biggly

I don't see how it's such a horrible idea? In my software for example when cutting you just set the calories to calculate on your (also calculated) lean mass. From that point onwards you have your minimum protein and calorie requirements.

If you then bulk and want more calories then if anything you should adjust the ratio - you see you seem horrified at the idea of halving the protein when cutting - but I'm somewhat concerned at the idea of doubling protein while bulking?

Extra protein yes, maybe lots more but twice as much? Even when cutting you should be getting enough protein so why would you need to double it just to double calories? A bit extra protein yes but if you just want extra calories that's where fats and carbs come in. Otherwise as you said yourself protein just becomes a very expensive carbohydrate and fat source.

150 grams a day is way above the RDA (about 60 grams) but bodybuilders would disagree and say 150 grams is OK, sure. But 300 grams?

Even a high protein advocate such as myself would be concerned at that kind of level. That's 2.0 grams per lb of lean mass - most bodybuilders would recommend around 0.9 to 1.5, whereas 2.0 is certainly right at the max. Personally I'd say that's too high, as the amount of fiber I'd have to shovel down to shift that would bloat me like a balloon.

Either way you retain the ratio or you adjust the ratio when bulking - but it's still a ratio ;o)

Back to coconut oil - I'll sometimes take a spoonful just as a way of killing hunger if I'm busy. I find it can make me feel pretty hot. Advocates say that's because it "boosts your metabolic rate"..

Sez you?



B.

Biggly Bodybuilding Software 1/2 price for May "The sensation of hunger can often be alleviated and even mitigated entirely with the consumption of food.[citation needed]" Wiki

Irons77

Another hot topic!! lol

Soreness is weakness exiting the body.

Built

Does your software "dose" protein grams to your LBM, or does it give protein calories as a percentage of total calories?

If it's the former, it's appropriate. If it's the latter, your dieter will consume LESS protein at the very time when his or her body is under the most oxidative stress and therefore needs protein to be high.



I don't like either approach. YOU are the one who would do this.

For me, my protein is pretty much the same bulking or cutting. Slightly higher when cutting, when I need the appetite suppression. Usually I like about 160g protein a day while bulking. I feel better on about 200g a day while cutting. That's about 1.7g/lb LBM - and I'd happily go higher if my calories allowed. Feels very comfortable, and I'm ALL about the comfort!

The rest of your post is based on your misunderstanding of my post. Now that I've clarified, I'll let you respond.

danzik17

I like turtles.

Ron Paul 2008

Journal: Boom goes the dynamite