Meal Frequency

[dinoiii]

I am going to re-post the discussion had on the Medical Muscle FB page (as they are doing away with discussion boards on that particular social media. In order to do this, I am going to start by offering up what has already been said...

I started with this: Recently a lot of talk has gone out on meal frequency...with suggestions that what we have employed for years (multiple small feedings) is superior to a few larger less frequent meals - is simply incorrect. This has been further heated when considering the ISSN's position paper on meal frequency from February supporting the notion that maybe employing more smaller feedings isn't all that great an idea. Unfortunately, there are a few things that were not considered in that position paper, but I am well-known to be VERY picky. I am curious to turn this one over to the Medical Muscle FB (Now...Anabolic Minds) board users and get their opinions on the subject - to graze or not to graze, that is the question?


D_

 

[dinoiii]

Josh Brunner: "This is a good topic to hit either lean gains or Warrior diet type eating, is it not? One could also look to stick to intermittent fasting protocols as a way of shedding fat as well as staying lean, and having huge energy stores, something to consider, but hard to do if one's desire is to pack on muscle mass, but i could be way off base?"

Me: "Intermittent fasting does serve two very good purposes, but you could also see them as one and the same:

(1) Glycogen Depletion and Super-Recompensation protocols
(2) Total Body Water (Sodium) Balance

The paper from the ISSN group proposed that the 5-6 meals/day protocol many have employed for years may be very well archaic and out of date and that re-approximating a 3 meals/day protocol is ideal. My contention is that when an adequately supplied ammonium environment (read: high protein diet) is employed; the concept of eating meals at such a frequency falls flat.

Afterall, the major clinical indication of eating 5-6 meals per day was missed despite acknowldgement of positive lipid alterations and that is one of glycemic variation and insulin resistance. Additionally, a discussion on... nitrogen retention (a whole-hearted metabolic concept) was not discussed in lean tissue preservation in favor of diet-induced thermogenesis (yet the hypothalamic-pituitary axis does, in fact, see attenuation in function when smaller meal frequencies are employed). This is unfrotunately only seen in cases of decreased ammonium load (read: lower protein concentrations) and experiments to date have not adequately measured this, but you can get a better sense of this in exploration of hypothalamic obesity cases. I think this is a great step in the right direction, but is still a topic in its infancy as pointed out by the position authors."

 

[dinoiii]

Bryan Vaughn: "For me personally, I am too likely to cheat when going beyond the 3-4 hour mark between meals.

I also feel extremely bloated when only employing 3 meals per day as it is too much food per sitting.

5-6 meals a day including shakes seems to be easiest for still relatively convenient for me. I dont plan on changing due to the bad press on higher meal frequency any time soon."

Josh Bruner: "Yeah myself I have tried almost everything and am tired of the prep work, packing for a small army of 1 and not having ample time at work 3-1130pm to eat, so lean gains/ warrior diet/ if/ pulse feast/pulse fast is what I plan to employ in order to see how goes it! One of those will be my template for the next cycle of lifting!"

Trey Jeter: "I used to stick to a precise 40/40/20 - 5 meals daily. Since a schedule change with work, I stick to 4 meals spaced 3 1/2 hours apart. I still continue to have the same energy through out the day and even in my late night training. On another note, both meal plan schedules have worked well but with a busy work schedule one less meal really does help with managing time."

Me: "So, it would appear the biggest gripe with increasing meal frequency isn't necessarily from a body composition standpoint, but one of time?"

 

[dinoiii]

Josh Brunner: yeah, time! thats why i plan to run either, pulse feast or fast, or a lean gains approach or warrior diet according to Wes (IA) over on Ironaddicts.com


Trey Jeter: I follow Mike Mahler on Facebook. I just logged on and was presented with a new post by Mike. A video detailing hormone optimization, specifically Leptin. He discusses the meal frequency he follows and states some interesting facts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBb14hHG_yk&feature=player_embedded#at=13


Josh Brunner: trey, now that mahler is one smart dude! video full of good leptin info! as i was saying some sort of fasting meals i feel, from just recent research seems to be better than always eating something! now whether or not IF (intermiten fasting) or warrior diet protocols allocate more muscle growth than frequent eating, now that is what is left to really be seen!


Trey Jeter: 2nd part of Mike's discussion on hormones. Insulin is the topic! Mike discusses meal frequency again and the importance of Insulin sensitivity.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsTqnvMBoa8&feature=channel_video_title

 

[dinoiii]

So, I am curious what the folks at AM do? Believe? And, if anyone has supporting data on this topic.


Let the discussion begin...




D_

 

[JudoJosh]

So, I am curious what the folks at AM do? Believe? And, if anyone has supporting data on this topic.


Let the discussion begin...




D_

There has been a recent wave of IF/WD dieting across the board.

Have you ever read Ori Hoffmecklers book "Warrior Diet" and/or "Maximum Muscle Minimum Fat" before? If so what is your take on it? If not basically it is structured that you "under-eat" for about 20 hours during the day (mainly low gi fruit) and then follow with a "feast" meal. Ori writes in his book this is to take advantage of our bodies cAMP and cGMP responses.

Your thoughts?

 

[SweetLou321]

I eat anywhere from 3-5 meals a day. Depends on time and hunger for me. I just aim for some simple macros and go from there.

 

[j2048b]

Josh Brunner: "This is a good topic to hit either lean gains or Warrior diet type eating, is it not? One could also look to stick to intermittent fasting protocols as a way of shedding fat as well as staying lean, and having huge energy stores, something to consider, but hard to do if one's desire is to pack on muscle mass, but i could be way off base?"

Me: "Intermittent fasting does serve two very good purposes, but you could also see them as one and the same:

(1) Glycogen Depletion and Super-Recompensation protocols
(2) Total Body Water (Sodium) Balance

The paper from the ISSN group proposed that the 5-6 meals/day protocol many have employed for years may be very well archaic and out of date and that re-approximating a 3 meals/day protocol is ideal. My contention is that when an adequately supplied ammonium environment (read: high protein diet) is employed; the concept of eating meals at such a frequency falls flat.

Afterall, the major clinical indication of eating 5-6 meals per day was missed despite acknowldgement of positive lipid alterations and that is one of glycemic variation and insulin resistance. Additionally, a discussion on... nitrogen retention (a whole-hearted metabolic concept) was not discussed in lean tissue preservation in favor of diet-induced thermogenesis (yet the hypothalamic-pituitary axis does, in fact, see attenuation in function when smaller meal frequencies are employed). This is unfrotunately only seen in cases of decreased ammonium load (read: lower protein concentrations) and experiments to date have not adequately measured this, but you can get a better sense of this in exploration of hypothalamic obesity cases. I think this is a great step in the right direction, but is still a topic in its infancy as pointed out by the position authors."

HAHA THATS ME BABY!! JOSH BRUNNER=J2048B!!!


there have been a ton of people who have jumped on the warrior diet/Intermitent fasting scene including john berardi, and thibs from over at t-nation, even though thibs said it was not that great , berardi said it can be done and a couple of different ways! As well as the famous dietician Alan Aragon, whom i do believe was a big contributor to the ISSN paper Doc used from above!


GLAD TO SEE U HERE DOC! HOPE TIME IS NOT AN ISSUE WHILE OVER HERE FOR YOU....!

 

[MidwestBeast]

I'm always interested to hear more opinions/information on meal frequency.

I was a subscriber to every 2-3 hours for a very long time, which could equal anywhere from 7-8 feedings a day. It was tedious, but to be honest, I kind of liked taking in small amounts of calories throughout the day.

However, whenever IF started gaining popularity around here, I gave it a shot. Due to whatever medical issues I'm facing, I saw no benefits from it, so I ditched it. I've since gone back to it solely for the fact that it's easier to do with work and having to take my thyroid medication in the mornings away from food.

 

[JudoJosh]

I'm always interested to hear more opinions/information on meal frequency.

I was a subscriber to every 2-3 hours for a very long time, which could equal anywhere from 7-8 feedings a day. It was tedious, but to be honest, I kind of liked taking in small amounts of calories throughout the day.

However, whenever IF started gaining popularity around here, I gave it a shot. Due to whatever medical issues I'm facing, I saw no benefits from it, so I ditched it. I've since gone back to it solely for the fact that it's easier to do with work and having to take my thyroid medication in the mornings away from food.

Have you ever looked into trying the warrior diet or a variation of it like IAs version? It is somewhat similar to IF but instead of fasting and then over-eating for 16/8 hours it is a under-eating period followed by a over-eating period. (20/4 hours)

During the day you take about 25g protein from things like casein or egg (he recommends against whey) with about a cup of low-gi fruit (like blueberries) and a couple caps fish oil. Prior to this under eating meal he also suggest to take in some BCAAs. You have this meal like 3 times during the day and then comes your feast which is usually a cup of rice, some steak, a salad with EVOO dressing, some sweet potato and a whey shake.

 

[MidwestBeast]

Have you ever looked into trying the warrior diet or a variation of it like IAs version? It is somewhat similar to IF but instead of fasting and then over-eating for 16/8 hours it is a under-eating period followed by a over-eating period. (20/4 hours)

During the day you take about 25g protein from things like casein or egg (he recommends against whey) with about a cup of low-gi fruit (like blueberries) and a couple caps fish oil. Prior to this under eating meal he also suggest to take in some BCAAs. You have this meal like 3 times during the day and then comes your feast which is usually a cup of rice, some steak, a salad with EVOO dressing, some sweet potato and a whey shake.

I hadn't looked into it. It sounds interesting. I prefer the idea of IF, though. My lack of results doesn't come from the diet, though; I have no clue, currently, what it is lol.

 

[Rodja]

My main question regarding all of this debate is it solely an aesthetics measure?

 

[JudoJosh]

My main question regarding all of this debate is it solely an aesthetics measure?

There are significant health and longevity benefits that have been linked to fasting. I have been fasting and advocating it's use long before Martin started pimping his IF variation. However, mine was just simply a 24hr water fast once a month but this idea of IF is far from new. Wesley from Iron Addicts has been doing a IF variation for a while now and his is based upon Ori Hoffmecklers Warrior diet book.

 

[Rodja]

There are significant health and longevity benefits that have been linked to fasting. I have been fasting and advocating it's use long before Martin started pimping his IF variation. However, mine was just simply a 24hr water fast once a month but this idea of IF is far from new. Wesley from Iron Addicts has been doing a IF variation for a while now and his is based upon Ori Hoffmecklers Warrior diet book.

I guess I should have been more specific. I mean aesthetics v performance.

 

[dinoiii]

There has been a recent wave of IF/WD dieting across the board.

Have you ever read Ori Hoffmecklers book "Warrior Diet" and/or "Maximum Muscle Minimum Fat" before? If so what is your take on it? If not basically it is structured that you "under-eat" for about 20 hours during the day (mainly low gi fruit) and then follow with a "feast" meal. Ori writes in his book this is to take advantage of our bodies cAMP and cGMP responses.

Your thoughts?

Well, this depends upon your goals. There are reasons FOR it and AGAINST it and you have to question whether or not they are congruent with suggested goals.

Some of the more prominent FORs are:

1. insulin sensitivity...The key to understanding the benefits of fasting involves two things. One is insulin sensitivity, and the other is cell signaling. Insulin sensitivity is a measure of how strongly your body reacts to insulin. More sensitivity equals better blood sugar control and ultimately a longer healthier life.

2. Cell signaling is really about how effectively your cells communicate with one another, and more specifically how efficiently your endocrine system is functioning to maintain your hormonal balance. The better that balance is maintained, the better your health! Eating and digesting food, especially higher glycemic carbohydrates causes various signaling mechanisms in the body to be triggered. Constant feeding means your body is constantly reacting to various foods, and the signaling mechanisms are overused, resulting in a loss of clarity in this cell signaling process.


Some of the more prominent AGAINSTs are:

1. glycemic variation: just as easily as insulin sensitivity goes up; so does the glycemic variation (greater differences in high and low blood sugar) that comes along with it. If this reaches a certain threshhold value; it could prove exceedingly problematic.

2. If you are trying to lost weight, an extended fast is not a good idea. As your metabolism slows, it becomes much harder to lose weight (if that is your goal; this is thyroidal-axis dependent), and you are depriving your body of needed nutrients and calories, and you will not get the benefits of the fast. There is a BIG difference between efficient and inefficient metabolisms though, this discussion may be beond the scope of this post; but this is very unique to the individual.




So, what should we do to translate that data and best use it...? If the fast goes on too long, it can cause other problems like muscle wasting and slower metabolism (poor nitrogen balance and negative thyroidal axis), but this can be prevented when you only fast for a relatively short time (a few hours to several days).

Well, what the hell is too long? This is a question that is best answered as "its unique to the individual and goals." Remember that FAT loss (one of only 4 tissue types in the human body) is a CATABOLIC process! Periods of controlled catabolism are not just limited to fasting diets. You have a "controlled fast" every damn night you go to bed.

In most instances, a "fast" is never "needed."

I eat anywhere from 3-5 meals a day. Depends on time and hunger for me. I just aim for some simple macros and go from there.

Pretty straight forward actually. I once heard the suggested mantra for good dietary planning is "never letting yourself get too full and/or never letting yourself get too hungry." It's as reasonable as the next idea.

HAHA THATS ME BABY!! JOSH BRUNNER=J2048B!!!


there have been a ton of people who have jumped on the warrior diet/Intermitent fasting scene including john berardi, and thibs from over at t-nation, even though thibs said it was not that great , berardi said it can be done and a couple of different ways! As well as the famous dietician Alan Aragon, whom i do believe was a big contributor to the ISSN paper Doc used from above!

GLAD TO SEE U HERE DOC! HOPE TIME IS NOT AN ISSUE WHILE OVER HERE FOR YOU....!

Hey Josh! How ya been?

The only problem with controlled fasts is they are often misinterpreted and unnecessary. I cannot say I am aware of all the opinions of persons suggested above, but I would be hard-pressed to believe anyone would argue with the fact that fasts MAY NOT be appropriate for all dependent upon what you are trying to accomplish with it.

As for time; its an interesting thing - it seems like people over here have been starving for more educated discussion so when Erin and I discussed the potential of this; it seemed no-brainer. What limitations will I have; depends I suppose on what the continued "need" is for this level of talk. If it appears to do well, then we'll continue if Erin's desire to make AM the one-stop shop for everyone is probably going to be upheld.



D_

 

[dinoiii]

I'm always interested to hear more opinions/information on meal frequency.

I was a subscriber to every 2-3 hours for a very long time, which could equal anywhere from 7-8 feedings a day. It was tedious, but to be honest, I kind of liked taking in small amounts of calories throughout the day.

However, whenever IF started gaining popularity around here, I gave it a shot. Due to whatever medical issues I'm facing, I saw no benefits from it, so I ditched it. I've since gone back to it solely for the fact that it's easier to do with work and having to take my thyroid medication in the mornings away from food.

Have you ever looked into trying the warrior diet or a variation of it like IAs version? It is somewhat similar to IF but instead of fasting and then over-eating for 16/8 hours it is a under-eating period followed by a over-eating period. (20/4 hours)

During the day you take about 25g protein from things like casein or egg (he recommends against whey) with about a cup of low-gi fruit (like blueberries) and a couple caps fish oil. Prior to this under eating meal he also suggest to take in some BCAAs. You have this meal like 3 times during the day and then comes your feast which is usually a cup of rice, some steak, a salad with EVOO dressing, some sweet potato and a whey shake.

I hadn't looked into it. It sounds interesting. I prefer the idea of IF, though. My lack of results doesn't come from the diet, though; I have no clue, currently, what it is lol.

I am going to respond to the above exchange. Again - it seems as though there was an incongruency with goals. Midwest, if you are someone harboring thyroidal issues - then this is in NO WAY the most efficient way for you to live. In fact, being someone with issues of the thyroidal nature already puts them into the inefficient metabolizer category.

Still, and I cannot stress this enough, for physique althetes - IF is probably the LEAST efficient way to eat on many grounds. The glycemic variation alone will put your body through a LOT of undue stress.



D_

 

[dinoiii]

My main question regarding all of this debate is it solely an aesthetics measure?

There are significant health and longevity benefits that have been linked to fasting. I have been fasting and advocating it's use long before Martin started pimping his IF variation. However, mine was just simply a 24hr water fast once a month but this idea of IF is far from new. Wesley from Iron Addicts has been doing a IF variation for a while now and his is based upon Ori Hoffmecklers Warrior diet book.

I guess I should have been more specific. I mean aesthetics v performance.

I am going to respond by saying the following --> I don't think you should necessarily consider aesthetics and performance as inherently different. There is a LOT of overlap.

That said, I think "performance" will acutely "suffer" if I were going to try and separate the two, but instead I don't as I feel good aesthetics inherently leads to good athletics (performance). Although we are truly entitled to differing opinions if you see it an alternative way.


D_

 

[Rodja]

I am going to respond by saying the following --> I don't think you should necessarily consider aesthetics and performance as inherently different. There is a LOT of overlap.

That said, I think "performance" will acutely "suffer" if I were going to try and separate the two, but instead I don't as I feel good aesthetics inherently leads to good athletics (performance). Although we are truly entitled to differing opinions if you see it an alternative way.


D_

While not mutually exclusive, I've found that it is very difficult to straddle the line where you're training for aesthetics, but still having a performance goal. Outside of the genetic exceptions, you don't find a lot of extremely lean (<8%BF) athletes that are explosively strong and have a high cardio output. My background is MMA and I have seen some of this philosophy pop up in a few gyms, but I haven't seen any fighters pick it up. Personally, I can't imagine fasting while training 2-3x/day.

 

[MidwestBeast]

I am going to respond to the above exchange. Again - it seems as though there was an incongruency with goals. Midwest, if you are someone harboring thyroidal issues - then this is in NO WAY the most efficient way for you to live. In fact, being someone with issues of the thyroidal nature already puts them into the inefficient metabolizer category.

Still, and I cannot stress this enough, for physique althetes - IF is probably the LEAST efficient way to eat on many grounds. The glycemic variation alone will put your body through a LOT of undue stress.



D_

Thank you for the response; that's good to know. I'm still in the (horribly long) process of pin-pointing the exact problem or cause of my issues, but I was in fact diagnosed with hypothyroidism back in January (hadn't ever had any hormonal bloodwork, so this was likely going on for a very long time). So being someone with an under-functioning thyroid (along with who knows what other problems, at the moment), eating every few hours is the more optimal route?

 

[j2048b]

precision nutrition by john berardi now has their pdf out for free about IF if anyone is interested? its 80 pages long!

 

[dinoiii]

It's an interesting book in the quick perusal I took of it; but I am unsure I could read a lot more of it after this simple paragraph:

I think there are four main takeaways that readers of this book should come away with.
1. Trial fasting is a great way to practice managing hunger. This is an essential skill
for anyone who wants to get in shape and stay healthy and fit.

2. More regular fasting isn’t objectively better for losing body fat. While my IF
experiments worked quite well, the intermittent fasting approach (bigger meals, less
frequently) didn’t produce better fat loss than a more conventional diet approach
(smaller meals, more frequently) might have.

3. More regular fasting did make it easier to maintain a lower body fat percentage.
Intermittent fasting isn’t easy. However, I did find that using this approach made it
easier for me to maintain a low body weight and a very low body fat percentage vs.
more conventional diets.

4. Intermittent fasting can work but it’s not for everyone, nor does it need to be. In
the end, IF is just one approach, among many effective ones, for improving health,
performance, and body composition.

The only positives in that could be number one and three.

One makes me think about studies showing completely contradictory data to this. If eating more frequently, you have better ability to control hunger and maintain satiety.

Easier to maintain a lower bodyfat percentage is VERY conditional and comes with the potential to sacrifice a LOT of muscle tissue (net negative nitrogen balances do NOT make for easier maintenance of muscle tissue AT ALL). Now, in someone who is metabolically efficient, this would truly be the case BUT just about any program would work for said individual.

I bout into Berardi's principles some time ago with Massive Eating protocols and learned that the only thing I could figure was how metabolically inefficient I must have been.

Still, I agree in part - this diet isn't meant for everyone BY ANY STRETCH and that explains it - some of us are simply not going to do well on any program we try...genetics won't allow for it and I don't often throw the genetic card; but this is a time when I will.


D_

 

[j2048b]

alrighty, stumbled upon a thread over at bodybuilding.com and found out it is a bit everywhere except my brain:

if it fits your macros (IIFYM)


what do people feel, think or offer in ways of this way of eating?

IIFYM - What does it mean? - Bodybuilding.com Forums

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/348708-iifym-if-it-fits-your-macros

http://www.pinkbarbells.com/2011/06/iifym.html

if only barbells were pink...: IIFYM part 2

just a bit of info in those links!

from what i gather and most nutritionaly challenged, such as my lazzy ass self i though right away, I CAN EAT COOKIES, DOUGHNUTS AND WHAT EVER THE HELL I WOULD LIKE AND STILL BE OK!

NOW I KNOW TOTALLY THAT THIS IS BS! but those where my first thoughts, i guess everything "junk" in moderation?

thoughts on this lifestyle of eating?

 

[dinoiii]

Ha! Give me some time to look at your links and I will offer comment as able.

I don't know about legitimacy to what you suggest, but again - it's only because I don't have experience with it and am unfamiliar with the literature surrounding it - if any....which is not the case in many regards of what is available on bb message boards unfortunately.


D_

 

[j2048b]

this article by alan aragon is talking about nutrient
[h=2]Is there a limit to how much protein the body can use in a single meal?[/h]
in the bottom half he is talking about the IF protocal

"after 8 weeks in the IF group consuming one meal per day, where roughly 86 g protein was ingested in a 4-hour window [14]. Interestingly, the conventional group consuming three meals spread throughout the day showed no significant body composition improvements." aragon, 2010

http://www.wannabebig.com/diet-and-nutrition/is-there-a-limit-to-how-much-protein-the-body-can-use-in-a-single-meal/

 

[dinoiii]

this article by alan aragon is talking about nutrient
Is there a limit to how much protein the body can use in a single meal?


in the bottom half he is talking about the IF protocal

"after 8 weeks in the IF group consuming one meal per day, where roughly 86 g protein was ingested in a 4-hour window [14]. Interestingly, the conventional group consuming three meals spread throughout the day showed no significant body composition improvements." aragon, 2010

http://www.wannabebig.com/diet-and-nutrition/is-there-a-limit-to-how-much-protein-the-body-can-use-in-a-single-meal/

He also continues on...

Alan Aragon

Keep in mind that bioelectrical impedance (BIA) was used to determine body composition, so these outcomes should be viewed with caution. I’ve been highly critical of this study in the past, and I still am. Nevertheless, it cannot be completely written off and must be factored into the body of evidence against the idea of a magic protein dose limit.

It's a very wishy-washy offering and one that seems to support only the article he is talking about at the moment and I think if I read it correctly, this was to defend the silly notion that only 20 grams (or whatever other number) of protein could be consumed in a single sitting and we all know (or at least I hope we do) that this is false.

I have to re-review the study he mentions as I haven't read it in a while though...so again, I am trying to keep up with all that's being posted here; but it is a lot and my day still carries on afar. Ha!

D_

 

[j2048b]

good luck d and hope to hear from you soon from my pm, if you care to answer it?

cant wait to hear what you think if iifym!

posted above!

thanks
d