Breaking "Bro-science" Myths

moose

New Member
14 Jul 2011
12
4
3
First off, this post I'm about to type may incite a lot of flaming; especially from "bro's" who have followed all these rules for many years. After all, I used to be a "bro" too, lol.

Myth 1 - You need to eat 6-8 meals a day spaced out every 2-3hours to "stoke your metabolism".

Research has shown that meal frequency does not matter. The fact is that your TEF (Thermal Effect of Food) is in proportion to your caloric intake for each meal.
So for eg. your caloric intake for the day is 2,400 kcals, it doesnt matter if you were to eat 2 meals of 1200kcals, or 6 meals of 400kcals.

Assuming a TEF of 10%, you would raise your metabolism to burn off 120kcals twice for the first scenario and 40kcals 6 times for the second scenario. They both add up to a total of 240kcals burned for TEF assuming macros are kept constant.

Myth 2 - Meal Timing is important.

Many people, including myself in the past, have indulged in the idea that right after working out, we have to take a high GI carb and fast acting protein source after workout to spike our insulin levels and promote protein synthesis. That is proper bullshit actually. Post workout, protein synthesis levels actually stay elevated and peak at the 24hr mark before declining back to baseline levels at around 36hrs. So as long as you ingest some form of protein within that 24hrs, you'll still be reaping the benefits of your workout.

PS: btw, carbs before bed won't make you fat. Like I said, if you hit your macros, meal timing is of little to no importance.

Myth 3 - Eating "Clean"

I am sure many of you have seen some of your friends wolfing down mac's double cheeseburger and eating bak kut teh after a Zouk session. I'm willing to bet that some of these friends are still ripped as hell.

Wtf. It must be their genetics. How can they eat "dirty" foods and still look so good.

Well, actually, it isn't. The reason why some people can eat all that junk and still get jacked, is because they are eating enough calories + protein, and doing ample resistance training to build muscles.

Your body doesn't know the difference between a lollipop vs oats. It only recognises a gram of protein, fat or carbohydrate. As long as you take in enough protein (approx 1g/lb of bw) and essential fats and couple that with resistance training, you will be able to maintain/gain muscle mass. Bulking/cutting will depend on your caloric intake - whether you are in a caloric surplus or deficit. Anything else is moot.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

These are a few myths I can think of the top of my head and hope to clear. Knowing this will allow you guys to be less anal about the mini stuff. The important thing here is to hit your macros, and progressively improve on your lifts consistently. This will result in you having the body that you desire, not some magical supplement or meal timing hocus pocus.

Hope this post helped. Anyone with questions and queries, feel free to ask.
 

moose

New Member
14 Jul 2011
12
4
3
None whatsoever. I am, however, very intrigued by nutrition and have been reading up on nutrition for the past 4 years. I base my results on studies via pubmed and figures of science (eg. Alan Aragon, Lyle Mcdonald etc).
 

PWiD

Well-Known Member
20 Jul 2011
291
34
53
That's pretty nice. Welcome aboard to the forums :)

As for the post-Zouk bak kut teh... I'm quite sure there're other reasons why some of them stay ripped. Anyway. Dirty eating is very vague. Usually the problem that lies under the label of 'dirty eating' is whether or not proteins are complete. And also the kind of carbs that your body is taking in. Bro-science as it is... Research is always biased whether or not we realise it - better off for most of us to adopt these bro-science methodologies even if they do end up being false. Since it does help to promote a healthier lifestyle. Otherwise it'd just be research done to make ourselves feel better for chewing off that 2 bars of chocolate.
 

moose

New Member
14 Jul 2011
12
4
3
Thanks for the welcome.

Exactly. Oats might be "dirty" to a paleo, atkins, low carb dieter. On the other hand, you can see many old school bodybuilders who ate high carb, low fat diets consisting of oats and still built mean physiques.

And I agree. Fitting your macros doesn't give you the excuse to go off binging on chocolate bars and drinking whey protein shakes to hit your protein requirements for the day. It just allows you to fit in treats that will keep you sane and off the binge train. Everything in moderation.
 

grandexu

New Member
7 Jun 2011
16
1
3
Bulking/cutting will depend on your caloric intake - whether you are in a caloric surplus or deficit.
won't u lose muscle when u are caloric deficient? catabolism?
 

PWiD

Well-Known Member
20 Jul 2011
291
34
53
That heavily depends on how much in deficit you are and how much of the required nutrients you're feeding your body to maintain muscle mass. There's also a method of recomposition diet that does alternating weeks of dieting to put on lean mass/reduce fat percentage. Besides, muscle lost can be put back easily as compared to losing fat that's consistently being stored up each day.
 

justified

Active Member
1 Oct 2011
219
39
38
Myth 2 - Meal Timing is important.

Many people, including myself in the past, have indulged in the idea that right after working out, we have to take a high GI carb and fast acting protein source after workout to spike our insulin levels and promote protein synthesis. That is proper bullshit actually. Post workout, protein synthesis levels actually stay elevated and peak at the 24hr mark before declining back to baseline levels at around 36hrs. So as long as you ingest some form of protein within that 24hrs, you'll still be reaping the benefits of your workout.

PS: btw, carbs before bed won't make you fat. Like I said, if you hit your macros, meal timing is of little to no importance.
why is meal timing of little to no importance? isnt timing everything? eg if u eat ALOT during lunch, say 50% of the day's calorie intake, wont there be a large amount of unused calories that gonna be turned into fat? compared to small meals whereby there is less chance for the body to convert the stuff into fat.
 

clan_NEt

Well-Known Member
4 Jun 2011
642
81
73
BroScience:

A sarcastic term implying that the time tested, muscle building wealth of knowledge developed and utilized by successful, experienced bodybuilders is inferior to the continually shifting hypotheses of articulate, textbook-savvy 155lb. chemists with little or no real world first-person experience to substantiate their conclusions.​
 

moose

New Member
14 Jul 2011
12
4
3
why is meal timing of little to no importance? isnt timing everything? eg if u eat ALOT during lunch, say 50% of the day's calorie intake, wont there be a large amount of unused calories that gonna be turned into fat? compared to small meals whereby there is less chance for the body to convert the stuff into fat.
The net amount of calories dictates how much fat you lose. Your body is in a constant flux of storing and burning lipids. Eating more will not turn the excess calories into fat, it will just take longer for the food to be digested and assimilated as nutrients.

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/nu...-nutrient-storage-and-nutrient-oxidation.html
Long read, but do take the time if possible. You'll get a much better understanding.
 

justified

Active Member
1 Oct 2011
219
39
38
Eating more will not turn the excess calories into fat, it will just take longer for the food to be digested and assimilated as nutrients.
so it only takes longer? then how do ppl actually get fat? i still have not bought the idea of excess calories not getting converted into fat :confused:
 

PWiD

Well-Known Member
20 Jul 2011
291
34
53
You guys are taking this way too seriously. Let's put it into extremes so that analogies can be imaged in a much easier fashion.

Calorie-wise, let's consider the all-American Twinky diet. Now, don't tell me the kind of calories you put into your body doesn't matter.

Next, meal timing. Unequivocally, while science can constantly give us data in words and numbers about how it is irrelevant to muscle growth or what not, the truth here is that everyone of us subconsciously knows how important this is. It's human instinct that we split our meals. We're not like bears who feast and then hibernate. There's a good reason why our ancestors have learnt to preserve food for multiple times of consumption. This is definitely something that should go unchallenged and undoubted.

Macro-nutrients, micro-nutrients, types of food and genetics. You cannot, at this point of time, deny the fact that these 4 factors play a huge role in determining your body's composition and functions. Genetics play an extremely huge role in all of this as well. It's the same reason as why some of us are prone to certain conditions ( for example, acne, muscle cramps, etc.). We each require different amounts of such nutrients and minerals in our body and this definitely differs from one person to another. Also, do not forget everyone of us here responds differently to different kinds of food. Some assimilate protein from poultry better, some dairy, some fish and what not.

In short, studies and research on nutrition is definitely useful in creating perspectives and giving us a rough idea of what should be done in order to obtain the BETTER result from the resources we have (better, not best). And I'm sure as hell that people who come up with these articles have followed old-school methods of dieting. If it ain't broke, don't fix it - there's a reason why such methods and lessons can still exist today

P/S : Take everything with a pinch of salt. Theory is good, but it cannot be applied because it is too generalised. We're humans, not machines, and we're all made up differently. You'd think the top bodybuilders/strength athletes got there because of their diet, methods or drugs, but the truth of the matter is, it's their genetics. Don't let this be an excuse for an average Joe to back down though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gosu_smurf

roflolmao

Active Member
3 Jun 2011
199
39
38
interesting read.... will read more into in area and post my findings on the forum :)
 

PWiD

Well-Known Member
20 Jul 2011
291
34
53
You'd most probably come up with the same stuff that's been discussed here... And a few little cookies and biscuits of information here and there haha.
 

PWiD

Well-Known Member
20 Jul 2011
291
34
53
And on a side note, and frankly speaking. The best time to eat is when you're hungry. You can't go wrong with that especially if you train intensively. Your body would call out for the food instead of you having to time or write it out in a logbook. And this usually means every 2-5 hours instead of just 2-3 if we were to apply this idea to the general population.
 

grandexu

New Member
7 Jun 2011
16
1
3
And on a side note, and frankly speaking. The best time to eat is when you're hungry. You can't go wrong with that especially if you train intensively. Your body would call out for the food instead of you having to time or write it out in a logbook. And this usually means every 2-5 hours instead of just 2-3 if we were to apply this idea to the general population.
I always had the perception that you should eat before you get that surge of hunger. When i can feel the 'hunger' urge, my body is probably already lacking food.
 

PWiD

Well-Known Member
20 Jul 2011
291
34
53
Well maybe I should've been more precise. I personally think the best timing to eat is when I'm hungry. To each his own - and whether or not it works you'll be the judge of it. As for lacking food... I think the body's quite self-sufficient enough to withstand that momentary surge of hunger, though I could be sorely mistaken. As long as you don't binge it'll be fine. Besides, what's life if you can't enjoy little things like food? Do something and do it happily I say.
 

moose

New Member
14 Jul 2011
12
4
3
The types of food you eat affect hunger. Eating a low glycemic, high volume type food like broccoli as opposed to eating something caloric dense with the same macros (eg. candy floss) will cause different degrees of hunger.

The amount of fiber in your food contributes to satiety (feeling full) due to it expanding when it absorbs water, as well as slowing gastric emptying (time taken for food to leave your tummy).

Hormones such as ghrelin, peptide YY, leptin will also contribute to various degrees of hunger.

Obv. there are other factors here I might have forgotten to mention. But these are a few reasons as to why hunger should not be taken as a reliable indicator as to how much you should be eating.