My Clean Bulking

Page 2 of 2 First 12
  1. Pro Virili Parte
    Board Sponsor
    JudoJosh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Age
    29
    Posts
    8,795
    Answers
    0


    Quote Originally Posted by Jiigzz View Post
    Can you please link the FULL TEXT for the boxing one? What you copied and pasted was merely the abstract which doesn't paint a picture to how the study was conducted or even if the same foods were utilized during the study for both groups and whether or not their was a control group.

    Thanks.
    Sorry I misread and for some reason thought you were asking about the Norton one.

    If you have access to it you can get it here http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...469.x/abstract

    if not I can probably get the full text for you
    "The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance." - Socrates

  2. Registered User
    TexasGuy's Avatar
    Stats
    6'0"  238 lbs.
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    796
    Answers
    0


    Quote Originally Posted by JudoJosh View Post
    This is actually an interesting one but was carried out horrible. Not long enough and too small of a sample size would be a start but the most glaring problem was the boxers only consumer 1200 calories and only 60g of PRO. So you have an athlete you is insanely hypocaloric AND barely taking in sufficient protein. Is it really a surprise to anyone the they experienced a loss in lbm? Perhaps if they were given adequate calories and protein intake then we can start speculating on the impact of meal frequency.




    This is hardly evidence of anything especially any benefit of higher meal frequency. The group that was given the snacks had a higher overall caloric intake then the NON-CALORIC placebo group. This higher overall energy intake can easily explain the difference in lbm gain. Without total energy and macronutrients being matched between both groups it is nearly impossible to attribute anything solely to meal frequency




    as I said above the idea of supplementing leucine is an interesting but it rally hasnt panned out. See this discussion for my thoughts on leucine supplementation - BCAA discussion thread
    Ideally we would have studies on bodybuilders to determine anything relating to protein intake and meal frequency for bodybuilders. Even more ideally we would have studies on bodybuilders comparing protein intake during high volume training periods and high intensity training periods as well as any other potential factor that would influence physiological responses.

    In the absence of these studies, I'll take a ceteris paribus situation such as the boxers to show a maintenence of lean body mass with frequent meals vs. ingesting the same macros and calories in a different structure. Whether they conducted the study in a hypobolic state, hyperbolic state, in Kentucky or on the Moon doesn't matter as much to me as the apples to apples comparison; big picture considered. Does the study have it's limitations? Yes. Every study does. The evidence is there, however, and it is telling if not definite.

    The second study did show a higher lbm gain at a higher caloric intake, without fat gain. You can't conclusively attribute frequency to these results but again, in the absence of any studies done on actual bodybuilders, either side of the meal frequency argument has to "make do" and this evidence can be extrapolated to an extent to support frequent meals for favorable body composition, especially when considered in a bigger picture such as a ceterus paribus scenario in the boxer study and the oodles of info in Layne Nortons write up.

    Layne Norton doesn't recommend just ingesting more leucine. He recommends ingesting leucine rich, full protein sources along with carbs at a 2:1 carb to protein ratio between protein rich meals. I don't expect most people to read such a long article fully but it is chock full of info, supported scientifically and presented accurately to show that yes, it is possible to achieve MPS among other desireable physiological effects through frequent feedings and over and above other dieting protocols. Interestingly, a reader can see the support for IF type diets and traditional three meal per day diets right up until Layne begins discussing supraphysical levels of MPS brought on by leucine rich, whole protein supps ingested with carbs to bypass MPS refraction. This article actually supports that yes, IF protocols do work to ellicit anabolism and will aid in building muscle, although it won't be as beneficial as frequent feeding, traditional bodybuilding style diets. We aren't talking about IF vs. Traditional in this thread though so I digress. Either way the article is soundly based on scientific observances and it is plain to see the results speak for themselves.

    And with a lack of studies on bodybuilder physiology, I'll take his scientific based research and the oodles of anecdotal evidence that can be observed to support the research in real world application over theories based on general population studies and worked through and between limitations in the grey area of the unkown. Especially when his research plainly supports these theories as effective, only to continue on demonstrating more effective protocols.

    For anyone genuinly interested in scientifically based best practices to a desireable physique, please read the article and it's corresponding research with an open mind. The proof is in the pudding for meal frequency.

    As far as winning arguments from one "camp" to another, every single argument from every single "side" will be dismantled by identification of limitations so we are on a merry go round of potentially misapplied science until legitimate studies are conducted on legitimate bodybuilders in a variety of training and dieting protocol scenarios. There is, however, strong evidence to support the efficacy of frequent meals over intermittent meals here for a variety of desireable physiological outcomes, including and especially the best MPS practice the OP of this thread is after.
  3. Registered User
    Jiigzz's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  205 lbs.
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    5,098
    Answers
    0


    Quote Originally Posted by JudoJosh View Post

    http://www.biolayne.com/wp-content/u...-Tech-2008.pdf

    However it is FAR from conclusive. It is a novel idea and makes logical sense but the majority of the research does not really support his hypothesis but then again who knows really?
    Thanks man. Couldn't find the entire link via pubmed to draw my own conclusions.

    Nice analysis of the studies too.

    Edit: Ah yeah just checked the link ( couldnt before on my phone), but yeah I have access to that other link. Thanks for that.
    Serious Nutrition Solutions Representative
    X-gels: Arachidonic Acid made affordable
    •   
       

  4. Registered User
    Jiigzz's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  205 lbs.
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    5,098
    Answers
    0


    Quote Originally Posted by TexasGuy View Post
    Ideally we would have studies on bodybuilders to determine anything relating to protein intake and meal frequency for bodybuilders. Even more ideally we would have studies on bodybuilders comparing protein intake during high volume training periods and high intensity training periods as well as any other potential factor that would influence physiological responses.

    In the absence of these studies, I'll take a ceteris paribus situation such as the boxers to show a maintenence of lean body mass with frequent meals vs. ingesting the same macros and calories in a different structure. Whether they conducted the study in a hypobolic state, hyperbolic state, in Kentucky or on the Moon doesn't matter as much to me as the apples to apples comparison; big picture considered. Does the study have it's limitations? Yes. Every study does. The evidence is there, however, and it is telling if not definite.

    The second study did show a higher lbm gain at a higher caloric intake, without fat gain. You can't conclusively attribute frequency to these results but again, in the absence of any studies done on actual bodybuilders, either side of the meal frequency argument has to "make do" and this evidence can be extrapolated to an extent to support frequent meals for favorable body composition, especially when considered in a bigger picture such as a ceterus paribus scenario in the boxer study and the oodles of info in Layne Nortons write up.

    Layne Norton doesn't recommend just ingesting more leucine. He recommends ingesting leucine rich, full protein sources along with carbs at a 2:1 carb to protein ratio between protein rich meals. I don't expect most people to read such a long article fully but it is chock full of info, supported scientifically and presented accurately to show that yes, it is possible to achieve MPS among other desireable physiological effects through frequent feedings and over and above other dieting protocols. Interestingly, a reader can see the support for IF type diets and traditional three meal per day diets right up until Layne begins discussing supraphysical levels of MPS brought on by leucine rich, whole protein supps ingested with carbs to bypass MPS refraction. This article actually supports that yes, IF protocols do work to ellicit anabolism and will aid in building muscle, although it won't be as beneficial as frequent feeding, traditional bodybuilding style diets. We aren't talking about IF vs. Traditional in this thread though so I digress. Either way the article is soundly based on scientific observances and it is plain to see the results speak for themselves.

    And with a lack of studies on bodybuilder physiology, I'll take his scientific based research and the oodles of anecdotal evidence that can be observed to support the research in real world application over theories based on general population studies and worked through and between limitations in the grey area of the unkown. Especially when his research plainly supports these theories as effective, only to continue on demonstrating more effective protocols.

    For anyone genuinly interested in scientifically based best practices to a desireable physique, please read the article and it's corresponding research with an open mind. The proof is in the pudding for meal frequency.

    As far as winning arguments from one "camp" to another, every single argument from every single "side" will be dismantled by identification of limitations so we are on a merry go round of potentially misapplied science until legitimate studies are conducted on legitimate bodybuilders in a variety of training and dieting protocol scenarios. There is, however, strong evidence to support the efficacy of frequent meals over intermittent meals here for a variety of desireable physiological outcomes, including and especially the best MPS practice the OP of this thread is after.
    The science certainly didn’t support the approach [eating ever few hours], so how come everyone was ranting about high meal frequency patterns being ideal? I already had my doubts, but I needed to have a closer look at the hard facts in order to convince myself to quit the meal pattern that started to become a burden on my life. Was eating every second or third hour important in order to “stoke the metabolic fire”? No, there was no scientific support for that idea and studies on the subject were carefully controlled, showing no correlation at all between meal frequency and metabolism. Perhaps a high meal frequency was needed in order to provide the body with a regular stream of nutrients, making sure that you had a constant supply of amino acids in order to stave off muscle catabolism and promote muscle growth? No, looking at how the body processes and digests meals, this wasn’t the case either. Digestion of a regular meal takes about 6-7 hours and during this time amino acids are being released into the bloodstream. 30 g’s of casein takes about 7 hours to get fully assimilated. Double that amount and you will have amino acids in the bloodstream most of your waking hours. Was a high meal frequency needed in order to keep hunger at bay and not overeat? This is the only point where a high meal frequency has some empirical backing – at least when you look at how inactive test subjects in lab settings rate hunger, on different meal patterns, while being fed a high carb diet compromised of calorie dense foods. Not really something that can be applied the physique conscious crowd, or the environment most people spend their waking hours in.
    There are also some correlation studies showing a link between high meal frequency and lower bodyweight in the general population, but this is easily explained when you look at the behavioral aspects surrounding low meal frequencies among “regular” people. For example, your average low meal frequency eater is usually a spontaneous eater, snacks between meals and has no clue about proper nutrition (a snickers bar on the go, maybe something from the vending machine after lunch, and so forth). Again, this is not something that can be applied to the health conscious crowd, which has a basic grasp on proper nutrition, and strives to improve his or hers body composition – the crowd reading this interview, for example.

    -Exert from Leangains.
  5. Registered User
    TexasGuy's Avatar
    Stats
    6'0"  238 lbs.
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    796
    Answers
    0


    Quote Originally Posted by Jiigzz View Post
    The science certainly didn’t support the approach [eating ever few hours], so how come everyone was ranting about high meal frequency patterns being ideal? I already had my doubts, but I needed to have a closer look at the hard facts in order to convince myself to quit the meal pattern that started to become a burden on my life. Was eating every second or third hour important in order to “stoke the metabolic fire”? No, there was no scientific support for that idea and studies on the subject were carefully controlled, showing no correlation at all between meal frequency and metabolism. Perhaps a high meal frequency was needed in order to provide the body with a regular stream of nutrients, making sure that you had a constant supply of amino acids in order to stave off muscle catabolism and promote muscle growth? No, looking at how the body processes and digests meals, this wasn’t the case either. Digestion of a regular meal takes about 6-7 hours and during this time amino acids are being released into the bloodstream. 30 g’s of casein takes about 7 hours to get fully assimilated. Double that amount and you will have amino acids in the bloodstream most of your waking hours. Was a high meal frequency needed in order to keep hunger at bay and not overeat? This is the only point where a high meal frequency has some empirical backing – at least when you look at how inactive test subjects in lab settings rate hunger, on different meal patterns, while being fed a high carb diet compromised of calorie dense foods. Not really something that can be applied the physique conscious crowd, or the environment most people spend their waking hours in.
    There are also some correlation studies showing a link between high meal frequency and lower bodyweight in the general population, but this is easily explained when you look at the behavioral aspects surrounding low meal frequencies among “regular” people. For example, your average low meal frequency eater is usually a spontaneous eater, snacks between meals and has no clue about proper nutrition (a snickers bar on the go, maybe something from the vending machine after lunch, and so forth). Again, this is not something that can be applied to the health conscious crowd, which has a basic grasp on proper nutrition, and strives to improve his or hers body composition – the crowd reading this interview, for example.

    -Exert from Leangains.
    Layne Norton supports all of this, including anabolism for hours after ingesting meals. He shows that hypertrophy is possible with LG type diets, and it is. Nobody disagrees. He then, however, goes on to discuss supraphysical levels of MPS that leangains doesn't allow for or address. It's all in the essay and its referenced research.

    And we have here a study demonstrating meal frequency as superior to obtaining the same calories in a less frequent structure.

    Leangains is a diet that works and the marketing write up is catchy, but the science doesn't actually support it as the best practice hypertrophy diet, no matter how hard the author takes the salesman role. His whole premise is built around protein refractory limitations where MPS is concerned, a false premise addressed directly by referenced studies in the linked essay.

    Leangains works, it is not the most effective.
  6. Pro Virili Parte
    Board Sponsor
    JudoJosh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Age
    29
    Posts
    8,795
    Answers
    0

    Re: My Clean Bulking


    I'm not even gonna bother

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk 2
    "The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance." - Socrates
  7. Registered User
    fueledpassion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    3,465
    Answers
    0


    Quote Originally Posted by TexasGuy View Post
    In the meantime, OP, you have research supported evidence to the efficacy of your diet vs. unsubstantiated claims on an internet forum. Take them each for what you will.


    It is a real shame bodybuilders aren't studied though, given increased futile turnover, hormonal response to training stimuli, muscle damage where protein is required for repair and a slew of other physiological actions brought on by a specific type of training as compared to general athletes, CNS centered strength programs and certainly the general, largely sedentary population. Until that happens we won't have a real answer to the question in this thread and limitations to studies both supporting and detracting will abound.

    The available evidence does point to the frequent feeding schedule with protein and carb intake between meals to be beneficial , however.

    And the study comparing 60 college athletes absolutely shows frequent meals to reach a set calorie point vs. limited meals reaching the same to favor increases in lean mass and decreases in fat mass, as a side note to your belly issue.
    John Parillo studies them. His gym is a lab.

    But what do I know, I try to make helpful suggestions and I get "debunked". I just don't care to help anyone anymore. Their loss. I'll continue making gains.
  8. Registered User
    fueledpassion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    3,465
    Answers
    0


    The author of LeanGains also doesn't market the diet as a good mass-building platform. Last time I checked (which was about 18 months ago), LeanGains was ideal for maintaining muscle mass while losing the belly fat. It does this very well from my experience.
  9. Registered User
    GeraldNY181's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    148
    Answers
    0


    Im sorry, "clean bulking" is a misnomer, unless your on juice, otherwise bulking is messy, sloppy, cramming as many calories into your pie hole as you can without puking. Trying to gain "just muscle" and see your abs while you put on 10lbs is ridiculous. eat more, get bigger.period.
  10. Registered User
    fueledpassion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    3,465
    Answers
    0


    Clean bulk is possible with patience. You can perform targeted fat loss activities regularly and at the right times while eating a caloric surplus filled with foods that have a tendency to go towards energy and muscle building rather than fat storage. Just takes patience.
  •   

      
     

Similar Forum Threads

  1. Critique My Clean Bulk!!!
    By MESSPLAY in forum Bulking
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 06-28-2008, 05:52 PM
  2. Hows my Clean Bulk Diet?
    By mathis50262 in forum Bulking
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 05-27-2008, 09:34 PM
  3. hows my CLEAN bulk diet
    By warren in forum Bulking
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 04-25-2008, 07:27 PM
  4. Critique my clean bulk cycle
    By aceman0920 in forum Anabolics
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-02-2005, 12:38 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Log in

Log in