ads

how is it irrelevant!!!!???

also

what you mean?

>energy balance

people cite academic articles to that effect.
i personally dont believe it.

doesnt being anabolic vs catabolic have an effect?

i might also add that the articles on this are about fatties and weight loss, not people getting strong or hypertrophy.

Love me some lunar lovegood.

>>5840058

>Eat a little before moving a lot
>Exhausted

>Eat a lot before moving a little
>Gain fat

Life's not complicated, don't be an idiot

>but isn't that irrelevant in the face of your overall energy balance over, say, a 24-hour period?
usually, yes.

You want to eat something high in protein, i usually eat eggs and have a large glass of milk before bed, especially if you are trying to build muscle. If you are dieting it is also important to eat before bed, because if you don't your body becomes catabolic while you sleep, it will break down muscle tissue over fat tissue because of a lack of Amino acids available in the blood stream.

I'm assuming that the OP is saying "isn't the fact that you burn few calories while sleeping irrelevant when you measure caloric burn over a 24-hour period?"

>>5840074
the fat you gain during sleep is used for energy later on in the day

>>5840074
by energy balance I mean cals in compared to cals out

example: eat nothing all day, body fat breaking down to be used as energy to make up for this. finally, eat a shitload at the end of the day/go to sleep. much of that is stored as fat. (but you've already burned away some fat during your deficit.)

hard to word it properly

eating at night causing more fat is a myth.

>>5840097
yep

>>5840115
>eating at night causing more fat is a myth.
no it isn't, it's common sense
expending almost no energy->store a lot of energy as fat
if you eat a shitload of oreos right before bed, much of that energy will be stored as fat

although it's not a myth, it's irrelevant, me thinks

>>5840108
When your body sleeps is when it does a large portion of tissue rebuilding. For example, if you tear a muscle cell in the gym, it will repair itself largely while you are sleeping, meaning you need to give it amino acids + fuel in order for it to repair. If you do not give it building blocks and fuel it will not repair. The best way to go about this is to eat a meal high in protein before bed, and avoid carbohydrates, since carbs are more likely to turn to fat when you are not using them for energy. Also your liver depletes its glycogen stores during your sleep, thats why breakfast is so important.

>>5840129
and I think it's irrelevant because of overall energy balance in the bigger picture

say your body requires 2000 cals over the course of one entire 24 hour period, and you've only eaten 1000 by the end of the night. If you pack in 1000 and go to sleep, the excess which goes to fat will only make up for the fat burned while you didn't eat earlier that day.

>>5840160
>since carbs are more likely to turn to fat when you are not using them for energy

any macro is equally likely to turn to fat when not used for energy.

my point revolves around energy balance

I don't think you're seeing what I mean sir

>>5840167
It doesnt work like that.
If you pack 1000 calories before you go to bed, especially if it is carb heavy, you are more likely to maximize your glycogen stores and have the rest stored as fat. Whereas if you eat consistently throughout the day, you are constantly refuelling your glycogen stores and minimizing fat gain.

>>5840167
This

Energy balance is not just daily but weekly and monthly

>>5840196
>Whereas if you eat consistently throughout the day, you are constantly refuelling your glycogen stores and minimizing fat gain.
I don't think you understand how calories in/out works

also eating consistently is a myth

>>5840178
>any macro is equally likely to turn to fat when not used for energy.
actually, no, not really. generally, carbs will sustain metabolic processes while fat is stored. to see substantial de novo lipogenesis, carb intake has to equal or surpass total daily energy expenditure.

>>5840209
>eating consistently is a myth
sorry, I mean that the idea of eating consistently contributing to weight loss is a myth

very impressed with the thread, please continue the respectful and informative discourse.

>>5840214
>any macro is equally likely to turn to fat when not used for energy.
>actually, no, not really.
actually, yes, really. Which is why macro ratios are generally irrelevant.

>>5840178
Thats an outdated way of thinking. Your body uses carbohydrates primarily for energy, and it uses protein for many more things. Carbs cannot be converted into amino acids, but amino acids can be converted into carbs (glycogen) if they are not used. There is a greater demand for protein/fats later at night then there is for carbs, since most people are relaxing later at night and going to sleep, its how our clocks work, wake up in the morning, exercise during the day, go to sleep at night. Carbs help give you immediate energy type of thing, and will be immediately converted into glycogen if not used, and if glycogen stores are maxed out, then it will be stored as triglycerides (animal fat). Proteins are used in every cell in your body, and are essentially known as the power house of your body. What happens is that your body will primarily burn glycogen for energy if no food sources are available at the time, then it will start to use fats for energy (triglycerides) then proteins, then nucleic acids. However, if you do not eat enough protein during the course of the day, then your body starts to break down muscle tissue for protein, because your blood stream supply of amino acids has dipped below the normal range, thats why it is important to get enough protein in when dieting, and alot of people opt to go keto when doing a diet. The protein you eat is first broken down into individual amino acids and is divided amongst your cells, and if it is not needed, much of it can be excreted in the urea cycle, or can be stored as glycogen, or stored as triglycerides.

>>5840268
In the end, your body can easily convert any of the macronutrients to usable energy in the body. While what you say is true, it's irrelevant in the face of energy balance, which must be maintained. Energy isn't magically created or lost, and the need for energy isn't magically created or lost.

>>5840245
you should start trusting me more brent :)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10365981
>Only when CHO energy intake exceeds TEE does DNL in liver or adipose tissue contribute significantly to the whole-body energy economy

>>5840245
>>5840209
Macro ratios are extremely relevant, generally when trying to lose weight, but minimize muscle loss, people opt to consume more protein then carbs, since the conversion of carbs - gylocgen/triglycerides consumes less energy then the conversion of protein - glycogen/ triglycerides.

>>5840229

So you're saying that by spreading your meals over the day and always just giving your body what it can process and needs, you will still gain or lose the same amounts of fat as you would eat all of your calories for that day at once?

So I could basically have 2 large oreo softdrinks (2800 cal? :P), not eat for the rest of the day and not gain weight?

You'll have to explain to me how exactly that works, because it seems to me the excess calories are stored as fat.
It's simply too much to process at once so it has to be stored?

After that, you eat nothing for 23 hours.

Meanwhile your body somehow magically manages to keep burning calories without you getting hungry and your metabolism shutting down?

I'm confused as to how this would work. Forgive me for being sceptical but I don't just accept everything I read on 4chan.

>>5840294
>So you're saying that by spreading your meals over the day and always just giving your body what it can process and needs, you will still gain or lose the same amounts of fat as you would eat all of your calories for that day at once?
yes
>So I could basically have 2 large oreo softdrinks (2800 cal? :P)
no

>>5840294
ignore macro ratios, focus on total protein and total calories
absolutes > ratios

Every time I see a picture of Evanna, EVERY TIME

WHY

>>5840311
agreed, which is why I said beyond a certain point (of absolutes, using your words), ratio becomes irrelevant

>>5840320
yes.
1. ratios are mainly irrelevant
2. carbs and protein are rarely converted into fat and stored

both are true

>>5840129

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9eUTWyqFYGY

FOX NEWS HAS MY BACK NIGGA

if I eat a lot before sleep I don't want breakfast

pretty simple, actually

>>5840296
>So you're saying that by spreading your meals over the day and always just giving your body what it can process and needs, you will still gain or lose the same amounts of fat as you would eat all of your calories for that day at once?
basically.
>Meanwhile your body somehow magically manages to keep burning calories without you getting hungry and your metabolism shutting down?
what do you think "metabolism" is? metabolism is EVERYTHING that facilitates/involves energy transfer/economy within the body, it's not just some simple process which gets "slow" and makes you fat or gets "fast" and helps you to lose weight

think about it: you don't just magically stop burning energy because you aren't eating all at once. your body has to get it from somewhere.

>>5840305
>So you're saying that by spreading your meals over the day and always just giving your body what it can process and needs, you will still gain or lose the same amounts of fat as you would eat all of your calories for that day at once?
no, because if you eat a shitload at once, you are going to far exceed your glycogen storages and enter into fat gain.
Heres an analogy.
If you are driving your car and it has a 60 liter gas tank (glycogen stores). If you go to the pump and put in 80 liters into the empty gas tank all at once you have exceeded the amount of the gas tank by 20 liters, (the 20 extra liters would be stored as fat in your body). However, if you put 20 liters into the gas tank in the morning, you then burn the 20 liters of gas, you refuel it with lets say 20 liters again, then you burn the 20 liters of gas, then you fill it up with 40 liters, and you have still put 80 liters of gas into your gas tank (glycogen into your glycogen storage) but you never exceeded the gylcogen storage and are not exceeding the amount of gas (glycogen) you actually need. I hope this makes sense, i tried my best to make it understandable lol.

Don't get caught up in the details OP, if you're running a decent deficit each day you'll lose weight.

>>5840305

My base caloric intake is 3000 so I'd actually be losing "weight"

Doubt i'd get good gains from eating everything at once though

>>5840311
Idiot.
the conversion of carbohydrates ---> glycogen is less endergonic than the conversion of proteins ----> glycogen. L2 science.

>>5840379
from eating nothing but 2 large oreo soft drinks, you'd get sick and that's it, and it does not matter at all of you drink them all at once or in tiny sips spread out over the day. fucking retarded example.

>>5840392
yes and

>>5840305
>>So you're saying that by spreading your meals over the day and always just giving your body what it can process and needs, you will still gain or lose the same amounts of fat as you would eat all of your calories for that day at once?
>yes

How on Earth do you justify this? What leads you to say this? I'm genuinely intrigued.

>>5840339
>2. carbs and protein are rarely converted into fat and stored

consider this example:
someone requires 2000 cals in a 24-hour period. that's their TDEE and if they do not bring that much energy in, they'll lose weight, and if they bring that much or more energy in, they'll gain weight. It's impossible to eat more than that 2000 cal TDEE and not gain weight, same as it's impossible not to lose weight if there's a deficit in that situation.

now let's consider the macro ratio of said person. as long as they get adequate protein, the macros from which their energy/calories come from is irrelevant, because the body will eventually break down what it needs for energy regardless

it's not like if they ate more carbs and less fats, given the same caloric expenditure/intake, they'd get thinner or something--the result would be exactly the same, given differences in digestion efficiency/thermic effect differences between the macros/shitting out some of the undigested nutrients/etc

yes, in one feeding cycle the body is going to store fat as fat, and won't really use protein as energy as readily, but eventually those will come to be energy int he body

like I said, energy deficit/etc don't just magically appear and disappear

>>5840403
Therefore macros are important, because your body will expend more energy storing proteins as glycogen then it will storing carbohydrates as glycogen and inevitably triglycerides if you exceed the glycogen storage.

>>5840418
why would they? i can't prove a negative.
- total body tissue loss is dependent on caloric balance
- partitioning is dependent on protein and training and some other things
so how does number of meals figure into this
>>5840423
sorry i cba to read all of this. i'm not implying anything, i said what i said and you can check it out in the study i linked to. what these guys are saying, that's basically my point.

>>5840365
>no, because if you eat a shitload at once, you are going to far exceed your glycogen storages and enter into fat gain.
and what do you think happened throughout the previous part of the day when food wasn't eaten? MAGICALLY didn't deplete glycogen stores and the body MAGICALLY didn't oxidize fat to reestablish the balance?

so eating all at once stores fat but not eating for a long period doesn't oxidize it in your little world?

>>5840442
well I agree with your point but it's wrong in the context that I'm speaking about

you could have at least read my post harsh

>>5840424
that's a matter of caloric balance/absolute amounts, not of ratios. leave me alone this is dumb
>>5840470
dude i'm sorry but it was like 500000 words and i'm watching daily show reruns right now while touching myself whenever kirsten schal gets on can't you see how that's more important

lol, owned harsh

>>5840458
Its simple really, if you dont eat for 6 hours, you are letting your blood level of amino acid deplete, and drop below a normal level, meaning your body will begin to catabolize muscle in order to maintain a supply of amino acid in your blood stream. Your body can only digest a certain amount of protein at each one meal (it varies between people, usually around 30g) so if you eat 30g of protein at 6am and dont eat again until noon, you are well below what is considered normal for your bodies blood amino acid levels.

>>5840497
god damn it brah

>>5840523
no no no no no. everything yoU're saying is wrong and disagrees with the extensive literature on this topic (which you're completely oblivious about)

>>5840497
U MAD BRAH?

>>5840549
Yea too bad i obviously dont know hat im talking about even though im in 3rd year nutrition. They dont teach me anything there, its just a bunch of idiots jerking off and talking about cars. Seriously man you got owned, you havent even attempted to answer anything i have said, you just said im an "idiot" and digressed.

>>5840549
I started replying to his post but I figured I'd just f5 and wait for you to

post gave me cancer etc.

>>5840577
yeah i don't really care WHY you haven't done your homework, but you haven't, and i have, and look, there's basically nothing i hate more than somebody going "i am THIS and that's why i'm RIGHT" when he should have gone "look at this piece of actual evidence showing you're wrong".

you're in college? studying this shit? be ashamed over your style of argumentation

>>5840587
:)

>>5840523
>>5840523
amino acids don't just deplete to catastrophically low levels which prompts muscle destruction. Catabolism occurs predominantly as a result of an energy deficit over a period of time resulting in changes in the hormone balance of your body which inevitably create the environment for your body to break that shit down or store that shit.

and there's no 30g cap on "processing" protein intake. the amino acids from a larger protein meal just chillax in your blood for a while

>>5840608
Yeh, you mad. Show me why i should support your model, when i have told you why i disagree with it. Oh wait thats right, you can't. Go home kid.

Why not present an actual argument harsh? I am not at all saying you are incorrect but not even a link?

It looks like you're trollin'

>>5840619
yeah this. thanks for having the patience i've long stopped having on here.
>>5840621
yeah, i tend to actually get slightly annoyed (= internet mad) if i see idiocy. can't hide that fact. not ashamed either.

>>5840626
what on? i'll gladly try to support every single point i've made itt with some piece of evidence.

>>5840626
Assuming you eat enough protein, your point isn't an issue, and doesn't contradict mine. Also, I believe what >>5840619 said about calorie deficit was correct to some extent.

>>5840646
as brent is hinting at, if protein is insufficient to begin with, meal timing makes more of a difference.
in my argumentation, i'm assuming people are not dumb and are eating sufficient protein.

Long time lurker and I know harsh is a 'good' trip so I am not trying to say you're wrong but I find the topic interesting.

So is eating more at night a good thing or bad?

>>5840663
I don't think timing is even much of an issue, honestly
I'm assuming that protein/amino economy works similarly to energy economy

By night I mean pre-sleep

>>5840671
>Long time lurker and I know harsh is a 'good' trip so I am not trying to say you're wrong but I find the topic interesting.
doubt is almost always good
>So is eating more at night a good thing or bad?
i dont understand the question.
if calories are the same, eating some of them before bed is pretty much equivalent to avoiding that. i am aware of only one study on exactly THAT topic, and it shows slightly greater fat, and a LOT higher muscle loss in the group avoiding the pre bed meal.

>>5840671
>So is eating more at night a good thing or bad?
logic indicates that eating more at night is irrelevant in the face of overall energy economy over a, for example, 24-hour period.

>>5840678
there was some stupid study on 200lbs boxers dieting with nothing but 50g of liquid protein per day and they lost more muscle when drinking it in 2 vs drinking it in 9 servings or something like that.

>>5840696
>>5840671
also, to clarify:
you WILL get "fatter" within a short period of time as a result of chowing down and not doing anything with those calories. It's within the context of your OVERALL energy balance for that 24-hour period that it's irrelevant--assuming equal calories, your body will have already oxidized fat, creating a lower platform to start with.

>>5840619
Your body uses its glyocgen/ triglycerides as energy before it will use its muscle as energy. It goes carbs - fat - proteins - nucleic acid as what is generally the order for macronutrients used for energy in your body. HOWEVER, and this is crucial, your muscles are storage sites of amino acids, while they do have other purposes, this is factual, they store amino acids, since your body will break down your muscle tissue for amino acids before it starts to breakdown any other protein tissue. So for instance, if you let your blood amino acid levels get below an acceptable level, then your body will begin to break down your muscle tissues in order to meat the demand of amino acids elsewhere in your body, it will generally not use your muscle tissue for energy, since the glycogen is much easier to use, and the fat is more dense (9 calories/gram vs 4 calories/gram for protein). Your muscle tissues are infact less energy efficient to break down then the fat tissue is, so your body will generally not use your muscle tissue up as energy. If you only eat every 6 hours, there is a greater threat that your blood amino acid supply is going to dip down, causing in your body breaking down muscle tissue in order to meet the supply elsewhere in the body where the protein is more importantly needed (again protein is used for pretty much everything in the body). However if you eat every 2-3 hours (which is what i am suggesting) in smaller portions, you are keeping a steady supply of amino acids in your blood stream. Because there is a maximum amount of amino acid that is able to be in your blood stream, you can't just eat 200g of protein at one serving and expect to be good for the rest of the day. Your blood can only support a certain amount of amino acids.

So protein rich foods would be beneficial before sleep to ease the repairing process of your body?

Makes sense, but I find alot of things that make sense get shot down by /fit/ lol. I usually call em trolls

>>5840577

I do not want to be a dick. But the stuff they learn in nutrition at my university is BS. Everytime I (medfag) talked to nutritionists all I got was knowledge from womens magazines, 100 years ago or the mythical world.

So, no, what you wrote was wrong. And I think it is unfair towards you that you are told this bollocks.

>>5840716
holy fuck i actually skimmed over most of that

it doesnt quite jive with my understandings of protein metabolism though

>>5840722
eating protein-rich foods at any period throughout the day will help. Eating them before bed is great, too. In terms of weight/fat loss/gain, eating before bed seems to be muscle sparing but is no more fattening than overeating in one single meal throughout the day, or creating a surplus in any other way. it's very simple.

>>5840716

Have you a source or study handy to support this?

>>5840722
>So protein rich foods would be beneficial before sleep to ease the repairing process of your body?
most certainly can't hurt. i wouldn't stress too much about it, but some kind of cheese before bed probably isn't the worst of ideas.
>>5840730
to be fair he kind of owns it to his uncritical attitude (fucking argument from authority) that he's not educating himself about the stuff on his own.

>>5840738
if you want to get REALLY into it: there's been some research coming from layne norton entertaining the idea that you have to spike protein levels, and then make them drop again before the next spike for optimal anabolism.
i'm not sure if there's much to it, but there IS some research going in that direction.

>>5840744
http://www.mckinley.illinois.edu/handouts/macronutrients.htm

www.leangains.com

enough said. but lets make it very clear: your body will not use up all of its blood amino acids within 2-3 hours and have to be replenished with food. eating an adequate amount of protein each day means you will have enough amino acids to last you for way longer that 3 hours

eating every 2-3 hours is nothing more than bodybuilding broscience. proof and explanation can be found here: www.leangains.com

>>5840796
not supporting your point at al..

>>5840775
again, I'm just assuming that protein/amino acid economy works similarly to energy economy, and all that is relevant is reasonable amounts over the course of the day

Don't amino acids just remain in the blood anyway? Why should timing your protein, assuming you have a certain amount coming in at some point, matter?

>>5840820
agreed. But I'm not talking about that at the moment; my OP was talking about weight loss/gain in the context of energy balance/economy

this subject is basically the one thing harsh actually knows anything about, so lol at arguing with him by going "duhrrr my point is common sense, it do not requires evidance"

>>5840825
>Don't amino acids just remain in the blood anyway?
no, not really. the body does not store amino acids, it "stores" (>synthesizes) protein.
>Why should timing your protein, assuming you have a certain amount coming in at some point, matter?
because it's not only about availability, but about messaging, too. certain pathways (gene upregulation shit) sense changes in blood amino acid levels and activate/deactivate depending on what they see.
i personally don't think there is much to it, i just wanted to point out there actually is some preliminary evidence that there MIGHT be something to it.

of course, it is in no way related to the stuff you've argued against in this thread; it's fairly new rsearch nobody is sure about yet. also, it's most likely pretty small in margin of effect

>>5840837

I understand, I was just countering this guy's argument: >>5840716

however, while we are on the subject, lean gains also proves that eating late isn't going to make you gain weight, and yes, eating at night IS irrelevant in the face of your overall energy balance over a 24-hour period

especially if you wait 16 hours after your last meal of the day to begin eating the next day. example: finish dinner at 8pm, don't eat until noon the next day. 12-16 hours is the optimal fat burning time during fasting. eating in the evening makes it easier because you sleep through 8 hours of your fast

Overall, there are a lot of steps and processes involved with energy transfer within the body. In a nutshell, though, it's pretty simple:
The body requires certain amounts of energy to live and function. Doing more work requires more energy, and doing less work requires less energy.
Through chemical processes, food is turned into usable energy. Each of the macronutrients can inevitably be turned into energy.
Some or all of the energy from food will be used to produce work and to power the body's functions. Energy that isn't needed at the time is inevitably turned into fat. (If you overeat during one meal, the excess energy will be stored as fat.)
If you don't eat for a period of time, the body inevitably oxidizes (“burns”) fat tissue to make up for the energy deficit.

It's extremely simply OP. If you eat a lot during the night it will be stored as fat. If it fits into your body's energy budget, the fact that some energy has been stored as fat only makes up for the amount of oxidized adipose that resulted from a caloric deficit earlier that day.

>>5840820
I know that, but your bloodstream, like anything else, has a maximum concentration of amino acids it can contain, anything over that will obviously not be put into your bloodstream, and will be stored as glycogen, excreted through the urea cycle, or stored as fat. The same way your liver can only hold so much glycogen at once.

Furthermore, example, if i will eat nothing but chicken and lean meat and vegetables for 5 weeks, and someone else will eat nothing but grains + carbs in general (however still meeting his daily necessity for protein), and assuming we consume the same amount of calories, assume the other person is an exact clone of me, who would lose more weight?

>>5840910
I dunno what that guy was on about.

>>5840916
I'm assuming that the lack of proteins on the other guy's part would result in muscular atrophy but not weight loss

perhaps the energy balance would just dictate that his body become a flabby piece of shit that weighs the same

>>5840912
perfect thanks brahdude. thats exatly what i was asking.

>>5840916

you will lose more weight because carbs make you fat as fatass

however, you are even better off eating non-lean meat because fat is good for you, just count your calories.

>>5840980
broscience.

>>5840916
>>5840956
>however still meeting his daily necessity for protein
I didn't read that part

no difference, then.

>>5840969

he's still partly wrong though. It's not like your body is going to consume your muscle and make you lose your muscle gains if you don't eat every 2-3 hours. leangains proves that. eating 6 times per day is a total broscience myth that starting in the bodybuilding community. It's simply false, period. even if eating before bed makes it more likely to put on fat, you will burn that fat the next day.

>>5840994

which part is broscience? eat more than 100g carbs per day and you put yourself on the path towards type 2 diabetes and heart disease. and, if you are sedentary will also make you gain weight more quickly

>>5841023
He's not implying that. His answer coincides with my original assumption.

I mean, assuming the body oxidizes fat and not muscle. It does that, right? I never assumed that the body would break down muscle tissue before fat tissue during a period of energy deficit.

>>5841046
>eat more than 100g carbs per day and you put yourself on the path towards type 2 diabetes and heart disease
Not true whatsoever. It's simply untrue. There are links between extreme energy surpluses, weight, heart disease, etc. but not directly between "x grams of carbs and heart disease". Correlation does not equal causation, by the way.

>if you are sedentary will also make you gain weight more quickly
No, if it creates an energy surplus within the body it will make you gain weight more quickly. Just like every other macronutrient. Learn before you spread broscience.

>>5841060

oh lol. guess i misread then. in that case we are all on the same page. i agree, the body will burn fat first before muscle, as proven by martin berkhan.

i still take issue with whichever person is the idiot who actually believes you need to consume protein every 2 hours, of course. i hope someone can convince him that he's wrong

>>5841023
it could be every 2-3 hours, it varies depending on the meal. Your body is always catabolic and anabolic at the same time. As far as your muscles are concerned, think of them as a storage sight for amino acids, so if the demand is greater then the supply of amino acids, then your muscle gets broken down and used for the amino acids in it for more important functions of the body.
My whole point though, 1 gram of carb can = 1 gram of glycogen (roughly), however 1 gram of protein =/= 1 gram of glycogen, the chemical makeup is different, and it consumes more energy if your body is converting protein into glycogen then it does if your body is converting carbs into glycogen (which is already a carb)

>>5841132
Furthermore, nobody is going to monitor their amino acid levels in their blood, so its almost impossible to know when your amino acid levels are low.

>>5841126
As an aside, do you know how consuming protein works, exactly? I'm asking because I don't. I understand the basic concepts of energy balance and energy economy, but I don't quite know how protein, as muscles require it, works. Care to fill me in?

Hell, why does maintaining muscle even require protein in ADDITION to energy? What does the protein do and why is it used up so much?

>>5841132
you mean less
converting protein to glycogen involves more processes and thus more energy is lost to entropy

and yes a gram of protein offers a different amount of energy than a gram of carbs, which is why you want to look at each in terms of their caloric value and not their mass, lol

bumping for this
>>5841162
>>5841162
>>5841162

>>5841162

any in depth explanation is beyond the scope of my knowledge. but this guy here knows a lot more than I do, read around and see if you can find the blog posts that explain it better than i could: www.leangains.com

>>5841162
Think of protein as the house that is put into your muscle, it is the completed house. So if you eat a steak, each gram of protein is already built by the cow for his muscle tissue. When you eat it, it is broken down into building blocks (amino acids) which are used to build a new house in your body (in this case muscle tissue). The order of the amino acids is determined by RNA which is coded from DNA. The dogma of all life goes as follows:
Dna ---->RNA -----> Protein
So each gene in your DNA will be copied into RNA which will code the amino acids into a polymer called a protein. Proteins make up pretty much everything in your body, many hormones, most cells, they are the workhorse of the body.
However, in order to use the proteins, your body needs energy (which can come from any macronutrient, usually carbs however) in order to:
1. Break them down into amino acids
2. Coding the DNA into RNA
3. Using the RNA to determine the monomers found in the polymer (What amino acids in each protein, and determine the sequence).

Ok, so my knowledge is a limited but from everything I have gathered it's this.

Protein is comprised of many different Amino acids. Now, not every g of protein has every amino acid or the same proportions and another g of protein. I say this because there is a difference in the protein you get from beans and the protein from chicken.

Now, when the protein is processed in your body its broken into these amino acids that are used to repair your muscles.

Now, beyond that I will have to have harsh either call me a moron or expand upon it.

>>5841253
>>5841251

Assuming we are right I think we have a half decent explanation...

>>5841251
>>5841253
>>5841273
Thanks a shitload.

So my understanding from your explanation and a bit of quick googling is that the body keeps a pool of amino acids in the blood and once those are depleted it needs more, so eating protein to refill your pool of aminos is really all that matters in terms of protein intake.

So I assume that it works a lot like energy economy in the sense that you can give or take some amino acids at any point in the process, and what you want to look at is the bigger picture.

is fat really burned and stored many times thru the day? simple as that?

>>5841331

yes, exactly. the bigger picture makes a much bigger difference than meal frequency. all you need are 2-3 meals per day. if you have to choose a particular meal to eat the majority of your protein, make it the last one. (muscle recovery while you sleep, etc)

>>5841331

Yes and no.. Yes you are correct but don't get lumped into the assumption that all of the amino acids are the same. Think of them as different shaped blocks that can fit into different areas when rebuilding muscle. Tis the problem with Vegetarian body builders (yes it can occur it's just harder), they are not getting the complete range of amino acids to replenish their low levels.

Now, at which points will the muscles repair using other amino acids I do not know, I know only that unless you are getting a good range of the amino acids (not only getting them from beans) then you're gonna be developing at a slower rate.

>>5841399
Thanks a lot

>>5841331
Yea, lets say you are paying people to build a house, lets say the expenses to build the house are carbohydrates/energy, the materials are amino acids, and the people building are basically enzymes they dont matter. If you dont have enough amino acids available, your house is not going to get built, because obviously you don't have materials to build a house with. If you don't have the resources to build a house (energy) you are not going to be able to build the house either. If you don't have the enzymes (which are interestingly enough made up of proteins) your house is not going to be build but that doesnt matter in this example.
You need to supply your body with amino acids (building blocks) in order for your body to build the house.
However, building an entire house is anabolic, therefore highly endergonic (meaning energy must be put in) so your body needs energy in order to use the building blocks.
So if your body runs out of building blocks, it can't do shit, it needs those building blocks elsewhere in the body, not just in your muscles, protein is used all over your body, in pretty much every cell.

>>5841366

generally yes. there is, however, a cheat code where if you eat all of your calories within an 8-hour period of time and then fast for 16 hours, your will have more fat burning between hours 12 and 16. use this method to bulk without putting on too much weight, and especially to cut without losing any muscle.

>>5841162
>>5841162
>>5841162
>>5841162
>>5841162
Proteins are broken down into amino acids within the body, which then become the building blocks for other proteins. So, put simply, proteins are essentially building blocks used for growth and repair within the body.

>>5841420
Cont.
So if you only give your body the amount of protein it needs to maintain itself, then it will maintain the amount of muscle it has. However if you don't add enough exogenous protein sources, then your body will have to use an endogenous source (typically muscle cells) for the amino acids that are necessary for your body to perform its tasks. Muscle building is not exactly the highest priority. There has to be a surplus of amino acids in order for your muscles to grow.

>>5841420

right. to go along with the analogy, you don't need a shipment of building materials (and energy) to be delivered every 2-3 hours, just 2 or 3 times per day and as long as you have enough of those materials between those 2-3 shipments, you will be able to complete your house.

>>5841366
Its more complex, in order for fat to be burned you will have to empty your glycogen stores in your liver and in your bloodstream. Once all glycogen is depleted, your body will begin to use triglycerides (animal fat storage) as energy. However, if your amino acid levels are too low, your body begins to break down muscles for amino acids to use for imperative reactions elsewhere in the body that amino acids are necessary for.
That is basically a TL;DR of this whole thread.

>>5841453

agreed. you simply need to eat enough protein keep the same amount of muscle if that is what you want, or if you want more muscle then eat more protein than you need to maintain yourself. meal frequency be damned

>>5841481

Keeping in mind, of course, that taking protein from the muscle will have no long term affect on you gains as long as you replenish the amino acids later in the day, at which point the muscle will be restored. so don't worry about eating amino acids every 2-3 hours, any amino acids taken from the muscle during the day will be completely replaced the next time you eat protein, even if that is 6 hours later

>>5841461
I personally recommend eating smaller portions throughout the day, i have tried all methods, and have found this to work the best for me. I do not get light headed like i do with fasting, and can still concentrate in school and still have good workouts. Fasting causes me to be drained. The other advantage to eating smaller portions 6 times a day, is that it is easier to maintain a constant amino acid level, because again, if you only eat every 16 hours, some of the weight lost is going to be muscle, because you can only saturate your bloodstream with a certain amount of amino acids, anything over that is wasted, and it takes less then 16 hours to go from saturated blood stream to low.
I do not support the fasting method.

>>5841528
No, your muscles don't work the same way fat storages do. In order for new muscles to form, it must be stimulated ( from working out). Your body does maintain a "muscle memory" but your muscle doesnt come back without putting in work.

>>5840523
nice broscience, bro.

>>5841538

that's interesting, generally the people that martin works with experience the exact opposite symptoms. they usually feel more energetic using his fasting method and used to feel like crap eating 6 times per day. He also said that it wouldn't work for 100% of everyone, and you just happen to either be in that minority, or you were doing it worng.

also,
>The other advantage to eating smaller portions 6 times a day, is that it is easier to maintain a constant amino acid level, because again, if you only eat every 16 hours, some of the weight lost is going to be muscle, because you can only saturate your bloodstream with a certain amount of amino acids, anything over that is wasted, and it takes less then 16 hours to go from saturated blood stream to low.

total broscience. I can't find the post right now, but the leangains guy very specifically addresses your point in on of his posts, and he completely disproves it. you do not need a "constant amino acid level" and your body does not use it all up after 2 hours.

This whole argument is moot if you decide to eat in the morning before working out.

The food eaten the night before will be stored as fat (which has already been stated multiple times) however I tried to read every response and no one brought up the fact that if you eat in the morning before some sort of aerobic activity, you'll burn the carbohydrates from that meal long before you start eating into your fat stores.

The thing is, the body has a harder time using the fat stores that you would gain from the consumption of food late at night.

If i'm misinterpreting the argument at hand about energy balance, my apologies.

>>5841538
>>5841538

http://www.leangains.com/2010/10/top-ten-fasting-myths-debunked.html

>5. Myth: Maintain a steady supply of amino acids by eating protein every 2-3 hours. The body can only absorb 30 grams of protein in one sitting.

>Truth

>Whenever you hear something really crazy you need to ask yourself if it makes sense from an evolutionary perspective. It's a great way to quickly determine if something may be valid or if it's more likely a steaming pile of horseshit. This myth is a great example of the latter. Do you think we would be here today if our bodies could only make use of 30 grams of protein per meal?

>The simple truth is that more protein just takes a longer time to digest and be utilized. For some concrete numbers, digestion of a standard meal is still incomplete after five hours. Amino acids are still being released into your bloodstream and absorbed into muscles. You are still "anabolic." This is a fairly standard "Average Joe"-meal: 600 kcal, 75 g carbs, 37 g protein and 17 g fat. Best of all? This was after eating pizza, a refined food that should be quickly absorbed relatively speaking.

>Think about this for a second. How long do you think a big steak, with double the protein intake of the above example, and a big pile of veggies would last you? More than 10 hours, that's for sure. Meal composition plays an important role in absorption speed, especially when it comes to amino acids. Type of protein, fiber, carbohydrates and prior meals eaten all affect how long you'll have amino acids released and being taken up by tissues after meals.

>>5841693 cont.-

>Origin
>I think this "30 grams of protein"-nonsense started to circulate after a classic study from 1997 by Boirie and colleagues. "Slow and fast dietary proteins differently modulate postprandial protein accretion" was the first study to quantify the absorption rate of whey and casein protein and gave birth to the concept of fast and slow protein. After that, whey protein came to be known for it's ability to rapidly elevate amino acids in the blood stream and casein for it's ability to create a sustained release of amino acids. Whey was anabolic and casein anti-catabolic.

>Given that 30 grams of whey protein was absorbed within 3-4 hours, I guess some people believed that meant 30 grams of protein can only be used in one sitting. Or that you had to eat every 3-4 hours to stay "anabolic." Unfortunately, people missed a few facts that made these findings irrelevant to real-world scenarios. First of all, this study looked at the absorption rate of whey protein in the fasted state. On it's own, and with no meals eaten beforehand, 30 grams of whey protein is absorbed within a mere 3-4 hours. With meals eaten earlier in the day, or if you'd consume a whey shake after a meal, absorption would be much slower.

>Second of all, whey protein is the fastest protein of all and digests at 10 g/hour. Casein is much slower; in Boirie's study, the casein protein was still being absorbed when they stopped the experiment 7 hours later. Most whole food proteins are absorbed at a rate of 3-6 grams an hour. Add other macronutrients to that and they'll take longer.

>>5841538

>6. Myth: Fasting causes muscle loss.

>Truth:
>This myth hinges on people's belief it's important to have a steady stream of amino acids available to not lose muscle. As I explained earlier, protein is absorbed at a very slow rate. After a large high-protein meal, amino acids trickle into your blood stream for several hours.

>No studies have looked at this in a context that is relevant to most of us. For example, by examining amino acid appearance in the blood and tissue utilization of amino acids after a large steak, veggies and followed up with some cottage cheese with berries for dessert. That's easily 100 grams of protein and a typical meal for those that follow the Leangains approach. We are left to draw our own conclusions based on what we know; that a modest amount of casein, consumed as a liquid on an empty stomach is still releasing amino acids after 7 hours. With this in mind it's no stretch to assume that 100 grams of protein as part of a mixed meal at the end of the day would still be releasing aminos for 16-24 hours.

>Few studies has examined the effects of regular fasting on muscle retention and compared it to a control diet. None of them are relevant to how most people fast and some are marred by flaws in study design and methodology. Like this study which showed increased muscle gain and fat loss, with no weight training or change in calorie intake, just by changing meal frequency. While I would love to cite that study as proof for the benefits of intermittent fasting, body composition was measured by BIA, which is notoriously imprecise.

>>5841739 cont. -


>Only in prolonged fasting does protein catabolism become an issue. This happens when stored liver glycogen becomes depleted. In order to maintain blood glucose, conversion of amino acids into glucose must occur (DNG: de novo glucogenesis). This happens gradually and if amino acids are not available from food, protein must be taken from bodily stores such as muscle. Cahill looked at the contribution of amino acids to DNG after a 100 gram glucose load. He found that amino acids from muscle contributed 50% to glucose maintenance after 16 hours and almost 100% after 28 hours (when stored liver glycogen was fully depleted). Obviously, for someone who eats a high protein meal before fasting, this is a moot point as you will have plenty of aminos available from food during the fast.

>Origin
>An example of severe exaggeration of physiological and scientific fact, not relevant to anyone who's not undergoing prolonged fasting or starvation.

>>5841693
>>5841701
>>5841739
>>5841747


status of >>5841538 and the rest of thread = Told

>>5841701

http://jn.nutrition.org/content/112/10/1862.full.pdf

read em and weep bro.
If you are a severely obese individual fasting is a good idea. However if you are trying to cut a few body fat %s fasting is bullshit, and along with inhibiting protein synthesis, it also inhibits calcium absorption.

>>5841821


http://jn.nutrition.org/content/112/10/1862.full.pdf

>In general, studies of lean subjects report an increase in the rate of degradation with fasting (11, 16-18, 21-23), whereas those of obese individuals report no change or a decrease in muscle protein degradation (24-26). Apparently, these conflicting results occurred because of a differing response of muscle protein degradation to fasting in lean and obese subjects. Few studies have been done, however, that compare protein deg radation of lean and obese subjects in the same experiment.

>>5841821

what kind of fasting were the subjects doing? keep in mind that my posted article is about "intermittent fasting", also known as 8 hours of eating following by 16 hours of non-eating. its not like we are fasting for days at a time.

>>5841821
>>5841855

>ABSTRACT The effects of prolonged fasting on the composition of weight loss and
the rates of muscle protein synthesis and degradation were compared in obese and
nonobese (lean) rats. Lean rats weighing 400 g could survive only 10 days of fasting,
whereas obese rats weighing 550 g could survive 60 days. Weight loss was similar in
both phenotypes over the first 10 days of fasting (15 g/day), but the composition of
weight loss differed.

sorry, but this is not intermittent fasting. These rats went for 10 days without eating, but leangains.com is advocating only 16 hours. HUGE DIFFERENCE, your point is invalid

>>5841912
Its not eating, its the closest study i could find, however, the first day alone, it was found that the lean rats lost 3.7g of body fat, and 1.7 grams of muscle, which is an absolutely horrific ratio, and thats roughly 24 hours of fasting, so basing it on that, it would not be a very good ratio. Do you think you just consume protein, and the protein you don't use just sits in your stomach, or does it have an amino acid storage site? No, the unused amino acids, due to the concentration of the amino acids in the blood stream already being saturated, would either be discarded (ie. urea cycle) or would be turned into glycogen. I REPEAT, ONCE AN AMINO ACID IS TURNED INTO GLYCOGEN, IT CAN NOT BE TURNED BACK INTO AN AMINO ACID. Carbs/ fats can not be turned into amino acids.
Another problem with fasting is that once you sit down and eat, lets say a big steak with some vegetables for one meal, you are getting one source of amino acids, you are eating only the amino acids found in the steak, which is not the same as the ones found in chicken, or milk. If you are eating several meals spread out throughout the day, you have better access to a larger variety of amino acids which your body needs. Remember, there are roughly 20 essential/ semi essential amino acids that your body needs, and not all of them are found in perfect percentages in a steak. For example, beef might have 5 g of valine in it per 25 g of protein, but may only have 0.4g of leucine, where is that leucine going to come from? Its harder to cover your bases with a fasting diet.

>>5841956
16 hours vs 24 hours considering you sleep 8 hours during a day is NOT a huge difference, looking at the first 24 hours it is not a good ratio of fat vs muscle loss. Find me a study that says otherwise or eat shit.

>>5841987

My only response is this:

I can either trust a rat study, or I can trust the real world experience of all of the humans who actually used martin berkhan's intermittent fasting method and did not lose muscle.

but guess what? re-read what I posted, he admitted that ONLY after you have fasted for more than 16 hours will you lose muscle. and, i totally agree with you, you WILL lose muscle if you fast for 24 hours. however, 16 hours is 8 hours less than 24. 8 hours makes a huge difference

>>5841999

the 16 hours INCLUDES sleeping. in fact the easiest way to do the method is to finish eating your last meal at 8pm, then eating your first meal of the next day at noon. its not rocket science

>>5841999

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17413096

one meal per day, they lost fat mass, felt hungry as hell, but there's no mention in the abstract that they lost significant muscle

>>5842038
http://www.alanaragon.com/an-objective-look-at-intermittent-fasting.html

Here you go, thats the best source i can come up with, and he says IF (intermittent fasting) has pros and cons, read it over, tell me what you think. I agree with 99.9999% of stuff said in this.

>>5842064

that page you showed mentioned the boxer study, so here is martin's nov 4 addendum to myth #5:

>I forgot to mention one critical study that often comes up in the context of a high meal frequency being beneficial when dieting. In “Effects of meal frequency on body composition during weight control in boxers.” it was found that boxers eating two meals a day on a 1200-calorie diet lost more muscle than the six-meal-group. There are many errors with this conclusion. Lyle McDonald summarized them nicely:

>“In this study, boxers were given either 2 or 6 meals per day with identical protein and calories and examined for lean body mass lost; the 2 meal per day group lost more lean body mass (note: both groups lost lean body mass, the 2 meal per day group simply lost more). Aha, higher meal frequency spares lean body mass. Well, not exactly.

>In that study, boxers were put on low calories and then an inadequate amount of liquid protein was given to both groups and the meals were divided up into 2 or 6 meals. But the study design was pretty crappy and I want to look at a few reasons why I think that.

>>5842103 cont.-

>First and foremost, a 2 vs. 6 meal per day comparison isn’t realistic. As discussed in The Protein Book, a typical whole food meal will only maintain an anabolic state for 5-6 hours, with only 2 meals per day, that’s simply too long between meals and three vs. six meals would have been far more realistic (I would note that the IF’ing folks are doing just fine not eating for 16 hours per day).

>Additionally is the use of a liquid protein that confounds things even more. Liquids digest that much more quickly than solid foods so the study was basically set up to fail for the low meal frequency group. They were given an inadequate amount of rapidly digesting liquid protein too infrequently to spare muscle loss. But what if they had been given sufficient amounts of solid protein (e.g. 1.5 g/lb lean body mass) at those same intervals? The results would have been completely different.

>As discussed in The Protein Book in some detail, meal frequency only really matters when protein intake is inadequate in the first place. Under those conditions, a higher meal frequency spares lean body mass. But when protein intake is adequate in the first place (and again that usually means 1.5 g/lb lean body mass for lean dieters), meal frequency makes no difference. And that’s why the boxer study is meaningless so far as I’m concerned. An inadequate amount of liquid protein given twice per day is nothing like how folks should be dieting in the first place.”

http://www.leangains.com/2010/10/top-ten-fasting-myths-debunked.html

>>5842110 cont.-

>So in summary, a low calorie intake coupled with an inadequate amount of liquid protein. Liquid protein is rapidly absorbed. This would leave the low meal frequency-group without dietary protein available in between meals, causing DNG, de novo gluconeogenesis, of endogenous protein stores (muscle). The large energy deficit and leanness of the boxers are also factors to consider.

>None of this is apparent if you look at the abstract of the study; no protein intake or protein type is mentioned. Details that are critical to know in this context.

This thread is fucking cancer.

Eating your entire daily calories right before bed will not cause fat gain anymore than eating them in 6 separate meals during the day - no matter the amount of calories.

Look up the warrior diet and intermittent fasting. Your body is not fucking retarded, it will not absorb the nutrients it needs that hour from a meal consisting of your entire daily calorie intake and store the rest as fat. Some of the advice given on this forum is just fucking horrendous, no wonder you faggots don't make progress.

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/meal-frequency-and-energy-balance-research-review.h
tml#more-1389
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9155494

>>5842103
He says on the article i linked that the study was flawed... he nowhere said that it was a balanced study.

so.... what's the consensus here?

somebody needs to archive this shit, very informative thread. thank you, leangain-anon

>>5842143
Im tired of arguing, its getting late, and my gf says i need to finish my calculus assignment before i get a blow job. You can read the thread to find answers to everything you have posted.

>>5842144

hehe...i didn't read that far ;) its a very looong article

>>5841632
real-world example:
you need 2000 cals. over a 24-hr period.
you wake up at 6 am.

you eat 1000 throughout the day in three meals of 333 calories, and then 9 pm rolls around. This wasn't enough so inevitably your body will tap into fat stores. You lose body fat.

Then you eat the other 1,000 cals. Lots of them are stored as fat. You've met your caloric requirements and body fat levels have returned to what they were the previous day.

If you ignore TEF, digestion differences, etc. that's how it works. Pretty simple.

>>5842154
There's no arguing with fact you dumb faggot.

>>5842188
>>5842143
I agree with your post and I think that was the conclusion that was reached and nobody disagreed with it

did I miss something?

also what happens if you don't have enough amino acids for a prolonged period of time? muscle atrophy? even during caloric surplus?

>>5842273

eventually yes, with both a caloric surplus and an bad enough amino acid deficiency, you will start to lose muscle and gain fat at the same time.

Your metabolism doesn't slow down enough when you sleep to matter.

/thread

>>5842318
lolwut? Yes it does, you are not moving/walking/standing etc. it makes for a very large change in calories expended. Consider it this way, what burns more calories, if you are out at your job or school vs if you just stay in one exact spot for 8 hours?

>>5842273
Yes, your body cannot create amino acids from fats or carbs. Amino Acids must come from proteins.

>>5842318
you're a doofus for thinking "metabolism slows down" and looking at it that way whatsoever

you want to look at energy balance, not hurdur speed of metabolism

>>5842387
okay thanks

So does the body just need to maintain certain levels of amino acids, so it'll break down muscle to facilitate that, or the muscles themselves need a constant supply of amino acids which will result in atrophy if not received?

>>5842394
holy shit learn to read

sage for shitty broscience thread

>>5842527
lol at you getting mad cause I called you out
I know how to read and addressed the post adequately
enjoy being retarded brah
bump for your unwarranted sage

>>5842508
No, again, protein is the most important macronutrient. Amino Acids are used everywhere. They make up enzymes for example. Your body sees your muscles as essentially storage sites of amino acids, so when the amino acids are so low that it can no longer perform its necessary functions, it begins to break down muscle tissue in order to use the amino acids in the muscle tissue for more necessary functions. Muscle is not very high up on the protein priority scale, because pretty much everything is made up of protein.

What a stupid fucking thread.

>>5842550
I see, thanks. :)

>>5842567
I got something out of it
you're not exactly contributing anything worthwhile

Archived.

>>5842709
sweet, and there was only one moronic trip.

This thread makes me proud.

>>5842709
How R I Archive?

>>5842993
Go to www.4chanarchive.com and follow the prompts

I think you're all missing what's really important here....luna lovegood is fucking hot.

Thanks for your request.
It has been added to our database and the thread will be archived as soon as enough request for that thread have been made.
This thread has been requested 5 times now.

MOAR

>>5843374
how many are needed?

>post in thread
>go out
>come back
>@___@ wtf
you guys could've just read >>5840099 and saved all this trouble arguing