Top ten myths about intermittent fasting

El_Dangeroso

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

A nicely-written debunking of the whole 'breakfast is essential', 'eat 6 small meals a day' ethos. Breakfast is only essential if you are hungry at breakfast-time. I rarely eat before 10:30am on weekdays and 1pm on weekends.

I had foolishly believed the 'you can't absorb more than 30g protein per meal', so a rap on the knuckles for not checking the source on that one.

rocky

1. Myth: Eat frequently to "stoke the metabolic fire".
2. Myth: Eat smaller meals more often for hunger control.
3. Myth: Eat small meals to keep blood sugar levels under control.
4. Myth: Fasting tricks the body into "starvation mode".
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.
6. Myth: Fasting causes muscle loss.
7. Myth: Skipping breakfast is bad and will make you fat.
8. Myth: Fasting increases cortisol.
9. Myth: Fasted training sucks. You'll lose muscle and have no strength.
10. Myth: "Eat breakfast like a king, lunch a queen, dinner like a pauper."

Edit: Also posted in my food log yesterday

brianthebard

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

I had foolishly believed the 'you can't absorb more than 30g protein per meal', so a rap on the knuckles for not checking the source on that one.

:eek:

Tbf many people still think this is true, even people in fitness industries that should know better.

Mellor

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

I had foolishly believed the 'you can't absorb more than 30g protein per meal', so a rap on the knuckles for not checking the source on that one.

Just out of curiosity, what did you think happened to anything over 30g?


Also just reminding me, I remember you mention before about the threshold for protein poisioning being 270g, do you have a source for that, as I really don't see how that true.
A lot of big guys would eat more than that daily during a bulk. Even if you think of those steak challenges, or meat challenges. 1kg of steak covers about 270g. I know the spur steak in liffey valley is about 1800g. Have I misunderstood what you meant?

El_Dangeroso

Mellor wrote: »

Just out of curiosity, what did you think happened to anything over 30g?

LOL! Touche.

Mellor wrote: »

Also just reminding me, I remember you mention before about the threshold for protein poisioning being 270g, do you have a source for that, as I really don't see how that true.
A lot of big guys would eat more than that daily during a bulk. Even if you think of those steak challenges, or meat challenges. 1kg of steak covers about 270g. I know the spur steak in liffey valley is about 1800g. Have I misunderstood what you meant?

I'm not saying you'll drop dead straight away from a big steak, but the body's ability to synthesise urea from ammonia tops out at 230g a day(according to this paper) , this indicates blood ammonia levels rise rapidly at that level which is not a good thing.

I would question the need for that much protein in the first place. Lets say you are trying to add muscle. A really good rate of muscle growth would be a 1lb of muscle a week (I don't know if this is possible in the real world, someone correct me if not), since muscle 16.4% is protein that would require a whopping 10g of extra protein a day.

I'm not anti-protein, I think there's no reason to limit it for healthy people, its intake is pretty well regulated by satiation mechanisms. I'm just not sure if I see the point in chugging back protein shake after protein shake in the hopes that it will increase muscle synthesis, I'm not sure that it does beyond a little extra.

brianthebard

I only read the abstract of that paper but the point seems to be that it was carried out on 'normal people' as they state several times. Those who practise regular strength training would fall outside that (fairly arbitrary) classification. I don't know of any papers offhand that would prove higher protein intake will positively impact muscle gain, but it seems to me that most people would eat less if they could get away with it. If people could gain muscle with a simple 10g extra protein a day we would all do that. I realise thats bordering on broscience but to me its just logical that people would not eat extra protein if it wasn't necessary.

El_Dangeroso

I take your point, there may be other anabolic advantages of extra protein beyond raw material for muscle sythesis, but I doubt it's very much extra. Do you really think anyone needs 200g+ of protein a day?

In novice strength training the benefit of extra protein seems to top out at 1.4-1.5g/kg.[1] Any extra protein doesn't result in increased lean mass or strength.

People do lots of things because it's what everyone else is doing, doesn't mean there's any evidence for doing it. I think it's got a lot to do with protein powder company marketing.

brianthebard

Yes I think a lot of people need up to and over 200g of protein a day, especially if they are trying to consistently get stronger and bigger. The knowledge of the importance of protein to these gains has been around far longer than the protein companies, so personally I would not consider them the driving force behind high protein consumption in strength trainers, although they are at fault for encouraging beginners to use more supplements than they need. That abstract does point out at the end that protein requirements over longer periods has not been determined.

El_Dangeroso

Fair enough if that's what you think, but it's completely in the realm of speculation. There's a lot of people out there gaining significant amount of muscle on 1.5g/kg protein too, why don't they need to consume mega amounts of protein to do that?

brianthebard

who are they? Sorry but the above post is just as much if not more speculation than mine.

Tigger

brianthebard wrote: »

Yes I think a lot of people need up to and over 200g of protein a day, especially if they are trying to consistently get stronger and bigger. The knowledge of the importance of protein to these gains has been around far longer than the protein companies, so personally I would not consider them the driving force behind high protein consumption in strength trainers, although they are at fault for encouraging beginners to use more supplements than they need. That abstract does point out at the end that protein requirements over longer periods has not been determined.

i'm pretty sure i get over 200g a day every day
i take whey with breakfast but apart from that its all whole food
i also eat a box of tomatoes a can of tomatoes and lots of portions of red or green fruit or veg with garlic and onions

people with an issue with this should talk to the ones eating frozen processes plasti wrapped stuff and whenb they have them all eating well i'll listen to them

i have a myth to add the food pyramid



now if you take off the bread pasta potatoes and cerals bit and bin it then douse the whole thing in olive oil id like it better

El_Dangeroso

brianthebard wrote: »

who are they? Sorry but the above post is just as much if not more speculation than mine.

Not speculation at all. There's no evidence that mega-dosing protein gives any advantage in building muscle in the context of an otherwise nutritious diet.

As to the people doing that, check out any vegan bodybuilding forum, a lot of those guys have no more than 120g protein a day. I don't agree that it's the healthiest way of going about it (namely loading up on highly-processed plant protein powders) but they do prove that they don't need any extra protein to put on muscle.

Who would have thought I would ever have used a vegan forum to prove a point but there you go.

brianthebard

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

Not speculation at all. There's no evidence that mega-dosing protein gives any advantage in building muscle in the context of an otherwise nutritious diet.

As to the people doing that, check out any vegan bodybuilding forum, a lot of those guys have no more than 120g protein a day. I don't agree that it's the healthiest way of going about it (namely loading up on highly-processed plant protein powders) but they do prove that they don't need any extra protein to put on muscle.

Who would have thought I would ever have used a vegan forum to prove a point but there you go.

Sorry but its complete speculation, and you're not doing very well at backing it up. There may be no scientific studies to prove my point, but there is plenty of anecdotal evidence. Normally I wouldn't think that to be enough but since you are also depending on anecdotal evidence this time I feel its an even playing field.

What vegan bodybuilders are they? Most of the most successful ones converted to veganism after developing most of their muscle with a regular diet. Also the majority of vegan bb'ers that I have seen online are very small.
Can you supply a link to one of these people and show how much gains they have made in the past one to two years?

The scientific study you linked to admitted that it was only done over a month. Therefore to me its finding are only applicable for a single month. Anyone in the fitness forum now who is making gains over a year or years, is over 80kg and is more than 5'5'' is ingesting at least 200g of protein per day. I don't disagree with the study I just think the most important thing to note in this case is its conclusion that its finding may not apply over longer periods of time.

I know from experience that even if I am getting stronger I won't get bigger without 200g or thereabouts per day. I know this because sometimes I can't afford whey and have to do without, but my diet remains the same otherwise. Although I make up for the whey with extra meals my protein intake will drop at least 50g or more in these circumstances. If what you were saying was true I would continue to make the exact same gains without whey as I do with whey, because I would still be taking in about 130g or more or protein.

El_Dangeroso

I didn't say you didn't need more than 130, I'm saying that no-one needs more than 200g protein a day. Plus there's always the placebo effect.

I'm not sure about your assertions about all vegan bodybuilders are true, so lets abandon anecdote as it's a good way go round in circles.

So I'm sorry to be boring but I'm once again going to go back to controlled trials:

From: http://www.nutritionjrnl.com/article/S0899-9007(04)00100-5/abstract

Tarnopolsky et al.[40] conducted a study using the nitrogen balance approach to examine the protein requirements of a group of resistance-trained athletes and a group of sedentary controls.

Tarnopolsky et al. [6] previously demonstrated that an isolated bout of resistance exercise does not increase leucine oxidation or perturb whole-body protein turnover. It would appear that any extra protein required by strength-trained individuals is directed toward muscular hypertrophy in the earlier phases of training, when muscle mass is still increasing. In contrast, in highly trained powerlifters and bodybuilders, in whom muscle mass is high but stable, it is unlikely that their dietary protein requirements are elevated much more than those of a sedentary person. In fact, any increase in protein requirements for such a highly trained group of individuals is likely due to an increased rate of resting protein turnover.

In support of the idea that training might induce an increase in resting muscle protein turnover, protein requirements of highly trained bodybuilders were found to be only 12% greater than those of sedentary controls who had a protein requirement of 0.84 g · kg−1 · d−1.[40] The results of this study [40] highlight a consistent yet puzzling result.

When consuming a protein intake (actually equivalent to the habitual protein requirement of the bodybuilders) of approximately 2.8 g · kg−1 · d−1, all bodybuilders were in highly positive nitrogen balance (12 to 20 g of nitrogen per day). When extrapolated back to actual body protein, this means that the bodybuilders should have gained approximately 300 to 500 g of lean mass per day (assuming a tissue water content of 75%), which obviously did not occur.[40]

brianthebard

I introduced the figure of 130 as an approximation of my protein intake without whey. It should be a perfectly adequate amount to produce muscle growth yet it doesn't. Personally I don't believe the placebo effect extends to food. I'm pretty sure someone has to be unaware that they are taking a placebo for it to happen in any case, which does not apply here.

I can't read that study so its not much use to me tbh. Why someone would suggest the bodybuilders should have gained 500g of muscle a day, or why they think that is the goal, is beyond me.

Mellor

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

I'm not saying you'll drop dead straight away from a big steak, but the body's ability to synthesise urea from ammonia tops out at 230g a day(according to this paper) ,

But the body doesn't process all the protein at once. In many cases it might roll over to the next day, especially with those massive challege meals.

I would question the need for that much protein in the first place. Lets say you are trying to add muscle. A really good rate of muscle growth would be a 1lb of muscle a week (I don't know if this is possible in the real world, someone correct me if not), since muscle 16.4% is protein that would require a whopping 10g of extra protein a day.

That's a fallacy.
It takes far more protein to build muscle, the the amount of protein that is in that muscle built. A lot more than 40 cals extra a day is required there. Try about 1000 kcals extra.

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

Fair enough if that's what you think, but it's completely in the realm of speculation. There's a lot of people out there gaining significant amount of muscle on 1.5g/kg protein too, why don't they need to consume mega amounts of protein to do that?

Those people are likely, actually definitely, eating a higher level of fat and/or carbs for energy.
They have to be or else the calorie surplus wouldn't be there.


For muscle growth you need excess calories, and decent levels of protein.
There are many ways to reach this. Some do it very cleanly, protein supps, steak, milk, ending up with 200g+ a day of protein.

Other just eat.

Diet A - 3500 cals
burgers, fries
chicken breasts, steak
Milk,

Diet B - 3500 cals
Protein supps, peanut butter
milk, steak, chicken green veg,
oats etc

Both are the same size, and both are enough protein for growth and both will prob result in growth if you work hard in the gym.

One of the diets, will see easier or better gains, as its cleaner. That's be basic idea behind high protein.

It's not that protein is a great, or a magic food. you can easily achieve growth on lower levels, say 1.5g/kg. It's that in order to reach the same calorie levels as somebody of simialr size on a high protein diet (which is a given btw) you need to eat more fats and/or carbs to compensate, this is not always desirable. If i'm going to be eating a surplus, I'd rather is was as clean as possible*. Equal amounts of everything, measured in calories, well fat a bit lower.

*Even still, its not really that possible.

El_Dangeroso

I do agree you need more energy calories for muscle synthesis, never did I say different. And if that's the case, getting them from protein is the most inefficient, never mind expensive way of getting those calories. Some extra starch could probably do a better job.

Fact remains that protein synthesis is stimulated by protein intake but that process has a plateau that is much lower than most people in the fitness world think.

Mellor

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

I do agree you need more energy calories for muscle synthesis, never did I say different. And if that's the case, getting them from protein is the most inefficient, never mind expensive way of getting those calories. Some extra starch could probably do a better job.

Fact remains that protein synthesis is stimulated by protein intake but that process has a plateau that is much lower than most people in the fitness world think.

That's the problem, nobody ever said that they are eating 200g+ of protein so it all can go towards building muscle.
I know that I expect very little of my 170 a day to go towards muscle.

But if I cut this back to 120, i'd have to eat 50 grams of carbs, to have the same intake, which I don't want.

El_Dangeroso

Mellor wrote: »

That's the problem, nobody ever said that they are eating 200g+ of protein so it all can go towards building muscle.
I know that I expect very little of my 170 a day to go towards muscle.

But if I cut this back to 120, i'd have to eat 50 grams of carbs, to have the same intake, which I don't want.

You'd have to 25g extra carbs to get the same level of energy from protein. It's all glucose at the end of the day. I really don't think you'd have any negative effect from that and you'd be giving your liver a little less work to do.

I mean, of course you can do what you want but I'm a big believer in the law of the least action.

senordingdong

brianthebard wrote: »

:eek:

Tbf many people still think this is true, even people in fitness industries that should know better.

And despite everythign that has been pointed out in the link, alot of people will continue to believe that stuff, and perpetuate it.

cmyk

senordingdong wrote: »

And despite everythign that has been pointed out in the link, alot of people will continue to believe that stuff, and perpetuate it.

Because supplement companies sell that myth better than anyone trying to dispel it.

Mellor

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

You'd have to 25g extra carbs to get the same level of energy from protein. It's all glucose at the end of the day. I really don't think you'd have any negative effect from that and you'd be giving your liver a little less work to do.

I mean, of course you can do what you want but I'm a big believer in the law of the least action.

Carbs personally don't do too great for me, I find I get much worse cravings with carb rich foods, so i'm less likely to keep to the diet.

Also, you are wrong on the 25g of carbs.
I'm guessing that you just went with protein to glucose in a 2/1 ratio, thats the wrong way to look at it, as if ignores thermogenic effect. Dietry carbs don't convert to glucose at a 1/1 ratio

A better way would be calories per gram, calories and carbs are both on average 4cals/gram*, so 50g protein out needs 50g of carbs in to reach the same levels.



*nearest whole numbers, carbs are slightly less,

El_Dangeroso

Mellor wrote: »

Carbs personally don't do too great for me, I find I get much worse cravings with carb rich foods, so i'm less likely to keep to the diet.

Also, you are wrong on the 25g of carbs.
I'm guessing that you just went with protein to glucose in a 2/1 ratio, thats the wrong way to look at it, as if ignores thermogenic effect. Dietry carbs don't convert to glucose at a 1/1 ratio

A better way would be calories per gram, calories and carbs are both on average 4cals/gram*, so 50g protein out needs 50g of carbs in to reach the same levels.



*nearest whole numbers, carbs are slightly less,

Not so sure about your numbers there, the effect of converting protein to glucose rather than starch to glucose requires more calories beyond the simple thermic effect of eating. You definitely get more eventual energy from a calorie of starch than from a calorie of protein.

On the craving front, I don't find vegetable carbs give me cravings, mashed up carrots and parsnips have a decent carb count without sending blood sugar crazy, might be something to consider down the line if you want to up the carb count a little.

Mellor

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

Not so sure about your numbers there, the effect of converting protein to glucose rather than starch to glucose requires more calories beyond the simple thermic effect of eating. You definitely get more eventual energy from a calorie of starch than from a calorie of protein.

My numbers are correct, these are pretty widely know standards, surprised they are new to you.
Protein/Carbs 4kcal/g
Alcohol 7kcal/g
Fat 9kcal/g

And I know that not all calories are equal, as we aren't identical to a used to test foodstuffs. But its minor overall, plus we are talkign about muscle gain, so food has a role bigger than simply energy, so looking at it in terms of bllod glucose is silly.

On the craving front, I don't find vegetable carbs give me cravings, mashed up carrots and parsnips have a decent carb count without sending blood sugar crazy, might be something to consider down the line if you want to up the carb count a little

I eat carrots a bit, mixed with brocolli/cauli etc. Even though they have a lot of sugar, they don't taste sweet, so I don't get sugar cravings after either. Spuds on the other hand... nyom nyom nyom

El_Dangeroso

Mellor wrote: »

My numbers are correct, these are pretty widely know standards, surprised they are new to you.
Protein/Carbs 4kcal/g
Alcohol 7kcal/g
Fat 9kcal/g

And I know that not all calories are equal, as we aren't identical to a used to test foodstuffs. But its minor overall, plus we are talkign about muscle gain, so food has a role bigger than simply energy, so looking at it in terms of bllod glucose is silly.

Haha, I wasn't saying that protein and carbs don't have an equal amount of calories. I'm saying the thermic effect of eating is around 10%, so 50g of carb will end up as 160cals or thereabouts of 'energy' speaking in hypotheticals. You'd be very lucky to get half net of that out of protein. Gluconeogenesis is an energy-intensive process.

I'm lucky potatoes don't send me off, I think I 'reset' my system somehow though as I used to be a fiend for mashed spuds. Wheat however and there is just no amount that will ever be enough..:)