The Rule: 6 Meals/Day

Training
301

Has anyone stopped to think (I skipped most of this thread because its mind numbingly awful except for a few posters) that the reason that every single big guy with the biggest muscles eats 6 times every single day since they were teenagers is because they need so much food that they can’t fit it into 3 meals?

I’m sure we have all read the old “bulking diet” write ups in magazines and online and were astonished at how much food these guys ate (even though those write ups were probably a bit inflammatory)
Every single guy in the world that has big muscles eats exactly 6 meals a day because they can’t break up 6,000 calories into 3 meals very easily.

AAAAAAAAAAAAGAIN, like it was stated several times before, it is about total calories and macro breakdown, NOT the number of meals.
That’s what counts.
Cals/Macros.

302

[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
In rereading my last post I feel I may have been a bit unprofessional, and as I at least always try to conduct myself well on here, I apologize to other members of the forum.

In an effort to stress as many others have tried to do as well, there is never just one way to do anything. Similarly in the case of “all the really big guys”, while there are many factors to consider, it’s not dependent on how many meals a day you eat, or how you choose to define the word “regularly”.

I’m officially leaving this thread. My suggestions to anyone still reading is that if you want to understand this better, read Meadows, Starnes, even Palumbo if you want to comprehend how 3 different experts (IMO) can take the same scientific evidence and apply it differently to get results with top level competitors and pros.
Their experiences certainly should give them quite a bit of credibility no matter whonisvreading te articles.

S[/quote]

Don’t worry Stu, he has that effect on everybody…thanks for your contributions to the thread.

303

570×570 34.5 KB

[quote]CircaThursday wrote:
oh good. so would you recommend people eat 6 times a day or 3 times a day?
This is still an interesting thread professor. I am just unclear where you stand on the subject.
[/quote]

The goal was to get (mostly newbs) to understand how to think about all of this in order to make it a lifestyle. This especially applies to those with more extreme goals than simply losing weight like most of the general public. It doesn’t literally take the use of calculator in all cases. It takes having a basic understanding of what science has actually found and what people turn that into.

In short, man, my hope is that people learn to think about much of this stuff for themselves instead of simply following the lead of a guru without question.

That is why I avoided giving a NUMBER and focused on the variables involved in how they should plan their own diets especially if their goal is more extreme.

I am also saying that there is evidence that someone who fasts most of the day will not see the same long term gains (OVER THE COURSE OF YEARS) as someone who eats more frequently.

Fasting may be most effective for losing body fat or controlling it. It may not be the best way to gain optimal muscle mass long term because that same insulin is what helps build muscles bigger than average.

In this thread we saw statements like this:

[quote]ryan.b_96 wrote:

because it has already been PROVEN scientifically that meal frequency has no effect at all on body composition.[/quote]

This is false because of this:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/oby.20296/abstract

Based on what we actually do know, it is more likely that exercise would further improve these findings… rather than that studies done on obese people only looking at insulin damage would be the same in people who exercise regularly.

This was stated:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
The GI system was not biologically built to be eating a bunch of small meals and to continual process food.[/quote]

This is false and has no scientific backing. Your body adapts.

I am just discussing what I see to be wrong info being spread by some people here and trying to help people think of this more objectively. That is what leads to doing this long enough to even build high levels of muscle mass.

Because let’s face it…this isn’t about exact calculations. That isn’t what keeps guys in the gym during life crises that would blow anyone else out of the sky completely.

I am just here to discuss what I love doing…that is all. If others see no need for the thread…it begs the question why they need to report that to anyone else.

So…if anyone asked what I would tell a newb…

It is that while the exact number doesn’t matter, if your goal is to reach your fullest potential and you have decent genetics, from the information I have seen and what has built the largest humans as far as muscle mass, I would make sure that whether that NUMBER fell between 3 or 6 that they make that a goal daily…and stick to it.

I would also say that less than three meals a day may not lead to the most muscle mass being built over time because insulin plays a major role in muscle growth as well.

That process of making this fit into your life is what makes this a long term habit…not just a calculator.

304

Just my two cents/a question:

Does anyone think of their macros as a weekly number instead of a daily?

I started doing that a bit ago and it seems like things even out in the sense that some days I’m not so hungry and other days I’m a bottomless pit. So, some days maybe i dont hit my " daily" macros (I might only have one major meal plus shakes) and other days I eat all day long (and go way over my daily macros).

305

If that is true, then to look like them I should probably do the same or close to it.

Thanks. I agree.

Therefore, it makes sense to inform newbs that if their goal is to reach that level of size one day, they had better make eating more often the goal because of the needs required to get there.

So, yes, it may be god to discuss meal frequency as well as just telling someone to only look at calculations.

That was great advice you just gave!

306

[quote]actionboy wrote:
Just my two cents/a question:

Does anyone think of their macros as a weekly number instead of a daily?

I started doing that a bit ago and it seems like things even out in the sense that some days I’m not so hungry and other days I’m a bottomless pit. So, some days maybe i dont hit my " daily" macros (I might only have one major meal plus shakes) and other days I eat all day long (and go way over my daily macros).[/quote]

Phil Hernon recommends eating only when hungry.

307

[quote]BrickHead wrote:
Phil Hernon recommends eating only when hungry. [/quote]
And for some people that’s not practical if the goal is to actually make some kind of progress…and around we go again in circles, lol.

308

[quote]flch95 wrote:

[quote]BrickHead wrote:
Phil Hernon recommends eating only when hungry. [/quote]
And for some people that’s not practical if the goal is to actually make some kind of progress…and around we go again in circles, lol.[/quote]

That’s his practice, not mine.

He has done good work with his clients.

309

[quote]Professor X wrote:
It is that while the exact number doesn’t matter, if your goal is to reach your fullest potential and you have decent genetics, from the information I have seen and what has built the largest humans as far as muscle mass, I would make sure that whether that NUMBER fell between 3 or 6 that they make that a goal daily…and stick to it.

I would also say that less than three meals a day may not lead to the most muscle mass being built over time because insulin plays a major role in muscle growth as well.
[/quote]

So what exactly and how often would you eat on a typical day? If you don’t mind me asking.

310

The comment the started all of this

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
I disagree noobz must learn to eat often. False.
[/quote]
I didn’t write that they need to eat often.

Argue what is actually there, not what you make up.[/quote]

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Regularly has never meant OFTEN. Quit the bullshit.
[/quote]

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Dear God, then feel safe in the fact that I did not mean OFTEN which is one reason I didn’t write that word.
[/quote]

Then we proceed to get 15 pages of X arguing that the intention of this thread was not to tell newbs to eat “often” (the hotly debated word in question) only to end up here

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Therefore, it makes sense to inform newbs that if their goal is to reach that level of size one day, they had better make eating more often the goal because of the needs required to get there.

That was great advice you just gave![/quote]
Oh the irony and lulz

311

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
The comment the started all of this

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
I disagree noobz must learn to eat often. False.
[/quote]
I didn’t write that they need to eat often.

Argue what is actually there, not what you make up.[/quote]

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Regularly has never meant OFTEN. Quit the bullshit.
[/quote]

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Dear God, then feel safe in the fact that I did not mean OFTEN which is one reason I didn’t write that word.
[/quote]

Then we proceed to get 15 pages of X arguing that the intention of this thread was not to tell newbs to eat “often” (the hotly debated word in question) only to end up here

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Therefore, it makes sense to inform newbs that if their goal is to reach that level of size one day, they had better make eating more often the goal because of the needs required to get there.

That was great advice you just gave![/quote]
Oh the irony and lulz[/quote]

haha

312

[quote]JBL5 wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:
It is that while the exact number doesn’t matter, if your goal is to reach your fullest potential and you have decent genetics, from the information I have seen and what has built the largest humans as far as muscle mass, I would make sure that whether that NUMBER fell between 3 or 6 that they make that a goal daily…and stick to it.

I would also say that less than three meals a day may not lead to the most muscle mass being built over time because insulin plays a major role in muscle growth as well.
[/quote]

So what exactly and how often would you eat on a typical day? If you don’t mind me asking.
[/quote]

That would depend on what my immediate goals are. If going for muscle mass in priority, I would tell a newb to shoot for 4-6. That doesn’t mean I think 4 is special or magic. It is mostly because I think if nothing else, it helps mental focus to reach that goal if shooting for all out size…because getting there involves everything you do OUTSIDE the gym and not just what you do in it.

For most of my life I was hitting 5-6 to gain most of what I have now. After dropping some weight, I now eat less frequently (this was more a matter of the life situation at the time than anything). I can MAINTAIN my current size and even gain a little with less overall calories and less attention to when I eat compared to what helped be build it initially.

I would never tell someone expecting results like some of us are after that it isn’t important at all. That is because no one gets truly huge by approaching this casually. If people are whispering expletives when you walk by, there is a great chance you spend much of your time in and out of the gym focused on your physical goals.

Most of the guys many here would see as really big aren’t that way just because of a calculation. If I hadn’t made hitting a target everyday a serious goal early on with regards to that food intake, it would have been too easy to fall off track when situations in life don’t lend to optimal circumstances.

Again, this is focused on those who are trying to get really big. My opinion is that this seems to be overlooked or downplayed lately…as if people should avoid looking at what the biggest did in majority to get there.

Just my opinion…as a guy who tries to actually live this stuff along with fitting into a working personal life.

Most of the people here are barely out of their 20’s. There is more to making this work long term than fads and calculators.

313

Thread Summary

Big guys ate enough protein and calories to get big.

Anyone else have anything new to offer? :slight_smile:

314

[quote]tolismann wrote:

[quote]TC wrote:
let’s assume a hypothetical lifter who doesn’t follow modern day peri workout conditions. Let’s say he ate maybe an hour or two before his workout and that’s it.

During his workout, Test, GH, and IGF-1 make a transient increase, but they fall below baseline after his workout. Insulin, because he ate two or three hours ago, is in short supply. but that’s what’s needed to offset the catabolic hormones that were induced by the workout.

Muscle cells are amazingly sensitive to insulin during and after a workout, more so than any other time. Very few nutrients will be stored as fat after a workout, but this sensitivity starts to fall as the post-workout minutes pass.

By the time the traditional lifter drags his butt home, his muscle cells are deaf, dumb, and blind to any rise in insulin from the food he might be ingesting. As a result, insulin will carry amino acids and glycogen to the muscle cell but it won’t respond.

Homeless, much of the glucose and glycogen molecules get stored as fat. Some end up in the liver.

Metabolically, the lifter’s body has gone to hell and back. Glycogen levels remain depressed. Catabolic hormones remain elevated. And the rate of protein breakdown exceeds the rate of protein synthesis.

All could have been avoided with proper peri-workout nutrition.[/quote]Doomed for mediocrity are the lifters who do not force down their throats liters and liters of (overpriced) protein powders peri-workout.

…I sincerely hope you do not delete this…
[/quote]

I have always been a huge advocate for peri-workout nutrition and it has helped build a fairly decent physique so far.

And I eat 6-8 times a day at least.

315

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
The comment the started all of this

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
I disagree noobz must learn to eat often. False.
[/quote]
I didn’t write that they need to eat often.

Argue what is actually there, not what you make up.[/quote]

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Regularly has never meant OFTEN. Quit the bullshit.
[/quote]

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Dear God, then feel safe in the fact that I did not mean OFTEN which is one reason I didn’t write that word.
[/quote]

Then we proceed to get 15 pages of X arguing that the intention of this thread was not to tell newbs to eat “often” (the hotly debated word in question) only to end up here

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Therefore, it makes sense to inform newbs that if their goal is to reach that level of size one day, they had better make eating more often the goal because of the needs required to get there.

That was great advice you just gave![/quote]
Oh the irony and lulz[/quote]

Ignored…this shall be.

316

[quote]Bauber wrote:

[quote]tolismann wrote:

[quote]TC wrote:
let’s assume a hypothetical lifter who doesn’t follow modern day peri workout conditions. Let’s say he ate maybe an hour or two before his workout and that’s it.

During his workout, Test, GH, and IGF-1 make a transient increase, but they fall below baseline after his workout. Insulin, because he ate two or three hours ago, is in short supply. but that’s what’s needed to offset the catabolic hormones that were induced by the workout.

Muscle cells are amazingly sensitive to insulin during and after a workout, more so than any other time. Very few nutrients will be stored as fat after a workout, but this sensitivity starts to fall as the post-workout minutes pass.

By the time the traditional lifter drags his butt home, his muscle cells are deaf, dumb, and blind to any rise in insulin from the food he might be ingesting. As a result, insulin will carry amino acids and glycogen to the muscle cell but it won’t respond.

Homeless, much of the glucose and glycogen molecules get stored as fat. Some end up in the liver.

Metabolically, the lifter’s body has gone to hell and back. Glycogen levels remain depressed. Catabolic hormones remain elevated. And the rate of protein breakdown exceeds the rate of protein synthesis.

All could have been avoided with proper peri-workout nutrition.[/quote]Doomed for mediocrity are the lifters who do not force down their throats liters and liters of (overpriced) protein powders peri-workout.

…I sincerely hope you do not delete this…
[/quote]

I have always been a huge advocate for peri-workout nutrition and it has helped build a fairly decent physique so far.

And I eat 6-8 times a day at least.[/quote]

…and once again…

317

So just as many advanced lifters like to eat 6+ meals a day as do not?

Well like anything else there are two sides to every coin.

Also, I would seem that the assistance used by people has as much if not all to do with how they put on mass.

A good cycle can allow quite a bit of variance in diet.

318


Dis fuggin’ guy said he ate tree times a day. And he was bigga den all a yas.

319

And don’t get me wrong…I am a fan of fasting in the sense of the MAG-10 fast. If trying to burn body fat fast and your goal is to get swimming pool ready, that is the best regimen I have followed that held on to the most muscle mass. But drinking MAG-10 throughout the day and around training isn’t true “fasting”.

Getting bigger than average is more than just “genetics”. Genetics don’t wake you up at 6am when most people are asleep on a Saturday to fix meals for the week.

Genetics don’t make eating such a priority that you know whether or not you will be eating some time between 2pm and 5pm tomorrow.

The biggest didn’t become the biggest just because of a steroid cycle…or just because of genetics…or whatever else you can blame it on.

That consistency through periods of life that others would stop is what did it.

That may make them or us a little crazy…but no one gets that damned big trying to be “normal”.

Just a discussion about what this takes long term.

Because let’s face it, if you are in your 20’s and think you have it all figured out…you may want to take a step back.

320

[quote]BrickHead wrote:
Dis fuggin’ guy said he ate tree times a day. And he was bigga den all a yas.[/quote]

I liked watching Lou in the first WSM. He won the steel bending comp if I remember correctly. Him and Franco both actually did well (minus of course Franco’s horrific leg injury).

I feel bad for how much those 2 got overshadowed in the golden era. Arnie was great, but I think a lot could have been gained from looking at them as well. Be cool to know more about their training/diet.