The Rule: 6 Meals/Day

Training
101

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:
I think the argument here is that it’s far more relevant to stress the importance of calories/macros to a beginner than it is to stress meal frequency. Yea, meal frequency will teach you to eat more, but it’s an unnecessary step.[/quote]

It is all relevant. That is why I am discussing it.
[/quote]

I don’t even know why you say things like that…talk about adding nothing to a discussion.

I’ll repeat to stress my point: meal frequency is far lass important than learning about calories/macros. So, that’s what should be stressed to beginners. Again, this cuts out an unnecessary step since they will learn plenty of consistency/discipline in the daily tracking of those numbers. The added benefit is that they will now know exactly what it takes to grow.

102

[quote]DanielDJ wrote:
I’ve got a weird question, don’t kill me for asking. Lets use a 3000kcal diet for example.

For those that say in terms of body composition 500kcal 6x a day will yield the same results as 750kcal 4x a day or 1500kcal 2x a day or 3000kcal in a sitting. (I do know meal sizes don’t have to be equal)

Putting aside all other factors such as hunger, stress etc.

Do you think 6000kcal in a sitting every 2 days will bring out the same results? Or some extreme intermittent fasting like 21000kcal at the end of the week lol

I know it sounds silly but just curious to know especially from a scientific standpoint.[/quote]

This is not a silly question at all. This is actually an area of debate among various intermittent fasting proponents. (As an aside, I feel like “interval fasting” would be a more apt title, since I don’t know of anyone who advocates fasting at random times, but I digress).

Brad Pilon, an IF advocate, recommends skipping 1 or 2 whole days of eating and then moving those calories toward your feeding days/window. Ori Hofmekler says you should eat one meal a day. Martin Berkhan says fast 16 hours every day. Others say 19 hours, or 20 hours. DH Kiefer says to never go above 12 hours when doing CBL, I think.

Confused yet? All of these guys are working off of anecdotal data and theories deduced from other people’s research, and trying to apply to it to the general population, but it’s going to be different for each individual.

But, I think the issue you get into with prolonged fasting is hormonal issues, as I think Spidey talked about above. Letpin, Ghrelin, Cortisol, Insulin and Insulin sensitivy, test, etc. are all going to fluctuate in reaction to eating or not eating, among many other hormones.

If you are trying to induce anabolism, fasting will eventually catch up to you, and I think even most fasting experts would agree that fasting for longer than 24 hours will almost assuredly leave you catabolic regardless of the size of your last meal.

So, if the point is to get bigger, no, I don’t think eating 6,000 calories in one sitting every 2 days is as good as 500 cals x 6 a day. But, based on what I’ve read, I don’t think you’ll see any appreciable difference between 500x6 and 750x4 or even 1000x3.

As to what is “healthy” in the long term, I think that is a more interesting question, and I’m interested to see the results of future research.

103

[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:
I think the argument here is that it’s far more relevant to stress the importance of calories/macros to a beginner than it is to stress meal frequency. Yea, meal frequency will teach you to eat more, but it’s an unnecessary step.[/quote]

It is all relevant. That is why I am discussing it.
[/quote]

I don’t even know why you say things like that…talk about adding nothing to a discussion.

I’ll repeat to stress my point: meal frequency is far lass important than learning about calories/macros. So, that’s what should be stressed to beginners. Again, this cuts out an unnecessary step since they will learn plenty of consistency/discipline in the daily tracking of those numbers. The added benefit is that they will now know exactly what it takes to grow.[/quote]

Once again, I am saying it is ALL important and discussing why.

You seem to disagree that it is all important.

No one will know “exactly” what they need to grow until they learn through trial and error.

That is adding to the discussion…because the discussion is about why it is ALL important.

104

[quote]Mad Martigan wrote:

[quote]DanielDJ wrote:
I’ve got a weird question, don’t kill me for asking. Lets use a 3000kcal diet for example.

For those that say in terms of body composition 500kcal 6x a day will yield the same results as 750kcal 4x a day or 1500kcal 2x a day or 3000kcal in a sitting. (I do know meal sizes don’t have to be equal)

Putting aside all other factors such as hunger, stress etc.

Do you think 6000kcal in a sitting every 2 days will bring out the same results? Or some extreme intermittent fasting like 21000kcal at the end of the week lol

I know it sounds silly but just curious to know especially from a scientific standpoint.[/quote]

This is not a silly question at all. This is actually an area of debate among various intermittent fasting proponents. (As an aside, I feel like “interval fasting” would be a more apt title, since I don’t know of anyone who advocates fasting at random times, but I digress).

Brad Pilon, an IF advocate, recommends skipping 1 or 2 whole days of eating and then moving those calories toward your feeding days/window. Ori Hofmekler says you should eat one meal a day. Martin Berkhan says fast 16 hours every day. Others say 19 hours, or 20 hours. DH Kiefer says to never go above 12 hours when doing CBL, I think.

Confused yet? All of these guys are working off of anecdotal data and theories deduced from other people’s research, and trying to apply to it to the general population, but it’s going to be different for each individual.

But, I think the issue you get into with prolonged fasting is hormonal issues, as I think Spidey talked about above. Letpin, Ghrelin, Cortisol, Insulin and Insulin sensitivy, test, etc. are all going to fluctuate in reaction to eating or not eating, among many other hormones.

If you are trying to induce anabolism, fasting will eventually catch up to you, and I think even most fasting experts would agree that fasting for longer than 24 hours will almost assuredly leave you catabolic regardless of the size of your last meal.

So, if the point is to get bigger, no, I don’t think eating 6,000 calories in one sitting every 2 days is as good as 500 cals x 6 a day. But, based on what I’ve read, I don’t think you’ll see any appreciable difference between 500x6 and 750x4 or even 1000x3.

As to what is “healthy” in the long term, I think that is a more interesting question, and I’m interested to see the results of future research.[/quote]

This was a very good post and one of the things I wanted to discuss…if people would allow that to happen.

The other issue is what actually has led to building the most muscle in the long run?

105

[quote]Mad Martigan wrote:

[quote]DanielDJ wrote:
I’ve got a weird question, don’t kill me for asking. Lets use a 3000kcal diet for example.

For those that say in terms of body composition 500kcal 6x a day will yield the same results as 750kcal 4x a day or 1500kcal 2x a day or 3000kcal in a sitting. (I do know meal sizes don’t have to be equal)

Putting aside all other factors such as hunger, stress etc.

Do you think 6000kcal in a sitting every 2 days will bring out the same results? Or some extreme intermittent fasting like 21000kcal at the end of the week lol

I know it sounds silly but just curious to know especially from a scientific standpoint.[/quote]

This is not a silly question at all. This is actually an area of debate among various intermittent fasting proponents. (As an aside, I feel like “interval fasting” would be a more apt title, since I don’t know of anyone who advocates fasting at random times, but I digress).

Brad Pilon, an IF advocate, recommends skipping 1 or 2 whole days of eating and then moving those calories toward your feeding days/window. Ori Hofmekler says you should eat one meal a day. Martin Berkhan says fast 16 hours every day. Others say 19 hours, or 20 hours. DH Kiefer says to never go above 12 hours when doing CBL, I think.

Confused yet? All of these guys are working off of anecdotal data and theories deduced from other people’s research, and trying to apply to it to the general population, but it’s going to be different for each individual.

But, I think the issue you get into with prolonged fasting is hormonal issues, as I think Spidey talked about above. Letpin, Ghrelin, Cortisol, Insulin and Insulin sensitivy, test, etc. are all going to fluctuate in reaction to eating or not eating, among many other hormones.

If you are trying to induce anabolism, fasting will eventually catch up to you, and I think even most fasting experts would agree that fasting for longer than 24 hours will almost assuredly leave you catabolic regardless of the size of your last meal.

So, if the point is to get bigger, no, I don’t think eating 6,000 calories in one sitting every 2 days is as good as 500 cals x 6 a day. But, based on what I’ve read, I don’t think you’ll see any appreciable difference between 500x6 and 750x4 or even 1000x3.

As to what is “healthy” in the long term, I think that is a more interesting question, and I’m interested to see the results of future research.[/quote]
Good post.
I think I just came to a groundbreaking revolutionary discovery:
“There is more than one way to skin a cat.”
Lol

106

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
Good post.
I think I just came to a groundbreaking revolutionary discovery:
“There is more than one way to skin a cat.”
Lol[/quote]

Thanks. I agree. People need to do what works for them.

But, I actually think PX’s main point in this thread is pretty reasonable. Trainees who’ve been eating the typical, American, ad libitum diet probably need to learn to eat consistently as well as healthily. I personally find that I make worse food choices when I’m not eating with consistency.

An underlying issue to consider is that most people aren’t getting that coveted 1g protein per pound unless they are actually trying. So, if you aren’t eating consistently, you probably aren’t getting enough protein and you probably aren’t keeping very good track of your macros, generally.

107

[quote]Mad Martigan wrote:

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
Good post.
I think I just came to a groundbreaking revolutionary discovery:
“There is more than one way to skin a cat.”
Lol[/quote]

Thanks. I agree. People need to do what works for them.

But, I actually think PX’s main point in this thread is pretty reasonable. Trainees who’ve been eating the typical, American, ad libitum diet probably need to learn to eat consistently as well as healthily. I personally find that I make worse food choices when I’m not eating with consistency.

An underlying issue to consider is that most people aren’t getting that coveted 1g protein per pound unless they are actually trying. So, if you aren’t eating consistently, you probably aren’t getting enough protein and you probably aren’t keeping very good track of your macros, generally. [/quote]

It is compounded further for those with truly faster than average metabolisms where the goal is getting in close to or over 4,000cals a day.

Everyone will not be able to PROCESS let alone comfortably get down that many calories in only one or even two meals.

One of the main issues is that ABSORPTION of nutrients and not just the eating of them.

108

Lol @ food taking a minimum of 24 hours to digest. I already released last night’s okra.

109

Also thank you Mr. guru for teaching the boobs not to eat 4000+ cals at once; I’m tired of them puking and thinking it all was absorbed still.

110

[quote]browndisaster wrote:
Lol @ food taking a minimum of 24 hours to digest. I already released last night’s okra.[/quote]

That’s the thing///okra will move faster because it is largely cellulose…ie, non-digestible. That is why it helps move undigested food out of the digestive tract like other fibrous foods.

Understanding things like this helps people understand how much food they need to eat and when.

111

505×639 58.5 KB

YOUR DIGESTION -

One of the issues brought up was lactose intolerance. I happen to have first hand experience with this for several years…and can say without a shadow of a doubt that it put the breaks on the ABSORPTION of food products.

I know this fairly well due to the fact that I was not processing the shakes I was taking earlier on since much was being lost in the toilet.

understanding how certain foods affect you and move through your system is KEY to understanding how often you should be eating personally.

112

[quote]Professor X wrote:

It is compounded further for those with truly faster than average metabolisms where the goal is getting in close to or over 4,000cals a day.

Everyone will not be able to PROCESS let alone comfortably get down that many calories in only one or even two meals.

One of the main issues is that ABSORPTION of nutrients and not just the eating of them.[/quote]

Agreed. But, there are problems on the other end of the spectrum, too. There are people who eat 2000-3000 calories in one sitting without even realizing it. They have no clue what is in the food they are eating.

So, that’s why I think most people are responding with “it depends” or “do what works for you.” A new trainee needs to not only understand where he is headed but also where he is coming from before he changes his diet. It may be that if he is high-metabolism and underweight, learning to eat 6x a day could be beneficial. It could be equally likely that a he has a high appetite and slow metabolism, and can only reasonably be expected to eat 2-3x a day and feel satisfied without over-eating.

But I tend to agree with your root premise. Unless someone is genetically gifted, chaotic eating will not lend itself to a desirable physique.

113

[quote]Mad Martigan wrote:
A new trainee needs to not only understand where he is headed but also where he is coming from before he changes his diet.[/quote]

BINGO. I have said this before when people asked for some “template”. I said then that you have to know what someone has been doing before you can rush in and make drastic changes.

[quote]
It may be that if he is high-metabolism and underweight, learning to eat 6x a day could be beneficial. It could be equally likely that a he has a high appetite and slow metabolism, and can only reasonably be expected to eat 2-3x a day and feel satisfied without over-eating. [/quote]

The thing here is, discipline is at the heart of it either way…so if someone truly can not avoid overeating with more frequent smaller feedings, it may be time to fix that in itself.

But I agree at the core that for some people, that 2-3 may be ideal.

Agreed…so my goal is to discuss the steps taken to come up with what the actually daily goal should be.

Thank you for your post.

114

[quote]Mad Martigan wrote:

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
Good post.
I think I just came to a groundbreaking revolutionary discovery:
“There is more than one way to skin a cat.”
Lol[/quote]

Thanks. I agree. People need to do what works for them.

But, I actually think PX’s main point in this thread is pretty reasonable. Trainees who’ve been eating the typical, American, ad libitum diet probably need to learn to eat consistently as well as healthily. I personally find that I make worse food choices when I’m not eating with consistency.

An underlying issue to consider is that most people aren’t getting that coveted 1g protein per pound unless they are actually trying. So, if you aren’t eating consistently, you probably aren’t getting enough protein and you probably aren’t keeping very good track of your macros, generally. [/quote]
I agree with your last paragraph for sure.
It really has jack all to do with meal frequency, reasonably speaking of course, and is all about total calories and macro breakdown.

I will even go so far as to say that it’s mostly about total cals and protein.
Hit your 3,000 calories and 250 grams of protein and for most people in most circumstances you’re good to go.
The carbs to fats won’t make or break a beginner.

115

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
…I think I just came to a groundbreaking revolutionary discovery:
“There is more than one way to skin a cat.”
Lol[/quote]

The research on protein, clearly shows that there are benefits to anabolism from “mixing it up”. i.e.there is credence to higher and lower meal frequency (with respect to protein anyway)… some data show that getting a steady flow of aminos is the way to go. other data show you get great results (especialy in impaired digestion) by getting it in one or two large daily doses. Now, how these studies apply to the subset of experienced bodybuilders is another question.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
…what actually has led to building the most muscle in the long run?[/quote] As for building muscle, it would be hard to argue against a higher meal frequency. I’d say at least 4 meals per day to get a serious amount of calories. Now that can be two large meals and a shit ton of “snacking” or liquid calories, but if you were to argue this strategy, then this only strengthens what Professor X is advocating.

I’m not saying that the ideal/best mass method would be a lean bulk that incorporated periods of fasting. I’m pretty sure “pulse fasting” has it’s merits for all goals, if used appropriately.

116

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
I agree with your last paragraph for sure.
It really has jack all to do with meal frequency, reasonably speaking of course, and is all about total calories and macro breakdown.

I will even go so far as to say that it’s mostly about total cals and protein.
Hit your 3,000 calories and 250 grams of protein and for most people in most circumstances you’re good to go.
The carbs to fats won’t make or break a beginner.[/quote]

Yes. It’s mostly about the protein, particularly for a beginner. The human body will adapt to the fuel it’s given. Some people are more insulin sensitive, and there are other hormal/personal eating history issues to deal with (like overcoming the low-carb flu if you go that route, for instance). But, at the end of the day, 3000 cals with 250 g protein daily is mostly going to get you to the same destination regardless of the carb/fat breakdown, IMO. 100% agree.

117

What if the caloric requirements for someone exceeds their physical capacity to either process food or take in large amounts? There are only but so many hours in a day to consume the calories. If the caloric needs require a person to eat every 3 hrs in order to get the required amount in but the stomach takes 5-7 hrs to process food, how does one reconcile this? You can’t refill a tank of gas if it still has half a tank left.

118

Also, there is a fairly large difference between what the guy looking to “tone” should do and the guy looking to truly rebuild his physique.

This is really about the strategy that actually leads to the largest bodies out there in terms of muscularity.

It is about the thought process involved since issues like absorption or rarely discussed because many of these details have not been researched keenly.

I know that I was one of those who needed more calories than average. Had I not made regular eating a priority every day, there is no way in hell I would have gotten down everything I needed for several years nonstop. That level of discipline is learned. It was more than just using a calculator to find “macros”. It was about making this a long term lifestyle.

119

[quote]Mad Martigan wrote:

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
I agree with your last paragraph for sure.
It really has jack all to do with meal frequency, reasonably speaking of course, and is all about total calories and macro breakdown.

I will even go so far as to say that it’s mostly about total cals and protein.
Hit your 3,000 calories and 250 grams of protein and for most people in most circumstances you’re good to go.
The carbs to fats won’t make or break a beginner.[/quote]

Yes. It’s mostly about the protein, particularly for a beginner. The human body will adapt to the fuel it’s given. Some people are more insulin sensitive, and there are other hormal/personal eating history issues to deal with (like overcoming the low-carb flu if you go that route, for instance). But, at the end of the day, 3000 cals with 250 g protein daily is mostly going to get you to the same destination regardless of the carb/fat breakdown, IMO. 100% agree.
[/quote]

120

[quote]flch95 wrote:
What if the caloric requirements for someone exceeds their physical capacity to either process food or take in large amounts? There are only but so many hours in a day to consume the calories. If the caloric needs require a person to eat every 3 hrs in order to get the required amount in but the stomach takes 5-7 hrs to process food, how does one reconcile this? You can’t refill a tank of gas if it still has half a tank left.[/quote]
Do you know how much good it takes to support a lean 300 pounds?
If the top guys can get their calories in then anyone can.

It’s all about a desire to make it happen.
Will it be easy?
Maybe not.
That’s what separates the built guys from the scrawny ones.