1911 Beta

seanality wrote:Don't tell me it doesn't matter.

Your argument makes sense but at the same time there are some flaws. For instance it does matter how often you eat, you can't just pound 3,000 calories in 1 meal and have that be the same as 6 500 calorie meals throughout a day. That just doesn't make sense to me. Your body can only use so many calories within a time frame. Your muscle don't just rebuild as soon as you get that food in, they are constantly rebuilding and therefore they constantly need nutrition.

Don't give me a page worth for your rebuttal, just give me a few sentences.

I don't need to give you a rebuttal; you need to prove your claims.

Simply put, nutrition timing matters under two circumstances:

1) When someone is performing multiple glycogen-depleting workouts in a single day.
2) When training after 48-72 hours of fasting.

This graph:



Learn it, live it, love it. What matters is the net peaks or net valleys above/below the baseline, NOT the number of times there is a peak or a valley. The NET number is what matters. Meal frequency, meal timing, means nothing. I eat 2 meals per day every day. On days I don't workout, I'll often eat a single meal in a 24 hour period.

That graph is relevant to muscle loss/building, too. Muscle loss/gain along with fat loss/gain is a process that happens every minute of every day. Right now you are gaining or losing muscle. After eating you will gain fat and muscle. After long periods of fasting you are losing fat and muscle. That's how it works. What determines whether you lose fat or gain muscle is what your entire diet looks like over a long period of time, NOT what your diet looks like in a 2-3 hour time period.

I can find you studies where old ladies who eat 80% of their protein in one meal have higher rates of protein synthesis than those who eat smaller doses of protein more times per day. Apply that to a population that is young and WEIGHT TRAINS and the rates of protein synthesis/retention will go through the mo'fuckin' roof.

Jussayin.

P.S. are you still under the belief that the body can only retain 30g protein per meal or some shit? Because I can end that myth for you, too, if you want.

alex kirk wrote:P.S. are you still under the belief that the body can only retain 30g protein per meal or some shit? Because I can end that myth for you, too, if you want.

Overheard a bro at vitaminshoppe trying to convince a customer of this the other day. It did not end well.

I swear the people that work at those stores are worse than used car salesmen.

Sears wrote:Overheard a bro at vitaminshoppe trying to convince a customer of this the other day. It did not end well.

I swear the people that work at those stores are worse than used car salesmen.

Brb eating a steak and only retaining 30% of its protein.

Will you find a video of a proper power clean? My form is bad due to my crappy flexibility.

Stamp wrote:Will you find a video of a proper power clean? My form is bad due to my crappy flexibility.

[youtube]6TlbDQUWs0s[/youtube]

What's the timeleft on that 300 pound squat? Four days?

rofl fucking hell this thread delivers

Rambizzle wrote:rofl fucking hell this thread delivers

Just needed someone to mention nutrition for my spidey sense to tingle.

11:46 pm. Eating Wheat Thins and some sweet bread with chocolate and peanut butter chips in it.

Will it all be stored as fat?

alex kirk wrote:11:46 pm. Eating Wheat Thins and some sweet bread with chocolate and peanut butter chips in it.

Will it all be stored as fat?

not if you

I never liked resting between deadlift sets anyways. Optimal strength gains are for pussies.

In all honesty I was kind of arguing for the sake of arguing as well as trying to get some information from you guys. After I had made that post I left my computer (doubt it right?) and went to the gym where I asked one of my friends/gym buddies who also big into lifting and reads a lot of notes on the web. We both came to the conclusion that what you guys are arguing is in-fact correct.

One thing I might argue though; it is damn hard to eat 1 meal that is going to give you all of the necessary nutrition to build muscle in one sitting.

Rambizzle wrote:that routine looks pretty bad duality. (srs)

http://www.simplyshredded.com/mega-feat ... -2011.html

I think the routine has been working out fine. It is somewhat similar to something I did about 6 months ago which gave me some pretty good results.

But thank you for posting that link, I have been reading up on this article and it looks pretty solid. Thinks gives me some reasurrance to some of my theories and also gives me some ideas to try to work into my program.

We squat max tomorrow!

seanality wrote:In all honesty I was kind of arguing for the sake of arguing as well as trying to get some information from you guys. After I had made that post I left my computer (doubt it right?) and went to the gym where I asked one of my friends/gym buddies who also big into lifting and reads a lot of notes on the web. We both came to the conclusion that what you guys are arguing is in-fact correct.

One thing I might argue though; it is damn hard to eat 1 meal that is going to give you all of the necessary nutrition to build muscle in one sitting.

Surprised a gym bro would agree with the things we say. Typically they're so heavy into bodybuilding dogma that they couldn't tell a scientific publication from a Men's Health article.

It's actually really easy to eat 1 meal and get all the necessary nutrition for building muscle. The muscle building equation is simple: caloric surplus + ample protein + weight training.

As long as you're lifting weights, all you have to do is eat a caloric surplus with ~1g protein per pound LBM. So weight training + ~3,000 calories and 170g protein would allow me to gain muscle. I could easily eat 3,000 calories in one meal. I scoff at that.

Really all you need to "build muscle" is a surplus of calories and an amino acid profile.

Remember that it's not that your body is producing new muscle cells, it's that it's storing energy in the muscle cells that you already have. All that is necessary to accomplish this is a surplus in energy (calories), and some resistance training.

So, for most average folk we are talking about maybe 2200 calories for a basal metabolic rate. Given the modern industrialized diet, that's not incredibly difficult to come by in one meal.

A complete macro-nutrient and amino acid profile is important, both for your overall health, and for your fitness goals (building muscle). But, all that is really necessary is some excess calories, and a place for your body to store it (fat or muscle cells).

You could make pretty consistant gains in mass eating only 20 twinkies a day (3000 calories) while lifting heavy for 30 minutes a day.

While you're overall health would really suffer, you'de be meeting your needs metabolically speaking.

Sears wrote:Really all you need to "build muscle" is a surplus of calories and an amino acid profile.

Remember that it's not that your body is producing new muscle cells, it's that it's storing energy in the muscle cells that you already have. All that is necessary to accomplish this is a surplus in energy (calories), and some resistance training.

So, for most average folk we are talking about maybe 2200 calories for a basal metabolic rate. Given the modern industrialized diet, that's not incredibly difficult to come by in one meal.

A complete macro-nutrient and amino acid profile is important, both for your overall health, and for your fitness goals (building muscle). But, all that is really necessary is some excess calories, and a place for your body to store it (fat or muscle cells).

You could make pretty consistant gains in mass eating only 20 twinkies a day (3000 calories) while lifting heavy for 30 minutes a day.

While you're overall health would really suffer, you'de be meeting your needs metabolically speaking.

Yeah, I always say ample protein is necessary for building muscle, but you are right in that it's not. You can build muscle on a caloric surplus and 30g protein. It'd just be a painfully slow process. That's why I always say you need ample protein although technically I realize you don't.

Just so we're clear I've easily downed over 7,000 calories in a single meal. See: Chicago deep dish pizza + Cheesecake Factory cheesecake.

alex kirk wrote:Just so we're clear I've easily downed over 7,000 calories in a single meal. See: Chicago deep dish pizza + Cheesecake Factory cheesecake.

It's too bad you're body was only absorbing 30% of those nutrients bra...

Sears wrote:

alex kirk wrote:Just so we're clear I've easily downed over 7,000 calories in a single meal. See: Chicago deep dish pizza + Cheesecake Factory cheesecake.

It's too bad you're body was only absorbing 30% of those nutrients bra...

No way, bro. Think about it. I only gained fat from 30% of those calories, while I just shat out the other 70%.

we get it.

Rambizzle wrote:

we get it.

Tempted to neg.

Rambizzle wrote:

we get it.

Incoming poll thread:

Should Kirk and Sears neg train Ricky for giving lip?

Ricky is the impostor Kirk

my reaction while scrolling through.

why cant i neg.... fix this eric

fixed

wait....is that stile?

Anyone else think stamp cheated at the squat video now?

King Stamp

Groce.

alex kirk wrote:Groce.

Yeahhhh Buddy!

I don't like the super big look. Like, at all. But if I had to choose anyone who is bigger and maintains aesthetics (doesn't look like a juiced out horse), it would be Frank Zane.

Speaking of your number of meals per day Kirk, I have a question for you. I have read that skipping normal meals actually sends your body into a mindset that it doesn't know when its going to get its next meal, so it starts storing more fat. True or false? If so, is it any fluctuation from your normal routine, or? I see a lot of co-workers of mine do this trying to limit calorie intake, leading to weight loss, so I would like to give them a solid answer.

CharlieGiteau wrote:Speaking of your number of meals per day Kirk, I have a question for you. I have read that skipping normal meals actually sends your body into a mindset that it doesn't know when its going to get its next meal, so it starts storing more fat. True or false? If so, is it any fluctuation from your normal routine, or? I see a lot of co-workers of mine do this trying to limit calorie intake, leading to weight loss, so I would like to give them a solid answer.

This is one of the greatest myths of nutrition today.

Your body will not store fat if you skip a meal, or don't eat every 2-3 hours. Quite the opposite, fasting = fat loss, not fat storage. Anyone who says otherwise hasn't learned shit about human physiology.

Your last statement is what holds more truth. Some people find they are more full when they eat more meals per day, less hungry throughout the day = less calories consumed = more weight lost. Calorie for calorie, however, meal structures/frequency doesn't mean dick. I lose no more or less weight now eating 1-2 meals per day compared to when I used to eat 6-8 meals per day. Makes no physiological difference, some people just prefer one or the other for comfort or satiety.

btw simply shredded gives some pretty damn good advice. Been reading it for the past couple of days.

A lot of these arguments have been calorie based, what about vitamins, protein, or bcaas within your diet? I mean there has to be a difference in when you consume those or if you consume them all in 1 meal like breakfast are they just as affective as taking them in moderation throughout the day? Your argument is 1 calorie in = 1 calorie in... what about when and how often you consume the muslce building nutrients outside of calories...?

seanality wrote:btw simply shredded gives some pretty damn good advice. Been reading it for the past couple of days.

Haven't read it enough. I know some of their articles are super 'meh' - still a good amount of bro logic there.

alex kirk wrote:Haven't read it enough. I know some of their articles are super 'meh' - still a good amount of bro logic there.

read my edit.

Is it true if you're not eating the body will "eat" the muscles and not the fat first?

I mean, you will lose the muscles before you lose fat? the body takes energy from the mucles before it burns fat or w/e

seanality wrote:btw simply shredded gives some pretty damn good advice. Been reading it for the past couple of days.

A lot of these arguments have been calorie based, what about vitamins, protein, or bcaas within your diet? I mean there has to be a difference in when you consume those or if you consume them all in 1 meal like breakfast are they just as affective as taking them in moderation throughout the day? Your argument is 1 calorie in = 1 calorie in... what about when and how often you consume the muslce building nutrients outside of calories...?

Why must there be a difference? What muscle building nutrients are you referring to? Macronutrients are all that matters in regards to body composition; micronutrients don't mean anything.

Where's your contention? You tell me what you're thinking and I'll elaborate. That's probably much simpler than me trying to cover everything without any clear direction.

lolinus wrote:Is it true if you're not eating the body will "eat" the muscles and not the fat first?

I mean, you will lose the muscles before you lose fat?

It's true that if you're not eating (aka fasting), you lose fat and muscle.
It's true that if you are eating (aka feeding), you gain fat and muscle.

What matters is the NET effect here. You lose muscle all the time during the day. Similarly you gain fat all the time during the day. What matters is the net effect at the end of the day. If you fasted more than you were feeding (ate a caloric deficit), you will lose fat and muscle REGARDLESS of feeding patterns. If you were feeding more than you were fasting (ate a caloric surplus), you will gain fat and muscle REGARDLESS of feeding patterns.

It's 1:25 pm. My last meal came at 8:00 pm last night. I have not eaten for nearly 18 hours. I'm probably losing muscle along with fat. But my next meal will be a huge meal with a lot of calories and protein. I will regain lost muscle from that meal alone.

I guess what I was talking about is anything from a huge steak dinner to a protein shake. If I was to drink 5 servings of protein shakes throughout a day (2 servings in the morning, 2 after working out, 1 before bed) would it matter if I took all 5 servings at once or would it be better to continue doing what I am doing.

The reason why I ask is because sometimes I get a little frustrated with my schedule that I have this semester because it doesn't allow for me to keep up with my previous routine of getting in shakes, fish oil, or BCAAs every 2-3 hours. Which 2-3 hours is some what an exageration, but pretty damn close.

seanality wrote:I guess what I was talking about is anything from a huge steak dinner to a protein shake. If I was to drink 5 servings of protein shakes throughout a day (2 servings in the morning, 2 after working out, 1 before bed) would it matter if I took all 5 servings at once or would it be better to continue doing what I am doing.

The reason why I ask is because sometimes I get a little frustrated with my schedule that I have this semester because it doesn't allow for me to keep up with my previous routine of getting in shakes, fish oil, or BCAAs every 2-3 hours. Which 2-3 hours is some what an exageration, but pretty damn close.

The Primary Laws of Nutrient Timing by Alan Aragon

1) The First Law of Nutrient Timing is: hitting your daily macronutrient targets is FAR more important than nutrient timing.
2) The Second Law of Nutrient Timing is: hitting your daily macronutrient targets is FAR more important than nutrient timing.

Unless you plan on working out fasted first thing in the morning and not eating until 10 pm at night, nutrient timing really has no bearing. The only time it should matter is for very radical training schedules and/or radical diets.

[youtube]Glv0GG60YD8[/youtube]

255?

Sears wrote:255?

That's what I said, but he is telling me they have different sized 45s. Skeptical hippo is...well, skeptical~

Either way, no 300. But a video was produced, therefore no neg train will occur from me.

I'll take pics of the weights if you want. 35s are a bit smaller than that one on the end. I use that one to chain and do pullups with because of the holes in it.

So he's saying that's 295? still confused...

Sears wrote:So he's saying that's 295? still confused...

He said 300 even. I guessed 255 when I first saw it, too. He's misinformed or his gym has really weird weights. As in, 45s of varying shapes/sizes. Which I've never seen before, but I won't sit here and say that's not possible.