Of everything I've read, it points to food not being linked to any big effect on metabolism, and so I haven't seen anything that shows whole food vs junk food.

But that's not to say that junk food can effect other functions in the body, say insulin sensitivity.

Edited July 6, 201213 yr by stefanhinote

I guess my take away point could be: don't confuse metabolism with insulin sensitivity.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12499328

Meals with similar energy densities but rich in protein, fat, carbohydrate, or alcohol have different effects on energy expenditure and substrate metabolism

the entire premise that a meal of 3000 kcal a day in one large shot being the same as many small meals through the day is so flawed in every aspect of current understanding in how biology works it makes me sick.

#1 we can only process so much protein/amino acids at a time.

#2 Insulin can only handle so much blood sugar at a time.

#3 carbs and fats cause a down regulation in HGH in the body.

#4 we are limited by our intestines ability to process food.

#5 Gross excess of food in one setting stresses the kidneys along with other body parts.

#6 If the metabolic increase of eating can be sustained throughout 16 hours rather than 5, you will have a total mean of more kcal used.

Another interesting read about carbs, protein, and muscle breakdown: http://www.gnolls.org/1794/why-snacking-makes-you-weak-not-just-fat/

An increase in insulin / blood sugar levels increases protein synthesis, but if protein isn't available then the breakdown of muscle occurs (proteolysis).

If protein is available then , but if your eating carbs all day with no protein.

I only used a study from that publication as you referenced it earlier.

I'm 100% for not suckling the teat of what ever popular thought is, but since every athlete, every effective nutrition plan, and out bodies rhythm tend toward many small meals a day, I think it is best to assume it is as such for a reason.

The fasting thing works. But that is mainly a psychological effect. The ability to control your food in a condensed manner outweighs the loss of potential for many. Similar to having your "cheat meal" at bed time. If you do it in the morning, you are more likely to cheat all day.

Maybe I am mildly hypoglycemic, or maybe I am just a pussy, but I cannot handle the fasting program when my metabolism is this high.

Another interesting read about carbs, protein, and muscle breakdown: http://www.gnolls.or...k-not-just-fat/

An increase in insulin / blood sugar levels increases protein synthesis, but if protein isn't available then the breakdown of muscle occurs (proteolysis).

If protein is available then , but if your eating carbs all day with no protein.

This is why I was asking about the BCAA. I want to mix it with my carb drinks.:-)

http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/12499328

Meals with similar energy densities but rich in protein, fat, carbohydrate, or alcohol have different effects on energy expenditure and substrate metabolism

Well fuck I don't know. There seems to be a lot of conflicting studies, which can be attributed to the testing, but I didn't see anything "funny" in either studies' testing.

I only used a study from that publication as you referenced it earlier.

I'm 100% for not suckling the teat of what ever popular thought is, but since every athlete, every effective nutrition plan, and out bodies rhythm tend toward many small meals a day, I think it is best to assume it is as such for a reason.

The fasting thing works. But that is mainly a psychological effect. The ability to control your food in a condensed manner outweighs the loss of potential for many. Similar to having your "cheat meal" at bed time. If you do it in the morning, you are more likely to cheat all day.

Maybe I am mildly hypoglycemic, or maybe I am just a pussy, but I cannot handle the fasting program when my metabolism is this high.

So the effect of food on metabolism, well move on, since studies seem to be conflicting, and so I don't know.

But... Have you seen any studies on meal frequency?

Martin Berkhan from the Leangains wrote an article about meal frequency:

1. Myth: Eat frequently to "stoke the metabolic fire".

Truth

Each time you eat, metabolic rate increases slightly for a few hours. Paradoxically, it takes energy to break down and absorb energy. This is the Thermic Effect of Food (TEF). The amount of energy expended is directly proportional to the amount of calories and nutrients consumed in the meal.

Let's assume that we are measuring TEF during 24 hours in a diet of 2700 kcal with 40% protein, 40% carbohydrate and 20% fat. We run three different trials where the only thing we change is the the meal frequency.

A) Three meals: 900 kcal per meal.

B) Six meals: 450 kcal per meal.

C) Nine meals: 300 kcal per meal.

What we'd find is a different pattern in regards to TEF. Example "A" would yield a larger and long lasting boost in metabolic rate that would gradually taper off until the next meal came around; TEF would show a "peak and valley"-pattern. "C" would yield a very weak but consistent boost in metabolic rate; an even pattern. "B" would be somewhere in between.

However, at the end of the 24-hour period, or as long as it would take to assimilate the nutrients, there would be no difference in TEF. The total amount of energy expended by TEF would be identical in each scenario. Meal frequency does not affect total TEF. You cannot "trick" the body in to burning more or less calories by manipulating meal frequency.

The most extensive review of studies on various meal frequencies and TEF was published in 1997. It looked at many different studies that compared TEF during meal frequencies ranging from 1-17 meals and concluded:

"Studies using whole-body calorimetry and doubly-labelled water to assess total 24 h energy expenditure find no difference between nibbling and gorging".

---------------------

He could certainly be wrong, but I choose to believe the above.

Either way for me, I eat after a certain time, and eat whenever I feel like it until it's time to sleep. I typically eat low in carbs, and high in meat, fat, and protein.

im not a rookie ..... just sayin.

im not a rookie ..... just sayin.

Oh I know. I just thought it was funny that he was stating the obvious, and of all people to you.

i know you knew where i was coming from lol..... i just could not belive it.

ya know.. latly i have noticed how much a DB score can change some people... its wild..... never thought somthing so stupid could really change a person.. but it does... and i have seen it over and over latly ..... sad shit...

i can honestly say i have always been the same person.

Matt,

Was there a change in POI with older glass when changing magnification, but now-a-days it's minimal?

i know you knew where i was coming from lol..... i just could not belive it.

ya know.. latly i have noticed how much a DB score can change some people... its wild..... never thought somthing so stupid could really change a person.. but it does... and i have seen it over and over latly ..... sad shit...

i can honestly say i have always been the same person.

IE: 16k.

An unrelated note, but I always thought it was funny when I asked Steve what he metered at the headrest, and he would always go "We meter in the kick, so I don't test there," and I would always ask if he drove with his head in the kick.

Edited July 6, 201213 yr by stefanhinote

You guys are wasting too much of your life. Eat when you want and what you want. These studies are always proven one way and then another, so what's the point? The Earth is really square, but our brains perceive it as round.

You guys are wasting too much of your life. Eat when you want and what you want. These studies are always proven one way and then another, so what's the point? The Earth is really square, but our brains perceive it as round.

I enjoy talking about what interests me, and I do eat what I want when I want.

The bible says the Earth is square, so it must be right.

Best pricing to hoppers.

I wouldn't expect anything else

Since the hop is slow, mine as well fill it up like usual.

Matt,

Was there a change in POI with older glass when changing magnification, but now-a-days it's minimal?

Assuming both were of good quality manufacturing, the only thing I can think of is we can now better compensate for parrallax. Both due to us understanding how to avoid it with our position and repeated cheek weld, and with better mechanical adjustment for parrallax.

Optical experts could expand on why its better. Just like with car engines, we get a little better at squeezing more out of less over time.

You guys are wasting too much of your life. Eat when you want and what you want. These studies are always proven one way and then another, so what's the point? The Earth is really square, but our brains perceive it as round.

Matt,

Was there a change in POI with older glass when changing magnification, but now-a-days it's minimal?

Assuming both were of good quality manufacturing, the only thing I can think of is we can now better compensate for parrallax. Both due to us understanding how to avoid it with our position and repeated cheek weld, and with better mechanical adjustment for parrallax.

Optical experts could expand on why its better. Just like with car engines, we get a little better at squeezing more out of less over time.

My uncle asked about it earlier, and since I didn't recall seeing it mentioned on any of the forums I figured it was an old issue, so I just suggested that for how much I paid it should be okay.