Bookmark this thread:     |
Login  | |
|
RE: Timings - Overrated or Underrated? - Apr. 18 2008 16:46:54
| |
|
R3261
Posts: 2399
Joined: Jul. 27 2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
How would the timings - apart from pre/post workout - affect an individual looking to lose bodyfat?
most of data suggesting little to no difference is derived from studies looking at weight loss anyway
_____________________________
Journal
| |
|
|
RE: Timings - Overrated or Underrated? - Apr. 18 2008 22:46:29
| |
|
banksy1987
Posts: 586
Joined: Jan. 16 2006
From: South Wales
Status: offline
|
If my calorie requirements are 25000 a week, and i eat 25000 calories at one sitting on a friday afternoon, making sure i ingest all the relevant proteins and efas, will this give any difference to eating 10 meals a day 7 days a week?
what about 100000 calories in one sitting a month?
p.s not supposed to be realistic ideas, just seeing how far people are willing to stretch the idea that it is only cals that matter.
| |
|
|
RE: Timings - Overrated or Underrated? - Apr. 19 2008 0:09:32
| |
|
makaveli1971 1996
Posts: 2838
Joined: Jun. 21 2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: banksy1987
If my calorie requirements are 25000 a week, and i eat 25000 calories at one sitting on a friday afternoon, making sure i ingest all the relevant proteins and efas, will this give any difference to eating 10 meals a day 7 days a week?
what about 100000 calories in one sitting a month?
p.s not supposed to be realistic ideas, just seeing how far people are willing to stretch the idea that it is only cals that matter.
Its just not possible and would never happen,the reason this thread was started was because some people prefer to eat 3-4 meals a day while some like to eat 6-7.
Your question is quite simply stupid because its just not possible and going 6 days with no food would do you know good for so many reasons.
Eating 6-7 meals has its benefits but having 3-4 larger meals is not going to have no effect in terms of muscle gains,somedays i will eat 3-4 larger meals because im busy and feel i need a larger meal at the time,somedays ill have 6 meals because i might be training and only feel like a small meal.
You here alot of bodybuilding sites and mags say about eating 6-7 meals a day yes,but ive personally never heard them say if you eat 3-4 larger meals your gains will be minimised.
_____________________________
| |
|
|
RE: Timings - Overrated or Underrated? - Apr. 19 2008 1:47:06
| |
|
banksy1987
Posts: 586
Joined: Jan. 16 2006
From: South Wales
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: makaveli1971 1996
quote:
ORIGINAL: banksy1987
If my calorie requirements are 25000 a week, and i eat 25000 calories at one sitting on a friday afternoon, making sure i ingest all the relevant proteins and efas, will this give any difference to eating 10 meals a day 7 days a week?
what about 100000 calories in one sitting a month?
p.s not supposed to be realistic ideas, just seeing how far people are willing to stretch the idea that it is only cals that matter.
Its just not possible and would never happen,the reason this thread was started was because some people prefer to eat 3-4 meals a day while some like to eat 6-7.
Your question is quite simply stupid because its just not possible and going 6 days with no food would do you know good for so many reasons.
Eating 6-7 meals has its benefits but having 3-4 larger meals is not going to have no effect in terms of muscle gains,somedays i will eat 3-4 larger meals because im busy and feel i need a larger meal at the time,somedays ill have 6 meals because i might be training and only feel like a small meal.
You here alot of bodybuilding sites and mags say about eating 6-7 meals a day yes,but ive personally never heard them say if you eat 3-4 larger meals your gains will be minimised.
Sorry, was my 'p.s' not clear enough for you? It is not an attempt at a realistic question, or something i am planning on trying. It is simply my way of asking how far can the theory that the body uses macros as they need them can be taken.
For what reasons would going 6 days without food do you no good in comparison to going, say, eight hours without food? ( I know there are answers to this question btw)
Is it not possible to not eat for 6 days? last time I checked it was certainly possible. So I am the one being 'stupid' or is that you for stating that something which is clearly possible is impossible?
I understand the topic of the thread and im sure the brighter people involved in it will understand the point im trying to make.
| |
|
|
RE: Timings - Overrated or Underrated? - Apr. 19 2008 1:58:00
| |
|
makaveli1971 1996
Posts: 2838
Joined: Jun. 21 2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: banksy1987
quote:
ORIGINAL: makaveli1971 1996
quote:
ORIGINAL: banksy1987
If my calorie requirements are 25000 a week, and i eat 25000 calories at one sitting on a friday afternoon, making sure i ingest all the relevant proteins and efas, will this give any difference to eating 10 meals a day 7 days a week?
what about 100000 calories in one sitting a month?
p.s not supposed to be realistic ideas, just seeing how far people are willing to stretch the idea that it is only cals that matter.
Its just not possible and would never happen,the reason this thread was started was because some people prefer to eat 3-4 meals a day while some like to eat 6-7.
Your question is quite simply stupid because its just not possible and going 6 days with no food would do you know good for so many reasons.
Eating 6-7 meals has its benefits but having 3-4 larger meals is not going to have no effect in terms of muscle gains,somedays i will eat 3-4 larger meals because im busy and feel i need a larger meal at the time,somedays ill have 6 meals because i might be training and only feel like a small meal.
You here alot of bodybuilding sites and mags say about eating 6-7 meals a day yes,but ive personally never heard them say if you eat 3-4 larger meals your gains will be minimised.
Sorry, was my 'p.s' not clear enough for you? It is not an attempt at a realistic question, or something i am planning on trying. It is simply my way of asking how far can the theory that the body uses macros as they need them can be taken.
For what reasons would going 6 days without food do you no good in comparison to going, say, eight hours without food? ( I know there are answers to this question btw)
Is it not possible to not eat for 6 days? last time I checked it was certainly possible. So I am the one being 'stupid' or is that you for stating that something which is clearly possible is impossible?
I understand the topic of the thread and im sure the brighter people involved in it will understand the point im trying to make.
LOL Why bother making a point that is not realistic and is never going to happen.
So for what reasons would going without food do you know good,how do you want me to list the options in terms of health or bodybuilding??
So when was the last time you checked for going 6 days without food? 
Because i have never checked and certainly i know no one who has,and yes your asking a stupid question because for 1 it would never happen and for 2 after going 6 days without food your body could not consume that amount of calories at once.
Most would know you were being unrealistic or at least hope you were,but lets just say if it was POSSIBLE to do it, this way that you have put it,then NO it would not work at all.
< Message edited by makaveli1971 1996 -- Apr. 19 2008 2:09:21 >
_____________________________
| |
|
|
RE: Timings - Overrated or Underrated? - Apr. 19 2008 2:01:53
| |
|
makaveli1971 1996
Posts: 2838
Joined: Jun. 21 2006
Status: offline
|
ORIGINAL: banksy1987
It is not an attempt at a realistic question
< Message edited by makaveli1971 1996 -- Apr. 19 2008 2:07:24 >
_____________________________
| |
|
|
RE: Timings - Overrated or Underrated? - Apr. 19 2008 12:27:04
| |
|
banksy1987
Posts: 586
Joined: Jan. 16 2006
From: South Wales
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: makaveli1971 1996
LOL Why bother making a point that is not realistic and is never going to happen.
As already stated, to see how far this theory stretches. Surely there must be a point at which it is sensible to eat more frequently, and not just because your food can only handle a certrain amount at any one time. In fact I know there is, but I am just trying to establish whether the point that Nige, Raj etc are arguing is that there is not.
quote:
So for what reasons would going without food do you know good,how do you want me to list the options in terms of health or bodybuilding??
In terms of anything, although to be honest I wouldnt take much note of your answers as your knowledge seems somewhat limited at best.
quote:
So when was the last time you checked for going 6 days without food?
About 3 months ago when i had tonsilitus(sp). 9 days with only a couple of bowls of ice cream. Rightyho also made a post about going without food for 7 days in general not so long ago, have a search for it.
quote:
Because i have never checked and certainly i know no one who has,and yes your asking a stupid question because for 1 it would never happen and for 2 after going 6 days without food your body could not consume that amount of calories at once.
Definately could not? What if your weekly calorific requirements were 12000, and you were capable of eating 12000 cals in one sitting?
Does the fact that something could never happen make it a stupid question? Or does it make it a merely hypothetical question?
quote:
Most would know you were being unrealistic or at least hope you were,but lets just say if it was POSSIBLE to do it, this way that you have put it,then NO it would not work at all.
But for what reasons? Where is the line then? What about if you ate a four thousand calorie meal every 2 days? or one 2000 calorie meal a day?
You seem to be good at answer questions with no knowledge to back up what you said, and no scientific reasoning. What im after here is reasons.
| |
|
|
RE: Timings - Overrated or Underrated? - Apr. 19 2008 12:29:53
| |
|
banksy1987
Posts: 586
Joined: Jan. 16 2006
From: South Wales
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: makaveli1971 1996
ORIGINAL: banksy1987
It is not an attempt at a realistic question
I dont get it? What point is that post attempting to make?
| |
|
|
RE: Timings - Overrated or Underrated? - Apr. 19 2008 13:09:32
| |
|
Nigeepoo
Posts: 4390
Joined: Nov. 29 2002
From: Yateley, Hants, United Kingdom
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: banksy1987
If my calorie requirements are 25000 a week, and i eat 25000 calories at one sitting on a friday afternoon, making sure i ingest all the relevant proteins and efas, will this give any difference to eating 10 meals a day 7 days a week? Who's going to clean up the mess after you explode? 
what about 100000 calories in one sitting a month? See above.
p.s not supposed to be realistic ideas, just seeing how far people are willing to stretch the idea that it is only cals that matter. About as far as you're willing to stretch your stomach!
_____________________________
Eggs Article
Fats Article
My MySpace page with e-book and much, much more
Where are the Omega-3 fats?
| |
|
|
RE: Timings - Overrated or Underrated? - Apr. 19 2008 13:15:40
| |
|
Integra
Posts: 7807
Joined: Sep. 23 2006
Status: offline
|
Nige you may have missed this from a previous page:
quote:
How would the timings - apart from pre/post workout - affect an individual looking to lose bodyfat?
Would the rules (for want of a better word) change?
For example if I was attempting to lose about 12kg in bodyweight for a fight in 4 months time what are your thoughts on the above questions? Assuming training and fuel/refuel are in order?
| |
|
|
RE: Timings - Overrated or Underrated? - Apr. 19 2008 13:22:09
| |
|
banksy1987
Posts: 586
Joined: Jan. 16 2006
From: South Wales
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Nigeepoo
quote:
ORIGINAL: banksy1987
If my calorie requirements are 25000 a week, and i eat 25000 calories at one sitting on a friday afternoon, making sure i ingest all the relevant proteins and efas, will this give any difference to eating 10 meals a day 7 days a week? Who's going to clean up the mess after you explode?
what about 100000 calories in one sitting a month? See above.
p.s not supposed to be realistic ideas, just seeing how far people are willing to stretch the idea that it is only cals that matter. About as far as you're willing to stretch your stomach!
Ok so I reckon I could eat 5000 cals in a meal (made partly of shakes and oils).
Would me eating that meal once every 40 hours yield different gains to me eating the same macros in 20 meals of 250 cals over the same 40 hours?
| |
|
|
RE: Timings - Overrated or Underrated? - Apr. 19 2008 13:25:04
| |
|
theiopener
Posts: 18222
Joined: Jan. 6 2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: banksy1987
quote:
ORIGINAL: Nigeepoo
quote:
ORIGINAL: banksy1987
If my calorie requirements are 25000 a week, and i eat 25000 calories at one sitting on a friday afternoon, making sure i ingest all the relevant proteins and efas, will this give any difference to eating 10 meals a day 7 days a week? Who's going to clean up the mess after you explode?
what about 100000 calories in one sitting a month? See above.
p.s not supposed to be realistic ideas, just seeing how far people are willing to stretch the idea that it is only cals that matter. About as far as you're willing to stretch your stomach!
Ok so I reckon I could eat 5000 cals in a meal (made partly of shakes and oils).
Would me eating that meal once every 40 hours yield different gains to me eating the same macros in 20 meals of 250 cals over the same 40 hours?
Youre being silly now mate. Can we get back OT and stop debating theory which has no effect on real life?
You have a daily energy expenditure, eat to suit, simple really 
_____________________________
Journal
www.healthyaction.co.uk
www.undergroundmuscle.co.uk
| |
|
|
RE: Timings - Overrated or Underrated? - Apr. 19 2008 13:50:20
| |
|
banksy1987
Posts: 586
Joined: Jan. 16 2006
From: South Wales
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: theiopener
quote:
ORIGINAL: banksy1987
quote:
ORIGINAL: Nigeepoo
quote:
ORIGINAL: banksy1987
If my calorie requirements are 25000 a week, and i eat 25000 calories at one sitting on a friday afternoon, making sure i ingest all the relevant proteins and efas, will this give any difference to eating 10 meals a day 7 days a week? Who's going to clean up the mess after you explode?
what about 100000 calories in one sitting a month? See above.
p.s not supposed to be realistic ideas, just seeing how far people are willing to stretch the idea that it is only cals that matter. About as far as you're willing to stretch your stomach!
Ok so I reckon I could eat 5000 cals in a meal (made partly of shakes and oils).
Would me eating that meal once every 40 hours yield different gains to me eating the same macros in 20 meals of 250 cals over the same 40 hours?
Youre being silly now mate. Can we get back OT and stop debating theory which has no effect on real life?
You have a daily energy expenditure, eat to suit, simple really
In what way am I being silly?
| |
|
|
RE: Timings - Overrated or Underrated? - Apr. 19 2008 13:52:56
| |
|
theiopener
Posts: 18222
Joined: Jan. 6 2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
In what way am I being silly?
What weight trainer eats once every 40 odd hours mate? Youd fall flat on your face and go catabolic beyond belief not to mention other issues that could arise like hypoglycaemic attacks
_____________________________
Journal
www.healthyaction.co.uk
www.undergroundmuscle.co.uk
| |
|
|
RE: Timings - Overrated or Underrated? - Apr. 19 2008 14:04:04
| |
|
Nigeepoo
Posts: 4390
Joined: Nov. 29 2002
From: Yateley, Hants, United Kingdom
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Integra
Nige you may have missed this from a previous page: After 9 pages, I did!quote:
How would the timings - apart from pre/post workout - affect an individual looking to lose bodyfat? Would the rules (for want of a better word) change? For example if I was attempting to lose about 12kg in bodyweight for a fight in 4 months time what are your thoughts on the above questions? Assuming training and fuel/refuel are in order? 12kg is 26.5lbs. 4 months is 13 weeks, so you'd have to lose 2lbs/week. To do this, you need a deficit of 1,000kcals/day. As you lose weight, your BMR slowly falls in proportion to your weight, so you have to eat less as your weight decreases to maintain a deficit of 1,000kcals/day. As long as training is fuelled, what you eat and when you eat the rest of the time won't make any difference to your weight loss.
However, eating in a manner which maintains a more constant blood glucose level (to minimise hunger pangs) makes it easier to remain compliant with a cutting diet. Appetite is the only thing that GI/GL & meal volumes & timings affect.
_____________________________
Eggs Article
Fats Article
My MySpace page with e-book and much, much more
Where are the Omega-3 fats?
| |
|
|
RE: Timings - Overrated or Underrated? - Apr. 19 2008 14:04:25
| |
|
banksy1987
Posts: 586
Joined: Jan. 16 2006
From: South Wales
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: theiopener
quote:
In what way am I being silly?
What weight trainer eats once every 40 odd hours mate? Youd fall flat on your face and go catabolic beyond belief not to mention other issues that could arise like hypoglycaemic attacks
No weight trainer eats every 40 odd hours, most eat 6/7/8 times a day. If you would go catabolic beyond belief, wouldnt this hgappen to a lesser extent in 6 hours without food? Or 8/10/12 hours? Hence the reason to eat more often in order to prevent even the chance that you will go catabolic.
The hypoglcaemic attacks are an issue for another day, this is simply about body composition ignoring health issues.
| |
|
|
RE: Timings - Overrated or Underrated? - Apr. 19 2008 14:06:58
| |
|
banksy1987
Posts: 586
Joined: Jan. 16 2006
From: South Wales
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Nigeepoo
quote:
ORIGINAL: Integra
Nige you may have missed this from a previous page: After 9 pages, I did!quote:
How would the timings - apart from pre/post workout - affect an individual looking to lose bodyfat? Would the rules (for want of a better word) change? For example if I was attempting to lose about 12kg in bodyweight for a fight in 4 months time what are your thoughts on the above questions? Assuming training and fuel/refuel are in order? 12kg is 26.5lbs. 4 months is 13 weeks, so you'd have to lose 2lbs/week. To do this, you need a deficit of 1,000kcals/day. As you lose weight, your BMR slowly falls in proportion to your weight, so you have to eat less as your weight decreases to maintain a deficit of 1,000kcals/day. As long as training is fuelled, what you eat and when you eat the rest of the time won't make any difference to your weight loss.
However, eating in a manner which maintains a more constant blood glucose level (to minimise hunger pangs) makes it easier to remain compliant with a cutting diet. Appetite is the only thing that GI/GL & meal volumes & timings affect.
What about going catabolic in long periods without food?
Will make little/no difference in weight, but in terms of body composition?
| |
|
|
RE: Timings - Overrated or Underrated? - Apr. 19 2008 14:08:57
| |
|
theiopener
Posts: 18222
Joined: Jan. 6 2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: banksy1987
quote:
ORIGINAL: theiopener
quote:
In what way am I being silly?
What weight trainer eats once every 40 odd hours mate? Youd fall flat on your face and go catabolic beyond belief not to mention other issues that could arise like hypoglycaemic attacks
No weight trainer eats every 40 odd hours, most eat 6/7/8 times a day. If you would go catabolic beyond belief, wouldnt this hgappen to a lesser extent in 6 hours without food? Or 8/10/12 hours? Hence the reason to eat more often in order to prevent even the chance that you will go catabolic.
The hypoglcaemic attacks are an issue for another day, this is simply about body composition ignoring health issues.
I aint debating things where health is at risk, there is no good point in doing so. If that was the case we would be recommending that people take loads of gear to bulk up even when they dont know how to train or eat and give them DNP cycles then they want to cut up if you want to throw health concerns out of the window and take the stance of "end result no matter what the cost"
What is so hard to understand, eat according to your lifestyle and get in adequate nutrition around your training, simple.
_____________________________
Journal
www.healthyaction.co.uk
www.undergroundmuscle.co.uk
| |
|
|
RE: Timings - Overrated or Underrated? - Apr. 19 2008 14:11:54
| |
|
makaveli1971 1996
Posts: 2838
Joined: Jun. 21 2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: banksy1987
quote:
ORIGINAL: theiopener
quote:
In what way am I being silly?
What weight trainer eats once every 40 odd hours mate? Youd fall flat on your face and go catabolic beyond belief not to mention other issues that could arise like hypoglycaemic attacks
No weight trainer eats every 40 odd hours, most eat 6/7/8 times a day. If you would go catabolic beyond belief, wouldnt this hgappen to a lesser extent in 6 hours without food? Or 8/10/12 hours? Hence the reason to eat more often in order to prevent even the chance that you will go catabolic.
The hypoglcaemic attacks are an issue for another day, this is simply about body composition ignoring health issues.
You have now been told by other members,so as it would clearly never happen i dont see the point in discussing it.You have gone way way OTT,this is not what this debate is about,you also state i need to go into scientific reasoning....why?? would i really need to do this,as any member on this board could see its a stupid question for so many of reasons.
_____________________________
| |
|
|
RE: Timings - Overrated or Underrated? - Apr. 19 2008 14:23:57
| |
|
banksy1987
Posts: 586
Joined: Jan. 16 2006
From: South Wales
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: makaveli1971 1996
quote:
ORIGINAL: banksy1987
quote:
ORIGINAL: theiopener
quote:
In what way am I being silly?
What weight trainer eats once every 40 odd hours mate? Youd fall flat on your face and go catabolic beyond belief not to mention other issues that could arise like hypoglycaemic attacks
No weight trainer eats every 40 odd hours, most eat 6/7/8 times a day. If you would go catabolic beyond belief, wouldnt this hgappen to a lesser extent in 6 hours without food? Or 8/10/12 hours? Hence the reason to eat more often in order to prevent even the chance that you will go catabolic.
The hypoglcaemic attacks are an issue for another day, this is simply about body composition ignoring health issues.
You have now been told by other members,so as it would clearly never happen i dont see the point in discussing it.You have gone way way OTT,this is not what this debate is about,you also state i need to go into scientific reasoning....why?? would i really need to do this,as any member on this board could see its a stupid question for so many of reasons.
Ive purposely gone over the top. I thought that would be obvious as i made an effort to state it, twice.
If you do not need to give a reason for an answer then that is suggesting that you can just pluck any answer out of the air and present it. I want scientific reasoning in order to establish the reasons for your answer, and to see how far this theory can be taken.
| |
|
|
Printable Version
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread