The latest "theoretical" misconception

[blood_drinker]

I just got back from my trip, and the first thing I did was log onto EF to look at a post started by SonnyBlack, entitled Man Ive always wondered...
In this he asked

Originally posted by Sonny Black
does it really matter wat you eat in terms of not gaining fat as long as you dont go over maintenance calories???In other words let say on one day you eat 2 mcdonalds hamburgers and a snickers ( i know im exagerating a litlle...i normally dont eat this crap myself) during a day and fries...but your calories stayed below maintenance...will you gain fat????Does it matter wat foods u eat or wat combos of foods u eat (fat and carbs, protein and fat...etc)...or how many calories u eat during the day???

--------
For those that want it, it is located at the below adress. Before you read it, finish reading my post.

http://boards.elitefitness.com/forum/showthread.php?threadid=41564

Many people answered on how that would theoretically work. What the hell are you guys thinking? I thought this is another FAQ that should be stuck for a couple of days. Lets look at a few reasons not to go the way sonny black wants to go:
Like has been said, theoretically it ´works´for some but THIS METHOD INVITES FAILURE. Your appetite will soar, your energy levels will plunge = failure and binges. Take a high simple carb diet. Lets have sugar, and pudding for our diet. That will surely satisfy sonnys cravings. But he better brace himself for the peaks and valleys in terms of energy associated with simple carb intake. I could bare a peaks and valleys diet if I could indulge in a pizza and a pudding, but it´s not that simple. Heck, you dont even have enough water in that diet - and we all know the important role of water in muscle building, protection and repair. The above is just simply the tip of the iceberg - and damn it´s an already huge reason for me not to go Sonnys way. But, Sonny is still not convinced, and the rest are feeding him "Theoretical" bullshit. Now, the one meal a day that "theoretically works" idea is crap. NO, IT DOES NOT BOIL DOWN TO CALORIC INTAKE. A tub of ice cream, 800cals, and 2 pbj sandwiches will give you the cals you need to stay alive while ´theoretically´ burning fat. But not only will you lose minimal fat, you will lose plenty of muscle. You need more protein than the whooping 30g P a massive burger and french fries can offer - and since you are eating such crap - you wont even be able to go to the gym or do cardio considering your energy levels. With those kinds of foods you are looking at a whooping 30g of protein give or take. ESPECIALLY when you train, you need more protein than that, particularly if your goal is more than to "theoretically burn fat." To maximize muscle growth you want protein available for synthesis at all times. This is of vital importance and is why supplying protein to your body every 3 hours is essential to maximize growth. Anytime your body has to steal protein from muscle you stall and even regress the muscle growth process. The last thing you ever want is to be protein deficient when your body needs it. You can even consume more than your required amount of protein daily and still be "time-deficient" in your protein needs. This is why timing protein and nutrient intake is so important. You never want your hard earned muscle tissue to have to sacrifice protein to meet demand from other systems in your body. Protein and other macro nutrients are of prime importance, as are many other things for muscle growth/repair - -whichever your case is, you cannot overlook the importance of other factors that , like it or not, happen to come into play. It does NOT boil down to caloric intake. Repeat, it DOES NOT BOIL DOWN, and no, not even theoretically, TO CALORIC INTAKE. Not even theoretically - its bullshit. It does not ´work´. For those of you that think it ´works´have a wrong definition of what compensates your efforts in the gym.
The 5-6 meals a day theory is necessary in order to satisfy the above demands. The extra effort of getting 5-6 meals is not only worth it, but IMO NECESSARY.

 

[ColumboWeiser]

great point!! I have been tring to beat that into my buddies head for over a year now!

 

[Murman]

Very good point!!!!!
By the way how was your Trip?

 

[Mr.X]

Blood_Drinker, exactly what I was pointing out. What you said is the UNIVERSAL truth, I agree with it 100% and I will in fact look for studies to back this up.

One more thing, Glad to see you back....

Mr.X

 

[SonnyBlack]

hey blood drinker...thanx for the explanation bro,,,its bros like u that make this board a great place for everyone...by the way i just wanted to clarify that i donot...i repeat ...I DO NOT EAT THIS KIND OF CRAP AT ALL!! I dont remember the last time that I ate one of those fukers! I pretty much have always followed a high protein very low carbs moderate fat diet...and I never lost jack on this diet. NEVER. if i would loose 5 pds it was just water and i would gain it bak. The only thing i got from this dite was low energy levels and plateaus in all my weights. Like a month ago i started following a 30-30-30 type diet and the pds started comin off me and the weights started goin up up and up! Man i feel great on this dite. And the point i was trying to make was that i hate when every time a newbie comes on this board and asks wat kind of diet he can follow to "rip up". he is alway told follow a cdk blah blah blah. Well i think that they should know that that is not the only way that u can go for fat loss. And i thank you from the bottom of my heart Blood drinker bro..for having started this sticky thead and letting know people that low carbs isnt the only way to go for fat loss. i commend u bro!

 

[Hoffmeister]

blood, you need to chill

I believe the original question in the thread had to do with fat gain, not loss.

Yes, eating more frequently can help control appetite better for alot of people, and is a perfectly valid reason to eat 6 meals a day.

But MS even made the explicit point that he needs to get enough protein to support his LBM. So your rant on getting 30 g protein/day, while entertaining, doesn't have much to do with the discussion going on.

As for the protein every 3 hours, if you're living off whey, maybe. But even casein is still providing protein to your body up to 7 hours after ingestion. And that was just straight protein. Mix that with other food, or by eating meat, and the digestion slows it more.

So yes, dieting isn't quite as simple as just "calories in vs calories out". And I'm not aware of anyone denying the importance of protein and fat in your diet. But I believe even Lyle Mcdonald made it a point to eat 2 Mcdonald's hamburgers every day during his last diet.

 

[MS]

Yeah definitely time for a chill pill. First off, sonny referred to a diet of 2 McD burgers and a snickers bar. He didn't even mention what kind of burgers so we don't know what the protein intake is on this theoretical diet. The fact is, in study after study there is no difference in weight loss for people dieting on energy reduced diets. It doesn't matter what the macronutrient ratio is, or how many meals per day it's divided into as long as they STICK TO THE DIET. Additionally sonny's question was not about fat loss, but about not gaining fat. Again the same applies with the caveat that on a non-calorie restricted diet you are much more likely to overeat if you only eat once a day compared to 5-6 meals per day. But if the calories are the same, and protein (plus vitamins, minerals and fiber) is adequate, then it's not a big deal.

Please note I am not advocating this 'diet', just answering the original question. Is this a healthy way to eat? NO. Is this optimal for lean muscle gain? NO. But that was not the question.

 

[blood_drinker]

I think we all got our points accross and Sonny is apparently satisfied with the answers he has gotten so far. Let´s keep at this.

 

[MS]

I have learned to avoid posting scientific articles on this board (because of the yawn factor) but for sonny's sake (and anyone else who's following this) here's an important abstract that show how multiple meals helps curb appetite:

Acute appetite reduction associated with an increased frequency of eating in obese males.
Speechly DP, Rogers GG, Buffenstein R.
Department of Physiology, University of Witwatersrand Medical School, Johannesburg, South Africa. [email protected]
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effects of altered feeding frequencies on the relationship between perceived hunger and subsequent food intake and appetite control in obese men. DESIGN: Obese men reported in a fasted state in the morning to the laboratory where an isoenergetic pre-load (4100+/-234 kJ, which was 33% average daily energy requirement (ADER) of each subject) comprising 70% carbohydrate, 15% protein, and 15% fat was given. This was administered either as a SINGLE meal, or divided evenly over 5 meals given hourly as a MULTI feeding pattern. Five hours after the first pre-load, an ad libitum test meal was given to determine whether there was a difference in the amount of energy that was consumed between the two eating patterns. SUBJECTS: Seven non-diabetic, non-smoking, unrestrained obese men were recruited for this study. Subjects were not told the precise reasons for this study but rather were informed that changes in blood glucose, insulin and free fatty acids with meal frequency were to be monitored. MEASUREMENTS: Blood glucose, serum insulin and free fatty acid (FFA) concentrations, and visual analogue scales (VAS) were measured prior to commencing the feeding regime and thereafter hourly for 5 h. Thereafter an ad libitum meal was given. The weight (and energy content) of the food consumed, and the time taken to eat lunch were recorded. Following this ad libitum lunch, the same variables were determined again (15, 45, and 75 min post-test meal). RESULTS: When given a SINGLE pre-load, 27% more energy was consumed in the ad libitum test meal compared to that eaten after the MULTI pre-load This increase in food intake occurred despite no significant change in subjective hunger ratings. Over the 315 min pre-load period, peak insulin concentrations were significantly higher on the SINGLE treatment than on the MULTI treatment. Serum insulin remained elevated for longer on the MULTI meal treatment, resulting in no difference in the area under the insulin curves between the two feeding treatments. There was a positive correlation between the amount of energy consumed at lunch and insulin concentration before lunch in the SINGLE group. However, this relationship was not apparent when subjects were given the MULTI meal preload. CONCLUSION: Obese males fed an isoenergetic pre-load sub-divided into a multi-meal plan consumed 27% less at a subsequent ad libitum test meal than did the same men when given the pre-load as a single meal. Prolonged but attenuated increases in serum insulin concentration on the multi-meal programme may facilitate this acute reduction in appetite.


Again, yes you can lose weight by only eating one junk meal per day, but you're gonna be a lot hungrier than spacing your meals out. Notice that one meal a day really hammers you insulin up which may also not be a good idea for long term health (at least in this study which was low fat, low protein and high carb).

 

[blood_drinker]

A quick recap:
You lose weight, not purely fat, but muscle and minimal fat. Because of the muscle loss, fat gain will be much easier now because muscle burns calories, and because that muscle is now gone, less calories make you more fat. Theoretically, it works. But in reality, it just doesn't. Don't even start me again on the muscle *gain*. This is for weight *loss* - but seemingly I have been lost on what was the original question anyway. In any case, it's definetely not something you would want to do.

Now look at this.

Here I quote Paul Crib
Recent muscle kinetic studies by Giovanni Bolio and colleagues (Am.J.Physiol.Endo Metab.273:E122-E129,1997) have substantiated that after weight training protein synthesis rates and muscle breakdown rates are both phenomenally accelerated And without the introduction of protein and carbohydrates immediately after training net protein loss is the result.

By not introducing a post workout meal in your one meal a day diet, your body will simply breakdown other muscle tissue to get the nutrients it needs. You will lose muscle, slow down your metabolic rate, and predispose yourself to further unwanted fat gain. Precisely the opposite of why you workout!

I hope you understand that this has no place in our minds. Erase it. It does NOT work - not even "theoretically".

 

[MS]

I beg to differ since I made my best ever muscle gains eating one hyooooge meal a day immediately post workout. Only prob was I found I had to reduce my veggie intake so I could fit enough calorie dense food in one meal. This was a fast all day, then train, then eat method of bulking and it was fantastic for minimum fat gain while bulking. I don't know how I would go if I had to do this as a cutting diet though. I guess I would just put lots of veggies back into the meal. And spend a lot of the day hungry

 

[blood_drinker]

What if you are on a 1 meal a day cutting diet? Since I now am pretty sure we are talking about weight LOSS,
when would this one meal be eaten? Post workout, or post cardio? Either way, muscle loss is inevitable if you skip one of these - as is failure with this diet. I think I have made my take on this as clear as it could possibly get - It just does not work. There are other factors to dieting than simply meal number(s) and quantity. At least to me - if you want to go the theoretical way, go ahead. My advice is to just destroy that idea out of our minds. It's all very unnecessary and progress-retarding suffering. Des-troy

 

[MS]

Well OK, I get the feeling Blood drinker wants to start a topic about meal frequency and muscle loss LOL. Fine, that's a different topic and does not negate the observation that eating one high calorie, high protein meal post workout can be effective for muscle gain with minimal fat gain (which I think was the original topic). No doubt someone who goes on a calorie restricted diet will lose muscle (and fat), the proportions which will be determined by their age, genetics, weight training program, initial %bodyfat and many other factors (such as anabolics). However I have not come across any research that shows that the proportion of LBM loss changes depending on how many meals are eaten each day. This is not to say that the research has not been done, and even if it hasn't been done that the conclusion is false. But I think it's a good idea to be clear when we are stating OPINION (and what it's based on ) versus when we are stating peer-reviewed research. Why do you think one post workout high protein meal each day will lead to greater muscle loss (or less fat loss) than the same calories spread more evenly over the day?? Is this just a gut feeling? Is it something you heard somewhere but can't remeber exactly where you heard it? Is this just 'common knowledge" along the lines of fats make you fat? I genuinely would like to know if you have some valid research data on this topic. I'm sure Mr X will come to the rescue at some stage. But until then can we be clear about opinions and research please?

 

[blood_drinker]

MS, you are the one going off track here. Never did I say that less / more / any muscle would be gained with a huge post workout meal. I was illustrating the point of NOT having a post workout meal. I was not aware you would have your only meal of the day post workout. In any case, your goal was fat loss, and as far as I am concerned, muscle gain will not happen especially if you are trying to lose fat. There have been no studies on meal frequency and muscle gain, no . That was just not my point, sorry - you must have misunderstood. Again, my point was, if you eat your meal in the morning or afternoon, instead of post workout, you are even more sure to lose muscle. Since the goal was fat loss, even eating your huge meal post workout would not make a difference - as it just does not work to have muscle gain and fat loss (or weight loss as you put it) at the same time. You confused the whole topic, by putting your muscle gaining experience post workout. We are talking weight loss. I have not seen anyother studies on the subject, nor do I care to - it just was not my point. It was an ABSENCE of a post workout meal. No gut feelings here. I have a quote two replies up from this.
I will post it again.

Recent muscle kinetic studies by Giovanni Bolio and colleagues (Am.J.Physiol.Endo Metab.273:E122-E129,1997) have substantiated that after weight training protein synthesis rates and muscle breakdown rates are both phenomenally accelerated And without the introduction of protein and carbohydrates immediately after training net protein loss is the result.

My last reply was just attacking your response. In any cutting diet, one would peform both endurance and strength training. Since you are on a one meal a day diet, ideally you would place your meals after one of these exercises.

Immediately after an endurance workout, protein synthesis (building) goes down and protein breakdown goes up. This leads to a negative Muscle Protein Balance and a loss of muscle.

And immediately after a strength workout, protein building either stays the same or slightly goes up but protein breakdown goes way up. This also leads to a negative Muscle Protein Balance and a loss of muscle.

A failure to bring your glycogen stores back up will certainly cause
1) Minimal gains despite a well designed training split and program.
2) Losses in muscle mass

Since you are abstaining from eating after at least ONE of these sessions, you better be sure: You will lose muscle, and you will fail, hence, the reason not to go on this theoretical diet.

There really is no need for rescuing here - but for more careful reading.

SIDE NOTE: MS, I am going to sleep now - Ill be doing some real proven recovery, and I will wake in the middle of the night and have a snack. This is the hardcore way to train and eat. I believe things that already work should not be tweaked with things that obviously do not work just in a useless search for something better. It seems I cannot convince you. But I am sure of something - that one meal a day bullshit does not work. I will stick to tried and very true methods. No gut feelings, not something I think I read but cant remember, MS. It is what works. And the one meal a day diet, that, it does not work. Plain and simple. You can sugar coat it - but it does not work. Again - it is unnecessary a progress retarding suffering. And, it does not work. I am having a hard time convincing you. I can't tell you much more. This is what I think, and you can take it as you wish.

 

[MS]

Well you sure as hell have me confused about what your point is. We obviously agree that protein is required post workout to avoid unecessary muscle loss. I just don't understand why you say one large post workout meal per day will not work (for either fat loss or muscle gain). Although I prefer to stick to what I think was sonny's original question which was muscle gain without too much fat gain. I was not implying that one could add muscle AND lose fat this way. Anyway, as you indicated, I can see that your mind is set on this issue. I was hoping that my prodding would send you off to do you own research and form your own opinions but instead you insist on being stubborn and saying it won't work without any reason other than opinion. I hope you have a very restorative sleep since rest and training are probably more important than meal frequency for growing new muscles.

 

[Hoffmeister]

blood, the point of trying to discuss and research this stuff is to try to train smarter and better.

In many cases, to do that you may need to experiment, and try things that aren't "tried and true". You need to determine, if possible, why something works, not just that it works.

Take some of the stuff regarding leptin and refeeds. Now, people have known for awhile that CKD's work; but some of us just don't like the way we look and feel on keto diets. Applying the "carbup" during a non-keto diet seems to work just as well, and I don't have to feel deflated during the diet.

Another example is the use of "intervals" for cardio. In less time, I can get more benefit than using the traditional, "tried and true" low-intensity cardio (dubbed by someone as WAMC, or "wimpy assed morning cardio").

The point is to try, if possible, to determine why something works, and if you can do it better. Personally, at 40 going on 41, I don't have the benefit of youth to get me by. I'm trying to put alot of effort into training and dieting, and trying to it as "naturally", for lack of a better word, as I can. And if I can do it smarter and more efficiently, all the better.

Anyway, my two cents.

 

[Cackerot69]

Well, I'd just like to say that MS is 100% correct

 

[blood_drinker]

My points rephrased on weightloss
I understand that we need to break away from tried and true. But I think the one meal a day is rediculous for losing fat. Short term, perhaps it might work. But ultimately, it does not. Like I said, in a cutting diet, you have both types of exercise, endurance and strength. Ideally in your ONE meal a day diet, you would consume the meal after one of these sessions, correct? Considering you will miss either a post cardio meal or a post workout meal, in one of those (the one you missed) you WILL lose muscle. And not solely because of the post workout meal or post cardio meal that was missed, but also because you do not have enough protein to sustain your lbm. A snickers and a burger definetely do not give me the protein I would need. Perhaps over the rest of the day you will lose fat - very probable. Perhaps as was said, you will GAIN fat, but then that fat will be mobilized for fuel. FINE. But, with the inevitable muscle loss, you will rebound and the yoyo effect comes into play. And you lose. Now, Im open minded - I love "new" things. But there are things that you can tell don't work from the start - and are rediculous and not even worth the debate. For weight loss - that is my standpoint - it does not work. And the whole discussion started with you MS, because you did not point out previously you were intending on having the meal after one of these sessions - I thought it would be randomly placed somewhere in the day .

My point on Muscle gain -I have never tried this and you say you have. Although I am not saying it does not work, I cannot seem to understand why it would. If it does, we are doing something wrong altogether in our bulking diets.

1) The point of frequent meals is to CONSTANTLY provide your muscle for needed nutrients needed for growth.

2) There have been studies and many bros with pers. exp that wake in the middle of the night and have a snack - this makes them significantly more muscular than they would with a normal day cuttting diet. What do you attribute this to , then? Meal frequency isn't related to muscle gain? I HIGHLY and wholeheartedly doubt it.

3) We all know the needs of a high cal diet while bulking. I bulk with around 4000cals. You saying Im gonna consume a 4000cal meal ? OR is less needed?
Perhaps your one meal a day thing works as it is a shocker, but (yes this is a gut feeling) I bet my ass your body will adapt to it. But, perhaps it works. If you would be able to consume 4000cals, those are too many cals and chances are many will be stored as fat - your body cannot possibly use so many cals at a time. But again, perhaps the fat will be mobilized for fuel.

4) Your body is constantly growing. You do not just feed it once and hope for the best. Look at babies for example. You feed them many times a day, and this is real anabolic and they need this for their early life growth spurt if you will - when they have their first test boost in life. My point is, post workout nutrition, while very important, is not the only time your body repairs your muscle fibers. Thus, the one meal a day bulk is not OPTIMUM for muscle gain by a long shot.

Those are my standpoints.

Sonny, you posted about three different threads. The one with the link above I believe was answered by my original post and everyone attacked me saying it was not the right question. Are we answering all three at once? What was the question?

 

[Mr.X]

Mr.X is on the side-lines, watching from the front row...very interesting...now I will go back to my seat

MS, I saw your other post, you have de-throned Bikinimom...you are now the queen of long posts lol

Very Informative, heck, I just spent 2 hours reading this and some studies about it, I see both sides of the story now

Mr.X

 

[gy]

One meal a day, despite a conscious effort at minimizing caloric intake, will eventually lead to endocrine dysfunction and leptin down regulation. This has been documented in a peer reviewed journal. I don't have the article at hand but a google MFW search should bring up a discussion about this very topic in relation to the study. Again, this is for only one meal a day and if I recall correctly it did not occur immediately but over a certain period of time. I don't know if the same situation would then apply to two meals.

Much of the anecdotal evidence from users of the "Warrior diet" showed almost identical results in many dieters: good weight loss for a week or two followed by an an almost complete attenuation of fat loss. A search on the T-MAG forum should bring up some posts that highlight this.

From personel experiences, I believe that if one is going to eat a hypercaloric diet that contains ample amounts of all three macronutrients, eating it in one meal instead of multiple may be advantageous to minimze fat gain. However, I have tried numerous time to use the one meal a day plan on a restricted energy basis with dissapointing results that seemed to not only halt fat loss but ironically lead to fat gain. If I then took the same amount of calories and nutrients used on my hypocaloric one meal a day plan and spread them out over 5 meals, fat almost immediately started to be lost on my frame. Again, these are my own experiences and opinions fostered by both science and BB hearsay. I have no doubt someone may succeed with a different approach as genetic and environmental variation is of utmost importance.

Lastly, in my own case, macronutrient breakdown makes all the difference in the world. Some feel that as long as you get adequate protein and EFA's the source for the rest of your calories does not matter. Well I have tried that approach by using things such as potatoes, bread, and sugar to make up the "rest of my calories" and compared it to vegeatbles, fruit, more lean protein, and EFA's and the results were not even close. I was extremely leaner and found that I could easily cut back on my cardio requirements. Now that's not to say that the opposing approach won't work, because it most certainly will, but people are different and you as an individual must search for what works best for you. These boards and others are a great start in acquiring your knowledge base in order to begin your own personel trials, failures, and successes.

My $00.02.

 

[blood_drinker]

Gy, you nailed bro, Im 100% with you. MS did in fact point out that it would mess with your endocrine system - but that healthy was not synonymous for not work. It works for 2 weeks, but then, for the remainder of the weeks it doesn't? To me at least, that is synonymous for does not work.

About your food choices, Im 100% with you on that as well. It just does not boil down to caloric intake. Quality choices in foods has a big role in what happens to your body.

The search function for tmag is not working for me. Do you have that article bookmarked or something, so you can post it here?

Peace

 

[Fonz]

Well, since I got 5 days of rest till Ibiza I'm going to grace the
diet board for that time........LOL

And Mr.X, I'm collating the material to answer your post
as we speak.(The one on the Shift diet/other)

Meal frequency depends on the amount of fat/fibre you eat
per meal.

Do carbs slow down gastric emptying? NO.
Does proten? Not really.
Do fat&fibre? YES

An Iso-caloric meal with 60g Prot can keep blood amino
acid levels high for 5-6 hours(even more in some cases).
The 1meal/every 3 hours theory
is COMPLETE BULLSHIT.

A more important subject worthy of discussion is
the bodies ADAPTATION TO REGULAR PROTEIN
MEALS.

Person 1: Eats 6 meals a day of 30g each.

Person 2: Eats 6 meals a day consisting of:

10/10/10/10/10 AND 130g protein.

What happens?

That person 2 achieves a HIGHER protein synthesis
rate and protein turnover rate EVEN though BOTH
meals had the same energetic value AND
MACRONUTRIENT break-downs.

Whats the moral of the story? Don't eat the same amount
of protein at each meal. Make sure that during AT LEAST
one meal you eat A VERY HIGH amount of protein. 100g+
is preferable.

The problem is that the body becomes VERY efficient
at oxidizing protein NOT required for bodily functions.
By eating a LARGE protein meal you OVERLOAD
this mechanism and cause a MASSIVE rise in protein
deposition.

MS, thats why you made good gains when you ate
a BIG meal post-WO.

Furthermore, for all you Keto-lovers. For fat-loss
5 meals/day is actually DETRIMENTAL for fat-loss.
3 meals a day actually works better.
Remember, you're eating Fat+protein which gives
you an EXTREMELY slow rate of gastric emptying,
which equals slow protein release.
Also, blood ketone levels signal the adipose tissue
to either produce MORE/LESS ketone bodies
from triglycerides.
Low blood ketone levels=More fat used.
High Ketone levels=Less fat used.

5 meals/day=moderate/high blood ketone levels.
3 meals/day=Low Ketone levels.

Godspeed

 

[MS]

Yes I agree with ya fonz. There are a lot of BBs out there that have to eat protein constantly because that's what they've trained their bodies to be dependant on. And the fat and fiber issue is very important, especially for very large meals. It is accepted that 15-30% fat with a large meal will stabilize the glycemic response. Less than 15% will cause a large single insulin spike and too much fat will cause a bi-phasic insulin spike, the second spike hitting you 3-4 hours after the meal. Of course this only happens when there are significant carbs in the meal as well.

I also whole heartedly agree that fewer meals are better on a keto diet.

Blood drinker this is exhausting. Should I drag up all the individuals that have failed on an iso diet, or a keto diet, or a high protein/medium carb/low fat diet as evidence that these diets don't work. There is nothing truer in the world of nutrition than diets fail. Most of the time, especially in the long term. Some folks find one type of diet easier to stick to than another and that makes all the difference. Some people are very sensitive to carbs and should avoid or eliminate them. Diabetics and hypoglycemics need a diff approach, as do folks with renal or liver disease. To save you the trouble of searching T-mag I will tell you that they ranked all their diets based on reader feedback and the warrior diet ranked pretty low. That is only 50% of the people that tried it found it worked for them. This is not surprising since I suspect a lot of these people may have gone straight from a 6 evenly spaced meal-a-day diet to once a day. This requires a huge metabolic shift and is better done gradually if you don't want to lose considerable LBM and metabolic shutdown in the first few weeks. So for the last time I will state that I do not endorse this diet, and it doesn't work for everyone but that is not the same as saying that it categorically does not and cannot work.

I would like to clarify something which may not be obvious to many people following this thread. When I talk about eating below maintenance I mean exactly that. If your fat loss stalls on a diet you are, by definition, no longer eating below maintenance. So the answer to Sonny's original Q would still be the same. He just needs to be aware that his maintenance calorie requirements will probably change over time.

 

[gy]

Fonz, youre point about eating less meals on a keto diet is true only if that person is not suseptible to metabolic shutdown. If they are it would be more advantageous to eat smaller more frequent meals as endocrine health will certainly dominate over any type of signalling blood ketones would be sending to your adipocytes. Furthermore you can be in deep deep ketosis yet lose nill from your fat reserves. This *might* be due to downregulation of leptin or again any other endocrine abnormality fostered secondary to prolonged periods without P.O. intake. So while I agree that eating fewer less frequent meals on a ketogenic diet may be very useful for many, it's certainly unfair to label it detrimental as a blanket statement. Individual variation is extremely important.

Additionally, your point concerning the gastric slow down induced by fat incorporation into a meal is only true if the fat is a solid mixed/marbilized into the protein source. Liquid fats that are added to meals such as protein powder, chicken breast etc... will simply seperate from the rest of your food in the lumen of your gut and not affect gastric emptying to any great extent. Lyle Mcdonald was the one who cited a study on MFW to illustrate this point.

 

[Fonz]

Just thought I'd share a statistic with you guys:

The % of dieters that succeed in reaching a STABLE
weight is 1%!!!!!

Thats right, 99% of all diets FAIL.

Finding the diet that works FOR YOU is a highly
individualized thing.

Godspeed

 

[blood_drinker]

Fonz: Where did you get that statistic? I'm sure it's very true, as most diets happen to be fad diets. Very few people go the bbing style - instead, they do what they read in mags like cosmopolitan. Is this based on diets that are proven to work, or just overall??

MS: You state that you do not find the diets optimal (and you say you've repeatedly said that). If so, my bad. I agree with you in that they are not optimal - especially your points about messing with your endicrine systems. Most diets will fail over time - however you probably realize that your body's endorcine system will screw up rather quickly with this diet and will cause you to fail prematurely. But it works for that little period. Personally, it's not worth it at all - and while it works- it sure as hell ain't "optional" - something I think we agree on. It's true - I don't like the idea one bit. But going back to MY (not sonnys) original point, it does not boil down to caloric intake. While you take two 1000cal meals- you cannot get them from snickers and expect healthy weight loss - as you will lose muscle due to the low protein count . - In that you agree on as well. So overall, I think we agree .

1) It does not boil down to caloric intake. Quality of foods matter - especially protein intake to maintain lbm.

2) It is not optimal because your body does not solely repair your muscle fibers post workout.

3) Even though #2 is true, a post workout meal should never be overlooked, especially if you will try that one meal a day bulk / cut.

4) The one meal a day bulk will work, but it will mess with your endocrine system in a very short time - leading to failure. It will work for a short period - and if stopped before you screw up - it will have, ultimately, worked.

I stand corrected and now I feel that the one meal a day DOES work, but only when you take the above four (and probably many others) into consideration. I will add more as I get more time to summarize over the discussion. There is much more to come I can sense.

But, are we in agreement?

 

[MS]

Mostly in agreement. You have now latched on to the concept that this diet fails after 2 weeks because ONE person on this board experienced this result. That is fallacious logic at best and I can assure that this is not true for people that do well on this diet. But I agree that it is not optimal, especially if there is not enough protein present (which goes back to the original post by sonny where this caveat has been explicitly stated).

As far as muscle repair post workout.....I also agree and have also pointed out that it is best to have your workouts in the evening so that the meal is followed by a long period of anabolic sleep. Point number 4 of yours is invalid for many people and I still don't know why you say this other than you just don't like the sound of this diet.

Aside from all of that you've really bitten off a huge topic here. For instance as Fonz alluded, there is evidence that females gain more LBM if they eat up to 80% of their daily protein in one sitting. There is also some speculation that women respond better anabolically to a binge approach to eating. Certainly this is controversial and I don't want to justify anyone's eating disorders but ya gotta wonder how much better off many bulimics would be if they didn't feel guilty about their binge and instead just allowed themselves a once-a-day pig out with lots of protein (and kept it down)? In other words, in a more specific way than I said before I'm saying that this diet will work better for some people than others. The factors that determine it's success are, like any other diet, very individual.


Sonnys original question was "will I gain fat as long as I eat below maintenance" and actually had nothing to do with anabolism or cutting (though that may be what he meant to ask...I dunno). The answer is still no. If he had asked "will I lose muscle if I only ate 2 burgers and a snickers bar first thing in the morning and then trained hard at night"? The answer would clearly be yes. So by rewording the question you can get your answer to be correct, but that's just word games and doesn't advance anyone's cause.

Here's where I see we agree: Sufficient protein intake and meal timing are important both for optimal anabolism as well as optimal fat loss. I know for sure there are many other things we agree on but sometimes it's hard when opinions become entrenched. There is no need really. It is sufficient to say to people (as a personal or professional opinion) "I would not recommend that diet, and here's one that I think will be better for you". It is more controversial to say "that diet cannot and does not work" without some very sound evidence to support such an all or nothing stance.

 

[blood_drinker]

I also agree and have also pointed out that it is best to have your workouts in the evening so that the meal is followed by a long period of anabolic sleep

I had not read that before. It's a great point.

I did not ignore Fonz's reply - I actually took into consideration - but I had nothing to reply about really. He made his point and brought a lot of ideas to my heads - mainly that one about bulimics you mentioned.

For instance as Fonz alluded, there is evidence that females gain more LBM if they eat up to 80% of their daily protein in one sitting

Is this a fact? Does it matter what kind of protein - or is it just the amount? What do you think? Would this protein be post workout or right before bed (considering the workout is sometime else).

In any case I believe Im gonna be off this thread until tomorrow. As I type, the eliminatory match Brazil VS paraguay for the world cup is starting. This is decisive- if brazil loses , its out of the world cup (the first one ever). I think the whole country here will be in chaos if we lose. Pray for us MS.

 

[MS]

Good luck Brazil.

And to be honest the research done on women and protein pulse feeding was not done on bodybuilders. So the protein intake was pretty low anyway, and the women experienced an increase in nitrogen deposition in spite of the fact they were not weight training compared to women who ate their protein spaced evenly over the day. So it would be premature to say for sure whether it would work the same in BB females (it worked for me and my training partner though), and I couldn't say whether the quality/type of protein is important. The research is merely, shall we say, provocative.

 

[SonnyBlack]

thanx for all the responses fellas...i myself used to do the one meal a day approach when i was beginning lifting and i was younger....i would train right after school and would eat a big meal right afterwards. I FAILED MISERABLY! I truly believe that everyone responds to their own diet ...for example...i keto dieted for around 9 months and i never lost jack...but as soon as i cut the fat and upped the carbs...I STARTED LOOSING AGAIN! In other words without carbs...i simply dont loose jack.....goes to show you...that to each their own.

 

[blood_drinker]

I'm sorry - but here we're so happy I think it deserves a reply of its own. Brazil won 2-0. What a relief. I'm so happy I'll even try that one meal a day bulk eek !!!!

 

[MarkFlC5]

Well, I wanted to respond to the meal every 3 hr theory. The benefits to this routine, especially if one is placing a good protein with every meal, is that theoretically, protein requires a greater thermo effort from the body, thus burning more calories. I don't know if that would make a difference in eating 120 grams of protein vs 40 x 3. But I will say that 7 weeks ago, I started this meal every 3 - 3.5 hour thing. No simple sugars at all and low fat - 60-30-10 would be my guess here. I lost about an inch on my waist the first 4 weeks with no muscle loss. In fact, I've increased strength in some of the excercises since the meal pattern change. But thats it . I'm into my 7th week of a regimen that I really thought would yield substantial results in terms of adipose tissue in the abdomen area. I am probably 2 inches way from real good abs but I have not been able to lose anymore inches. I've added some HIT cardio - still nothing. My intake is about 1700 cals per day. But i'm only 5'6" and weigh 148 so I would be concerned about increasing cals. But preesntly, I'm not that convinced on the meal every 3 hour theory. But I definitely would not go to the 1 meal per day. I've done that and I have no energy and ended up taking naps when I got home.

Here is what I am convinced of. The body will adjust. It doesn't like having to tap into reserves especially as we get older. But here is real kicker. 15 years ago, I didn't have to worry about all this scientific crap. I had great genetics when it came to minimal bodyfat. All I had to do was just a few crunches and situps - that was it. So what has changed? What the hell has changed? AGE MAN!!! Cell division at 40 is not the same as cell division at 25. And cell divison contrinutes significantly in burning cals. You can preach METABOLIC INCREASING THEORIES until you are blue in the face but as you age, most people, even the ones who had great genetics during their youth, are going to find to difficult to rid adipose tissue. Lets not forget that in addition to cell division slow down, Testesterone and HGH output also change. IMO, All this stuff about meal frequency in terms of FAT loss and muscle gains is really not all that its cracked up to be as we age. Protein is another one. Who says we need 1.5 grams per lb bodyweight of protein? That would require me to get 225 grams per day!!! I've never seen that figure ever. During my 20's I made pretty good progress for someone without gifted genetics and during that time I was a vegetarian (I wised up since then). I was lucky if I saw 80 grams of protein a day! I'm consuming more protein now then I ever have and its done very little for me.


With that said, I'm curious about u guys consuming 4000 calorie a day diets. Okay, if you are an active bodybuilder and have the metabollically-active muscle densiy to require these cals, and are perhaps in your late 20's or mid 30's, thats fine. But that also implies you have great genetics and/or are introducing testesterone (and who knows what other drugs) into your system. The average individual trying to bulk up even at a young age doesn't require 4000 cals!!! Thats absurd!!! Sure, I've heard that you need cals to bulk but I just turned 40. I'm 5'6" and only weigh 150. Even 3000 cals would put some weight on me reall fast! There is no way I would increase calories to bulk up because I already know that I don't have the genetics for significant muscle density and growth and second, I'm convinced that excess cals will result in one thing - more cals in than out. Anyone beg to differ and explain to me why you would think otherwise? Why introducing 2500 or more cals would not make me gain weight? I'd sure like to hear this and a link scientifically supporting it would be nice too.

 

[MS]

You'll get no arguement from me. It somes down tho the realization not only that everyone is different in their dietary needs, but these needs are constantly changing in an individual throughout life. There is no doubt that metabolism slows down past a certain age and we either have to increase our activity level if we want to keep eating the same amount of foods, or eat less food (or get fat eeeeek).

And your point about the body adjusting is the main reason that most diets (bulking or cutting) only work for a limited time. You gotta change things up.

Another thing to keep in mind with people consuming huge amounts of food on bulking diets is that the body becomes that much less efficient at absorbing everything. Not meaning to be gross, but have any of you noticed the day after you've had a very large, fatty meal that your stools will often float? This is due to excess dietary fat getting excreted because you just couldn't cope with it all. So just because someone is eating 1500 cals a day above maintenance does not mean that they are absorbing 1500 extra cals. And of course most people expect to gain some fat on a bulking diet. I am 41, female, 5'5" and 165lbs and I bulk on 3000-3500 cals per day. This is not excessive for me (comes down to that individuality I guess) but I certainly gain some fat! And a nice amount of muscle too (which is the aim of the game).

I should also point out that nutrient absorption is also impaired on a once a day diet. Especially protein. You may only absorb 80% of the protein you eat if it's taken in all at once. Is this a problem? Not really since, as you sagely pointed out, almost all bodybuilders take in a large excess of protein to begin with.

Congratulation Brazil
Blood, I thought you were in Paris....confused

 

[blood_drinker]

Many bros experience lbm loss if they go below 1.5 g mark. However, at your teens practically anything works, as your body is primed for growth and metabolism is at its peak. Luck me. I bulk at 4000cals as this personally works best for me.
I am 5'5/165cms, 10%bf, 180lbs/82 kilos . I am currently in my bulking cycle. I will expect to go up to 15%bf probably, but it will look much better since Ill put on some nice mass. I hope to gain 10lbs of pure muscle in 12 weeks - which to me is very realistic - I will probably exceed that.

 

[blood_drinker]

Many bros experience lbm loss if they go below 1.5 g mark. However, at your teens practically anything works, as your body is primed for growth and metabolism is at its peak. Luck me. I bulk at 4000cals as this personally works best for me.
I am 5'5/165cms, 10%bf, 180lbs/82 kilos . I am currently in my bulking cycle. I will expect to go up to 15%bf probably, but it will look much better since Ill put on some nice mass. I hope to gain 10lbs of pure muscle in 12 weeks - which to me is very realistic - I will probably exceed that.

MS- 5'5 165lbs, female. You must be pretty muscular. Whats your current bf%?
BTW, I live in france, but I am brazilian.

 

[nugg]

I believe it does boil down to

Calories and calories only ( although It isn't ideal)-

Muscle can be gained on a near starvation diet. Look for the studys - you will find some interesting ones.

To say you can't buid muscle eating 2 bigmacs and a snickers, is incorrect. However inappropriate that may sound to us people of the iron game, it is fact.

The question shouldn't be; Can I gain muscle and lose fat? But what is OPTIMAL for gaining muscle and losing fat.

We all know that .9 grams per pound of LBM is the low optimal number for protein- so start there.

We all know that too many simple sugars and starches can slow fat loss progress - so limit them

Fats (3-6-9) are essential to a healthy body and endocrine system- so ensure you get enough in your diet.

Saturated fats are horrible for your body so limit them.


Everyone knows the correct answer- but most seem to want the easy way out- you didn't put that 20 pounds of fat on in two weeks, so don't expect to lose it in that amount of time.

Lifestyle choices are made everyday, if, more often than not- you make the correct ones- you will no doubt improve your physique.



Nugg

 

[Lumbuss]

MS, explain please how having workouts in the evening is better than morning or mid-day. Im not disagreeing with you, i really haven't seen any studies. But keep in mind that if you work out early you will be eating carbs/protien every 3 hrs (unless you follow Fonz' method, something i am going to look into because i have never heard that before). So if you workout early, you will be constantly eating throughout the day and restoring glycogen and giving your muscles material to repair and supercompensate all day. On the other hand, if you workout late you are most likley going to get your pw meal in, maybe two more.

So i guess it comes down to what is more important, sleep or food. Like cackerots said, GH can't build muscle on its own. So can you explain a little further how an evening workout would be better, im not disagreeing i just want to hear what you think.

 

[MR. BMJ]

WTF...how did I ever miss this thread?

This is a damn good thread with a lot of great info being put out! Without, regurgitating what everyone else has mentioned, I am pretty much in agreement to what has been stated by MS, gy, and FONZ!

Bottom line is that everyone will react differently to every diet. There are so many factors involved between individuals, that there just is NO PERFECT DIET FOR EVERYONE! However, there are perfect diets at certain times of need.

Over the years, I have been a big fan of CKD diets as a way to shed off the last bit of fat. However, with the latest scientific data on Leptin, etc...I do not feel that it is really necessary to go to such extremes. I am a huge fan of CARB Refeeding! Simply, a calorie deficit followed by a few days of dieting (2-4...individual differences of course) followed by a refeed is NOW a better alternative for myself. This is not saying that all other diets don't work...I have pictures to prove otherwise that they do. I just think most people make it harder than it is...at least those with no hormonal problems.

Lyle McDonald has stated for awhile now that any macronutrient ratio will work as long as you have the necessary basics of the diet along with a deficit in calories and exercise. I tend to more and more think this is true. MS has been saying for awhile as well.

I don't really know what else to say that hasn't already been stated.

I wonder if gy still lurks on this board? If so, let me know, I have a few questions regarding research you mentioned being a part of.

BMJ

 

[MR. BMJ]

Just for the sake of things, I need to be more clear on something. I stated that any macronutrient will do, and for some that is true. BUT, for others, they will perform better on a certain macronutrient profile, BUT I do feel that eventually they will still have to change up their ratios to keep the body primed. I tend to do better on a lower/reduced carb diet, but eventually have to switch up to an isocaloric, or high carb diet to keep "things" going smoothly.

There is just toooo many topics being discussed here in this thread.

BMJ

 

[MS]

MR BMJ, you prolly missed this thread becasue it's ancient! I dunno where Lumbuss dug this one up from??? Oh well, it was too long for me to reread it all.

Lumbuss, training in the morning, afternoon or evening doesn't make any difference UNLESS you're only eating one main meal per day post workout to 'bulk'. In this case it is probably better to have that one meal within a few hours of going to bed since this is when most anabolism takes place, therefore training in the afternoon/evening would be better. If you're eating lots of meals throughout the day then it doesn't really matter when you train.

You're right MR BMJ, there's an aweful lot of topics touched upon here. One thing I don't think I brought up in these threads was how important I believe it is to change your diet (training etc...) regularly. No matter what kind of diet you follow, your body will adapt to it and progress (mass gain or fatloss) will stall if you keep doing the same old same old. I'm certainly not eating one meal per day at the moment and if I ate that way all my life I suspect I would have some hormonal imbalances by now! I can't think of any time in the history of our species when we would have taken in the same foods/vitamins/minerals in the same ratios day after day and season after season. There is also plenty of evidence that our bodies get pretty lazy and "tune out" when they are constantly bombarded with the same stuff all the time....just like our brains LOL.