3 big meals - the truth

[mjh]

eating large meals and snacking are far from the same thing my friend

yes, but when people talk of eating six times a day it doesn't necessarily mean six large meals. Few people suggest sitting down to a plate of cooked meat and veges six times a day. Berardi uses the term "feeding opportunity" in place of meal, by which he means meals, snacks, shakes.

[satyricon]

i thought the title of the thread was 3 big meals-the truth?

[markg]

I guess its not worth getting in a tiz about semantics. It's often the case that one scientific study will show one thing and a different study will show the opposite, depending how the tests were run and what unknown factors came into play at the time.

It is just my opinion with these things that you should start by doing whatever you think will suit your own circumstances. See if that works over the course of a few months. If it does, keep it. If not change it. I'm willing to bet that people get good results using large meals 3-4 times a day and also with many small meals (call them snacks if you will).

As the OP suggested, meal frequency is probably not the THE most important factor (a 1 percenter?), so starting with a good amount of calories for your goal and trying to get a sensible Carb/Fat/Protein ratio going is more worthwhile of your energies.

Just my thoughts.

[satyricon]

eat like a beast,train like a beast,become a beast.eat like little birdie,lift little birdie weights,you will look like a little birdie.

[markg]

tweat, tweat!
lol
That explains my chicken legs!!

[jester87]

hey i totally disagree with what op says (no offense). imo i think that eating these very big meals will make you gain fat. thats why eating many small meals are better. because (i read this alot of places, just google it) the body doesnt process more than like 50g of protein in a set amount of timeframe. so if you eat like 100g+ protein in one sitting the protein is gonna get straight into the fat deposit. same with fat and carbs. the food doesnt sit around many hours and wait to be used (that would be totally awesome though). its either used now or stored, uh except low gi carbs maybe. thats why people are afraid of catabolic effects when they sleep 8hours.

also another thing with eating many times is that you keep fueling yourself with energy so you are less likely to get tired (say at the end of a schoolday?).

there's a thread somewhere with the president of scivation nutritions doing some long time bulk

from personal experience, i think what helped me with my cutting is the calorie deficit along with 6-8meals a day. im talking about fat cutting, not just losing weight. i wrote this in another thread, that a guy at my work who doesnt know shit and doesnt take advices has lost 10kg. but totally opposite from me he NEVER ate, but i heard he always went to the get some fastfood after work (thats like 10hours with no food, and he says he doesnt even eat breakfast fuck). he still looks fat, why, i reckon because he lost more muscle than fat. i look thin now!!!!!!!!!!! im a skinny guy nowwwwwwwww!!!!!! and i have only lost like 7-8kg!

so the guy from my work obviously had some calorie deficit going on as well so he was able to lose the weight, but because he wasnt training or paying attention to what he ate, he still looks fatso.

[Leanstrong]

hey i totally disagree with what op says (no offense). imo i think that eating these very big meals will make you gain fat. thats why eating many small meals are better. because (i read this alot of places, just google it) the body doesnt process more than like 50g of protein in a set amount of timeframe. so if you eat like 100g+ protein in one sitting the protein is gonna get straight into the fat deposit. same with fat and carbs. the food doesnt sit around many hours and wait to be used (that would be totally awesome though). its either used now or stored, uh except low gi carbs maybe. thats why people are afraid of catabolic effects when they sleep 8hours.

also another thing with eating many times is that you keep fueling yourself with energy so you are less likely to get tired (say at the end of a schoolday?).

there's a thread somewhere with the president of scivation nutritions doing some long time bulk

from personal experience, i think what helped me with my cutting is the calorie deficit along with 6-8meals a day. im talking about fat cutting, not just losing weight. i wrote this in another thread, that a guy at my work who doesnt know shit and doesnt take advices has lost 10kg. but totally opposite from me he NEVER ate, but i heard he always went to the get some fastfood after work (thats like 10hours with no food, and he says he doesnt even eat breakfast fuck). he still looks fat, why, i reckon because he lost more muscle than fat. i look thin now!!!!!!!!!!! im a skinny guy nowwwwwwwww!!!!!! and i have only lost like 7-8kg!

so the guy from my work obviously had some calorie deficit going on as well so he was able to lose the weight, but because he wasn't training or paying attention to what he ate, he still looks fatso.

You have been through too many bodybuilding.com articles and muscle and fitness magazines. Meal frequency does not boost metabolism. Your friend lost muscle with the fat loss because he probably does not work out. You lost fat and retained muscle because you worked out and controlled your total calories.

[jester87]

well you are too enlighten me with scientific evidence that increased meal frequency does not boost metabolism. otherwise i still believe it does for the logic reason that the body adapts. the more you eat, the more it will have to burn, easy.

did you ever heard of energy flux? you can lose weight on a 2500kcal out and 2000kcal in. but you will lose the same weight on a 3500kcal out and 3000kcal in.

[alzheik]

well you are too enlighten me with scientific evidence that increased meal frequency does not boost metabolism. otherwise i still believe it does for the logic reason that the body adapts. the more you eat, the more it will have to burn, easy.

did you ever heard of energy flux? you can lose weight on a 2500kcal out and 2000kcal in. but you will lose the same weight on a 3500kcal out and 3000kcal in.

We have to be careful saying that something is "logical." For the last couple of decades, it seemed logical to most people that eating fat made you fat, but now we know that that is wrong. And the burden of proof here lies with the frequent meal proponents. It must be proven that it does increase metabolism, not that it doesn't. As for energy flux, there's many variables involved there, not just amount of calories and meal frequency, so again, you'd have to prove that it's the meal frequency that makes the difference, and not any of the other variables.

[jester87]

We have to be careful saying that something is "logical." For the last couple of decades, it seemed logical to most people that eating fat made you fat, but now we know that that is wrong. And the burden of proof here lies with the frequent meal proponents. It must be proven that it does increase metabolism, not that it doesn't. As for energy flux, there's many variables involved there, not just amount of calories and meal frequency, so again, you'd have to prove that it's the meal frequency that makes the difference, and not any of the other variables.

for the last couple of decades the powerlifters always knew that fat didnt make you fat. only fitness people and probably the general public thought that (i did too)............. and they still do!
but obviously, i see your arguments are valid

but u have to agree that high frequency in meals are probably better in general!?

[alzheik]

but u have to agree that high frequency in meals are probably better in general!?

I think that, for the purposes of fat loss, more frequent meals are probably better simply because they keep you from getting too hungry and pigging out. And for the purposes of gaining weight, it's probably better simply because most people can't eat enough calories/protein in 3 meals a day. Beyond that, I couldn't say, because I haven't read enough of the science behind its supposed metabolism-boosting effect.

I'm not saying it doesn't work. I'm saying that its effects on metabolism seem to have been far overrated.

[Leanstrong]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1905998

1: Eur J Clin Nutr. 1991 Mar;45(3):161-9.

Verboeket-van de Venne WP, Westerterp KR.

Department of Human Biology, University of Limburg, Maastricht, The Netherlands.

Quote:
Influence of the feeding frequency on nutrient utilization in man: consequences for energy metabolism.

A study was conducted to investigate whether there is a diurnal pattern of nutrient utilization in man and how this is affected by meal frequency to explain possible consequences of meal frequency for body weight regulation. When the daily energy intake is consumed in a small number of large meals, there is an increased chance to become overweight, possibly by an elevated lipogenesis (fat synthesis and accumulation) or storage of energy after the meal. Thirteen subjects, two males and eleven females, were fed to energy balance in two meals per day (gorging pattern) and seven meals per day (nibbling pattern) over 2-day intervals. On the second day on each feeding regimen, the diurnal pattern of nutrient utilization was calculated from simultaneous measurements of oxygen consumption, carbon dioxide production and urinary nitrogen excretion over 3 h intervals in a respiration chamber. A gorging pattern of energy intake resulted in a stronger diurnal periodicity of nutrient utilization, compared to a nibbling pattern. However, there were no consequences for the total 24 h energy expenditure (24 h EE) of the two feeding patterns (5.57 +/- 0.16 kJ/min for the gorging pattern; 5.44 +/- 0.18 kJ/min for the nibbling pattern). Concerning the periodicity of nutrient utilization, protein oxidation during the day did not change between the two feeding patterns. In the gorging pattern, carbohydrate oxidation was significantly elevated during the interval following the first meal (ie from 1200 h to 1500 h, P less than 0.01) and the second meal (ie from 1800 h to 2100 h, P less than 0.05). The decreased rate of carbohydrate oxidation observed during the fasting period (from rising in the morning until the first meal at 1200 h), was compensated by an increased fat oxidation from 0900 to 1200 h to cover energy needs. In the nibbling pattern, carbohydrate and fat oxidation remained relatively constant during the active hours of the day

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11319656

1: Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2001 Apr;25(4):519-28.

Taylor MA, Garrow JS.

Department of Nutrition and Dietetics, King's College London, London, UK.

Quote:
Compared with nibbling, neither gorging nor a morning fast affect short-term energy balance in obese patients in a chamber calorimeter.

OBJECTIVE: To test if a diet of 4.2 MJ/24 h as six isocaloric meals would result in a lower subsequent energy intake, or greater energy output than (a) 4.2 MJ/24 h as two isocaloric meals or (b) a morning fast followed by free access to food. DESIGN: Subjects were confined to the Metabolic Unit from 19:00 h on day 1 to 09:30 h on day 6. Each day they had a fixed diet providing 4.2 MJ with three pairs of meal patterns which were offered in random sequence. They were: six meals vs two meals without access to additional foods (6vs2), or six meals vs 2 meals with access to additional food (6+vs2+), or six meals vs four meals (6+vsAMFAST). In the AMFAST condition the first two meals of the day were omitted to reduce daily intake to 2.8 MJ and to create a morning fast, but additional food was accessible thereafter. Patients were confined in the chamber calorimeter from 19:00 h on day 2 until 09:00 h on day 4, and then from 19:00 h on day 4 to 09:00 h on day 6. The order in which each meal pattern was offered was balanced over time. MEASUREMENTS: Energy expenditure (chamber calorimetry), spontaneous activity (video) and energy intake (where additional foods were available) during the final 24 h of each dietary component. SUBJECTS: Ten (6vs2), eight (6+vs2+) and eight (6+vsAMFAST) women were recruited who had a BMI of greater than 25 kg/m2. RESULTS: From experiment 6vs2 the difference between energy expenditure with six meals (10.00 MJ) and two meals (9.96 MJ) was not significant (P=0.88). Energy expenditure between 23:00 h and 08:00 h ('night') was, however, significantly higher (P=0.02) with two meals (9.12 MJ/24 h) compared with six meals (8.34 MJ/24 h). The pattern of spontaneous physical activity did not differ significantly between these two meal patterns (P>0.05). Total energy intake was affected by neither meal frequency in experiment 6+vs2+ (10.75 MJ with six, 11.08 MJ with two; P=0.58) nor a morning fast in experiment 6+vsAMFAST (8.55 MJ/24 h with six, 7.60 MJ with AMFAST; P=0.40). The total diet of subjects who had a morning fast tended to have a lower percentage of total energy from carbohydrate (40%) than when they had six meals per 24 h (49%) (P=0.05). Subsequent energy balance was affected by neither meal frequency (6vs2; P=0.88, 6+vs2+; P=0.50) nor a morning fast (P=0.18). CONCLUSIONS: In the short term, meal frequency and a period of fasting have no major impact on energy intake or expenditure but energy expenditure is delayed with a lower meal frequency compared with a higher meal frequency. This might be attributed to the thermogenic effect of food continuing into the night when a later, larger meal is given. A morning fast resulted in a diet which tended to have a lower percentage of energy from carbohydrate than with no fast.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8383639

1: Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 1993 Jan;17(1):31-6.

Verboeket-van de Venne WP, Westerterp KR.

Department of Human Biology, University of Limburg, Maastricht, The Netherlands.

Quote:
Frequency of feeding, weight reduction and energy metabolism.

A study was conducted to investigate the effect of feeding frequency on the rate and composition of weight loss and 24 h energy metabolism in moderately obese women on a 1000 kcal/day diet. During four consecutive weeks fourteen female adults (age 20-58 years, BMI 25.4-34.9 kg/m2) restricted their food intake to 1000 kcal/day. Seven subjects consumed the diet in two meals daily (gorging pattern), the others consumed the diet in three to five meals (nibbling pattern). Body mass and body composition, obtained by deuterium dilution, were measured at the start of the experiment and after two and four weeks of dieting. Sleeping metabolic rate (SMR) was measured at the same time intervals using a respiration chamber. At the end of the experiment 24 h energy expenditure (24 h EE) and diet-induced thermogenesis (DIT) were assessed by a 36 h stay in the respiration chamber. There was no significant effect of the feeding frequency on the rate of weight loss, fat mass loss or fat-free mass loss. Furthermore, fat mass and fat-free mass contributed equally to weight loss in subjects on both gorging and nibbling diet. Feeding frequency had no significant effect on SMR after two or four weeks of dieting. The decrease in SMR after four weeks was significantly greater in subjects on the nibbling diet. 24 h EE and DIT were not significantly different between the two feeding regimens.

Meal frequency has no effect on metabolism. Period.

[markg]

I stick by my 'do what suits you' stance then!

[alzheik]

SCIENCE!

Thanks very much, Leanstrong. In that case, I stand by part of what I said earlier: that frequent eating is useful only insofar as:

- it helps avoid overeating from hunger, if you're trying to lose fat, or
- it helps gain weight if you can't stomach enough food to get your bulking calories from 3 meals

[mjh]

- it helps avoid overeating from hunger, if you're trying to lose fat, or
- it helps gain weight if you can't stomach enough food to get your bulking calories from 3 meals

This is how I've always thought about it, and never really cared for the science. To put on weight, I aim for between 3500 and 4000 calories. And, funnily enough, 6 x 600 cals, or 3 x big meals + 3 x good sized snacks, is a whole lot easier than trying to prepare, eat and do any activity after 3 x 1000+ meals.

Likewise, I can imagine someone trying to lose will do better with regular meals keeping the tank from getting empty, which would lead to hunger, which would lead to bad nutrition choices.

I guess I'm saying the advice isn't just about the science.