Ihate:
Out of curiosity, I am interested in your resources for these ideas…I agree that insulin is always present, but then again, we are talking relative values.
Stabilization of insulin is not necessarily what might best work…one can stablize their insulin by simply eating three meals per day, as long as the GI/II of the meals are relatively the same…
I respectually disagree on the increased meal patterning…although I think it is applicable in some situations, I don’t think it is as big of a deal as everyone makes it out…also, during cutting phases, I would state that it could go either way, as long as your total calories are in a deficit…
anyway, I always try to go outside the box, maybe some day it’ll burn me…
Carb intake leading up to the carb up is under 100g. I find that if you go close to zero for too long, you just can’t fill up in time. SO it’s usually around 50-80g for a specified time. THe refeed is preceeded by a long, boring, full body depletion workout (no legs if it’s a competitor) and then the feasting begins.
Definitely the mirror. After years of watching different bodies change and learning from my errors, I’ve learned to be able to watch for it and notice when it’s getting close.
Keep in mind, that this isn’t necessarily for a 1-day leptin upregulating refeeding. My area revolves around peaking. Fat intake on the first day is about 15%, all from EFAs towards the end of the day. On the second day, I introduce even more fat. Earlier in the day, this comes from red meat and cashews for the most part. 3 hrs after the water gets cut, it’s a full blown fat load – Prime Rib, French fries, and cheesecake until you’re really full…just don’t drink. So I’d say fat intake is fairly high.
Intracellular triglycerides tend to draw even more water into the muscle cell than carbs.
Agreed
I’ve had excellent success using r-ALA or very, very high dose ALA during carb ups.
“Foret about metabolic drop (as it involves much more than just meal timing)”
Vain, what other factors are there?
“if you look at the percentage drop in metabolism soley attributed to three meals per day versus five, you are going to see that it is very small (particularly on a bulking phase)”
What is the percentage drop? I assume that is holding constant the total calories consumed for both the 3 and 5 meals.
I am going to try and be real short and concise, but forgive me if I do not do this topic justice
Basically, too many people grossly overestimate the TEE or thermic effect of feeding…this is what people are referring to when they state that eating more meals spaced out during the day will keep the metabolism boosted…sure, it may do this but on a very negligible order
Back in 1968 they did some famous experiments on starvation at the Univ of Minnesota. The dizzelio on these studies, which are constantly referred to, is that in semi-starved states, metabolic drop after two + weeks of semi-starvation was on the order of approx 20% or so if I remember correctly (I have the study at home)…now, these men in the study were starving, they were being fed way under maintenance and doing select cardio work. Now 20% is not really that much IMO…
What is really involved in metabolic drop is not TEE but the actual loss of celluar tissue that stokes the metabolid furance. I.e., a loss in fat, muscle, etc, etc. all the way down the line up to and including thyroid horomone output etc. etc. TEE plays a very small role. If anything, eating more meals per time frame would be more of an issue as body fat is reachign severe depletion, but even then, consistent meals is only going to stoke the TEE% of metabolic drop (very small) and is not going to contribute to any restored growth, particularly if calories are still kept at diet (semi-starvation) levels.
Of course, that is the whole point of leptin refeeds in some ways…but trust me, TEE is a very small player…hell, when calculating my mntc or diet numbers using the Harris-Benedict, I don’t even consider the TEE…its just not prudent.
Damn, now I can’t see your post and don’t remember if I answered all of your questions or not. Anyway, hope I did, if not I’ll post a follow-up
Vizzy
a7
on the issue of homeostasis. In short, this is a given in any mamilliam species. The body will strive to stay in a period of regularity. That is, a set weight, a sex proximity to a caregiver etc. These are known as behavioral systems. Strive to far outside the zone of proximity and the body will do things to ensure its survival. Hence the downregulation of metabolism when starving, hence clinging to a mother or coming back within eyesight of her when playing.
In terms of the body, homeostasis is what we fight to stay at big, lean levels. Particularly lean ones. In terms of protein cycling, the concept is this. Your body reaches a homeostatic point of protein ingestion, of which it uses a consistent amount of AA’s for celluar repair and growth. Well, you can “set” this point by consistent feeding (or protein grams) at a certain rate. Say 280per day for 14 days…Your body gets used to this…then you drop it…stay there for a bit…it resets…but when you jack it up again, the body, before resetting, is going to actually utlized the increase in AA’s…rather than excreting them as part of a homeostatic system, you actually use them moreso than if you were at a previous set point…we see the same with pretty much all hormones after periods of starvation…they all jump above baseline values…hence, many anecdotal reports of striclty muscle gain coming off a severe rip diet. the same would hold true of carbs (a la carb rotation)
Is this making sense?
the point being that few understand how to manipulate diet such that cycling of really any macronutrient can be used effectively.