Help me find a new bed time drink/food source

[gingersgym]

I usually have 6 eggs (4 whites 2 whole) before bed but i also do this for breakfast, so thats 12 eggs a day... < too much?

I cannot stand cottage cheese either...

i usually have ate all my carbs, so dont have any room for those, was looking at getting
http://www.myprotein.com/uk/pages/se...time%20extreme

just to keep off the hunger and have a change from eggs...?
thanks

[Blase12]

Have some yogurt or a casein shake

[SwiftyX]

Eat anything that gets you to whatever pro/fat goal you have set. Meat, milk, yogurt...whatever.

[-Michelangelo-]

You should probably say whether you are trying to gain muscle or lose fat....

Fiber sup or Vegetables before bed will solve the hunger issue.

Take that ^ with protein, preferably a slow digesting protein if you plan on skipping breakfast or if it helps you hit your macros for the day. But if you are used to eating breakfast then any ol' meal would do... Meal frequency is a myth dude.

[SwiftyX]

Meal frequency is a myth dude.

Meal frequency is very real. The need to focus on it for optimal results is what being thrown around as a myth.

[WonderPug]

Fiber sup or Vegetables before bed will solve the hunger issue.

Take that ^ with protein, preferably a slow digesting protein if you plan on skipping breakfast or if it helps you hit your macros for the day.

"Slow" digesting or "fast" digesting protein isn't relevant to the outcome of his diet.

[-Michelangelo-]

"Slow" digesting or "fast" digesting protein isn't relevant to the outcome of his diet.

WOnder Pug to the rescue...

NOTICE the "preferably slow protein if you plan on skipping breakfast"

[WonderPug]

NOTICE the "preferably slow protein if you plan on skipping breakfast"

Why is it "preferable" if it doesn't matter.

[-Michelangelo-]

Meal frequency is very real. The need to focus on it for optimal results is what being thrown around as a myth.

Please explain what you mean by very real

[-Michelangelo-]

Why is it "preferable" if it doesn't matter.

It's preferable if you plan on SKIPPING breakfast. Thats why I SAID IF YOU skip breakfast. lol. AKA Fasting longer than your sleep hours. INTERMITTENT FASTING. EXAMPLE LEANGAINS??? GOOGLE IT DUDE. YOU ARE BY FAR THE MOST OVER-REPPED, close minded SOURE OF ADVICE ON THESE FORUMS.

"In the last meal of the day, include a slow digesting protein source; preferably egg protein, cottage cheese (or any other source of casein based protein). Meat or fish is also ok if you add veggies or supplement with fiber. This meal will keep you full during the fast and exert an anti-catabolic effect on muscle protein stores by ensuring that your body has an ample supply of amino acids until the next meal."

~ Martin Berkhan (lean Gains)

http://www.leangains.com/2008/06/sur...-fat-loss.html

[SwiftyX]

Please explain what you mean by very real

Eat one meal, Eat two meals, Eat three meals. There was a meal frequency. Anything you do more than once has a frequency of occurance. Meal frequency is real. Whether it matters or not is what is up for debate.

[WonderPug]

It's preferable if you plan on SKIPPING breakfast. Thats why I SAID IF YOU skip breakfast. lol. AKA Fasting longer than your sleep hours. INTERMITTENT FASTING. EXAMPLE LEANGAINS??? GOOGLE IT DUDE. YOU ARE BY FAR THE MOST OVER-REPPED, close minded SOURE OF ADVICE ON THESE FORUMS.

Please see:

http://www.ajcn.org/content/90/5/1244.full
http://ajpendo.physiology.org/content/300/1/E231.long

Also, you might want to watch:

[ErikTheElectric]

Why is 12 eggs a day too much?

[-Michelangelo-]

Eat one meal, Eat two meals, Reat three meals. There was a meal frequency. Anything you do more than once has a frequency of occurance. Meal frequency is real. Whether it matters or not is what is up for debate.

wrong. Whether it matters or not IS NO LONGER UP FOR DEBATE. Get up to date:

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/res...ch-review.html

[SwiftyX]

wrong. Whether it matters or not IS NO LONGER UP FOR DEBATE. Get up to date:

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/res...ch-review.html

A single research review does not make anything no longer up for debate. You need to get up to date with the full body of work on the subject. It is not as cut and dry as you think it is after reading a single article. Everything you post comes from either Lyle or Martin. While they are very knowledgable thier thoughts on a single study or review does not make something a fact. If you had any interest in learning something that wasn't second hand information you would see this.

Metabolic rate wouldn't be the only possible benefit/negative to a higher or lower meal frequncy. It does happen to be the only thing the review in your link discusses though. For someone who calls people out as close minded, you have a VERY closed view for having such a narrow knowledge base.

[WonderPug]

wrong. Whether it matters or not IS NO LONGER UP FOR DEBATE. Get up to date:

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/res...ch-review.html

I presume this is an attempt at humor.

Anyway, the preponderance of evidence suggests that meal timing and frequency are largely irrelevant in terms of their direct impact on bodyweight and composition. Obviously, meal timing and frequency can have a significant impact of various factors, including but not limited to satiety, energy, performance, convenience and palatability.

[-Michelangelo-]

A single research review does not make anything no longer up for debate. You need to get up to date with the full body of work on the subject. It is not as cut and dry as you think it is after reading a single article. Everything you post comes from either Lyle or Martin. While they are very knowledgable thier thoughts on a single study or review does not make something a fact. If you had any interest in learning something that wasn't second hand information you would see this.

Metabolic rate wouldn't be the only possible benefit/negative to a higher or lower meal frequncy. It does happen to be the only thing the review in your link discusses though. For someone who calls people out as close minded, you have a VERY closed view for having such a narrow knowledge base.

The benefits which you are referring to are a matter of individual preference, there is NO physiological benefits or negatives to meal frequency. NONE. PERIOD. If ANYTHING recent research points to possible benefits with LOWER meal frequency. YOU said meal frequency benefits are up for debate. Now tell me... how in the world can anyone argue the benefits of meal frequency when the only benefits that exist are those which involve individual taste/preference and DO NOT involve anything physiological? We CANT. I CAN POST ABOUT 100 RECENT ARTICLES SAYING THE SAME THING LYLE SAID. YOU??? CANT. So the debate is thus closed. Period. Unless you can show me a BETTER SCIENTIFICLY BACKED SOURCE proving PHYSIOLOGICAL Benefits or negatives associated with Meal Frequency. THEN WTF would we be debating about??

And I post from Lyle and Martin because, as you can see, the internet is full of BULL. This forum is full of Bull. And even the BULL is contradicting someone else's BULL. Even my CPT licenses and college nutrition courses contain some bull. There are very FEW sources of 100% Accurate knowledge and 100% trusted speculation and 100% honest and open-minded research deciphering....

Here's the list:

1) Lyle McDonald
2) Martin Berkhan
3) LITERALLY EVERYONE ELSE

Lets ignore the fact that I have a degree in this stuff, am CPT licensed through 2 orgs, and have less than 7% Body fat and 180 pounds of LBM and lets assume my "narrow knowledge base" comes from only getting my info from Lyle McDonald my "narrow knowledge base" would be superior to your VAST COMBINATION of COLLECTIVE RESEARCH and A+ SOURCES. Lyle is where the buck stops dude.

[DominicLacey]

The benefits which you are referring to are a matter of individual preference, there is NO physiological benefits or negatives to meal frequency. NONE. PERIOD. If ANYTHING recent research points to possible benefits with LOWER meal frequency. YOU said meal frequency benefits are up for debate. Now tell me... how in the world can anyone argue the benefits of meal frequency when the only benefits that exist are those which involve individual taste/preference and DO NOT involve anything physiological? We CANT. I CAN POST ABOUT 100 RECENT ARTICLES SAYING THE SAME THING LYLE SAID. YOU??? CANT. So the debate is thus closed. Period. Unless you can show me a BETTER SCIENTIFICLY BACKED SOURCE proving PHYSIOLOGICAL Benefits or negatives associated with Meal Frequency. THEN WTF would we be debating about??

And I post from Lyle and Martin because, as you can see, the internet is full of BULL. This forum is full of Bull. And even the BULL is contradicting someone else's BULL. Even my CPT licenses and college nutrition courses contain some bull. There are very FEW sources of 100% Accurate knowledge and 100% trusted speculation and 100% honest and open-minded research deciphering....

Here's the list:

1) Lyle McDonald
2) Martin Berkhan
3) LITERALLY EVERYONE ELSE

Lets ignore the fact that I have a degree in this stuff, am CPT licensed through 2 orgs, and have less than 7% Body fat and 180 pounds of LBM and lets assume my "narrow knowledge base" comes from only getting my info from Lyle McDonald my "narrow knowledge base" would be superior to your VAST COMBINATION of COLLECTIVE RESEARCH and A+ SOURCES. Lyle is where the buck stops dude.

Sarcasm, i like it! (Not being sarcastic)

[pshickey]

I had 200g chicken, 350g sweet potatoes, broccoli, and brussels sprouts last night (added garlic salt, pepper, and franks red hot for taste). It was my post workout meal and biggest of the day, made my tummy full and happy before bed. It was a decent amount, but with my appetite I could have ate 2 plate fulls easy lol. I sometimes do fish or steak also if I get bored with chicken.

[SwiftyX]

The benefits which you are referring to are a matter of individual preference, there is NO physiological benefits or negatives to meal frequency. NONE. PERIOD. If ANYTHING recent research points to possible benefits with LOWER meal frequency. YOU said meal frequency benefits are up for debate. Now tell me... how in the world can anyone argue the benefits of meal frequency when the only benefits that exist are those which involve individual taste/preference and DO NOT involve anything physiological? We CANT. I CAN POST ABOUT 100 RECENT ARTICLES SAYING THE SAME THING LYLE SAID. YOU??? CANT. So the debate is thus closed. Period. Unless you can show me a BETTER SCIENTIFICLY BACKED SOURCE proving PHYSIOLOGICAL Benefits or negatives associated with Meal Frequency. THEN WTF would we be debating about??

And I post from Lyle and Martin because, as you can see, the internet is full of BULL. This forum is full of Bull. And even the BULL is contradicting someone else's BULL. Even my CPT licenses and college nutrition courses contain some bull. There are very FEW sources of 100% Accurate knowledge and 100% trusted speculation and 100% honest and open-minded research deciphering....

Here's the list:

1) Lyle McDonald
2) Martin Berkhan
3) LITERALLY EVERYONE ELSE

Lets ignore the fact that I have a degree in this stuff, am CPT licensed through 2 orgs, and have less than 7% Body fat and 180 pounds of LBM and lets assume my "narrow knowledge base" comes from only getting my info from Lyle McDonald my "narrow knowledge base" would be superior to your VAST COMBINATION of COLLECTIVE RESEARCH and A+ SOURCES. Lyle is where the buck stops dude.

You have a degree, that's great and I'm really proud of you. Taking the time to read the full body of work on a subject is what puts that knowledge to good use. Just having the degree makes you an authourity on......well.....nothing.

For muscle gains the research leans more towards a higher meal frequency being optimal. It only takes around 10g of EAA to maximize protein sythesis. You become sensitive again to this happening within a few hours. Having cosistently high AA acid levels (through larger feedings) doesn't mean that PS keeps occuring. So if PS is refractory then more frequent feeding would be better for muscle gains rather than more infrequent feeding. I'm not saying that this is 100% truth either but the research leans this way. (Look into Layne norton's research and that will lead you to a handful of others.)

If you actually look into this and don't just bluff knowledge like you have been you will find there is a nice chunk of data that suggests a higher meal frequency may be beneficial physiologically. Look at that.....you were wrong.

It's not so cut and dry like I said. You want to ignore data, then sure case closed. The fact is the body of work seems to at minimum put the answer somewhere in the middle of all the extremes. If you had the knowledge you claim, you would know this.

What doesn't exist is good longer term studies showing the same results as the acute studies. They don't exist for either argument. So extrapolating you beliefs out to the long term is fully unfounded. Until these studies exist full with measurments offractional synthesis rates and focus on the molecular level. We will never know for sure.

I respect Lyle. But taking an interpretation from one sourse on a single data point and calling something an absolute truth based on that? That's one of the dumbest things you can do. Close your mind like that as you will miss all the new data coming out that may prove you wrong or actually prove you right.

Nothing is 100% and this matter is not a closed case by far. If you need to think it is while staring at your supposed degree and CPT(lol) and flexing in the mirror.....go ahead.