Canning the 6 meals, 'clean' eating, the Post Workout Anabolic Window and GI myths

[Christian]

Pics of 6000kcal meal or ban..

 

[TheGiftToLift]

The "macro is all that matters" debate is fine if you want diabetes, clogged arteries and high blood pressure. I get that a gram of protein is a gram of protein (well, sort of... some have different amounts of aminos), but a gram of protein attached to 4 grams of saturated fat is different to 1 g lean. Likewise for sugar (dont care if sugar isn't bad for you if your fit and healthy, there is a strong link between refined sugar and diabetes although yes, usually in unhealthy people).

 

[dave]

In the chocolate factories defence he has never made this topic about health but solely body comp. I am sure he does not advocate trans fat laden sugar filled food to his clients or us.

 

[Bazza20]

The "macro is all that matters" debate is fine if you want diabetes, clogged arteries and high blood pressure. I get that a gram of protein is a gram of protein (well, sort of... some have different amounts of aminos), but a gram of protein attached to 4 grams of saturated fat is different to 1 g lean. Likewise for sugar (dont care if sugar isn't bad for you if your fit and healthy, there is a strong link between refined sugar and diabetes although yes, usually in unhealthy people).

Mate of course 1 gram of lean protein is different to 1 gram of protein plus 4 grams of fat, they are totaly different macros. How does this have anything to do with clogged arteries and diabetes????

 

[TheGiftToLift]

Mate of course 1 gram of lean protein is different to 1 gram of protein plus 4 grams of fat, they are totaly different macros. How does this have anything to do with clogged arteries and diabetes????

Yeh, fair point - shit example.
What I meant -
MB was saying it doesnt matter what you eat. Same macros meal of Macca's vs let's say - lean chicken, brown rice and olive oil. There are good fats, bad fats, good carbs, bad carbs. In a body building context their effects may be negated to some degree by physical exercise, but obviously not for sedentary or elderly people. Yes each has their role, and what Dave said is right, OP is just trying to dispel myths. I was just trying to say to any idiot who reads it and thinks they can live on coke and maccas, they shouldnt.

 

[Bazza20]

Yeh, fair point - shit example.
What I meant -
MB was saying it doesnt matter what you eat. Same macros meal of Macca's vs let's say - lean chicken, brown rice and olive oil. There are good fats, bad fats, good carbs, bad carbs. In a body building context their effects may be negated to some degree by physical exercise, but obviously not for sedentary or elderly people. Yes each has their role, and what Dave said is right, OP is just trying to dispel myths. I was just trying to say to any idiot who reads it and thinks they can live on coke and maccas.

I find it funny that people think there is something magically bad about foods like Maccas.

Think about the typical burger. Bun, meat, lettuce and sauce. Nothing wrong with those foods.

There is nothing magically bad about something like a Maccas burger it's just that people tend to over eat calories at these places which makes them overweight then end up with health problems. Its not a problem of the food itself.

 

[MaxBrenner]

The "macro is all that matters" debate is fine if you want diabetes, clogged arteries and high blood pressure. I get that a gram of protein is a gram of protein (well, sort of... some have different amounts of aminos), but a gram of protein attached to 4 grams of saturated fat is different to 1 g lean. Likewise for sugar (dont care if sugar isn't bad for you if your fit and healthy, there is a strong link between refined sugar and diabetes although yes, usually in unhealthy people).

I totally get what you are saying but this is not a medical debate/ topic. With that said it’s just human nature, people seem to have a need to find a single enemy that is the cause of all woes under the sun. The one that causes obesity, diabetes, and all manners of health problems. Nutritionally, we all have watched the enemy change over the years. In the 80’s it was dietary fat, which was blamed for all the problems of humanity. During the 90’s, things started to shift and carbohydrates became the enemy. About the same time, trans-fatty acids became the one thing that people MUST NOT EAT or they would seemingly drop dead nearly instantly. The one common factor in all the studies that showed 'X' or 'Y' is the 'cause' of the disease, the CALORIE INTAKE is on a consistent INCREASE and the ACTIVITY LEVEL is on a DECREASE.

Given identical macro-nutrient intakes (in terms of protein, carbs, and fats) that there is going to be little difference in terms of bodily response to a given meal. There may be SMALL differences mind you (and of course research supports that) but, overall, they are not large. And certainly not of the magnitude that many make it sound like.

It’s not uncommon for the physique obsessed to literally become social pariahs, afraid to eat out because eating out is somehow defined as ‘unclean’ (never mind that a grilled chicken breast eaten out is fundamentally no different than a grilled chicken breast cooked at home) and fast food is, of course, the death of any diet. This is in addition to the fact that apparently eating fast food makes you morally inferior as well. Well, that’s what 'bodybuilders' and other orthorexics will tell you anyhow.

(All from Lyle McDonald, as he can simply articulate it in a way I only dream of )

 

[MaxBrenner]

In the chocolate factories defence he has never made this topic about health but solely body comp. I am sure he does not advocate trans fat laden sugar filled food to his clients or us.

Thank you for showing your fantastic understanding of what exactly I'm trying to say!

 

[Bioflex]

I have compiled a mix of biological, physiology information, articles and studies etc that will hopefully give everyone an understanding on the body's digestion processes, maconutrient functions and insulin responses and some other useful facts.

That in turn will clear up the myths of needing to eat 6 meals a day every 3 hours for metabolic function and 'keeping protein up', that identical macronutients/ calories from your typical 'clean' and 'dirty' are the SAME (Yes micronutrients - vitamins and minerals - content will vary but that is not the point of this) and that the GI of carbohydrates and the typical thoughts on their insulin response is of little meaning once a mix of multiple macronutrients is added.

Please note that how your body reacts in a 'fed' state (with food) compared to a 'fast' state (without food) is different. Many of the typically 'bodybuilding' and 'broscience' protocols, that as a few people tend to promote as being 'done for 20,30 or even 40 years and that is why it works' , are and have been based on either lack of understanding of the digestive system as well as focusing on studies that have been done after a fasting period and or a fasting period followed by exercise.

To expand on that more, when a Fast (usually 24 hours) is done, our metabolic rate actually INCREASES, see link to studies -

Enhanced thermogenic response to epinephrine after... [Am J Physiol. 1990] - PubMed result

Resting energy expenditure in short-term starvatio... [Am J Clin Nutr. 2000] - PubMed result

Our metabolic rate does not DROP until between the 60-92 hour mark. See link to study -

Leucine, glucose, and energy metabolism after 3 da... [Am J Clin Nutr. 1987] - PubMed result

As you will read, you should be able to see why due to the digestion process why we are continuously in a 'fed' state and how all the 'myths' simple hold no bearing and are of no relevance. Most times the only real application some of the typical 'bodybuilding' protocols are if you have completed a 'fast' and then going to train or have a number of back to back events in the same day.

Before moving on to the info, I must say that if you want to eat 6 times a day and every 3 hours, YOU CAN but YOU DON'T NEED TO. If you want to eat 'clean', YOU CAN but YOU DON'T NEED TO. If you want to go by the GI, YOU CAN but YOU DON'T NEEDED TO. This is merely for the understanding that for body composition, those sorts of minor details and protocols DO NOT determine what your BODY COMPOSITION is/ will be.

Max, I could have absolutelty sworn you are a friend of mine named, Harry.
You both certainly come from the same school of thought here, with identical theories on exactly these subjects!

Do you know him?

It is fantastic that you have taken the time to put all of this together here, I'll have to get Harry over here to join in on the fun

 

[TheGiftToLift]

I find it funny that people think there is something magically bad about foods like Maccas.

Think about the typical burger. Bun, meat, lettuce and sauce. Nothing wrong with those foods.

There is nothing magically bad about something like a Maccas burger it's just that people tend to over eat calories at these places which makes them overweight then end up with health problems. Its not a problem of the food itself.

Yeh ok, Gandalf doesn't work at Maccas, I'll give you that.

But, the bun for one is full of sugar. They pass the bun through a steam machine that caramalises the sugar content giving it that toasted look. The sauce is processed garbage. There is a tonne of salt on the chips, a large coke is a ridiculous amount of sugar. All of these things are addictive (mostly the sugar and salt).

People over eat MacDonald's (in Australia, mostly the lower socioeconomic members of society), because their marketing is so persuasive and their products are highly addictive. I am sure there is some link between education/iq and maccas consumption. It's almost as bad as pokies.

 

[MaxBrenner]

Yeh, fair point - shit example.
What I meant -
MB was saying it doesnt matter what you eat. Same macros meal of Macca's vs let's say - lean chicken, brown rice and olive oil. There are good fats, bad fats, good carbs, bad carbs. In a body building context their effects may be negated to some degree by physical exercise, but obviously not for sedentary or elderly people. Yes each has their role, and what Dave said is right, OP is just trying to dispel myths. I was just trying to say to any idiot who reads it and thinks they can live on coke and maccas, they shouldnt.

On a MACRONUTRIENT identical meal of Chicken and bread or a Macca's Happy Meal, there is no difference. If the fat content & breakdown is identical from the Chicken and Bread to the Happy Meal, there is no difference. The only Fat I personally would class as 'bad' is Trans Fat........

The only difference in that meal is the MICRONUTIRENT content and how it is presented

 

[MaxBrenner]

Max, I could have absolutelty sworn you are a friend of mine named, Harry.
You both certainly come from the same school of thought here, with identical theories on exactly these subjects!

Do you know him?

It is fantastic that you have taken the time to put all of this together here, I'll have to get Harry over here to join in on the fun

Hi Bio, no sorry mate I do not know a Harry other than Prince Harry (though I don't personally know him either ).

Thank you for the appreciation of my efforts. I'm glad it is viewed in a positive way

 

[TheGiftToLift]

On a MACRONUTRIENT identical meal of Chicken and bread or a Macca's Happy Meal, there is no difference. If the fat content & breakdown is identical from the Chicken and Bread to the Happy Meal, there is no difference. The only Fat I personally would class as 'bad' is Trans Fat........

The only difference in that meal is the MICRONUTIRENT content and how it is presented

Hmm... this is interesting.

What do you mean by no difference? I get that they are the same numbers... but are you saying that the amount of processing has no bearing on digestion and the other things that flow on from that?

So an extreme example would be - a glass of water with 50 grams of sugar in it vs the equivalent carbs in basmati rice. There is no difference in terms of the effect of body composition? The sugar is clearly processed faster, that's why kids go nuts on cordial from the energy rush.

Sorry if it seems I'm just nit picking, but I genuinely want to square this away in my head - but im not quite convinced yet.

 

[TheGiftToLift]

Do you believe non-GM organic food is better for than GM? or no difference?

If what you're saying is true, can't we just manufacture 'food' tablets with all the macros and micros we need. Or drink sugar water, protein powder, olive oil and take a multi and be done with it?

EDIT: I know you've said its not about health, and clearly the above would be unhealthy - but aren't we trying to be healthy? Is your attitude simply that we can eat crap if the macros are right and expect to achieve our body comp goals? You'd be crazy to do this though right, in terms of health?

 

[MaxBrenner]

Yeh ok, Gandalf doesn't work at Maccas, I'll give you that.

But, the bun for one is full of sugar. They pass the bun through a steam machine that caramalises the sugar content giving it that toasted look. The sauce is processed garbage. There is a tonne of salt on the chips, a large coke is a ridiculous amount of sugar. All of these things are addictive (mostly the sugar and salt).

People over eat MacDonald's (in Australia, mostly the lower socioeconomic members of society), because their marketing is so persuasive and their products are highly addictive. I am sure there is some link between education/iq and maccas consumption. It's almost as bad as pokies.

With all due respect TGTL, I think you have taken this way out of context.

One last sceniro, if I had met all my minimum MACRONUTIENT & MICRONUTRIENT requiremnts for body compoisition as well 'general health' and had 500 calories 'free' in my 'diet' would it be of much more benefit to have have 500 calories of Steak and Broccoli as compared to a Baskins & Robbins Chocolate PeanutButter sundae?

Answer - NO and of course I'm going the Ice-Cream 10 outta 10 times

 

[TheGiftToLift]

With all due respect TGTL, I think you have taken this way out of context.

One last sceniro, if I had met all my minimum MACRONUTIENT & MICRONUTRIENT requiremnts for body compoisition as well 'general health' and had 500 calories 'free' in my 'diet' would it be of much more benefit to have have 500 calories of Steak and Broccoli as compared to a Baskins & Robbins Chocolate PeanutButter sundae?

Answer - NO and of course I'm going the Ice-Cream 10 outta 10 times

Ok, this I agree with,

and yeh, that post was a specific response to bazzas comment about the negative attitude towards maccas being unjust.

 

[MaxBrenner]

Hmm... this is interesting.

What do you mean by no difference? I get that they are the same numbers... but are you saying that the amount of processing has no bearing on digestion and the other things that flow on from that?

So an extreme example would be - a glass of water with 50 grams of sugar in it vs the equivalent carbs in basmati rice. There is no difference in terms of the effect of body composition? The sugar is clearly processed faster, that's why kids go nuts on cordial from the energy rush.

Sorry if it seems I'm just nit picking, but I genuinely want to square this away in my head - but im not quite convinced yet.

Yes the macronutrient content no difference, the type and amount of waste product from the 'natural' form to the 'processed' form would be different.

Of course there is NO difference in body composition of 50 grams of carbs from either sugar or rice. Both end up as GLUCOSE in the bloodstream. You have missed the point on the entire Thread.

If you are not yet convinced (as I was in 'Bro-land for many years myself), I encourage you to READ, READ, READ and READ some more. If you have read Lyle McDonalds work for one, you should have a much better understand than you are showing. Look up AlanAragon.com - Fitness Based on Science & Experience Intermittent fasting diet for fat loss, muscle gain and health www.weightology.com

 

[TheGiftToLift]

Of course there is NO difference in body composition of 50 grams of carbs from either sugar or rice. Both end up as GLUCOSE in the bloodstream. You have missed the point on the entire Thread.

yes, but sugar takes less effort expressed as calories to assimilate. Complex carbs are complex because their structure is more complex and hence harder and slower to breakdown (and requiring more energy). You have said that this isn't true, and that TEF doesn't change for different sources of the same macro. I find this difficult to believe. At this point I'm simply arguing because I'm bored at work... so let's leave it for a while, I'll read lyles blog and get back to you.

 

[MaxBrenner]

yes, but sugar takes less effort expressed as calories to assimilate. Complex carbs are complex because their structure is more complex and hence harder and slower to breakdown (and requiring more energy). You have said that this isn't true, and that TEF doesn't change for different sources of the same macro. I find this difficult to believe. At this point I'm simply arguing because I'm bored at work... so let's leave it for a while, I'll read lyles blog and get back to you.

Riddle me this - 1 gram of carbohydrate is 1 gram of 'Sugar' = 4 calories as is 1 gram of 'starch' = 4 calories. How is the TEF be any different?

Just because one is 'easier' to digest, that does not determine the TEF.

I know the feeling of being bored at work...........

Thermic effect of food (also commonly known simply as thermic effect when the context is known), or TEF in shorthand, is the increment in energy expenditure above resting metabolic rate due to the cost of processing food for storage and use.[1] It is one of the components of metabolism along with the resting metabolic rate, and the exercise component. Another term commonly used to describe this component of total metabolism is the specific dynamic action (SDA). A common number used to estimate the magnitude of the thermic effect of food is about 10% of the caloric intake of a given time period, though the effect varies substantially for different food components. Dietary fat is very easy to process and has very little thermic effect, while protein is hard to process and has a much larger thermic effect.

 

[0ni]

The main problem with McDonalds and Hungry Jacks is the sub-par meal portions. Is it called Hungry Jack's because you're left hungry afterwards?
Give me a break!

Also I'd like to chip in on this about the GI of foods. You should be paying attention to the glycemic LOAD of food, which is the total insulin response from the food. For example, look at watermelon, with a GI of 70 it looks pretty bad for you, but it contains so little sugar, a portion has a GL of 7, which is tiny. Same goes for white bread, which has a smaller GL than an apple.

Taking fish oil with a high GL meal has also shown to decrease the insulin response