I believe he called her fat because she first called me fat. either way it’s childish. at least when i called her an exhibitionist whore I had photographic evidence.
btw OctoberGirl, I dare you to once, just once try to make a post without using the phrase “find what works best for you.” thats what people say when they have nothing of value to add, yet want to feel like they helped in some way.
“oh, you want to know how to get in shape do you? well, just find what works for YOU.” (gives self pat on back for job well done)[/quote]
… fella… you should always be doing what works for you
how stupid would you have to be to do something that doesn’t work for you because someone told you to?
I explained the benefits of more frequent eating, I gave my opinion on why I think it is better, but it comes down to what the person can and will do and what will work for them.
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
DJS wrote:
MarvelGirl wrote:
DJS wrote:
I’m still waiting for the rude cartoon chick to post her pics. Let thee that asks for the first pic, show pics herself. lol. Rude fat chick who likes cartoons. Anyway…
I think this guy JMo has done nothing wrong. He presented fresh ideas and was attacked because it went against what is popular in articles. After defending himself from constant attacks for pages and pages… all the sudden he is the aggressor. Whatever. His posts made me think. And I like a lot of what he is saying.
In nutrition and supplements, today’s fact is often tomorrow’s bullshit. Oh… thats right… I forgot we are all still getting jacked on Vanadyl Sulfate, and HMB. And that original food pyramid seems to have worked out very well. lol
There are pics of me on this site.
By the way, fuck yourself.
See… I said you were rude. Like really rude. Hense my post… and hense your response.
and calling her fat wasn’t rude?
It’s the boy’s club… I got it.
you aren’t the voice of reason
the OP asked why and was given good reasons as to why and then told to try it, and do what works best for him.
[/quote]
It was totally rude… and that was the point. A taste of her own medicine. Just a taste…
I believe he called her fat because she first called me fat. either way it’s childish. at least when i called her an exhibitionist whore I had photographic evidence.
btw OctoberGirl, I dare you to once, just once try to make a post without using the phrase “find what works best for you.” thats what people say when they have nothing of value to add, yet want to feel like they helped in some way.
“oh, you want to know how to get in shape do you? well, just find what works for YOU.” (gives self pat on back for job well done)
… fella… you should always be doing what works for you
how stupid would you have to be to do something that doesn’t work for you because someone told you to?
I explained the benefits of more frequent eating, I gave my opinion on why I think it is better, but it comes down to what the person can and will do and what will work for them.
you are pure dogma
you saying it MUST BE, doesn’t mean it is so
[/quote]
answer me this OctoberGirl, where did I say anything “MUST BE” in this thread (quote it for me, if you will). And if I did, please explain why you disagree.
if anything, im arguing on the side of flexability, 3,4,5, even 8 meals, makes no difference.
those arguing against are the ones taking the hard-line approach (you MUST eat at least 6x per day for optimal results!)
I believe he called her fat because she first called me fat. either way it’s childish. at least when i called her an exhibitionist whore I had photographic evidence.
btw OctoberGirl, I dare you to once, just once try to make a post without using the phrase “find what works best for you.” thats what people say when they have nothing of value to add, yet want to feel like they helped in some way.
“oh, you want to know how to get in shape do you? well, just find what works for YOU.” (gives self pat on back for job well done)
… fella… you should always be doing what works for you
how stupid would you have to be to do something that doesn’t work for you because someone told you to?
I explained the benefits of more frequent eating, I gave my opinion on why I think it is better, but it comes down to what the person can and will do and what will work for them.
you are pure dogma
you saying it MUST BE, doesn’t mean it is so
answer me this OctoberGirl, where did I say anything “MUST BE” in this thread (quote it for me, if you will). And if I did, please explain why you disagree.
if anything, im arguing on the side of flexability, 3,4,5, even 8 meals, makes no difference.
those arguing against are the ones taking the hard-line approach (you MUST eat at least 6x per day for optimal results!)[/quote]
wait… so you think folks should do what works for them?
[quote]joshjuk wrote:
Train with any kind of intensity and 3 meals is not going to cut it.
A calorie is a calorie, calorie in vs calorie out, this is the old way of thinking. There is a reason we have moved on from this.
A sedentary person who trains and moves 45 minutes a day may be able to get away with 3 meals a day. I am awake about 16 hours a day. If i eat breakfast immediately upon waking, that means 7 or 8 hours will go by before my next meal (on average). Haha there is no way!!! Not to mention cardio in the morning and weight training at night. Fuck! I would kill someone having to go without anything for 6 or 7 hours after a workout!
A lot of people here are trying to get above average physiques. 3 meals a day is the norm, the norm is not what I am striving for. Different goals I guess.
[/quote]
I don’t think anyone here has officially recommended 3 meals per day. I eat 4 times per day myself - and that includes my pwo shake. But, I have a real problem with people making blind recommendations based on bullshit reasoning like, “it improves leptin sensitivity” and “because other successful people do it”.
If you need to eat more to satisfy yourself and to make sure you fulfill your caloric goals, then good for you. But that’s not what’s being dicsused.
Pretty cool how virtually EVERYONE missed JMs point.
Which is NOT that he’s recommending 3 meals. He is saying that as long as it is at LEAST 3 meals, it will not much matter, as long as you’re eating the same quality and quantity of food.
I can not believe that people are actually accusing him of being dogmatic.
Lower meal frequency has been shown (Yes, by scientists), to have favorable effects on body composition. So has a higher meal frequency.
What does this tell me? That I should be comfortable both eating 3 and 8 meals a day. And everything in between.
[quote]ksommer wrote:
Do you accept that the PWO shake is a meal? (Technically it is defined as one in the more frequent meal crowd)
[/quote]
Personally, I don’t really consider it a meal if it is just 200-400 calorie range. I usually have a shake before bed that is usually 600-800 calories and I guess I consider that a meal. Not the same as eating a meal, though. I say I have experienced better results at 3 meals than 6 meals, but that isn’t to say I haven’t had even better results at 4 meals.
[quote]gi2eg wrote:
Pretty cool how virtually EVERYONE missed JMs point.
Which is NOT that he’s recommending 3 meals. He is saying that as long as it is at LEAST 3 meals, it will not much matter, as long as you’re eating the same quality and quantity of food.
I can not believe that people are actually accusing him of being dogmatic.
Lower meal frequency has been shown (Yes, by scientists), to have favorable effects on body composition. So has a higher meal frequency.
What does this tell me? That I should be comfortable both eating 3 and 8 meals a day. And everything in between.
[quote]JMoUCF87 wrote:
redgladiator wrote:
IMO 3 meals is just not enough. That’s an average of 8 hours between meals.
ummm…you didn’t do well in math class did you?
whats the point of using 24 hours when people typically only eat within a 12 hour window? I suppose if you wanted to use 24/3 you would end up with 8, but what of value does that bring to the debate at hand?
the issue is whether eating ever 2-3 hours (~6 meals per day) offers any advantage over 4-5 hours (3 meals per day).
I think most everyone (besides perhaps ksommer) can agree that those extra couple hours between meals won’t make any difference.
[/quote]
You question my maths?? In a 12 hour window suppose I eat at 8am 2pm and 8pm this is 12 hour window. How did you get 4-5 hours for 3 meals a day?
This is eating every 5-6 hours plus the 12 hour night time fast.
[quote]redgladiator wrote:
JMoUCF87 wrote:
redgladiator wrote:
IMO 3 meals is just not enough. That’s an average of 8 hours between meals.
ummm…you didn’t do well in math class did you?
whats the point of using 24 hours when people typically only eat within a 12 hour window? I suppose if you wanted to use 24/3 you would end up with 8, but what of value does that bring to the debate at hand?
the issue is whether eating ever 2-3 hours (~6 meals per day) offers any advantage over 4-5 hours (3 meals per day).
I think most everyone (besides perhaps ksommer) can agree that those extra couple hours between meals won’t make any difference.
You question my maths?? In a 12 hour window suppose I eat at 8am 2pm and 8pm this is 12 hour window. How did you get 4-5 hours for 3 meals a day?
This is eating every 5-6 hours plus the 12 hour night time fast. [/quote]
yes I did question your “maths”. you said an average of 8 hours would elapse between meals. so you eat breakfast at 6:00, lunch a 2:00 and dinner at 10:00 then?
I was using myself as an example, who typically eats breakfast at ~10:00 (not immediately after I wake up), lunch around 3:00 and dinner around 7:00.
As has been stated MANY times throughout this thread. I’m not suggesting everyone begin eating only 3 times per day.
what I am saying is if you DO only eat 3 times per day, you’re not hurting your gains so long as you still take in enough calories/nutrients.
[quote]JMoUCF87 wrote:
redgladiator wrote:
JMoUCF87 wrote:
redgladiator wrote:
IMO 3 meals is just not enough. That’s an average of 8 hours between meals.
ummm…you didn’t do well in math class did you?
whats the point of using 24 hours when people typically only eat within a 12 hour window? I suppose if you wanted to use 24/3 you would end up with 8, but what of value does that bring to the debate at hand?
the issue is whether eating ever 2-3 hours (~6 meals per day) offers any advantage over 4-5 hours (3 meals per day).
I think most everyone (besides perhaps ksommer) can agree that those extra couple hours between meals won’t make any difference.
You question my maths?? In a 12 hour window suppose I eat at 8am 2pm and 8pm this is 12 hour window. How did you get 4-5 hours for 3 meals a day?
This is eating every 5-6 hours plus the 12 hour night time fast.
yes I did question your “maths”. you said an average of 8 hours would elapse between meals. so you eat breakfast at 6:00, lunch a 2:00 and dinner at 10:00 then?
I was using myself as an example, who typically eats breakfast at ~10:00 (not immediately after I wake up), lunch around 3:00 and dinner around 7:00.
As has been stated MANY times throughout this thread. I’m not suggesting everyone begin eating only 3 times per day.
what I am saying is if you DO only eat 3 times per day, you’re not hurting your gains so long as you still take in enough calories/nutrients.[/quote]
Well fair enough you question my math. Average will always be 8 hours for 3 meals per day by definition regardless of timing.
YOU MENTIONED 12 hours and 3-4 hours between meals. How well did you do in math class?
Your own window is 9-10 hour window with a 14-15 hour fast at night.
[quote]JMoUCF87 wrote:
redgladiator wrote:
Clearly not. I think I made it quite clear that I need to eat more frequently than 3 meals a day.
and this entire 6 page thread has made it clear that don’t NEED to eat more frequently.
although you’re free to do so if that’s what you wish.
It’s all about what you’re more comfortable with. As a matter of fact, T-Nation contributer Leigh Peele wrote a blog entry about this:
read this and let me know what you think (anyone)[/quote]
I read the article and think it is “ok” advice for the general population. However, for those serious about getting big and strong it seems impossible to me that three meals would do. Even if you consumed the same amount of food in those three meals, I think you would get better results from 6 meals due to a more stable hormonal response throughout the day.
Also, I do not find Leigh Peele to be as good of a source for nutritional information as the likes of guys like Berardi or CT (who I think you recommended that we not blindly follow earlier in the thread). I have not heard of Leigh Peele getting any guys huge, however, CT and Berardi have lots of real world success with their methods.
I cannot think of very many popular author who do not recommend eating at least 5 times a day. CT, Berardi, Ferruggia, Justin Harris, Poliquin, all of these guys have had success and some of them have very different views on what foods to eat and types of training. However, all of these guys recommend eating more frequently than 3 times a day.
I know that blindly following authors is not something we should do, but you brought up Leigh Peele, and views like hers are few and far between in the goal of gaining muscle.
[quote]ajweins wrote:
JMoUCF87 wrote:
redgladiator wrote:
Clearly not. I think I made it quite clear that I need to eat more frequently than 3 meals a day.
and this entire 6 page thread has made it clear that don’t NEED to eat more frequently.
although you’re free to do so if that’s what you wish.
It’s all about what you’re more comfortable with. As a matter of fact, T-Nation contributer Leigh Peele wrote a blog entry about this:
read this and let me know what you think (anyone)
I read the article and think it is “ok” advice for the general population. However, for those serious about getting big and strong it seems impossible to me that three meals would do. Even if you consumed the same amount of food in those three meals, I think you would get better results from 6 meals due to a more stable hormonal response throughout the day.
Also, I do not find Leigh Peele to be as good of a source for nutritional information as the likes of guys like Berardi or CT (who I think you recommended that we not blindly follow earlier in the thread). I have not heard of Leigh Peele getting any guys huge, however, CT and Berardi have lots of real world success with their methods.
I cannot think of very many popular author who do not recommend eating at least 5 times a day. CT, Berardi, Ferruggia, Justin Harris, Poliquin, all of these guys have had success and some of them have very different views on what foods to eat and types of training. However, all of these guys recommend eating more frequently than 3 times a day.
I know that blindly following authors is not something we should do, but you brought up Leigh Peele, and views like hers are few and far between in the goal of gaining muscle.[/quote]
who said everyone’s goal is to get “big and huge”? furthermore, who said that you should LIMIT yourself to only three meals. have I not made myself clear enough? if you WANT to eat more, OR you have trouble getting enough calories in on breakfast lunch and dinner then go ahead and eat more often, there’s nothing WRONG with that.
but it isn’t NECESSARY for every individual or every goal. need 4,500 calories just to gain half a pound a week? then you better be putting away the food every chance you get (and I’m not talking chicken breast and sweet potatoes either)
on the other hand, if you have a demanding job, don’t need to eat a ton of calories for your goal, or simply don’t want the hassle of planning your life around your next meal then feel free to eat less frequently and don’t worry about the “Catabolic Boogeyman” stealing all your precious muscle. it ain’t gonna happen.