# ? someone



## boilermaker (Apr 18, 2008)

Please tell me again why skipping meals, especially breakfast is a bad idea for me on a cut.  Kinda stuck on this last 10 pounds and i think i need the reminder.


----------



## DOMS (Apr 18, 2008)

It'll slow down your metabolism, thus making it harder to lose weight on less food.  Plus, you'll be more likely to binge.


----------



## DOMS (Apr 18, 2008)

Oh, and it'll make your body more inclined to cannibalize your muscles for energy.


----------



## nadirmg (Apr 18, 2008)

DOMS said:


> Oh, and it'll make your body more inclined to cannibalize your muscles for energy.



doms beat me to it.  yep.  you may not be eating anything for breakfast but just because you don't doesn't mean your body won't.
"mmm those biceps looks very juicy.  aaah, luscious lats.  yummm."  muscle is the first thing your body will go after - not fat.


----------



## boilermaker (Apr 18, 2008)

thanks, that's what i needed to hear to finish losing this weight properly, i think.


----------



## Built (Apr 18, 2008)

boilermaker said:


> Please tell me again why skipping meals, especially breakfast is a bad idea for me on a cut.  Kinda stuck on this last 10 pounds and i think i need the reminder.


I always put off eating as long as I can in the AM. I'd rather eat more of my food later in the day. 



DOMS said:


> It'll slow down your metabolism, thus making it harder to lose weight on less food.  Plus, you'll be more likely to binge.



Really? I find it a lot easier to manage appetite. I wait until about 10 before I eat, and never any carbs in the am - only protein and fat - usually cottage cheese, avocado and tuna. Fills me up for HOURS. 

I can't see how waiting a few hours can slow down metabolism! I mean, I eat at bedtime, go to bed with a full tummy at midnight, eat at 10. How is this different from eating my last meal at 8, going to bed hungry and eating at 7?



DOMS said:


> Oh, and it'll make your body more inclined to cannibalize your muscles for energy.


Again, how? It's not like the OP is starving here. We're not talking about not eating - just about not eating first thing in the AM. 



nadirmg said:


> doms beat me to it.  yep.  you may not be eating anything for breakfast but just because you don't doesn't mean your body won't.
> "mmm those biceps looks very juicy.  aaah, luscious lats.  yummm."  muscle is the first thing your body will go after - not fat.


Nahhh. It isn't THAT bad. Really. 

Now I know this is a really common piece of bb folklore, but there's plenty of buzz around intermittent fasting - and a lot of us are finding it a LOT easier to manage appetite when we eat this way.

You can read more about IM all over the place: intermittent fasting - Google Search


----------



## boilermaker (Apr 19, 2008)

hmmmm, this thread is now very confusing.  So, Built, you are saying that as long as I eat my calorie requirement for the day in fairly evenly distributed amounts, it doesn't matter when I begin eating that day?


----------



## Built (Apr 19, 2008)

boilermaker said:


> hmmmm, this thread is now very confusing.  So, Built, you are saying that as long as I eat my calorie requirement for the day in fairly evenly distributed amounts, it doesn't matter when I begin eating that day?



Actually, I'm saying as long as you eat your calorie requirement for the day - and I don't care if you eat 8 tiny meals or three big honkin' ones from seven to midnight - it doesn't matter when you begin eating that day.

The only timing that really matters is the workout window. Train fed, then feed the damage you did at the gym. The rest simply comes down to appetite control and comfort. Personally, I'm a LOT more comfortable staying a little hungry in the daytime; I eat as little as I can given I think for a living and have to be able to concentrate. If I train at seven, I do most of my eating between 6 and midnight.


----------



## DOMS (Apr 19, 2008)

Built said:


> Really? I find it a lot easier to manage appetite. I wait until about 10 before I eat, and never any carbs in the am - only protein and fat - usually cottage cheese, avocado and tuna. Fills me up for HOURS.
> 
> I can't see how waiting a few hours can slow down metabolism! I mean, I eat at bedtime, go to bed with a full tummy at midnight, eat at 10. How is this different from eating my last meal at 8, going to bed hungry and eating at 7?
> 
> ...



Basic physiology.


----------



## Built (Apr 19, 2008)

Hmmm? You mean about slowing metabolism by not eating frequently? That one turned out to be a myth. It doesn't matter how many meals you eat. It all comes down to the calories - and to me at least, comfort.


----------



## Biggly (Apr 20, 2008)

Small frequent meals are known to _increase _metabolism but you have to go for extended periods to lower it from normal.

The simple fact of eating will rev your body up as you burn calories simply digesting  etc. 

Regarding AM nutrition I believe the body is more sophisticated than we tend to give it credit for - it knows it has only just woken up and that there's a major difference between sleeping and being awake. As such despite the lack of medical evidence many people find they can shift flab better with early morning cardio on an empty belly. Technically it shouldn't make any difference and studies are inconclusive but too many people (including me) have found it an effective fat burner to ignore.



B.


----------



## Built (Apr 20, 2008)

Biggly said:


> Small frequent meals are known to _increase _metabolism but you have to go for extended periods to lower it from normal.
> 
> The simple fact of eating will rev your body up as you burn calories simply digesting  etc.



Re the "frequent meals increase the metabolism" mantra: I thought so too, back in the day. This was one of those things that circulated in the industry for a while, but it turned out not to be true. The TEF heats us up post-prandially of course, but it's commensurate with the meal size: a small meal heats you up a little; a large meal heats you up a lot. There is no net difference, so do whichever makes you comfortable. [reference]

For many, while bulking, it's more comfortable to eat frequently through the day than it is to try to stuff those surplus calories into three already-large meals. And although some dieters like the "grazing" approach, others prefer to at least feel full a few times a day. Kinda doesn't feel like dieting, at least for a few hours a day. 

Either rationale and approach is of course quite valid - and very individual. 


Biggly said:


> Regarding AM nutrition I believe the body is more sophisticated than we tend to give it credit for - it knows it has only just woken up and that there's a major difference between sleeping and being awake. As such despite the lack of medical evidence many people find they can shift flab better with early morning cardio on an empty belly. Technically it shouldn't make any difference and studies are inconclusive but too many people (including me) have found it an effective fat burner to ignore.
> B.



Like so many things in this industry, there's what the science supports, and then there's observation.  If you see someone doing something that looks better than what you're using, try it and if you find something that's working for you, use it.


----------



## Rhyno84 (Apr 21, 2008)

To start with hello

How effective is your body at utilising all of the food that you eat in large vs. small meals.

Please correct me if i am wrong, I thought that your body would be better at extracting nutrients and energy better from smaller meals rather than large ones. But i am only basing this off of the presumption that your body only uses what it needs when it needs it.


----------



## Biggly (Apr 21, 2008)

Built, you're quite right regarding observation versus 'science'. One of the reason I gave up quoting references was that for every reference you find saying one thing someone will find one saying the other.

The human body is still not really understood, though the genome project should hopefully let us move forward a lot. 

Science is great in theory and often in practise but often it is what is _not asked_ that matters more than the answers to what is.

Even something as simple as metabolic rate - what does it really mean? The plain vanilla version is basically just how many calories you burn over a 24 hour period but on that basis _any exercise _"increases your metabolic rate". Others would argue it refers only to the basal rate that excludes activity, others mean the resting metabolic rate, others just mean the overall calorie burn including general activity or even exercise.

Bottom line, does eating small frequent meals either boost muscle growth or help cutting, or at least preventing/reducing fat gain?

To that question the answer is yes. Be it simply because you're revving the body up to digest frequently, the physical actions of eating, heck it could be the extra calories of cooking and washing up - or perhaps it's the lowered insulin release, the more frequent topping up of protein - whatever. Fact is that as a technique it's well-proven and established.

For me personally I know it helps because I tend to make a large stir-fry in an even larger wok, thus already have suitable meals handy. If nothing else that ensures I eat clean and can monitor easily!

For some people a 'boosted metabolic rate' tends to mean burning more calories, which is technically correct, yet if it works for others simply by killing their hunger pangs on a deficit then it's worth doing.

Bodybuilders don't always make as much effort as they perhaps should to look at the science, though I too went down the route of ignoring the magazines and just looking through the journals. Only to discover the journals often disagree with each other more than the magazines do.

You'll often find studies that seem convincing - until you find one that dealt with experienced weight trainers rather than newbys (or the other way round). For example without even looking at your reference I find myself asking "Is that including those doing weight training? What kind of weight training? What was their protein intake? Did they do cardio as well? Were any on creatine? Other supplements? Steroids? Or did they just get a bunch of 40 year old housewives who've never worked out in their lives? 

No, at first glance it shouldn't make any difference to basal metabolic rate. But basal metabolic rate (BMR) doesn't include digestion anyway, you need to fast for 12 hours before it can be measured.

So how do you measure the effect of frequent digestion then? Sure you can use the _resting _rate but how does that account for weight trainers, ie people doing exercise? Even if the subjects were experienced weight trainers, did they continue training as normal or did those that pigged out in just a couple of meals then retire to the couch and stay there until the sugar-rush wore off, skipping their workout?

There's just too many variables to place any great certainty on studies but when it comes to actively weight-training people with high protein intakes, ie bodybuilders,  we know that frequent meals seem to work best - for the simple reason that that is exactly what the more successful tend to do. Maybe they are all wrong for doing it but I find it hard to dimiss decades of proven results.

Sure you can argue they are not 'scientific' results but the whole point of science is to find flaws and iron out disagreements - and since they often disagree on such things scientists haven't exactly cracked all the questions just yet.

In your reference, which is a couple of quotes but it'll do, not only is there disagreement within the quotes but as 2 pointed out, energy levels are affected. Small frequent meals = more greater 'energy levels'. What's energy? Yeah, calories. Hello?

So no difference - IF we allow for the fact those on small frequent meals tend to be more active and energetic? That's like saying dwarfism doesn't make people short, as long as you match them against other people of the same height. Then there's no difference whatsover.


B.


----------



## Biggly (Apr 21, 2008)

Rhyno84, 

Generally the body can use (including storing it as fat) all of the 3 macronutrients, but it can only store protein as fat. It cannot store it as usuable protein for more than a few hours, so where protein is concerned you need at least 3 meals a day containing complete protein. Otherwise at some point during the day you're going without protein, generally regarded as a bad thing, at least by the vast majority of bodybuilders. 


B.


----------



## Built (Apr 21, 2008)

I don't think there's any validity to "frequent meals stimulate metabolism" though. There is certainly no evidence that it does, and we have to start out with the null hypothesis here. 

Go right ahead and perform a randomized trial on seasoned athletes; as a trained statistician I'd be delighted to help you design the experiment. If there is an effect in this subgroup, I'll be charmed to help uncover it.

That being said, to me the most important thing comes down to this:
Is the cost of doing business worth the gain?

I'll say where I'm going here.

Suppose I would burn off an extra, ohhh... say 60 calories a day by eating every three hours as opposed to eating the way I currently do (late breakfast, a few large meals late in the day, high protein, fairly high fat, carbs around my workouts).

The way I eat WORKS, and it's COMFORTABLE. 

Eating every three hours, eating carbs in the AM, yada yada yada isn't comfortable for me - these things stimulate too much hunger in my body. I'd rather forgo the 60 calories and eat in a way that keeps me satiated, yanno? 

If you LIKE eating this way, it's good to know there's no HARM in it. But it's not optimal for a lot of people - not if it means we either have to struggle with our diets, or risk cheating on them.

Oh, and we do store protein - it's in our muscles. We're just not used to thinking of them as protein storage receptacles. Beyond a certain point, consumed protein of course simply turns into expensive carbohydrate - but protein suppresses ghrelin like a sonofabitch, a VERY welcome perk to those of us former fatties whose fat-cells demand constant feedings otherwise, yanno?


----------



## Biggly (Apr 21, 2008)

I'm the opposite, I find no matter how large the meal within a few hours I'll be hungry again. Yet fairly small meals keeps my hunger at bay quite happily.

One thing I keep meaning to look into more deeply, I dunno if you or someone else has noticed this, but if I have an extra large meal late at night I awake the next day absolutely starving. I thought perhaps it was MSG in eatery food but while doing a short bulk recently I noticed the exact same thing with home-cooking. Logically it doesn't make sense; if anything I should wake up still a bit stuffed. Doesn't work that way though?

You say your way of doing things works for you and I'm sure it does - that's why I push monitoring so much. Different people react differently. They even change over time - what suited you at 18 may not work so well at 38.

Another point worth noting is that the body seems happier to put energy into fat storage than to remove it again. It seems it would rather trigger hunger pangs than draw on its fat reserves. Yes, some fat cells are constantly filled and emptied all the time but the whole problem of obesity tends to come down to how it's easier to store than to burn off. That's pretty much the definition, an excess of stored fat.

In theory then a fat person should never grow hungry, at least not until they get truly lean and ripped, _then _they'd feel hungry? Not so, we get hungry before then. Yet large meals spike insulin and create fat storage, arguably more than is going to be burnt through the rest of the day. Instead you'll feel hungry later while much of that stored fat will stay there, in storage.

We can argue 'just calories in versus calories out' but why restrict our thinking to 24 hour periods? If too many calories a day makes you fat then why not too many calories in 12 hours, or 2 hours? Sure, over time if we don't eat any more then in theory we'd burn it off again. In theory. Yet if we eat too much for 24 hours or 24 months we can't just 'not eat' for the next 24hours or 24 months and undo the fat storage.

Whether it be metabolic rate or just 'helps you get slim', small frequent meals works for a lot of people. I suspect the 2nd part (..containing protein") has much to do with it as well.

Some nutritional stuff can be really counter-inuitive. For example here in Asia a lot of people eat coconut oil as a slimming technique. Yep, they'll glug a spoon of pure saturated coconut fat - to lose weight. Again in theory this does not make sense, as if anything it should lead to fat storage, if over your normal calorie intake. Yet it seems eating fat convinces the body it is OK to release and burn fat, whereas a low fat diet can have the opposite effect.

You may find your happy acceptance of high fat levels is what allows you to go long periods between meals without problem, while someone else on the same number of calories (etc) might find they'd be driven mad with hunger or other symptoms. This is the sort of thing that makes me point out that food _ratios _do matter.


B.


----------



## Built (Apr 21, 2008)

Hmm... I think we may be getting hung up on the anchors.

The ratio of fat to total calories is a silly notion for bodybuilders and dieters because we change our total calories by so much. 

The ratio of dietary fat and dietary protein to lean mass, however, is a useful paradigm because it ensures sufficient fat and protein even in a caloric deficit: see, lean mass may change by a percentage point or two over a period of months, but calories can drop nearly in half from bulking to cutting:

For example, a 180 lb man with a 3000 calorie a day maintenance may bulk on 4000 calories a day and cut on 2000 calories a day. 

If he has 150 lbs of lean mass, his minimums for protein and fat under a "LBM-targeted dosing" approach will be 150g for protein and 75g for fat. Note that these may certainly go higher, but not lower.

Under a macronutrient ratio approach, he's targeting protein and fat to total calories. So he gets HALF as much protein while cutting as he does while bulking? That's a horrible idea!

Do you see why I don't track "percentage of total calories" for these now, biggly?


----------



## Built (Apr 21, 2008)

PS I use a lot of coconut fat in my cooking - coconut milk is wonderful in curry, one of my favourite types of things to eat while cutting because it's so rich and satisfying. Keeps me full for HOURS.


----------



## Biggly (Apr 21, 2008)

> If he has 150 lbs of lean mass, his minimums for protein and fat under a "LBM-targeted dosing" approach will be 150g for protein and 75g for fat. Note that these may certainly go higher, but not lower.
> 
> Under a macronutrient ratio approach, he's targeting protein and fat to total calories. So he gets HALF as much protein while cutting as he does while bulking? That's a horrible idea!
> 
> Do you see why I don't track "percentage of total calories" for these now, biggly?




I don't see how it's such a horrible idea? In my software for example when cutting you just set the calories to calculate on your (also calculated) _lean mass_. From that point onwards you have your minimum protein and calorie requirements.

If you then bulk and want more calories then if anything you should adjust the ratio - you see you seem horrified at the idea of halving the protein when cutting - but I'm somewhat concerned at the idea of doubling _protein _while bulking?

Extra protein yes, maybe lots more but twice as much? Even when cutting you should be getting enough protein so why would you need to double it just to double calories? A bit extra protein yes but if you just want extra calories that's where fats and carbs come in. Otherwise as you said yourself protein just becomes a very expensive carbohydrate and fat source.

150 grams a day is way above the RDA (about 60 grams) but bodybuilders would disagree and say 150 grams is OK, sure. But 300 grams? 

Even a high protein advocate such as myself would be concerned at that kind of level. That's 2.0 grams per lb of lean mass - most bodybuilders would recommend around 0.9 to 1.5, whereas 2.0 is certainly right at the max. Personally I'd say that's too high, as the amount of fiber I'd have to shovel down to shift that would bloat me like a balloon.

Either way you retain the ratio or you adjust the ratio when bulking - but it's still a ratio ;o)

Back to coconut oil - I'll sometimes take a spoonful just as a way of killing hunger if I'm busy. I find it can make me feel pretty hot. Advocates say that's because it "boosts your metabolic rate"..

Sez you?



B.


----------



## Irons77 (Apr 21, 2008)

*Another* hot topic!! lol


----------



## Built (Apr 21, 2008)

Biggly said:


> I don't see how it's such a horrible idea? In my software for example when cutting you just set the calories to calculate on your (also calculated) _lean mass_. From that point onwards you have your minimum protein and calorie requirements.


Does your software "dose" protein grams to your LBM, or does it give protein calories as a percentage of total calories?

If it's the former, it's appropriate. If it's the latter, your dieter will consume LESS protein at the very time when his or her body is under the most oxidative stress and therefore needs protein to be high. 





Biggly said:


> If you then bulk and want more calories then if anything you should adjust the ratio - you see you seem horrified at the idea of halving the protein when cutting - but I'm somewhat concerned at the idea of doubling _protein _while bulking?


I don't like either approach. YOU are the one who would do this. 

For me, my protein is pretty much the same bulking or cutting. Slightly higher when cutting, when I need the appetite suppression. Usually I like about 160g protein a day while bulking. I feel better on about 200g a day while cutting. That's about 1.7g/lb LBM - and I'd happily go higher if my calories allowed.  Feels very comfortable, and I'm ALL about the comfort!

The rest of your post is based on your misunderstanding of my post. Now that I've clarified, I'll let you respond.


----------



## danzik17 (Apr 21, 2008)

I like turtles.


----------



## Built (Apr 21, 2008)

Oh God me too.

The delicious shelled reptile; not the candy.


----------



## Biggly (Apr 21, 2008)

> Does your software "dose" protein grams to your LBM, or does it give protein calories as a percentage of total calories?



Both, manually adjustable as you monitor for what works for you.



> For me, my protein is pretty much the same bulking or cutting.



Alrighty then!



> The rest of your post is based on your misunderstanding of my post.






B.


----------



## Built (Apr 21, 2008)

I'm having a hard time with this part of your post:



> In theory then a fat person should never grow hungry, at least not until they get truly lean and ripped, then they'd feel hungry? Not so, we get hungry before then. Yet large meals spike insulin and create fat storage, arguably more than is going to be burnt through the rest of the day. Instead you'll feel hungry later while much of that stored fat will stay there, in storage.



Why do you think a large meal will spike insulin?


----------



## Biggly (Apr 21, 2008)

Because it does?

Protein alone spikes insulin, carbs spike insulin, carbs and protein together spike insulin even more - any time you eat you will create a surge of insulin, though much reduced immediately after a workout (where if anything you'll have glucagon to raise the blood sugar)

That's, along with other stuff, what insulin does, regulate blood sugar by converting it to glycogen or fat. Your body can't process a gorged meal quickly enough, hence the insulin, with blue and red flashing lights if you just ate a cake for example.

Your own reference you gave earlier stated this:



> Talbott, Bryant, Gaesser and Mullin agree but also cite evidence that small, frequent meals stabilize glucose levels — which in turn can control hunger.2 “Keeping insulin and glucose at a steady state is the best way to maintain a ‘healthy’ metabolism,” Mullin says.




???


B.


----------



## Built (Apr 21, 2008)

Biggly said:


> That's, along with other stuff, what insulin does, regulate blood sugar by converting it to glycogen or fat. Your body can't process a gorged meal quickly enough, hence the insulin, with blue and red flashing lights if you just ate a cake for example.



I never suggested eating frequent small meals was a bad idea. Only that it wasn't necessary. Some dieters find it helpful for satiety. 

I'm not one of them. 


Biggly said:


> Because it does?
> 
> Protein alone spikes insulin, carbs spike insulin, carbs and protein together spike insulin even more - any time you eat you will create a surge of insulin, though much reduced immediately after a workout (where if anything you'll have glucagon to raise the blood sugar)


Proteins are of course insulinemic, some more than others, but spike?

SPIKE?


----------



## Biggly (Apr 21, 2008)

Yes, spike, as in if you were to graph it you'd see a spike, ie a sharp increase.

Eating protein, such as a typical 64g portion, can double your insulin level to 100%, even a 200% increase. No, that's not as high as carbs can go but yes it's certainly a spike.


B.


----------



## Built (Apr 21, 2008)

It stimulates an increase, yes.

You and I have very different ideas on "spikes".

Kinda like calling a hill a mountain.


----------



## Built (Apr 21, 2008)

Getting back to your earlier post, in your software, do your dieters increase or decrease their protein intake while cutting?


----------



## Biggly (Apr 21, 2008)

If you're trying to keep things level then a hill is not level is it? Positively hilly in fact.

You's funs to play with!




B.


----------



## Built (Apr 21, 2008)

Insulin is a storage hormone. It stores stuff.

You must surely also be aware that when you increase protein, blood glucose goes down, right? And insulin blunts cortisol. It's not all bad! 

Because if it were, you'd be recommending we all eat nothing but fat! Fat stimulates almost NO insulin response. Mmmmm fat!

Now, back to dieters - using your software, do your dieters consume more protein when they cut, or when they bulk?


----------



## Biggly (Apr 21, 2008)

> Getting back to your earlier post, in your software, do your dieters increase or decrease their protein intake while cutting?



As I said, it's adjustable. The ratio doesn't automatically change in the current version (that is slated for 2.3 though manual adjustment will still overide any auto-calculation) but it comes with a book. In the book I say.. lemme find it... here ya go:

"Bulking Basics
If you've already read the nutrition section, and you should have, you'll know that you need to eat a lot more protein than the talking heads on TV and women's magazines will tell you. A lot more.

When you increase your calories you shouldn't just increase overall portions without thinking though. It's best to maintain or slightly increase protein rather than raising it much higher than your usual already-high bodybuilding levels. Fat should be kept pretty low too, so the main thing you're going to be increasing over and beyond a good clean diet is carbs.

Carbs? Nooo!
But carbs are famous for making you fat. This is true, so restricting the bulk of them to early morning, pre and post workout, is a good idea. You should still avoid them before bedtime unless you only just worked out."

Yes I know, the bedtime thing is debatable. I mention that.


B.


----------



## Built (Apr 21, 2008)

How about on a cut? This is bulking.


----------



## Built (Apr 21, 2008)

And why would you want carbs throughout the day? All that elevated blood sugar and elevated insulin... 

Why not protein and fat?


----------



## Biggly (Apr 21, 2008)

Did you edit? I missed this bit:



> You must surely also be aware that when you increase protein, blood glucose goes down, right? And insulin blunts cortisol. It's not all bad!



Of course insulin blunts cortisol, it's an anabolic hormone, some bodybuilders _inject _the stuff. That's one of the major reasons for the SMALL meals combining protein and carbs together in every meal (rather than protein in the "main" meals). Carbs can push insulin levels up to 300, even 500% at high volume. Combine carbs and protein at the same time and you can hit 800%. Is that enough of a spike for ya?

But keeping the meal small you trigger a small amount of insulin, just enough to pack the nutrious goodies away without knocking yourself into a semi-diabetic coma, ie the sleepy stuffed feeling after a large meal. See "Christmas snoozing" for example.

A lot of people seem to think only carbs raise insulin, not so, add protein in the mix and it goes higher - hence most mass gain shakes combine both.

Insulin is just a hormone, it's not a good thing or a bad thing, you just need to control the timing and volume. Hence lots of small frequent meals combining protein and carbs, ie the standard bodybuilding eating habits.

You stuff yourself with large meals doing that and we'll need a crowbar to get you off the sofa. What you're doing it combining protein with high levels of fat and yes, that will work in its own way. However without the carbs where's the energy for workouts? You rely on fat for anaerobic weight training?


B.


----------



## Biggly (Apr 21, 2008)

> How about on a cut? This is bulking.



I said, you start with your minimal lean body mass requirements for protein, even if you're cutting. Cut other stuff, not protein.



> And why would you want carbs throughout the day? All that elevated blood sugar and elevated insulin...



That's the point, with lots of small frequent meals it's not elevated, it's pretty damn stable. Again see your own reference.



> Why not protein and fat?



Because fat doesn't come with all the nutrients and goodies of veggies and fruit for a well-balanced diet. Artificial tabs can only go so far.


B.


----------



## Built (Apr 21, 2008)

FAT doesn't have nutrients?

Tell me you're kidding. 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


----------



## Built (Apr 21, 2008)

Small frequent meals with lots of carbohydrate and not much fat - why not do small frequent meals with low carbohydrate instead? That way instead of stable and elevated, you keep insulin stable and low? 

Besides, fat is yummy!

Mmmm fat!


----------



## Biggly (Apr 21, 2008)

> FAT doesn't have nutrients?



Not the nutrients of fruits and veggies no. Nor is it a good energy source for workouts, though great for gentle jogging perhaps.

Yes you get fat soluble vits and obviously you need EFAs but doesn't mean to say you should favor fat over carbs. 

Remind me again, are you following Atkins or something?

I think at this stage we're just butting heads for the fun of it, we both agree high protein and high fat, in comparison to the usual low fat high carb mainstream diet, is the way to go. We're differing on the details and degrees rather than the principles.


B.


----------



## Biggly (Apr 21, 2008)

Your question:


> why not do small frequent meals with low carbohydrate instead? That way instead of stable and elevated, you keep insulin stable and low?


I already answered that but here's your answer:



> Insulin is a storage hormone. It stores stuff.
> 
> You must surely also be aware that when you increase protein, blood glucose goes down, right? And insulin blunts cortisol. It's not all bad!



In little regular doses it does the body good, as they say. You know, cos it stores stuff? And why do you think blood glucose goes down? That's right, the blood-sugar reducing hormone spikes. You know, insulin? 




B.


----------



## Built (Apr 22, 2008)

Yes. It is astonishingly good at taking that harmful, high blood glucose and disposing of it.

As fat.

Ick. 

That frog - is that your version of masturbating? Because you seem to do it a lot around me.

Hey, I'm just sayin'...


----------



## Just_Moe (Apr 22, 2008)

You do not have to eat your first meal as soon as the cock crows. On a cut I have my coffee, my other stims and read the wild world of internet insanity. Then after my coffee has woken my up and my stims cause me to realize just what type of shit I am reading I wander to the kitchen for some protein...and...and...some fats.  However, if I were able to handle carbs like a man, or not a former fat ass then I could add some carbs....but there is no need. Since all most do at this point in the day is jump in the shower and get ready to sit in your car for a commute to work where you have a desk job...or at the most bag Mrs. Phillips groceries, which again won't really call for a carb load now will it?

I think some BBers get so caught up in dogma and forget someone who wants to lose fat is NOT a bber....they could be a power lifter tho 

So, to the OP, you do not need to eat your first meal when the alarm screams and the dog asks to go out...you can wait till you sit at the office desk and listen to your voice mails. You will not waste your biceps ( again only bbers are overly concerned with the SWOL of a bicep) because you did not add 1/4 oats to your protein shake. You will not look like a runway model by the time break time comes around and you have time to eat a meal. Even if a study DID show you lost amino's from your arm when you ate at 11 a.m. rather than 6:30 a.m. it would be an immeasurable amount to the human eye on a flex, I promise. 

Biggly is this you?





cuz yer pretty.


----------



## nadirmg (Apr 22, 2008)

Irons77 said:


> *Another* hot topic!! lol


----------



## Biggly (Apr 22, 2008)

> Biggly is this you? cuz yer pretty.



No, cuz I's fugly.

Peeps kept telling me the software's great but the site looked like crap and I should jazz it up with pics of muscle n stuff, so I did. He's some model chap, with a lot more muscle and hair than me.



> Yes. It is astonishingly good at taking that harmful, high blood glucose and disposing of it.
> 
> As fat.



Built, make your mind up, you seem to be disagreeing with your own quote?

I do the bouncy thing cos you make me laugh and are fun to play with. Besides I jus can't resist that smiley...





B.


----------



## Built (Apr 22, 2008)

What part isn't clear babe? I'll try to use small words.


----------



## Biggly (Apr 22, 2008)

You said:



> You must surely also be aware that when you increase protein, blood glucose goes down, right?



But what makes it go down? Insulin. Or are you referring to your overall diet, ie more protein in general rather than per meal? Either way the main thing that regulates blood sugar is insulin (along with glucagon etc). And yes, the presence, even of trace amounts, keeps cortisol away. 

Your body is constantly in flux, feeding and growing your muscles, eating them for energy or simply maintaining them. Large meals will spike insulin, regardless of what you're eating, which means you will get some fat storage. Large gaps between meals will mean you'll release cortisol or other means of scavanging short-term energy. The idea is to find a happy balance where muscle damage is repaired and new tissue added from your workouts yet not so well fed that your body starts storing fat.

You can, to some extent, balance this just via calories. It's even easier though by providing the body with a constant stream of nutrients rather than just dumping those calories in occasionally and letting the body figure it out by itself. In that situation it responds in the short term, which is to shove most of the excess into fat storage.

Over the years most people have found combining carbs and protein together, in small frequent meals, is what seems to work best. For them.

For you it seems you'd rather have the full feeling from fats and if your genetics work with that then great. What I don't understand is how you seem to know this stuff yet push for a small number of high fat meals?

Carbs are not the enemy, they are simply the body's normal and most usuable energy source.  



B.


----------



## Built (Apr 23, 2008)

I don't think carbs are the enemy. I'm just not terribly comfortable when I eat starchy foods unless I'm training shortly afterward - or unless I've just lifted. 

I like to stay comfortable. I'm funny that way. 

Getting results while staying comfortable is all that matters to me.

Now, I'm perfectly happy to watch YOU eat your 6 micromeals at timed intervals through the day while doing boatloads of cardio. Really. Actually, the though of that rather makes me smile.

I'll be the one dipping her green beans in butter and dressing her salad with avocado and olive oil - while watching all the fat joggers working up their appetites.

So tell me, when you knock back that spoonful of coconut oil, do you tell yourself to try to enjoy it, or do you try to keep pleasure away from the food you eat?


----------



## Biggly (Apr 23, 2008)

Actually I was looking forward to trying coconut oil but in truth it doesn't tase much of anything, just oily, with a hint of coconut. Somehow I was expecting something more intense.

Regarding food I originally grew fat simply because I don't overly like food.

Weird eh?

My job involved getting out in the car around 6am, travelling all over the place, finally heading home around 8pm (regional manager for a facilities company). Eating was just a damn pain and something to be done to shut my belly up so I could concentrate on work. Typically food would be grabbed from a service station or something ordered from a cafe on site.

I was always busy but never actually exercising per se. 

In the end I switched from high paid career that was killing me (literally, chest pains etc) to a simple stress-free job as a warehouse clerk. I started eating "healthy" etc. Made no difference really, the fat wouldn't shift.

So I started working out, devouring everything I could read on the topic. Yes I built some muscle, not much, didn't really shift the fat. Then tried.... cardio!

That worked to some extent. Then tried fasted state cardio. That worked better. Then tried fasted state cardio with HITT. That worked.

Carb cycling worked well too, not _without _carbs but cycling them and as you say, mostly around training time.

I've tried so many different systems, purchased just about every ebook and printed book going. Some things work, some don't but the most important lesson I learnt from all of it is that there's a reason why some stuff does the job and other stuff is a waste of time. 

Everybody is different and nothing works for ever.

The thing that really worked for me was getting strict on monitoring what did or didn't work for MY genetics, habits, preferences and lifestyle. Hence the software, polished up for other people. 

I've tried high-fat, high protein and very low carbs. That works for about a week, then I gain fat. I've tried high carb and low fat. Yuk. Heck I've tried all sorts of stuff but at the end of the day I come back to that bodybuilding basic of small frequent meals of carbs and protein. It just works, for me and for a lot of other people. NOT everyone.

For my own story I emmigrated to Malaysia, on the island of Borneo. Today I live a simple stress-free happy little life, with an abundance of opportunity to work out etc. However I'm a lazy git and spend far too much time on discussion forums - so figured if I was gonna hang around online chatting I may as well do so here, if only to remind me I should be working out more myself 

I'm not interested in arguing, winning, scoring points or anything of that nature. Did that for years on other forums; it just sucks up too much of my energy and time. 

I firmly believe everyone should start with the basics we _know _work for _most _people, monitor themselves closely and tweak and tune from there to get _their _maximum results. There is no magical formula that works for everyone.

I don't care who says there is, there isn't.


B.


----------



## nadirmg (Apr 23, 2008)

Biggly said:


> I'm not interested in arguing


----------



## VanessaNicole (Apr 23, 2008)

boilermaker said:


> Please tell me again why skipping meals, especially breakfast is a bad idea for me on a cut.  Kinda stuck on this last 10 pounds and i think i need the reminder.



It's well established that people who eat breakfast weigh less, on average, than people who don't.

No one has yet proven exactly why that is, as changes in metabolic rate are very minimal when you skip breakfast in the short term.

On the other hand you will probably eat a lot more later in the day. You are also less likely to feel good and have energy to support activity (which, along with a decent breakfast, will help a lot more than skipping meals).

The extent to which "weither or not you eat breakfast, your body will" is highly over blown and exaggerated. Especially if it's only short term. You would have to undereat by a large degree to see significant muscle loss over a short peroid of time. And it would have more to do with a subcaloric diet (gluconeogenesis) than skipping breakfast or low protein intake at breakfast time.

That said, I would not skip breakfast if I was trying to lose weight.


----------



## Built (Apr 23, 2008)

Biggly said:


> Actually I was looking forward to trying coconut oil but in truth it doesn't tase much of anything, just oily, with a hint of coconut. Somehow I was expecting something more intense.
> 
> Regarding food I originally grew fat simply because I don't overly like food.
> 
> ...



Interestingly, we are all more similar than different. And the right protocol works forever - because the right protocol includes sufficient variation to prevent adaptation. But I think that might be what you mean. 


Biggly said:


> The thing that really worked for me was getting strict on monitoring what did or didn't work for MY genetics, habits, preferences and lifestyle. Hence the software, polished up for other people.
> 
> I've tried high-fat, high protein and very low carbs. That works for about a week, then I gain fat.


That's because you overate. If you eat more food than you need, you gain weight. I know, it's revolutionaryâ???¦ 


Biggly said:


> I've tried high carb and low fat. Yuk. Heck I've tried all sorts of stuff but at the end of the day I come back to that bodybuilding basic of small frequent meals of carbs and protein. It just works, for me and for a lot of other people. NOT everyone.


Actually, I think it does, if it's calorie-controlled. It's just not COMFORTABLE for everyone. If you can stay uncomfortable and eat this way, and remain lean, you'll still be better off than you will if you're fat. That's why it works for so many people. They don't know there are different ways to achieve the same end, and this way, if uncomfortable, well, it DOES work, so they stoically plod along with their dry brown rice, poached chicken and un-buttered broccoli. 

Sadly, for a lot of people, it is SO uncomfortable it can lead to much of the disordered thinking around food that is so prevalent in the industry. 

Put it another way - I train very little, do almost no cardio, I was fat for about twenty years, and still, in middle age, I stay lean and vascular year round with no difficulty whatsoever. 

You, who writes software professionally to help people adhere to your own dietary guidelines, admit that you are lazy and need to be reminded to work out more. 

Why should you need to work out more? Doesn't your diet take care of you? Surely you only need a few hours a week in the gym, like I do. 


Biggly said:


> For my own story I emmigrated to Malaysia, on the island of Borneo. Today I live a simple stress-free happy little life, with an abundance of opportunity to work out etc. However I'm a lazy git and spend far too much time on discussion forums - so figured if I was gonna hang around online chatting I may as well do so here, if only to remind me I should be working out more myself
> 
> I'm not interested in arguing, winning, scoring points or anything of that nature. Did that for years on other forums; it just sucks up too much of my energy and time.


Then why have you been doing it with me? I started our conversations politely - you immediately jumped down my throat after failing to do anything but scan a few words out of context in my post. Suggested I read the stickies as I recall.

That one gave me a pretty good chuckle. 



Biggly said:


> I firmly believe everyone should start with the basics we _know _work for _most _people, monitor themselves closely and tweak and tune from there to get _their _maximum results. There is no magical formula that works for everyone.
> 
> I don't care who says there is, there isn't. B.



Outside of pronounced health problems, what works for the worst case works for all. 

And the basics are not complicated: eat enough protein and fat to satisfy essential needs, and sufficient calories to support your desired weight. Eat more than you need, you gain. Eat less than you need, you lose. Cardio is good for your heart (hence the nameâ???¦), resistance training using progressive overload in natural movement patterns directs calorie traffic. 
Find a way to feel comfortable while doing all this and you'll find your health. 

The rest - high fat, low fat, high carb, low carb, intermittent fasting, non-stop mini-feedingâ???¦ are the comfort-based tweaks we look for around these landmarks. Outside of personal preference, they are of no physiological relevance, so do whatever means you can live with your choices. 



VanessaNicole said:


> It's well established that people who eat breakfast weigh less, on average, than people who don't.
> 
> No one has yet proven exactly why that is, as changes in metabolic rate are very minimal when you skip breakfast in the short term.


This, of course, is true of people who do not weigh and track their food, yes?


VanessaNicole said:


> On the other hand you will probably eat a lot more later in the day.


This is precisely what I do, yes. On purpose. I overeat at night. It's very premeditated. I feel more comfortable this way. 


VanessaNicole said:


> You are also less likely to feel good and have energy to support activity (which, along with a decent breakfast, will help a lot more than skipping meals).



This is perfect for me, actually. 

I don't have a lot of activity to support in the daytime. I sit at a desk. I train at night.  This is all consistent with my lifestyle. 



VanessaNicole said:


> The extent to which "weither or not you eat breakfast, your body will" is highly over blown and exaggerated.


Of course it is!


VanessaNicole said:


> Especially if it's only short term. You would have to undereat by a large degree to see significant muscle loss over a short peroid of time. And it would have more to do with a subcaloric diet (gluconeogenesis) than skipping breakfast or low protein intake at breakfast time.


Furthermore, when I DO eat breakfast, it's a boatload of protein: half a tin of tuna, almost a cup of cottage cheese, half an avocado. 



VanessaNicole said:


> That said, I would not skip breakfast if I was trying to lose weight.


Where I ALWAYS do, precisely because it makes adhering to a cut diet so much easier. I love to go to sleep with a full tummy. Somehow, it just doesn't feel like dieting that way. And I get to look forward to the later part of the day, when I get to eat!


----------



## Just_Moe (Apr 23, 2008)

VanessaNicole said:


> It's well established that people who eat breakfast weigh less, on average, than people who don't.


careful because that alone has so many flaws. It could be that people who eat breakfast are actually people already concerned with health and fitness therefore the breakfast is a result of the habit of being fit rather than breakfast causing one to be more fit (less fat)
That is like saying cottage cheese wil cause weight gain because most diets for over fat people prescrube cottage cheese...I see a fat person eating it...I see many fat people eating it..therefore, it will cause you to be over fat as well.




VanessaNicole said:


> No one has yet proven exactly why that is, as changes in metabolic rate are very minimal when you skip breakfast in the short term.


If you SKIP breakfast, aren't you just really eating it LATER? 



VanessaNicole said:


> On the other hand you will probably eat a lot more later in the day. You are also less likely to feel good and have energy to support activity (which, along with a decent breakfast, will help a lot more than skipping meals).


oh yeah, see, here we see we did not skip, we ate later. To fuel activity. Who here has that much of an active career they need to be fully fueled before heading out the door? What are the statistics for commutes? In North America is is an average of 45 minutes each way. So now I have had 500 calories of carbs and proteins to fuel me sitting on my ass for 45 minutes, right?




VanessaNicole said:


> The extent to which "weither or not you eat breakfast, your body will" is highly over blown and exaggerated. Especially if it's only short term. You would have to undereat by a large degree to see significant muscle loss over a short peroid of time. And it would have more to do with a subcaloric diet (gluconeogenesis) than skipping breakfast or low protein intake at breakfast time.


exactly



VanessaNicole said:


> That said, I would not skip breakfast if I was trying to lose weight.



well, it is hard to skip a meal if you plan to eat at all that day and have a target range of calories to hit, right? You would delay a meal...as Built and I have remarked...you do not need to eat instantly.

Conversely then Biggly states to do fasted HIIT ( which is a retarded concept for a new person to fitness, honestly I would add a disclaimer there!) So how is it NOT ok to DELAY a meal but to perform fasted cardio ( you say at a HIIT level but I think hitting an anaerobic threshold effectively without having eaten for 10 or so  hours to be flawed logic but I will let Built have that one LOL)

Hey OP...you can eat later.....


----------



## VanessaNicole (Apr 24, 2008)

Well, although I appreciate your advice to be "careful" I am well familiar with problems associated with this kind of data.

When designing a study authors account for these type of factors.

Many of the subjects in this particular study, for example, were taken from The National Weight Loss Registry.

Researchers evaluated thousands of people who were overweight, who were of a normal weight AND people who had lost weight and kept it off for more than 2 years.

The results show that the people who lost weight and kept it off are most likely to eat breakfast daily as well as the people who did not suffer from a weight problem. 

That said, I was most certainly not suggesting that you will get fat or that bad things will happen to you if you don't eat breakfast.

But in my personal experience I wouldn't skip it.

Also if I had children I would not allow them to skip it.

It's been shown many times that kids who skip breakfast perform poorly on aptitude tests in comparison to kids who eat breakfast.

That for me is enough not to skip it.


----------



## DaMayor (Apr 24, 2008)

I feel for the , the poor, confused, befuddled newbies who might have stumbled into this little debate....albeit an amiable one.

I was going to ask a question, but I don't remember what it was.....something about fasting and insulin.....


----------



## Irons77 (Apr 24, 2008)

Man I have a headache!  LOL


----------



## Built (Apr 24, 2008)

Vanessa, I don't think anyone here is saying it's a good idea for everyone to NOT eat breakfast. My point is that if you don't eat it until a little later in the day because YOU find it more comfortable, you aren't going to catabolize all your LBM!! 

Think of it: I eat a solid meal at midnight. I wake up at seven, eat "breakfast" at around ten or eleven. How exactly is this different from someone eating their last solid meal at eight, going to bed at eleven, and eating breakfast at six?

Either way, we're still only talking about roughly 10 hours between meals. 

I sit all morning - but I train at night. Lots of us live under this arrangement, and there are a LOT of people who find once they eat breakfast they cannot stop eating, like it "turns on" their appetite once they start eating. 

Under our calorie-controlled, well-nourished BB lifestyles, why not take advantage of natural appetite suppression if you can?


----------



## Biggly (Apr 24, 2008)

> Think of it: I eat a solid meal at midnight. I wake up at seven, eat "breakfast" at around ten or eleven. How exactly is this different from someone eating their last solid meal at eight, going to bed at eleven, and eating breakfast at six?



None but we're matching pygmies for height again, as most people tend not to eat a solid meal at midnight. I guess if you DO stuff yourself at midnight then missing brekkie is no biggie?


B.


----------



## Built (Apr 24, 2008)

My point exactly.

I love eating at bedtime. Doesn't feel like I'm dieting.


----------



## nadirmg (Apr 24, 2008)

according to merriam-webster...

"*break??·fast*
Pronunciation:
    \????brek-f?????st\ 
Function:
    noun 
Date:
    15th century

1 : the first meal of the day especially when taken in the morning"

breakfast has been clearly defined.  note that breakfast is not defined as the first meal of the deal between the hours of 6-9am.  so we could infer that eating the first meal of any day at 10am, like built said, would actually be considered as 'breakfast'.



Biggly said:


> None but we're matching pygmies for height again, as most people tend not to eat a solid meal at midnight. I guess if you DO stuff yourself at midnight then missing brekkie is no biggie?
> 
> 
> B.



nobody said anything about missing breakfast.


----------



## DaMayor (Apr 24, 2008)

Built said:


> there are a LOT of people who find once they eat breakfast they cannot stop eating, like it "turns on" their appetite once they start eating.



Ah, part one of the forgotten question! The insane stimulation of apetite soon after breakfast....but as usual, I digress.

I believe, as you have *all *stated in one form or another, that we are finding that the dietetic ideologies of the past are being re-thunk and re-defined.  However, throughout this sort of dialogue (as in many other discussions between those who are in training and those who train others, et al) I have sensed that there is a "one size fits all" mentality in regards to _all _aspects...metabolism, insulin, macros....all of it. 
I guess what I'm trying to say is that, while I enjoy and for the most part understand what you are talking about, it might be more beneficial to those who haven't a clue if you were to offer more individualized models when making your collective points. IOW, make this stuff work for the average guy.

Biggly has hit on many points that we have been taught again and again up to this point, and Built has hit on some stuff that ocassionally leaves me scratching my head, lol. (salt fat salt fat salt) Although this is not to say either of you are wrong in any way. 

Okay, I'm done babbling....carry on.


----------



## Just_Moe (Apr 24, 2008)

Biggly said:


> None but we're matching pygmies for height again, as most people tend not to eat a solid meal at midnight. I guess if you DO stuff yourself at midnight then missing brekkie is no biggie?
> 
> 
> B.



no. the convo I believe is about eating later in the day...so let's say I can eat 6 meals at 500 cals a meal for a total of 3000 cals..so I will eat at say 7 am and then every 3 hours after that till 10 at night. right?
OR I can eat at say...9 and have 5 meals and break up my calories however I want in those meals.
It is calories in vs calories out, right? we ALL agree there ( one would hope) so why would it matter if I have it at 7 before my commute and eat at break say around 9 or 10 vs eating at 7 then drive to work and eat at break again?

Vanessa no one was saying SKIP a meal. Skipping meals taking that calorie amount out of the prescribed calories for the day...and I bet if I consider my breakfast as my first meal and I eat it at 10 during break vs before I leave the house I too would answer YES to the survey asking me if I eat breakfast.


----------



## Just_Moe (Apr 24, 2008)

boilermaker said:


> Please tell me again why skipping meals, especially breakfast is a bad idea for me on a cut.  Kinda stuck on this last 10 pounds and i think i need the reminder.



eat your prescribed amount of calories and macros when you need and or want to eat them. Skipping would be lowing the calories and you do not want to do that, do you?


----------



## Built (Apr 24, 2008)

DaMayor said:


> Ah, part one of the forgotten question! The insane stimulation of appetite soon after breakfast....but as usual, I digress.
> 
> I believe, as you have *all *stated in one form or another, that we are finding that the dietetic ideologies of the past are being re-thunk and re-defined.  However, throughout this sort of dialogue (as in many other discussions between those who are in training and those who train others, et al) I have sensed that there is a "one size fits all" mentality in regards to _all _aspects...metabolism, insulin, macros....all of it.
> 
> I guess what I'm trying to say is that, while I enjoy and for the most part understand what you are talking about, it might be more beneficial to those who haven't a clue if you were to offer more individualized models when making your collective points. IOW, make this stuff work for the average guy.


See, that's been my point all along. Traditionally, bb has been the domain of the genetically gifted, usually male and sometimes enhanced athlete. These people have exceptional insulin sensitivity, naturally low and evenly-distributed adiposity, and continue to be destined to become the champions of the stage. These people do very well on lowfat, higher carb diets. Their bodies tolerate more cardio, they likely have higher natural levels of androgen. They're healthy, symmetric, and must therefore be hunted down and shot like the rabid dogsâ???¦ but I digress.

For the average guy (or gal) - not so gifted, not so spectacular, uneven fat distribution, perhaps insulin resistant because of excess adiposity, poor nutritional habits, etc - well, some of us TRIED these conventional nuggets of One True Way ideology - only to find we couldn't stick to the protocol because it was so damned uncomfortable!

That's why I've been delighted to learn that the most important guidelines for us "ordinary shmoes" are far looser than I had been led to believe.

The Basics
"Dose" protein at no less than a gram per pound LBM
Dose fat at no less than half a gram per pound LBM
Consume at least 25g of fibre a day from food (ie not supplements)
Fill the rest of your calories to suit your comfort.
Perform free, multi-joint lifts in natural movement patterns under progressive overload several times a week
Go for walkies a few times a week

The rest - "pre and post workout nutrition, fasted/fed cardio, HIIT vs SS, 6 meals vs 3, XYZ supplements..." well, that's where you can look at the old school standards and choose the parts that happen to suit you. Once you have the basics down, you've covered about 80% of it. You can spend the rest of your life fiddling with the remaining 20% - which by the way may very well change for you over time, so don't get too attachedâ???¦ 

Peace.


----------



## DaMayor (Apr 24, 2008)

Gotcha.

From the first time I found this web site until now, my own physiology, psychology (lol) and everything else has gone through a *minimum* of three different "phases". 
Much of what I read four years ago doesn't even remotely apply to my present situation, simply due to lifestyle changes, training or lack of training, diet, poor diet, worse diet of my life (low salt though) etc. 
Therefore, I have found that is good to establish a solid baseline from which to start.


----------



## VanessaNicole (Apr 24, 2008)

Built said:


> Vanessa, I don't think anyone here is saying it's a good idea for everyone to NOT eat breakfast. My point is that if you don't eat it until a little later in the day because YOU find it more comfortable, you aren't going to catabolize all your LBM!!
> 
> Think of it: I eat a solid meal at midnight. I wake up at seven, eat "breakfast" at around ten or eleven. How exactly is this different from someone eating their last solid meal at eight, going to bed at eleven, and eating breakfast at six?
> 
> ...



I'm not disagreeing with you. As I said, the issue of loss of muscle tissue due to not eating breakfast is totally overestimated. I completely agree.

However, those of you who feel best without eating breakfast are the exception to the rule.

I do not dispute that skipping breakfast for you might work. But it probably won't for most people.

I am well aware that hunger impulses will go away within a few hours if ignored. But a vast majority of people will have a much lower probability of controlling their appetites and making sound food choices once it returns later in the day.

However, there are always exceptions to every rule. I don't doubt that you are such an exception.


----------



## VanessaNicole (Apr 24, 2008)

Just_Moe said:


> no. the convo I believe is about eating later in the day...so let's say I can eat 6 meals at 500 cals a meal for a total of 3000 cals..so I will eat at say 7 am and then every 3 hours after that till 10 at night. right?
> OR I can eat at say...9 and have 5 meals and break up my calories however I want in those meals.
> It is calories in vs calories out, right? we ALL agree there ( one would hope) so why would it matter if I have it at 7 before my commute and eat at break say around 9 or 10 vs eating at 7 then drive to work and eat at break again?
> 
> Vanessa no one was saying SKIP a meal. Skipping meals taking that calorie amount out of the prescribed calories for the day...and I bet if I consider my breakfast as my first meal and I eat it at 10 during break vs before I leave the house I too would answer YES to the survey asking me if I eat breakfast.



Oh, I thought this was a discussion about why or why not to eat breakfast.


----------



## Biggly (Apr 24, 2008)

If you experience hunger pangs that then go away, what happened?

Something changed. 

But let's back up a bit, something changed for hunger pangs to occur in the first place.

What changes? Rather than going into the appetite center of the brain and getting so technical that we have to start checking spelling (hypothalamus for example) what regulates hunger comes down to hormones n stuff.

Your body was so low on food that hormones were released to trigger hunger pangs. That means your body is _already reacting _to a lack of food and blood sugar. Leave that reaction long enough and the hunger pangs go away.

What makes hunger pangs go away? Well when you eat it's stuff like peripheral hormone peptide but if you're not eating how is that triggered? What creates that shorter term shift between "need food" and "OK, got some food" when there was no intake of food? 

It seems somewhat reasonable to conclude that the body did indeed get some food from somewhere.

In an ideal and optimistic world it did nothing else except draw on your fat reserves. That's not the case though, as your body is constanly thirsty for protein, which is used from everything from your skin, fingernails, hair, internal organs, just about everything really. We know stored bodyfat cannot produce complete protein - so while you may have raw _energy_, enough to satisfy hunger in the short term, where's the protein?

Likewise we know the body cannot store proteins for more than a few hours, so a large meal the night before doesn't cut it where protein is concerned.

Bottom line we have a protein and energy deficiency which the body responds to by releasing hormones, part of which creates hunger. If no food it continues the process and basically eats itself. As it needs protein it will eat the "spare" protein of muscle tissue.

Is this effect so serious you'll lose all your muscles by not eating brekkie? No.

What it IS likely to do is slam the brakes on anything along the lines of actually _building _muscle and repairing the minor damage of working out.

Thus from a bodybuilding point of view, if not a slimming one, most bodybuilders have long agreed with the "breakfast is the most important meal of the day" and many take the attitude that if you experience hunger pangs you'll already gone too long without food. To ignore the hunger pangs until they go away may work for slimming but sucks for muscle growth.

This is the wisdom of bodybuilders through the ages and across the planet. 

Maybe they're all wrong. Whatever.

Regarding the skipping thing, the OP himself used the skip word.



B.


----------



## Built (Apr 24, 2008)

I don't ignore hunger pangs! 

I put off "peckish", but that's it. If I navigate around "peckish", I can completely avoid truly feeling hungry even deep into a cut.

If I eat carbs in the AM, I either fight hunger pangs all day, or simply overeat and call it a cheat day. Honestly, because I know this, I only ever do this on purpose, on cheat days.

If I eat a 7AM, I'm just as hungry at 10AM as I would have been had I blown off breakfast.

And I know a LOT of people who say they aren't hungry UNTIL they start eating for the day.

Now, if you aren't one of 'em, go right ahead and eat your egg white omelette and oatmeal.

But if you are, go right ahead and skip it. It won't make any difference - as long as you feed the workout window and hit your macros for the day.


----------



## Biggly (Apr 24, 2008)

> I always put off eating *as long as I can *in the AM. I'd rather eat more of my food later in the day.





> I don't ignore hunger pangs!
> 
> I put off "peckish", but that's it



My emphasis.

So lemme get this straight, you're willpower is so low that you fight, _fight _dammit, fight _to the very_...peckish?

Yeah I know, you're all about the comfort.



OK, so we conclude then that skipping brekkie is fine, providing you don't skip the calories and protein and stuff yourself the night before and eat the moment you get peckish? No hang on, the moment peckish becomes hunger?

Is that about right?



B.


----------



## Built (Apr 24, 2008)

It's not difficult - I wake up and I COULD eat, but it isn't pressing. 

Put it this way: going to bed hungry would be HARD. Waiting a few hours in the AM before I get in my pre-packed breakfast while reading my email at my desk is comfortable. 

And yep, I'm all about being comfortable. This of course means I'm a bad person. 

'Sokay. Once you know this about yourself, you can truly enjoy it, yanno?

So Biggly - this thread is pretty much spent so I'll contaminate it further (see above reference to my being a bad person LOL!) but did you say you're in Borneo? This actually sounds like a very cool thing that you've done. How did you pick Borneo to move to - you're English originally, right?


----------



## Built (Apr 24, 2008)

PS you are 100% correct about my willpower. I have almost none. And my laziness is legendary. 

That's why I had to struggle so hard to get this far. Seriously!


----------



## VanessaNicole (Apr 25, 2008)

Biggie, I think there are a few aspects of the nature of the human organism (also most animals) of which you are too unaware to make assumptions about what must be going on.

Humans and many animals eat (or at least try) at relatively predictable times. When you normally eat is when you will normally experience hunger. This is primarily a function of the parasympathetic nervous system (which is sometimes called the "feed or breed" response).

Remember Pavlov's dogs? Plenty of stimulus can cause hunger and other physiological feeding behaviors. In fact internal drives are actually not even as powerful as external ques unless you are at the point of starvation or close to it.

If you ignore the habit or impulse to eat then a few factors (notably reduced blood sugar) will together stimulate the parasympathetic nervous system and result in more of a "fight or fight" condition. In this condition a person or animal is better able to hunt or search for food. 

This also supresses hunger.

There may also be a touch of what some scientists have called "the infinite mercy of mother nature". It's a phenomenon by which human suffering which cannot be avoided (i.e. famine/hunger) is eventually dulled to the animal experiencing it. You can witness this also in accounts of life threatening animal attacks, for example, where many victims have little or no recall of pain associated with the event.

I have no doubt that Built probably doesn't feel any real hunger until she usually eats.

If she ate breakfast every morning growing up she's most certainly feel them when she switched over to this eating schedule. Of course she would have adapted in short order.

What you say about ones body being in "constant thirst for protein" is just plain silly.


----------



## Biggly (Apr 25, 2008)

> What you say about ones body being in "constant thirst for protein" is just plain silly



Well I know Built doesn't like Tom Venturo's techniques so I'll quote him  :



> Quantum physicists have proven that 98% of the atoms in your body are replaced
> within one year. Every three months, your body produces an entirely new skeleton. Every
> six weeks, all the cells have been replaced in your liver. You have a new stomach lining
> every five days. You are continually replacing old blood cells with new ones. Every
> ...



Sorry for the formatting.



> but did you say you're in Borneo? This actually sounds like a very cool thing that you've done. How did you pick Borneo to move to - you're English originally, right?



Met a beautiful Asian lady studying for her phd. She was already working as a uni lecturer but her uni wanted her to go to phd level and paid for her to go to the UK. She'd also spent a few years in the US. Friendship turned serious and when she said she wanted to take me home with her I agreed and have been very happily married about 3 years now. Borneo itself is indeed awesome 




B.


----------

