Meals

[bla55]

While meal frequency has absolutely nothing to do with increasing metabolism, I find it really helps with satiation (whether that is psychological or real I'm not sure). And my clients who eat complete and filling breakfast do better later in the day than those who skip. Not saying its a must, but it definitlely helps some

Also a matter of being accustomed to it. If you skip breakfast for a month you'll most likely no longer feel the need for it. And psychological can be very well controlled if you count your calories and keep track of your macros.

Not saying it won't help some people; hell, most people can't stand not eating their entire plate of food regardless of what's in it, so for those who don't really control what they eat may be beneficial, but it is far from a must have or "most important meal of the day" as it is widely spread by the mainstream media.

Bottom line is that amount of calories in a day - amounts of calories consumed in a day = weight changes, whether you did this in 1, 2, 3 or 45 meals.

[prodigy134]

I love bulking season! I love to eat!

[hvactech]

I love bulking season! I love to eat!

amen to that.

[TexasGuy]

Thanks! And do u think maybe some muscle milk as a meal replacement would work or no?

Whole food is always best but if you are struggling to get a needed meal down a shake won't hurt. It can still keep your calorie and macro intake in check. I like Muscle Milk for this, it is much closer to a full meal considering macros than most shakes and as easy as water to drink.

[TexasGuy]

Please don't listen to anything of this...Breakfast is not needed, meals don't speed up metabolism, no matter how many you have...and hunger is not always directly correlated to net caloric expenditure...

Breakfast is not required to build muscle but it is very important. There is plenty of science to show the benefits of breakfast on physique goals though you only need common sense.

Can you show where meals don't speed up metabolism?

No, hunger is not always directly correlated to net caloric expenditure, but if the OP has a specific goal and knows the nutritional requirements to reach it, it doesn't matter. He needs to eat his goals and shakes can help if it's tough to down food.

[bla55]

Breakfast is not required to build muscle but it is very important. There is plenty of science to show the benefits of breakfast on physique goals though you only need common sense.

Can you show where meals don't speed up metabolism?

No, hunger is not always directly correlated to net caloric expenditure, but if the OP has a specific goal and knows the nutritional requirements to reach it, it doesn't matter. He needs to eat his goals and shakes can help if it's tough to down food.

Please refer to Intermittent Fasting to see how breakfast is not important nor has been proved to show real benefits when in comparison to absence of such. There has been little to no evidence supporting the need for breakfast if caloric intake remains steady.

Can you show me the studies that show meals do speed up metabolism?

Does food restriction retard aging by reducing the metabolic rate?

Metabolic rate was determined by measuring O2 consumption in two groups of 6-mo-old male rats fed ad libitum (group 1) or maintained on a life-prolonging food-restriction regimen for 4.5 mo (group 2). These measurements were made continuously for 23.75 h under conditions nearly identical to those of the daily life of the rats. The metabolic rate per kilogram lean body mass was the same for both groups, a finding contrary to the hypothesis that food restriction retards the aging process and prolongs life by slowing the metabolic rate per unit of metabolic mass. This and our previous work strongly suggest that the classic views of the action of food restriction on aging must be re-evaluated because retardation of the aging process can occur without the restriction of calories or any other nutrient per unit of lean body mass. The long held belief that reducing food intake lowers the metabolic rate per unit of metabolic mass may be true in short-term dietary programs but appears not to be true when a significant portion of the life span is involved.

Effects of feeding on metabolic rate, and the Specific Dynamic Action in plaice, Pleuronectes platessa L.

The rate of oxygen consumption of plaice increases after feeding and declines to a resting level after 24–72 h. The maximum increase corresponds to a level which is approximately twice the resting rate of oxygen consumption. This increase corresponds to the Specific Dynamic Action (SDA) and increases in magnitude with increase in food intake. The magnitude is greatest with high protein content diets. The duration of the SDA effect is reduced with increase in temperature and increases with the percentage of protein in the diet.

[hvactech]

Not another "more meals equal increased metabolism" debate.

[uvawahoowa]

Breakfast is not required to build muscle but it is very important. There is plenty of science to show the benefits of breakfast on physique goals though you only need common sense.

Can you show where meals don't speed up metabolism?

No, hunger is not always directly correlated to net caloric expenditure, but if the OP has a specific goal and knows the nutritional requirements to reach it, it doesn't matter. He needs to eat his goals and shakes can help if it's tough to down food.

Meals do speed up metabolism, it just doesn't matter if you split it up into 2 meals or 100... The effect on your metabolism will be the same

[bla55]

Meals do speed up metabolism, it just doesn't matter if you split it up into 2 meals or 100... The effect on your metabolism will be the same

Indeed, and it would take more than 24 hours of starvation for it to start showing signs of a decline.

[TexasGuy]

Please refer to Intermittent Fasting to see how breakfast is not important nor has been proved to show real benefits when in comparison to absence of such. There has been little to no evidence supporting the need for breakfast if caloric intake remains steady.

Can you show me the studies that show meals do speed up metabolism?

For every intermittent fasting argument there are one hundred demonstrating the value of breakfast and a steady stream of nutrients, especially on a bulk. I can copy and paste hundreds of pages of google results if you'd like.

I'm not arguing intermittent fasting doesn't work, only that it sure as **** isn't The One True Method and discounting methodologies that have shown to be successful time and again, as in the post I replied to, is just dumb.

Regarding metabolism, the thermal effect of food isn't debateable. If you are going to consume 3500 calories per day, and fat loss is your goal, it makes sense to take advantage of it and space your meals out to keep your metabolism constantly working to break down those 3500 calories as they come. Intermittant fasting potentially allows for a bulk by eating less frequently and using less total calories to break food down but then you have to look at protein synthesis, nitrogen retention and the benefit of constantly circulating amino acids on hypertrophy. There may not be significant evidence showing an importance of breakfast vs. total calorie intake without breakfast but that is misleading as calories are only one part of the physique puzzle. There are ample studies showing the positive effect of protein synthesis on muscle building and ample studies showing a steady stream of amino acids on protein synthesis, plus a **** ton of anecdotal evidence. "Breaking the fast", even isolating a need for amino acids, is simply logical to realize max potential, even if you can get by with less.

I can make progress skipping workouts here and there too. A slight decrease in volume or frequency will not totally stunt growth, but it will slow it. Just because it can be done doesn't mean it's ideal. There is no specific formula for building muscle, the body is very forgiving.

Intermittent fasting is just the exciting new kid on the block and the relatively limited research surrounding it is currently front and center, propagated by people profitting from it in most cases. It will be tomorrows debunked myth (even though it works, amiright?) If it's working for you, have at it. So will 15 other diets. Personally I will feed my body and often when I want it to grow.

Anyways, my reply was to an open ended call to disregard breakfast. I don't know that the OP is even utilizing intermittent fasting, do you? What ever plan he is using may very well rely on breakfast as a very important aspect, if not the cornerstone. What I read is that he's having trouble putting down meals that he needs. How does skipping breakfast help him? OP, if you need calories and macros but are having a hard time putting them down, a shake is a great way to do so. And yes, Muscle Milk is a good choice.

[Rodja]

Post some of these ample studies.

So many people have been brainwashed into believing the rhetoric purported by a myriad of supplement companies that you need X amount of meals and X grams of protein without any peer-reviewed data to back it up. Even the whole "nutrient timing" shenanigan is taken out of context and does not apply to 99% of the people that follow these principles. Regarding TEF, it doesn't matter if it's 1 meal or 10 meals, ~10% of calories will be burned via TEF (there is some variance depending on macros, but nothing huge) without a significant correlation in meal frequency and metabolic rate.

[thegodfather]

My problem is affording all of the food when there are two boys and my lady in the house to feed too. I go through a lot of milk and peanut butter for calories and protein due to cost.

Sent from my iPhone

[TexasGuy]

Post some of these ample studies.

So many people have been brainwashed into believing the rhetoric purported by a myriad of supplement companies that you need X amount of meals and X grams of protein without any peer-reviewed data to back it up. Even the whole "nutrient timing" shenanigan is taken out of context and does not apply to 99% of the people that follow these principles. Regarding TEF, it doesn't matter if it's 1 meal or 10 meals, ~10% of calories will be burned via TEF (there is some variance depending on macros, but nothing huge) without a significant correlation in meal frequency and metabolic rate.

Regarding protein synthesis, I'm not going to write a research paper on a common knowledge topic. If you're on this website you have access to google too. Start with essentially every body building diet before like two years ago and discount them. Discount absolutely everything I've written if you must, plus all of the bodybuilding community before like 2010 to cherry pick irrelevent discussions.

Regarding the thermic effect of food and meal frequency though:

Influence of Meal Pattern on the Thermic Effect of Food
"An irregular meal pattern (i.e. 3 meals on one day, 9 meals the next day, 6 meals the next day, etc...) has been shown to induce a significantly lower thermic effect of food than a regular meal pattern (i.e. a consistent 6 meals per day) that has the same total amount of calories."

Farshchi HR, Taylor MA, Macdonald IA. Decreased thermic effect of food after an irregular compared with a regular meal pattern in healthy lean women. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2004 May;28(5):653-60.

Now, this could potentially be good for a bulk but you called nutrient timing "just a myth anyways" which kinda discounts the whole entire premise of intermittent fasting; a diet based on meal timing at it's core. Can you make sense of that for me?

It's not as simple as a standard rate across the board either:

"Keep in mind that if you are trying to lose weight it does not make sense to increase your meal sizes to augment the thermic effect of food. Given that your weight is ultimately dependent on your caloric balance, increasing your meal sizes will ultimately result in an overall greater calorie consumption despite the slight increase in calories burned through the thermic effect of food. For example, if you were to eat a 500 calorie meal, 50 calories (or 10%) would be expected to be burned due to the thermic effect of food, so you would have a net calorie consumption of 500 - 50 = 450 calories. If you double the size of the meal to 1000 calories, 100 calories (or 10%) would be expected to be burned due to the thermic effect of food, so you would have a net calorie consumption of 1000 - 100 = 900 calories. In the end, you might have doubled the thermic effect of food from 50 calories to 100 calories, but you have also doubled your net calorie consumption from 450 calories to 900 calories, so you will still gain weight."

Kinabo JL, Durnin JV. Thermic effect of food in man: effect of meal composition, and energy content. Br J Nutr. 1990 Jul;64(1):37-44.

Now we are discussing nutrient absorption rates, another topic altogether. Will you argue that it doesn't matter how much one eats at a sitting either? Just stay hungry for a couple extra hours and go wild with the big macs?

Not only that but there isn't a standard TEF value for every meal, when manipulated nutrient timing absolutely does make a difference to caloric expenditure. Not all meals are created equal and neither are their TEF values:

"The thermic effect of food due to a meal will vary depending on the relative proportions of the macronutrients (i.e. fat, carbohydrates, and protein) that make up the meal. Without a doubt, protein is the macronutrient that induces the largest thermic effect of food response. Roughly 25% of the calories in pure protein will be burned after consumption due to the thermic effect of food. Fat and carbohydrates, on the other hand, each induce a burn of roughly 5% of the calories consumed due to the thermic effect of food. So, for example, if you consume 400 calories of pure protein you will burn 100 (or 25%) of those calories through the thermic effect of food. If you consume 400 calories of pure fat or pure carbohydrates, only 20 calories (or 5%) will be burned through the thermic effect of food."

Segal KR, Gutin B, Albu J, Pi-Sunyer FX. Thermic effects of food and exercise in lean and obese men of similar lean body mass. Am J Physiol. 1987 Jan;252(1 Pt 1):E110-7.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see how nutrient timing can be manipulated for a positive effect.


And once again, the topic is helping the OP figure out a viable way to consume the calories and macros his goal requires, an issue he is struggling with. Are you suggesting the OP just forget about the macros he needs for his goal? How do you recommend he squeezes his needs in?

[Rodja]

Let's bring out the old knife for this one...

On the topic on protein synthesis, you will notice that I did not touch upon this because it is a side topic and, in case you weren't aware, BCAAs are recommended during the fast. Your stance plays upon the ridiculous notion that you cannot store AAs and you must have a constant flow or your body will immediately shift into catabolism.

Your first study is a poor example of the point you're trying to make. The meals and caloric consumption was not controlled amongst the subjects and, as your said, TEF varies by macronutrient breakdown. Per the results:

"There were no statistical differences in body weight by meal pattern either at the premeal pattern period visits (visits 1 and 3) or the postmeal pattern visits (visits 2 and 4). Bodyweight did not change across the regular and irregular mealpatterns." So, what point is that supposed to prove outside of you solely went by the abstract? The main thing to take from this article is that the RMR will not change significantly based upon meal frequency, which actually disproves your position.

You seem to have a high misunderstanding regarding the studies on nutrient timing and it's application to BB'ing (hint: there isn't any) and IF is in no way built around the canon that has been repeated ad nausem on Ivy's research on nutrient timing.

I have no idea what point you're trying to prove with your second study that you posted. All that does is show the ~10% standard given to account for TEF in TDEE and, again, the third one repeats what I already said regarding macronutrient consumption and TEF

[Celorza]

Jesus, a guy goes away for 2 days due to 3 final exams and a trip to another country and voila bro-science at it's best, and Rodja helping prove a point.

Now back on something I need to beat down once more...Do you have any studies that prove that RMR/BMR changes substantially (or relevantly) enough for it to be considered an actually scientific finding? I have not found one single study on RMR/BMR increase be it with 1 or 100 meals...so please do enlighten me if I have overseen something from this. That's the meaning of "speeding up metabolism" weather your body consumes more calories at rest by simply increasing meal count? I mean I know bmr or rmr is going to increase depending on BF and LBM and metabolically active tissue...but on meal timing or frequency?

Like I said, please show me a study that proves your point...that it quantitatively varies RMR/BMR, when you do I'll get off this mentality of mine and go back to having 8 meals a day...for now, I'll keep just worrying about my net caloric intake and some relevance to my macronutrient intake (merely to fulfill essential values)...

[bla55]

May I also point out that the second study is from 1990 and therefore 22 years removed?

A lot has changed in 22 years in regards to our knowledge on Medicine and Nutrition; hence the updated notions and the more recent studies (see my previous post) that show that there is no significant increase or decrease of metabolic rate due to fasting if below 72-24 hours.

Majority of "Health Magazines" tell people to eat every 3 hours is because majority of the US population knows nothing about portions or control when it comes to eating, if they are hungry they will more often than not over-eat, not the case with people who control their macros and daily caloric intake.

[TexasGuy]

@Rodja, you are very good at dodging logic, I will give you that. You've effectively ignored 85% of my posts while contradicting yourself. I've never heard of your company but if I'm somehow disagreeing with a supplement protocol you are pushing based around intermittent fasting, my apologies. Fasting diets are a drop in the bucket though. If you legitimately don't believe nutrient timing can be manipulated to maintain anabolism, I have to say I will not be looking in to PES, but that's just me. As I've said, I don't argue that intermittent fasting ( a diet built on nutrient timing) doesn't work but it isn't the king of the hill or even the clear cut "winner". You've asked me to show you why not and I have. You are simply choosing to ignore the data presented that you requested instead of replying intelligently. Have fun. I'm done. You still haven't told the OP how skipping a meal will help him cram in the macros he's having a hard time eating though.

@bla, the findings in the study have not been refuted. The rest of your post is just made up garbage.

Listen, I'm not dogging a plan if it's working for you. Understand intermittent fasting is not the first and won't be the last trendy new anabolic/weight loss magic diet. At best it will settle in to the time tested repertoire of effective diets as the future of nutrition develops new marketing angles and nutritionists develop ways to seperate themselves and their plans from the rest.

@Celorza, give me break with the bro science. You've posted condensed versions of Rodja's contradictions. In a thread where a guy is asking for help in reaching his macros, please explain how eliminating breakfast will be helpful, bro.

Anyways, it would be retarded for me to continue beating a dead horse when there are more OP's I can potentially give useable, helpful advice to. Especially when I provide the requested studies, explain the context and then am either ignored, taken out of context or have my posts quoting legitimate science labeled as "bro science". Lol.

[Rodja]

@Rodja, you are very good at dodging logic, I will give you that. You've effectively ignored 85% of my posts while contradicting yourself. I've never heard of your company but if I'm somehow disagreeing with a supplement protocol you are pushing based around intermittent fasting, my apologies. Fasting diets are a drop in the bucket though. If you legitimately don't believe nutrient timing can be manipulated to maintain anabolism, I have to say I will not be looking in to PES, but that's just me. As I've said, I don't argue that intermittent fasting ( a diet built on nutrient timing) doesn't work but it isn't the king of the hill or even the clear cut "winner". You've asked me to show you why not and I have. You are simply choosing to ignore the data presented that you requested instead of replying intelligently. Have fun. I'm done. You still haven't told the OP how skipping a meal will help him cram in the macros he's having a hard time eating though.

Exactly what topic did I dodge of yours? I responded directly to your claims regarding meal frequency, TEF, and the concept of nutrient timing as purported by Dr Ivy. Not only that, I showed the horrible flaws in the studies that you posted to try to support your position. The first completely showed the irrelevance regarding meal frequency on something much larger and that is RMR, but you actually have to read the study to find that and not just rely on the abstract. The second study just defines what TEF is, which no person is refuting, and the third has to do with macronutrient consumption and TEF, which is a completely separate topic than meal frequency and IF.

What I love most by this whole post, though, is your attempt to besmirch PES when one of our products, Anabeta has been recommended several times to increase his hunger. So, in the end, the joke's on you in your attempt to use my posts as some form on discrediting the efficacy on PES as a company.

[bla55]

Still have yet to see the scientific evidence that supports "eating more often will increase your metabolism"

[TexasGuy]

Exactly what topic did I dodge of yours? I responded directly to your claims regarding meal frequency, TEF, and the concept of nutrient timing as purported by Dr Ivy. Not only that, I showed the horrible flaws in the studies that you posted to try to support your position. The first completely showed the irrelevance regarding meal frequency on something much larger and that is RMR, but you actually have to read the study to find that and not just rely on the abstract. The second study just defines what TEF is, which no person is refuting, and the third has to do with macronutrient consumption and TEF, which is a completely separate topic than meal frequency and IF.

What I love most by this whole post, though, is your attempt to besmirch PES when one of our products, Anabeta has been recommended several times to increase his hunger. So, in the end, the joke's on you in your attempt to use my posts as some form on discrediting the efficacy on PES as a company.

Ok, one last post and you can take it away. Every one of your "points" was countered by demonstrated research that you then pull out of the context that was the response to your question and go on to state that the studies I did post are simply wrong... because you said so. Sounds legit. In context you are not only off topic but rambling. The first quoted study is very clear, the second brings in to question the ability to absorb nutrients at various levels of intake which creates a larger equation than a simple ratio and as stated the third demonstrates that various foods yield varying net calories upon consumption. Altogether the studies show that consistent meals provide a significant thermal effect over fasting based diets and that when utilized intelligently nutritient timing absolutely can be used to manipulate the amount of net calories absorbed through the thermal effect of digesting the food itself.

Secondly, as stated, I had never heard of your company though I have to take that back. I have heard of erase. I used Novadex XT while it was available a couple times but did hear a few good things about erase as well. Either way, I'm not trying to stab at PES. I have no interest in it. I do not represent any supplement companies and could care less. I do think you are off base and if you are chosen to represent a company but don't believe in nutrient timing, I don't believe in the principles you represent and wouldn't spend money with you, but again, that's just me and nothing personal.

Thirdly and oddly, though you don't believe in nutrient timing or mainitaining a stream of aminos, the diet you are pushing is not only based on nutrient timing but recommends BCAA's during the fasting intervals. You make an interesting study in and of yourself. It's like you're arguing with your own diet. I don't get it. But hey, nutrient timing and keeping a stream of aminos running through you is working so...

And in context, the OP shouldn't be skipping meals when his problem is fitting enough macros in. Even intermittent fasting relies on a pre-determined level of macros. And nutrient timing and a steady stream of aminos. Your whole premise arguing all of that is just weird and off base to begin with.

Now for real, I'm out.