Fat intake while bulking

[BoSox]

Quote[/b] ] I don't believe this 3-4 grams of EPA/DHA crap or whatever Bryan recommends

just because you can't "feel" it after a couple of weeks to a couple of months doesn't mean it isn't helping. If there's anything we know about hypertrophy, "feel" isn't a good way to go about it.

Quote[/b] ]You say this, Aaron, yet Bryan says in his eating for size article, under the 'fats' section, that hydrogenated and saturated fats will cause greater fat gain even with less calories.

A pound of fat contains about 3500 calories. Try adding that with 500 calories, or 1000 calories or 1500 calories. Math is fun, isn't it?

 

[Zack]

I like a tablespoon of flax oil everyday.

Cheap and also promotes good health.

Zack

 

[Tom Treutlein]

BoSox, it has nothing to do with hypertrophy. I don't see any of the proclaimed health benefits of any of the O3's, be it ALA, DHA or EPA, having any significant effect, if any at all! I think the stuff is a bit overrated, and Bryan's rating of 3-4 grams is a bit up there, and I see no significant backing as to why he says that much. If you look around online you can find that there is a government-based RDA for EPA/DHA consumption, and all other sites recommend amounts half the amount Bryan does or lower.

Yeah, math is fun. And? Don't patronize me. Calories mean something to an extent. They're not all there is to it. Go eat 3000 calories of M&Ms and then 3000 clean calories. Or if 3000 doesn't work, eat something below maintenance. I doubt you'll stay the same weight or even drop.

 

[BoSox]

Quote[/b] ] If you look around online you can find that there is a government-based RDA for EPA/DHA consumption, and all other sites recommend amounts half the amount Bryan does or lower

last time I checked, the FDA was recommending like 50g of protein too. The FDA is not a good bulking strategy

Quote[/b] ]mean something to an extent. They're not all there is to it. Go eat 3000 calories of M&Ms and then 3000 clean calories.

that's the thing though. Calories do count. And they are the bulk of what counts. Ruling out any extremes, calories in vs calories out are the most important part, especially if we aren't talking about someone with insanely low body fat levels. For most people, they should mainly be concerned with calories in vs. calories out, unless they are eating nothing but M&M's.

 

[Tyler_K]

Quote[/b] (Tom Treutlein @ Dec. 07 2004,10:52)]Chicken sandwiches with peanut butter? That's fuckin' disgusting.
You're nitpicking over excess fat in your diet leading to fat gain, yet you eat ice cream. Something is wrong here.

Settle down.??? I was merely posing a question. The ice cream fit into my calories for the day.

Once protein was adequate, which it was, and EFAs were covered, which they were, why not have 500 calories of ice cream? I don't think it makes a difference as long as calories are the same and the above are met.

 

[Tyler_K]

Quote[/b] (Aaron_F @ Dec. 08 2004,2:50)]where the calories come from matters little
too many calories = too much fat gain

So you see no real difference between...

3500 (a hypercaloric situation) calories broken down into the following:

Situation 1:

PRO: 200g
CHO: 550g
FAT: 55g

Situation 2:

PRO: 200g
CHO: 250g
FAT: 189g

Situation 3:

PRO: 200g
CHO: 100g
FAT: 255g

My main concern is that while being hypercaloric and meeting energy needs from carbs, fat will be stored at an accelerated rate. If this effect is indeed minimal, I personally like situation 2.


Thanks

 

[Aaron_F]

Quote[/b] (Tom Treutlein @ Dec. 08 2004,3:16)]. I don't believe this 3-4 grams of EPA/DHA crap or whatever Bryan recommends. I don't see any need for that. I've done it before for a few months at a time and never felt any difference in my mood, my body's ability to prevent sickness, or my sex drive or anything.

You realise the difference between nutrients and drugs dont you?
you will never FEEL any difference from LCPUFA, that is not their modus operandi
any health effect is a long term effect (except perhaps their anti-thrombogenic action) but you will never really notice this.

 

[Aaron_F]

Quote[/b] (Tom Treutlein @ Dec. 08 2004,9:37)]You say this, Aaron, yet Bryan says in his eating for size article, under the 'fats' section, that hydrogenated and saturated fats will cause greater fat gain even with less calories.
I don't think that issue has been cleared up yet.

you complain about people nitpicking but bring up this?

medium (and short to an extent) chain fatty acids will actually cause less fat gain to an extent (but usually only in the short term)
There is a couple of reasons for this, one the actual caloric quantity in short chain fatty acids is less / g. The 9kcal/g is a generic quantity, but it varies.
The disgestion of the short/medium chains are also different, as they can disperse across the bilayers without the need for the carrier proteins, they can also travel straight into the mitochondira without any assistance. Therefore the energetic cost of their metabolism is actually less as well. But, the difference between the fatty acids is minimal within an overall diet. Short term supplementation with medium chain saturates will increase caloric expenditure in the short term. the body will adapt and adjust the changes out of the way anyway.

 

[Aaron_F]

Quote[/b] (BoSox @ Dec. 09 2004,3:10)]

Quote[/b] ] If you look around online you can find that there is a government-based RDA for EPA/DHA consumption, and all other sites recommend amounts half the amount Bryan does or lower

last time I checked, the FDA was recommending like 50g of protein too. The FDA is not a good bulking strategy

the FDA do not provide nutritional guidelines/RDA's

 

[Aaron_F]

Quote[/b] (dkm1987 @ Dec. 09 2004,4:23)]There was one study that seemed to show a mixture of 72% MCFA and 22% n-3 LCPUFA without LCFA stimulate the fatty acid oxidation and release from adipocytes.
10 healthy volunteers (Body Mass Index 25–30) of a formula containing 72% MCFA and 22% n-3 LCPUFA without LCFA (intake: 1.500 kcal/day; fat: 55.5% of energy) were measured in comparison to an isoenergetic formula with equal fat amount and LCFA dominated lipid profile.
Also I think that with those BMIs 1500 Kcal/Day is a little low, but maybe not depending on their energy needs. But Aaron could attest to the validity of this a lot better than me.

this piece of research didnt really provide much at all

but the most important piece in it is this

"The loss of fat mass in both groups was significant (p < 0.05)
but the difference between the groups was not (p = 0.472)"



I have got other papers that show that n-3 fatty acid supplementation increases metabolic rate, but they are talking potentially 100kcals/day, and the absolute lack of long term measurement doesnt really tell us if the change is short term until adaptation takes place.
I have also seen some murine models that show that hydrogenated fats decrease fatty acid deposition

 

[imported_dkm1987]

Quote[/b] (Aaron_F (Posted on Dec. 10 2004 @ 1:52))] hydrogenated fats decrease fatty acid deposition

Interesting