calorie and macro help - AnabolicMinds.com

calorie and macro help

  1. New Member
    67nova's Avatar
    Stats
    5'11"  170 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Age
    39
    Posts
    166
    Rep Power
    14325

    Reputation

    calorie and macro help


    Im in need of some advice from others to help me though my days.
    I got a strong knowledge of nutrition,but cant figure out what for macros/calories I need now with a full time job.

    I was doing morning w/o's,and with starting a new job from 7am-4:30pm I wasn't going to get up at 3am to train and not have time after work for my relationship.

    I started a hypertrophy routine to put on some size and after work I have no strength at all(like a school girl)my first evening w/o without a day of work was humbleling,soon as I started working I went down hill,but somehow with a basic 4set/12 rep routine of 3-4exercises a bodypart I seem to be putting on some size.

    Alittle about my job,i am a bodymen at a truck shop(big rigs/trucks/rv"s)so im up-n-down ladders all day and putting in some good labor for 9+hours.
    I eat clean with a ball park est. of 3100 calories and 3000 everyday(w/o or not)with dropping cho on rest days by 100g.Basic macros are 250-275pro,220-320cho,80-120fat for work+w/o's and lower end on rest days.

    I've been told I should be hitting atleast 3700calories to maintain weight.Im 175lb and 9%or less now and not a bodybuilder.Not even trying to be.Trying to look like I w/o without a doubt.Been training for years and made awesome strength gains witch seems to have hit the highway now.

    Any advice from others who work a laborious job and train?One more thing when I work I work with a vengeance,as this is my dream job and don't want to peter out anymore or give up my passion with training.

  2. Elite Member
    hvactech's Avatar
    Stats
    5'6"  165 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    9,449
    Rep Power
    2612252

    Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation

    I only skimmed through but do you have a semi accurate TDEE figure?
    LG Sciences forum representative
    www.lgsciences.com
    http://anabolicminds.com/forum/company-promotions/249846-lg-sciences-would.html
  3. New Member
    67nova's Avatar
    Stats
    5'11"  170 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Age
    39
    Posts
    166
    Rep Power
    14325

    Reputation

    No I don't,i wish I did it would be alittle easier for me.Bmr is 1825cals.With the way/work I have to do(days are different)some more laborious then others but everyday is hard work as im the new guy and I bust my butt more then is needed and going to change that.

    I mainly need a base calorie and macro advice as 3000 or so isn't working as im blowing out fast and don't want to lose anymore strength as I would be using friggin empty plastic weights!My main loss is in chest,shoulders I guess from sanding and detailing trucks(washing after painting)
    •   
       

  4. Elite Member
    hvactech's Avatar
    Stats
    5'6"  165 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    9,449
    Rep Power
    2612252

    Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation

    Have you tried slowly increase cals and see how you feel..
    LG Sciences forum representative
    www.lgsciences.com
    http://anabolicminds.com/forum/company-promotions/249846-lg-sciences-would.html
  5. New Member
    67nova's Avatar
    Stats
    5'11"  170 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Age
    39
    Posts
    166
    Rep Power
    14325

    Reputation

    Before want im eating now I was around 2600-2800 and seemed like I was gaining or holding on to fat,when I upped to 3000 here and there I actually think I started leaning out more(abs showed more)without flexing/pumping them.I have a six pack but after I get salt in me there gone for the day.

    With the calorie boost I didn't really get anymore energy just leaner it seems.This is why I need to know to increase cho or fat.At 250pro I don't need anymore and that's kinda high.After work and a workout im now unable to do my side jobs at night building/working on prostreet cars and body/mech work.Im still exhausted over weekends also.
  6. AnabolicMinds Site Rep
    The Solution's Avatar
    Stats
    5'7"  175 lbs.
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    9,530
    Rep Power
    6630071

    Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by 67nova View Post
    Before want im eating now I was around 2600-2800 and seemed like I was gaining or holding on to fat,when I upped to 3000 here and there I actually think I started leaning out more(abs showed more)without flexing/pumping them.I have a six pack but after I get salt in me there gone for the day.

    With the calorie boost I didn't really get anymore energy just leaner it seems.This is why I need to know to increase cho or fat.At 250pro I don't need anymore and that's kinda high.After work and a workout im now unable to do my side jobs at night building/working on prostreet cars and body/mech work.Im still exhausted over weekends also.
    Listen to what you saying
    Your still tired, your lacking energy and you upped calories

    Eat more, you even stated you need around 3700 calories.

    So go to 3250 this week
    then 3500 the following
    and increase calories.

    You need to eat to grow since you SAY you look like a school girl and are as weak as one.

    You have to eat to grow. You 175 pounds so you dont need 250g of protein 225g max would be ideal. Use the rest in fats and carbs because once protein and fat minimums are met carbs are more protein sparing.

    So start adding in calories, start training hard (lifting heavy) not all hypertrophy and focus on getting adequate calories and you will grow. Since your active at work you dont need cardio due to excessive NEAT
    Team Inov8 Elite Performance
  7. New Member
    67nova's Avatar
    Stats
    5'11"  170 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Age
    39
    Posts
    166
    Rep Power
    14325

    Reputation

    Thanks,i don't look like a school girl(man I hope not)but im as weak as one now.As for cals I was "told" I should be at no less then 3700 but I was also told that one hit of crack isn't bad too.All jokes aside a really thank you for your help im not going to blow out or keep struggling though my day of work,my workouts are the last thing my job next to family/relationship is the most important.Need the ideal plan mybe even routine to find the balance.
  8. New Member
    67nova's Avatar
    Stats
    5'11"  170 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Age
    39
    Posts
    166
    Rep Power
    14325

    Reputation

    Here's a average eating day for work.
    5am water and 2 c coffe
    6am breakfast:1/2c steelcut(uncooked)1/2c egg white/2whole free range,1/4scoop whey,1c unsweet almond milk with 1tbsp sugar free choc syrup and 2oz apple and a few almonds or pumpkin seeds.
    10am:1c ff or 2%cottage cheese with 1/2c black or rasberries and some almonds(1/2oz)
    1:30-2pm:4oz chicken or pork with 1/4c uncooked quinioa,1/2c navy beans or 4oz sweet potatoe,1/2c kimchi,1/2tbsp mct oil
    4-4:30re w/ore w/o sup,protein bar or nothing
    5:30-6pm post:1-1 1/2 scoop of whey,1c cereal(cheerios)and 1/2 banana
    7pm:7-8oz chicken or steak,6oz sweet potatoe bag of veggies and either avocado or olive oil
    9pm:1c greek yogurt,alittle whey/casein,1tbsp almond butter,10 walnuts and 1tbsp sugar free choc syrup.

    Weekends I drop breakfast cho(apple/to 1/3c oats)no fruit mid-morn,no cho other then quinioa at lunch and have a romaine lettece wrap with tuna/feta yogurt mid day,no cho at supper
  9. AnabolicMinds Site Rep
    The Solution's Avatar
    Stats
    5'7"  175 lbs.
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    9,530
    Rep Power
    6630071

    Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation

    I dont see the point in eating 7x a day. more of a hassel than anything, you would be fine on 4-5 meals a day spread further apart for great muscle protein synthesis

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

    Read these:

    http://www.wannabebig.com/diet-and-n...a-single-meal/

    http://www.leangains.com/2011/04/cri...d-on-meal.html

    http://www.machinemuscle.com/intervi...t-alan-aragon/

    Really no point in eating so many meals it will save you some time getting the same results given your caloric intake is hit spot on.
    Team Inov8 Elite Performance
  10. New Member
    67nova's Avatar
    Stats
    5'11"  170 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Age
    39
    Posts
    166
    Rep Power
    14325

    Reputation

    I cant eat 3-4 meals a day for the reason of the fatigue I get eating a big meal,thats why I have a bigger supper as atleast im though work.
  11. AnabolicMinds Site Rep
    The Solution's Avatar
    Stats
    5'7"  175 lbs.
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    9,530
    Rep Power
    6630071

    Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by 67nova View Post
    I cant eat 3-4 meals a day for the reason of the fatigue I get eating a big meal,thats why I have a bigger supper as atleast im though work.
    thats a false statement. the body will adjust to any meal frequency you give it. As dictated in the articles above.

    http://www.leangains.com/2010/10/top...-debunked.html

    Myth: Eat frequently to "stoke the metabolic fire".


    Truth

    Each time you eat, metabolic rate increases slightly for a few hours. Paradoxically, it takes energy to break down and absorb energy. This is the Thermic Effect of Food (TEF). The amount of energy expended is directly proportional to the amount of calories and nutrients consumed in the meal.

    Let's assume that we are measuring TEF during 24 hours in a diet of 2700 kcal with 40% protein, 40% carbohydrate and 20% fat. We run three different trials where the only thing we change is the the meal frequency.

    A) Three meals: 900 kcal per meal.

    B) Six meals: 450 kcal per meal.

    C) Nine meals: 300 kcal per meal.

    What we'd find is a different pattern in regards to TEF. Example "A" would yield a larger and long lasting boost in metabolic rate that would gradually taper off until the next meal came around; TEF would show a "peak and valley"-pattern. "C" would yield a very weak but consistent boost in metabolic rate; an even pattern. "B" would be somewhere in between.

    However, at the end of the 24-hour period, or as long as it would take to assimilate the nutrients, there would be no difference in TEF. The total amount of energy expended by TEF would be identical in each scenario. Meal frequency does not affect total TEF. You cannot "trick" the body in to burning more or less calories by manipulating meal frequency.

    Further reading: I have covered the topic of meal frequency at great length on this site before.

    The most extensive review of studies on various meal frequencies and TEF was published in 1997. It looked at many different studies that compared TEF during meal frequencies ranging from 1-17 meals and concluded:

    "Studies using whole-body calorimetry and doubly-labelled water to assess total 24 h energy expenditure find no difference between nibbling and gorging".

    Since then, no studies have refuted this. For a summary of the above cited study, read this research review by Lyle McDonald.

    Earlier this year, a new study was published on the topic. As expected, no differences were found between a lower (3 meals) and higher meal (6 meals) frequency. Read this post for my summary of the study. This study garnered some attention in the mass media and it was nice to see the meal frequency myth being debunked in The New York Times.

    Origin

    Seeing how conclusive and clear research is on the topic of meal frequency, you might wonder why it is that some people, quite often RDs in fact, keep repeating the myth of "stoking the metabolic fire" by eating small meals on a frequent basis. My best guess is that they've somehow misunderstood TEF. After all, they're technically right to say you keep your metabolism humming along by eating frequently. They just missed that critical part where it was explained that TEF is proportional to the calories consumed in each meal.

    Another guess is that they base the advice on some epidemiological studies that found an inverse correlation between high meal frequency and body weight in the population. What that means is that researchers may look at the dietary pattern of thousands individuals and find that those who eat more frequently tend to weigh less than those who eat less frequently. It's important to point out that these studies are uncontrolled in terms of calorie intake and are done on Average Joes (i.e. normal people who do not count calories and just eat spontaneously like most people).

    There's a saying that goes "correlation does not imply causation" and this warrants further explanation since it explains many other dietary myths and fallacies. Just because there's a connection between low meal frequencies and higher body weights, doesn't mean that low meal frequencies cause weight gain. Those studies likely show that people who tend to eat less frequently have:

    * Dysregulated eating patterns; the personality type that skips breakfast in favor of a donut in the car on the way to work, undereat during the day, and overeat in the evening. They tend to be less concerned with health and diet than those who eat more frequently.

    * Another feasible explanation for the association between low meal frequencies and higher body weight is that meal skipping is often used as a weight loss strategy. People who are overweight are more likely to be on a diet and eat fewer meals.

    The connection between lower meal frequency and higher body weight in the general population, and vice versa, is connected to behavioral patterns - not metabolism.


    2. Myth: Eat smaller meals more often for hunger control.


    Truth

    Given the importance of finding the most favorable meal pattern for hunger and appetite control, there's a surprising scarcity of studies on the topic. The most widely cited study is one where obese males were fed 33% of their daily calorie requirement ("pre-load") in either one single meal or five meals before being allowed to eat ad libitum five hours later (meaning as much as they desired).

    A: One single meal was consumed. 5 hours later they were free to eat as much as they desired, "buffet"-style.

    B: Same setup as above. However, the single meal was now split into five smaller meals, which were consumed every hour leading up to the ad libitum meal.

    The results showed that subjects undergoing "A" ate 27% more calories when given the ad libitum meal. The same setup was used by the same researchers on lean males and showed similar results. However, upon closer scrutiny it's clear how little real world application those results have. The macrocomposition of the pre-load was 70% carbs, 15% fat and 15% protein; given as pasta, ice cream and orange juice. The situation created was highly artificial and abnormal. Who sits around nibbling on pasta and ice cream, sipping orange juice, every hour leading up to a regular meal?

    The latest research, performed under conditions that more closely resemble a real-world scenario, shows the opposite result. In this study, three high-protein meals lead to greater fullness and appetite control when compared to six high-protein meals. You can read my summary of the study here: Three Meals Superior for Appetite Control.

    There's no doubt that meal frequency is highly individual. However, absolute statements claiming smaller meals are superior for hunger and appetite control are untrue and are based on studies using methods that greatly differed from real-world meal patterns. Current research with a normal meal pattern and protein intakes that are closer to what can be seen in a typical non-retarded diet, suggests superior appetite control when eating fewer and larger meals.


    Origin

    This myth might have originated from the limited data from studies on meal frequencies and appetite control. It's also likely that it's another case of mistaking correlation for causation from studies and meal frequencies and higher body weights; if people who eat more often weigh less, then it must mean they can control their hunger better, etc.


    3. Myth: Eat small meals to keep blood sugar levels under control.


    Truth

    According to legions of diet and health "experts," eating small meals every so often will help you avoid hunger pangs, provide you with stable energy throughout the day and keep you mentally sharp. Contrary to what many people seem to believe, blood sugar is extremely well-regulated and maintained within a tight range in healthy people. It does not swing wildly up and down like a chimpanzee on meth and it doesn't plummet from going a few hours without food. Or even a full day without food. Or a week without food for that matter.

    People seem to believe they will suffer severe hunger and mental impairment from not eating every so often. Consider for a second the evolutionary consequences for survival if this was true. Given that regular periods of fasting, even famine, was a natural part of our past, do you think we'd be here today if we were unable to function when obtaining food was most critical? I have seen healthy young males, bodybuilders nonetheless, complain of lethargy and mental haze if they didn't get to eat for a few hours. It's completely absurd. But I digress...

    Maintaining blood sugar is of very high priority and we have developed efficient pathways that will make it happen even under extreme conditions. If you were to fast for 23 hrs and then go for a 90 min run at 70-75% VO2max, your blood sugar after the run would be identical to the same run performed in the fed state. It would take no less than three days or 84 hours of fasting to reach blood sugar levels low enough to affect your mental state; and this is temporary, as your brain adapts to the use of ketones. During 48 hours of fasting, or severe calorie deprivation, blood sugar is maintained within a normal range no measure of cognitive performance is negatively affected.

    For more on blood sugar, read my review of Eat Stop Eat Expanded Edition, which includes a relevant excerpt. Also, keep in mind that the above cited studies are all performed under conditions that are much more extreme than the fasting protocol I, or Brad Pilon, recommends.

    What about blood sugar and hunger? Blood sugar is one of many short-term feedback mechanisms used to regulate hunger and the notion which exists to say that low blood sugar may cause hunger is correct. Low just means lower range. This is subject to numerous confounders, such as your habitual diet, energy intake and genetics. Most importantly perhaps, it's subject to entrained meal patterns, regulated by ghrelin and other metabolic hormones. In essence, this means that blood sugar follows the meal pattern you are used to. This is relevant for those who fear blood sugar issues and hunger from regular periods of fasting, as it serves to explain why people can easily adapt to regular periods of fasting without negative effects.

    Origin

    Not sure how people came to believe that skipping a meal would dumb them down. There is some truth to blood sugar and hunger, but this is often taken out of context. There's no need to eat regularly to "maintain" blood sugar as it maintains itself just fine and adapts to whatever meal pattern you choose.
    Team Inov8 Elite Performance
  12. Elite Member
    hvactech's Avatar
    Stats
    5'6"  165 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    9,449
    Rep Power
    2612252

    Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by The Solution View Post

    thats a false statement. the body will adjust to any meal frequency you give it. As dictated in the articles above.

    http://www.leangains.com/2010/10/top...-debunked.html

    Myth: Eat frequently to "stoke the metabolic fire".

    Truth

    Each time you eat, metabolic rate increases slightly for a few hours. Paradoxically, it takes energy to break down and absorb energy. This is the Thermic Effect of Food (TEF). The amount of energy expended is directly proportional to the amount of calories and nutrients consumed in the meal.

    Let's assume that we are measuring TEF during 24 hours in a diet of 2700 kcal with 40% protein, 40% carbohydrate and 20% fat. We run three different trials where the only thing we change is the the meal frequency.

    A) Three meals: 900 kcal per meal.

    B) Six meals: 450 kcal per meal.

    C) Nine meals: 300 kcal per meal.

    What we'd find is a different pattern in regards to TEF. Example "A" would yield a larger and long lasting boost in metabolic rate that would gradually taper off until the next meal came around; TEF would show a "peak and valley"-pattern. "C" would yield a very weak but consistent boost in metabolic rate; an even pattern. "B" would be somewhere in between.

    However, at the end of the 24-hour period, or as long as it would take to assimilate the nutrients, there would be no difference in TEF. The total amount of energy expended by TEF would be identical in each scenario. Meal frequency does not affect total TEF. You cannot "trick" the body in to burning more or less calories by manipulating meal frequency.

    Further reading: I have covered the topic of meal frequency at great length on this site before.

    The most extensive review of studies on various meal frequencies and TEF was published in 1997. It looked at many different studies that compared TEF during meal frequencies ranging from 1-17 meals and concluded:

    "Studies using whole-body calorimetry and doubly-labelled water to assess total 24 h energy expenditure find no difference between nibbling and gorging".

    Since then, no studies have refuted this. For a summary of the above cited study, read this research review by Lyle McDonald.

    Earlier this year, a new study was published on the topic. As expected, no differences were found between a lower (3 meals) and higher meal (6 meals) frequency. Read this post for my summary of the study. This study garnered some attention in the mass media and it was nice to see the meal frequency myth being debunked in The New York Times.

    Origin

    Seeing how conclusive and clear research is on the topic of meal frequency, you might wonder why it is that some people, quite often RDs in fact, keep repeating the myth of "stoking the metabolic fire" by eating small meals on a frequent basis. My best guess is that they've somehow misunderstood TEF. After all, they're technically right to say you keep your metabolism humming along by eating frequently. They just missed that critical part where it was explained that TEF is proportional to the calories consumed in each meal.

    Another guess is that they base the advice on some epidemiological studies that found an inverse correlation between high meal frequency and body weight in the population. What that means is that researchers may look at the dietary pattern of thousands individuals and find that those who eat more frequently tend to weigh less than those who eat less frequently. It's important to point out that these studies are uncontrolled in terms of calorie intake and are done on Average Joes (i.e. normal people who do not count calories and just eat spontaneously like most people).

    There's a saying that goes "correlation does not imply causation" and this warrants further explanation since it explains many other dietary myths and fallacies. Just because there's a connection between low meal frequencies and higher body weights, doesn't mean that low meal frequencies cause weight gain. Those studies likely show that people who tend to eat less frequently have:

    * Dysregulated eating patterns; the personality type that skips breakfast in favor of a donut in the car on the way to work, undereat during the day, and overeat in the evening. They tend to be less concerned with health and diet than those who eat more frequently.

    * Another feasible explanation for the association between low meal frequencies and higher body weight is that meal skipping is often used as a weight loss strategy. People who are overweight are more likely to be on a diet and eat fewer meals.

    The connection between lower meal frequency and higher body weight in the general population, and vice versa, is connected to behavioral patterns - not metabolism.

    2. Myth: Eat smaller meals more often for hunger control.

    Truth

    Given the importance of finding the most favorable meal pattern for hunger and appetite control, there's a surprising scarcity of studies on the topic. The most widely cited study is one where obese males were fed 33% of their daily calorie requirement ("pre-load") in either one single meal or five meals before being allowed to eat ad libitum five hours later (meaning as much as they desired).

    A: One single meal was consumed. 5 hours later they were free to eat as much as they desired, "buffet"-style.

    B: Same setup as above. However, the single meal was now split into five smaller meals, which were consumed every hour leading up to the ad libitum meal.

    The results showed that subjects undergoing "A" ate 27% more calories when given the ad libitum meal. The same setup was used by the same researchers on lean males and showed similar results. However, upon closer scrutiny it's clear how little real world application those results have. The macrocomposition of the pre-load was 70% carbs, 15% fat and 15% protein; given as pasta, ice cream and orange juice. The situation created was highly artificial and abnormal. Who sits around nibbling on pasta and ice cream, sipping orange juice, every hour leading up to a regular meal?

    The latest research, performed under conditions that more closely resemble a real-world scenario, shows the opposite result. In this study, three high-protein meals lead to greater fullness and appetite control when compared to six high-protein meals. You can read my summary of the study here: Three Meals Superior for Appetite Control.

    There's no doubt that meal frequency is highly individual. However, absolute statements claiming smaller meals are superior for hunger and appetite control are untrue and are based on studies using methods that greatly differed from real-world meal patterns. Current research with a normal meal pattern and protein intakes that are closer to what can be seen in a typical non-retarded diet, suggests superior appetite control when eating fewer and larger meals.

    Origin

    This myth might have originated from the limited data from studies on meal frequencies and appetite control. It's also likely that it's another case of mistaking correlation for causation from studies and meal frequencies and higher body weights; if people who eat more often weigh less, then it must mean they can control their hunger better, etc.

    3. Myth: Eat small meals to keep blood sugar levels under control.

    Truth

    According to legions of diet and health "experts," eating small meals every so often will help you avoid hunger pangs, provide you with stable energy throughout the day and keep you mentally sharp. Contrary to what many people seem to believe, blood sugar is extremely well-regulated and maintained within a tight range in healthy people. It does not swing wildly up and down like a chimpanzee on meth and it doesn't plummet from going a few hours without food. Or even a full day without food. Or a week without food for that matter.

    People seem to believe they will suffer severe hunger and mental impairment from not eating every so often. Consider for a second the evolutionary consequences for survival if this was true. Given that regular periods of fasting, even famine, was a natural part of our past, do you think we'd be here today if we were unable to function when obtaining food was most critical? I have seen healthy young males, bodybuilders nonetheless, complain of lethargy and mental haze if they didn't get to eat for a few hours. It's completely absurd. But I digress...

    Maintaining blood sugar is of very high priority and we have developed efficient pathways that will make it happen even under extreme conditions. If you were to fast for 23 hrs and then go for a 90 min run at 70-75% VO2max, your blood sugar after the run would be identical to the same run performed in the fed state. It would take no less than three days or 84 hours of fasting to reach blood sugar levels low enough to affect your mental state; and this is temporary, as your brain adapts to the use of ketones. During 48 hours of fasting, or severe calorie deprivation, blood sugar is maintained within a normal range no measure of cognitive performance is negatively affected.

    For more on blood sugar, read my review of Eat Stop Eat Expanded Edition, which includes a relevant excerpt. Also, keep in mind that the above cited studies are all performed under conditions that are much more extreme than the fasting protocol I, or Brad Pilon, recommends.

    What about blood sugar and hunger? Blood sugar is one of many short-term feedback mechanisms used to regulate hunger and the notion which exists to say that low blood sugar may cause hunger is correct. Low just means lower range. This is subject to numerous confounders, such as your habitual diet, energy intake and genetics. Most importantly perhaps, it's subject to entrained meal patterns, regulated by ghrelin and other metabolic hormones. In essence, this means that blood sugar follows the meal pattern you are used to. This is relevant for those who fear blood sugar issues and hunger from regular periods of fasting, as it serves to explain why people can easily adapt to regular periods of fasting without negative effects.

    Origin

    Not sure how people came to believe that skipping a meal would dumb them down. There is some truth to blood sugar and hunger, but this is often taken out of context. There's no need to eat regularly to "maintain" blood sugar as it maintains itself just fine and adapts to whatever meal pattern you choose.
    I needed atleast 2 bathroom breaks reading this :-)
    LG Sciences forum representative
    www.lgsciences.com
    http://anabolicminds.com/forum/company-promotions/249846-lg-sciences-would.html
  13. New Member
    67nova's Avatar
    Stats
    5'11"  170 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Age
    39
    Posts
    166
    Rep Power
    14325

    Reputation

    My breakfast makes fatigued and its not overly big,i have digestion problems.I know all about fasting,10meals,3meals I "have"to eat smaller meals end of story.Not waiting for anything to adjust as I am miserable enough thoughout the day and all I need is more fatigue.

    Jumping to 3200-3300 tomorrow and 3500-3700 when I return to work on Tuesday.Dropping protein to 220g and upping fat and cho for remaining calories needed.

    As long as I havn't overtrained "again"i should be good by end of week(energy/strength)3weeks of hypertrophy is good for now going back to 5x5 main exercises with 4/10 sup lifts.
  14. AnabolicMinds Site Rep
    The Solution's Avatar
    Stats
    5'7"  175 lbs.
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    9,530
    Rep Power
    6630071

    Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation

    if you have Digestion problems then invest in
    Digestive Enzymes
    Or a probiotic.

    bet that will aid you right away.
    Team Inov8 Elite Performance
  15. New Member
    67nova's Avatar
    Stats
    5'11"  170 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Age
    39
    Posts
    166
    Rep Power
    14325

    Reputation

    Im good with eating a good bit of greek yogurt and kimchi it seems,i take orange triad again so it should also help.

    Even with good digestion I always had a problem with large meals.Everyone is different and I need to eat smaller meals.
  

  
 

Similar Forum Threads

  1. Macro and diet help.
    By tony620 in forum Nutrition / Health
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 09-18-2012, 03:00 PM
  2. Help with cals and macros please
    By howwedo107 in forum Bulking
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 05-02-2012, 04:48 PM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-18-2005, 12:19 AM
  4. Mononucleosis and prohomones....HELP!!!
    By Boss_K in forum Anabolics
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 01-08-2004, 11:09 AM
  5. New and need help
    By little T in forum Anabolics
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 12-23-2002, 10:01 AM

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