[quote]Professor X wrote:
Focusing on “6 meals a day” is how I got big. When you are really skinny, you need to force those calories in a way that someone who did not start out that way with that fast a metabolism can’t understand.
Arguing about whether specifically “6 meals a day” is needed is a wast of time.
No, you don’t NEED 6 meals a day…but it isn’t like that strategy didn’t help a shitload of guys get really big over the last 50 years or so…[/quote]
You arent answering the OPs question in the context he is asking it. At all
He wants to find a way to eat more often because he read a thread that says or implies that the metabolism slows down if less than 6 meals are consumed. He said nothign about getting enough calories. Obviously most of us know that total calories is more important than meal frequency but the OP did not. THAT is why asking “WHY” is more important than just giving an answer. If the OP said "I cant eat 3,500 calories in 3 meals, can you give advice on how to do it in 6, your advice would be on point and appropriate. But since the OP was under the impression that 6 meals was in some way better than 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 SOLELY because of the perceived effect on metabolism you advice is rather useless to him.
Further, it doesnt even sound like the OP is trying to get bigger. Id hazard a guess that he’s trying to drop fat with all the talk of metabolism boosting.
To continue with this, some people can get food down easily, some cant… There is no way I could get my needed calories if I didnt eat “smaller” portions every 2-3hours instead of having 2-3 big meals… I have a hard time getting 60g of proteins from chicken in just one sitting, I dont even want to think about getting 120g of proteins from chickin in one sitting…
For people not having a hard time getting the food down, sure, no problemo amigo
For people having a harder time with it, its easier to forcefeed over several meals, and it will make you feel less shitty[/quote]
You’re telling me you couldn’t sit down and eat 13.5 oz of roasted chicken breast in one meal? That’s 120 grams of protein. Hell, when I roast a turkey for the family, I can’t keep myself from nibbling at it after we eat and I’m carving off meat for leftovers.
I eat 10 ounces of chicken breast or pork tenderloin or steak in one sitting easily. Along with an 8 ounce baked potato and then 8-10 ounces of fruit. That’s one meal. Add in fish oil and 2 hard boiled eggs and that’s easily 1200 calories in one sitting. I can easily eat 2400 cals in 2 meals. Need more, have some peanut butter or increase the amount of meat, add more butter to the potato, etc. [/quote]
Thats great. Not everyone has the appetite of an obese person.
Some people legitimately feel full after a few bites of food. Eveyone has different leptin responses.
You couldnt pay me to eat 13 ounces of chicken breast in one sitting. 13 ounces of pizza? Easily done.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Focusing on “6 meals a day” is how I got big. When you are really skinny, you need to force those calories in a way that someone who did not start out that way with that fast a metabolism can’t understand.
Arguing about whether specifically “6 meals a day” is needed is a wast of time.
No, you don’t NEED 6 meals a day…but it isn’t like that strategy didn’t help a shitload of guys get really big over the last 50 years or so…[/quote]
You arent answering the OPs question in the context he is asking it. At all
He wants to find a way to eat more often because he read a thread that says or implies that the metabolism slows down if less than 6 meals are consumed. He said nothign about getting enough calories. Obviously most of us know that total calories is more important than meal frequency but the OP did not. THAT is why asking “WHY” is more important than just giving an answer. If the OP said "I cant eat 3,500 calories in 3 meals, can you give advice on how to do it in 6, your advice would be on point and appropriate. But since the OP was under the impression that 6 meals was in some way better than 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 SOLELY because of the perceived effect on metabolism you advice is rather useless to him.
Further, it doesnt even sound like the OP is trying to get bigger. Id hazard a guess that he’s trying to drop fat with all the talk of metabolism boosting. [/quote]
Right on that note. I hit my weight goal of 190 (5’10’) and I’m tyring to get rid of the rest of the body fat and clean up my diet as well.
Right on that note. I hit my weight goal of 190 (5’10’) and I’m tyring to get rid of the rest of the body fat and clean up my diet as well.[/quote]
How you approach your goal is going to be based largely on your metabolism. If you get hungry often, you will not make it on a reduced calorie diet only eating twice a day. That is why it has been related to maintaining blood sugar levels and avoiding huge drops in energy or episodes of hunger.
Simply eating more often does not melt fat off you. That strategy was initially for guys who wanted to be real big. Someone with lesser goals may want to avoid eating like someone looking to wear XXL shirts that fit.
To continue with this, some people can get food down easily, some cant… There is no way I could get my needed calories if I didnt eat “smaller” portions every 2-3hours instead of having 2-3 big meals… I have a hard time getting 60g of proteins from chicken in just one sitting, I dont even want to think about getting 120g of proteins from chickin in one sitting…
For people not having a hard time getting the food down, sure, no problemo amigo
For people having a harder time with it, its easier to forcefeed over several meals, and it will make you feel less shitty[/quote]
You’re telling me you couldn’t sit down and eat 13.5 oz of roasted chicken breast in one meal? That’s 120 grams of protein. Hell, when I roast a turkey for the family, I can’t keep myself from nibbling at it after we eat and I’m carving off meat for leftovers.
I eat 10 ounces of chicken breast or pork tenderloin or steak in one sitting easily. Along with an 8 ounce baked potato and then 8-10 ounces of fruit. That’s one meal. Add in fish oil and 2 hard boiled eggs and that’s easily 1200 calories in one sitting. I can easily eat 2400 cals in 2 meals. Need more, have some peanut butter or increase the amount of meat, add more butter to the potato, etc. [/quote]
Thats great. Not everyone has the appetite of an obese person.
Some people legitimately feel full after a few bites of food. Eveyone has different leptin responses.
You couldnt pay me to eat 13 ounces of chicken breast in one sitting. 13 ounces of pizza? Easily done. [/quote]
LOL. Explains why I’ve never been able to get as lean as zraw.
I can not eat a lot in one sitting. That is why I need to eat several times a day. Mind you, “a lot” for me may be different than the average person. Compared to someone sedentary, I am sure I eat a lot at a time, but I know tons of guys smaller than me who can pack away more food in one sitting.
CT writes one article about not eating 6 meals a day, and all of the sudden with have a bunch of T-Nationers only eating 2 meals a day saying how its turning them into the Hulk.
OP, if your trying to put on muscle and get big, then I would suggest continue eating 6 meals a day.
[quote]theBird wrote:
CT writes one article about not eating 6 meals a day, and all of the sudden with have a bunch of T-Nationers only eating 2 meals a day saying how its turning them into the Hulk.
OP, if your trying to put on muscle and get big, then I would suggest continue eating 6 meals a day.
tweet[/quote]
THE NUMBER OF MEALS DOESNT MATTER. Damn
It it’s a massive inconvenience to eat 6 times and it’s very possible for that person to progrss with 3 meals then why in the world should that person aim for 6 meals. If 6 meals is simple and effective then do that.
If you read the damn thread youd know the OP isnt trying to get bigger. You post so much bullshit it’s ridiculous. The fact that youre giving advice on how to get big is also a joke.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I can not eat a lot in one sitting. That is why I need to eat several times a day. Mind you, “a lot” for me may be different than the average person. Compared to someone sedentary, I am sure I eat a lot at a time, but I know tons of guys smaller than me who can pack away more food in one sitting.[/quote]
I think this is the most important part of it besides “eating what you need”.
If you can do it all in 1 meal, do that. If you can’t eat a bunch at once just spread it out. I don’t buy into only needing to eat once a day, nor do I buy into needing to eat 6 meals a day ( using these as rules for everyone ). some days I’ll eat 3 meals, some days I have 5. Depends on my day and if my body is asking for more food.
I think people over-think nutrition. For 90% ( or more ) of us we just need to get in the nutrients we need and leave it at that. We aren’t all special snowflakes that need a super customized plan.
OVER SIMPLIFIED GENERALIZED RULES BELOW DONT EVEN BOTHER ARGUING THE POINTS ON THEM:
If you want to gain weight, eat.
If you want to lose weight, eat less carbs and keep the fats clean, spend more energy than you’re consuming.
Ghrelin is entrained to meal timing, so after a brief (several days) period of adaptation, the body learns to be hungry at certain times. This is why you see people who have been eating 6x daily for years and years claiming that they get legitimately hungry and NEED food every 3 hours, but somehow are able to make it longer during their workouts or overnight fasts. Their bodies are conditioned to eating at specific times and the hormones that control hunger reflect that.
Also, blood glucose levels tend to be more stable with larger, less frequent feedings. This is why every single client I work with who has “reactive hypoglycemia” can suddenly go 6-7 hours at a clip without needing a snack once we get them through the initial 3-4 day break in period and they’ve conditioned themselves to that lower meal frequency.
Ghrelin is entrained to meal timing, so after a brief (several days) period of adaptation, the body learns to be hungry at certain times. This is why you see people who have been eating 6x daily for years and years claiming that they get legitimately hungry and NEED food every 3 hours, but somehow are able to make it longer during their workouts or overnight fasts. Their bodies are conditioned to eating at specific times and the hormones that control hunger reflect that.
Also, blood glucose levels tend to be more stable with larger, less frequent feedings. This is why every single client I work with who has “reactive hypoglycemia” can suddenly go 6-7 hours at a clip without needing a snack once we get them through the initial 3-4 day break in period and they’ve conditioned themselves to that lower meal frequency.[/quote]
Yep our body like routines. It’s magic! Like the iphone.
[quote]MODOK wrote:
Don’t overlook what eating actually is: essentially the first messenger in a very large and powerful hormonal response. That happens, to varying degrees and intensities, every time a macronutrient is ingested. Its control and regulation of these hormones to tailor your individual body response and as a result, you body composition goals that is what you are ultimately after. The “man behind the curtain”, so to speak.
Also, there are two sides to every coin. Stronghold mentioned, and rightly so, that infrequent feeding lead to a lower average blood glucose reading between meals. This is excellent for those with fat loss in mind, as the sympathetic NS is dominant and glucagon is elevated. If you are trying to pack on muscle however, the lower circulating insulin and higher catabolic glucagon levels may be detrimental to maximum muscle gain. It comes down to what your goals are and where you are headed.[/quote]
Bingo. Insulin is not your enemy if your goal is stretching large shirt sleeves. Yes, it needs to be controlled when dieting, but if your goal is a lot of size, putting a clamp on insulin is not always the best strategy…at least not until that large base of muscle has already been built.
[quote]MODOK wrote:
Don’t overlook what eating actually is: essentially the first messenger in a very large and powerful hormonal response. That happens, to varying degrees and intensities, every time a macronutrient is ingested. Its control and regulation of these hormones to tailor your individual body response and as a result, you body composition goals that is what you are ultimately after. The “man behind the curtain”, so to speak.
Also, there are two sides to every coin. Stronghold mentioned, and rightly so, that infrequent feeding lead to a lower average blood glucose reading between meals. This is excellent for those with fat loss in mind, as the sympathetic NS is dominant and glucagon is elevated. If you are trying to pack on muscle however, the lower circulating insulin and higher catabolic glucagon levels may be detrimental to maximum muscle gain. It comes down to what your goals are and where you are headed.[/quote]
Important to note that the situation you’re talking about doesn’t occur with three large, carbohydrate containing meals per day. The cyclical nature of less frequent feedings may also amplify the anabolic effects of insulin and food via increased insulin sensitivity, glycogen supercompensation, and hyperaminoacidaemia. I know you’ve mentioned that you put on a considerable amount of muscle while keeping insulin levels suppressed intermittently with the AD.
Have to say this sub forum is one of the real reasons I keep coming back here, the knowledge gained and exchanged over a thread just like this is amazing, all due to the experience of the people posting. Thank you all.
[quote]theBird wrote:
CT writes one article about not eating 6 meals a day, and all of the sudden with have a bunch of T-Nationers only eating 2 meals a day saying how its turning them into the Hulk.
OP, if your trying to put on muscle and get big, then I would suggest continue eating 6 meals a day.
tweet[/quote]
THE NUMBER OF MEALS DOESNT MATTER. Damn
It it’s a massive inconvenience to eat 6 times and it’s very possible for that person to progrss with 3 meals then why in the world should that person aim for 6 meals. If 6 meals is simple and effective then do that.
If you read the damn thread youd know the OP isnt trying to get bigger. You post so much bullshit it’s ridiculous. The fact that youre giving advice on how to get big is also a joke. [/quote]
Listen buddy,
I understand that you can make progress by only eating 3 meals a day, but to try and get all of those calories and protein squeezed into 3 meals is most probably a more of a inconvenience compared to eating 6 medium sized meals a day. Is anyone that busy where they cant have a break for 10-15 minutes for example, and drink a shake and eat a bag full of roasted almonds??
^and that is the real message…one I have tried many times to get a across. The one thing I learned above all else…is that the human body is not some object or simple machine where the outcome of training and nutrition and can be locked down and predicted before you try it.
Trial and error will still prove your biggest asset regardless of the studies that can be regurgitated or even the flat out theory behind the mechanism.
Science is constantly changing. In ten years, people will likely laugh at “fasting”…just like they did at the previous strategy with a mass following.
Will many of these ideas work for most? Possibly. Will they work for all? NO…and that is the point you realize that with all of the education in the world, the guy who really understands it is the one who knows nothing is written in stone when it comes to ALL people.
I do very poorly only eating 2 or 3 times a day. I can do it now because I’m not just eating 2 or 3 times a day if I am drinking protein all day long. I can just go longer now without solid food.
[quote]MODOK wrote:
I am a big fan of the simplicity of the long fast for fat loss and only having a few big meals. It helps due to having limited time in the day due to work. It will get me down to around 10%, but then the fat loss stops cold turkey. When I go back to 6 meals a day, it takes me on down to the single digits. Do I know exactly whats going on in this scenario? Of course not.
[/quote]
Modok, would you care to hypothesize? I’m interested because I’m currently doing a 16/8 hr intermittent fasting, cycling cals (high on training, low on off). I’ve been playing around with higher vs lower carbs and fat. Definitely seems to help when I switch things up a bit. Almost feels like the body adapts to the macro ratios. This may just be my imagination though.
