This was a response to a question from a forum member. The PM system meant this was way too big for a single response so I asked if I could post this as an anonymous question. If people like this it could be made more of a regular thing. A lot of this is just my opinion and obviously open to debate so feel free to contribute! I term diet as what you eat, I understand the confusion since most people term a weightloss diet as 'going on a diet'. As a basic plan a good starting point is the primal diet: http://www.marksdailyapple.com/ The principles are great, eat whole unprocessed food, aim for protein, fats and then a few carbs on the end. He allows for people with different tolerances (dairy being the main one) and generally I find his advice is good. If I make any tweaks to it I would restrict carbs to the post workout period and concentrate on calories more. As far as health goes it's a good way to stabilize hormones and get your body functioning as it should do. You probably know this but diet is great for gaining weight, especially when you track calories but you really do need to be lifting weights as well. Body weight exercise can do a lot but for challenging your body and forcing adaptation it's the quickest route. It's all nonsense. The original 5/6 meals a day thing came about because low fat diets meant blood sugar had a tendency to rise and fall faster than when fat was in the diet, to keep it high people ate more meals and used phrases like 'keep your body fueled'. Fortunately it wasn't long before science pointed out that not only is the low fat approach harmful in many ways (cholesterol is needed for hormones and comes from saturated fats - low fats meant low hormones which affect mood, recovery, fat storage and muscle synthesis to name a few. The other thing low fat diets did was left the dieter hungry due to the changes in blood sugar, insulin and a lot of associated hormones. This study shows it nicely, although the study wasn't well constructed, the low carb diet was the only one where calories weren't restricted yet showed a greater weight loss. I know this isn't a goal for you but it does demonstrate quiet nicely how the body reacts to a diet it hasn't evolved for. This study came out a while back and had a whole movement of people proclaiming that 30g per meal was all that was needed for muscle growth. However if anyone actually looked at the study there's a few bits that should be noted. The study was conducted using lean beef as the protein source, however there was no exercise conducted before hand which has been shown to upregulate protein synthesis by almost 200% (myofibrillar) which would obviously mean a greater amount of protein would be required post workout to see a benefit. The problem with using near pure protein as a source is that although the rate of synthesis can be studied, adding carbs or fats can greatly affect the speed the protein is absorbed at and also the loss of dietary protein for protein synthesis. Personally I shoot for about 1g per lb of lean body mass. If it's too much I'm not too worried, protein has not been shown to be harmful in excess to healthy individuals, only to those with existing kidney damage. It's a good example of studies being misquoted to fit an agenda rather than studies being observed and then used to update what is already known. I'd probably ask why you're vegetarian first, then check if you're ok eating milk, eggs, cheese and bits like that. I'm not a fan of soy as it's one of the most processed foods in the modern diet as an additive (not so bad as tembeh/tofu though) and there are quite a few health fears linked to processed soy. It's definitely possible to be a vegetarian and eat healthily, if you're looking to gain weight then milk, nuts and cheese will certainly help! If you're lactose intolerant not so much . From a personal perspective I don't think it's a good choice. The lifestyle is not as healthy as it's promoted to be and when you're looking at supplements to create a balanced diet it's probably not as natural as it claims to be. Yes and no. There is a minimal value in it based on ancestry, obviously people with a European heritage have been drinking milk for 8,000 years so they have a better resistance to lactose intolerance, likewise people with an Asian heritage can often tolerate grains better as it has been a part of their diet for longer. These are trends not rules though and I think the best way for any individual is simple trial and error, especially since very few people have a 'pure' ancestry anyway. I've posted a few links already, Science daily I have in my RSS so I get a heads up about new nutrition studies, often with links to the original. I pretty much ignore a lot of what I read in the news these days. Years of understanding the difference between an abstract or summary from a study and a quick soundbite from a journalist with little nutritional education is often a world of difference. A good example is the diet comparison study I posted earlier, the study had some great information yet the headline it came under was 'All diets are the same' which is not what the study said at all. Other issues like saturated fats, cholesterol and whole grains often have a big difference between what the science says and what the government advises.
I can't believe I never saw this! The 5/6 meals a day myth is pretty surprising to me. I've been doing it for a long time. Would it be more recommendable to eat 3 big meals or what?
My understanding is that it doesn't matter too much how many meals you eat your calories in, so pick whatever fits in with your lifestyle the best.
Regarding meal frequency, I've seen some research that demonstrated different effects on body composition between different meal frequencies, even when controlling for calories and macronutrient ratios. Here's one that I was able to find real fast that took people who ate 4x a day and dropped it to 3x without changing total intake. They got fatter. Highlighting the positive impact of increasing feeding frequency on metabolism and weight management. Nutr. 2003;56:126-8.
That study does follow the outdated view that high carb, low fat meals are better which are far faster absorbed than meals with moderate or higher fat content. For this kind of macro breakdown more meals are necessary but I did indicate that in the OP.
I eat about 4-5 times a day about 3-4 hours apart, and I think that's what works best for me. If I don't eat often, I get really, really hungry and I feel weak. That's not the way it is for everyone and it probably has to do with what I eat more than anything else.
Hey guys - I have a question and would appreciate your advice: I'm about to start a new job which means I'm going to have to move my training from early evening to early morning - I was wondering when I should eat my first meal? It's uncomfortable to train with a full stomach (as well as blood being directed to your alimentary canal) but on the other hand, it seems bad to train with nothing in the tank - what do you think? Is there a compromise i.e. eat a little before and after? (I normally alternate free weights and cardio sessions if that matters at all) Also - have you noticed any differences when you train in the morning? Would you recommend making any changes to how I train? Many thanks
Awesome stuff Coma. Another question if this is a Q&A thread: Diet for weight gain: Calorie excess & protein excess? Why are each of these key to gains in muscle mass? Obviously proteins provide the raw goods to make more muscle but any decent training plan I've ever seen uses calorie excess as well. Is this purely to compensate for the raw Joules you're putting into training or is there a metabolic need to help with muscle growth? PS. just noticed this might look like I asked Coma the original question. T'wasn't me though.
I usually eat a large meal about 1 hour beforehand. And keep some 7up or something on me in case of hypoglycemia...
Unless you are a diabetic you should not be getting hypoglycemia. Sure you may feel the effect of a lowering blood sugar, but that IMHO is not a hypo. Do you find that 7up helps or is that just a short term measure? I have an interest in this subject, as my wife is a Type 1 diabetic.
Yeah I feel the effects of one. I get light headed, dizzy and weak if I go too long without eating anything. Yeah it helps. I had a few of those attacks in class, now I keep some 7up or Red Bull on me and have some every so often. I assume it comes with having a high metabolism. I can eat like a dope addled wolverine and still have low body fat (yes, plenty of protein and fat before you ask, lol). Also I'm immune to the cold. I can go out in subzero termperatures in a short sleeved shirt and not suffer any ill effects.
Interesting, me too. And I am similarly low fat regardless of diet. Do two datum points make a conclusion?
Hehehe. Thanks for the friendly post, I was already getting angry and defensive anticipating you telling me to go to the doctor...people say that for every little thing these days. I've had people tell me to get medical help just for having a low body weight...Yes, I'm healthy and alert, but someone wants me to go get treated for a sickness just because they can see my deltoid fibres...I freaking hate people.
True, but keep it in perspective. You can try training without eating beforehand. However, if you get to the point where you are not getting as much out of training because you haven't eaten, then have something small and carby before hand. Something like a banana is great. Generally speaking if you are after performance, then you need to be well fueled. So if it's higher intensity, eating is good.
I'm real curious Corona. What do you eat? And how much do you work out? I'm not attacking you or anything. I'm just real curious, or perhaps really jeolous.
