Cellulite Fat - Forever or can it be dieted/exercised off?

[djpar]

No it wasn't. The article doesn't say anything about absorption. Absorption is when nutrients pass from the small intestine into the blood stream.

Nor does the article say anything about weight loss.

Those two things are not outcomes that were measured in the study the article described. The measured outcome was muscle synthesis.



I don't know what you were driving at other than what you said. (As an aside. . . does the body create non-lean muscle mass?)

I disagreed with the assertion that eating larger, less frequent meals causes less efficient absorption (a point you have backed off of). I also pointed out that if it did, for purposes of weight loss (again--didn't this start because Weight Watchers recommends smaller and more frequent meals for the purpose of weight loss?), then the advice should be the other way around.

You then asked me to respond to the article (presumably wrt to either the claim about less efficient absorption or about weight loss), and I pointed out that the study says nothing about it.

Am I making a mistake eating more meals a day if my goal is to gain muscle mass?

Will I get more muscle protein synthesis and will this help increase muscle mass if I try to take in more protein in more frequent meals versus the same amount in 1-2 sittings?

That is what I got from the article. I know this thread went a different direction when weight loss was introduced even though the OP never really asked about that.

Thanks for pointing out my mistake using "absorption".

 

[Modified]

You are just making this stuff up. Women can't put on muscle mass? Are you serious?

Why should anyone believe anything you've posted here?

Since I met my wife and she started working out with me, she's put on about 25 pounds of muscle. She was a runner before and already had a fairly muscular lower body, so a lot of that is upper body muscle. IIRC it took about three years to achieve most of that gain. Not only does that extra muscle help to keep weight off, but her upper body strength is about double from when we started, which is useful in day-to-day life. Also, personally, I think it looks good. She works out pretty much just like I do now - heavy weight, low reps, high intensity most of the time. We spend a maximum of three hours a week lifting.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I wrote, "It's very hard to put on muscle (especially for women), and it's doubtful you'll put on enough to change your upper body appearance that much if at all." Nowhere did I say that women "cannot" put on muscle mass. I didn't even imply it since I explicitly referred to her putting on at least some.

Do you disagree that putting on muscle mass is hard? It takes a lot of effort. It's also virtually impossible to put on only muscle - some new fat is going to come along for the ride. If you're trying to lose fat at the same time you're trying to put on muscle, it's going to be even harder. Finally, the muscles in the areas she asked about (ribs and clavicles) are not that prominent to begin with. It's doubtful she'll gain enough muscle to make any changes in the appearance of those areas.

Of course, I didn't mention that while "upper body" training may reduce how prominent the clavicles are, it's not going to do a thing for the ribs. That's another beast altogether.

Besides the fact some of what you've said is out right wrong, what I've been trying to point out in this thread is the frequency with which we spout out our opinions that are based on no more than common experiences and what seems like common sense.

Sometimes that common sense and opinions are factual. After all, experience does expose a person to evidence. But quite often people really don't know what their conclusions are based on. In the case of weight loss, few people consider the actual research. The subject seems so common place people are sure they know the facts. In the case of weight loss, however, it's even more complicated. We've been inundated with erroneous diet 'facts', and, the research is under the radar for most people. And it turns out the research does not support the most common beliefs about weight loss.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Since I met my wife and she started working out with me, she's put on about 25 pounds of muscle. She was a runner before and already had a fairly muscular lower body, so a lot of that is upper body muscle. IIRC it took about three years to achieve most of that gain. Not only does that extra muscle help to keep weight off, but her upper body strength is about double from when we started, which is useful in day-to-day life. Also, personally, I think it looks good. She works out pretty much just like I do now - heavy weight, low reps, high intensity most of the time. We spend a maximum of three hours a week lifting.

How has her body fat percentage changed?

 

[Modified]

How has her body fat percentage changed?

Probably about the same amount of fat so a slightly lower percentage, but then it's been about ten years and we are less active than we were then due to long work hours.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Am I making a mistake eating more meals a day if my goal is to gain muscle mass?

Will I get more muscle protein synthesis and will this help increase muscle mass if I try to take in more protein in more frequent meals versus the same amount in 1-2 sittings?

That is what I got from the article. I know this thread went a different direction when weight loss was introduced even though the OP never really asked about that.

Thanks for pointing out my mistake using "absorption".

Look, you asked me about this article while quoting my statement that we needn't worry about an explanation for a weight loss benefit to more frequent, smaller meals until we first establish that there is a weight loss benefit.

You asked what I thought about this article in that context (see the text you quoted in post 132 for that context), and my answer is still the same: it says nothing about whether or not there is a weight loss benefit to eating more frequent smaller meals.

It's irrelevant to that question.

So again, before I worried about how to explain a weight loss benefit from eating more frequent meals, I would first like to see proof that there is such a benefit.

Not only does the article you asked about not establish such a benefit, the review of literature that UKBoy cited concludes that there is no evidence of such a benefit. Here's the abstract:

Abstract

Several epidemiological studies have observed an inverse relationship between people’s habitual frequency of eating and body weight, leading to the suggestion that a ‘nibbling’ meal pattern may help in the avoidance of obesity. A review of all pertinent studies shows that, although many fail to find any significant relationship, the relationship is consistently inverse in those that do observe a relationship.

However, this finding is highly vulnerable to the probable confounding effects of post hoc changes in dietary patterns as a consequence of weight gain and to dietary under-reporting which undoubtedly invalidates some of the studies.

We conclude that the epidemiological evidence is at best very weak, and almost certainly represents an artefact. A detailed review of the possible mechanistic explanations for a metabolic advantage of nibbling meal patterns failed to reveal significant benefits in respect of energy expenditure.

Although some short-term studies suggest that the thermic effect of feeding is higher when an isoenergetic test load is divided into multiple small meals, other studies refute this, and most are neutral. More importantly, studies using whole-body calorimetry and doubly-labelled water to assess total 24 h energy expenditure find no difference between nibbling and gorging. Finally, with the exception of a single study, there is no evidence that weight loss on hypoenergetic regimens is altered by meal frequency. We conclude that any effects of meal pattern on the regulation of body weight are likely to be mediated through effects on the food intake side of the energy balance equation.

 

[djpar]

And now I am asking if I will get more muscle protein synthesis and will this help increase muscle mass if I try to take in more protein in more frequent meals versus the same amount in 1-2 sittings?

I'm not trying to argue. I admitted where I misspoke, but if it makes you feel better to keep the topic on weight loss when I am not talking about that then fine.

It seems that there is more incentive for some people to be argumentative here then to have a discussion.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

And now I am asking if I will get more muscle protein synthesis and will this help increase muscle mass if I try to take in more protein in more frequent meals versus the same amount in 1-2 sittings?

I'm not trying to argue. I admitted where I misspoke, but if it makes you feel better to keep the topic on weight loss when I am not talking about that then fine.

It seems that there is more incentive for some people to be argumentative here then to have a discussion.

But the topic here is weight loss. Honest, it really is.

You can't remove cellulite without losing weight all over (or rather, as has been mentioned, losing weight in the first-on last-off way that your body stores fat).

Adding muscle mass is not losing weight. Your new question has nothing to do with the topic of this thread.

However, as UY pointed out, the study that article was about doesn't seem to support any conclusion about what you're after (or what body-builders are after) since it was about an attempt to minimize muscle loss in the elderly. (ETA: Though it's hard to say without reading the actual study. I wouldn't rely too much on what the journalist says, though.)

I've heard body builders swear that the idea is to keep a high level of protein in the blood at all times (meaning you will certainly be wasting a lot of money by peeing out your expensive protein supplement). I don't know.

ETA:I've also heard people argue, as I think UY did, that since you build muscle when you rest, you should take in more protein before you rest rather than before you work out. I've also heard the opposite--that you should bump up the protein right before a hard workout.

As I've said, I think people generally overrate the need for protein in the diet. I've always heard an optimal ratio is about 2:2:1 (protein:carbohydrate:fat). I think even that might overstate the case unless you are a growing child or someone trying to "bulk up".

I would say that there's much more variation in the burning calorie side of the equation in different people's lifestyles than there in the intake side of the equation.

Personally, I do a lot of miles of distance running (with juggling), and I burn a prodigious number of calories each day. That's fine because I also enjoy eating a lot! (Even so, I doubt I eat significantly more than the typical sedentary America--so if my weight remains constant, guess what happens with the sedentary person's weight over time?) Running works some of the biggest muscles in the body, so it tends to build up those big calorie-burners. Yet my diet is not especially protein-rich. I suspect if you take in lots more protein (especially as supplements), and you don't greatly increase the amount of exercise you're doing, you'll just pee out most of the protein. (I also suspect that's true even if you do increase your exercise.)

 

[Uncayimmy]

ETA:I've also heard people argue, as I think UY did, that since you build muscle when you rest, you should take in more protein before you rest rather than before you work out. I've also heard the opposite--that you should bump up the protein right before a hard workout.

A reasonable argument could be made for both. What I don't think has a reasonable argument is having high protein intake at breakfast unless, of course, you're working out in the morning. As always, observations trump theories. In this case I didn't see the connection from the data in the study to the recommendation or a plausible argument.

As I've said, I think people generally overrate the need for protein in the diet. I've always heard an optimal ratio is about 2:2:1 (protein:carbohydrate:fat). I think even that might overstate the case unless you are a growing child or someone trying to "bulk up".

I would tend to agree that protein requirements may be overestimated for the simple reason that those humans who have the most dramatic gains in muscle mass (infants) do so on a diet that is 7:1:4.5 (carbs, protein, fat). Clearly, the body can make lots of muscle with relatively little protein. When it comes to adults, the last I read there seemed to be some evidence regarding the presence of protein along with strength training was vital for triggering muscle growth, but that really only applies to people specifically trying to gain muscle mass at an optimal rate.

I do have an anecdote, though. My mother, who is well past retirement age, was having some difficulty recovering from a minor muscle/ligament/tendon injury. She was doing her on "physical therapy" but wasn't having much luck. Knowing her diet was low in protein, I got her to start doing protein shakes. She improved dramatically and quickly soon thereafter.

But once again, this is a specific circumstance. If what happened to my mother was repeated in studies (the reason I suggested it was based on things I recall reading by could not cite right now), it's still about old people with insufficient protein recovering from an injury. It may not have any relation to younger people who are generally healthy.

I would say that there's much more variation in the burning calorie side of the equation in different people's lifestyles than there in the intake side of the equation.

I suspect if you take in lots more protein (especially as supplements), and you don't greatly increase the amount of exercise you're doing, you'll just pee out most of the protein. (I also suspect that's true even if you do increase your exercise.)

I don't believe that's accurate. Protein is an energy source as well as a vital source of amino acids for body structures. Excess protein can be stored as fat.

 

[tesscaline]

I was under the impression that protein showing up in one's urine was a signal that there is something wrong with the body, and not a normal thing at all...

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I was under the impression that protein showing up in one's urine was a signal that there is something wrong with the body, and not a normal thing at all...

From what I've read, some exercise-induced proteinuria is "normal" (that is, not a sign of something wrong).

At any rate, my broader point is that taking lots of protein (especially as supplements because they tend to give you LOTS more than you need) results in a waste of protein if you're trying to build muscle. It seems like the exercise part of the equation is far more important (and variable) than the diet part.

And to djpar's question, I still haven't seen evidence that ingesting the same amount of protein in a day's time in 4 or 5 rather than 3 meals makes any difference at all. Even if there is a difference, I would suspect it is very slight and easily swamped by other factors (like how much and how hard you exercise).

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I was under the impression that protein showing up in one's urine was a signal that there is something wrong with the body, and not a normal thing at all...

That is correct. Proteinuria is a bad thing suggesting the kidneys are malfunctioning. But it can also occur in a number of other medical problems.

But either way, it is an abnormal finding.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

From what I've read, some exercise-induced proteinuria is "normal" (that is, not a sign of something wrong).

At any rate, my broader point is that taking lots of protein (especially as supplements because they tend to give you LOTS more than you need) results in a waste of protein if you're trying to build muscle. It seems like the exercise part of the equation is far more important (and variable) than the diet part.

And to djpar's question, I still haven't seen evidence that ingesting the same amount of protein in a day's time in 4 or 5 rather than 3 meals makes any difference at all. Even if there is a difference, I would suspect it is very slight and easily swamped by other factors (like how much and how hard you exercise).

The excess protein you speak of would be passed in the stool and not absorbed in the first place rather than being absorbed and excreted via the kidneys.

Exercise induced proteinuria is still an abnormal finding even if the cause is benign. (In other words abnormal doesn't have to be a bad thing.) Typically one finds it only for a short period of time directly following intense exercise.

 

[Uncayimmy]

And to djpar's question, I still haven't seen evidence that ingesting the same amount of protein in a day's time in 4 or 5 rather than 3 meals makes any difference at all. Even if there is a difference, I would suspect it is very slight and easily swamped by other factors (like how much and how hard you exercise).

I agree. It's been a while since I was heavily into this stuff, but as I recall there were a lot of faulty extrapolations from studies. For example, a study may look at the effects of exercise or diet on the elderly. People would then take that and try to conclude something about athletic training. Of course, they are ignoring that correcting a deficit (diet, exercise) may produce dramatic results, but that doesn't mean it will have any benefits for someone without a deficit. For example, a B12 deficiency may cause hair loss, but extra B12 for someone who is not suffering from a deficiency won't make hair grow.

I'm not saying anything specific about spreading out protein intake or the timing thereof since I can't point to the literature. However, any conclusions need to be based on relevant studies. Body builders stress their bodies in ways most people can't imagine. They are concerned with every little bit of growth and take great pains to measure it. If a study showed revealed optimal protein timing for them, it wouldn't necessarily apply to a juggling jogger or soccer mom who hits the gym a few times per week. The reverse is also true.

And as you point out, if you want to build muscle, work out with weights. Tax yourself both in strength and endurance. Eat a balanced diet and get adequate amounts of rest. Your body will change in very positive ways. Chances are variations in timing of protein intake won't make a difference you'll notice or measure.

As I pointed out before, the most important thing is figuring out what you need personally to modify your behavior to get fit and stay fit. If that means several small meals per day, go for it. If it means three squares and carrying around a bottle of water, go for it. The other "optimization" issues mean nothing if you skip the gym and scarf down a Big Mac. Leave the tweaking to the athletes and their trainers.

 

[djpar]

But the topic here is weight loss. Honest, it really is.

I don't think that was clear from the start. SG asked whether it was weight loss and FBG never stated that exactly. She only described her shape.

You can't remove cellulite without losing weight all over (or rather, as has been mentioned, losing weight in the first-on last-off way that your body stores fat).

Adding muscle mass is not losing weight. Your new question has nothing to do with the topic of this thread.

I had a back injury. I went for a few years with little exercise because of it. I added a good bit of fat to my belly and some in / around my chest.

I finally became so desperate that I had my L3-L4 fused. Best thing I ever did.

Once I recovered, I began training hard. I am 5'9 and at the time I weighed 163 lbs and I had a 34" waist.

My routine was 1 hour of core in the morning and 30 minutes of hard cardio followed by 1.5 hours of weight lifting in the afternoon. I also started playing sports again.

My diet was a balanced meal of 2-2-1 protein, carbs, fat as you mention below. I ate 6-7 meals a day at about 400-600 calories per meal.

In about 3 months time, I reduced my waist to 29". My BMI was 23.2 and my body fat was 8.8%.

I gained 5 lbs for a finishing weight of 168lbs. I am 43 years old.

However, as UY pointed out, the study that article was about doesn't seem to support any conclusion about what you're after (or what body-builders are after) since it was about an attempt to minimize muscle loss in the elderly. (ETA: Though it's hard to say without reading the actual study. I wouldn't rely too much on what the journalist says, though.)

The article stated both "young adults and elderly". The part I quoted from the article was not from the journalist. It was from one of the Doctor's who performed the study.

I've heard body builders swear that the idea is to keep a high level of protein in the blood at all times (meaning you will certainly be wasting a lot of money by peeing out your expensive protein supplement). I don't know.

Whatever it is, this is what I am trying to find out. I really want to know if there is any reason to eat more meals (other than that I am used to it and I stay pretty hungry).

ETA:I've also heard people argue, as I think UY did, that since you build muscle when you rest, you should take in more protein before you rest rather than before you work out. I've also heard the opposite--that you should bump up the protein right before a hard workout.

As I've said, I think people generally overrate the need for protein in the diet. I've always heard an optimal ratio is about 2:2:1 (protein:carbohydrate:fat). I think even that might overstate the case unless you are a growing child or someone trying to "bulk up".

I would say that there's much more variation in the burning calorie side of the equation in different people's lifestyles than there in the intake side of the equation.

Personally, I do a lot of miles of distance running (with juggling), and I burn a prodigious number of calories each day. That's fine because I also enjoy eating a lot! (Even so, I doubt I eat significantly more than the typical sedentary America--so if my weight remains constant, guess what happens with the sedentary person's weight over time?) Running works some of the biggest muscles in the body, so it tends to build up those big calorie-burners. Yet my diet is not especially protein-rich. I suspect if you take in lots more protein (especially as supplements), and you don't greatly increase the amount of exercise you're doing, you'll just pee out most of the protein. (I also suspect that's true even if you do increase your exercise.)

Does this mean it is not absorbed? I'm not being sarcastic, it just sounds like this is different than what you were saying before.