Nutrition and Health Roundtable

heavylifter33

heavylifter33

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • RockStar
  • Established
Gentlemen with the success of other Q and A threads, I thought it might be nice to have one on nutrition. We all, and should all, know that nutrition plays a vital role in achieving our fitness goals no matter what those goals are. Supplements are great, anabolics are great, the specific exercises we do are great; but if we don't know what the heck we're doing with our diets our progress will be sub-par. Nutrition and health is a passion of mine, I've spent a few years now engrossed in the literature. I've also changed my major to health science. There are a few other really smart guys around here and I figured we could get a thread going where we could share some questions and post up some studies or reference some of the big names in the industry to answer questions (i.e. Aragon, McDonald, Norton, etc). No question is too simple or too basic. Want to know about macronutrients? Ask away. Want to know about Intermittent Fasting and cycling? Ask away. My hope is to use this as a meeting point for some of the more educated guys in health/nutrition to come and just check 1 thread to answer some questions.
 
Swanson52

Swanson52

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • RockStar
  • Established
Great idea! You are right too many people focus on supps etc and not enough on basic nutrition
Gawd how true this is. Makes my head hurt.
 
Montego1

Montego1

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
I likey.
 
Touey

Touey

Well-known member
Awards
0
download (12).jpg
Yes is another round table thread this I think we should have this one named "Gents of the Round Table" since 'Knights of the Round Table" has already on record here.
 
Montego1

Montego1

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
Might I open up with IF. I know my stance on this dieting approach but would like to hear some others opinions on it.

Fad? Benefits and downfalls. Best uses. Personal experience. :)
 
Jiigzz

Jiigzz

Legend
Awards
5
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • First Up Vote
You know i'm in on this. Ill contribute this evening
 
Jiigzz

Jiigzz

Legend
Awards
5
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • First Up Vote
Spaniard

Spaniard

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • RockStar
  • Established
Might I open up with IF. I know my stance on this dieting approach but would like to hear some others opinions on it.

Fad? Benefits and downfalls. Best uses. Personal experience. :)
One of the single most important factors to any diet or eating protocol is that it works for YOU and that you will be able to stick to it. It doesn't matter who endorses it or what kind of results so and so got from it. If it doesn't work for you and your lifestyle, its worthless

Needless to say, I'm up in this lol! Let's roundtable this ish up. Diet and nutrition are the single most important element to any training regimen, period. Great emphasis should be placed on this thread.
 
Jiigzz

Jiigzz

Legend
Awards
5
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • First Up Vote
One of the single most important factors to any diet or eating protocol is that it works for YOU and that you will be able to stick to it. It doesn't matter who endorses it or what kind of results so and so got from it. If it doesn't work for you and your lifestyle, its worthless

Needless to say, I'm up in this lol! Let's roundtable this ish up. Diet and nutrition are the single most important element to any training regimen, period. Great emphasis should be placed on this thread.
I agree. Its never good to tout one diet protocol as being superior to another (in terms of meal frequency and timing etc.) because the sinlge most important factor for anything is compliance. If 6 meals works for you and fits your schedule better than 1 or 2 or 3, then 6 it is. The diet you can stick to is the one that will triumph.
 
The Solution

The Solution

Legend
Awards
5
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
  • Best Answer
One of the single most important factors to any diet or eating protocol is that it works for YOU and that you will be able to stick to it. It doesn't matter who endorses it or what kind of results so and so got from it. If it doesn't work for you and your lifestyle, its worthless

Needless to say, I'm up in this lol! Let's roundtable this ish up. Diet and nutrition are the single most important element to any training regimen, period. Great emphasis should be placed on this thread.
Exactly
For most who follow IF they live very busy lifestyles, hence eating larger meals and have less time to cook/prepare food hence their larger meals.
Say someone who works a typical 9-5

Eat at their lunch break (noon)
Have a small snack before leaving work (3-4)
Hit the gym around 6
Come home and have a big feast for dinner (8) and it falls right in their 8 hour window, and they can spend more time with their kids, family, or other chores that need to be caught up on while still getting some decent sleep and living their life.

instead of eyeing a clock every 3 or so hours and packing tons of tupperware with you wherever you go.
 
The Solution

The Solution

Legend
Awards
5
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
  • Best Answer
Could you breakdown the jist of those articles? A lot of people seeking advice won't spend time reading through pages but would get more benefit from things spelled out in a paragraph or so.
First Article:

Do you believe in Intermittent Fasting and other non-generic meal patterns? Do you have to eat a certain amount of times per day to eat and why? It seems Meal Frequency is thrown around as Layne Norton has a 4-5 meal approach with BCAA’s in between, and some individuals who follow Intermittent Fasting thrive off 2-3 meals. What do you believe is optimal?


Layne Norton, PhD
The big question is, optimal for whom? Layne’s protocol’s theoretical basis is sound, at least on paper. It aims to strike a balance between avoiding the refractory nature of MPS under conditions of constantly elevated circulating amino acids, while still maximizing the number of nutrient-mediated anabolic ‘spikes’ through the day. This protocol might be appropriate for someone trying to pull the final strings to edge out the competition on a bodybuilding stage. However, I’m skeptical that this strategy would benefit those already consuming a high protein intake (which is already rich in BCAAs). For most non-competitors, I don’t see the realistic long-term sustainability of this routine.

As for the other end of the spectrum (2-3 meals per day), this is obviously more realistic for regular people. This works out well, since the importance of muscle retention during dieting varies according to the population. The more overfat & deconditioned someone is, the greater the proportional & net loss of fat vs. muscle is when dieting. Further along the progression, the leaner & more conditioned someone is, the more muscle they stand to lose as they continue to diet. So, can low meal frequency work for competitors? Yes, it can. Is it optimal? Well, that’s a question that so far doesn’t have a definitive, science-based answer, and it might never have one. For advanced athletes in a dieting situation, the objective is to retain as much muscle as possible while losing fat, since muscle loss at this point is a more urgent threat than it is for guys coming straight off the couch. Nitpicking for advanced athletes, I‘d speculate that anything below 3 meals (technically, 3 protein feedings) per day is not optimal, regardless of program phase.

Second:

Research Summary

Meal Frequency

§ A haphazard/randomly variable meal frequency, not necessarily a lower frequency, negatively impacts thermogenesis, blood lipids, and insulin sensitivity.
§ Within a day, a higher frequency has no thermodynamic advantage over a lower frequency under controlled conditions.
§ The majority of controlled intervention trials show no improvement in body composition with a higher meal frequency.
§ Studies indicating the disappearance or lack of hunger in dieters occur in either complete starvation, or very low calorie VLCD regimes (800 kcal/day or less).
§ Hunger is a persistent problem with reduced meal frequency in non-starvation and other protocols with calories above VLCD levels.
§ For controlling appetite, the majority of research indicates the superiority of a higher meal frequency.
§ The body appears to be "metabolically primed" to receive calories and nutrients after an overnight fast. Breakfast is a particularly beneficial time to have dietary protein, since muscle protein synthethis rates are typically lowest at this time.
§ Overall, both experimental and observational research points to breakfast improving memory, test grades, school attendance, nutrient status, weight control, and muscle protein synthesis.

Intermittent Fasting

§ Animal research has shown a number of positive health effects of ADF and CR.
§ Human ADF research is scarce and less consistent than animal research, showing both benefits (insulin sensitivity is the most consistent outcome) and risks (impaired glucose tolerance in women).
§ So far, control groups are absent in all human ADF studies. Thus, no comparative conclusions can be drawn between ADF and linear caloric intake.
§ The of the single published controlled trial to date (Stote, et al) comparing 1 versus 3 meals is heavily confounded by an exceptionally high dropout rate in the 1-a-day group, and the use of BIA to measure body composition.
§ The 1-a-day group reported increasing hunger levels throughout the length of the trial, echoing the problem of hunger with a reduced meal frequency seen in other similar research.
§ Ramadan fasting (12-16 hours per day, sunrise to sunset) decreases daytime alertness, mood, wakefulness, competitive athletic performance, and increases the incidence of traffic accidents. It's difficult to determine the relative contributions of dehydration and a lack of food to these adverse phenomena.
§ The effects of exercise and meal frequency on body composition is an interesting but largely unexplored area of research.

Fasting & Exercise

§ Improvements in insulin sensitivity, glucose tolerance (except in women undergoing ADF), bodyweight/bodyfat, blood pressure, blood lipids, and heart rate are commonly cited benefits of IF & CR.
§ All of the above benefits can be achieved by exercise, minus the downsides of fasting.
§ IF and CR have both been found to have neuroprotective effects by increasing BDNF levels.
§ A growing body of research shows that exercise can also increase BDNF, and the degree of effect appears to be intensity-dependent.
§ Based on the limited available data, resistance training performance, especially if its not particularly voluminous, might not be enhanced by preworkout EAA+CHO.
§ Despite equivocal performance effects of pre- or midworkout EAA+CHO, it minimizes muscle damage that occurs from fasted resistance training.
§ Immediate preworkout protein and/or EAA+CHO increases protein synthesis more than fasted resistance training with those substrates ingested immediately postworkout.
§ It’s possible that a partial fast (as short as 4 hours) before resistance training can negatively impact muscle protein status.

Conclusion

It's given that personal goals and individual response are the ultimate navigators of any protocol. Therefore, training and meal schedules should be built upon individual preferences & tolerances, which undoubtedly will differ. However, the purpose of this article is to arm the reader with the facts, so that opinions and anecdotes can be judged accordingly. Personal testimony is invariably biased by the powerful placebo effect of suggestion, and sometimes by ulterior agenda. Science is perched on one end of the epistemological spectrum, and hearsay is on the opposite end. As the evidence clearly indicates, IF is not a bed of roses minus the thorns - there are definite pros and cons.

In the world of fitness, recommendations for improving performance and body composition often gain blind acceptance despite a dearth of objective data. This is common in a field where high hopes and obsessive-compulsive tendencies are united with false appeals and incomplete information. In order to be proven effective beyond the mere power of suggestion, supposed truths must be put through the crucible of science. Drawing conclusions from baseless assumptions is a good way to get nowhere - fast.

Third:

Based on the available evidence, it’s false to assume that the body can only use a certain amount of protein per meal. Studies examining short-term effects have provided hints towards what might be an optimal protein dose for maximizing anabolism, but trials drawn out over longer periods haven’t supported this idea. So, is there a limit to how much protein per meal can be effectively used? Yes there is, but this limit is likely similar to the amount that’s maximally effective in an entire day. What’s the most protein that the body can effectively use in an entire day? The short answer is, a lot more than 20-30 g. The long answer is, it depends on several factors. In most cases it’s not too far from a gram per pound in drug-free trainees, given that adequate total calories are provided [8,9].

In terms of application, I’ve consistently observed the effectiveness of having approximately a quarter of your target bodyweight in both the pre- and post-exercise meal. Note: target bodyweight is a surrogate index of lean mass, and I use that to avoid making skewed calculations in cases where individuals are markedly over- or underweight. This dose surpasses the amounts seen to cause a maximal anabolic response but doesn’t impinge upon the rest of the day’s protein allotment, which can be distributed as desired. On days off from training, combine or split up your total protein allotment according to your personal preference and digestive tolerance. I realize that freedom and flexibility are uncommon terms in physique culture, but maybe it’s time for a paradigm shift.

In sum, view all information – especially gym folklore and short-term research – with caution. Don’t buy into the myth that protein won’t get used efficiently unless it’s dosed sparingly throughout the day. Hopefully, future research will definitively answer how different dosing schemes with various protein types affect relevant endpoints such as size and strength. In the mean time, feel free to eat the whole steak and drink the whole shake
 
The Solution

The Solution

Legend
Awards
5
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
  • Best Answer
10 Myths (4th Article)
1. Myth: Eat frequently to "stoke the metabolic fire".
2. Myth: Eat smaller meals more often for hunger control.

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.
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.

4. Myth: Fasting tricks the body into "starvation mode".

ooking at the numerous studies I've read, the earliest evidence for lowered metabolic rate in response to fasting occurred after 60 hours (-8% in resting metabolic rate). Other studies show metabolic rate is not impacted until 72-96 hours have passed (George Cahill has contributed a lot on this topic).

Seemingly paradoxical, metabolic rate is actually increased in short-term fasting. For some concrete numbers, studies have shown an increase of 3.6% - 10% after 36-48 hours (Mansell PI, et al, and Zauner C, et al). This makes sense from an evolutionary perspective. Epinephrine and norepinephrine (adrenaline/noradrenaline) sharpens the mind and makes us want to move around. Desirable traits that encouraged us to seek for food, or for the hunter to kill his prey, increasing survival. At some point, after several days of no eating, this benefit would confer no benefit to survival and probably would have done more harm than good; instead, an adaptation that favored conservation of energy turned out to be advantageous. Thus metabolic rate is increased in short-term fasting (up to 60 hours).

5. Myth: Maintain a steady supply of amino acids by eating protein every 2-3 hours. The body can only absorb 30 grams of protein in one sitting.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9405716

I think this "30 grams of protein"-nonsense started to circulate after a classic study from 1997 by Boirie and colleagues. "Slow and fast dietary proteins differently modulate postprandial protein accretion" was the first study to quantify the absorption rate of whey and casein protein and gave birth to the concept of fast and slow protein. After that, whey protein came to be known for it's ability to rapidly elevate amino acids in the blood stream and casein for it's ability to create a sustained release of amino acids. Whey was anabolic and casein anti-catabolic.

Given that 30 grams of whey protein was absorbed within 3-4 hours, I guess some people believed that meant 30 grams of protein can only be used in one sitting. Or that you had to eat every 3-4 hours to stay "anabolic." Unfortunately, people missed a few facts that made these findings irrelevant to real-world scenarios. First of all, this study looked at the absorption rate of whey protein in the fasted state. On it's own, and with no meals eaten beforehand, 30 grams of whey protein is absorbed within a mere 3-4 hours. With meals eaten earlier in the day, or if you'd consume a whey shake after a meal, absorption would be much slower.

Second of all, whey protein is the fastest protein of all and digests at 10 g/hour. Casein is much slower; in Boirie's study, the casein protein was still being absorbed when they stopped the experiment 7 hours later. Most whole food proteins are absorbed at a rate of 3-6 grams an hour.
 
The Solution

The Solution

Legend
Awards
5
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
  • Best Answer
Boiling Things Down: The Position Statements

Credit is due to the ISSN for preemptively stressing that the research on physiological & morphological effects of meal frequency in physically active and athletic populations is scarce. They responsibly state that this prevents definitive conclusions from being made. The following are the exact statements that comprise the ISSN position stand on meal frequency, which I’ll follow with my comments & conclusion.

Increasing meal frequency does not appear to favorably change body composition in sedentary populations.
If protein levels are adequate, increasing meal frequency during periods of hypoenergetic dieting may preserve lean body mass in athletic populations.
Increased meal frequency appears to have a positive effect on various blood markers of health, particularly LDL cholesterol, total cholesterol, and insulin.
Increased meal frequency does not appear to significantly enhance diet induced thermogenesis, total energy expenditure or resting metabolic rate.
Increasing meal frequency appears to help decrease hunger and improve appetite control.

When examining the above points, 1 & 4 have a substantive, cohesive, and adequately-designed body of research backing them. Thus, they possess the strongest evidence basis of the bunch. Number 3 sits right on the fence, since it’s a particularly complex and delicate area with much conflicting data. It’s my hunch that the differential effects of varying meal frequencies on blood markers of health would greatly diminish in the presence of a formal exercise program. Again, the potentially profound impact of training that’s missing from the current meal frequency research leaves big questions unanswered. Points 2 & 5 have the least scientific support, and the largest leaps of faith and bias from the ISSN.

In Closing

I’d advise everyone with enough motivation to dig into the references and question the conclusions of all parties involved. It’s clear that position stands of authoritative organizations are far from being completely accurate, complete, and bias-free. With that said, the ISSN provides plenty of food for thought. Again, read the full text of their paper in order to get the most out of my critique of it [2]. Meal frequency research is becoming increasingly more active, so it’s safe to predict that in the coming years, more relevant designs will narrow the gap between the questions and answers. Something I can wholeheartedly agree with is the paper’s closing quote: “Nonetheless, more well-designed research studies involving various meal frequencies, particularly in physically active/athletic populations are warranted.”
 
heavylifter33

heavylifter33

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • RockStar
  • Established
Figured i'd try to get some basic stuff in on the first page, here's some helpful terms and outline for basic calorie "needs." Use these to find your caloric maintenance and go from there. The basic idea is that 500 cal surplus will minimize fat gain for your bulk, 500 cal deficit will minimize muscle loss. Obviously we have a few variables, especially during cuts, but the 500 cal mark is generally recognized as being a good place to start.

Terms:
BMR - Basal Metabolic Rate - The amount of calories you need to consume to maintain your body weight.
TEE/TDEE - Total (Daily) Energy Expenditure - The total calories you require (BMR + exercise)
Maintenance - This is the term we use for the total cals to keep your current bodyweight
Surplus - Excess calories which will be used to build muscle and/or be stored as fat
Deficit - Inadequate calorie intake to provide for bodily processes/energy.
Macro - Can be used to describe or denote individual macronutrients or total macronutrient intake(s).
Example: "I still need to hit my protein macro today." or "What are the macros for that meal from Chipotle?" :D :D

Things to think about
No two people will have the exact same BMR or TDEE. There are many factors we need to consider when computing caloric needs. Age, weight, lean mass weight, height, hormones, and activity level. It can be hard sometimes to get an accurate tracking of calories taken in compared to calories used. So do not get discouraged if you use the calculators to find a number, and a week later the progress is not what it should be. When I advise friends or clients or whoever about nutrition, I always say give it a week or two to track cals and see what's working and what doesn't. It may take a few weeks to get an accurate count of exactly what your TDEE is.

BMR Calc (the one I feel is the best)
Katch-McArdle: Considered the most accurate for those who are relatively lean. Use if you have a good estimate of your bodyfat %.
BMR = 370 + (21.6 x LBM)Where LBM = [total weight (kg) x (100 - bodyfat %)]/100

Activity Factor to calculate total requirements:
Average activity variables are:
1.2 = Sedentary (Desk job, and Little Formal Exercise)
1.3-1.4 = Lightly Active (Light daily activity AND light exercise 1-3 days a week)
1.5-1.6 = Moderately Active (Moderately daily Activity & Moderate exercise 3-5 days a week)
1.7-1.8 = Very Active (Physically demanding lifestyle & Hard exercise 6-7 days a week)
1.9-2.2 = Extremely Active (Athlete in ENDURANCE training or VERY HARD physical job)

So, you'd use the Katch formula and multiply by your activity variable to get a rough estimate of your caloric needs. Then we either increase cals if we want to gain weight, or decrease cals if we want to lose weight. As I said earlier you can use the 500 cal method, or you can use a percentage and that's typically 10-20% of your caloric needs.
 
JudoJosh

JudoJosh

Pro Virili Parte
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
Ive always used Harris-Benedict equation but the katch one looks a tad more accurate since it takes into account lean body mass
 
heavylifter33

heavylifter33

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • RockStar
  • Established
Ive always used Harris-Benedict equation but the katch one looks a tad more accurate since it takes into account lean body mass
Same here, once I found Katch I started using it more but it really only works better if you have a (hopefully) accurate or semi-accurate account of bodyfat.
 
booneman77

booneman77

Legend
Awards
5
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
  • Best Answer
Subbed day 1 and finally got caught up... Solid info in here so far guys.

Here's another topic that I've been interested in learning more about: Cheat meals (meals, days, weeks(!)) How often, how much, impact, etc... Ive always been terrified of these when cutting but am trying to work them in for the future in hopes that they'll not only provide some extra sanity and help prevent the post-cut rebound fat gain but also speed up the cutting process with their potential metabolic boost.
 
The Solution

The Solution

Legend
Awards
5
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
  • Best Answer
Subbed day 1 and finally got caught up... Solid info in here so far guys.

Here's another topic that I've been interested in learning more about: Cheat meals (meals, days, weeks(!)) How often, how much, impact, etc... Ive always been terrified of these when cutting but am trying to work them in for the future in hopes that they'll not only provide some extra sanity and help prevent the post-cut rebound fat gain but also speed up the cutting process with their potential metabolic boost.
Cheat Meals and Refeeds are Crucial, they help raise t3, leptin, and hormone levels when you do diet down. The further you diet the larger they will become or you could do 2x a week refeed which are not as much but still get the impact from them and the boost to your metabolism which takes a hit during the diet as it does progress. Without refeeds and cheats (i would keep cheats mostly high carb which are more beneficial for leptin levels and spiking them for your increased fatloss/weightloss)

Some good reading:

http://www.simplyshredded.com/layne-norton-the-most-effective-cutting-diet.html
http://www.biolayne.com/nutrition/biolayne-video-log-12-clean-eating-vs-iifym-if-it-fits-your-macros/
http://www.ironmagazineforums.com/bodybuilding-gossip/26580-prepare-win-layne-norton.html
http://tnation.t-nation.com/free_online_forum/diet_performance_nutrition_supplements/refeeds_and_leptin
http://wlzine.com/refeed-day-the-benefits/
http://forums.lylemcdonald.com/archive/index.php?t-1034.html

"Re-feeding

One should also incooperate re-feeds into their diet plan. Re-feeds help boost a hormone called leptin, which is the mother of all fat burning hormones. As one diets, leptin levels drop in an attempt by the body to spare body fat. Periodic, proper re-feeding can raise leptin levels and help one continue to burn fat an optimum rate. A person who is lean will need to re-feed more frequently than someone who has a higher body fat percentage. For those who are below 10%, it is probably a wise idea to in cooperate re-feeds two times per week. For those people who are in the 10-15% range, re-feeding every 6-12 days will probably be adequate, for those who are above 15%, re-feeding will probably not need to be done more than once every week to two weeks. Obviously as one loses body fat they will need to re-feed more often. Refeed days should be planned as follows…

Re-feed on the day you work your worst body part(s) as re-feeding will not only raise leptin, but be quite anabolic.
Keep fat as low as possible during re-feed days as high insulin levels will increase dietary fat transport into adipose tissue. In addition dietary fat has little to no impact on leptin levels.
Reduce protein intake to 1g/lb bodyweight
Consume as little fructose as possible as fructose does not have an impact on leptin levels.
Increase calories to maintenance level (or above if you are an ectomorph) and increase carbs by at least 50-100% (endo’s stay on the low end, while ecto’s should stay on the high end) over normal diet levels.
"

Shelby Starnes had a good article on T-nation about cheat meals:

http://www.t-nation.com/free_online_article/most_recent/the_cheat_meal_manifesto
 
Montego1

Montego1

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
Especially when carb cycling those refeed days are a must. Now cheat days where you eat anything you want meeeeh I'm not really a fan. I always felt like crap the next day after eating clean for the rest of the week.

I think the key here is to find foods that 1) you enjoy 2)don't toatly skew your numbers 3) are not in your normal dietary intake.
 
The Solution

The Solution

Legend
Awards
5
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
  • Best Answer
Especially when carb cycling those refeed days are a must. Now cheat days where you eat anything you want meeeeh I'm not really a fan. I always felt like crap the next day after eating clean for the rest of the week.

I think the key here is to find foods that 1) you enjoy 2)don't toatly skew your numbers 3) are not in your normal dietary intake.
Cheat Day = Stupid
Cheat Meal = Beneficial.
 
Spaniard

Spaniard

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • RockStar
  • Established
First Article:

Do you believe in Intermittent Fasting and other non-generic meal patterns? Do you have to eat a certain amount of times per day to eat and why? It seems Meal Frequency is thrown around as Layne Norton has a 4-5 meal approach with BCAA’s in between, and some individuals who follow Intermittent Fasting thrive off 2-3 meals. What do you believe is optimal?


Layne Norton, PhD
The big question is, optimal for whom? Layne’s protocol’s theoretical basis is sound, at least on paper. It aims to strike a balance between avoiding the refractory nature of MPS under conditions of constantly elevated circulating amino acids, while still maximizing the number of nutrient-mediated anabolic ‘spikes’ through the day. This protocol might be appropriate for someone trying to pull the final strings to edge out the competition on a bodybuilding stage. However, I’m skeptical that this strategy would benefit those already consuming a high protein intake (which is already rich in BCAAs). For most non-competitors, I don’t see the realistic long-term sustainability of this routine.

As for the other end of the spectrum (2-3 meals per day), this is obviously more realistic for regular people. This works out well, since the importance of muscle retention during dieting varies according to the population. The more overfat & deconditioned someone is, the greater the proportional & net loss of fat vs. muscle is when dieting. Further along the progression, the leaner & more conditioned someone is, the more muscle they stand to lose as they continue to diet. So, can low meal frequency work for competitors? Yes, it can. Is it optimal? Well, that’s a question that so far doesn’t have a definitive, science-based answer, and it might never have one. For advanced athletes in a dieting situation, the objective is to retain as much muscle as possible while losing fat, since muscle loss at this point is a more urgent threat than it is for guys coming straight off the couch. Nitpicking for advanced athletes, I‘d speculate that anything below 3 meals (technically, 3 protein feedings) per day is not optimal, regardless of program phase.

Second:

Research Summary

Meal Frequency

§ A haphazard/randomly variable meal frequency, not necessarily a lower frequency, negatively impacts thermogenesis, blood lipids, and insulin sensitivity.
§ Within a day, a higher frequency has no thermodynamic advantage over a lower frequency under controlled conditions.
§ The majority of controlled intervention trials show no improvement in body composition with a higher meal frequency.
§ Studies indicating the disappearance or lack of hunger in dieters occur in either complete starvation, or very low calorie VLCD regimes (800 kcal/day or less).
§ Hunger is a persistent problem with reduced meal frequency in non-starvation and other protocols with calories above VLCD levels.
§ For controlling appetite, the majority of research indicates the superiority of a higher meal frequency.
§ The body appears to be "metabolically primed" to receive calories and nutrients after an overnight fast. Breakfast is a particularly beneficial time to have dietary protein, since muscle protein synthethis rates are typically lowest at this time.
§ Overall, both experimental and observational research points to breakfast improving memory, test grades, school attendance, nutrient status, weight control, and muscle protein synthesis.

Intermittent Fasting

§ Animal research has shown a number of positive health effects of ADF and CR.
§ Human ADF research is scarce and less consistent than animal research, showing both benefits (insulin sensitivity is the most consistent outcome) and risks (impaired glucose tolerance in women).
§ So far, control groups are absent in all human ADF studies. Thus, no comparative conclusions can be drawn between ADF and linear caloric intake.
§ The of the single published controlled trial to date (Stote, et al) comparing 1 versus 3 meals is heavily confounded by an exceptionally high dropout rate in the 1-a-day group, and the use of BIA to measure body composition.
§ The 1-a-day group reported increasing hunger levels throughout the length of the trial, echoing the problem of hunger with a reduced meal frequency seen in other similar research.
§ Ramadan fasting (12-16 hours per day, sunrise to sunset) decreases daytime alertness, mood, wakefulness, competitive athletic performance, and increases the incidence of traffic accidents. It's difficult to determine the relative contributions of dehydration and a lack of food to these adverse phenomena.
§ The effects of exercise and meal frequency on body composition is an interesting but largely unexplored area of research.

Fasting & Exercise

§ Improvements in insulin sensitivity, glucose tolerance (except in women undergoing ADF), bodyweight/bodyfat, blood pressure, blood lipids, and heart rate are commonly cited benefits of IF & CR.
§ All of the above benefits can be achieved by exercise, minus the downsides of fasting.
§ IF and CR have both been found to have neuroprotective effects by increasing BDNF levels.
§ A growing body of research shows that exercise can also increase BDNF, and the degree of effect appears to be intensity-dependent.
§ Based on the limited available data, resistance training performance, especially if its not particularly voluminous, might not be enhanced by preworkout EAA+CHO.
§ Despite equivocal performance effects of pre- or midworkout EAA+CHO, it minimizes muscle damage that occurs from fasted resistance training.
§ Immediate preworkout protein and/or EAA+CHO increases protein synthesis more than fasted resistance training with those substrates ingested immediately postworkout.
§ It’s possible that a partial fast (as short as 4 hours) before resistance training can negatively impact muscle protein status.

Conclusion

It's given that personal goals and individual response are the ultimate navigators of any protocol. Therefore, training and meal schedules should be built upon individual preferences & tolerances, which undoubtedly will differ. However, the purpose of this article is to arm the reader with the facts, so that opinions and anecdotes can be judged accordingly. Personal testimony is invariably biased by the powerful placebo effect of suggestion, and sometimes by ulterior agenda. Science is perched on one end of the epistemological spectrum, and hearsay is on the opposite end. As the evidence clearly indicates, IF is not a bed of roses minus the thorns - there are definite pros and cons.

In the world of fitness, recommendations for improving performance and body composition often gain blind acceptance despite a dearth of objective data. This is common in a field where high hopes and obsessive-compulsive tendencies are united with false appeals and incomplete information. In order to be proven effective beyond the mere power of suggestion, supposed truths must be put through the crucible of science. Drawing conclusions from baseless assumptions is a good way to get nowhere - fast.

Third:

Based on the available evidence, it’s false to assume that the body can only use a certain amount of protein per meal. Studies examining short-term effects have provided hints towards what might be an optimal protein dose for maximizing anabolism, but trials drawn out over longer periods haven’t supported this idea. So, is there a limit to how much protein per meal can be effectively used? Yes there is, but this limit is likely similar to the amount that’s maximally effective in an entire day. What’s the most protein that the body can effectively use in an entire day? The short answer is, a lot more than 20-30 g. The long answer is, it depends on several factors. In most cases it’s not too far from a gram per pound in drug-free trainees, given that adequate total calories are provided [8,9].

In terms of application, I’ve consistently observed the effectiveness of having approximately a quarter of your target bodyweight in both the pre- and post-exercise meal. Note: target bodyweight is a surrogate index of lean mass, and I use that to avoid making skewed calculations in cases where individuals are markedly over- or underweight. This dose surpasses the amounts seen to cause a maximal anabolic response but doesn’t impinge upon the rest of the day’s protein allotment, which can be distributed as desired. On days off from training, combine or split up your total protein allotment according to your personal preference and digestive tolerance. I realize that freedom and flexibility are uncommon terms in physique culture, but maybe it’s time for a paradigm shift.

In sum, view all information – especially gym folklore and short-term research – with caution. Don’t buy into the myth that protein won’t get used efficiently unless it’s dosed sparingly throughout the day. Hopefully, future research will definitively answer how different dosing schemes with various protein types affect relevant endpoints such as size and strength. In the mean time, feel free to eat the whole steak and drink the whole shake
Yeah, he took that from me ;)
Ive always used Harris-Benedict equation but the katch one looks a tad more accurate since it takes into account lean body mass
Its been the standard at the elite level for quite sometime.
Same here, once I found Katch I started using it more but it really only works better if you have a (hopefully) accurate or semi-accurate account of bodyfat.
And therein lies the downfall... bodpod? People never accurately guage their bf levels. IIRC even bodpod readings have had holes burnt through them.
 
heavylifter33

heavylifter33

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • RockStar
  • Established
Been to bodpod with AF friend, didn't think it was super accurate but accurate enough. Calipers can give different readings on the same day, and depending on who does it. Such is life trying to find ways to measure bodyfat that doesn't cost a fortune.
 
Montego1

Montego1

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
Been to bodpod with AF friend, didn't think it was super accurate but accurate enough. Calipers can give different readings on the same day, and depending on who does it. Such is life trying to find ways to measure bodyfat that doesn't cost a fortune.
In the long run true body fat % means nothing.

If you have the same person, measure the same spots (three or four times taking the average), the same way, at the same time of day, and gauge your progress from that though. ... then it's very useful.
 
booneman77

booneman77

Legend
Awards
5
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
  • Best Answer
Cheat Meals and Refeeds are Crucial, they help raise t3, leptin, and hormone levels when you do diet down. The further you diet the larger they will become or you could do 2x a week refeed which are not as much but still get the impact from them and the boost to your metabolism which takes a hit during the diet as it does progress. Without refeeds and cheats (i would keep cheats mostly high carb which are more beneficial for leptin levels and spiking them for your increased fatloss/weightloss)

Some good reading:

http://www.simplyshredded.com/layne-norton-the-most-effective-cutting-diet.html
http://www.biolayne.com/nutrition/biolayne-video-log-12-clean-eating-vs-iifym-if-it-fits-your-macros/
http://www.ironmagazineforums.com/bodybuilding-gossip/26580-prepare-win-layne-norton.html
http://tnation.t-nation.com/free_online_forum/diet_performance_nutrition_supplements/refeeds_and_leptin
http://wlzine.com/refeed-day-the-benefits/
http://forums.lylemcdonald.com/archive/index.php?t-1034.html

"Re-feeding

One should also incooperate re-feeds into their diet plan. Re-feeds help boost a hormone called leptin, which is the mother of all fat burning hormones. As one diets, leptin levels drop in an attempt by the body to spare body fat. Periodic, proper re-feeding can raise leptin levels and help one continue to burn fat an optimum rate. A person who is lean will need to re-feed more frequently than someone who has a higher body fat percentage. For those who are below 10%, it is probably a wise idea to in cooperate re-feeds two times per week. For those people who are in the 10-15% range, re-feeding every 6-12 days will probably be adequate, for those who are above 15%, re-feeding will probably not need to be done more than once every week to two weeks. Obviously as one loses body fat they will need to re-feed more often. Refeed days should be planned as followsâEUR¦

Re-feed on the day you work your worst body part(s) as re-feeding will not only raise leptin, but be quite anabolic.
Keep fat as low as possible during re-feed days as high insulin levels will increase dietary fat transport into adipose tissue. In addition dietary fat has little to no impact on leptin levels.
Reduce protein intake to 1g/lb bodyweight
Consume as little fructose as possible as fructose does not have an impact on leptin levels.
Increase calories to maintenance level (or above if you are an ectomorph) and increase carbs by at least 50-100% (endoâEUR(TM)s stay on the low end, while ectoâEUR(TM)s should stay on the high end) over normal diet levels.
"

Shelby Starnes had a good article on T-nation about cheat meals:

http://www.t-nation.com/free_online_article/most_recent/the_cheat_meal_manifesto
Especially when carb cycling those refeed days are a must. Now cheat days where you eat anything you want meeeeh I'm not really a fan. I always felt like crap the next day after eating clean for the rest of the week.

I think the key here is to find foods that 1) you enjoy 2)don't toatly skew your numbers 3) are not in your normal dietary intake.
I knew solution would have the goods... Thanks man. You as well montego. Can't wait to read up further.
 
The Solution

The Solution

Legend
Awards
5
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
  • Best Answer
Been to bodpod with AF friend, didn't think it was super accurate but accurate enough. Calipers can give different readings on the same day, and depending on who does it. Such is life trying to find ways to measure bodyfat that doesn't cost a fortune.
The thing with BodPod's is they measure internal fat as well. Calipers are mostly external. But as stated depending on who does them on you there could be various results and where they pinch.

Comparing Calipers to BODPOD's Calipers will be lower by about 2-3% in total BF (just from what i have seen and comparing data) we had a bodpod at my college and the people who ran it would do calipers/bodpod's and then compare the results on the clients/athletes who did use it for BF readings.

Just from what i have observed and inputting my 2 cents.
 
Spaniard

Spaniard

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • RockStar
  • Established
The bottom line is the various tools we have are just starting points. We try to get as close as possible but diet manipulation just takes time to perfect.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mw1

houstontexas

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
Great thread!! I'm in to read and catch up when I can. I'm going from a loose IF style diet to warrior diet setup starting today. I'm anxious to see how it goes. It's been a while, but if I remember correctly JudoJosh has mentioned warrior diets in the past. If I'm remembering correctly I'd love to hear yours and others opinions on it.
 
The Solution

The Solution

Legend
Awards
5
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
  • Best Answer
Great thread!! I'm in to read and catch up when I can. I'm going from a loose IF style diet to warrior diet setup starting today. I'm anxious to see how it goes. It's been a while, but if I remember correctly JudoJosh has mentioned warrior diets in the past. If I'm remembering correctly I'd love to hear yours and others opinions on it.
basically underfeed all day and then your major meal at night
Veggies to start, Carbs/Fat + Protein last
 

houstontexas

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
Thanks sillypants!! I already have it laid out so I was mainly just looking for everyone's thoughts on how it worked for them, if they feel it's viable, etc. I do appreciate your response though brutha.
 
The Solution

The Solution

Legend
Awards
5
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
  • Best Answer
Thanks sillypants!! I already have it laid out so I was mainly just looking for everyone's thoughts on how it worked for them, if they feel it's viable, etc. I do appreciate your response though brutha.
Its different for everyone
some like 6 meals a day
some like 3
some like 1-2

Personal preference in the end and how the individual enjoys it. We all come in different shapes and sizes and we all do different things that work for us. At the end of the day you need to find what is optimal for your lifestyle and for your success because it varies from every person in here and what they do .
 
Montego1

Montego1

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
Its different for everyone
some like 6 meals a day
some like 3
some like 1-2

Personal preference in the end and how the individual enjoys it. We all come in different shapes and sizes and we all do different things that work for us. At the end of the day you need to find what is optimal for your lifestyle and for your success because it varies from every person in here and what they do .
^^ Exactly.

Although I don't personally like or support the ideas behind the IF type diets (i have tried IF out a couple different times with terrible results) some people really enjoy them.

My personal preference is six meals spread throughout the day with relatively the same macros per feeding.

In my opinion a LOT of people shy away from this approach and gravitate towards IF for the simple fact it's easier to just get one or two big meals in later in the day. Tge time needed to make the meals (takes me about twenty minutes to cook six meals for my next day when I get home), carrying them around and eating at the appropriate times are all small in convinces for myself based on the results I see. But I can see how this would be a turn off.
 
Jiigzz

Jiigzz

Legend
Awards
5
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • First Up Vote
^^ Exactly.

Although I don't personally like or support the ideas behind the IF type diets (i have tried IF out a couple different times with terrible results) some people really enjoy them.

My personal preference is six meals spread throughout the day with relatively the same macros per feeding.

In my opinion a LOT of people shy away from this approach and gravitate towards IF for the simple fact it's easier to just get one or two big meals in later in the day. Tge time needed to make the meals (takes me about twenty minutes to cook six meals for my next day when I get home), carrying them around and eating at the appropriate times are all small in convinces for myself based on the results I see. But I can see how this would be a turn off.
This is my approach as well. 6 meals works well for me (4-6).
 
Spaniard

Spaniard

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • RockStar
  • Established
Let's kick this mother****er up a notch...

Ketogenic diets - Go

Don't get too in depth. However, if you do, explain; break it down in layman's terms.
 
The Solution

The Solution

Legend
Awards
5
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
  • Best Answer
"It’s one of many options that work, depending on the individual’s circumstances. People have different goals & preferences. Nonlinear carb intake becomes necessary in some cases where the lower limits of leanness are attempted to be reached. But, this is mainly a default result of having such a minimal caloric intake rather than any sort of special effect of nonlinear carb intake. Whether or not linear or nonlinear carb reduction is done should be dictated mainly by personal preference.
"

"Another recent trial compared two 1500 calorie diets, a non-ketogenic diet and a ketogenic one [4]. Insulin sensitivity was equally improved between the groups. No inhibition of fat loss was seen in the non-ketogenic diet despite the fact that it was moderate in both fat (30%) and carbs (40%). In fact, the non-keto group lost more bodyweight and bodyfat than the keto group, although neither of these effects was statistically significant. It appears that any threat of fat/carb combining slowing fat loss is imagination-based."


"I went on to examine the common methodological limitation of low-carb versus low-fat comparisons failing to match protein intake. As such, the advantage of greater thermic effect, satiety, and lean mass retention will strongly favor the groups whose protein is optimized, or at least adequate. Low-fat/high-carb treatments often fall short of adequate protein intake, and the disadvantages are inherent. A memorable example showing significantly greater effects on mood and a lack of significant difference in body composition improvement from a non-ketogenic diet compared to a ketogenic diet was by Johnston et al [4]. This study showed a trend toward more favorable effects in the non-ketogenic diet group, and the important detail is that protein intake was similar between groups, and significantly above the paltry RDA level.

It was serendipitous that Jeff brought up Phinney et al’s 1983 study on highly trained cyclists [1], because I was well-prepared to expose its details. This study involved 5 subjects who, after 1 week on a conventional diet, were put on a ketogenic diet for 4 weeks. Both phases were eucaloric (weight-maintaining). By the end of the 4 weeks, the subjects’ steady-state respiratory quotient (RQ) dropped from 0.83 to 0.72, indicating that they indeed were fat-adapted. Exclusive carbohydrate utililzation is indicated by an RQ of 1.0 while the exclusive utilization of fat is indicated by an RQ of 0.7, so with an RQ just a hair above that, these subjects were thoroughly primed for the proposed benefits of keto-adaptation.

Stick with me now… Pre and post-keto-adaptation endurance capacity (measured by time to exhaustion or TTE) was not significantly different. This lead the authors to conclude that aerobic endurance at 62-64% of VO2max was not compromised by the 4-week ketogenic diet phase. Mean TTE in the non-keto and keto conditions were 147 and 151 minutes, respectively. However, the authors’ conclusion is misleading since 2 of the 5 subjects experienced substantial drops in endurance capacity (48 & 51-minute declines in TTE, to be exact). One of the subjects had a freakishly high 84-minute increase in TTE, while the other increases were 3 & 30 minutes. The outlying high value was instrumental in skewing the results away from any significant decline in the keto condition’s mean TTE.

I proceeded to discuss how 21 years after the aforementioned study [1], Phinney wrote a review in which he reflects upon the ergolytic (performance-compromising) effect of the ketogenic diet phase, stating the following (my bolding for emphasis) [5]:

“The bicyclist subjects of this study noted a modest decline in their energy level while on training rides during the first week of the Inuit diet, after which subjective performance was reasonably restored except for their sprint capability, which remained constrained during the period of carbohydrate restriction.“

For the record, I have Anthony Colpo to thank for catching the above tidbit. The point is, any decrease in sprinting capability can be considered a crucial liability, especially since most endurance races involve sprinting at various points. Almost invariably, sprinting to some degree occurs toward the final stretch to the finish line.

The final segment of my presentation was a discussion of observational research including the carb-dominant dietary habits of the Blue Zone populations, who are among the longest-living and most disease-resistant in the world. I also discussed the carb-heavy diets of East African distance runners, who hold over 90% of the all-time world records and also the current top-10 positions in world ranking [6,7]. I concluded my lecture by relaying client case studies of high-level competitive & professional athletes, whose daily carbohydrate gram intakes ranged the high double-digits to the high triple-digits. My point was to illustrate the sprawlingly wide range of carbohydrate requirements across individuals, as opposed to the one-size-fits-all ideology of low-carb absolutists. Here’s the slide that put faces to the case studies of my athlete clientele over the years:

clients
The Repeat Round

As I mentioned, every presentation at the conference was delivered twice, and my debate with Jeff was no exception. This made for a very odd second round, since we both knew each other’s material. The moderation was tighter on this round, and the 15-minute Powerpoint presentation limits were strictly imposed to ensure some discussion time. Jeff appeared to portray more flexibility in his position. He opted to go first again after I asked him what he preferred. He was thus able to pre-empt my mentioning of inter-individual differences in the Phinney study, and pad it with the idea that the authors expected a much worse outcome after the keto phase, but were surprised that it didn’t completely obliterate performance.

In the discussion following our presentations, Jeff once again brought up a resistance training study [2] showing the benefits of low-carb versus low-fat. Unfortunately, this study is not readily accessible, nor is it peer-reviewed. In any case, I asked Jeff if protein intake was matched between groups, and he conceded that it was not. This opens up the possibility that a significantly higher protein intake in the low-carb group could have induced greater satiety and less overall caloric intake, resulting in greater fat loss. Again, a failure to match protein (let alone match optimized intakes, which under dieting conditions would be at least double the RDA) is a frustratingly common confounder in these types of studies.

When I asked Jeff how we can reconcile the high-carb diets of the vast majority of world-class endurance champions, he proposed that these populations simply have not given low-carbing a fair enough shot. To me, this is quite a stretch since the best in the world would be foolish to jeopardize what has been working so stunningly well since the beginning of organized endurance competition. When Jeff was challenged on the concept of chronically depleted or low glycogen levels compromising the capacity for muscle growth, Jeff deflected to his current concentration on the clinical applications of carbohydrate restriction rather than hypertrophic applications per se.

Did I feel that Jeff did an excellent job presenting his side and delivering useful information? Yes, and I have a tremendous amount of respect for him and his body of work. However, judging from my own observations – as well as the feedback from others – he simply did not bring a comparatively compelling case for a low-carb/ketogenic diet’s application to competitive athletes. In contrast, I was able to present multiple lines of evidence showing the benefit of both ends of the carbohydrate intake spectrum, and many points in between."
 
The Solution

The Solution

Legend
Awards
5
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
  • Best Answer
Alan: It depends on the overall goal that we’re talking about. This will determine whether or not a focus on carbs at the expense of fat (or vice versa) would be beneficial. I would say this as a blanket statement though: individual preference & tolerance varies. For most recreational fitness goals (as opposed to competitive athletic goals), simply nailing your macronutrient targets by the end of the day is what’s important.

5) Keto, most efficient way of cutting – this is rather an extension of the first question, but deserving of its own response due to the ongoing debates over the superiority (or inferiority) of Keto for cutting. Is it any more effective at burning fat than other diets? Or does eating under maintenance prevail as the winner regardless of the methods used? We know carbohydrates retain water, and proteins are diuretics. Can the initial effects of Keto be understood through the non-existent intake of the former and higher intake of the latter? (appearance of being leaner, with long-term Keto effects stabilizing on par with other diets) Or is Keto really the most optimal?

Alan: There’s nothing inherently special about keto in terms of fat-loss benefits. This has been shown repeatedly in long-term research that’s reasonably controlled (as opposed to the ad-libitum or free-living research) . It’s important to realize that the current research is not sufficient grounds to be dogmatic about low-carbing in the first place. Studies often do not match protein intakes between diets. Adequate protein intakes have multiple advantages (ie, LBM support, satiety, thermic effect), and they simply end up being compared to inadequate protein intakes. Thus, it’s not lower carb intake per se that imparts any advantage, it’s the higher protein intake.

Once you match protein intake between diets, the one with more carbs is actually the one with the potential for a slight metabolic advantage. In any case, there’s a large middle ground here that tends to get ignored by folks who believe in a ‘metabolic advantage’ of keto/low-carb. It’s always either-or for them, when in fact, individual carbohydrate demands vary widely depending upon personal tolerance & preference, not to mention individual goals. For some folks, low-carb is warranted. For others, it isn’t. It always amazes me how hard that concept is to grasp for keto absolutists.
 

houstontexas

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
Going back to my run with the warrior diet I have a question about my 4hr overfeeding period in the evening. 3 days a week my overfeeding will be high carb and 4 days a week it will be low carb.

I currently have ALA, Recompadrol, and Slin-Sane v2 at my disposal. My main carb intakes are right after I work out which is not the ideal time to use GDA's since my body is in a very high state for utilizing nutrients already. I don't think the small 300cal or less snacks throughout the day really warrant a GDA from what I can tell. Would you guys even use a GDA at all and if so where would you utilize it? I may even sell it to fund something else that would better fit into this protocol since I am definitely carrying out my warrior run.
 
The Solution

The Solution

Legend
Awards
5
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
  • Best Answer
Going back to my run with the warrior diet I have a question about my 4hr overfeeding period in the evening. 3 days a week my overfeeding will be high carb and 4 days a week it will be low carb.

I currently have ALA, Recompadrol, and Slin-Sane v2 at my disposal. My main carb intakes are right after I work out which is not the ideal time to use GDA's since my body is in a very high state for utilizing nutrients already. I don't think the small 300cal or less snacks throughout the day really warrant a GDA from what I can tell. Would you guys even use a GDA at all and if so where would you utilize it? I may even sell it to fund something else that would better fit into this protocol since I am definitely carrying out my warrior run.
Not worth it.
 
3clipseGT

3clipseGT

On my grind
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
If anything i would take a dose of GDA prior to sleep but thats just what i would do.
 

houstontexas

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
If anything i would take a dose of GDA prior to sleep but thats just what i would do.
Is that supposed to help raise GH levels? I've heard about people doing that before and I tried it for a little while with agmatine at 1g each night. Couldn't really notice much and felt that 1g served me better pre-workout. What have you noticed from the pre-bed protocol?
 
booneman77

booneman77

Legend
Awards
5
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
  • Best Answer
Is that supposed to help raise GH levels? I've heard about people doing that before and I tried it for a little while with agmatine at 1g each night. Couldn't really notice much and felt that 1g served me better pre-workout. What have you noticed from the pre-bed protocol?
I've tried a couple diff gda's pre bed and def felt some deeper sleep from it. Can't really say much as far as gh goes since there's no way to tell but it made a difference in falling, staying, and deepening my sleep. Only downside was I felt groggy some mornings when the alarm went off mid dream ha
 

Similar threads


Top