EAA var X-timme under deff?

[Thewind]

Är övertygad om att det har avhandlats någon annanstans redan, men finns det något att vinna på att ta EAA (eller kanske vanliga proteindrinkar) typ var tredje vaken timme under deff? En sådan vinst tänker jag mig kanske vore att kunna ligga på ett större underskott utan att tappa allt för mycket muskler?

[Reaper123]

Är det inte enklare (och billigare) att helt enkelt köra en regelrätt fasta?

4. Myth: Fasting tricks the body into "starvation mode".
http://www.leangains.com/2010/10/top-ten-fasting-myths-debunked.html

[King Grub]

Om man av någon anledning ligger väldigt lågt på intaget av vanligt protein kanske, t ex om man har någon sjukdom som begränsar hur mycket protein man får äta. Annars, om du redan ligger på 2+ gram protein per kilo kroppsvikt har du redan tillräckliga mängder aminosyror i blodet för att proteinsyntesen skall stimuleras så mycket det går. Det är trots allt din aktivitetsnivå, styrketräningen främst, som avgör hur mycket proteinsyntesen kommer att stimuleras sett över hela dygnet. Du kan inte äta dig till större muskeluppbyggnad än vad som krävs för att underhålla belastningen du utsätter dina muskler för, om du inte medicinerar upp den effekten.

[NiklasAlm]

Som jag uppfattat det om du redan äter tillräckligt mycket protein så att du ofta har hög koncentration av aminosyror i blodet så räcker detta för att stimulera musklerna förutom vid träning då EAA och vassle har sin plats.

[Mouline]

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.


I forgot to mention one critical study that often comes up in the context of a high meal frequency being beneficial when dieting. In “Effects of meal frequency on body composition during weight control in boxers.” it was found that boxers eating two meals a day on a 1200-calorie diet lost more muscle than the six-meal-group. There are many errors with this conclusion. Lyle McDonald summarized them nicely:

“In this study, boxers were given either 2 or 6 meals per day with identical protein and calories and examined for lean body mass lost; the 2 meal per day group lost more lean body mass (note: both groups lost lean body mass, the 2 meal per day group simply lost more). Aha, higher meal frequency spares lean body mass. Well, not exactly.

In that study, boxers were put on low calories and then an inadequate amount of liquid protein was given to both groups and the meals were divided up into 2 or 6 meals. But the study design was pretty crappy and I want to look at a few reasons why I think that.

First and foremost, a 2 vs. 6 meal per day comparison isn’t realistic. As discussed in The Protein Book, a typical whole food meal will only maintain an anabolic state for 5-6 hours, with only 2 meals per day, that’s simply too long between meals and three vs. six meals would have been far more realistic (I would note that the IF’ing folks are doing just fine not eating for 16 hours per day).

Additionally is the use of a liquid protein that confounds things even more. Liquids digest that much more quickly than solid foods so the study was basically set up to fail for the low meal frequency group. They were given an inadequate amount of rapidly digesting liquid protein too infrequently to spare muscle loss. But what if they had been given sufficient amounts of solid protein (e.g. 1.5 g/lb lean body mass) at those same intervals? The results would have been completely different.

As discussed in The Protein Book in some detail, meal frequency only really matters when protein intake is inadequate in the first place. Under those conditions, a higher meal frequency spares lean body mass. But when protein intake is adequate in the first place (and again that usually means 1.5 g/lb lean body mass for lean dieters), meal frequency makes no difference. And that’s why the boxer study is meaningless so far as I’m concerned. An inadequate amount of liquid protein given twice per day is nothing like how folks should be dieting in the first place.”

From: “Meal Frequency and Mass Gains.”

So in summary, a low calorie intake coupled with an inadequate amount of liquid protein. Liquid protein is rapidly absorbed. This would leave the low meal frequency-group without dietary protein available in between meals, causing DNG, de novo gluconeogenesis, of endogenous protein stores (muscle). The large energy deficit and leanness of the boxers are also factors to consider.

None of this is apparent if you look at the abstract of the study; no protein intake or protein type is mentioned. Details that are critical to know in this context.

I should also point out that I was wrong about the origins of this myth which several people have pointed out. This is what Lyle McDonald wrote in comments:

“The 30 g/meal thing has been around for decades, much older than the 1997 paper. A few gut hunches on where it came from.

1. Marketing: I base this on the fact that the value has changed over the years. When Met-RX sold products with 30 grams protein, 30 g/meal was the cutoff. When they moved to 42 g/meal, 42 grams was the cutoff. Weider probably did it before then.

2. Bodybuilders looking to rationalize their desire to eat lots of mini-meals after the fact. So take an average male bodybuilder, 180 lbs eating 1 g/lb who has decided that 6 meals/day is optimal and....

3. Even there, I think Gironda had written this. It probably came out of some bullshit paper in the 50's that was taken out of context and just got repeated long enough to become dogmatic truth.”

So that’s that.

Det han sa

[Thewind]

Tack för svar! Kände väl till det där med att det går utmärkt att samla sitt intag till en kortare period av dagen, har kört PF förut, men var mer inne på just effekten av EAA så pass ofta. Dock äter jag mer än 2g protein/kg kv så jag antar att jag inte behöver tänka på det då :)