Why is 6 Meals a Day Better?

Nutrition
84

[quote]McG78 wrote:
OctoberGirl wrote:
JMoUCF87 wrote:
OctoberGirl wrote:
if folks don’t agree with you it doesn’t mean they are wrong, or ignorant, or on drugs, it might mean they have been there and done that

you just never seem to have an open mind to anyone else’s input

having an open mind doesn’t mean “accepting every crackpot theory an internet guru spews out to fill up his monthly article quota”

having an open mind means: looking objectively at two conflicting ideas and then determining, based on careful analysis of the relevant information, which is likely to be the correct answer.

if I tell you “hey OctoberGirl, the sky is orange.” and you look outside and say that it’s blue. does that make me right in writing you off by calling you “closed minded”? of course not.

it’s those individuals who cling to the notion that 6 meals is without-a-doubt better than 3, despite a clear lack of evidence to support their stance, that are demonstrating closed minded behavior.

I agree with you in regards to your “sky” scenario

but I don’t agree with how you throw out good posts from folks who have reason to know.

is it that you don’t realize how you are coming across?

Fella… these are trainers and it is their business to get results for their clients. That is the paycheck, results. It might be a very good idea to consider what they say they have witnessed as a proven success.

and you come across as very close-minded. If you aren’t, you may want to take a look at some of your past posts.

I have no problems asking Jeh-Fit, laroyal, and others, what they think. They have knowledge, actual working knowledge.

There were also Olympic trainers who taught their athletes to do the high jump facing forward. They were paid for this, made a living at this, and they were dead wrong. A little something called the Fosbury Flop was invented that challenged the norm, and is now the standard today.[/quote]

So eating 6 times a day is like jumping face forward, and eating 3 times a day is like the fosbury flop? Shouldn’t it be the other way around? Isn’t the eating three times a day with a low fat, high carb diet old bad science (jumping face forward), and the new science which is supported by at least 90% of the proven trainers out there to eat 6 times a day (fosbury flop). I guess that makes a lot more sense to me.

85

[quote]ajweins wrote:
McG78 wrote:
OctoberGirl wrote:
JMoUCF87 wrote:
OctoberGirl wrote:
if folks don’t agree with you it doesn’t mean they are wrong, or ignorant, or on drugs, it might mean they have been there and done that

you just never seem to have an open mind to anyone else’s input

having an open mind doesn’t mean “accepting every crackpot theory an internet guru spews out to fill up his monthly article quota”

having an open mind means: looking objectively at two conflicting ideas and then determining, based on careful analysis of the relevant information, which is likely to be the correct answer.

if I tell you “hey OctoberGirl, the sky is orange.” and you look outside and say that it’s blue. does that make me right in writing you off by calling you “closed minded”? of course not.

it’s those individuals who cling to the notion that 6 meals is without-a-doubt better than 3, despite a clear lack of evidence to support their stance, that are demonstrating closed minded behavior.

I agree with you in regards to your “sky” scenario

but I don’t agree with how you throw out good posts from folks who have reason to know.

is it that you don’t realize how you are coming across?

Fella… these are trainers and it is their business to get results for their clients. That is the paycheck, results. It might be a very good idea to consider what they say they have witnessed as a proven success.

and you come across as very close-minded. If you aren’t, you may want to take a look at some of your past posts.

I have no problems asking Jeh-Fit, laroyal, and others, what they think. They have knowledge, actual working knowledge.

There were also Olympic trainers who taught their athletes to do the high jump facing forward. They were paid for this, made a living at this, and they were dead wrong. A little something called the Fosbury Flop was invented that challenged the norm, and is now the standard today.

So eating 6 times a day is like jumping face forward, and eating 3 times a day is like the fosbury flop? Shouldn’t it be the other way around? Isn’t the eating three times a day with a low fat, high carb diet old bad science (jumping face forward), and the new science which is supported by at least 90% of the proven trainers out there to eat 6 times a day (fosbury flop). I guess that makes a lot more sense to me.[/quote]

I don’t know… I really don’t know why he threw out trivia

did you know that Edgar Allan Poe was the first one to write about the Big Bang Theory?

86

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
McG78 wrote:
There were also Olympic trainers who taught their athletes to do the high jump facing forward. They were paid for this, made a living at this, and they were dead wrong. A little something called the Fosbury Flop was invented that challenged the norm, and is now the standard today.

yah?

so keeping an open mind is probably a good thing.

fella … what are you trying to say here?

[/quote]

I was addressing your comment that trainers everywhere support the 6 times a day eating philosophy. Just because this is true, which it may not be, doesn’t make it right.

It does raise an interesting question on why some many people do recommend it if it isn’t superior. On it could be because there is bad research, but this is hardly the case. I do believe that the research out there is very accurate. Another is that why this way works, there are less developed methods that might be superior but no one is willing to take the risk. Or maybe it is because there is a balance that a person is dangerous close to upsetting if they only do three meals a day. I believe it is the later. The risk for most trainers and health professionals is that people will starve themselves in a goal to be skinny. While there is only a slight risk someone will eat themselves silly if they have made the commitment to go to a gym. In other words, when a person starts working out, they feel healthier and part of this is making healthy eating choices. Many newbies to fitness equate this with smaller meals. Hence, the trainer tells them, to eat 6 times a day; the path of least resistance.

To address a later poster, it is too simplistic to assume that face forward is (three times a day or six times a day) and backward is the other. They are not analogous in this context. I would say, however, that adopting a rigid six times a day strategy or a rigid three times a day strategy is counter to ultimate body composition goals because it goes against thousands of years of evolution.

87

[quote]McG78 wrote:
OctoberGirl wrote:
McG78 wrote:
There were also Olympic trainers who taught their athletes to do the high jump facing forward. They were paid for this, made a living at this, and they were dead wrong. A little something called the Fosbury Flop was invented that challenged the norm, and is now the standard today.

yah?

so keeping an open mind is probably a good thing.

fella … what are you trying to say here?

I was addressing your comment that trainers everywhere support the 6 times a day eating philosophy. Just because this is true, which it may not be, doesn’t make it right.

It does raise an interesting question on why some many people do recommend it if it isn’t superior. On it could be because there is bad research, but this is hardly the case. I do believe that the research out there is very accurate. Another is that why this way works, there are less developed methods that might be superior but no one is willing to take the risk. Or maybe it is because there is a balance that a person is dangerous close to upsetting if they only do three meals a day. I believe it is the later. The risk for most trainers and health professionals is that people will starve themselves in a goal to be skinny. While there is only a slight risk someone will eat themselves silly if they have made the commitment to go to a gym. In other words, when a person starts working out, they feel healthier and part of this is making healthy eating choices. Many newbies to fitness equate this with smaller meals. Hence, the trainer tells them, to eat 6 times a day; the path of least resistance.

To address a later poster, it is too simplistic to assume that face forward is (three times a day or six times a day) and backward is the other. They are not analogous in this context. I would say, however, that adopting a rigid six times a day strategy or a rigid three times a day strategy is counter to ultimate body composition goals because it goes against thousands of years of evolution.[/quote]

could you tell me where I said trainers everywhere support 6 meals a day? I didn’t.

I did say it was a good idea to listen and consider posts from people who’s job it is to get results

88

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
JMoUCF87 wrote:
OctoberGirl wrote:

Fella… these are trainers and it is their business to get results for their clients. That is the paycheck, results. It might be a very good idea to consider what they say they have witnessed as a proven success.

and you come across as very close-minded. If you aren’t, you may want to take a look at some of your past posts.

[/quote]

There you go. Granted you have to assume that you are saying that the trainers support six meals a day, which is the logical interpretation based on your support for six meals a day.

89

[quote]McG78 wrote:
OctoberGirl wrote:
JMoUCF87 wrote:
OctoberGirl wrote:

Fella… these are trainers and it is their business to get results for their clients. That is the paycheck, results. It might be a very good idea to consider what they say they have witnessed as a proven success.

and you come across as very close-minded. If you aren’t, you may want to take a look at some of your past posts.

There you go. Granted you have to assume that you are saying that the trainers support six meals a day, which is the logical interpretation based on your support for six meals a day.[/quote]

That isn’t what that says,… it actually STATES… “consider what they say”…

fella… you need to stop plastering YOUR assumptions on folks

as I have said ad nauseum… keep an open mind, do what works for you, results are all that matter, and consider what is stated by those who have ACTUAL results

90

[quote]McG78 wrote:
OctoberGirl wrote:
JMoUCF87 wrote:
OctoberGirl wrote:

Fella… these are trainers and it is their business to get results for their clients. That is the paycheck, results. It might be a very good idea to consider what they say they have witnessed as a proven success.

and you come across as very close-minded. If you aren’t, you may want to take a look at some of your past posts.

There you go. Granted you have to assume that you are saying that the trainers support six meals a day, which is the logical interpretation based on your support for six meals a day.[/quote]

OctoberGirl, I will respond for you. No where did I say everywhere.

Which I would respond to with the following, everywhere is implied based on your previous post on how JMoUCF87’s views and my views are the minority. And the converse, the majority must support yours. Thus, you are saying the majority of trainers (my early poor choice of substitutes being “everywhere”) support six meals a day and are paid to give this advice so it must be true.

91

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
McG78 wrote:
OctoberGirl wrote:
JMoUCF87 wrote:
OctoberGirl wrote:

Fella… these are trainers and it is their business to get results for their clients. That is the paycheck, results. It might be a very good idea to consider what they say they have witnessed as a proven success.

and you come across as very close-minded. If you aren’t, you may want to take a look at some of your past posts.

There you go. Granted you have to assume that you are saying that the trainers support six meals a day, which is the logical interpretation based on your support for six meals a day.

That isn’t what that says,… it actually STATES… “consider what they say”…

fella… you need to stop plastering YOUR assumptions on folks

as I have said ad nauseum… keep an open mind, do what works for you, results are all that matter, and consider what is stated by those who have ACTUAL results

[/quote]

You beat me too it.

Actually, it does say this no matter what spin you want to put on it. The context leads to the logical implication that leads to my conclusion. It isn’t a right or wrong thing. Your argument about 6 meals a day might be valid, but it is not valid based on the premise trainers support it.

As to your open-mind thing, I’m all for it. People can read above and decide what they want to do.

Here is my advice, if you have been eating six meals a day and are happy with your results stick with it for similar results. If you are eating three meals a day and are happy with your results stick with it for similar results. If you want to challenge your body adopt a different approach for a month and measure the results. I bet you will find that you break through any plateaus you have and achieve better results. If you don’t, one month isn’t going to kill you. Reassess at the end of the month and adjust based on the information. The worst thing you can do is try it (either 6 meals or 3 meals) for a week and stop. This is hardly time to evaluate results, and it is hardly time to adjust appropriately.

92

[quote]McG78 wrote:
McG78 wrote:
OctoberGirl wrote:
JMoUCF87 wrote:
OctoberGirl wrote:

Fella… these are trainers and it is their business to get results for their clients. That is the paycheck, results. It might be a very good idea to consider what they say they have witnessed as a proven success.

and you come across as very close-minded. If you aren’t, you may want to take a look at some of your past posts.

There you go. Granted you have to assume that you are saying that the trainers support six meals a day, which is the logical interpretation based on your support for six meals a day.

OctoberGirl, I will respond for you. No where did I say everywhere.

Which I would respond to with the following, everywhere is implied based on your previous post on how JMoUCF87’s views and my views are the minority. And the converse, the majority must support yours. Thus, you are saying the majority of trainers (my early poor choice of substitutes being “everywhere”) support six meals a day and are paid to give this advice so it must be true.[/quote]

what you posted
"McG78 wrote:
I was addressing your comment that trainers [u][i]everywhere support the 6 times a day eating philosophy[/u][/i]. Just because this is true, which it may not be, doesn’t make it right.

it is my opinion that most trainers(I have no idea if it is the majority as YOU ASSUME) would support 6 meals a day if this is feasible for their client."

I will say that of those ACTUAL TRAINERS who have posted, that is also what they have said has worked for thier clients…

so… ACTUAL TRAINERS … have stated… this seems to work well with thier clients. Clients who pay them for results. Results fuel their paychecks.

there is also not just anecdotal, but scientific evidence of meals spread out through the day do maintain, and regulate insulin, cortisol, and even hunger in a more constant state, just to name a few benefits.

as I also stated, do what words for YOU

93

[quote]McG78 wrote:
OctoberGirl wrote:
McG78 wrote:
OctoberGirl wrote:
JMoUCF87 wrote:
OctoberGirl wrote:

Fella… these are trainers and it is their business to get results for their clients. That is the paycheck, results. It might be a very good idea to consider what they say they have witnessed as a proven success.

and you come across as very close-minded. If you aren’t, you may want to take a look at some of your past posts.

There you go. Granted you have to assume that you are saying that the trainers support six meals a day, which is the logical interpretation based on your support for six meals a day.

That isn’t what that says,… it actually STATES… “consider what they say”…

fella… you need to stop plastering YOUR assumptions on folks

as I have said ad nauseum… keep an open mind, do what works for you, results are all that matter, and consider what is stated by those who have ACTUAL results

You beat me too it.

Actually, it does say this no matter what spin you want to put on it. The context leads to the logical implication that leads to my conclusion. It isn’t a right or wrong thing. Your argument about 6 meals a day might be valid, but it is not valid based on the premise trainers support it.

As to your open-mind thing, I’m all for it. People can read above and decide what they want to do.

Here is my advice, if you have been eating six meals a day and are happy with your results stick with it for similar results. If you are eating three meals a day and are happy with your results stick with it for similar results. If you want to challenge your body adopt a different approach for a month and measure the results. I bet you will find that you break through any plateaus you have and achieve better results. If you don’t, one month isn’t going to kill you. Reassess at the end of the month and adjust based on the information. The worst thing you can do is try it (either 6 meals or 3 meals) for a week and stop. This is hardly time to evaluate results, and it is hardly time to adjust appropriately.[/quote]

McG… we actually agree

94

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
McG78 wrote:
McG78 wrote:
OctoberGirl wrote:
JMoUCF87 wrote:
OctoberGirl wrote:

Fella… these are trainers and it is their business to get results for their clients. That is the paycheck, results. It might be a very good idea to consider what they say they have witnessed as a proven success.

and you come across as very close-minded. If you aren’t, you may want to take a look at some of your past posts.

There you go. Granted you have to assume that you are saying that the trainers support six meals a day, which is the logical interpretation based on your support for six meals a day.

OctoberGirl, I will respond for you. No where did I say everywhere.

Which I would respond to with the following, everywhere is implied based on your previous post on how JMoUCF87’s views and my views are the minority. And the converse, the majority must support yours. Thus, you are saying the majority of trainers (my early poor choice of substitutes being “everywhere”) support six meals a day and are paid to give this advice so it must be true.

what you posted
"McG78 wrote:
I was addressing your comment that trainers [u][i]everywhere support the 6 times a day eating philosophy[/u][/i]. Just because this is true, which it may not be, doesn’t make it right.

it is my opinion that most trainers(I have no idea if it is the majority as YOU ASSUME) would support 6 meals a day if this is feasible for their client."

I will say that of those ACTUAL TRAINERS who have posted, that is also what they have said has worked for thier clients…

so… ACTUAL TRAINERS … have stated… this seems to work well with thier clients. Clients who pay them for results. Results fuel their paychecks.

there is also not just anecdotal, but scientific evidence of meals spread out through the day do maintain, and regulate insulin, cortisol, and even hunger in a more constant state, just to name a few benefits.

as I also stated, do what words for YOU

[/quote]

I don’t think i said this “it is my opinion that most trainers(I have no idea if it is the majority as YOU ASSUME) would support 6 meals a day if this is feasible for their client” even though you quoted me as saying it.

95

[quote]McG78 wrote:

I don’t think i said this “it is my opinion that most trainers(I have no idea if it is the majority as YOU ASSUME) would support 6 meals a day if this is feasible for their client” even though you quoted me as saying it.[/quote]

McG… you did say majority

just scroll up and check your own posts

96

[quote]McG78 wrote:
Thus, you are saying the [i][u]majority of trainers [/u][/i](my early poor choice of substitutes being “everywhere”) support six meals a day and are paid to give this advice so it must be true.[/quote]

97

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
McG78 wrote:

I don’t think i said this “it is my opinion that most trainers(I have no idea if it is the majority as YOU ASSUME) would support 6 meals a day if this is feasible for their client” even though you quoted me as saying it.

McG… you did say majority

just scroll up and check your own posts[/quote]

I was saying I didn’t say [b][u]it is my opinion that most trainers would support 6 meals a day if this is feasible for their client [/b][/u]. Or at least, I couldn’t find where I said it. But it was in the quotes as if I had stated it.

[quote]
what you posted
"McG78 wrote:
I was addressing your comment that trainers [u][i]everywhere support the 6 times a day eating philosophy[/u][/i]. Just because this is true, which it may not be, doesn’t make it right.

it is my opinion that most trainers(I have no idea if it is the majority as YOU ASSUME) would support 6 meals a day if this is feasible for their client."[/quote]

I did state that one reason trainers might go with the 6 meals a day option is that it is the path of least resistance.

98

[quote]McG78 wrote:
OctoberGirl wrote:
McG78 wrote:

I don’t think i said this “it is my opinion that most trainers(I have no idea if it is the majority as YOU ASSUME) would support 6 meals a day if this is feasible for their client” even though you quoted me as saying it.

McG… you did say majority

just scroll up and check your own posts

I was saying I didn’t say [b][u]it is my opinion that most trainers would support 6 meals a day if this is feasible for their client [/b][/u]. Or at least, I couldn’t find where I said it. But it was in the quotes as if I had stated it.

what you posted
"McG78 wrote:
I was addressing your comment that trainers [u][i]everywhere support the 6 times a day eating philosophy[/u][/i]. Just because this is true, which it may not be, doesn’t make it right.

it is my opinion that most trainers(I have no idea if it is the majority as YOU ASSUME) would support 6 meals a day if this is feasible for their client."

I did state that one reason trainers might go with the 6 meals a day option is that it is the path of least resistance.[/quote]

McG… you are not reading the quotes and things clearly. I said that was my opinion.

but does it matter now?

OP… so sorry for the stupid sidetrack of folks who can’t read a post.

consider what people who have proven results have to post and then do what works for you

99

If you are saying, I can’t read a post, I beg to differ. Let me highlight the quotation marks in your quote.

[u][i]"[/u][/i][quote]McG78 wrote:
I was addressing your comment that trainers [u][i]everywhere support the 6 times a day eating philosophy[/u][/i]. Just because this is true, which it may not be, doesn’t make it right.

it is my opinion that most trainers(I have no idea if it is the majority as YOU ASSUME) would support 6 meals a day if this is feasible for their client.[/quote][u][i]"[/u][/i]

As you can see, you put the quotes around everything.

100

[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]

Couldn’t have said it better myself.

I actually thought JMo was a useful poster for awhile. But he’s a one-trick pony. “The real truth is…” Shut up.

I’ve said it to you before, JMo, and I’ll say it again: science doesn’t dictate. Experience dictates, science informs. Of course, this is just anecdotal. Sorry I don’t have a study to confirm it for you.

101

jesus this has gotten out of hand.

McG78, I appreciate your input, but i think both you and OctoberGirl need to chill.

ovalpline, you seem to be generally competent, so i’ll be nice. my problem with main people using personal experience to guide their opinion, is that if they only knew WHY they were successful, then they can give good advice to others.

for example: if someone lost a lot of fat by eating smaller more frequent meals, then great, im happy for them. but if they attribute their success to increased meal frequency, and not to lowered caloric intake (the real cause). they will then go online and tell everyone they NEED to eat 6-8 times per day or else they won’t see optimal results.

what about the person who’s busy all day and can only fit 3 meals into his schedule? what about the small female who has a low caloric intake? what about the person who is always on the road and can’t prepare 8 meals? are they all hopelessly doomed to fatness because they can take time out every 2 hours to eat another chicken breast?

the answer is of course not, that’s silly because it doesnt matter how OFTEN you eat, as long as how MUCH you eat is the same.

armed with this knowledge you can actually give people rational advice that they will actually be able to FOLLOW and therefore will be much more likely to see success. this is what a good trainer does.

a good trainer doesnt say: “eat 6 meals per day because it will boost you metabolism, don’t ask for any evidence though because i cant provide any.”

a good trainer will say: "this is why you’re fat. this is what you need to do to fix that. eat as many times per day as is easiest for you to stick with (this can be 8, 6, 4, whatever)

As long as you know what actually CAUSES results (and what is simply CORRELATED with results) you can give much better recommendations to folks.

(as I’ve said before, I’ve done both 8 and 2 meals per day. I currently do 5 b/c it works around my class schedual)

/thread.

102

i hate to get in the way of this prolific pissing match, but a quick glance through this may shed some scientific light on the original topic:

http://www.elitefts.com/documents/intermittent_fasting.htm

it is by Alan Aragon, who has already been referenced in this thread as a generally smart guy.

feel free to return to the shitshow any time.

103

“ovalpline, you seem to be generally competent, so i’ll be nice.”

I am sure ovalpine is glad to be enlightened by you and thanks you for going easy on him.