thermic effect of food

shligo.bulker

Hey guys, done some research after people here told me that it doesnt matter if you consume 1 huge meal or 6 small meals. I called those guys idiots, and now id like to apologise and thank them for opening my eyes. I do have a small question though, does that mean that the common "only 50g protein can be fully absorbed in one sitting" theory is a bunch of crap too?

Hanley

shligo.bulker wrote: »

Hey guys, done some research after people here told me that it doesnt matter if you consume 1 huge meal or 6 small meals. I called those guys idiots, and now id like to apologise and thank them for opening my eyes. I do have a small question though, does that mean that the common "only 50g protein can be fully absorbed in one sitting" theory is a bunch of crap too?

If you eat the same macro ratio and quantities then the thermic effect surely doesn't change regardless of how many meals it is consumed over? And even if it does, I doubt it changes to a significant degree.

And the 50g theory was always crap.

Mellor

shligo.bulker wrote: »

does that mean that the common "only 50g protein can be fully absorbed in one sitting" theory is a bunch of crap too?

I hear 30g more commonly. And both versions are crap.

Just think about it logically. A big steak or two chicken breasts contains 100g protein. If half of this was wasted, then it would be impossible to survive when eating meals like that. Which obviously isn't the case.

The Guvnor

It was never even 50g - just 30g!

The thermic effect of food can be good but not enough sadly to counteract the calories consumed.

Would be great though - like if I add a steak that'll make the meal calorie neutral!:D