Need A Eating Program

[Icarus91]

Im new to the whole fitness thing and would like to first get my eating under control: im 19 5'10" and roughley 185 pounds. Can someone help me out with some guidelines.

 

[BigCasino]

Im new to the whole fitness thing and would like to first get my eating under control: im 19 5'10" and roughley 185 pounds. Can someone help me out with some guidelines.

Cool man, welcome aboard. I am just going to give you a couple very general guidelines. How much you eat depends on what you want to do, if you want to gain muscle (bulk), or lower your body fat percentage and become ripped (cut). Would you say you have a lot of muscle definition right now, like you can see your abs and such?

In general:

** 6-8 meals a day
**at least 1gram of protein per pound of bodyweight
** Drink at least a gallon of water a day
** Take a multi vitamin
** Eat clean foods like oatmeal, rice, chicken breasts, steak, broccoli, tuna, and avoid Fast food
** only supplement you might need in the begining is whey protein shakes after you workout, but don't worry about taking anything else just yet


Hope this helps!!!

 

[hypo]

Learn the difference between high and low GI carbs. Eat low GI carbs throughout the day and high GI carbs after working out. Get yourself some whey protein mix (I like www.allthewhey.com), and stay away from saturated or trans fat. The number of calories you consume depends on your goals but the diet I prefer for cutting and bulking is about a 40/40/20 ratio of calories obtained from carbs, protein, and fat respectively. Remember that fat has 9 calories per gram and carbs and protien only have 4 calories per gram, so if you consumed 300 grams each of carbs and protein throughout the day you would only need 67 grams of fat to keep your calorie ratio correct (that'd be a 3000 calorie diet, BTW). Remember these carbs and fats are "healthy" carbs and fats. Meaning low GI carbs for the most part and mono or polyunsaturated fats (found in nuts, flax, natural peanut butter, etc), Any sugary high GI carbs (sugar is a good indicator of high GI) like sweets, deserts, and to an extent fruits and fruit juices, and also fast food should be kept under control or eliminated. Fruit has it's place post workout, IMHO, that's when I drink a lot of fruit juice.

I could keep writing for hours but you will need to do your own research. When I joined the board I knew less than you and now I have no problem gaining muscle while constantly burning fat, simply by manipulating my diet. Learning how it all works is half the fun.

 

[Billy the kid]

Contact Bobo and sign up for his nutrition program.


Click here!
http://anabolicminds.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=62

 

[200wannabe]

Learn the difference between high and low GI carbs. Eat low GI carbs throughout the day and high GI carbs after working out. Get yourself some whey protein mix (I like www.allthewhey.com), and stay away from saturated or trans fat. The number of calories you consume depends on your goals but the diet I prefer for cutting and bulking is about a 40/40/20 ratio of calories obtained from carbs, protein, and fat respectively. Remember that fat has 9 calories per gram and carbs and protien only have 4 calories per gram, so if you consumed 300 grams each of carbs and protein throughout the day you would only need 67 grams of fat to keep your calorie ratio correct (that'd be a 3000 calorie diet, BTW). Remember these carbs and fats are "healthy" carbs and fats. Meaning low GI carbs for the most part and mono or polyunsaturated fats (found in nuts, flax, natural peanut butter, etc), Any sugary high GI carbs (sugar is a good indicator of high GI) like sweets, deserts, and to an extent fruits and fruit juices, and also fast food should be kept under control or eliminated. Fruit has it's place post workout, IMHO, that's when I drink a lot of fruit juice.

I could keep writing for hours but you will need to do your own research. When I joined the board I knew less than you and now I have no problem gaining muscle while constantly burning fat, simply by manipulating my diet. Learning how it all works is half the fun.

Good advice but from recent discussions on this board i dont think it is necessary to consume High GI carbs post workout, stick to your oats.

 

[Matthew D]

I will second that..

 

[exnihilo]

** 6-8 meals a day
**at least 1gram of protein per pound of bodyweight
** Drink at least a gallon of water a day
** Take a multi vitamin
** Eat clean foods like oatmeal, rice, chicken breasts, steak, broccoli, tuna, and avoid Fast food

Yeah! Take all the fun out of eating while you're at it

I'm fairly sure that the 6-8 meals a day thing comes from the fact that when eating clean food, you would throw up if you tried to stuff it all down in 3 meals...

LOL, it's funny to think that you can get to a point where cake/cookies/ice cream/mcdonalds are "dietary supplements" (I'm not joking about this either)!

 

[xXx]

Yeah! Take all the fun out of eating while you're at it

I'm fairly sure that the 6-8 meals a day thing comes from the fact that when eating clean food, you would throw up if you tried to stuff it all down in 3 meals...

Wrong!

 

[exnihilo]

Wrong!

Ok there supersmart, lol!

I've actually talked with lyle about this one a couple times, he's got some good research that refutes it pretty well - FYI. He has plenty of research that pretty clearly indicates that there's no real difference between results with 3 and 6 meals besides meal size. Just to toss out a niblet that I remmeber for ya, so you can go digging on pubmed:

2: Arnal MA, Mosoni L, Boirie Y, Houlier ML, Morin L, Verdier E, Ritz P, Antoine JM, Prugnaud J, Beaufrere B, Mirand PP. Protein feeding pattern does not affect protein retention in young women. Journal of Nutrition. 2000 Jul;130(7):1700-4.

There's plenty more but I'm lazy and it wouldn't change your behavior anyway so why bother wasting my time.

 

[Tahq]

It would be helpful if you gave us an idea of what your current goals are, your bw is not a specific indicator as you could be lean or fat at 185 depending on your build, previous activity levels, genetics and so forth. If your just looking to 'clean up' your diet than the basic guidelines noted would follow, if you are looking for specifics then more detail is needed.

 

[xXx]

Ok there supersmart, lol!

2: Arnal MA, Mosoni L, Boirie Y, Houlier ML, Morin L, Verdier E, Ritz P, Antoine JM, Prugnaud J, Beaufrere B, Mirand PP. Protein feeding pattern does not affect protein retention in young women. Journal of Nutrition. 2000 Jul;130(7):1700-4.

At least you knew the reason i said you were wrong without me explaining BTW are you a young woman

 

[exnihilo]

Of course I knew the reason you said I was wrong - I'm well versed in all the bodybuilding myths...

As for me being a young woman... Yes. A 270 lb young woman with a 400lb bench press! Now run before I rip your balls off and add them to my collection

All jokes aside, the big difference between young women and bodybuidlers is the amounts of fuel required. The metabolic machinery is the same, though the hormonal mileau is significantly different - but that's not what we're talking about here.

Anything you eat is going to take about 12 hours to fully digest, with the exception of liquids which are done in four. Larger meals with a mixture of fat, fiber, carbs and protein are going to digest and be absorbed more slowly, thus a longer, more prolonged nutrient spike. Food has a thermic effect this is true, but that's fairly constant and you get the same effect whether you eat a big meal or two small ones.

 

[willieman]

It would be helpful if you gave us an idea of what your current goals are, your bw is not a specific indicator as you could be lean or fat at 185 depending on your build, previous activity levels, genetics and so forth. If your just looking to 'clean up' your diet than the basic guidelines noted would follow, if you are looking for specifics then more detail is needed.

yep!What are your goals?Type of lifting, for mass, endurance,power etc....

 

[Dwight Schrute]

Ok there supersmart, lol!

I've actually talked with lyle about this one a couple times, he's got some good research that refutes it pretty well - FYI. He has plenty of research that pretty clearly indicates that there's no real difference between results with 3 and 6 meals besides meal size. Just to toss out a niblet that I remmeber for ya, so you can go digging on pubmed:

2: Arnal MA, Mosoni L, Boirie Y, Houlier ML, Morin L, Verdier E, Ritz P, Antoine JM, Prugnaud J, Beaufrere B, Mirand PP. Protein feeding pattern does not affect protein retention in young women. Journal of Nutrition. 2000 Jul;130(7):1700-4.

There's plenty more but I'm lazy and it wouldn't change your behavior anyway so why bother wasting my time.

Could you please post some more because I have plenty that state otherwise.

Here is one.

Effects of meal frequency on body composition during weight control in boxers.

Iwao S, Mori K, Sato Y.

First Division of Health Promotion Science, Graduate School of Medicine, Nagoya University, Japan.

The effects of meal frequency on changes in body composition by food restriction were investigated. Twelve boxers were divided between a two meals day-1 group (the 2M group) and a six meals day-1 group (the 6M group). Both groups ingested 5.02 MJ (1200 kcal) day-1 for 2 weeks. Although there was no difference in change of body weight by food restriction between the two groups, the decrease in lean body mass (LBM) was significantly greater in the 2M group than in the 6M group. The decrease in urinary 3-methylhistidine/creatinine was significantly greater in the 6M group than in the 2M group. These results suggest that the lower frequency of meal intake leads to a greater myoprotein catabolism even if the same diet is consumed.

 

[exnihilo]

Heh, you're gonna make me go digging around on lyle's board for the refs eh...

Ok, hold on

 

[Dwight Schrute]

All jokes aside, the big difference between young women and bodybuidlers is the amounts of fuel required. The metabolic machinery is the same, though the hormonal mileau is significantly different - but that's not what we're talking about here.

Anything you eat is going to take about 12 hours to fully digest, with the exception of liquids which are done in four. Larger meals with a mixture of fat, fiber, carbs and protein are going to digest and be absorbed more slowly, thus a longer, more prolonged nutrient spike. Food has a thermic effect this is true, but that's fairly constant and you get the same effect whether you eat a big meal or two small ones.

1. THe hormonal profile is quite different and so is the "metabolic machinery" because of this hormonal difference (increased estrogne, GH, etc...)

2. No, anything you eat does not take 12 hours to ingest. I don't know where you got that from.

3. The thermic effect of food is MUCH greater and exhausts many more calories when small, high protein meals are ingested. Comparing normal diets with FDA recommendations of protein will not show the differences between normal people and a bodybuilder consuming an excess of 1.5g/kg of bodyweight. Most studies are based on those factors so looking at the normal feeding patterns of woman is hardly conclusive at all.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

Heh, you're gonna make me go digging around on lyle's board for the refs eh...

Ok, hold on

I have already seen those and they are not conclusive at all.

You need studies that compare low and high frequency diets that are high in protein since protein is most thermogenic nutrient. You also need studes that take into account a very large increase in activity (bodybuilders) that reuqires larger thena normal protein intake.

Every study that accounts for catabolic activity shows that an increased meal frequency with adequate amounts of protein decreases catabolic activity compared to low meal frequency with the same amounts of protein over a 24 hour peroid. It is also present in women.

Hum Nutr Clin Nutr. 1984 Jan;38(1):31-8. Related Articles, Links

Feeding frequency and nitrogen balance in weight-reducing obese women.

Antoine JM, Rohr R, Gagey MJ, Bleyer RE, Debry G.

In a prospective trial, ten obese women, each her own reference, ate a 1200 kcal/d slimming diet in six meals a day compared with three meals a day during two 14-d periods. Loss of weight was slightly greater during the six-meal periods when loss of nitrogen was lower and thus loss of lean mass was also lower.

Publication Types:

* Clinical Trial
* Randomized Controlled Trial


PMID: 6693294 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

 

[exnihilo]

1. THe hormonal profile is quite different and so is the "metabolic machinery".

2. No, anything you eat does not take 12 hours to ingest. I don't know where you got that from.

3. The thermic effect of food is MUCH greater and exhausts many more calories when small, high protein meals are ingested. Comparing normal diets with FDA recommendations of protein will not show the differences between normal people and a bodybuilder consuming an excess of 1.5g/kg of bodyweight. Most studies are based on those factors so looking at the normal feeding patterns of woman is hardly conclusive at all.

Um, given that food will spend up to 4 hours in the stomach alone, then easily another 6 in the small intestines (and at that point there is still some minor digestion which takes place in the large intestines) I think my comment was valid. I exempted liquids, which process much more quickly of course. You can google that one easily enough.

Gotta beg to differ on the metabolic machinery comment. Hormones are different, sure, and this certainly causes *SOME* changes on a macroscopic level, but protein metabolism is *BASIC*. That's like saying women don't use the TCA cycle - that damned developmental pattern is nearly universal among life on earth. It just sounds silly.

Yes, the thermic effect of protein is the highest of all the macronutrients, however I've never seen anything to indicate that small, spaced out protein meals provide a greater thermic effect than larger meals.

As always, if you've got some pubmed goods I'm happy to see them. I know you collect those things like bottle caps.

 

[exnihilo]

I have already seen those and they are not conclusive at all.

You need studies that compare low and high frequency diets that are high in protein since protein is most thermogenic nutrient. You also need studes that take into account a very large increase in activity (bodybuilders) that reuqires larger thena normal protein intake.

Every study that accounts for catabolic activity shows that an increased meal frequency with adequate amounts of protein decreases catabolic activity compared to low meal frequency with the same amounts of protein over a 24 hour peroid.

>.<

Give up the goods if you've got them.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

I already did, twice.

You seem to worried about weight loss. I'm worried about FAT loss while maintaing LBM.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

Um, given that food will spend up to 4 hours in the stomach alone, then easily another 6 in the small intestines (and at that point there is still some minor digestion which takes place in the large intestines) I think my comment was valid. I exempted liquids, which process much more quickly of course. You can google that one easily enough.

Gotta beg to differ on the metabolic machinery comment. Hormones are different, sure, and this certainly causes *SOME* changes on a macroscopic level, but protein metabolism is *BASIC*. That's like saying women don't use the TCA cycle - that damned developmental pattern is nearly universal among life on earth. It just sounds silly.

Yes, the thermic effect of protein is the highest of all the macronutrients, however I've never seen anything to indicate that small, spaced out protein meals provide a greater thermic effect than larger meals.

As always, if you've got some pubmed goods I'm happy to see them. I know you collect those things like bottle caps.

Where do you get this from because its completly wrong. There is NO set rate for ANY food. I don't "google" things. I've learned it in class and the host of reference texts I have sitting here right next to me. By the time it reaches the small intestine its not really "FOOD" anymore. Its chyme and depending on nutrient composition takes various times to absorb. So givin these set times is ridiculous.

As far as "metabolic machinery" (whatever that means) there are many differences in rates and total protein turnover which causes either increases protein synthesis and/or increased nitrogen retention. Your general statements comparing weigtht loss in women who do not exercise is ridiculous. THe amounts of rates for men and women is highly different. If you talking about the overall physiology then you could say its relatively the same but the rates and amoutns are completely different.

 

[exnihilo]

Don't know about the study with obese women, but in the boxer study the daily protein intake was 60g (from a liquid source even)? I'm guessing the fat girls didn't get much protein either... when I get down that low I'll be sure to spread it out. Oh, if you have any dietary macronutient composition studies done on advanced strength athletes which are objective with n>1, I'd dig getting a chance to look at them...

I'm more worried about strength loss than anything else If I couldn't at least rep out 315 on the bench I'd feel like a fucking pussy, lol

 

[Dwight Schrute]

U

Yes, the thermic effect of protein is the highest of all the macronutrients, however I've never seen anything to indicate that small, spaced out protein meals provide a greater thermic effect than larger meals.

.

That is because most studies use FDA recommendations of protein intake wihch for most men is around 60-80g/day. Now try tripling that and you will see a difference. There is a reason high protein diets show increased thermogenic effects.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

I'm more worried about strength loss than anything else If I couldn't at least rep out 315 on the bench I'd feel like a fucking pussy, lol

Almost 90% of my clients INCREASE strenght while cutting.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

Don't know about the study with obese women, but in the boxer study the daily protein intake was 60g (from a liquid source even)? I'm guessing the fat girls didn't get much protein either... when I get down that low I'll be sure to spread it out. Oh, if you have any dietary macronutient composition studies done on advanced strength athletes which are objective with n>1, I'd dig getting a chance to look at them...

Il

The study on boxers is more significant than your study with young women. They have increased acitivty and will correlate much more to bodybuilders than your study. And both show less catabolic activity with spaced out meals. I'm not worried about metabolic rate, even though I still think it is increased when those small meals are high in protein (which will increase thermogenic effects). If you retain more muscle, you will many more advantages in the long run in terms of fat burning.

I can find a million studies supporting your claim on metabolic rate and that it has no change but it doens't take into effect the almost triple amouint of protein intake most members here consume, and it does not take into account increased activity. You have to look at the whole picture and not just take studies out of context and state "there is no difference between low or high meal frequency". It simply isn't true.

 

[jjjd]

in the diet recommendations, i see people consistently (like in other threads) downplay the importance of vegetables and fruit

macronutrient ratios are important. so are supplements (multivitamin, creatine), water, etc. but i can't stress this enough. fruits and vegetables are good. they have tons of stuff in them that you can't get anywhere else, or it's hard to get. get them from the source. they can easily fit into the caloric load (although i realize keto dieters may have some problem with fruits)

generally speaking, the more intense and/or dark the fruit color, the more packed with nutrients, anti-oxidants, phyto's etc.

some good ones are : spinach, dark plums, pomegranate, ruby grapefruit, carrot, brussel sprouts, tomatoes, etc.

 

[exnihilo]

Where do you get this from because its completly wrong. There is NO set rate for ANY food. I don't "google" things. I've learned it in class and the host of reference texts I have sitting here right next to me. By the time it reaches the small intestine its not really "FOOD" anymore. Its chyme and depending on nutrient composition takes various times to absorb. So givin these set times is ridiculous.

As far as "metabolic machinery" (whatever that means) there are many differences in rates and total protein turnover which causes either increases protein synthesis and/or increased nitrogen retention. Your general statements comparing weigtht loss in women who do not exercise is ridiculous. THe amounts of rates for men and women is highly different. If you talking about the overall physiology then you could say its relatively the same but the rates and amoutns are completely different.

Hey man, I wouldn't ask you to pull a scientific reference for something stupidly simple like digestion. What it looks like when it reaches the small intestines doesn't matter - what does matter is that there is still matter there which is incompletely digested and will not be digested/absorbed for anywhere from 2-6 hours. With the exception of glucose drinks, even the fastest digesting foods take longer than 3 hours (even whey in water takes longer than this to completely digest and be available). Also, because I have a feeling that there is a communications breakdown, in my original statement I was referring to the amount of time blood glucose/ffa/amino acid levels stay elevated after a meal, NOT the time for those said levels to begin to rise (which, from your statements is the only thing I could really see that would explain the comments you've made).

And when I say "metabolic machinery" I am referring to the myriad of enzyme-reaction complexes which go on in the cell... Now if you had SEM pictures of a female and a male muscle cell how would you tell the difference between them? If they weren't mitotic and the chromatin was uncondensed... They're pretty much exactly the same guy. Hormones play a role, of course, and I'm sure this is going to be the next thing we're going to argue.

As for the study on protein intake in young women, I actually think that is more applicable in some ways, since they weren't eating 1500+ calories below maintenance, and I think the RDAs are moderately applicable for completely sedentary people. It's ATHLETES who need 2-4x more... So with the study on young women you get to see a baseline of how humans respond to timing of protein ingestion as far as absorbtion profile goes. In the case of the boxer study, it would be incredibly applicable if they had fed them 200g pro/day... Shame they didn't. So like I said before, if I ever decide to diet @ 1200 calories/day and only ingest 60g/pro day, I will for SURE spread that **** out.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

Hey man, I wouldn't ask you to pull a scientific reference for something stupidly simple like digestion. What it looks like when it reaches the small intestines doesn't matter - what does matter is that there is still matter there which is incompletely digested and will not be digested/absorbed for anywhere from 2-6 hours. With the exception of glucose drinks, even the fastest digesting foods take longer than 3 hours (even whey in water takes longer than this to completely digest and be available). Also, because I have a feeling that there is a communications breakdown, in my original statement I was referring to the amount of time blood glucose/ffa/amino acid levels stay elevated after a meal, NOT the time for those said levels to begin to rise (which, from your statements is the only thing I could really see that would explain the comments you've made).

And when I say "metabolic machinery" I am referring to the myriad of enzyme-reaction complexes which go on in the cell... Now if you had SEM pictures of a female and a male muscle cell how would you tell the difference between them? If they weren't mitotic and the chromatin was uncondensed... They're pretty much exactly the same guy. Hormones play a role, of course, and I'm sure this is going to be the next thing we're going to argue.

As for the study on protein intake in young women, I actually think that is more applicable in some ways, since they weren't eating 1500+ calories below maintenance, and I think the RDAs are moderately applicable for completely sedentary people. It's ATHLETES who need 2-4x more... So with the study on young women you get to see a baseline of how humans respond to timing of protein ingestion as far as absorbtion profile goes. In the case of the boxer study, it would be incredibly applicable if they had fed them 200g pro/day... Shame they didn't. So like I said before, if I ever decide to diet @ 1200 calories/day and only ingest 60g/pro day, I will for SURE spread that **** out.

I don't need studies to know how digestion takes place. I have already had to teach thos spreading the myth flax slows absortion how wrong they were. Its a old arguement. And for you to place any time limits on digestion and absortion rates of ALL foods is ludicrous.

Your orignal statements? Like these?

"Anything you eat is going to take about 12 hours to fully digest"

"Um, given that food will spend up to 4 hours in the stomach alone, then easily another 6 in the small intestines"

"I've actually talked with lyle about this one a couple times, he's got some good research that refutes it pretty well - FYI. He has plenty of research that pretty clearly indicates that there's no real difference between results with 3 and 6 meals besides meal size."

Well where is it?


You were the one stating the eating 3 meals a day was no different than 6 so please give us evidence of this. I have already shown you evidence of the postive effects when it comes to catabolic activity. So you are going to tell everyone that those studies are showing you nothing and that your study on young women is what we should base our feeding patterns on? Sendentary women? Well if you are reading this and you are a sendetary woman, then eat your 3 meals a day.



Hormones play a MAJOR role. I don't even think we need to argue about that.


As for this comment:

"Also, because I have a feeling that there is a communications breakdown, in my original statement I was referring to the amount of time blood glucose/ffa/amino acid levels stay elevated after a meal,"


Meal frequency has a much more positive effect on a timed out 6 meals per day than 3-9 irregualr meal frequency.

Regular meal frequency creates more appropriate insulin sensitivity and lipid profiles compared with irregular meal frequency in healthy lean women.

Farshchi HR, Taylor MA, Macdonald IA.

Centre for Integrated Systems Biology and Medicine, Institute of Clinical Research, School of Biomedical Sciences, Queen's Medical Centre, University of Nottingham, UK. [email protected]


Nibbling versus gorging: metabolic advantages of increased meal frequency.

Jenkins DJ, Wolever TM, Vuksan V, Brighenti F, Cunnane SC, Rao AV, Jenkins AL, Buckley G, Patten R, Singer W, et al.

Department of Nutritional Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, St. Michael's Hospital, University of Toronto, ON, Canada.

We studied the effect of increasing the frequency of meals on serum lipid concentrations and carbohydrate tolerance in normal subjects. Seven men were assigned in random order to two metabolically identical diets. One diet consisted of 17 snacks per day (the nibbling diet), and the other of three meals per day (the three-meal diet); each diet was followed for two weeks. As compared with the three-meal diet, the nibbling diet reduced fasting serum concentrations of total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and apolipoprotein B by a mean (+/- SE) of 8.5 +/- 2.5 percent (P less than 0.02), 13.5 +/- 3.4 percent (P less than 0.01), and 15.1 +/- 5.7 percent (P less than 0.05), respectively. Although the mean blood glucose level and serum concentrations of free fatty acids, 3-hydroxybutyrate, and triglyceride were similar during both diets, during the nibbling diet the mean serum insulin level decreased by 27.9 +/- 6.3 percent (P less than 0.01) and the mean 24-hour urinary C-peptide output decreased by 20.2 +/- 5.6 percent (P less than 0.02). In addition, the mean 24-hour urinary cortisol excretion was lower by 17.3 +/- 5.9 percent (P less than 0.05) at the end of the nibbling diet than at the end of the three-meal diet. The blood glucose, serum insulin, and C-peptide responses to a standardized breakfast and the results of an intravenous glucose-tolerance test conducted at the end of each diet were similar. We conclude that in addition to the amount and type of food eaten, the frequency of meals may be an important determinant of fasting serum lipid levels, possibly in relation to changes in insulin secretion.


Eur J Clin Nutr. 1994 Jun;48(6):402-7. Related Articles, Links

The effects of altered frequency of eating on plasma lipids in free-living healthy males on normal self-selected diets.

McGrath SA, Gibney MJ.

Department of Clinical Medicine, Trinity College Medical School, St James' Hospital, Dublin, Ireland.

CONCLUSION: These data on free-living subjects following normal self-selected diets support the hypothesis and the substantial related literature that more frequent meal consumption has a favourable effect on lowering plasma cholesterol and raising the HDL/LDL cholesterol ratio.


The effect of food frequency on serum glucose, triglyceride and total cholesterol in niddm patient.

Keshavarz A.

Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Health, Tehran-Iran.

Conclusion: this result shows that high frequency diet reduces fasting serum glucose and triglyceride.



Diabetes Care. 1993 Jan;16(1):4-7. Related Articles, Links

Effect of meal frequency on blood glucose, insulin, and free fatty acids in NIDDM subjects.

Bertelsen J, Christiansen C, Thomsen C, Poulsen PL, Vestergaard S, Steinov A, Rasmussen LH, Rasmussen O, Hermansen K.


CONCLUSIONS--A higher meal frequency acutely subdues glucose excursions and reduces insulin and FFA levels during the daytime in older NIDDM subjects.




That is just scratching the surface. So after all is said and done, there are many benefits of having 6 meals per day and your statement that their is no difference simply isn't true.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

After that, we can get into personal experiences but that really doesn't hold much water....


But then again why would I recommend 6 meals a day if it didn't work better. I would be out of business fairly quick.

 

[Icarus91]

Ok well I used to be in really good shape about a year and a half ago, since then ive grown and inch or 2 and gained id say 25 pounds im leaning towards of fat lol. I have developed some handles and a pot and im disgusted in myself. Id like to get on a 3-4 month program that would help lower my bodyfat level, im not looking to gain any mass at all, id like to slim down first. Thanks for all the respones guys.

 

[exnihilo]

I don't need studies to know how digestion takes place. I have already had to teach thos spreading the myth flax slows absortion how wrong they were. Its a old arguement. And for you to place any time limits on digestion and absortion rates of ALL foods is ludicrous.

Your orignal statements? Like these?

"Anything you eat is going to take about 12 hours to fully digest"

"Um, given that food will spend up to 4 hours in the stomach alone, then easily another 6 in the small intestines"

"I've actually talked with lyle about this one a couple times, he's got some good research that refutes it pretty well - FYI. He has plenty of research that pretty clearly indicates that there's no real difference between results with 3 and 6 meals besides meal size."

Well where is it?


You were the one stating the eating 3 meals a day was no different than 6 so please give us evidence of this. I have already shown you evidence of the postive effects when it comes to catabolic activity. So you are going to tell everyone that those studies are showing you nothing and that your study on young women is what we should base our feeding patterns on? Sendentary women? Well if you are reading this and you are a sendetary woman, then eat your 3 meals a day.



Hormones play a MAJOR role. I don't even think we need to argue about that.


As for this comment:

"Also, because I have a feeling that there is a communications breakdown, in my original statement I was referring to the amount of time blood glucose/ffa/amino acid levels stay elevated after a meal,"


Meal frequency has a much more positive effect on a timed out 6 meals per day than 3-9 irregualr meal frequency.

Regular meal frequency creates more appropriate insulin sensitivity and lipid profiles compared with irregular meal frequency in healthy lean women.

Farshchi HR, Taylor MA, Macdonald IA.

Centre for Integrated Systems Biology and Medicine, Institute of Clinical Research, School of Biomedical Sciences, Queen's Medical Centre, University of Nottingham, UK. [email protected]


Nibbling versus gorging: metabolic advantages of increased meal frequency.

Jenkins DJ, Wolever TM, Vuksan V, Brighenti F, Cunnane SC, Rao AV, Jenkins AL, Buckley G, Patten R, Singer W, et al.

Department of Nutritional Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, St. Michael's Hospital, University of Toronto, ON, Canada.

We studied the effect of increasing the frequency of meals on serum lipid concentrations and carbohydrate tolerance in normal subjects. Seven men were assigned in random order to two metabolically identical diets. One diet consisted of 17 snacks per day (the nibbling diet), and the other of three meals per day (the three-meal diet); each diet was followed for two weeks. As compared with the three-meal diet, the nibbling diet reduced fasting serum concentrations of total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and apolipoprotein B by a mean (+/- SE) of 8.5 +/- 2.5 percent (P less than 0.02), 13.5 +/- 3.4 percent (P less than 0.01), and 15.1 +/- 5.7 percent (P less than 0.05), respectively. Although the mean blood glucose level and serum concentrations of free fatty acids, 3-hydroxybutyrate, and triglyceride were similar during both diets, during the nibbling diet the mean serum insulin level decreased by 27.9 +/- 6.3 percent (P less than 0.01) and the mean 24-hour urinary C-peptide output decreased by 20.2 +/- 5.6 percent (P less than 0.02). In addition, the mean 24-hour urinary cortisol excretion was lower by 17.3 +/- 5.9 percent (P less than 0.05) at the end of the nibbling diet than at the end of the three-meal diet. The blood glucose, serum insulin, and C-peptide responses to a standardized breakfast and the results of an intravenous glucose-tolerance test conducted at the end of each diet were similar. We conclude that in addition to the amount and type of food eaten, the frequency of meals may be an important determinant of fasting serum lipid levels, possibly in relation to changes in insulin secretion.


Eur J Clin Nutr. 1994 Jun;48(6):402-7. Related Articles, Links

The effects of altered frequency of eating on plasma lipids in free-living healthy males on normal self-selected diets.

McGrath SA, Gibney MJ.

Department of Clinical Medicine, Trinity College Medical School, St James' Hospital, Dublin, Ireland.

CONCLUSION: These data on free-living subjects following normal self-selected diets support the hypothesis and the substantial related literature that more frequent meal consumption has a favourable effect on lowering plasma cholesterol and raising the HDL/LDL cholesterol ratio.


The effect of food frequency on serum glucose, triglyceride and total cholesterol in niddm patient.

Keshavarz A.

Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Health, Tehran-Iran.

Conclusion: this result shows that high frequency diet reduces fasting serum glucose and triglyceride.



Diabetes Care. 1993 Jan;16(1):4-7. Related Articles, Links

Effect of meal frequency on blood glucose, insulin, and free fatty acids in NIDDM subjects.

Bertelsen J, Christiansen C, Thomsen C, Poulsen PL, Vestergaard S, Steinov A, Rasmussen LH, Rasmussen O, Hermansen K.


CONCLUSIONS--A higher meal frequency acutely subdues glucose excursions and reduces insulin and FFA levels during the daytime in older NIDDM subjects.




That is just scratching the surface. So after all is said and done, there are many benefits of having 6 meals per day and your statement that their is no difference simply isn't true.

LOL. I love the way you argue, you'd drive my old college logic professor nuts - he'd probably start throwing books at you. You should have stayed in law school, you'd make a good civil litigation/criminal litigation lawyer.

We should make up our minds about how we're gonna look at studies, because with the exception of the study done on boxers (which has some issues of it's own that we've already gone over) no studies you've pasted have been on frequently exercising fairly healthy young males, and you've attacked me on that basis - several times. So what's it gonna be? Can't have it both ways...

By the way, I applaud you on putting forth the research, that's the sort of thing I like to see! It's real easy to get agreement out of me - if you post all the pertinent research, then make postulations based on the data that follow a clear logical progression which to your diet/training methodology (keeping in mind to be internally consistent about things like research on sedentary individuals and what not) why would I bother arguing against that? I'm 100% down with synthetic creations based on solid science, as long as there are no faulty logical jumps or what not. Anyhow, It's good that you keep them archived, it's very useful as an argument tool.

In the end if you feel it's worth the trouble, for you it probably is, even if it's just the placebo effect LOL. It's too much trouble for me to bother, eating enough to grow without overdoing it on the oreo cookies (and getting in enough protein) is hard enough - and I'm happy being huge and slightly smooth, even in baggy clothes it's ridiculously OBVIOUS that I'm jacked, and I get my share of muscle groupies

 

[Dwight Schrute]

LOL. I love the way you argue, you'd drive my old college logic professor nuts - he'd probably start throwing books at you. You should have stayed in law school, you'd make a good civil litigation/criminal litigation lawyer.

We should make up our minds about how we're gonna look at studies, because with the exception of the study done on boxers (which has some issues of it's own that we've already gone over) no studies you've pasted have been on frequently exercising fairly healthy young males, and you've attacked me on that basis - several times. So what's it gonna be? Can't have it both ways...

By the way, I applaud you on putting forth the research, that's the sort of thing I like to see! It's real easy to get agreement out of me - if you post all the pertinent research, then make postulations based on the data that follow a clear logical progression which to your diet/training methodology (keeping in mind to be internally consistent about things like research on sedentary individuals and what not) why would I bother arguing against that? I'm 100% down with synthetic creations based on solid science, as long as there are no faulty logical jumps or what not. Anyhow, It's good that you keep them archived, it's very useful as an argument tool.

In the end if you feel it's worth the trouble, for you it probably is, even if it's just the placebo effect LOL. It's too much trouble for me to bother, eating enough to grow without overdoing it on the oreo cookies (and getting in enough protein) is hard enough - and I'm happy being huge and slightly smooth, even in baggy clothes it's ridiculously OBVIOUS that I'm jacked, and I get my share of muscle groupies

I see you have adopted the "strawman" tactics.

Who was the first person to post a study on young women to back his point?

I post a study on boxers in which you stated was not as relevant as your "young woman" studies. Then I posted one on women in which you dismissed. It seems that if the study is not in sedentary women you will not acknowledge anything. Your study didn't really conclude anything anyway.

Was it not you who stated that physiologies are the same? SO in that case my studies DO show relevance. I am just supplying you the information based on your own viewpoints.


I tihnk its YOU who has to make up his mind on what arguement you want to follow. It seems you keep changing your points and diverting the subject into other areas because you were simply wrong in your original statement.


As for placebo, then I guess the success stories in my forum are all placebo along with my own results.


"It's too much trouble for me to bother, eating enough to grow without overdoing it on the oreo cookies (and getting in enough protein) is hard enough - and I'm happy being huge and slightly smooth"


I tihnk that about sums it up. It seems since you won't bother to even try and admit its too much trouble so you are looking for reasons to believe your point is valid. I guess peace of mind to you is priceless or comforting at the least. It really isn't that hard and I cn'at count how many people say they can't get enough protein withouth using massive amounts of shakes. My clients can tell you I provide them with ample amounts of protein withouth them feeling gorged.

Either way you put it, whether you want me to use studies done on athletes, sedentary women, normal healthy males (2 out of 3 studies above) I can make my point and back it up quite nicely.

So you can pick which point of view you want to look at this from, I am covered on all sides.

So back to the main point, eating more frequent meals DOES show to have very postiive effects.



The simple fact you started analyzing arguement tactice instead of posting evidence to back you point says enough for me...





:thumbsup:

 

[exnihilo]

I see you have adopted the "strawman" tactics.

Who was the first person to post a study on young women to back his point?

I post a study on boxers in which you stated was not as relevant as your "young woman" studies. Then I posted one on women in which you dismissed. It seems that if the study is not in sedentary women you will not acknowledge anything. Your study didn't really conclude anything anyway.

Was it not you who stated that physiologies are the same? SO in that case my studies DO show relevance. I am just supplying you the information based on your own viewpoints.


I tihnk its YOU who has to make up his mind on what arguement you want to follow. It seems you keep changing your points and diverting the subject into other areas because you were simply wrong in your original statement.


As for placebo, then I guess the success stories in my forum are all placebo along with my own results.


"It's too much trouble for me to bother, eating enough to grow without overdoing it on the oreo cookies (and getting in enough protein) is hard enough - and I'm happy being huge and slightly smooth"


I tihnk that about sums it up. It seems since you won't bother to even try and admit its too much trouble so you are looking for reasons to believe your point is valid. I guess peace of mind to you is priceless or comforting at the least. It really isn't that hard and I cn'at count how many people say they can't get enough protein withouth using massive amounts of shakes. My clients can tell you I provide them with ample amounts of protein withouth them feeling gorged.

Either way you put it, whether you want me to use studies done on athletes, sedentary women, normal healthy males (2 out of 3 studies above) I can make my point and back it up quite nicely.

So you can pick which point of view you want to look at this from, I am covered on all sides.

So back the main point, eating more frequent meals DOES have very postiive effects.



The simple fact you started analyzing arguement tactice instead of posting evidence to back you point says enough for me...





:thumbsup:

Heh. Quite aggressive! Strawman, lol - If *I* was adopting any fallacy it would be an ad hominem, attacking your person, not strawman. I stated it because I think your argument style is funny, but you might want to watch it sometimes, it could alienate people who aren't patient and detached.

The research you posted on insulin sensitivity and lipid profile is good research in my book, and I will certainly look at the full text of those studies when I get the chance, as it may hold some merit (though it may be the case that the minor endogenous hormone modulation that is taking place is not sufficient to DO anything, as we've seen with radical changes in GH production due to a variety of things).

Points you've earned so far:

1. Eating frequent regular meals has an effect on normal sedentary individuals, IRT insulin sensitivity and lipid profiles. Whether this is significant enough to bring about any long term morphological changes has not been determined, but if you have a study that shows that changes in insulin sensitivity similar to those in the studies you posted (the full articles do have actual hard numbers on the insulin sensitivity delta I'd imagine) correlates with statistically significant differences in leanness and lean body mass in a general population, I'll give you that point (I already eat >6 (somewhat irregular) meals, not for the reasons you outline though) and it'll be fairly earned. Otherwise we'll just have to agree to disagree.

2. Given grossly inadequate protein ingestion and severe caloric deficit, protein intake spread out over an extended period contributes to improved nitrogen retention. Again, please post studies where individuals eating large amounts of protein with a caloric surplus or moderate caloric deficit had improved nitrogen retention through small, extended feeding. I want to see it if you have it. Given the quantity of protein I ingest (which is already somewhat spread out anyhow) I doubt it'd make any significant difference in my case, but I'm always happy to improve my diet if it's something simple I can do like not eating all my chicken breasts in one sitting.

I'm trying to make this as easy for you as possible, please let's keep this productive ok? If you can't produce what I've asked for just let me know, so we don't waste any more time bickering - I've got other things to do.

And please, don't try to psychoanalyze me, that's not cool bro. I have my attitude for a good reason: I bust my ass and work hard with the very best of them in everything I do, and I'm not going to throw away my free time on something as time consuming as eating 6 regularly sized meals with fixed amounts of protein, which has not been clearly shown to have a significant benefit. I know a lot of other bros out there are like me in this regard, and I hate to see people who bust their ass throw away their free time needlessly, I think that's shitty. You see where I'm going with this?

I'm glad your clients have success, I want to see people succeed in their goals with a minimum of suffering and needlessly consumed time and energy. I'm sure everything you have your clients do has some benefit for them, whether it derives from psychological or physiological causes. If people feel better about themselves I'm happy for them...

 

[Dwight Schrute]

Heh. Quite aggressive! Strawman, lol - If *I* was adopting any fallacy it would be an ad hominem, attacking your person, not strawman. I stated it because I think your argument style is funny, but you might want to watch it sometimes, it could alienate people who aren't patient and detached.

The research you posted on insulin sensitivity and lipid profile is good research in my book, and I will certainly look at the full text of those studies when I get the chance, as it may hold some merit (though it may be the case that the minor endogenous hormone modulation that is taking place is not sufficient to DO anything, as we've seen with radical changes in GH production due to a variety of things).

Points you've earned so far:

1. Eating frequent regular meals has an effect on normal sedentary individuals, IRT insulin sensitivity and lipid profiles. Whether this is significant enough to bring about any long term morphological changes has not been determined, but if you have a study that shows that changes in insulin sensitivity similar to those in the studies you posted (the full articles do have actual hard numbers on the insulin sensitivity delta I'd imagine) correlates with statistically significant differences in leanness and lean body mass in a general population, I'll give you that point (I already eat >6 (somewhat irregular) meals, not for the reasons you outline though) and it'll be fairly earned. Otherwise we'll just have to agree to disagree.

2. Given grossly inadequate protein ingestion and severe caloric deficit, protein intake spread out over an extended period contributes to improved nitrogen retention. Again, please post studies where individuals eating large amounts of protein with a caloric surplus or moderate caloric deficit had improved nitrogen retention through small, extended feeding. I want to see it if you have it. Given the quantity of protein I ingest (which is already somewhat spread out anyhow) I doubt it'd make any significant difference in my case, but I'm always happy to improve my diet if it's something simple I can do like not eating all my chicken breasts in one sitting.

I'm trying to make this as easy for you as possible, please let's keep this productive ok? If you can't produce what I've asked for just let me know, so we don't waste any more time bickering - I've got other things to do.

And please, don't try to psychoanalyze me, that's not cool bro. I have my attitude for a good reason: I bust my ass and work hard with the very best of them in everything I do, and I'm not going to throw away my free time on something as time consuming as eating 6 regularly sized meals with fixed amounts of protein, which has not been clearly shown to have a significant benefit. I know a lot of other bros out there are like me in this regard, and I hate to see people who bust their ass throw away their free time needlessly, I think that's shitty. You see where I'm going with this?

I'm glad your clients have success, I want to see people succeed in their goals with a minimum of suffering and needlessly consumed time and energy. I'm sure everything you have your clients do has some benefit for them, whether it derives from psychological or physiological causes. If people feel better about themselves I'm happy for them...

1. That is there problem then, not mine. I will take your advice and think about it. Then again, maybe I won't. As for being funny, I will be here all week.


2. Points I have earned: Meal frequecny is important and provides numerous benefits. Points you have not earned: Meal frequency doens't make a difference. Its really that simple.

3. I could care less about your attitude.

4. I see where you are going with this. You don't feel like having a structured meal plan yet say those that do are wasting theri time. Yeah, we all see where you are going with it. Its in your first post telling BigCasino that he is taking all the fun out of eating. Well maybe there are people that take it a bit more serious than you do. Maybe many people don't want to be smooth. I see those "smooth" guys everday. They are the ones that eventually ask me how to cut successfully after realizing they are only fooling themselves. But that is another arguement..

5. Your constant reference to things being a placebo effect is comical. Is this what you do when you run out of evidence?


I have given you plenty already. See Exnihilo, you were the one who made the intitial statement so the burden of proof is on you. I just gave the other side of the coin and showed why you were wrong. Maybe you could actually provide some evidence next time instead of analyzing debate tactics and giving us your philosphoy of "I do just enough to make me happy".

What is funny exhihilo is that you criticize my point of view when studies are given to support my points. You make statements like

"significant enough to bring about any long term morphological changes has not been determined"

"Again, please post studies......I want to see it if you have it. Given the quantity of protein I ingest (which is already somewhat spread out anyhow) I doubt it'd make any significant difference in my case,"

All the while you hold on to your belief from ONE study on "young women".

Now THAT is funny.


You made the statement, YOU prove the point. I have "earned" my points, now earn yours for a change.

And I can phychoanalyze you because your attitude is so transparent. The same applies for me but I don't take offense. I have been analyzed a million times and it seems the ones that care are the ones with the biggest insecurities. But that is nother subject....


Don't get your panties in an uproar just because your intial point was wrong. Its not a crime. It happens. Leanr form it and move on.

As for wasting time, I wish I could have the last 5 minutes back after reading your last 3 posts. You type a lot of words but say very little.

Off to bed. I think the thread has filled up with enough irrelavant discussion. I will put it to sleep for another time....

Have a nice night.




:wave:

 

[Dwight Schrute]

The simple fact you started analyzing arguement tactics instead of posting evidence to back you point says enough for me...

:thumbsup: