Good point, TBH.

to optimize muscle development and minimize fat gains.

Even if you are able to temporarily influence hormone levels, does it make a significant difference in body composition?

1) I fail at this
2) Ok la, three 1.5 litres of water bottles in on hour during workout alone.
3) I fail
4) Not bad, good advice, except I never go moderate. It's balls to the muthaf***in wall for me and I need supper before I sleep.

What you mean by that?

Damn true.

Uhmm... I cut on bak kut teh pigtails and burgers. Hee......

if i say yes you're gonna keep asking questions instead of reading them facts up?

then my answer is no.

I wasn't the one who made the original claim that nutrient timing is more important than 24 hour energy balance. And since you're the one responding to my questions, I'd assume that you would be able to back that claim. Since you decided not to back your position, the claim is now void.

Really? What do I mean by that ? facepalm.

Can't say I'm not doing the same and the best part is it's working

okay.

if me not backing up some claim made by some other people means the fact is void altogether, so be it.

or maybe its just you who is lazy and just plain argumentative.

By your logic from your earlier post, I have to dig up information to back up claims made by someone else? And by not finding the "facts" you speak of I am "lazy"? I fail to see the logic in that. When a claim is made people have the right to question it. Burden of proof is on those making the claims. Since you were the one responding to me, it was on you. I am not interested to start an argument, it was not my intention. If you are not interested in having a discussion, then I will not pose any questions to you. Just don't respond and resort to ad hominems when you run out of substance.

The reason I posed said questions was not because of being "argumentative and lazy". I have my opinions on the subject and want to learn more. I don't think there is anything wrong when adding critical thinking and skepticism in the mix. It makes separating the fact from fiction easier. Everything is not black and white. Some things are less important than others, doesn't mean its not beneficial in some capacity.

By your logic, if you wanted to learn more why not research on the subject in matter?

I was simply replying to a question in the forums with the information in hand. I didn't feel the need to back up my claims by giving links that you could have simply googled.

I wasn't curious, you were. Burden to provide proof? Couldn't you just google it? Would have saved you the long ass post in response to my reply right?

This wasn't a scientific discussion. I didn't come up with a hypothesis. I merely responded to your question.

You are under the impression that I have not done my research. I have. I am probably knowing more than I am letting on. Asking those questions doesn't mean I was curious. I utilize the socratic method in most discussions. I did not agree with the statement that "nutrient timing is important and about controlling hormones". That is why certain questions were asked, to dissect that statement and eventually lead to a conclusion. Google search works up to a certain point where information is so diluted and misrepresented that it can often be very hard to discern what is actually accurate. This is a forum, is it not the place to have an intellectual discussion dissecting and verifying information? I stand by what I said, the burden of proof is on the person who made the claim. It is not the job of the person refuting the claim to back it up.

You made your position clear, you were just responding to my first question and was probably not interested in a lengthy discussion. Thats fine and dandy.

You're right. I'm not. Next time pleease spare the bullshit and don't waste my time please?

Unless you can link some real solid information not available through google search then I would be happy to oblige you.

Can we get your take on the subject then? You obviously know a considerable amount. (Not being sarcastic here) I'm no expert and my post merely reflected what I've read before, and I'm here to learn as well.

i've lost 20 kg in 4 months by cutting the amount of carbs that i take, stop drinking iced water, consume more protein n fibre, n less sugar + 15km/week jog. hopefully this helps.

why the iced water? just curious?

oh i meant to type consume more cold water since it helps in burning more calories

Yeah I remembered reading an article that it helps in burning fat is it increases your metabolic rate( an article from bb.com). I personally increased my consumption of ice water too.

Sure. It has been proven time and time again through research that there is no metabolic advantage of meal frequency or timing. Actually i've seen about 10 or 11 studies done on this. When a study can be successfully replicated it is a good indication that the hypothesis is true. They all come to the similar conclusion. Scale weight is dictated by overall caloric intake. Body composition is dictated by overall macronutrient intake. Frequency or timing is irrelevant.

Here are 2 studies
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1905998


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9155494



Layne Norton is a well known proponent of meal frequency and timing. In fact he has done research, and came up with a specific protocol to maximize protein synthesis (MPS). Look it up if you want more details on the theory behind this.
Through his reseach he came up with this recommendation:
- 3-4g of leucine per meal
- 5 meals per day every 4-5 hours.
- bcaa between meals to overcome refractory period

The issue I have with the study is that the research was done on rats. Thats not so say I'm discrediting it. It is best to view it as preliminary until it can be replicated in humans.

This is what he said when quizzed about the importance of nutrient timing.
As you can see, he admits that the benefits of following his protocol is not very significant especially to the average person. There is nothing wrong with trying to maximize gains. The problem with fitness and bodybuilding is that most beliefs is based on false premise, especially that nonsense about the mythical 1 hour window of opportunity.

My conclusion for now, meal frequency or timing is not as important as satisfying caloric needs. Nutrient timing can be beneficial if done correctly, though the benefits would not be very significant. Therefore, meal frequency or timing should be personal preference and whatever that best fits ones lifestyle.



Lets do a little math shall we.

1 calorie (Note the letter "c" is not capital) is needed to raise the temperature of 1g of water, 1 degrees Celsius
Lets say you drank 500g of ice water. Assume the temperature of the water is 0 degrees Celsius.
A good estimation of body temperature is 37 degrees Celcius

500X37=18500 calories

This unit with the small letter "c" does not represent the amount of energy contained in foods. That is actually the capital "C" or kilo-calories.

Therefore,

18500/1000=18.5 Calories

In the grand scheme of things. Does it really matter?

This post has been edited by darkseifer: Feb 8 2012, 07:57 PM

I thought I was the only one who reads Layne Norton's stuff. Good to know I'm not the only one. Good info and good read nonetheless.

Good read there, thanks for posting. I see where you're coming from now. Also, I vaguely remember reading that particular study by Layne Norton, admittedly not very thoroughly, so perhaps that, along with the general view about meal frequency on the net led me to believing in such a way. Interesting stuff.