The Rule: 6 Meals/Day

Training
321

[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]

Agreed. One note…the name dropping seems to be used lately as the end all of discussion…as if because “insert author” discussed a topic, that means there is no need to investigate further.

That concept creates lemmings…not independent thinkers.

Ask questions and learn the real basics by opening a text book. It is easy to interpret data in ways to only present one aspect…like insulin CAN lead to pre-diabetes…if you ignore all of that exercise…and hereditary genetic affinity…and all of that muscle…

322

[quote]T3hPwnisher wrote:

[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.[/quote]

It’s a pic of Reg Park. He does look like Lou in that pic and perhaps the New Yawk accent aided the confusion. :wink:

Good post though.

Arnie said in his writings he ate three times a day. Columbu too.

323

[quote]BrickHead wrote:

[quote]T3hPwnisher wrote:

[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.[/quote]

It’s a pic of Reg Park. He does look like Lou in that pic and perhaps the New Yawk accent aided the confusion. :wink:

Good post though.

Arnie said in his writings he ate three times a day. Columbu too. [/quote]

Shit, yeah, the New York accent post threw me off, haha.

324

[quote]TC wrote:
Coincidentally, I’ve got a couple of articles coming out that addresses most of these points.

Regarding peri workout nutrition, 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.[/quote]

Just wondering: how do you reconcile the assertion that insulin is in short supply with a) numerous studies showing adequate insulin response in the postprandial state even when meals are given only several hours apart and b) lack of clarification regarding the extent of insulin release (i.e., stating it as an absolute without regard to additional considerations such as meal size, insulin index, etc)

If, as is known, ~50% of the body’s insulin is released during basal periods, how can one meal continually result in an acute deficiency?

[quote]TC wrote:
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.[/quote]

Not to be an obnoxious pedant, but exercise has been routinely shown to induce elevated glucose uptake in skeletal muscle up to 3h after the session via insulin-independent mechanisms; contraction-induced increases GLUT4 translocation with subsequent glucose trafficking in the t-tubules and sarcolemma is a known phenomenon. More recently, the effects of signaling kinases such as AMPK and CaMKII on GLUT4 transcription have been published.

Beyond this period of several hours, insulin-dependent glucose trafficking seems to become the primary player.

Given this research, what leads you to believe muscle cells become unresponsive to glucose uptake in such a short period of time following exercise?

325

[quote]BrickHead wrote:

[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. [/quote]

Not to be a total stickler, but a large number of guys he trains are on supplements - many of which increase their hunger. Also keep in mind, consider how many times a day you “feel hungry.” Probably every few hours. He’s basically saying don’t overdo it, feed your body when it tells you it needs it if you’re trying to go.

Phil’s clients have all given positive feedback on gains.

326

[quote]anonym wrote:

[quote]TC wrote:
Coincidentally, I’ve got a couple of articles coming out that addresses most of these points.

Regarding peri workout nutrition, 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.[/quote]

Just wondering: how do you reconcile the assertion that insulin is in short supply with a) numerous studies showing adequate insulin response in the postprandial state even when meals are given only several hours apart and b) lack of clarification regarding the extent of insulin release (i.e., stating it as an absolute without regard to additional considerations such as meal size, insulin index, etc)

If, as is known, ~50% of the body’s insulin is released during basal periods, how can one meal continually result in an acute deficiency?

[quote]TC wrote:
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.[/quote]

Not to be an obnoxious pedant, but exercise has been routinely shown to induce elevated glucose uptake in skeletal muscle up to 3h after the session via insulin-independent mechanisms; contraction-induced increases GLUT4 translocation with subsequent glucose trafficking in the t-tubules and sarcolemma is a known phenomenon. More recently, the effects of signaling kinases such as AMPK and CaMKII on GLUT4 transcription have been published.

Beyond this period of several hours, insulin-dependent glucose trafficking seems to become the primary player.

Given this research, what leads you to believe muscle cells become unresponsive to glucose uptake in such a short period of time following exercise?[/quote]
im glad you showed up anonym. do think 6 means a day is significantly more conducive to building muscle than 3 meals a day is?

327

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[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.
[/quote]

Part 4: Pyramid Level 4 - Nutrient Timing & Frequency - YouTube this is a video of eric hemls (a very smart guy) discussing nutrition.

cliffs

in order of importance in ones diet
overall energy balance - 1st
macro nutrient breakdown - 2nd
micro nutrient - 3rd
meal timing - 4th
supps - 6th

he also states that based on his experience and the research WE DO have, that something like 3-5 meals a day is superior for majority of people.

SO what me and alot of other people where saying is having a newbs stress about meal frequency is FAR LESS important than getting them to track there macros…

328


This guy built his physique with 3 large meals a day

329

[quote]mbdix wrote:
This guy built his physique with 3 large meals a day[/quote]

And shit loads of chocolate

330

[quote]Waittz wrote:

[quote]mbdix wrote:
This guy built his physique with 3 large meals a day[/quote]

And shit loads of chocolate[/quote]

haha yep.

331

I vote that assisted lifters not be used as examples of what works nutrition wise, in this thread…clearly the same rules do not apply to them as naturals.

So why use a guy on an aggressive stack (not that there is aaaanything wrong with it) as an example of optimum eating frequency???

332

[quote]UtahLama wrote:
I vote that assisted lifters not be used as examples of what works nutrition wise, in this thread…clearly the same rules do not apply to them as naturals.

So why use a guy on an aggressive stack (not that there is aaaanything wrong with it) as an example of optimum eating frequency???[/quote]

In that case. Eugen Sandaw was quoted saying he ate what he wanted when he wanted, good, wholesome, plain food.

333

[quote]UtahLama wrote:
I vote that assisted lifters not be used as examples of what works nutrition wise, in this thread…clearly the same rules do not apply to them as naturals.

[quote]

You know this for a fact? Why would drug use make any information regarding their food intake useless?

334

[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.

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. [/quote]

I tend to eat at least 4 times a day. That is the minimum amount of times I have to sit down and eat, everything else after that is a bonus. If that means 7 meals a day, i’m okay with that. I basically decided a while ago that if ever I am really hungry then I am probably not in a state conducive to growth.
I understand that insulin being jacked up all the time is not ideal long term, but in my early twenties, I want to take advantage of growing easily while I am still young, and for me this requires way more food than I would ever say is comfortable.

335

[quote]JBL5 wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:
I vote that assisted lifters not be used as examples of what works nutrition wise, in this thread…clearly the same rules do not apply to them as naturals.

[quote]

You know this for a fact? Why would drug use make any information regarding their food intake useless?[/quote]

It would seem that the anabolic environment provided by assistance would not allow the eating habits to be compared to a lifter that was natural?

Do you disagree?

336

[quote]mbdix wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:
I vote that assisted lifters not be used as examples of what works nutrition wise, in this thread…clearly the same rules do not apply to them as naturals.

So why use a guy on an aggressive stack (not that there is aaaanything wrong with it) as an example of optimum eating frequency???[/quote]

In that case. Eugen Sandaw was quoted saying he ate what he wanted when he wanted, good, wholesome, plain food.[/quote]

Did you mean Sandow?

But I agree with what you are saying…hitting your macros is the goal not frequency.

337

[quote]UtahLama wrote:
It would seem that the anabolic environment provided by assistance would not allow the eating habits to be compared to a lifter that was natural?

Do you disagree?[/quote]

I do. I don’t think steroids change physiology so much that food intake is drastically different from naturals. Sure it may make things somewhat different, but not so much that we should just ignore the dietary habits of all drug users.

338

[quote]JBL5 wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:
It would seem that the anabolic environment provided by assistance would not allow the eating habits to be compared to a lifter that was natural?

Do you disagree?[/quote]

I do. I don’t think steroids change physiology so much that food intake is drastically different from naturals. Sure it may make things somewhat different, but not so much that we should just ignore the dietary habits of all drug users.
[/quote]

Why don’t you adopt some juice monkeys diet (assuming you’re natural) and see how it works out then?

339

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]mbdix wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:
I vote that assisted lifters not be used as examples of what works nutrition wise, in this thread…clearly the same rules do not apply to them as naturals.

So why use a guy on an aggressive stack (not that there is aaaanything wrong with it) as an example of optimum eating frequency???[/quote]

In that case. Eugen Sandaw was quoted saying he ate what he wanted when he wanted, good, wholesome, plain food.[/quote]

Did you mean Sandow?

But I agree with what you are saying…hitting your macros is the goal not frequency.[/quote]

Yeah I meant Sandow. My bad

340

[quote]JBL5 wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:
I vote that assisted lifters not be used as examples of what works nutrition wise, in this thread…clearly the same rules do not apply to them as naturals.

[quote]

You know this for a fact? Why would drug use make any information regarding their food intake useless?[/quote]

An iFBB pros food intake is irrelevant to 99.9% of the weight training community. we are not stage ready 250lb beasts.