Page 3 of 23 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 228

  Click here to go to the first staff post in this thread.   Thread: Canning the 6 meals, 'clean' eating, the Post Workout Anabolic Window and GI myths

  1. #21
    Regular Member

    Array
    TheGiftToLift's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    380
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MaxBrenner View Post
    I've not seen any studies or literature on that with supportive evidence. If that was true, the weight loss/fat loss would be higher in the lower amounts of meals due to more nutrients/ calories being lost in the digestion process.
    Exactly, and for the bodybuilder trying to add mass the weight gain would be more for frequent meals at the same calories - right?
    "Whether you think that you can, or think that you can't, you're usually right." Henry Ford.





  2. __________________

    Ausbb Sponsors
    littleblokefitness new and used home gym and fitness equipment at great prices
    Iron Tanks Apparel Gym & Fitness Apparel
    BioFlex Nutrition Bioflex Nutrition, Australia's Purest Supplements
    Bulk Nutrients 100% Pure bulk Nutrients
    Flex Fitness Equipment fitness Equipment Specialists | warehouse direct
    Iherb code : code ZSG863 iHerb.com - Vitamins, Supplements Natural Health Products

  • #22
    Active Member

    Array
    MaxBrenner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Gold Coast, Australia
    Posts
    1,819
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheGiftToLift View Post
    Exactly, and for the bodybuilder trying to add mass the weight gain would be more for frequent meals at the same calories - right?
    If that WAS the case that would be correct.

    But if you read all the text and my response, that WAS NOT the case. Energy balance and absorption of macronutrients was the SAME regardless of it being a single meal of 900 calories or 3 meals of 300 calories.

    I suggested you re-read the text and the studies, as that explains it quite in-depth.
    Last edited by MaxBrenner; 28-07-2011 at 04:03 PM.


  • #23
    Regular Member

    Array
    TheGiftToLift's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    380
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    hmm...

    not really seeing this. There is one study about boxers eating 2v 6 meals, but Lyle even says its shody. At any rate, the boxer loses weight on 2 meals.

    Just to make my question more concise: does meal size affect food absorption? or I think the term is metabolic efficiency.

    Also, TEF is not reflective of absorption. TEF is the effect of food raising the bodies temperature due to metabolism.
    Somewhere your articles say fibre affects absorption, by affecting surface area. Obviously this will be minor because fibre is consumed in small amounts. This is not related either.

    I don't expect you to have the answer, but it might be worth investigating since you clearly have an interest and I don't think it's been covered.
    Last edited by TheGiftToLift; 28-07-2011 at 04:25 PM.
    "Whether you think that you can, or think that you can't, you're usually right." Henry Ford.


  • #24
    Active Member

    Array
    MaxBrenner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Gold Coast, Australia
    Posts
    1,819
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheGiftToLift View Post
    hmm...

    not really seeing this. There is one study about boxers eating 2v 6 meals, but Lyle even says its shody. At any rate, the boxer loses weight on 2 meals.
    That is a terrible study that was based on a LIQUID diet. So yes the can't really gather much from that in a practical sense. But again, you are missing the point that meal frequency is irrelevant in most context for most applications. Nutrient absorption included. If that was the case there would be dramatic differences in weight loss or weight gain, hormone balance as well as metabolic function. What do you think?

    Study

    Increased meal frequency does not promote greater weight loss in subjects who were prescribed an 8-week equi-energetic energy-restricted diet.
    Cameron JD, Cyr MJ, Doucet E.
    Source
    Behavioural and Metabolic Research Unit, School of Human Kinetics, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
    Abstract
    There have been reports of an inverse relationship between meal frequency (MF) and adiposity. It has been postulated that this may be explained by favourable effects of increased MF on appetite control and possibly on gut peptides as well. The main goal of the present study was to investigate whether using a high MF could lead to a greater weight loss than that obtained with a low MF under conditions of similar energy restriction. Subjects were randomised into two treatment arms (high MF = 3 meals+3 snacks/d or low MF = 3 meals/d) and subjected to the same dietary energy restriction of - 2931 kJ/d for 8 weeks. Sixteen obese adults (n 8 women and 8 men; age 34.6 (sd 9.5); BMI 37.1 (sd 4.5) kg/m2) completed the study. Overall, there was a 4.7 % decrease in body weight (P < 0.01); similarly, significant decreases were noted in fat mass ( - 3.1 (sd 2.9) kg; P < 0.01), lean body mass ( - 2.0 (sd 3.1) kg; P < 0.05) and BMI ( - 1.7 (sd 0.8) kg/m2; P < 0.01). However, there were NS differences between the low- and high-MF groups for adiposity indices, appetite measurements or gut peptides (peptide YY and ghrelin) either before or after the intervention. We conclude that increasing MF does not promote greater body weight loss under the conditions described in the present study.
    Last edited by MaxBrenner; 28-07-2011 at 04:32 PM.


  • #25
    Regular Member

    Array
    TheGiftToLift's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    380
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    It seems like more meals would increase weight gain to me - more surface area per meal, more enzyme to food ratio (?), more time in stomach(?).

    Anyway, so the studies basically say - weight change is independent of meal frequency. In either case, I think you are right; its not going to make or break your diet.
    "Whether you think that you can, or think that you can't, you're usually right." Henry Ford.


  • #26
    Active Member

    Array
    MaxBrenner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Gold Coast, Australia
    Posts
    1,819
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheGiftToLift View Post
    It seems like more meals would increase weight gain to me - more surface area per meal, more enzyme to food ratio (?), more time in stomach(?).

    Anyway, so the studies basically say - weight change is independent of meal frequency. In either case, I think you are right; its not going to make or break your diet.
    Ok, so say we had two people consuming 80 grams of Whey Protein two different ways. First person has 2 serves of 40 grams 1 hour apart, while the other has 4 serves of 20 grams 30 minutes apart. If Whey Protein digests at 10 grams per hour (like mentioned) the 80 grams will take 8 hours to digest. So why would either be different in time in the stomach etc, as either way there is a continuous roll over of nutrients. If we have X amount of food in our stomach, we will make X amount of enzymes for digestion. We won't have X amount of enzymes if we have Y amount of food. True?

    Our body adapts to the situation at hand. If we have long periods without food (72 hours) our metabolic rate drops to preserve energy and when we train for muscular hypertrophy, either sarcoplasmic or myofibrillar we get bigger or stronger.


  • #27
    Site Advertiser

    Array

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1,340
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    MBrenner has given some sound advice in here. I canned the 6 meal a day many a year ago. After majoring in ex physiology/metabolism and nutrition - you begin to see the bullshit you're fed. I've watched the health and fitness industry turn into a McDonalds over the last 10 years. A marketing company which just so happens to sell a burger (supplements/fads). Whatever.
    https://Hidden Content Gym Gear Built Iron Tough


  • #28
    Active Member

    Array
    jzpowahz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Sunshine Coast
    Posts
    6,462
    Mentioned
    29 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    So what you're saying is I don't have to eat every hour? :P

    Good info. Thanks
    Best Comp total 200/95/240 = 535 at 82.5kg
    SQ 210kg BP 105kg DL 240kg SOHP 70kg at 83kg
    Hidden Content
    All of my recipes are here:
    Hidden Content
    Master Chef


  • #29
    Active Member

    Array
    MaxBrenner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Gold Coast, Australia
    Posts
    1,819
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jzpowahz View Post
    So what you're saying is I don't have to eat every hour? :P
    Well you can push it out to every 1.5 hours


  • #30
    Active Member

    Array
    MaxBrenner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Gold Coast, Australia
    Posts
    1,819
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheGiftToLift View Post
    hmm...

    not really seeing this. There is one study about boxers eating 2v 6 meals, but Lyle even says its shody. At any rate, the boxer loses weight on 2 meals.

    Just to make my question more concise: does meal size affect food absorption? or I think the term is metabolic efficiency.

    Also, TEF is not reflective of absorption. TEF is the effect of food raising the bodies temperature due to metabolism.
    Somewhere your articles say fibre affects absorption, by affecting surface area. Obviously this will be minor because fibre is consumed in small amounts. This is not related either.

    I don't expect you to have the answer, but it might be worth investigating since you clearly have an interest and I don't think it's been covered.
    I've looked at more studies and have not found anything about LOWER nutrient absorption with LARGER meals. Quite possibly the opposite.

    Food for thought (see what I did there LOL), IF there was a LOWER nutrient absorption in LARGER meals, wouldn't blood glucose (for one) be unstable? In all the studies I've read, blood glucose is BETTER and more STABLE in LARGER meals than smaller more frequent meals of identical macronutirent totals.


  • Page 3 of 23 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast

    Tags for this Thread

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •