https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7i45VZ6hb8o

5:45

my jimmies are rustled

why would this cause some rustled jimmies? haha

he was stating that, using the same total kcal intake for the day, he would lose muscle mass and strength eating 3 meals per day compared to 5 (again isoenergetic diets)

i think there can actually be some merit to that

one of the reasons one of the most potent steroids you can take (trenbolone acetate) does its job so well is because it increases the 'feeding efficiency' of the animal that utilizes it (along with its other anabolic components)

this has been shown in cattle (and is a major reason why it is given to cattle - finaplex) to increase meat production (muscle mass) without any alterations to what they are fed..it is cheaper for farmers as they don't have to feed them more to produce more meat


so, if you look at it in reverse, who is to say that we don't also posses certain variances in 'feeding efficiency'...from individual to individual, receptors may be more or less sensitive, membrane transport may be more or less efficient, hormone output may be greater or lower, etc

if you eat a bunch in one sitting, it is possible to have a capacity larger than what can be COMPLETELY absorbed..the contents of your stomach will empty at a given rate, and your intestines will absorb at a given rate (the rates do vary), so it is possible that partially digested food can pass through you giving less nutrient benefit, or the receptors/membranes may only bind/transport so much at a given time

the given thermodynamics of a given molecule hold true when the entirety of the molecule is used for energy..there is nowhere that states that every single calorie is extracted from everything you eat, but people don't tend to think about this

as such, i don't see why it isn't plausible that large amounts of food at one time can only be partially used, while smaller amounts are more likely to be used closer to their entirety

now, i can't say to the extant at which this works, as i really don't know..but it is altogether possible that people have variances in nutrient absorption/efficiency of feeding

edit: inb4flamedforblasphemy

This post was edited by bnrhodes2 on Jul 23 2014 08:50pm

in

jerry always ruffles johnsons

Gotta keep in mind when you're cramming in tons of food you gotta hit the shitter faster; usually that results in partially digested fecal waterfall namsaiyan?

Well, you're technically right, but it doesn't make the difference you're implying really.. and btw, to his actual statement of 3 vs 5, it's rubbish and you aren't really providing evidence against it
Rates of metabolism between two individuals (not hypo- or hyperthyroid conditions, or other such metabolic derangement) will vary around 500 cals, at the largest ends of the spectrum (not on average ofc).
Now, here was also a recent study that explored signaling effects to food between people who were apparently just always thin, seemingly unable to gain fat: http://www.nature.com/nutd/journal/v4/n7/full/nutd201417a.html
- It does note differences in satiety signaling.. the naturally thin group had more robust satiety signals, concomitant w/ lower ghrelin levels, indicating far better satiety
So, yes rates of metabolism do/can vary, but those factors alone won't make a difference besides self restraint and counting kcals

As for "feed efficiency", I actually had to look it up because it sounds absurd, and I find this: "Feed efficiency is the measurement of how much of an animal diet is converted into meat, and the more consumption of food it takes to finalize this meat, the lower the value." Uhhh.. duh taking tren (or any anabolic agent) will increase the amount of muscle you gain for a given amount of food. I looked for any mechanism by which it could actually increase celerity and efficacy of absorption into the enterocytes and found nothing. At best, I could give you the fact that test/steroids will increase AA transport. I'm not saying what you're talking about is absolutely false, but I can't find anything on it/it seems unlikely. Furthermore though, there is definite genetic variability in terms of propensity to build muscle, so that could constitute as a person w/ better "feeding efficiency" but that's just fatuous.

As for actual idiosyncratic aberrations in absorption efficacy, I really don't see it as pronounced as you're making it out to be. The human body is extraordinarily efficient at successfully digesting & absorbing massive amounts of food... thus, no matter HOW much you eat in a single sitting, it will be absorbed, contrary to your surmise (multiple mechanisms for absorption too, adding to efficacy, includes diffusion, facilitated diffusion, active transport, and pinocytosis). Indeed, IIRC, it's been shown using laxitives right after eating still doesn't diminish the digestion and absorption of the nutrients/kcals.. so (albeit it is slightly lower, nothing significant unless egregious levels of rapid purging). The only real attenution of absorption efficacy is seen in truly pathological conditions, whether it's a severe infection or genetic consequence. Moreover, I'm also excluding things like metabolic syndrome where you'll have insulin resistance, which will ofc impair glucose uptake into tissues and subsequent use/absorption rates

"there is nowhere that states that every single calorie is extracted from everything you eat" - Of course not. I know you're aware of TEF for instance, whic is a perfect example of the laws of thermodynamics in action (entropy), while the first law still holds true for total energy balance of the resulting numeric value. Now then, since we've established absorption shouldn't vary much at all, nothing worth mentioning, it's highly doubtful the now absorbed molecules will not be used for their energy (kcals).. where else would they go? They're already past the enterocyte, remember. Of course there are genetic anoamlies, as I've already stated a few times, such as a particular enzyme or transporter being nonfunctional/less functional, etc.. but again, the difference won't be too marked unless there was actually a deleterious ailment

One thing I will concede though - there's been a lot of recent elucidation about the intestinal flora, and implications for health and even absorption. I haven't read much into the topic, so I can't really make a comment there (though I doubt you had this in mind initially anyhow). What I can say here however, the endogenous flora will indeed break down certain foods via distinct enzymes to fuel their growth/survival, but that's already considered as an integral aspect. I'm just not sure on how much it can/will vary.

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?