I put on weight with 3 meals, 4 meals, 5 meals, and 6 meals. All keeping the calories the same of course. Based on personal experience, I have to say the number of meals did not make that much of a difference to me. But I have an enormous appetite. If you find you’re having trouble consuming the necessary amount of calories in 3 meals, spread it out over 6. Find what works for you, everyone is different.
I couldn’t imagine getting 7000+ calories in on 3 meals per day. Usually I eat 7-10 times a day to get that in.
I guess if you can grow off three meals and prefer it, then go for it, but there will come a point where you can’t anymore.
Plus food is so fucking great! Why wouldn’t you want to eat as many times as possible? It’s fucking mind-boggling!
[quote]Brant_Drake wrote:
I couldn’t imagine getting 7000+ calories in on 3 meals per day. Usually I eat 7-10 times a day to get that in.
I guess if you can grow off three meals and prefer it, then go for it, but there will come a point where you can’t anymore.
Plus food is so fucking great! Why wouldn’t you want to eat as many times as possible? It’s fucking mind-boggling![/quote]
nobody is suggesting you LIMIT yourself to three. all I’m saying is 3 meal is no different than 6 in, and in certain cases may be more beneficial from a hunger/diet adherence standpoint ( for example when going very low-cal) sorry, but 500 calories isn’t a “meal” to me.
certainly, if you are eating 4,000+ calories eat as many meals as is most comfortable for you.
but again, don’t blow smoke up my ass by saying 6 meals > 3 meals under all circumstances. it just isn’t true.
[quote]JMoUCF87 wrote:
listen, there is nothing WRONG with eating many small meals throughout the day, if that is what you like or that’s what is easy for you. I myself currently eat 5x per day (breakfast, lunch, dinner, + 2 shakes)
however, I do this b/c it fits around my schedule, not because it offers some magical fat burning / muscle building benefits over eating 3x per day.
other times of my life (such as when i was working door-to-door over summer) i ate 2 large meals at night. As long as i’m still getting the same amount / quality of food, there is no difference.
honestly, if you want to do the eat every 2 hours thing, go ahead. but dont bullshit me by saying that eating that often offers any real advantage beyond eating a little less often.
if you want to be “that guy” who carries around grilled chicken breast in a tupperware container, and sets his watch to go off every 2 hours to remind himself to eat, great. I choose to be a little less neurotic about my food.[/quote]
Exactly.
It really depends on how many calories the INDIVIDUAL needs. Everyone is NOT created equal and as such, person A may be able to fit all the nutrients he needs into 3 meals and while person B just may not be able to eat everything he needs to, to make adequate gains in 3 meals only.
Digestion and assimilation of nutrients takes longer than 2-3 hours so this bullshit that your body is starving and catabolic after 2-3 hours is pure “broscience” at its finest.
[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
But it’s clearly more beneficial for fat loss and muscle gain to eat a little more frequently than that.[/quote]
The practice of eating more frequently won’t increase muscle and burn fat like you’re claiming. As long as you’re consuming enough nutrients within 3-4 meals you’ll be fine.
[quote]jimboman wrote:
In no particular order, but a few summarized reasons to eat 5-8 smaller meals per day…
- Nitrogen / caloric balance.
- More “even” processing of calories (fewer daily calories/meal).
- Maintains higher metabolic levels (body keeps burning calories as they are available).
- Smaller, cleaner meals = reduction of post meal blood sugar spike = reduction of insulin in response to blood sugar spike = more control over fat storage.
- Ensure continuous amino availability to muscle tissue for repair.
- Maximize leptin control.
- Forces budgeting of calories.
- Improved psychological effect of “fuller” feeling throughout the day (read: less likelihood of snacking) = craving management.
- Allows for a little more leeway to make up caloric difference if a meal is skipped (although should avoided if possible)[/quote]
Where did you learn this crap?
good lookin out, jdrannin1. sometimes this place get a little too bro-happy, its good to see people thinking for themselves rather than blindly accepting every bodybuilder myth that comes along.
I was reading some research reviews when I came across this. it’s most definitely worth a read. especially if you still believe eating more often “stokes the metabolic fire.”
bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/
meal-frequency-and-energy-balance.html
[quote]Brant_Drake wrote:
I couldn’t imagine getting 7000+ calories in on 3 meals per day. Usually I eat 7-10 times a day to get that in.[/quote]
I can’t imagine getting in 7000+ calories in a day, for very long. Wow.
Around here it seems like everybody thinks that you have to eat 5 or 6 meals if you want to get bigger, no matter how big you are now. Three meals works, at least in the range that most people on this site are in. The most I have weighed is 210, so I can’t pretend to know what it is like to be 250 pounds and trying to gain weight. You probably would need more meals then.
this thread has run its course.
it’s been proven in studies and millions of cases of anecdotal evidence.
if you don’t see the value in frequent feedings then so be it. I’m not going to argue till I’m blue in the face.
BUT, I hope people reading this thread that never respond, see the value in eating frequently, and it’s what I will keep teaching those that want to improve their body.
apparently, science, experts, or real results don’t matter.
[quote]jdrannin1 wrote:
jehovasfitness wrote:
But it’s clearly more beneficial for fat loss and muscle gain to eat a little more frequently than that.
The practice of eating more frequently won’t increase muscle and burn fat like you’re claiming. As long as you’re consuming enough nutrients within 3-4 meals you’ll be fine.[/quote]
I think he is right about the fat part, just not the muscle part.
[quote]jimboman wrote:
In no particular order, but a few summarized reasons to eat 5-8 smaller meals per day…
- Nitrogen / caloric balance.
- More “even” processing of calories (fewer daily calories/meal).
- Maintains higher metabolic levels (body keeps burning calories as they are available).
- Smaller, cleaner meals = reduction of post meal blood sugar spike = reduction of insulin in response to blood sugar spike = more control over fat storage.
- Ensure continuous amino availability to muscle tissue for repair.
- Maximize leptin control.
- Forces budgeting of calories.
- Improved psychological effect of “fuller” feeling throughout the day (read: less likelihood of snacking) = craving management.
- Allows for a little more leeway to make up caloric difference if a meal is skipped (although should avoided if possible)[/quote]
jimboman, i suggest you step away from your keyboard, as I have no idea wtf half of this garbage is supposed to mean. “forces budgeting of calories”? umm…ok?
maximise leptin control? you do realize leptin doesn’t work on a meal-to-meal basis. going more than 3 hours between meals wont cause you to go into “starvation mode”, i promise.
my favorite, however, is this one:
so you’re essentially saying to eat smaller meals more often (i.e. snacks) to avoid snacking? great job man, really. keep it up.
there has already been much discussion on this…
Eating every few hours keeps the body constantly willing to accept energy and use energy. unless you want to be inefficient, you want your body to be willing to accept food any time you give it, and to want food as much as possible.
the analogy is old and cliche, but true. feed a fire a large amount of wood thrice instead of constantly ‘stoking it’ with smaller amounts and the fire will sputter and barely burn
i know someone will hate me for saying that
PERHAPS MOST IMPORTANTLY we who wish to build our bodies need a surplus of building materials, of substrates (READ: MACROS/CALORIES) to do so. DUMPING 1000 calories into your gullet at a time is going to overload the GI system and not keep it efficient.
some people surely can manage it. i cannot, and i know few of those people compared to the people who cannot
4oz of chicken = 120 cals and 24 g of protein(roughly) so i would need to eat roughly 24oz of chicken and a whole lot of vegetables to achieve about 1000 calories and if i aim to reach 3000 then i need to do that three times (obviously supplements help at this point, which are less voluminous)
do you plan on needing your body to run less efficiently at any point in the day…?
.
.
.
didnt think so
[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
this thread has run its course.
it’s been proven in studies and millions of cases of anecdotal evidence.[/quote]
nothing is proven anecdotaly.
[quote]
if you don’t see the value in frequent feedings then so be it. I’m not going to argue till I’m blue in the face.
BUT, I hope people reading this thread that never respond, see the value in eating frequently, and it’s what I will keep teaching those that want to improve their body.
apparently, science, experts, or real results don’t matter. [/quote]
actually, science and real results DO matter, which is why I don’t blindly believe that an ultra high meal frequency is necessarily beneficial or warranted in all cases.
take your typical 130 lb female dieting down for a competition. She may be eating 1,200 calories a day. spread across 6-8 “meals” that’s 150-200 calories per meal. yippee. what’s that? half a protein shake and a celery stick?
BUT YA GOTTA EAT EVERY 2 HOURS OR U’LL GO INTO STARVASHUN MODE ANDUR MUSCLES WILL DISSAPEAR!!1!
JMUC, you really have a hard time accepting that things aren’t only as you want them to be.
eating more frequently benefits the body as it keeps a more constant rate of nutrients and response to said nutrients.
If you CAN eat more frequently, you should really give it a try.
but then you are the guy that thinks micronutrients don’t matter and it is better to eat filler carbs.
You don’t get it that this web site is for folks who are passed the “weight watchers club”.
We want optimum usage of our calories and micro/macro nutrients
do what you want to do… don’t disparage, just inform fella
but then again… I knew everything when I was in my 20’s also
[quote]Poetikaal wrote:
there has already been much discussion on this…
Eating every few hours keeps the body constantly willing to accept energy and use energy. unless you want to be inefficient, you want your body to be willing to accept food any time you give it, and to want food as much as possible.
the analogy is old and cliche, but true. feed a fire a large amount of wood thrice instead of constantly ‘stoking it’ with smaller amounts and the fire will sputter and barely burn
i know someone will hate me for saying that
PERHAPS MOST IMPORTANTLY we who wish to build our bodies need a surplus of building materials, of substrates (READ: MACROS/CALORIES) to do so. DUMPING 1000 calories into your gullet at a time is going to overload the GI system and not keep it efficient.
some people surely can manage it. i cannot, and i know few of those people compared to the people who cannot
4oz of chicken = 120 cals and 24 g of protein(roughly) so i would need to eat roughly 24oz of chicken and a whole lot of vegetables to achieve about 1000 calories and if i aim to reach 3000 then i need to do that three times (obviously supplements help at this point, which are less voluminous)
do you plan on needing your body to run less efficiently at any point in the day…?
.
.
.
didnt think so[/quote]
hey genius, did you know there are other foods out there besides chicken breast and veggies? CRAZY I KNOW!!
also, that whole fire analogy falls flat on its ass when held under the lens of science (hint: you body is not a fireplace)
finally, think about this: why would the human body, honed by millions of years of evolution to survive at all costs, suddenly become unwilling to “accept food” (as you put it) unless you eat at exact 2.5 hour intervals.
do you honestly think that the human body is so inefficient at survival, that it will simply “waste calories” if one overeats at a meal?
your body will use what you give it. either way, if you eat 6 meals per day or 2, your body will use the incoming calories for the same purpose: build muscle, repair tissues, and keep you alive and functioning to pass your genes on to the next generation (although, in your case, that worries me a little)
I cringe to think that there are people as stupid as you out there in this world. it almost makes me weep for the fate of humanity.
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
JMUC, you really have a hard time accepting that things aren’t only as you want them to be.
eating more frequently benefits the body as it keeps a more constant rate of nutrients and response to said nutrients.
If you CAN eat more frequently, you should really give it a try.
but then you are the guy that thinks micronutrients don’t matter and it is better to eat filler carbs.
You don’t get it that this web site is for folks who are passed the “weight watchers club”.
We want optimum usage of our calories and micro/macro nutrients
do what you want to do… don’t disparage, just inform fella
but then again… I knew everything when I was in my 20’s also
[/quote]
OctoberGirl, I’ve read plenty of your posts, and I can honestly say you may be the most ignorant of all the posters in here. Not stupid, mind you, but ignorant.
if things were as i WANTED them to be, then they would be as you seem to believe they ARE. I say this because for years I believed in eating frequently, avoiding processed food under any circumstances, avoided “neolithic” carbs like the plauge, and every other stupid, ignorant, OCD bodybuilder myth under the sun.
it was initially hard to accept that everything I read on T-Nation gasp wasn’t necessarily true! and that all I was doing was jumping through a bunch of “diet hoops”.
Yeah, there were days when I would walk along, tupperware full of chicken breast in my backpack, scoffing at others who weren’t as “hardcore” as I.
“obsessed is what the lazy call the dedicated!” is what I would cry.
then I actually began questioning what I read, actually analyzing it under the microscope of science. and guess what? all the things I thought were true…(“insulin drives fat storage!” “eat every 3 hours” “P+F meals will ruin your physique”)…weren’t necessarily so.
I know this may come as a shock to you OG, but there are other authors out there besides Thibs and Berardi. They also have impressive credentials and many clients, and they don’t always agree with what you and many others at this site so faithfully accept as fact.
[quote]JMoUCF87 wrote:
OctoberGirl wrote:
JMUC, you really have a hard time accepting that things aren’t only as you want them to be.
eating more frequently benefits the body as it keeps a more constant rate of nutrients and response to said nutrients.
If you CAN eat more frequently, you should really give it a try.
but then you are the guy that thinks micronutrients don’t matter and it is better to eat filler carbs.
You don’t get it that this web site is for folks who are passed the “weight watchers club”.
We want optimum usage of our calories and micro/macro nutrients
do what you want to do… don’t disparage, just inform fella
but then again… I knew everything when I was in my 20’s also
OctoberGirl, I’ve read plenty of your posts, and I can honestly say you may be the most ignorant of all the posters in here. Not stupid, mind you, but ignorant.
if things were as i WANTED them to be, then they would be as you seem to believe they ARE. I say this because for years I believed in eating frequently, avoiding processed food under any circumstances, avoided “neolithic” carbs like the plauge, and every other stupid, ignorant, OCD bodybuilder myth under the sun.
it was initially hard to accept that everything I read on T-Nation gasp wasn’t necessarily true! and that all I was doing was jumping through a bunch of “diet hoops”.
Yeah, there were days when I would walk along, tupperware full of chicken breast in my backpack, scoffing at others who weren’t as “hardcore” as I.
“obsessed is what the lazy call the dedicated!” is what I would cry.
then I actually began questioning what I read, actually analyzing it under the microscope of science. and guess what? all the things I thought were true…(“insulin drives fat storage!” “eat every 3 hours” “P+F meals will ruin your physique”)…weren’t necessarily so.
I know this may come as a shock to you OG, but there are other authors out there besides Thibs and Berardi. They also have impressive credentials and many clients, and they don’t always agree with what you and many others at this site so faithfully accept as fact.[/quote]
Your words are shit without pics. If you know so much then your physique should reflect it.
Let’s see what your massive knowledge has created.
[quote]JMoUCF87 wrote:
OctoberGirl wrote:
JMUC, you really have a hard time accepting that things aren’t only as you want them to be.
eating more frequently benefits the body as it keeps a more constant rate of nutrients and response to said nutrients.
If you CAN eat more frequently, you should really give it a try.
but then you are the guy that thinks micronutrients don’t matter and it is better to eat filler carbs.
You don’t get it that this web site is for folks who are passed the “weight watchers club”.
We want optimum usage of our calories and micro/macro nutrients
do what you want to do… don’t disparage, just inform fella
but then again… I knew everything when I was in my 20’s also
OctoberGirl, I’ve read plenty of your posts, and I can honestly say you may be the most ignorant of all the posters in here. Not stupid, mind you, but ignorant.
if things were as i WANTED them to be, then they would be as you seem to believe they ARE. I say this because for years I believed in eating frequently, avoiding processed food under any circumstances, avoided “neolithic” carbs like the plauge, and every other stupid, ignorant, OCD bodybuilder myth under the sun.
it was initially hard to accept that everything I read on T-Nation gasp wasn’t necessarily true! and that all I was doing was jumping through a bunch of “diet hoops”.
Yeah, there were days when I would walk along, tupperware full of chicken breast in my backpack, scoffing at others who weren’t as “hardcore” as I.
“obsessed is what the lazy call the dedicated!” is what I would cry.
then I actually began questioning what I read, actually analyzing it under the microscope of science. and guess what? all the things I thought were true…(“insulin drives fat storage!” “eat every 3 hours” “P+F meals will ruin your physique”)…weren’t necessarily so.
I know this may come as a shock to you OG, but there are other authors out there besides Thibs and Berardi. They also have impressive credentials and many clients, and they don’t always agree with what you and many others at this site so faithfully accept as fact.[/quote]
You shouldn’t just be questioning AUTHORS
You should be learning from how your own body responds
sometimes anecdotal evidence IS the truth of the matter
You don’t know every thing JMUC
and you have a lousy way with discussing things, luckily you will grow out of it, hopefully anyways
why aren’t you saving folks at Body For Life and Weight Watchers? those are the basic dieters that you seem would benefit most from your basic posts.
and that isn’t a hit, the basic formula is cals in vs. cals out, but… some folks here are past that
I’m a long time lurker on this site and forums, and usually I find the information right on point with my research. But I had to finally weigh in on something, and this topic gets to be it.
There is research that shows benefits of eating/snacking more than 3 times a day. There is also evidence that shows that eating less frequently has its benefits as well.
Basically, the “6 times a day” people look at the body to simplistically. The human body has evolved over thousands and thousands of years. During this time our bodies have adapted to long periods of fasting and times of abundance. Thus, the human body doesn’t work in terms of hours, days, or even weeks. It works it terms of months.
The “3 times a day” people, take this principle to the extreme believing that the body and accurate anticipate a set schedule and manage food intake accordingly. And frankly, they are correct. The human body is amazing. When given the right nutrients and the right amount of exercise, it can calculate the perfect metabolism to make it to the “scheduled” next feeding. Similarly, to how if you get up at the same time everyday, you no longer need an alarm clock because your body naturally wakes up.
The trick to fat loss and muscle gain, is to get the body in an eating schedule and then mess it up. If you are eating six meals a day, skip a couple every week for a while. Your body will still be hunger and it will burn either fat or muscle (fat if you exercise because your body will know that it needs muscle later for the upcoming exercise and muscle if you sit on the couch all day because your body will think that muscle is useless). If you are eating three meals a day, eat six one day and then fast the next.
All in all, interspersing times of fasting and abundance into your diet will actually aid in composition gains. Hence, the above poster that went from six meals to three and saw gains. Also, the three meals a day works closer to our genetics as it more accurately represents primeval man who would search for food, kill it, eat it, and then search again (maybe for days).
Just as an aside, the six meals a day thing came into vogue when people realized that it was hard to consume a lot of calories if you didn’t feel hunger. Thus, dieters found their silver bullet. If I eat when I’m not hungry (or grocery shop after I’ve eaten), I make better health choices and in smaller quantities. Bodybuilders and the like picked up on this in reverse as a way to load extra calories into their diet because it is hard to eat 1,000 calories in one sitting, as pointed out above. Anymore with supplements you can avoid this problem.
JMoUCF87
McG78
Next time, try a completely different handle moron.
Jesus, and you’re calling other people on here ignorant.