Does Hypertrophy require much excess calories?
- Thread starter Jens
- Start date
BOSOX, go and do some research on diabetes. The number of meals you eat makes a hugh difference! My dad became a diabetic in a large part by eating 2 large meals a day. He reversed his diabetes with diet alone, by eating many small meals throughout the day. Eating only a couple of large meals a day overwhelms the pancreas because it has to produce so much insulin, that the body eventually becomes resistant to it. Do some research. What you are advocating will not only be sub-optimal for muscle growth, but may turn you into a diabetic one day. A diabetic diet is great for muscle growth, only probably adding more protein than they recommend.
OMG, the antii-science crowd is out in force lately
tell us, it should be simple if its true..
You realise where the main concept of more meals = better weight loss or similar came from? observational studies of obese vs slim people, obese in general eat less often. Its a bollocks anyway, because observational do not attribute any cause and effect, or any time line in the change from slim to obese. FOr the most part obese people eat less because they are conciously restricting energy, or under-reporting...
but in simple terms try a review of the area, but then again Tom wouldnt like black magic, oops I mean science
Multiple meals have a good effect, in terms of some health parameters and in some cases satiety from meals to another (when in moderate caloric reduction, but not in larger cases or for thse with a small intake of calories per day), but in terms of bodyfat reduction or accural, its basically a moot point.
How does one gain fat in a negative energy enviroment?[b said:
tell us, it should be simple if its true..
Do you read anything we have said on other threads? or is your name really Benny?[b said:
You obviously havent done any homework in college or actually studied physiology, biochemistry or nutrition?[b said:
You realise where the main concept of more meals = better weight loss or similar came from? observational studies of obese vs slim people, obese in general eat less often. Its a bollocks anyway, because observational do not attribute any cause and effect, or any time line in the change from slim to obese. FOr the most part obese people eat less because they are conciously restricting energy, or under-reporting...
but in simple terms try a review of the area, but then again Tom wouldnt like black magic, oops I mean science
Obviously you mean diabetes treatment rather than etiology. Depends on the diabetic, current exercise/physical activty participation, types of food eaten, drug intake amongst others. What he is achieving with the multiple meals per day is basically the second meal effect, becuase eating quick meals once after each other reduces the glycemic index from the next meal, basically the same as taking a whole high GI meal all at once vs slowing over time. This is a seperate effect than BODYFAT reduction or accural in healthy people, especially bbrs at lower bodyfat.[b said:
Multiple meals have a good effect, in terms of some health parameters and in some cases satiety from meals to another (when in moderate caloric reduction, but not in larger cases or for thse with a small intake of calories per day), but in terms of bodyfat reduction or accural, its basically a moot point.
Tom Treutlein
New Member
"You obviously havent done any homework in college or actually studied physiology, biochemistry or nutrition?"
Was that supposed to be a question or statement?
I'd think you should be asking 'how could you not gain fat in a negative energy enviroment?'. Your body would have no use for all the calories coming from junk like oreos (just my prime example), so that is going to get stored as fat.
Again, I propose the idea to you: Go ahead and eat a few hundred under your maintenance level (if you can determine it), allowing all caloric intake to come from oreos.
If all the foods you ate were of whole, rich, nutritious sources, then maybe a negative energy enviroment wouldn't lead to fat gain. However, when your body has no use for all the junk you throw in it, some of it is going to be stored, regardless of the caloric intake or expenditure on a whole.
You said it yourself Aaron, "Your body hates you.".
Was that supposed to be a question or statement?
I'd think you should be asking 'how could you not gain fat in a negative energy enviroment?'. Your body would have no use for all the calories coming from junk like oreos (just my prime example), so that is going to get stored as fat.
Again, I propose the idea to you: Go ahead and eat a few hundred under your maintenance level (if you can determine it), allowing all caloric intake to come from oreos.
If all the foods you ate were of whole, rich, nutritious sources, then maybe a negative energy enviroment wouldn't lead to fat gain. However, when your body has no use for all the junk you throw in it, some of it is going to be stored, regardless of the caloric intake or expenditure on a whole.
You said it yourself Aaron, "Your body hates you.".
Tom Treutlein
New Member
And to quote my good friend Mr. Sox:
"studies. That was an article. I could easily write an article about how protein is bad for your muscles and post it, and it wouldn't be true. Show me scientific proof."
See, what you posted was an article, Aaron. Oh me, oh my.
"studies. That was an article. I could easily write an article about how protein is bad for your muscles and post it, and it wouldn't be true. Show me scientific proof."
See, what you posted was an article, Aaron. Oh me, oh my.
I
imported_dkm1987
Guest
[b said:
Is it a full moon again?
You obviously do not understand thermodynamics, or anything actually to do with biology.[b said:Quote[/b] (Tom Treutlein @ Jan. 01 2005,12:10)]I'd think you should be asking 'how could you not gain fat in a negative energy enviroment?'. Your body would have no use for all the calories coming from junk like oreos (just my prime example), so that is going to get stored as fat.
Again, I propose the idea to you: Go ahead and eat a few hundred under your maintenance level (if you can determine it), allowing all caloric intake to come from oreos.
If all the foods you ate were of whole, rich, nutritious sources, then maybe a negative energy enviroment wouldn't lead to fat gain. However, when your body has no use for all the junk you throw in it, some of it is going to be stored, regardless of the caloric intake or expenditure on a whole.
You said it yourself Aaron, "Your body hates you.".
WOS
Peer review[b said:Quote[/b] (Tom Treutlein @ Jan. 01 2005,12:12)]And to quote my good friend Mr. Sox:
"studies. That was an article. I could easily write an article about how protein is bad for your muscles and post it, and it wouldn't be true. Show me scientific proof."
See, what you posted was an article, Aaron. Oh me, oh my.
do you understand?
yes my friend, the meal frequency is irrevelent..[b said:
eat once, twice etc doesnt matter..
thermodynamics and biology are the same...
also there is no such thing as glycemic index, people are only paranoiac about it... eat whatever u want as long as it meets your caloric needs...
even your metabolism does not shift due to caloric amount and type of food...
and the people who use the SCİENTİFİC elements stated above have rock hard bodies to proove it...
i have GREAT RESPECT for the believers of the principles shown here
first, after I said meal frequency didn't matter, you told me that what I said was opposed by biology and I don't do my homework. Now you are saying meal frequency is irrelevent. Strive for consistency Sal.
PS. There is such thing as the glycemic index, just so you know. And your diet does cause your metabolism to change, just so you know.
PS. There is such thing as the glycemic index, just so you know. And your diet does cause your metabolism to change, just so you know.
Sarcasm noted, however you are obviously not able to seperate details from the rest.[b said:Quote[/b] (salihyz @ Jan. 02 2005,8:43)]yes my friend, the meal frequency is irrevelent..
eat once, twice etc doesnt matter..
thermodynamics and biology are the same...
also there is no such thing as glycemic index, people are only paranoiac about it... eat whatever u want as long as it meets your caloric needs...
even your metabolism does not shift due to caloric amount and type of food...
and the people who use the SCİENTİFİC elements stated above have rock hard bodies to proove it...
i have GREAT RESPECT for the believers of the principles shown here
Bodyfat is not effected by meal frequency, GI or changing macronutrient profile (outside of achieving protein balance).
GI, meal frequency do have a role in overall health profile, satiety amongst others, but however, not bodyfat accural/depletion
you can believe in magic, santa claus and all the rest
I
imported_da1andonlychacha
Guest
Just to interject a few things here.
1. Meal Frequency
OK, I don't think it matters that much for hypertrophy, but it does for general health. It is true that large, infrequent meals put a strain on your pancreas and could lead to type II diabetes. I'm not saying you have to have 6 evenly spaced macronutrient proportioned meals every day, just don't do anything that seems really stupid.
2. Macronutrient Profile
Aaron, I'm not sure I'm getting what you're saying here. Are you implying that it doesn't matter how we get our calories, they will still partition the same way? Maybe I misinterpreted, but I can't see that one 70% carb diet, one 70% fat diet, and one 70% protein will all partition lean mass/fat in the same ratio in a caloric excess. *confusion*
1. Meal Frequency
OK, I don't think it matters that much for hypertrophy, but it does for general health. It is true that large, infrequent meals put a strain on your pancreas and could lead to type II diabetes. I'm not saying you have to have 6 evenly spaced macronutrient proportioned meals every day, just don't do anything that seems really stupid.
2. Macronutrient Profile
Aaron, I'm not sure I'm getting what you're saying here. Are you implying that it doesn't matter how we get our calories, they will still partition the same way? Maybe I misinterpreted, but I can't see that one 70% carb diet, one 70% fat diet, and one 70% protein will all partition lean mass/fat in the same ratio in a caloric excess. *confusion*