A minha nutricionista

[Messiah]

O que bebes durante o dia? Quantidade certa, variável em função de algo especifico, etc?

chá verde/agua ...

nao bebo nada a nivel certo... mas tento beber bastantes liquidos ... penso que se somar tudo em agua limpa + cha etc... devo beber 3 L sensivelmente... mas n ando a fazer contas simplesmente vou bebendo ..

[Robusto]

Hoje a minha salada teve um ingrediente, que a partir de agora nunca mais vai faltar: 2 dentes de alho!

[Messiah]

Hoje a minha salada teve um ingrediente, que a partir de agora nunca mais vai faltar: 2 dentes de alho!

mas foi o que eu disse ao principio

ingrediente especial: alho. Eu uso alho em pó, salpico a salada como se fosse sal mas abuso um bcdinho do alho ... adoro

[kitano]

Assim os vampiros não pegam

[GREED]

Salvador,

 Na minha opinião, treinar em jejum em fases de bulk não faz sentido. ( nem em seca, a menos que tenhas uma grande %mg )

 Outra coisa que não percebi foi a questão de ingerires 60% a 70% das calorias a seguir ao treino. 

( será que querias dizer 60% a 70% de proteina diaria?...o que mesmo assim parece-me muito, mas há quem faça )

[Messiah]

Faz sentido trienar em jejum dado que a tua sensibilidade a' insulina fica muito maior assim como a produção de testosterona, e de GH aumentam bastante.

Em vários estudos que foram levados a cabo, verificaram que a produção da GH nos individuos que treinavam em jejum era 2000% superior aos restantes grupos.

Sim 60-70% das calorias.

Dado que é nessa altura após o trieno que vais estar mais necessitado de nutrientes e dado que a seguir ao treino é quando vais estar mais sensível a' insulina, deves consumir ai a maior parte, dado que existe um efeito de 'overcompensation' anabólico nesse periodo que leva ao crescimento. A partição dos nutrientes neste periodo é mt melhor.

Se conseguirmos conciliar o treino com o final do dia e por tal, a maior refeição a' noite então ai é ouro sobre azul ...

[GREED]

Deixa-me ver se entendi...( corrige-me se estiver errado ).

- Tens um intake de perto de 3000kcal nos dias de treino...portanto na refeição  pós-workout ingeres aproximadamente 2000kcal ? ( ...parece-te mesmo correcto fazeres assim? )

..ou seja ficas com 1000 kcal para distribuir por as outras, pelo menos, 6 a 7 refeições...uma media de 166 kcal/refeição...( fazes pelo menos 6 a 7 refeições não fazes? )

- O facto de em alguns individous ainda se encontrarem niveis elevados de testosterona e GH em jejum ( ao principio da manhã ) tema ver com o facto de estes hormonios atingirem o seu pico durante a noite enquanto dormimos SE a alimentação for adequada e equilibrada.

- O efeito catabolico do treino em jejum é elevado, pelo que, pricipalmente, em individuos ectomorfos  e que queiram manter ou elevar a sua massa muscular está completamente desaconselhado.

Agora estudos por ai há muitos e para todos os gostos.

[Messiah]

nao... faço apenas 1-2 refeiçoes por dia numa janela temporal de 6 horas sensivelmente. a frequencia acaba por nao ter interesse... acaba mais por ser a janela temporal... tanto podia comer 8 refeicoes como 1... cinjome por 1-2 refeicoes por questoes de conveniencia

O tema da IF já esta bastante estudado e aplicado e com resultados práticos. Continua a ser demonstrado como dos melhores metodos em termos de protein sparring quando em cut, e em termos de bulk dos q menos adiciona gordura.. tmb existem bastantes beneficios em termos de saúde a avaliar pelos vários estudos que tem vinddo a ser levados a cabo.

Sim o efeito catabólico no trieno existe, dai consumir antes do treino pequenas dose de proteina, mas mesmo assim ao consumires a maior parte das calorias após o treino, existe um efeito de sobrecmpensação anabólica (tal é um facto e é utilizado sobretudo nas dietas cetogénicas cíclicas) onde as concentrações de glicogénio poderão aumentar em 50% ( 160-180 mol/kg).

Esse efeito de sobrecompensação anabólica, supostamente será de amplitude maior que o efeito catabólico do treino, acabando por em termos 'líquidos' haver um ganho.

O que sei é que pela primeira vez estou abaxo dos 10% de BF ... com uma facilidade que nunca antes tinha conseguido, sem cardio algum, e sem sacrificios em termos alimentares (nao deixei de comer doces ou guloseimas por isso, obviamente nao abuso, mas a nivel de comidas aproveito bem, então em dias de treino como tenho mais manobra calórica sobretudo para carbs ...)

Enquanto me tiver a dar resultados I'll keep it e o que nao falta sao mts mais individuos a seguirem a mesma estratégia com resultados semelhantes ou melhores

[GREED]

Pois não me interpretes mal. 

Se te dás bem com isso continua.

Mas como há mais pessoal a ler e a tentar aprender com o que aqui se escreve achei que devia chamar a atenção para determinados aspectos.

Essa das duas refeições não consigo mesmo entender...no minimo deviam ser 6a 7 por dia...ajuda a manter o metabolismo em alta e a queimar mais calorias. Mais refeições mais pequenas.
O pós-workout deve ser uma refeição rica em proteinas e hidratos, os quais não precisam de ser de rapida absorção como muita gente defende. ( 50% a 60% das proteinas diarias )
Mas nunca 60% a 70% das calorias no pós-workout, que no teu caso são 2000kcal.....a menos que metesses alguma bomba ( aka esteroides ) o teu organismo não aproveita tantos nutriente de uma vez só o que pode originar depositos de gordura.

Dietas cetogenicas ou ciclos de zero carbs estão a ficar fora de moda porque têm mais prejuizos que beneficios quer para a saude quer para os objectivos mesmo que de seca pra competição ( lá dos senhores do culturismo e tal ).

Como há varias pessoas a ler esta thread acho que se deve introduzir estas reticencias porque apesar de resultar com o Salvador pode não ser o melhor metodo a seguir.

Começem pela base....vão pesquisar se são ectomorfos, endomorfos ou mesomorfos....a serio....sem ofensa...
vão lá ver e depois já podem começar a adaptar uma dieta que vos sirva melhor quer pra aumento da massa muscular quer pra perda de peso.

[Messiah]

Isso é mito o de ajudar o metabolismo em alta... a frequencia nao tem influencia no metabolismo.

Agora a composição dos macros isso sim tem até porque cada nutriente tem o seu próprio efeito termico, sendo que no caso da proteína o seu efeito termogénico é maior que o da gordura e dos carbs, pelo que se mantiver as mesmas calorias, uma pessoa que coma mais proteina em detrimento dos outros dois por exemplo, vai queimar mais calorias devido ao seu efeito termico ser maior.

Ao resto respondo dps

quanto as dieta cetogénicas ciclicas eu nao falei em zero carbs.

Falei daquelas ciclicas onde a maior parte dos carbs sao consumidas post workout.

Não há depositos de gordura dado que todos os nutrientes vao ser bem repartidos, dada a sensibilidade a insulina, assim como é logo apos o treino vao ser tudo usado para repor os niveis de glicogénio, etc.

Isso é como aquele mito de "comer muito a noite engorda".

Ando há 4-5 meses só a comer a noite e nao engordei 1 grama pelo contrário.

E nao resulta só cmg

t has been commonly assumed that night is the worst time to eat. The logic: night is when the body typically slows down and therefore is more prone to gain fat. Makes sense, but is it true?

There are no conclusive studies or any evidence to prove the assumption that eating late meals causes fat gain more than eating early meals. Studies reveal that other variables such as the frequency of meals, the glycemic index of food, calorie intake and hormonal balance are the real "power brokers" in the body's capacity to burn or gain fat.

Even so the notion that eating late causes fat gain is deep rooted. The reason: for most people, who typically eat several meals during the day, any additional meal including a late meal maybe "one too many". The result is an overwhelming overloading effect on the body often involving fat gain. Does it mean that eating late is a bad idea? Quite the opposite. If daily food intake is planned properly and the evening meal turns to be the main meal, then eating late could be highly rewarding.

There is a substantial amount of evidence to the fact that as humans we have well adapted to nightly eating. We carry the same genes of our hunter- gatherer ancestors, who were primarily busy gathering or hunting during the daily hours and eating during the nightly hours, while at rest. Indeed, our body is biologically preprogrammed to work around the circadian clock (i.e. active during the day and relaxing at night). Our inner clock is controlled by two antagonistic autonomic nervous system; the SNS, with its highly alert "fight or flight" state, responsible for action and reaction to stress during the day, and the PSNS, responsible for relaxation, digestion and sleep during the night. (See Fallacy #1.). For that matter our body digests and utilizes nutrients better at night while at rest, then during the highly stressful hours of the day.

Furthermore, night is the time when growth hormone (GH) reaches a peak level. (Peak secretion during non REM, SWS deep sleep). GH is known to be a potent muscle and bone builder and a fat burner. Late meals, if applied correctly could be most anabolic. Note that GH actions can not be effectively finalized without the interference of insulin. Late meals, may well take advantage of max GH spike during the night, providing the nutrients required for actually facilitating GH actions, thus promoting protein synthesis in the muscle tissues and fat burning (in particular abdominal fat).

In conclusion, do not betray your biological destiny. Don't deny yourself from eating late meals. If you do, your body may come back with a vengeance, to reclaim what was taken away from him, often inducing chronic cravings for food at night, which may result in nocturnal bingeing. Finally, late meals often have a relaxing effect on the body, preparing you for sleep. If nothing else, late meals can help bring a happy end for a tough day.


1. Myth: Eat frequently to "stoke the metabolic fire".


Truth

Each time you eat, metabolic rate increases slightly for a few hours. Paradoxically, it takes energy to break down and absorb energy. This is the Thermic Effect of Food (TEF). The amount of energy expended is directly proportional to the amount of calories and nutrients consumed in the meal.

Let's assume that we are measuring TEF during 24 hours in a diet of 2700 kcal with 40% protein, 40% carbohydrate and 20% fat. We run three different trials where the only thing we change is the the meal frequency.

A) Three meals: 900 kcal per meal.

B) Six meals: 450 kcal per meal.

C) Nine meals: 300 kcal per meal.

What we'd find is a different pattern in regards to TEF. Example "A" would yield a larger and long lasting boost in metabolic rate that would gradually taper off until the next meal came around; TEF would show a "peak and valley"-pattern. "C" would yield a very weak but consistent boost in metabolic rate; an even pattern. "B" would be somewhere in between.

However, at the end of the 24-hour period, or as long as it would take to assimilate the nutrients, there would be no difference in TEF. The total amount of energy expended by TEF would be identical in each scenario. Meal frequency does not affect total TEF. You cannot "trick" the body in to burning more or less calories by manipulating meal frequency.

Further reading: I have covered the topic of meal frequency at great length on this site before.

The most extensive review of studies on various meal frequencies and TEF was published in 1997. It looked at many different studies that compared TEF during meal frequencies ranging from 1-17 meals and concluded:

"Studies using whole-body calorimetry and doubly-labelled water to assess total 24 h energy expenditure find no difference between nibbling and gorging".

Since then, no studies have refuted this. For a summary of the above cited study, read this research review by Lyle McDonald.

Earlier this year, a new study was published on the topic. As expected, no differences were found between a lower (3 meals) and higher meal (6 meals) frequency. Read this post for my summary of the study. This study garnered some attention in the mass media and it was nice to see the meal frequency myth being debunked in The New York Times.

Origin

Seeing how conclusive and clear research is on the topic of meal frequency, you might wonder why it is that some people, quite often RDs in fact, keep repeating the myth of "stoking the metabolic fire" by eating small meals on a frequent basis. My best guess is that they've somehow misunderstood TEF. After all, they're technically right to say you keep your metabolism humming along by eating frequently. They just missed that critical part where it was explained that TEF is proportional to the calories consumed in each meal.

Another guess is that they base the advice on some epidemiological studies that found an inverse correlation between high meal frequency and body weight in the population. What that means is that researchers may look at the dietary pattern of thousands individuals and find that those who eat more frequently tend to weigh less than those who eat less frequently. It's important to point out that these studies are uncontrolled in terms of calorie intake and are done on Average Joes (i.e. normal people who do not count calories and just eat spontaneously like most people).

There's a saying that goes "correlation does not imply causation" and this warrants further explanation since it explains many other dietary myths and fallacies. Just because there's a connection between low meal frequencies and higher body weights, doesn't mean that low meal frequencies cause weight gain. Those studies likely show that people who tend to eat less frequently have:

* Dysregulated eating patterns; the personality type that skips breakfast in favor of a donut in the car on the way to work, undereat during the day, and overeat in the evening. They tend to be less concerned with health and diet than those who eat more frequently.

* Another feasible explanation for the association between low meal frequencies and higher body weight is that meal skipping is often used as a weight loss strategy. People who are overweight are more likely to be on a diet and eat fewer meals.

The connection between lower meal frequency and higher body weight in the general population, and vice versa, is connected to behavioral patterns - not metabolism.


2. Myth: Eat smaller meals more often for hunger control.


Truth

Given the importance of finding the most favorable meal pattern for hunger and appetite control, there's a surprising scarcity of studies on the topic. The most widely cited study is one where obese males were fed 33% of their daily calorie requirement ("pre-load") in either one single meal or five meals before being allowed to eat ad libitum five hours later (meaning as much as they desired).

A: One single meal was consumed. 5 hours later they were free to eat as much as they desired, "buffet"-style.

B: Same setup as above. However, the single meal was now split into five smaller meals, which were consumed every hour leading up to the ad libitum meal.

The results showed that subjects undergoing "A" ate 27% more calories when given the ad libitum meal. The same setup was used by the same researchers on lean males and showed similar results. However, upon closer scrutiny it's clear how little real world application those results have. The macrocomposition of the pre-load was 70% carbs, 15% fat and 15% protein; given as pasta, ice cream and orange juice. The situation created was highly artificial and abnormal. Who sits around nibbling on pasta and ice cream, sipping orange juice, every hour leading up to a regular meal?

The latest research, performed under conditions that more closely resemble a real-world scenario, shows the opposite result. In this study, three high-protein meals lead to greater fullness and appetite control when compared to six high-protein meals. You can read my summary of the study here: Three Meals Superior for Appetite Control.

There's no doubt that meal frequency is highly individual. However, absolute statements claiming smaller meals are superior for hunger and appetite control are untrue and are based on studies using methods that greatly differed from real-world meal patterns. Current research with a normal meal pattern and protein intakes that are closer to what can be seen in a typical non-retarded diet, suggests superior appetite control when eating fewer and larger meals.


Origin

This myth might have originated from the limited data from studies on meal frequencies and appetite control. It's also likely that it's another case of mistaking correlation for causation from studies and meal frequencies and higher body weights; if people who eat more often weigh less, then it must mean they can control their hunger better, etc.


3. Myth: Eat small meals to keep blood sugar levels under control.


Truth

According to legions of diet and health "experts," eating small meals every so often will help you avoid hunger pangs, provide you with stable energy throughout the day and keep you mentally sharp. Contrary to what many people seem to believe, blood sugar is extremely well-regulated and maintained within a tight range in healthy people. It does not swing wildly up and down like a chimpanzee on meth and it doesn't plummet from going a few hours without food. Or even a full day without food. Or a week without food for that matter.

People seem to believe they will suffer severe hunger and mental impairment from not eating every so often. Consider for a second the evolutionary consequences for survival if this was true. Given that regular periods of fasting, even famine, was a natural part of our past, do you think we'd be here today if we were unable to function when obtaining food was most critical? I have seen healthy young males, bodybuilders nonetheless, complain of lethargy and mental haze if they didn't get to eat for a few hours. It's completely absurd. But I digress...

Maintaining blood sugar is of very high priority and we have developed efficient pathways that will make it happen even under extreme conditions. If you were to fast for 23 hrs and then go for a 90 min run at 70-75% VO2max, your blood sugar after the run would be identical to the same run performed in the fed state. It would take no less than three days or 84 hours of fasting to reach blood sugar levels low enough to affect your mental state; and this is temporary, as your brain adapts to the use of ketones. During 48 hours of fasting, or severe calorie deprivation, blood sugar is maintained within a normal range no measure of cognitive performance is negatively affected.

For more on blood sugar, read my review of Eat Stop Eat Expanded Edition, which includes a relevant excerpt. Also, keep in mind that the above cited studies are all performed under conditions that are much more extreme than the fasting protocol I, or Brad Pilon, recommends.

What about blood sugar and hunger? Blood sugar is one of many short-term feedback mechanisms used to regulate hunger and the notion which exists to say that low blood sugar may cause hunger is correct. Low just means lower range. This is subject to numerous confounders, such as your habitual diet, energy intake and genetics. Most importantly perhaps, it's subject to entrained meal patterns, regulated by ghrelin and other metabolic hormones. In essence, this means that blood sugar follows the meal pattern you are used to. This is relevant for those who fear blood sugar issues and hunger from regular periods of fasting, as it serves to explain why people can easily adapt to regular periods of fasting without negative effects.

Origin

Not sure how people came to believe that skipping a meal would dumb them down. There is some truth to blood sugar and hunger, but this is often taken out of context. There's no need to eat regularly to "maintain" blood sugar as it maintains itself just fine and adapts to whatever meal pattern you choose.


4. Myth: Fasting tricks the body into "starvation mode".


Truth

Efficient adaptation to famine was important for survival during rough times in our evolution. Lowering metabolic rate during starvation allowed us to live longer, increasing the possibility that we might come across something to eat. Starvation literally means starvation. It doesn't mean skipping a meal not eating for 24 hours. Or not eating for three days even. The belief that meal skipping or short-term fasting causes "starvation mode" is so completely ridiculous and absurd that it makes me want to jump out the window.

Looking at the numerous studies I've read, the earliest evidence for lowered metabolic rate in response to fasting occurred after 60 hours (-8% in resting metabolic rate). Other studies show metabolic rate is not impacted until 72-96 hours have passed (George Cahill has contributed a lot on this topic).

Seemingly paradoxical, metabolic rate is actually increased in short-term fasting. For some concrete numbers, studies have shown an increase of 3.6% - 10% after 36-48 hours (Mansell PI, et al, and Zauner C, et al). This makes sense from an evolutionary perspective. Epinephrine and norepinephrine (adrenaline/noradrenaline) sharpens the mind and makes us want to move around. Desirable traits that encouraged us to seek for food, or for the hunter to kill his prey, increasing survival. At some point, after several days of no eating, this benefit would confer no benefit to survival and probably would have done more harm than good; instead, an adaptation that favored conservation of energy turned out to be advantageous. Thus metabolic rate is increased in short-term fasting (up to 60 hours).

Again, I have choosen extreme examples to show how absurd the myth of "starvation mode" is - especially when you consider that the exact opposite is true in the context of how the term is thrown around.

Origin

I guess some genius read that fasting or starvation causes metabolic rate to drop and took that to mean that meal skipping, or not eating for a day or two, would cause starvation mode.


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.


Truth

Whenever you hear something really crazy you need to ask yourself if it makes sense from an evolutionary perspective. It's a great way to quickly determine if something may be valid or if it's more likely a steaming pile of horseshit. This myth is a great example of the latter. Do you think we would be here today if our bodies could only make use of 30 grams of protein per meal?

The simple truth is that more protein just takes a longer time to digest and be utilized. For some concrete numbers, digestion of a standard meal is still incomplete after five hours. Amino acids are still being released into your bloodstream and absorbed into muscles. You are still "anabolic." This is a fairly standard "Average Joe"-meal: 600 kcal, 75 g carbs, 37 g protein and 17 g fat. Best of all? This was after eating pizza, a refined food that should be quickly absorbed relatively speaking.

Think about this for a second. How long do you think a big steak, with double the protein intake of the above example, and a big pile of veggies would last you? More than 10 hours, that's for sure. Meal composition plays an important role in absorption speed, especially when it comes to amino acids. Type of protein, fiber, carbohydrates and prior meals eaten all affect how long you'll have amino acids released and being taken up by tissues after meals.

Origin

I think this "30 grams of protein"-nonsense started to circulate after a classic study from 1997 by Boirie and colleagues. "Slow and fast dietary proteins differently modulate postprandial protein accretion" was the first study to quantify the absorption rate of whey and casein protein and gave birth to the concept of fast and slow protein. After that, whey protein came to be known for it's ability to rapidly elevate amino acids in the blood stream and casein for it's ability to create a sustained release of amino acids. Whey was anabolic and casein anti-catabolic.

Given that 30 grams of whey protein was absorbed within 3-4 hours, I guess some people believed that meant 30 grams of protein can only be used in one sitting. Or that you had to eat every 3-4 hours to stay "anabolic." Unfortunately, people missed a few facts that made these findings irrelevant to real-world scenarios. First of all, this study looked at the absorption rate of whey protein in the fasted state. On it's own, and with no meals eaten beforehand, 30 grams of whey protein is absorbed within a mere 3-4 hours. With meals eaten earlier in the day, or if you'd consume a whey shake after a meal, absorption would be much slower.

Second of all, whey protein is the fastest protein of all and digests at 10 g/hour. Casein is much slower; in Boirie's study, the casein protein was still being absorbed when they stopped the experiment 7 hours later. Most whole food proteins are absorbed at a rate of 3-6 grams an hour. Add other macronutrients to that and they'll take longer.

6. Myth: Fasting causes muscle loss.


Truth

This myth hinges on people's belief it's important to have a steady stream of amino acids available to not lose muscle. As I explained earlier, protein is absorbed at a very slow rate. After a large high-protein meal, amino acids trickle into your blood stream for several hours.

No studies have looked at this in a context that is relevant to most of us. For example, by examining amino acid appearance in the blood and tissue utilization of amino acids after a large steak, veggies and followed up with some cottage cheese with berries for dessert. That's easily 100 grams of protein and a typical meal for those that follow the Leangains approach. We are left to draw our own conclusions based on what we know; that a modest amount of casein, consumed as a liquid on an empty stomach is still releasing amino acids after 7 hours. With this in mind it's no stretch to assume that 100 grams of protein as part of a mixed meal at the end of the day would still be releasing aminos for 16-24 hours.

Few studies has examined the effects of regular fasting on muscle retention and compared it to a control diet. None of them are relevant to how most people fast and some are marred by flaws in study design and methodology. Like this study which showed increased muscle gain and fat loss, with no weight training or change in calorie intake, just by changing meal frequency. While I would love to cite that study as proof for the benefits of intermittent fasting, body composition was measured by BIA, which is notoriously imprecise.

Only in prolonged fasting does protein catabolism become an issue. This happens when stored liver glycogen becomes depleted. In order to maintain blood glucose, conversion of amino acids into glucose must occur (DNG: de novo glucogenesis). This happens gradually and if amino acids are not available from food, protein must be taken from bodily stores such as muscle. Cahill looked at the contribution of amino acids to DNG after a 100 gram glucose load. He found that amino acids from muscle contributed 50% to glucose maintenance after 16 hours and almost 100% after 28 hours (when stored liver glycogen was fully depleted). Obviously, for someone who eats a high protein meal before fasting, this is a moot point as you will have plenty of aminos available from food during the fast.

Origin

An example of severe exaggeration of physiological and scientific fact, not relevant to anyone who's not undergoing prolonged fasting or starvation.


7. Myth: Skipping breakfast is bad and will make you fat.


Truth

Breakfast skipping is associated with higher body weights in the population. The explanation is similar to that of lower meal frequencies and higher body weights. Breakfast skippers have dysregulated eating habits and show a higher disregard for health. People who skip breakfast are also more likely to be dieting, thus by default they are also likely to be heavier than non-dieters. Keep in mind that most people who resort to breakfast skipping are not the type that sit around and read about nutrition. They are like most people dieting in a haphazard manner. The type to go on a 800 calorie-crash diet and then rebound, gaining all the weight (and then some) back.

Sometimes, an argument is made for eating breakfast as we are more insulin sensitive in the morning. This is true; you are always more insulin sensitive after an overnight fast. Or rather, you are always the most insulin sensitive during the first meal of the day. Insulin sensitivity is increased after glycogen depletion. If you haven't eaten in 8-10 hours, liver glycogen is modestly depleted. This is what increases insulin sensitivity - not some magical time period during the morning hours. Same thing with weight training. Insulin sensitivity is increased as long as muscle glycogen stores aren't full. It doesn't disappear if you omit carbs after your workout.

Origin

First of all, we have the large scale epidemiological studies showing an association with breakfast skipping and higher body weights in the population. One researcher from that study, commenting on the association with breakfast skipping or food choices for breakfast, said:

"These groups appear to represent people 'on the run,' eating only candy or soda, or grabbing a glass of milk or a piece of cheese. Their higher BMI would appear to
support the notion that 'dysregulated' eating patterns are associated with obesity, instead of or in addition to total energy intake per se."

Kellogg's and clueless RDs love to cite them over and over again, so people are lead to believe that breakfast has unique metabolic and health-related benefits. In reality, these studies just show breakfast eaters maintain better dietary habits overall.

Other studies frequently cited claiming that breakfast is beneficial for insulin sensitivity are all marred with methodological flaws and largely uncontrolled in design.

In one widely cited study, subjects were entrusted to eat most meals in free-living conditions. The breakfast skipping group ate more and gained weight, which affected health parameters negatively.

From the abstract: "Reported energy intake was significantly lower in the EB period (P=0.001), and resting energy expenditure did not differ significantly between the 2 periods." EB = eating breakfast. In essence, people who ate breakfast could control their energy intake better for the rest of the day. They didn't gain any weight but the breakfast skipping group did. Fat gain always affects insulin sensitivity and other health parameters negatively. Thus what people took this to mean is that breakfast is healthy and improves insulin sensitivity. Which isn't at all what the study showed.


8. Myth: Fasting increases cortisol.


Truth

Cortisol is a steroid hormone that maintains blood pressure, regulates the immune system and helps break down proteins, glucose and lipids. It's a hormone that's gotten quite a bad rep in the fitness and health community but we have it for a reason. The morning peak in cortisol makes us get out of bed and get going. A blunted morning cortisol peak is associated with lethargy and depression. Cortisol is elevated during exercise, which helps mobilize fats, increase performance and experience euphoria after and during workouts. Trying to suppress acute elevations of cortisol during exercise, or the normal diurnal rhythm, is foolish. Chronically elevated levels of cortisol, resulting from psychological and/or physiological stress, is another thing and unquestionably bad for your health; it increases protein breakdown, appetite and may lead to depression.

Short-term fasting has no effect on average cortisol levels and this is an area that has been extensively studied in the context of Ramadan fasting. Cortisol typically follows a diurnal variation, which means that its levels peak in the morning at around 8 a.m. and decline in the evenings. What changes during Ramadan is simply the cortisol rhythm, average levels across 24 hours remain unchanged.

In one Ramadan study on rugby players, subjects lost fat and retained muscle very well. And they did despite training in a dehydrated state, without pre-workout or post-workout protein intake, and with a lower protein intake overall nonetheless. Quoting directly from the paper:

"Body mass decreased significantly and progressively over the 4-week period; fat was lost, but lean tissue was conserved..."

"...Plasma urea concentrations actually decreased during Ramadan, supporting the view that there was no increase of endogenous protein metabolism to compensate for the decreased protein intake."

In one study on intermittent fasting, the fasting group even saw "significant decrease in concentrations of cortisol." However, this study should be taken with a grain of salt as it had some flaws in study design.

In conclusion, the belief that fasting increases cortisol, which then might cause all kinds of mischief such as muscle loss, has no scientific basis whatsoever.

Origin

Prolonged fasting or severe calorie restriction causes elevated baseline levels of cortisol. This occurs in conjunction with depletion of liver glycogen, as cortisol speeds up DNG, which is necessary to maintain blood sugar in absence of dietary carbs, protein, or stored glycogen. Again, it seems someone looked at what happens during starvation and took that to mean that short-term fasting is bad.


9. Myth: Fasted training sucks. You'll lose muscle and have no strength.


Truth

A large body of research on sports performance during Ramadan concludes that aerobic activities, such as 60 minutes of running, has a small yet significant negative impact on performance. A very large confounder here is dehydration, as Ramadan fasting involves fluid restriction. That said, anaerobic performance, such as weight training, is much less impacted.

However, more relevant and telling studies, which don't involve fluid restriction, show that strength and lower intensity endurance training is unaffected - even after 3.5 days of fasting. New research on fasted training supports this. If you read my review of that study, you'll see that the only parameter the fed group did better on was improvements in V02max, which is likely explained by the fact that the carbs allowed them to train at a higher intensity. However, note the other interesting results obtained in the fasted group. Also note that a review I did of another fasted endurance training study showed no negative effect of fasting on endurance or VO2max (quite the contary in fact). This can be explained by the lower intensity.

In conclusion, training in the fasted state does not affect your performance during weight training, which is what most people reading this are interested in. However, training in a completely fasted state is still not something I recommend for optimal progress. Research is quite clear on the benefits of pre-workout and post-workout protein intake for maximizing protein synthesis. For this reason, I suggest supplementing with 10 g BCAA prior to fasted training.

[GREED]

Agora estudos por ai há muitos e para todos os gostos.

 

[Robusto]

Assim os vampiros não pegam

Eheh, verdade, este hálito afasta qualquer um! 

[Messiah]

Agora estudos por ai há muitos e para todos os gostos.

 

Dai ser necessário ver quais as condições que os estudos foram levados a cabo... geralmente quando olho para o estudo quero ver se foi levado a cabo de forma apropriada... caso nao seja, desconsidero-o por completo.

Ontem acho que bati record, devo ter comido 1 kilo de picanha na mercearia vencedora... e ainda houve espaço para a sobremesa

E hoje é dia de treino outra vez

[Local]

êláá isso é que é comer! Se juntares a isso sangria ficas como uma conta jeitosa!

[Messiah]

é à descrição a picanha por lá

Mas eles já se estavam a passar comigo, já queriam fechar a loja e era o unico ainda a comer eheh ...

Saiu 30 euros /pessoa mas foi pq foi pedida mta sangria (que é carissima a meu ver - 15 euros o jarro). E eu que nem bebi sangria ...

[Local]

Eu fui às pizzas e para 3 pessoas ficou por 75€.
Antigamente era a minha pizaria de eleição, agora já acho excessivo o preço pedido. Até já deixaram de usar guardanapos em tecido para passarem para o renova black.

[Zel]

Faz sentido trienar em jejum dado que a tua sensibilidade a' insulina fica muito maior assim como a produção de testosterona, e de GH aumentam bastante.

Em vários estudos que foram levados a cabo, verificaram que a produção da GH nos individuos que treinavam em jejum era 2000% superior aos restantes grupos.

Sim 60-70% das calorias.

Dado que é nessa altura após o trieno que vais estar mais necessitado de nutrientes e dado que a seguir ao treino é quando vais estar mais sensível a' insulina, deves consumir ai a maior parte, dado que existe um efeito de 'overcompensation' anabólico nesse periodo que leva ao crescimento. A partição dos nutrientes neste periodo é mt melhor.

Se conseguirmos conciliar o treino com o final do dia e por tal, a maior refeição a' noite então ai é ouro sobre azul ...

outra coisa que eu faco eh nao comer durante mais de uma hora a seguir ao treino, isso maximiza a GH

[Zel]

Pois não me interpretes mal. 

Se te dás bem com isso continua.

Mas como há mais pessoal a ler e a tentar aprender com o que aqui se escreve achei que devia chamar a atenção para determinados aspectos.

Essa das duas refeições não consigo mesmo entender...no minimo deviam ser 6a 7 por dia...ajuda a manter o metabolismo em alta e a queimar mais calorias. Mais refeições mais pequenas.
O pós-workout deve ser uma refeição rica em proteinas e hidratos, os quais não precisam de ser de rapida absorção como muita gente defende. ( 50% a 60% das proteinas diarias )
Mas nunca 60% a 70% das calorias no pós-workout, que no teu caso são 2000kcal.....a menos que metesses alguma bomba ( aka esteroides ) o teu organismo não aproveita tantos nutriente de uma vez só o que pode originar depositos de gordura.

Dietas cetogenicas ou ciclos de zero carbs estão a ficar fora de moda porque têm mais prejuizos que beneficios quer para a saude quer para os objectivos mesmo que de seca pra competição ( lá dos senhores do culturismo e tal ).

Como há varias pessoas a ler esta thread acho que se deve introduzir estas reticencias porque apesar de resultar com o Salvador pode não ser o melhor metodo a seguir.

Começem pela base....vão pesquisar se são ectomorfos, endomorfos ou mesomorfos....a serio....sem ofensa...
vão lá ver e depois já podem começar a adaptar uma dieta que vos sirva melhor quer pra aumento da massa muscular quer pra perda de peso.

as coisas entram e saiem de moda por muitas razoes, sendo a principal que as modas existem pq as pessoas gostam de modas e que a moda so eh moda se passar e vier outra

quais sao os prejuizos para a saude das dietas low-carb de que falas?

[Messiah]

Bom,

Para quem quiser segue aqui o meu livrinho de registos actual:

[Robusto]

O método do salvador é bom, mas é para quem consegue estar sempre a trabalhar no mesmo sítio... eu por exemplo, nas últimas semanas tenho tido necessidade de almoçar com clientes / colegas de trabalho... aí esquece.

Tento almoçar o mais leve possível... saladas com massa, cenas assim.