How long before catabolic state!

[Fauxrob]

Hey guys,

Wondering how long it takes without any food intake for your body to turn catabolic. Asking because I saw people on here sayIng casein doesn't have much of any benefit because your body going catabolic during sleep is just a myth. Please don't mind my rep I got a bad one for taking so long to believe in the stickies any comments welcOme

[WonderPug]

Assuming proper prior nutrition, about 48 to 72 hours.

[bishdipbrah]

Every 3 hours and 5 mins after workout.

Please stay safe

[Fauxrob]

Assuming proper prior nutrition, about 48 to 72 hours.

For some reason I am inclined to take this information not the next . Can someone confirm I sure doubt it's 3 hours. Or I don't know sarcasm

[Hummina]

For some reason I am inclined to take this information not the next . Can someone confirm I sure doubt it's 3 hours. Or I don't know sarcasm

im no expert, but this would make sense. ive found it takes my body a good 2 days to fully digest and process everything i ate. dont ask how i've come to that conclusion...

[Jen0va]

wonderpug's response is correct. it would be very sad if so many millions of years of human evolution for our bodies to go catabolic after only 3 hours... -.-

[Fauxrob]

wonderpug's response is correct. it would be very sad if so many millions of years of human evolution for our bodies to go catabolic after only 3 hours... -.-

I lol'd . Good point thanks for all the responses . But assuming calorie partitioning does not take the perfect course and you undercut your maintenance for the day... I was uner the understanding that some may get taken from your muscles that day. Wouldn't that be catabolism? Or am I missing something

[FitnessCPA]

If you're under maintenance, you lose weight. Some of that could be muscle. It largely depends on macronutrient intake and training.

[Fauxrob]

If you're under maintenance, you lose weight. Some of that could be muscle. It largely depends on macronutrient intake and training.

I understand this. The amount that gets taken out of your muscle.. Is that process catabolism, or a different one I don't know about

[Fauxrob]

I understand this. The amount that gets taken out of your muscle.. Is that process catabolism, or a different one I don't know about

Anyone?

[Jen0va]

the body is not on a 24 hour cycle. It is in flux. if you are under your maintenance one day and then make up for it the next by stacking on the additional calories you had missed the previous day, you will not lose muscle that one day and then gain it and additional fat the next.

[vitornoob]

Assuming proper prior nutrition, about 48 to 72 hours.

this

[Flex500]

Assuming proper prior nutrition, about 48 to 72 hours.

I agree with this...however I'm wondering your thoughts on optimal protein synthesis to truly maximize muscle gain (or minimize loss when cutting). It's one thing I've always sort of wondered about that doesn't seem totally clear to me. In my mind it would make sense to eat every 3-5 hours to feed your body protein to stimulate protein synthesis. But I guess the question is how much of an actualy spike/increase in protein synth is there from taking in a meal?

So I 100% agree your not going to go all catabolic and break down all this muscle and shrivel up...but what are your thoughts on maximizing protein synthesis and muscle gain as far as how often you should take in food?

[rob2093124]

OP, catabolism is the breakdown of larger molecules into smaller ones. doesn't always necessarily mean muscle is being broken down.

[PBateman2]

Assuming proper prior nutrition, about 48 to 72 hours.

this

Yup.

Also, catabolism (and overtraining for that matter) is an overblown phenomenon not just on this site but with supplement companies as well.

[WonderPug]

I agree with this...however I'm wondering your thoughts on optimal protein synthesis to truly maximize muscle gain (or minimize loss when cutting). It's one thing I've always sort of wondered about that doesn't seem totally clear to me. In my mind it would make sense to eat every 3-5 hours to feed your body protein to stimulate protein synthesis. But I guess the question is how much of an actualy spike/increase in protein synth is there from taking in a meal?

Maximizing outcome in someone who is already push near his/her genetic potential is likely going to require lots of tweaking, including in regard to meal frequency and timing, if for no reason other than to optimize performance in the gym.

As to your specific example, I think it's fair to say that some research supports your assumption, but there's far from a conclusive answer and any delta is likely too small to be relevant to most everyone but perhaps for those at elite levels of conditioning.

[rand18m]

Op let's look at it another way. Let's say you continue to eat properly in terms of meal composition and adequate energy, but you stop all resistance training/stimulation. Assuming you had added a substantial amount of LBM from prior training, do you think you would keep that LBM? The answer is no, without the continued stimulation from the training, you would loose that extra LBM regardless of your diet.

The body is very adaptive, and the catabolism of proteins happens every second of every day. One adaptation to starvation is to use on board stores of energy and protein tissue is one of those stores. However just like it took time for you body to adapt to the training and add LBM, also it takes time to adapt and loose that LBM.

Manu is therefore correct, muscle catabolism is blown way out of proportion by those trying to catabolize your wallet!

(I will say that on this forum, sometimes the importance of the stimulus isn't stressed enough, as we have some that come here who don't even train. Diet is important, but training is paramount for most folks goals here)!

[WonderPug]

(I will say that on this forum, sometimes the importance of the stimulus isn't stressed enough, as we have some that come here who don't even train. Diet is important, but training is paramount for most folks goals here)!

Who has time to train if we have to eat every 2 or 3 hours?

[rand18m]

Who has time to train if we have to eat every 2 or 3 hours?

Hard to get both hands on the bar with a pre-workout in one and a protein shake in the other!!

[WonderPug]

Hard to get both hands on the bar with a pre-workout in one and a protein shake in the other!!

Very true. Plus I'm exhausted from lack of sleep. Getting up every 2 or 3 hours to feed has really cut down on my sleep. But at least I'm not catabroic.

[Ampoliros]

Who has time to train if we have to eat every 2 or 3 hours?

This is why I start eating one of my six meals at the gym, workout immediately after, follow that with a protein shake mixed with dextrose, then start preparing my next meal.

[FitnessCPA]

I guess we could try lifting hooked up to one of these - with whey, of course, not casein:

[rand18m]

Very true. Plus I'm exhausted from lack of sleep. Getting up every 2 or 3 hours to feed has really cut down on my sleep. But at least I'm not catabroic.

Nah that would definitely make you anabroic!!! No doubt!! LOL

[FitnessCPA]

This is why I start eating one of my six meals at the gym, workout immediately after, follow that with a protein shake mixed with dextrose, then start preparing my next meal.

Excellent work, my friend!

[OliFs]

Different people mean different things when they say catabolic so I wont give you a direct response but I believe reading this article can help you a lot http://www.leangains.com/2010/10/top...-debunked.html

[Flex500]

Maximizing outcome in someone who is already push near his/her genetic potential is likely going to require lots of tweaking, including in regard to meal frequency and timing, if for no reason other than to optimize performance in the gym.

As to your specific example, I think it's fair to say that some research supports your assumption, but there's far from a conclusive answer and any delta is likely too small to be relevant to most everyone but perhaps for those at elite levels of conditioning.

yeah I would agree that is sort of what I was thinking. It doesn't seem like there is a lot of data to really support constant feeding and it really having tangible effects of increase muscle compared to not eating as much. If that were the case I guess I'd eat ever 30 minutes or never stop eating for that matter. I sort of go with the eat 3-4 hours thing...I honestly don't know if it makes a difference or not. Truthfully if I went from 6 meals a day to 3 or 4 I doubt there would be a physique difference...or very minimal.

[rand18m]

yeah I would agree that is sort of what I was thinking. It doesn't seem like there is a lot of data to really support constant feeding and it really having tangible effects of increase muscle compared to not eating as much. If that were the case I guess I'd eat ever 30 minutes or never stop eating for that matter. I sort of go with the eat 3-4 hours thing...I honestly don't know if it makes a difference or not. Truthfully if I went from 6 meals a day to 3 or 4 I doubt there would be a physique difference...or very minimal.

If you simply think about the whole, "eat every 2-3 hours" concept comparatively to the length of time it takes to eat, hydrolyze and absorb amino acids alone, it makes no sense. Slow that whole process down with fats and carbs of various types and it REALLY makes no sense. The supplement companies leave everyone with the impression that you can ingest protein, go through the entire digestion and absorption process and then metabolize those amino acids in their entirety in 2-3 hours. Just think about that for a minute and you'll come to the proper conclusion!

[Apex702]

yeah I would agree that is sort of what I was thinking. It doesn't seem like there is a lot of data to really support constant feeding and it really having tangible effects of increase muscle compared to not eating as much. If that were the case I guess I'd eat ever 30 minutes or never stop eating for that matter. I sort of go with the eat 3-4 hours thing...I honestly don't know if it makes a difference or not. Truthfully if I went from 6 meals a day to 3 or 4 I doubt there would be a physique difference...or very minimal.

You're not taking into the account that resistance training heavily influences MPS. Yes diet is essential but resistance training, particularly on a cut, is the precursor to which your body repairs and builds. This is dependent on a number of factors with the largest being genetics ( i.e. P-ratio) and would have more of a net impact than meal timing, if meal timing has any impact at all.

nutrient intake versus timing + genetics + resistance training = results

I would imagine for many reasons this would be different for most. To what degree may be immeasurable for the vast majority and only slightly significant for the genetically gifted. Which comes back to the simple point that meal timing is largely irrelevant.

[Flex500]

If you simply think about the whole, "eat every 2-3 hours" concept comparatively to the length of time it takes to eat, hydrolyze and absorb amino acids alone, it makes no sense. Slow that whole process down with fats and carbs of various types and it REALLY makes no sense. The supplement companies leave everyone with the impression that you can ingest protein, go through the entire digestion and absorption process and then metabolize those amino acids in their entirety in 2-3 hours. Just think about that for a minute and you'll come to the proper conclusion!

true but there are also other variables. The eating ever 2-3 never made sense to me but I'm comparing the difference between say someone like me who is up from 5am to 11pm. Would it be benficial to get 5-6 meals throughout that time to have those spikes in protein synthesis compared to eating say 3 times? Then you take into account someone who is very "advanced" meaning even with "super supplements" I'm fighting to get 4-8 pounds pure muscle a year. So any advantage I can get...even a tiny, miniscule one matters. So it does make some sense to me that over 18-19 waking hours I'd want more than just a few spikes in protein synthesis. This may be an extreme example though.

For a normal, "i want to be a muscular, lean 170- 190 pound person" I don't think it matters how much you eat really. Hell you may be able to eat every other day and be ok.

[Flex500]

You're not taking into the account that resistance training heavily influences MPS. Yes diet is essential but resistance training, particularly on a cut, is the precursor to which your body repairs and builds. This is dependent on a number of factors with the largest being genetics ( i.e. P-ratio) and would have more of a net impact than meal timing, if meal timing has any impact at all.

nutrient intake versus timing + genetics + resistance training = results

I would imagine for many reasons this would be different for most. To what degree may be immeasurable for the vast majority and only slightly significant for the genetically gifted. Which comes back to the simple point that meal timing is largely irrelevant.

I totally agree with you.