Sign In
Create Account
1
First of all, let's start with meal frequency and meal timing.
Meal Frequency
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_dtaWqzV6d7M/TMC_lQFY1SI/AAAAAAAAA5E/hiRn0jPhJbI/s400/Batman+and+Joker+Diet+Discussion.jpg
YOu probably heard from many people to eat every 2-3 hours to avoid catabolism/keep your metabolism running/have a steady flow of protein for your body. This 'myth' will probably never die and is utterly wrong.
Let's look at it from the evolutionary point. How did human species survive if they were never able to eat every 2-3 hours? Our ancestors, hunters and gatherers, ate what they could, when they could; they couldn't store everything in a fridge. Some days they hunted and had nothing, yet we are still here. How is that possible?
Here is a good quote from leangains.com:
Each time you eat, metabolic rate increases slightly for a few hours. Paradoxically, it takes energy to break down and absorb energy. This is the Thermic Effect of Food (TEF). The amount of energy expended is directly proportional to the amount of calories and nutrients consumed in the meal.
Let's assume that we are measuring TEF during 24 hours in a diet of 2700 kcal with 40% protein, 40% carbohydrate and 20% fat. We run three different trials where the only thing we change is the the meal frequency.
A) Three meals: 900 kcal per meal.
Six meals: 450 kcal per meal.C) Nine meals: 300 kcal per meal.
What we'd find is a different pattern in regards to TEF. Example "A" would yield a larger and long lasting boost in metabolic rate that would gradually taper off until the next meal came around; TEF would show a "peak and valley"-pattern. "C" would yield a very weak but consistent boost in metabolic rate; an even pattern. "B" would be somewhere in between.
However, at the end of the 24-hour period, or as long as it would take to assimilate the nutrients, there would be no difference in TEF. The total amount of energy expended by TEF would be identical in each scenario. Meal frequency does not affect total TEF. You cannot "trick" the body in to burning more or less calories by manipulating meal frequency.
Further reading: I have covered the topic of meal frequency at great length on this site before.
The most extensive review of studies on various meal frequencies and TEF was published in 1997. It looked at many different studies that compared TEF during meal frequencies ranging from 1-17 meals and concluded:
"Studies using whole-body calorimetry and doubly-labelled water to assess total 24 h energy expenditure find no difference between nibbling and gorging".
Since then, no studies have refuted this. For a summary of the above cited study, read this research review by Lyle McDonald.
Earlier this year, a new study was published on the topic. As expected, no differences were found between a lower (3 meals) and higher meal (6 meals) frequency. Read this post for my summary of the study. This study garnered some attention in the mass media and it was nice to see the meal frequency myth being debunked in The New York Times.
Origin
Seeing how conclusive and clear research is on the topic of meal frequency, you might wonder why it is that some people, quite often RDs in fact, keep repeating the myth of "stoking the metabolic fire" by eating small meals on a frequent basis. My best guess is that they've somehow misunderstood TEF. After all, they're technically right to say you keep your metabolism humming along by eating frequently. They just missed that critical part where it was explained that TEF is proportional to the calories consumed in each meal.
Another guess is that they base the advice on some epidemiological studies that found an inverse correlation between high meal frequency and body weight in the population. What that means is that researchers may look at the dietary pattern of thousands individuals and find that those who eat more frequently tend to weigh less than those who eat less frequently. It's important to point out that these studies are uncontrolled in terms of calorie intake and are done on Average Joes (i.e. normal people who do not count calories and just eat spontaneously like most people).
There's a saying that goes "correlation does not imply causation" and this warrants further explanation since it explains many other dietary myths and fallacies. Just because there's a connection between low meal frequencies and higher body weights, doesn't mean that low meal frequencies cause weight gain. Those studies likely show that people who tend to eat less frequently have:
* Dysregulated eating patterns; the personality type that skips breakfast in favor of a donut in the car on the way to work, undereat during the day, and overeat in the evening. They tend to be less concerned with health and diet than those who eat more frequently.
* Another feasible explanation for the association between low meal frequencies and higher body weight is that meal skipping is often used as a weight loss strategy. People who are overweight are more likely to be on a diet and eat fewer meals.
The connection between lower meal frequency and higher body weight in the general population, and vice versa, is connected to behavioral patterns - not metabolism.
Won't I go catabrolic if I don't eat every 2-3 hours?
No, you won't. The time it takes to go 'catabolic' and start breaking down muscle, is around 48-72h of fasting.
The body can only use 30g of protein in one meal?
Incorrect. Again, look at it from the evolutionary point. Do you think humans would be here if we could only absorb 30g of protein in one meal? Can a 100lb 80 year old women absorb the same amount of protein as a 300lb grown man?
This is explained in an article here: http://www.wannabebig.com/diet-and-n...a-single-meal/
If I eat too much at once it will spike insulin?
Yes, if you eat anything, it will spike insulin; but you will not store any fat if your energy intake is the same as the amount that you burned. Here is a great explanation:
http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Lipolysis-Lipogenesis1.png
Full explanation can be found here: http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=319
Meal Timing
This is where it gets exciting. Supplement companies, 'big ripped people' who are supported by them, all tell us what they want us to hear so we could buy supplements.
Should I take a fast-acting protein post workout in my 30 minutes anabolic window?
The reality is, the anabolic window does exist, but it's much, much longer. It is around 24h long. This is plenty of time for you to get your hands on protein; did I mention protein that you ate prior to your workout? Not yet.
This is a great study which you should take a look at:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21289204
Here is a great quote from Alan Aragon:
The postexercise "anabolic window" is a highly misused & abused concept. Preworkout nutrition all but cancels the urgency, unless you're an endurance athlete with multiple glycogen-depleting events in a single day. Getting down to brass tacks, a relatively recent study (Power et al. 2009) showed that a 45g dose of whey protein isolate takes appx 50 minutes to cause blood AA levels to peak. Resulting insulin levels, which peaked at 40 minutes after ingestion, remained at elevations known to max out the inhibition of muscle protein breakdown (15-30 mU/L) for 120 minutes after ingestion. This dose takes 3 hours for insulin & AA levels to return to baseline from the point of ingestion. The inclusion of carbs to this dose would cause AA & insulin levels to peak higher & stay elevated above baseline even longer.
So much for the anabolic peephole & the urgency to down AAs during your weight training workout; they are already seeping into circulation (& will continue to do so after your training bout is done). Even in the event that a preworkout meal is skipped, the anabolic effect of the postworkout meal is increased as a supercompensatory response (Deldicque et al, 2010). Moving on, another recent study (Staples et al, 2010) found that a substantial dose of carbohydrate (50g maltodextrin) added to 25g whey protein was unable to further increase postexercise net muscle protein balance compared to the protein dose without carbs. Again, this is not to say that adding carbs at this point is counterproductive, but it certainly doesn't support the idea that you must get your lightning-fast postexercise carb orgy for optimal results.
To add to this... Why has the majority of longer-term research failed to show any meaningful differences in nutrient timing relative to the resistance training bout? It's likely because the body is smarter than we give it credit for. Most people don't know that as a result of a single training bout, the receptivity of muscle to protein dosing can persist for at least 24 hours: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21289204
More from earlier in the thread:
Here's what you're not seeming to grasp: the "windows" for taking advantage of nutrient timing are not little peepholes. They're more like bay windows of a mansion. You're ignoring just how long the anabolic effects are of a typical mixed meal. Depending on the size of a meal, it takes a good 1-2 hours for circulating substrate levels to peak, and it takes a good 3-6 hours (or more) for everythng to drop back down to baseline.
You're also ignoring the fact that the anabolic effects of a meal are maxed out at much lower levels than typical meals drive insulin & amino acids up to. Furthermore, you're also ignoring the body's ability of anabolic (& fat-oxidative) supercompensation when forced to work in the absence of fuels. So, metaphorically speaking, our physiology basically has the universe mapped out and you're thinking it needs to be taught addition & subtraction.
My glycogen stores are depleted so I need to get some sugars in?
After a typical workout, your glycogen stores will not be depleted enough to worry about it.
If I eat carbs before bed, they will get stored as fat
No. If your energy intake=energy burned, then you will store no fat in a 24h period. Our bodies still work at night.
Here is a study where participants ate carbohydrates mainly at dinner.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21475137
Now, let's take a look at a comon approach, IIFYM(If it fits your macros).
IIFYM
IIFYM(if it fits your macros) does not mean you can pig out on whey and fries all day. It means meeting your macronutrients and micronutrients daily with foods you enjoy. So, if you have sufficient micros in your diet(which can make animpact body composition in the long-term, and health), you can fill your macronutrients with foods you enjoy; whatever that is, ice cream, pizza, fries, etc.
Isn't sugar is bad for you?
All carbs eventually get broken down into sugars.
What about saturated fats?
Too long to explain, but saturated fats are not bad. Here is a long, detailed explanation of why.
ttp://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=136089021&p=712053741&viewfull=1# post712053741
http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showth...#post712053951
http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showth...#post712054151
Now, let's get to the point where you make your own diet
First of all, you have to calculate your macro requirements. To keep it short, here you can calculate all you need.
http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showth...hp?t=121703981
So, now you know your macro requirements. You already know about meal timing and frequency etc. So, here are a few steps:
1. Take the amount of meals you have most energy with, spread them out however you like, so you have the most energy and feel good.
2. Make a list of foods you enjoy and are rich in micronutrients(whole foods preferably for their micronutrient content).
3. Check your food's macros and make them fit yours.
4. ????
5. PROFIT
Back to top
