Thought you guys might find this interesting

You don't have to have a calorie surplus to gain muscle.

I have seen to many dumb ass who don't know what they are doing make gains on less than adequate nutrition.

Hell there was a bodybuilder on bodybuilding.com a while back talking about how he only eats 1 meal a day and he was built.

FOR THE RECORD...I think you need to eat a calorie surplus to gain...muscle....but I don't have the answer to how...but I have seen tons of people gain muscle over the years myself included who didn't eat enough....most likely its the NOOB effect!

Secondly, I can't stand how T-nation wants to use science for there articles yet when its contradicted by TRUE science they want allow the posts on there forum or any questioning.....hence LYLES forum !
 
<div>
(scientific muscle @ Apr. 20 2007,15:15)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">We are talking about training stimulus here, not nutrition.</div>
I just asked a question of what you thought. Why are you so only about training? I think it's kind of ignorant to ignore the whole package and only focus on one aspect of something.
 
I do agree that there are cases that muscle mass will increase without additional calories, but for the most part if a seasoned trainer is trying to gain weight you are going to need some extra calories. I think we all agree on this. I was just trying to get Sci's opinion on it because he didn't mention it as a precursor and I thought it's kind of odd to not mention nutrition when it comes to fitness.

Dan, as you may remember I didn't gain much on Max-stim because I wasn't eating anything but maint. But I had the biggest strength gains of my life. I also fatigued much faster when I switched back to a standard set/rep program. I haven't grown since the first year of using HST or Max-Stim (on year 2). The principle's are obviously correct, so I can't help but think growth isn't taking place due to nothing more than lack of calories.
 
<div>
(Sun-Tzu @ Apr. 21 2007,03:17)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I do agree that there are cases that muscle mass will increase without additional calories, but for the most part if a seasoned trainer is trying to gain weight you are going to need some extra calories. I think we all agree on this. I was just trying to get Sci's opinion on it because he didn't mention it as a precursor and I thought it's kind of odd to not mention nutrition when it comes to fitness.</div>
I agree!
biggrin.gif
 
1 Meal per day doesn`t necessarily mean little calories. Research into Intermittent Fasting protocols has bred some interesting offsprings. I`m guessing(it`s late, so tomorrow morning this may look stupid, if it does I apologize) the above-mentionend non-caloric excedent based growth occured in either:a)fairly untrained, moderately fatty type of dude or b)someone who through some occurence or another is situated under his setpoint-those are pretty much the only scenarios I can think of where you can apparently build something out of nothing.
 
<div>
(Sun-Tzu @ Apr. 21 2007,15:03)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(scientific muscle @ Apr. 20 2007,15:15)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">We are talking about training stimulus here, not nutrition.</div>
I just asked a question of what you thought. Why are you so only about training? I think it's kind of ignorant to ignore the whole package and only focus on one aspect of something.</div>
I am a specialist!
biggrin.gif

I know a dumpload about training, and I don't know very much about nutrition. Nutrition is both very complicated and very simple...I honestly don't know, but I assume an excess in calories is needed and I eat that way when hypertrophy is the goal.
 
<div>
(Morgoth the Dark Enemy @ Apr. 21 2007,18:22)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">1 Meal per day doesn`t necessarily mean little calories. Research into Intermittent Fasting protocols has bred some interesting offsprings.</div>
For those of you who don't get Lyle's newsletter, he posted a study in the most recent one about meal frequency. It could possibly be the final nail in the coffin for the whole &quot;you gotta eat every two hours to stoke the fires of ur metabolism bro&quot; argument.

It seems that one meal a day might be slightly better than more meals for body recomp, just barely. Kinda the opposite of what the bros were saying, right? I find that funny. More meals was not better at all, in fact it was the exact opposite. hahaha.
 
Im a member of his website, but I dont get his newletter. Did he post it there?

Thats the problem with info on the web it's all so conflicting and how are we really supposed to know who is right? I eat 6 times a day just because theres no way I can get 3400 calories in one sitting. Not unless I'm eating some serious junk food.

I never really understood Berardis nutrient timing theory either. I just don't get how eating Protien and Fat here vs Carbs there is really going to make a difference over a couple hours.
 
<div>
(Sun-Tzu @ Apr. 22 2007,04:23)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Im a member of his website, but I dont get his newletter. Did he post it there?

Thats the problem with info on the web it's all so conflicting and how are we really supposed to know who is right? I eat 6 times a day just because theres no way I can get 3400 calories in one sitting. Not unless I'm eating some serious junk food.

I never really understood Berardis nutrient timing theory either. I just don't get how eating Protien and Fat here vs Carbs there is really going to make a difference over a couple hours.</div>
Not to mention who in has time in there life to walk around saying....oh look its 4 o clock time for some carbs...and then look in 7 o clock time for fats!

Unless you are bodybuilder which no one on this forum to my knowledge is a pro....then most of us can get by counting what goes in our mouth and what doesn't calorie wise....that is as long as protein intake is decent!

I just find it amusing that 95% of the population is always trying to imitate the fitness routine of less than 5% of the population
biggrin.gif
 
<div>
(Sun-Tzu @ Apr. 22 2007,16:23)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Im a member of his website, but I dont get his newletter. Did he post it there?

Thats the problem with info on the web it's all so conflicting and how are we really supposed to know who is right? I eat 6 times a day just because theres no way I can get 3400 calories in one sitting. Not unless I'm eating some serious junk food.

I never really understood Berardis nutrient timing theory either. I just don't get how eating Protien and Fat here vs Carbs there is really going to make a difference over a couple hours.</div>
You have to subscribe to his newsletter. The link is on his site somewhere... look on the main site, not the forums, and you should find it.

I eat several times a day myself usually, especially when bulking. Sometimes, due to work, I don't get to eat at all until evening, and then it is an all you can eat binge from the time I get home until bed time. I haven't noticed any negative body comp changes as a result...

Probably why you never understood Berardi's nutrient timing theory is because Berardi is a moron and doesn't actually know anything about nutrition. 90% of what he says is regurgitated bro-telligence, a lot of stuff that people have been saying since before he was around. He just spruces it up, adds new cool sounding terms like &quot;G-flux&quot; and crap like that to sell it to the masses. Nothing new.


Joe: you're forgetting a couple people. Biz, for instance, still posts sometimes and stepped on stage only a short while ago.
 
<div>
(Sun-Tzu @ Apr. 22 2007,16:23)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Thats the problem with info on the web it's all so conflicting and how are we really supposed to know who is right? I eat 6 times a day just because theres no way I can get 3400 calories in one sitting. Not unless I'm eating some serious junk food.</div>
It's not conflicting really. The Stote paper looked at teh difference between two frequencies when trying to maintain BW, not increase or decrease it. And even though there was a small improvement in body comp with the 1X/day it was very small.

It does help dispell the old myth that you need to eat 6X day to lose fat though.
 
Effect of the pattern of food intake on human energy metabolism.

Verboeket-van de Venne WP, Westerterp KR, Kester AD.

Department of Human Biology, University of Limburg, Maastricht, The Netherlands.

The pattern of food intake can affect the regulation of body weight and lipogenesis. We studied the effect of meal frequency on human energy expenditure (EE) and its components. During 1 week ten male adults (age 25-61 years, body mass index 20.7-30.4 kg/m2) were fed to energy balance at two meals/d (gorging pattern) and during another week at seven meals/d (nibbling pattern). For the first 6 d of each week the food was provided at home, followed by a 36 h stay in a respiration chamber. O2 consumption and CO2 production (and hence EE) were calculated over 24 h. EE in free-living conditions was measured over the 2 weeks with doubly-labelled water (average daily metabolic rate, ADMR). The three major components of ADMR are basal metabolic rate (BMR), diet-induced thermogenesis (DIT) and EE for physical activity (ACT). There was no significant effect of meal frequency on 24 h EE or ADMR. Furthermore, BMR and ACT did not differ between the two patterns. DIT was significantly elevated in the gorging pattern, but this effect was neutralized by correction for the relevant time interval. With the method used for determination of DIT no significant effect of meal frequency on the contribution of DIT to ADMR could be demonstrated.


And another:

Br J Nutr. 1997 Apr;77 Suppl 1:S57-70. Links
Meal frequency and energy balance.

* Bellisle F,
* McDevitt R,
* Prentice AM.

INSERM U341, Hotel Dieu de Paris, France.

Several epidemiological studies have observed an inverse relationship between people's habitual frequency of eating and body weight, leading to the suggestion that a 'nibbling' meal pattern may help in the avoidance of obesity. A review of all pertinent studies shows that, although many fail to find any significant relationship, the relationship is consistently inverse in those that do observe a relationship. However, this finding is highly vulnerable to the probable confounding effects of post hoc changes in dietary patterns as a consequence of weight gain and to dietary under-reporting which undoubtedly invalidates some of the studies. We conclude that the epidemiological evidence is at best very weak, and almost certainly represents an artefact. A detailed review of the possible mechanistic explanations for a metabolic advantage of nibbling meal patterns failed to reveal significant benefits in respect of energy expenditure. Although some short-term studies suggest that the thermic effect of feeding is higher when an isoenergetic test load is divided into multiple small meals, other studies refute this, and most are neutral. More importantly, studies using whole-body calorimetry and doubly-labelled water to assess total 24 h energy expenditure find no difference between nibbling and gorging. Finally, with the exception of a single study, there is no evidence that weight loss on hypoenergetic regimens is altered by meal frequency. We conclude that any effects of meal pattern on the regulation of body weight are likely to be mediated through effects on the food intake side of the energy balance
 
Thermogenesis in humans after varying meal time frequency]

[Article in German]

Wolfram G, Kirchgessner M, Muller HL, Hollomey S.

To a group of 8 healthy persons a slightly hypocaloric diet with protein (13% of energy), carbohydrates (46% of energy) and fat (41% of energy) was given as one meal or as five meals in a change-over trial. Each person was 2 weeks on each regimen. Under the conditions of slight undernutrition and neutral temperature the balances of nitrogen, carbon and energy were assessed in 7-day collection periods, and according to 48-hour measurements of gaseous exchange (carbon-nitrogen balance method) by the procedures of indirect calorimetry. Changes of body weight were statistically not significant. At isocaloric supply of metabolizable energy with exactly the same foods in different meal frequencies no differences were found in the retention of carbon and energy. Urinary nitrogen excretion was slightly greater with a single daily meal, indicating influences on protein metabolism. The protein-derived energy was compensated by a decrease in the fat oxidation. The heat production calculated by indirect calorimetry was not significantly different with either meal frequency. Water, sodium and potassium balances were not different. The plasma concentrations of cholesterol and uric acid were not influenced by meal frequency, glucose and triglycerides showed typical behaviour depending on the time interval to the last meal. The results demonstrate that the meal frequency did not influence the energy balance.


Meal frequency influences circulating hormone levels but not lipogenesis rates in humans.

Jones PJ, Namchuk GL, Pederson RA.

Division of Human Nutrition, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.

To determine whether human lipogenesis is influenced by the frequency of meal consumption, 12 subjects were divided into two groups and fed isocaloric nutritionally adequate liquid diets over 3 days, either as three larger diurnal (n = 6) or as six small, evenly spaced (n = 6) meals per day. On day 2 (08:00 h) of each diet period, 0.7 g deuterium (D) oxide/kg body water was administered and blood was collected every 4 hours over 48 hours for measurement of plasma insulin and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) levels. At each time point, the incorporation of D into plasma triglyceride fatty acid (TG-FA) was also determined by isotope ratio mass spectrometry after TG-FA extraction and combustion/reduction. Insulin and GIP levels were elevated over daytime periods in subjects fed three versus six meals per day. Contribution of de novo synthesis to total TG-FA production was not significantly different for days 2 and 3 in subjects consuming three (6.56% +/- 1.32% and 6.64% +/- 2.08%, respectively) and six (7.67% +/- 2.29% and 7.88% +/- 1.46%, respectively) meals per day. Net TG-FA synthesis rates over days 2 and 3 were 1.47 +/- 0.33 and 1.55 +/- 0.53 g/d, respectively, for subjects fed three meals per day, and 1.64 +/- 0.47 and 1.69 +/- 0.30 g/d for subjects fed six meals per day. These findings suggest that consuming fewer but larger daily meals is not accompanied by increases in TG-FA synthesis, despite the observation of hormonal peaks.
 
<div>
(Dan Moore @ Apr. 22 2007,14:30)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(Sun-Tzu @ Apr. 22 2007,16:23)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Thats the problem with info on the web it's all so conflicting and how are we really supposed to know who is right? I eat 6 times a day just because theres no way I can get 3400 calories in one sitting. Not unless I'm eating some serious junk food.</div>
It's not conflicting really. The Stote paper looked at teh difference between two frequencies when trying to maintain BW, not increase or decrease it. And even though there was a small improvement in body comp with the 1X/day it was very small.

It does help dispell the old myth that you need to eat 6X day to lose fat though.</div>
Thats what I mean. I have books and articles that say you should eat 6 meals a day to increase your metabolism, but in fact that statement was the exact opposite of what was really true.

Just look at HIT and HST. Exact opposite principles behind it. How are we supposed to know who is right. Both swear they work and show evidence to support their claims.

The arguments between Berardi and Mcdonald are the same as well.

I'm just saying I see a lot of conflicting point of views by the supposed experts on the net especially.
 
The studies, for the most part, are not conflicting, however. Berardi is one who likes to put a study down as supporting his claim, when in fact the study says the opposite. Most of his 'evidence' is in the form of anecdotes, and we all know how reliable those are.
Let's see, HIT - studies don't seem support this, HST - studies do support it... you see where I am going. If you look beyond just what the experts say, and what their supporters say, and actually dig into some of the science behind it, most of the conflicting information goes away and things become just a little bit clearer.
 
Actually there is evidence that HIT works, but only for untrained novices. HIT seems to be very effective for beginners. For regulary trained individuals however, it is a bad model to lift one set to failure...it is much more effective to do multiple sets and stop right before failure.
 
<div>
(scientific muscle @ Apr. 24 2007,18:05)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Actually there is evidence that HIT works, but only for untrained novices. HIT seems to be very effective for beginners. For regulary trained individuals however, it is a bad model to lift one set to failure...it is much more effective to do multiple sets and stop right before failure.</div>
Considering that most of the people don't train according to HST and get/stay huge, I find it hard to believe HIT only works for noobs. (I use HST and love it, don't get me wrong)
 
1. Anything works for beginners, even the most retarded things.
2. What do you mean by HIT?And as a matter of fact, what is HIT?Is it what Arthur Jones advocated?Coz that was a fairly sound, full-body 2x(or 3x, I don't remember exactly) per week, with progressive overload(I do wonder why it worked
wink.gif
). Is it Mentzer's stuff before meth ate 3/4 of his brain?I have a pdf here that has all of his 80s seminaries, and what he advocated was also with a 2x/3x per week/bodypart frequency, and he also advocated using heavier weights as often as possible. Is it the crap Drew Baye, Brian D. I Make Up Science all the time Johnston et all are advocating, with training every once in a blue moon?I`m having a hard time thinking this would work for trained individuals who aren`t using AAS.

This is an interesting discussion, because in the end we'll probably see that most succesful training programs have a few things in common:progressive overload, frequency, lay-offs from training etc. One must realize that Bryan didn`t invent HST or anything of the sort(at least that`s my understanding)-he simply checked out the science and came to conclusions based on this science that simply prove what should've been known already:the above stuff works(coincidentally, the above stuff=the HST principles, but in a less elaborate manner). Try being a natural competitor, and please tell me if HIT type of routines with a billion days of rest help you get to a competitive level or improve from contest to contest. Try super duper split routines with similar 1x/week/bodypart frequency and see if those work if you`re in the above situation.
 
I definitely believe in HST and the empirical studies that support it. But what I also believe is that a training routine is not just a physiological process, but a sensual and deeply personal one.

Let me clarify: I think it takes a certain mentality/philosophy/personality to like training the HST-way. The fact that you're training sub-RM most of the time is boring to some people. Some people just like to go balls to the wall every workout or kill themselves with volume.

But apart from the science behind the method, there is the more important fact of the experience of the method. I mean, that's what gets you going. And the sensations a HIT-guy or a GVT-guy experiences are different from the one a HST-guy experiences. It's almost like a different lifestyle, and therefore requires different personalities.

What I'm trying to say is that if you believe in a method and it matches your personality, scientific studies come in second.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top