early morning workout

[swollen87]

Interesting post, but this is mostly speculation and oppinion.

Do you have an actual link to the ISSA statement paper?

Br

issa? the cert?

not sure what youre asking...

while it is mostly speculation and opinion, it is an opinion i am very likely to co-sign.... but then again... opinions are like assh0les, everyones got one and they all stink....


being a trainer myself and of course a trainee, i find my performance/physique respond best to eating 2 smaller meals, and a giant meal post workout... the athletes i train seem to respond best to this as well.. so do the old ladies i train (lol yes... i will train women too)

the other way i eat/train is fasted in the morning, with a large meal afterwards, and two smaller meals later in the day


although if someone were trying to "bulk" i could see where eating 6 meals could help....

 

[binogym]

It is personal preference. Not sure of your goals, but if your trying to get shredded really fast it is a faster way to lose weight and muscle. Think about it, you have nothing in your stomach therefore it will use your muscles that are made of proteins as a main energy source. Simple science bro.

Sorry bro but u are completely wrong.First source of energy is glycogen so carbs, but if you are a well trained guy your body will get the energy from the fat deposit IF YOU KEEP AN EYE ON YOUR HEART BEATS when you do cardio.

 

[JudoJosh]

Interesting post, but this is mostly speculation and oppinion.

Do you have an actual link to the ISSA statement paper?

Br

http://www.jissn.com/content/8/1/4

 

[ZiR RED]

Swollen, the paper they were quoting in that thread that Josh posted above me.

As the authors stated, there's really not a lot of research out there with regards to trained subjects and body composition.

Here is what they found for athletic populations, which seems to oppose what was said in that previous thread. Now, the study was done with 6 feeds: 3 meals and 3 snacks, not 6 equally sized meals:

A published abstract by Benardot et al. [49] demonstrated that when a 250 calorie snack was given to 60 male and female college athletes for two weeks after breakfast, lunch, and dinner, as opposed to a non-caloric placebo, a significant amount of fat (-1.03%) was lost and lean body mass (+1.2 kg) gained. Furthermore, a significant increase in anaerobic power and energy output was observed via a 30-second Wingate test in those that consumed the 250 calorie snack [49]. Conversely, no significant changes were observed in those consuming the non-caloric placebo. Interestingly, when individuals consumed the total snacks of 750 kcals a day, they only had a non-significant increase in total daily caloric consumption of 128 kcals [49]. In other words, they concomitantly ate fewer calories at each meal. Lastly, when the 250 kcal snacks were removed, the aforementioned values moved back to baseline levels 4 weeks later [49].
In conclusion, the small body of studies that utilized athletes as study participants demonstrated that increased meal frequency had the following benefits:
• suppression of lean body mass losses during a hypocaloric diet [51]
• significant increases in lean body mass and anaerobic power [49] (abstract)
• significant increases in fat loss [49] (abstract)
These trends indicate that if meal frequency improves body composition, it is likely to occur in an athletic population as opposed to a sedentary population. While no experimental studies have investigated why athletes may benefit more from increased meal frequency as compared to sedentary individuals, it may be due to the anabolic stimulus of exercise training and how ingested nutrients are partitioned throughout the body. It is also possible that a greater energy flux (intake and expenditure) leads to increased futile cycling, and over time, this has beneficial effects on body composition.

Br

 

[ZiR RED]

Surely there must be some science showing an increase in muscle mass, an increase in performance, a decrease IM body fat, etc... Rt? I mean studies showing real PROOF that say 6 "feedings" increases performance, muscle mass, etc.. would be the holy grail for sup companys rt? So there should be a ton of scientific evidence showing more feedings to be more effective for muscle gains, fat loss, strength, performance, etc... I just have never seen any. But if people knew they didn't have to eat every 2 hrs and don't need 2-3 grams of protein per lb .... What would happen to all the protein powder being sold?

Its hard to find reliable studies that show either. The reason why is it is difficult to conduct a longitudinal study examining body composition: subject drop out, subject not following protocol, etc. It's also not as important nor likely to be funded by the NIH.

I agree with your thoughts on eating every 2 hours and over consumption of protein.

Br

 

[JudoJosh]

Swollen, the paper they were quoting in that thread that Josh posted above me.

As the authors stated, there's really not a lot of research out there with regards to trained subjects and body composition.

Here is what they found for athletic populations, which seems to oppose what was said in that previous thread. Now, the study was done with 6 feeds: 3 meals and 3 snacks, not 6 equally sized meals:



Br

The problem with the Benardot et al, study is the less frequent eating group had a lower overall energy intake. I think it is next to impossible to try and credit the increase in anaerobic power and lean mass to higher frequency eating when it could have simply been due to the overall increased energy intake they had. It was a very poor design IMO. The total energy and macronutrition between groups should have been the same if they planned on making the argument of frequency is superior.

 

[ZiR RED]

The problem with the Benardot et al, study is the less frequent eating group had a lower overall energy intake. I think it is next to impossible to try and credit the increase in anaerobic power and lean mass to higher frequency eating when it could have simply been due to the overall increased energy intake they had. It was a very poor design IMO. The total energy and macronutrition between groups should have been the same if they planned on making the argument of frequency is superior.

Excellent point. That pretty much negates much of the conclusions drawn from that study.

And I should be beaten for not reading the actual study.