The Rule: 6 Meals/Day

Training
161

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]Quasi-Tech wrote:
You stretch your stomachs, same technique people who enter food competitions do. That’s why when people eat less food before Thanksgiving (to save room) they are defeating themselves because it shrinks their stomachs. That’s also why when you eat smaller meals your stomach shrinks and allows you to forego some hunger pangs/issues.

I guess I don’t see gorging as a healthy option. I’ve eaten some pretty large meals before and yea its fun, but that’s a huge slug on the system. Do what you will with your system, I’m glad its paying off for you, to me its unhealthy. [/quote]

Why? I would love to see some support. And no your analogy doesn’t cut it [/quote]

The body does not change that fast. Competitive eaters use water to “stretch” their stomach. If there is research that actually followed this, I would love to see it. Its the equivalent of 'carb loading". Having a big plate of spaghetti the night before a race is not carb loading. The process is started 3-7 days prior (depending on which protocol you follow).

Keep an open mind. If it doesn’t “work” for you, doesn’t mean it’s bad. It just mean you disagree.

Saying that it is unhealthy is an opinion. Also, it is NOT gorging. It is eating until satiated.

162

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[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 isn’t true as some flat rule. Your body was built to adapt.

You not eating for 6 hours doesn’t really effect cell replication. The release of “enzymes” is also something that the body adapts to.

This is one reason we have to be careful about using studies not done on people with muscle growth as the primary goal.

Exercise changes the effects of what you and when drastically in itself.

? Feeling “better” is far lesser the goal in this discussion than what builds the biggest bodies. “Better” is about as subjective as you can get and arbitrary.[/quote]

Yes the body is very adaptable. Which is why it baffles me that people think the body will somehow become extremely inefficient if meal frequency drops and meal side goes up. It makes no sense with how great the body is.

The point about cell regeneration was continual damage from digesting all the time leaves no time for the lining to fully regenerate. Eyzmes have a refractory period. It has to be produced again. It takes time.

And feeling better should be a goal. If you feel like shit and gi system is working well its gonna be hard to gain the most muscle possible?

163

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
Yes the body is very adaptable. Which is why it baffles me that people think the body will somehow become extremely inefficient if meal frequency drops and meal side goes up. It makes no sense with how great the body is. [/quote]

The issue is the body not being able to sufficiently ABSORB all nutrients if they are all taken in at one time and that amount is very large. The issue is NOT whether meal frequency alone helps absorption.

It is simply about breaking up a large job into smaller jobs so it can be done efficiently. That is all…and it is done as needed.

This isn’t true. If this were true, everyone eating several times a day would soon be dying of malnutrition. Yes, it is that simple. You are not helping your body “regenerate” better just because you eat less often. Cell regeneration is also genetic and minimally adaptable. You can not make the claim that “eating less equals better cell regeneration”.

Actually, getting huge takes some discomfort…and most people would find eating that much in only one sitting very uncomfortable and would not feel “better” because of it. Some people also do not feel “better” going an entire day with no food in them.

These are SUBJECTIVE statements. They don’t mean someone is growing optimally.

164

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
QT that book is enteriely too long to quote but actualky research and hypothesis are the exact opposite to what you are saying. The GI system was not biologically built to be eating a bunch of small meals and to continual process food. It needs to build back of enzymes replicate sloughed cells ect. Many people anecdotally report they feel a great deal better after a fast and even a purge where you empty everything. That seems to support the hypothesis that the gi system is not happy with working all the time. [/quote]

I feel 100x better when I fast for at least 10 hours a day.

165

[quote]Spidey22 wrote:

[quote]c.m.l. wrote:

I also think that eating more meals is a better way to ingest large volumes of food and also carbohydrates when trying to gain weight. It avoids a sudden insulin spike that a big big meal would provide (which I surmise is better for maintaining good insulin sensitivity) and IMO is a better way to eat lots due to sheer food volume.
[/quote]

I don’t agree with this at all. I think a lot of reasoning behind less frequent meals and more fasting style dieting is to avoid all those insulin spikes 6+ small meals a day create.
[/quote]

You are right, but the preface behind each style is opposite of what is typically intended.

Those who wish to limit insulin are the ones who are focused in some capacity on losing fat during their day, therefor the 1-2 meal person and IF type strategies are good for this.

More frequent meals is the choice for those looking to grow, rather than those looking to diet. More insulin spread throughout the day will be more anabolic than 1-2 specific hits, my brief experience with exogenous insulin confirms this in my mind.

Now this is not the bulk/vs slow gain argument although the those that favor the latter will tend toward less meals and the former for more IMO.

166

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
Yes the body is very adaptable. Which is why it baffles me that people think the body will somehow become extremely inefficient if meal frequency drops and meal side goes up. It makes no sense with how great the body is. [/quote]

The issue is the body not being able to sufficiently ABSORB all nutrients if they are all taken in at one time and that amount is very large. The issue is NOT whether meal frequency alone helps absorption.

It is simply about breaking up a large job into smaller jobs so it can be done efficiently. That is all…and it is done as needed.

This isn’t true. If this were true, everyone eating several times a day would soon be dying of malnutrition. Yes, it is that simple. You are not helping your body “regenerate” better just because you eat less often. Cell regeneration is also genetic and minimally adaptable. You can not make the claim that “eating less equals better cell regeneration”.

Actually, getting huge takes some discomfort…and most people would find eating that much in only one sitting very uncomfortable and would not feel “better” because of it. Some people also do not feel “better” going an entire day with no food in them.

These are SUBJECTIVE statements. They don’t mean someone is growing optimally.[/quote]

I disagree with a lot if what you said mainly because you are putting new meaning to what I said. I don’t have time to argue with you in circles

167

QT makes a point, as illustrated with injection frequency. Assuming an equal rate of release for each injection, regardless of ester length more frequent injections results in more stable blood levels. Longer esters typically exist only to avoid discomfort.

Likewise the best way to maintain a nonzero and stable level of insulin is to have more frequent meals. This in my opinion is the best way to grow.

Using his other analogy of the air conditioner running steady, by turning that system on and off you knock yourself off homeostasis, which is pretty much your bodies priority one. In order to maintain homeostasis it takes bodily effort, energy, and thus calorie expenditure just to change states.

Any form of bodily stress results in increased calorie expenditure, excessive heat, cold, activity, or returning to homeostasis for any reason. This IMO is another plus for those looking to expend the maximum amount of calories, typically while during a diet or recomp phase.

168

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
QT that book is enteriely too long to quote but actualky research and hypothesis are the exact opposite to what you are saying. The GI system was not biologically built to be eating a bunch of small meals and to continual process food. It needs to build back of enzymes replicate sloughed cells ect. Many people anecdotally report they feel a great deal better after a fast and even a purge where you empty everything. That seems to support the hypothesis that the gi system is not happy with working all the time. [/quote]

They were happy to eat again.

Starve a kid and give him some food see how happy he is.

169

Constantly elevated insulin is also a good way to move towards the beetus

170

I won’t say it has nothing to do with it, but I doubt seriously that meal frequency has nearly as much to do with gut health as does food choice (avoiding copious grains and sugar). If you are eating protein and veggies all day long, intestinal health would be in tip top shape imo, even though this food combo takes way longer to digest than bread or a doughnut. Gluten and sugar have lasting (ill) effects on the GI, whereas protein and and veggies do not.

171

I’m just not sold its that simple.

Of course we all know what causes diabetes but in whom? The game is changed for the anaerobically inclined athlete. If you stuff your face junk and sit on your ass then yeah this is a bad idea. However if you are working out hard, dropping your glycogen, giving your body a need for all of the food you give it, I see no reason that one can not have a level (not excessive) of insulin present most of their day.

Lets look at it like this: what percentage of time do you think you would need to have moderate insulin vs no insulin to preserve insulin sensitivity? I would wager about 50% of your time. How long do you sleep? That’s most of it right there.

Again for clarity, for someone explicitly interested in losing fat then a more targeted insulin approach would be a better choice, but for those looking to avoid catabolism as much as possible and be as anabolic as possible, I think its ok.

172

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
Constantly elevated insulin is also a good way to move towards the beetus[/quote]

It isn’t that simple. The body does not react the same to food when REGULAR EXERCISE, especially at the level many here are at, is added.

That alone changes EVERYTHING.

That is the difference between “bro science” and actually taking the time to understand how complex this stuff is.

173

[quote]BulletproofTiger wrote:
I won’t say it has nothing to do with it, but I doubt seriously that meal frequency has nearly as much to do with gut health as does food choice (avoiding copious grains and sugar). If you are eating protein and veggies all day long, intestinal health would be in tip top shape imo, even though this food combo takes way longer to digest than bread or a doughnut. Gluten and sugar have lasting (ill) effects on the GI, whereas protein and and veggies do not.[/quote]

This is correct. That is why Ryan’s statement about this helping cell regeneration isn’t true.

174

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
Yes the body is very adaptable. Which is why it baffles me that people think the body will somehow become extremely inefficient if meal frequency drops and meal side goes up. It makes no sense with how great the body is. [/quote]

The issue is the body not being able to sufficiently ABSORB all nutrients if they are all taken in at one time and that amount is very large. The issue is NOT whether meal frequency alone helps absorption.

It is simply about breaking up a large job into smaller jobs so it can be done efficiently. That is all…and it is done as needed.

This isn’t true. If this were true, everyone eating several times a day would soon be dying of malnutrition. Yes, it is that simple. You are not helping your body “regenerate” better just because you eat less often. Cell regeneration is also genetic and minimally adaptable. You can not make the claim that “eating less equals better cell regeneration”.

Actually, getting huge takes some discomfort…and most people would find eating that much in only one sitting very uncomfortable and would not feel “better” because of it. Some people also do not feel “better” going an entire day with no food in them.

These are SUBJECTIVE statements. They don’t mean someone is growing optimally.[/quote]

I disagree with a lot if what you said mainly because you are putting new meaning to what I said. I don’t have time to argue with you in circles [/quote]

No one is arguing in circles. You have made many claims here that are simply not true.

Fasting does not directly aid cell regeneration.

Feeling “better” does not mean people are growing muscle optimally.

Ignoring that the body may ABSORB foods less efficiently if all calories are taken in at once isn’t helping anyone.

These are ideas you have put forth. It is not talking in circles to point out the fault in those ideas.

175

Discussion point:

It has been said that eating 6 times a day leads you to diabetes.

This is a gross misapplication of information.

First, insulin is the greatest aid a bodybuilder has to grow really big muscles. Keeping insulin in check affects the DIETING bodybuilder most because of the desire to lose body fat.

Trying to AVOID insulin spikes when the goal is optimal growth in muscle mass and keeping the body in an anabolic environment should NOT be some flat rule of “bro science” belief.

176

[quote]BulletproofTiger wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]krillin wrote:
I actually find this discussion interesting without all of the useless arguing. I thought his message was clear that he was talking about consistency.[/quote]

I think we can cover more if that is allowed.[/quote]

Consistency is key for sure. Day in day out, get it done, and results will follow. I can’t remember who said it, but it boiled down to that consistency proved to be a more important principle than nearly any other with regards to success in achieving goals - regardless which program was followed. I believe this would clearly apply to nutrition as well as the two go hand in hand. And getting back to the Serge quote, when the body says it’s time to eat, then it’s time! But certainly those cues can’t be the only ones a person follows, or naturally thin guys will stay that way.[/quote]

Good post.

Some people, like I did, have naturally low appetites. I used to feel nauseated during some meal times (especially breakfast). If I had not forced myself to eat during those times, I would not have gotten this big.

[quote]JFG wrote:
He did.

You see, you are preaching consistency (I completely agree), you are talking about absorption (I disagree) and I am giving you another view point. Anybody here that was raised on a farm understands getting the majority of your calories in two meals (breakfast and dinner). The body adapts.[/quote]

It isn’t about whether the body adapts as far as HUNGER. It is about whether you truly absorb all nutrients optimally if you try to get them all in one sitting.

I am doubting if this is so because I am observing what has built the largest bodies.

I said I seriously doubt I would be this size.

I do consider that a “known fact” because I know the trouble I had early on getting the calories in because of stomach issues.

If I had not forced those meals in I would have stayed small.

Everyone won’t see optimal growth in muscle mass by eating like that…and THAT is the discussion topic.

177

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
Constantly elevated insulin is also a good way to move towards the beetus[/quote]
I will refute every single one of your points, no matter how scientifically backed they are, simply by saying “genetics.”
You lose.

178

Fasting certainly helps heal the GI, if there is inflammation. Eating the right things and avoiding the wrong things most likely does a better job of healing (and more importantly preventing) this.

IF (fasting) is good for getting ripped, but losing body fat really is about staying ‘sensibly hungry’ insn’t it?

I believe (without solid proof) that any evidence showing digestion is improved by fasting, is probably founded in healing symptoms of leaky gut. Restoring gut flora and reducing inflammation will undoubtedly improve digestion (moreso that fasting).

Fasting allows the body to heal because it haults the assault of inflammatory/allergenic foods. These foods can vary from person to person, but grains and sugar are the two biggest perpetrators… Raw milk, especially if fermented WON’T cause GI issues in hardly anyone, especially after a period of healing the leaky gut (through healing diet and supplements). But RAW milk is often expensive, hard to find, and possibly, if you’re caught with it, will result in stiff penalties.

Regarding insulin elevation, have you heard of the velocity diet?

179

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
Constantly elevated insulin is also a good way to move towards the beetus[/quote]
I will refute every single one of your points, no matter how scientifically backed they are, simply by saying “genetics.”
You lose.[/quote]

Like was said in the other thread, you add NOTHING to these forums but instigation of more drama.

“Constantly elevated” insulin levels?

You mean that meal of steak and rice?

or 6 meals of donuts?

Is exercise a variable taken into consideration?

If you have nothing of importance to add here, please save of us the added drama.

180

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
I don’t know any of the studies, nor have I read the thread to see people argue… But 6 meals/day works for me and “feels rit” whether I’m losing lbs, gaining, or trying to recomp… Also, eating “on the threes” (6am, 9, 12, 3, 6, 9) helps me to actually remember where I am and what I’m doing. As my final thought, I’m not as cranky when I eat on the threes… And I don’t get “foggy”.[/quote]

It is that level of consistency that will pay off in the long run as opposed to the guy who sees his eating as something that can be ignored most of the day.

The importance of making these actions true ingrained habits will create more huge muscular people in the long run whether they move on to other eating strategies later or not.

Again, the issue isn’t whether it works at all…but what is actually building the biggest muscles out there.