mike blue
New member
- Awards
- 0
Anyone else have trouble ever eating as much as there suppose to sometimes? There's days I just don't feel hungry what do I do? I try to make myself eat anyways
Please don't listen to anything of this...Breakfast is not needed, meals don't speed up metabolism, no matter how many you have...and hunger is not always directly correlated to net caloric expenditure...If your not hungry, your not burning enough calories throughout your day. If I wake up at 10pm and sat around my house doing nothing all day I may eat 3 times. If I wake up(like normal) at 530, goto work for 10 hours, get off and goto the gym, and come home. I eat 6-7 meals a day EASILY. Breakfast is a MUST* it starts your metabolism for the day, if you can't eat in the morning try not eating so much about 2 hours before bed. You will wake up hungry guaranteed.
P.S. Stop being a little girl and shove the food down your mouth. I am not referring to 5 slices of cheesy pizza either.
This.Please don't listen to anything of this...Breakfast is not needed, meals don't speed up metabolism, no matter how many you have...and hunger is not always directly correlated to net caloric expenditure...
Google PES Anabeta or search Anabeta here.This may be a really stupid question, and if so feel free to flame me, but what is anabeta?
How do you dose Anabeta when you take it 4x/day? Do you take 1 cap with meals 4x/day?[/QUOTE]All else fails, Anabeta 4x a day and good luck satiating the hunger.
^^^this^^^Never have a trouble with eating...but if appetite stimulation is needed...AnaBeta FTW.
While meal frequency has absolutely nothing to do with increasing metabolism, I find it really helps with satiation (whether that is psychological or real I'm not sure). And my clients who eat complete and filling breakfast do better later in the day than those who skip. Not saying its a must, but it definitlely helps someGosh I can't stand the whole "breakfast is the most important meal of the day" or the "eat every 2 hours to speed up your metabolism" BS that the media feeds to everyone and that the majority ends up buying...
I have to argue with people from work that are significantly overweight about me not eating breakfast and have to keep calm and not be rude when they say "you have to eat breakfast! it's the most important meal of the day! or else you'll end up gaining weight!". Yeah... Let's see, I'm 225, 6'4'', 10% BF. You're 225, 5'8'', 30% of body fat. Let me go right ahead and listen to you.
Aaaanyways, back to the topic at hand.
If you're not hungry and looking for calories, why not add some good fats to your diet to add up some calories? Load up your foods with Olive oil, eat Peanut Butter, eat some Almonds, Cashews or Pecans throughout the day, snack on some of that stuff and you'll be golden.
All else fails, Anabeta 4x a day and good luck satiating the hunger.
Also a matter of being accustomed to it. If you skip breakfast for a month you'll most likely no longer feel the need for it. And psychological can be very well controlled if you count your calories and keep track of your macros.While meal frequency has absolutely nothing to do with increasing metabolism, I find it really helps with satiation (whether that is psychological or real I'm not sure). And my clients who eat complete and filling breakfast do better later in the day than those who skip. Not saying its a must, but it definitlely helps some
amen to that.I love bulking season! I love to eat!
Whole food is always best but if you are struggling to get a needed meal down a shake won't hurt. It can still keep your calorie and macro intake in check. I like Muscle Milk for this, it is much closer to a full meal considering macros than most shakes and as easy as water to drink.Thanks! And do u think maybe some muscle milk as a meal replacement would work or no?
Breakfast is not required to build muscle but it is very important. There is plenty of science to show the benefits of breakfast on physique goals though you only need common sense.Please don't listen to anything of this...Breakfast is not needed, meals don't speed up metabolism, no matter how many you have...and hunger is not always directly correlated to net caloric expenditure...
Please refer to Intermittent Fasting to see how breakfast is not important nor has been proved to show real benefits when in comparison to absence of such. There has been little to no evidence supporting the need for breakfast if caloric intake remains steady.Breakfast is not required to build muscle but it is very important. There is plenty of science to show the benefits of breakfast on physique goals though you only need common sense.
Can you show where meals don't speed up metabolism?
No, hunger is not always directly correlated to net caloric expenditure, but if the OP has a specific goal and knows the nutritional requirements to reach it, it doesn't matter. He needs to eat his goals and shakes can help if it's tough to down food.
[h=1]Does food restriction retard aging by reducing the metabolic rate?[/h]
Metabolic rate was determined by measuring O2 consumption in two groups of 6-mo-old male rats fed ad libitum (group 1) or maintained on a life-prolonging food-restriction regimen for 4.5 mo (group 2). These measurements were made continuously for 23.75 h under conditions nearly identical to those of the daily life of the rats. The metabolic rate per kilogram lean body mass was the same for both groups, a finding contrary to the hypothesis that food restriction retards the aging process and prolongs life by slowing the metabolic rate per unit of metabolic mass. This and our previous work strongly suggest that the classic views of the action of food restriction on aging must be re-evaluated because retardation of the aging process can occur without the restriction of calories or any other nutrient per unit of lean body mass. The long held belief that reducing food intake lowers the metabolic rate per unit of metabolic mass may be true in short-term dietary programs but appears not to be true when a significant portion of the life span is involved.
[h=1]Effects of feeding on metabolic rate, and the Specific Dynamic Action in plaice, Pleuronectes platessa L.[/h]
The rate of oxygen consumption of plaice increases after feeding and declines to a resting level after 24–72 h. The maximum increase corresponds to a level which is approximately twice the resting rate of oxygen consumption. This increase corresponds to the Specific Dynamic Action (SDA) and increases in magnitude with increase in food intake. The magnitude is greatest with high protein content diets. The duration of the SDA effect is reduced with increase in temperature and increases with the percentage of protein in the diet.
Meals do speed up metabolism, it just doesn't matter if you split it up into 2 meals or 100... The effect on your metabolism will be the sameBreakfast is not required to build muscle but it is very important. There is plenty of science to show the benefits of breakfast on physique goals though you only need common sense.
Can you show where meals don't speed up metabolism?
No, hunger is not always directly correlated to net caloric expenditure, but if the OP has a specific goal and knows the nutritional requirements to reach it, it doesn't matter. He needs to eat his goals and shakes can help if it's tough to down food.
Indeed, and it would take more than 24 hours of starvation for it to start showing signs of a decline.Meals do speed up metabolism, it just doesn't matter if you split it up into 2 meals or 100... The effect on your metabolism will be the same
For every intermittent fasting argument there are one hundred demonstrating the value of breakfast and a steady stream of nutrients, especially on a bulk. I can copy and paste hundreds of pages of google results if you'd like.Please refer to Intermittent Fasting to see how breakfast is not important nor has been proved to show real benefits when in comparison to absence of such. There has been little to no evidence supporting the need for breakfast if caloric intake remains steady.
Can you show me the studies that show meals do speed up metabolism?
Regarding protein synthesis, I'm not going to write a research paper on a common knowledge topic. If you're on this website you have access to google too. Start with essentially every body building diet before like two years ago and discount them. Discount absolutely everything I've written if you must, plus all of the bodybuilding community before like 2010 to cherry pick irrelevent discussions.Post some of these ample studies.
So many people have been brainwashed into believing the rhetoric purported by a myriad of supplement companies that you need X amount of meals and X grams of protein without any peer-reviewed data to back it up. Even the whole "nutrient timing" shenanigan is taken out of context and does not apply to 99% of the people that follow these principles. Regarding TEF, it doesn't matter if it's 1 meal or 10 meals, ~10% of calories will be burned via TEF (there is some variance depending on macros, but nothing huge) without a significant correlation in meal frequency and metabolic rate.
Exactly what topic did I dodge of yours? I responded directly to your claims regarding meal frequency, TEF, and the concept of nutrient timing as purported by Dr Ivy. Not only that, I showed the horrible flaws in the studies that you posted to try to support your position. The first completely showed the irrelevance regarding meal frequency on something much larger and that is RMR, but you actually have to read the study to find that and not just rely on the abstract. The second study just defines what TEF is, which no person is refuting, and the third has to do with macronutrient consumption and TEF, which is a completely separate topic than meal frequency and IF.@Rodja, you are very good at dodging logic, I will give you that. You've effectively ignored 85% of my posts while contradicting yourself. I've never heard of your company but if I'm somehow disagreeing with a supplement protocol you are pushing based around intermittent fasting, my apologies. Fasting diets are a drop in the bucket though. If you legitimately don't believe nutrient timing can be manipulated to maintain anabolism, I have to say I will not be looking in to PES, but that's just me. As I've said, I don't argue that intermittent fasting ( a diet built on nutrient timing) doesn't work but it isn't the king of the hill or even the clear cut "winner". You've asked me to show you why not and I have. You are simply choosing to ignore the data presented that you requested instead of replying intelligently. Have fun. I'm done. You still haven't told the OP how skipping a meal will help him cram in the macros he's having a hard time eating though.
Ok, one last post and you can take it away. Every one of your "points" was countered by demonstrated research that you then pull out of the context that was the response to your question and go on to state that the studies I did post are simply wrong... because you said so. Sounds legit. In context you are not only off topic but rambling. The first quoted study is very clear, the second brings in to question the ability to absorb nutrients at various levels of intake which creates a larger equation than a simple ratio and as stated the third demonstrates that various foods yield varying net calories upon consumption. Altogether the studies show that consistent meals provide a significant thermal effect over fasting based diets and that when utilized intelligently nutritient timing absolutely can be used to manipulate the amount of net calories absorbed through the thermal effect of digesting the food itself.Exactly what topic did I dodge of yours? I responded directly to your claims regarding meal frequency, TEF, and the concept of nutrient timing as purported by Dr Ivy. Not only that, I showed the horrible flaws in the studies that you posted to try to support your position. The first completely showed the irrelevance regarding meal frequency on something much larger and that is RMR, but you actually have to read the study to find that and not just rely on the abstract. The second study just defines what TEF is, which no person is refuting, and the third has to do with macronutrient consumption and TEF, which is a completely separate topic than meal frequency and IF.
What I love most by this whole post, though, is your attempt to besmirch PES when one of our products, Anabeta has been recommended several times to increase his hunger. So, in the end, the joke's on you in your attempt to use my posts as some form on discrediting the efficacy on PES as a company.
I won't spell it out for you but I'll give you a hint, one such study was posted above. You will need to use some deductive reasoning of your own, but not really, it's pretty black and white.Still have yet to see the scientific evidence that supports "eating more often will increase your metabolism"
Did you actually read the entire studies that you posted or just portions of them? The first study actually disproves the main premise of the importance of increased meal frequency, which is an increase in actual metabolism and RMR. The second just shows the ratio of TEF and the third is a COMPLETELY different topic altogether of macros, not meal frequency. Your feeble attempt to stitch them together even though there isn't any similarity between them other than nutrition to support your position is very weak. I'm not sure where you learned how to decipher research, but you either need to request your money back or didn't pay attention. The concept of nutrient timing based upon Ivy's research is done of endurance athletes with protocols of intentional glycogen depletion. Is that relevant to your training at all? I didn't think so. At no point did I promote the idea of IF for the OP, which further demonstrates your inability to derive information. I merely pointed out the dogmatic rhetoric that is constantly, and ignorantly, pounded over and over again. Now, if you actually want to post something showing a favorable shift in body composition based upon increased meal frequency, the go ahead and do so. Nothing that you posted demonstrated this effect and/or promotes the idea of increasing meal frequency as a means of metabolic boosting.Ok, one last post and you can take it away. Every one of your "points" was countered by demonstrated research that you then pull out of the context that was the response to your question and go on to state that the studies I did post are simply wrong... because you said so. Sounds legit. In context you are not only off topic but rambling. The first quoted study is very clear, the second brings in to question the ability to absorb nutrients at various levels of intake which creates a larger equation than a simple ratio and as stated the third demonstrates that various foods yield varying net calories upon consumption. Altogether the studies show that consistent meals provide a significant thermal effect over fasting based diets and that when utilized intelligently nutritient timing absolutely can be used to manipulate the amount of net calories absorbed through the thermal effect of digesting the food itself.
Secondly, as stated, I had never heard of your company though I have to take that back. I have heard of erase. I used Novadex XT while it was available a couple times but did hear a few good things about erase as well. Either way, I'm not trying to stab at PES. I have no interest in it. I do not represent any supplement companies and could care less. I do think you are off base and if you are chosen to represent a company but don't believe in nutrient timing, I don't believe in the principles you represent and wouldn't spend money with you, but again, that's just me and nothing personal.
Thirdly and oddly, though you don't believe in nutrient timing or mainitaining a stream of aminos, the diet you are pushing is not only based on nutrient timing but recommends BCAA's during the fasting intervals. You make an interesting study in and of yourself. It's like you're arguing with your own diet. I don't get it. But hey, nutrient timing and keeping a stream of aminos running through you is working so...
And in context, the OP shouldn't be skipping meals when his problem is fitting enough macros in. Even intermittent fasting relies on a pre-determined level of macros. And nutrient timing and a steady stream of aminos. Your whole premise arguing all of that is just weird and off base to begin with.
Now for real, I'm out.
You posted earlier that the OP should eat breakfast because he is trying to get in more macros; yet ive always read that missing meals is the cause for overeating and therefore leads to obesity. :laugh:I won't spell it out for you but I'll give you a hint, one such study was posted above. You will need to use some deductive reasoning of your own, but not really, it's pretty black and white.
F*%&, I posted again! I hate the internet.
A diet based on Macro-Nutrient and/or kCaloric allotment (depending on the goal, strength or physique) = win.You posted earlier that the OP should eat breakfast because he is trying to get in more macros; yet ive always read that missing meals is the cause for overeating and therefore leads to obesity. :laugh:
In all seriousness listen to what Rodjas saying; new research shows us that as long as macro goals are met (in however many meals this takes), the outcome will invariably be the same.
Yeah well in that case IF is the fast track to fata$$! :banana:You posted earlier that the OP should eat breakfast because he is trying to get in more macros; yet ive always read that missing meals is the cause for overeating and therefore leads to obesity. :laugh:
In all seriousness listen to what Rodjas saying; new research shows us that as long as macro goals are met (in however many meals this takes), the outcome will invariably be the same.
:blink: unless you are 300 lbs or you are on a really good AAS c0cktail, why in the hell would you eat 300g of protein? Worse...why in the almighty-lord-of-iron's name would you think you absorb 300g of protein over 6 meals!? 1g/lb of LBM is more than enough...please just stop discussing this subject, you are just dig a deeper grave of disbelief upon your posts !!!Yeah well in that case IF is the fast track to fata$$! :banana:
As I said a few times, I don't discount the research or anecdotal evidence that IF can help people achieve physiques they want, I'm also not going to discount time tested methods. As far as research is concerned, there is basically all of bodybuilding prior to 2010 or so. Call it dogma but sitting down and eating 300 grams of protein in one meal won't have the same effect as eating the same amount over 5-6 meals. Most of it would just turn to poo. But nutrient absorption is another topic so we can't talk about that :no: even though many facets tie in together where nutrition and physiques are concerned.
Speaking of anecdotal, how many fad diets with purported research have turned belly up? Oodles. I have high hopes for IF but as mentioned, at best it will find it's permanent resting place among a smattering of other tried and true diets as time moves on. Plus it totally utilizes nutrient timing and a constant barrage of aminos so I'm still not sure what all the fuss is about. Or how it pertains to the OP.
Because steak is delicious. :hump::blink: unless you are 300 lbs or you are on a really good AAS c0cktail, why in the hell would you eat 300g of protein? Worse...why in the almighty-lord-of-iron's name would you think you absorb 300g of protein over 6 meals!? 1g/lb of LBM is more than enough...please just stop discussing this subject, you are just dig a deeper grave of disbelief upon your posts !!!
I didn't realize that BB'ing counts as peer-reviewed research...Yeah well in that case IF is the fast track to fata$$! :banana:
As I said a few times, I don't discount the research or anecdotal evidence that IF can help people achieve physiques they want, I'm also not going to discount time tested methods. As far as research is concerned, there is basically all of bodybuilding prior to 2010 or so. Call it dogma but sitting down and eating 300 grams of protein in one meal won't have the same effect as eating the same amount over 5-6 meals. Most of it would just turn to poo. But nutrient absorption is another topic so we can't talk about that :no: even though many facets tie in together where nutrition and physiques are concerned.
Speaking of anecdotal, how many fad diets with purported research have turned belly up? Oodles. I have high hopes for IF but as mentioned, at best it will find it's permanent resting place among a smattering of other tried and true diets as time moves on. Plus it totally utilizes nutrient timing and a constant barrage of aminos so I'm still not sure what all the fuss is about. Or how it pertains to the OP.