Quote (bnrhodes2 @ Jul 24 2014 02:47am)
There is a lot to address, and little to argue against what you said, so I'm going to keep it fairly short.
On feed efficiency - it is a big thing in the cattle industry..they are working on the genetic component of it to find the genes to improve said 'feed efficiency' and breed cattle to maximize it. I don't believe they would be dumping all of that time and money into the research if there wasn't something to it. I know, we aren't cows and the digestive system is fairly different between us, but the idea of varying digestive inefficiencies and their operations are something no one seems concerned with in humans (aside from pathology), so I don't see it as something commonly studied to say whether a noticeable difference exists or not.
A lot of this goes back to where I said "I can't say to the extant at which this works". It could be a loss of 2 kcals, it could be a loss of 200kcals, and I don't know of any studies that have looked at such things specifically (pieces, maybe). But, for sake of argument and not knowing - imagine the impact of thinking you are getting 1,000 kcals in a meal, but are actually only absorbing 900 kcals of that. 3 meals a day, ~30 days in a month, and you just dumped extra 9,000 kcals in the toilet (or 10% of your monthly expectation).
If you have looked how bomb calorimetry works, you know that there is practically nothing left after their measurements. I just don't believe our bodies to be that efficient. Maybe if someone wants to go test their shit in a calorimeter, we can settle this quickly lol. I just don't think we are as overly efficient as you might think though - compare the amount you ingest to the amount you shit out (there is undigestible fiber, but not everything you are defecating is fiber). You can look at some animals in their efficiency in digestion and water regulation - I can't remember specifically what weird mammal we talked about in an early Bio class, but it is so efficient in digestion that its urine and feces combined into one tract and only produced a sort of paste (similar to Uricotelic birds/reptiles).
As for the intestinal flora, I have looked at that a small amount in the past, and seeing as their are more foreign microbial organisms in our intestines than there are human cells in our bodies, I can see that as being significant in variations as well. But, once again, I have no idea to the extent.
From the beginning, I didn't imply any major difference. I really don't know what the guy from the video was entirely implying. Did he gauge his supposed muscle loss from a 1 week change from 5 to 3 meals (then definitely BS), or did he gauge it over months? Did he change other things in his life at the same time? If there were minor, yet still notable, feeding inefficiencies from larger meals, as compared to smaller meals, then it may have a slightly noticeable effect over the span of say 6 months. In reality, there are too many variables over such a span to even begin to solely blame it on that change though.
I'm not going to say it is a cause of anything, as I really can't prove it. Your argument has validity to it, and I believe mine does as well. But, until someone actually sits down to look at this specifically (such as what is being done in cattle) and see if there is any evidence to it, I really won't firmly go one way or another and simply stick to my belief there is some plausibility to it.
I will throw out a very extreme thought though. Do you think that competitive eaters, who have consumed 10lbs+ in times as short as 10 minutes, absorb the same percentage per weight of nutrients from that 'meal' as they do when they eat a normal 500-1000kcal meal. If so, then I concede, but if not, then at what point does the meal get too big to be digested/utilized efficiently?
it seems like you're confusing feeding efficiency with bioavailability. feeding efficiency as a term encompasses all aspects of anabolism, from nutrient uptake in the gut to synthesis of tissues. it is literally food consumed per mass gained. by administering tren, these cows are not necessarily absorbing any extra food, but the kcal that they get are being used for MP synthesis moreso than cows not on steroids. as a system, the tren isnt working to improve feed efficiency at the level of the gut, it works at the level of the muscle tissue to improve muscle CSA increases and minimize fat gain
another thing is that the vast majority of kcal left over in feces are kcal that are unaccessible to us as humans in the first place. we are very limited at extracting energy from fiber and similar molecules, so obviously certain caloric molecules will remain undigested in the feces but we dont strictly include that bit when evaluating a food's energy content anyway