Peak-Muscle.com  

Welcome to the Peak-Muscle.com forums.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. Come join us in on one of the best online fitness communities. We have 16,000 members that are likeminded towards a fitness, bodybuilding lifestyle. Registration is free and only takes but a few minutes. By joining our free community you will have access to communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. You will be able to create threads to discuss and or create a fitness regimen. Or just bounce ideas off of some very knowledgeable members. So don't miss out. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

Register FAQ Members List Calendar Arcade Mark Forums Read
Go Back   Peak-Muscle.com > Bodybuilding and Fitness Discussion > Diet and Nutrition
User Name
Password

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-20-2009, 05:35 PM   #1
liftsiron
Administrator
 
liftsiron's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Cimmeria
Posts: 18,384
liftsiron has a brilliant futureliftsiron has a brilliant futureliftsiron has a brilliant futureliftsiron has a brilliant futureliftsiron has a brilliant futureliftsiron has a brilliant futureliftsiron has a brilliant futureliftsiron has a brilliant futureliftsiron has a brilliant futureliftsiron has a brilliant futureliftsiron has a brilliant future
meal frequency myth.. eating every 2-3 hours is wrong..

meal frequency myth.. eating every 2-3 hours is wrong..
Thoughts.. Debate?? I am not so sure myself. Liftsiron seems to be of the same thought process.


(from a chapter called "Dispelling the Myths")

‘Eating several small meals a day is superior to a few large meals a day’

Despite being a highly impractical meal pattern for many people, this is by far the most common diet myth around; not only in the fitness community, but also in the mass media. As a consequence, it’s also the hardest diet myth to kill, as it’s being perpetually kept alive and repeated ad infinitum by the supplement industry, nutritionists that can’t put the research into proper context and people that just keeps repeating what the others are saying. Let’s look at what the actual studies can tell us about this topic.


Meal frequency and TEF


You’ve probably heard that eating smalls meals throughout the day ‘stokes the metabolic fire’ or is the ideal way to eat in order to control cravings and blood sugar; as consequence, this should also be the ideal way to eat for fat burning purposes. This belief is partly based on a gross and blatantly incorrect interpretation of research concerning TEF (Thermic Effect of Food).

Besides body weight, activity patterns and genetics, TEF is part of the equation that determines your metabolic rate for each given day. Paradoxically, ingesting energy costs energy and TEF is the increase in metabolic rate above basal conditions due to the cost of processing food for storage and use (ref). Simply put, every time you eat, the body expends a certain percentage of energy just to process the food you just ate. TEF varies between the macronutrients; protein is given a value of 20-25%, carbs 5% and fat 2-3% (ref). In a mixed diet, TEF is usually estimated to 10% of the calorie intake.

So, every time you eat, TEF comes into play and your metabolic rate increases in response to the meal you just ate. The problem here is that the research has been presented in such a way that it has lead people to believe that the net effect of TEF of several small meals would be greater than that of a few, large meals.

You see, TEF is directly proportional to the calories contained in the meal you just ate (ref). Assuming a diet of 2400 calories, with the same macronutrient composition, eating six small meals of 400 calories or three big meals of 800 calories, TEF will be exactly the same at the end of the day. The only thing that will differ between each meal pattern is the pattern of the spikes; six small meals will equal six small spikes in metabolic rates, while three big meals will equal three big spikes.

So, while eating several small meals a day will per definition ‘keep the metabolic furnace burning’, three big meals will ‘keep the metabolic furnace blasting’.

How about fat burning? As researchers have found, substrate metabolism is largely dictated by the meal you just ate and the macronutrient composition of your diet - how you split your meals have no consequence for the amount of fat oxidized at the end of the day (ref). Simply put, if you eat six small meals throughout the day, you will store and burn less fat between the meals compared to three meals a day, while you will store and burn more fat with three meals a day. Substrate metabolism will be different, but the net effect will be the same on either meal pattern.

Note that I say ‘store’, because fat storage and fat burning is an ongoing process – with six small meals you will store less AND burn less, and with three meals a day you will store more AND burn more. This is important to remember, as it can and has been twisted into ‘you will store more fat with three meals a day’. Sure, if you measure fat storage on a meal per meal basis, which is insane, but on the other hand you will burn more fat in between the meals. Whether you store or lose body fat at the end of the day is a consequence of intake minus expenditure; not meal frequency.

In conclusion, different meal splits have no effect on metabolic rate or fat metabolism.

I must admit that I’m a bit amazed at how people keep missing the boat when it comes to meal frequency and TEF. This myth is also prevalent in the minds of many professionals, which is even more confusing. The research is there, right in front of your eyes if you know where to look, and there’s been several large scale, meticulously controlled and well designed studies on the topic of meal frequency and TEF. And still, people keep believing that several small meals a day will increase your energy expenditure beyond what fewer, large meals will do.

Then again, the powers that be, in this case the supplement industry, loves the fact that the myth is being kept alive. What do people eat when they are being told that they should eat six meals a day? Well, it sure isn’t six home cooked meals. Rather, people are downing meal replacement products, protein shakes and bars in between the main meals. This is a billion dollar industry that is partly being kept alive by erroneous beliefs. Bodybuilding and fitness magazines usually have no interest in presenting accurate information about the topic, as they derive a large part of their financing from supplement ads. In fact, many magazine writers have a vested interest in keeping the myth alive as well, themselves being owners of supplement companies that make millions out of selling protein powders and meal replacement bars.

Is a high frequency meal plan ever warranted? Sure, if your energy expenditure is extremely high, it would probably be a lot more comfortable to consume your calories in several meals rather than a few very large ones. The 300 lbs off-season bodybuilder or endurance athlete that needs 5-6000 calories a day to maintain body weight would be better advised eating 6 meals of 1000 calories rather than 3 meals with 2000 calories. Some other instances, such as some teenagers having a hard time putting on weight, would also warrant a high frequency meal plan simply because it would be hard getting all the calories in three meals.

However, these cases represent a minority of people. Getting enough calories in few meals doesn’t seem to be a problem for the great majority, and going by the feedback the 16-8 system has been getting, it’s definitely a more comfortable way to eat for many people.


Studies cited for this excerpt (in no particular order)

Denzer CM - The effect of resistance exercise on the thermic effect of food - International Journal of Sport Nutrition and Exercise Metabolism

Bellisle F et al. Meal frequency and energy balance. Br J Nutr. 1997 Apr;77 Suppl 1:S57-70.

Westerterp KR et al. Influence of the feeding frequency on nutrient utilization in man: consequences for energy metabolism. Eur J Clin Nutr. 1991 Mar;45(3):161-9

Taylor MA , Garrow JS. Compared with nibbling, neither gorging nor a morning fast affect short-term energy balance in obese patients ina chamber calorimeter. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2001 Apr;25(4):519-28.

Jones PJ et al. Meal frequency influences circulating hormone levels but not lipogenesis rates in humans. Metabolism. 1995 Feb;44(2):218-23
__________________
ADMIN/OWNER@Peak-Muscle
liftsiron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-20-2009, 05:49 PM   #2
liftsiron
Administrator
 
liftsiron's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Cimmeria
Posts: 18,384
liftsiron has a brilliant futureliftsiron has a brilliant futureliftsiron has a brilliant futureliftsiron has a brilliant futureliftsiron has a brilliant futureliftsiron has a brilliant futureliftsiron has a brilliant futureliftsiron has a brilliant futureliftsiron has a brilliant futureliftsiron has a brilliant futureliftsiron has a brilliant future
J Nutr. 2002 May;132(5):1002-8. Related Articles, Links


Pulse protein feeding pattern restores stimulation of muscle protein synthesis during the feeding period in old rats.

Arnal MA, Mosoni L, Dardevet D, Ribeyre MC, Bayle G, Prugnaud J, Patureau Mirand P.

Unite de Nutrition et Metabolisme Proteique, Centre INRA de Clermont-Ferrand-Theix, 63122 Theix, France.

Muscle loss during aging could be related to a lower sensitivity of muscle protein synthesis to feeding. To overcome this decrease without increasing protein intake, we proposed to modulate the daily protein feeding pattern. We showed that consuming 80% of dietary proteins at noon (pulse pattern) improved nitrogen balance in elderly women. The present study was undertaken in rats to determine which tissues are the targets of the pulse pattern and what mechanisms are involved. Male Sprague-Dawley 11- and 23-mo-old rats (n = 32 per age) were fed 4 isoproteic (18% protein) meals/d for 10 d. Then half of the rats at each age were switched to a 11/66/11/11% repartition of daily proteins (pulse pattern) for 21 d. On d 21, rats were injected with a flooding dose of L-(13)C-valine (50 atom% excess, 150 micromol/100 g body) and protein synthesis rates were measured in liver, small intestine and gastrocnemius muscle in either the postabsorptive or the fed state. Epitrochlearis muscle degradation rates and plasma amino acid concentrations were measured at the same times. The pulse pattern had the following effects: 1) it significantly increased liver protein synthesis response to feeding and postprandial plasma amino acid concentrations at both ages; 2) it restored a significant response to feeding of gastrocnemius muscle protein synthesis in old rats; and 3) it had no effect in small intestine or on muscle breakdown. Thus, using a pulse pattern could be useful in preventing the age-related loss of muscle by increasing feeding-induced stimulation of muscle protein synthesis.

__________________
__________________
ADMIN/OWNER@Peak-Muscle
liftsiron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-20-2009, 06:50 PM   #3
liftsiron
Administrator
 
liftsiron's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Cimmeria
Posts: 18,384
liftsiron has a brilliant futureliftsiron has a brilliant futureliftsiron has a brilliant futureliftsiron has a brilliant futureliftsiron has a brilliant futureliftsiron has a brilliant futureliftsiron has a brilliant futureliftsiron has a brilliant futureliftsiron has a brilliant futureliftsiron has a brilliant futureliftsiron has a brilliant future
Hmmmm!
Here is a study that favors frequent meals.

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol 8, 682-690, Copyright © 1960 by The American Society for Clinical Nutrition, Inc.
Effects on Metabolism Produced by the Rate of Ingestion of the Diet
"Meal Eating" Versus "Nibbling"
CLARENCE COHN M.D.1 and DOROTHY JOSEPH 1

1 From the Department of Biochemistry, Medical Research Institute, Michael Reese Hospital, Chicago, Illinois

Animals induced to meal eat (consume full spaced meals) differ from those allowed to nibble (eat frequent small feedings) with respect to over-all body metabolism. Meal eating, when compared to nibbling, is associated with the following: (1) increased body fat, (2) decreased body protein, (3) changed tissue enzymatic activities. (4) altered thyroid activity, (5) an increased incidence of diabetes mellitus in partially depancreatized rats and (6) an enhanced development of and an inhibition in the regression of experimental atherosclerotic lesions. These results are interpreted to be the result of a role the rate of ingestion of the diet plays in the regulation of intermediary metabolism. It is believed that the rate of influx of calories alters traffic over specific enzymatic pathways, when multiple pathways are available, hence it affects the metabolism of fat, carbohydrate and protein.


And another!


The effects of altered frequency of eating on plasma lipids in free-living healthy males on normal self-selected diets.
Author: McGrath, S A : Gibney, M J
Citation: Eur-J-Clin-Nutr. 1994 Jun; 48(6): 402-7
Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To examine the effects of modifying meal consumption frequency on blood lipids in free-living healthy male volunteers on self-selected diets. DESIGN: Cross-over study of snacking to non-snacking and non-snacking to snacking patterns. SETTING: Civic Offices, Dublin. SUBJECTS: 12 men with a mean (SD) eating frequency of 6.0 +/- 0.8 times per day ('snacking') and 11 men with a frequency of 3.1 +/- 0.1 meals per day ('non-snackers'). INTERVENTION: The 'snackers' moved from 6.0 to 3.3 +/- 0.3 meal-eating occasions per day while the 'non-snackers' moved from 3.1 to 5.9 +/- 0.9 times per day. It was intended that these modifications of eating frequency would not be the cause of modified nutrient intake in the cross-over period. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Nutrient intake, plasma total, high density lipoprotein (HDL) and low density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, plasma triglyceride and apoproteins A-I and B. RESULTS: There was a significant treatment (cross-over) effect on plasma total cholesterol (P = 0.038), LDL cholesterol (P = 0.038), HDL/LDL cholesterol ratio (P = 0.013) and apo A-I/B (P = 0.029). There were no significant nutrient changes on moving from meal-eating to snacking but on moving from snacking to meal-eating there were significant changes (P less than 0.005) in the % energy from protein, fat, saturated fatty acids and alcohol. These changes accounted for all the changes in blood cholesterol in this group. When the data for meal-eating to snacking were analysed separately, given that nutrient intakes did not change, a significant effect of altered meal-eating frequency was found for total cholesterol (P = 0.027) and HDL/LDL (P = 0.015). CONCLUSION: These data on free-living subjects following normal self-selected diets support the hypothesis and the substantial related literature that more frequent meal consumption has a favourable effect on lowering plasma cholesterol and raising the HDL/LDL cholesterol ratio.
__________________
ADMIN/OWNER@Peak-Muscle
liftsiron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-20-2009, 07:39 PM   #4
OKMEDIC
Registered User
 
OKMEDIC's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Hopefully closer to birth than death
Posts: 277
OKMEDIC is on a distinguished road
I am no expert by any means, however, I am leaning toward the logic of the first article. I personaly feel the only benifit of more meals spread out over your day would be that of keeping blood sugar levels more even. Other than that, the article makes total sense.

Whether or not we are burning more calories or not by eating more spread out meals during the day, I have found that I do feel better and seem to have more energy if I eat them a bit more spread out. That's just me though.

Great Post Lifts... Thanks
__________________
The reputation of a thousand years may be determined by the conduct of only one hour.
OKMEDIC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2009, 05:07 PM   #5
John Benz
Vet
 
John Benz's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 3,208
John Benz is a name known to allJohn Benz is a name known to allJohn Benz is a name known to allJohn Benz is a name known to allJohn Benz is a name known to allJohn Benz is a name known to all
I also have a lot more energy when I eat smaller meals more frequently. Never noticed much fat loss difference, but definately feel more sluggish after ingesting a large meal.
John Benz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2009, 05:20 PM   #6
liftsiron
Administrator
 
liftsiron's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Cimmeria
Posts: 18,384
liftsiron has a brilliant futureliftsiron has a brilliant futureliftsiron has a brilliant futureliftsiron has a brilliant futureliftsiron has a brilliant futureliftsiron has a brilliant futureliftsiron has a brilliant futureliftsiron has a brilliant futureliftsiron has a brilliant futureliftsiron has a brilliant futureliftsiron has a brilliant future
I feel like crap if I eat a huge meal. I like four small to moderate size meals ed and perhaps a very small protein snack if I get hungry later in the evening.
__________________
ADMIN/OWNER@Peak-Muscle
liftsiron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2009, 06:12 PM   #7
Dawgpound_Hank
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
I disagree with most of the info in the first article. Why? Because it only makes sense that keeping splikes on a more small scale on a more frequent basis is a better approach versus only few but massive spikes througout the day. That merely states what we already know. And based on that articles theory, we can take it to the extreme and say that 1 GIANT meal only during the day, assuming it provides the sames macros & cals as 5-6 smaller meals, will generate the same metab burning effect...be it 1 GIANT spike.lol Sorry, can't buy that.lol

Also, keep in mind, frequent meals vs few large meals isn't only about the metab effect...its also, and more importantly about keep the muscles stoked with protein to promote as much as an anabolic environment as possible. My expereince via anecdotal insight and using common logic tells me that 6 meals/drinks that includes 60g protein each is superior to only 3 meals/drinks including 120g protein each...thats just an example using 360g protein total.

Lastly, the article states about most needing many meals is "the minority"...which IS true I agree. However, in this game of bodybuilding, we ALL are the minority!lol We are not the average Joe's keep in mind.lol He goes overboard using a "300lb offseason bodybuilder" as an example. One doesnt have to be 300 fucking pounds to need 5-6+K and several meals to maintain. Shit, I need that much and I weigh only 260-270 at most times...and thats 5-6k only to maintain! Many guys with a steam-engine-like metab that weigh less than me might even need that much. And attempting to get that amount in via 3 meals is just aint happenin'.


Just my take
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2009, 06:43 AM   #8
liftsiron
Administrator
 
liftsiron's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Cimmeria
Posts: 18,384
liftsiron has a brilliant futureliftsiron has a brilliant futureliftsiron has a brilliant futureliftsiron has a brilliant futureliftsiron has a brilliant futureliftsiron has a brilliant futureliftsiron has a brilliant futureliftsiron has a brilliant futureliftsiron has a brilliant futureliftsiron has a brilliant futureliftsiron has a brilliant future
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawgpound_Hank View Post
I disagree with most of the info in the first article. Why? Because it only makes sense that keeping splikes on a more small scale on a more frequent basis is a better approach versus only few but massive spikes througout the day. That merely states what we already know. And based on that articles theory, we can take it to the extreme and say that 1 GIANT meal only during the day, assuming it provides the sames macros & cals as 5-6 smaller meals, will generate the same metab burning effect...be it 1 GIANT spike.lol Sorry, can't buy that.lol

Also, keep in mind, frequent meals vs few large meals isn't only about the metab effect...its also, and more importantly about keep the muscles stoked with protein to promote as much as an anabolic environment as possible. My expereince via anecdotal insight and using common logic tells me that 6 meals/drinks that includes 60g protein each is superior to only 3 meals/drinks including 120g protein each...thats just an example using 360g protein total.

Lastly, the article states about most needing many meals is "the minority"...which IS true I agree. However, in this game of bodybuilding, we ALL are the minority!lol We are not the average Joe's keep in mind.lol He goes overboard using a "300lb offseason bodybuilder" as an example. One doesnt have to be 300 fucking pounds to need 5-6+K and several meals to maintain. Shit, I need that much and I weigh only 260-270 at most times...and thats 5-6k only to maintain! Many guys with a steam-engine-like metab that weigh less than me might even need that much. And attempting to get that amount in via 3 meals is just aint happenin'.


Just my take
Actually you make some good points, although old school guys like Serge Nubert ate most often only one large meal per day. I don't believe that six meals has much more benefit to metabolism than three or four. However I agree that digestion wise more meals seem better. I was quite surprised at how much of the recent scientific research favors the frequent smaller meal approach, not only in regard to muscle building but to general health as well. I always ate four times ed sometime adding a high protein snack, maybe I'll add a second snack to my four meals.
__________________
ADMIN/OWNER@Peak-Muscle
liftsiron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2009, 06:58 AM   #9
Scotsmark
VET
 
Scotsmark's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Scotland
Posts: 956
Scotsmark is on a distinguished road
From a personal point of view, i can't function on 3 meals/day. At work, we have set meal timings and they are approx. 6 hour apart. i generally feel ready to eat after 2 hours from my last meal, no matter what I eat. I have to snack between the 3 set meals, whether it's a shake, some fruit, jerky or all of the above.
I'm a firm believer in individuality, each of us has to find out what works best for our own bodies, there's no point sticking to a plan just because "the internet or my PT says so". Also, if you eat more meals and it works, there's no harm in trying a fewer meal method for a week or two to see if there are any changes and vice versa. Trial and error, I say, it's our own evolution.
Scotsmark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2009, 08:44 AM   #10
Thate
Vet
 
Thate's Avatar
 

Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,425
Thate is a jewel in the roughThate is a jewel in the roughThate is a jewel in the roughThate is a jewel in the rough
Have to have more than 3 meals per day imo, those studies weren't done on lifters.
Thate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2009, 11:44 PM   #11
Stackt
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Interesting read but I'll stick to my 6-8 meals day for now . 3 large meals would make me feel shitty and lazy just like when you finish eating at a buffet . Off topic but Checkout Max Charles 2008 Eastern USA Super HW Class vid from md he said he only eats 1-2 meals a day ...? http://mdtv.musculardevelopment.com/...view/1880/204/
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2009, 04:58 AM   #12
liftsiron
Administrator
 
liftsiron's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Cimmeria
Posts: 18,384
liftsiron has a brilliant futureliftsiron has a brilliant futureliftsiron has a brilliant futureliftsiron has a brilliant futureliftsiron has a brilliant futureliftsiron has a brilliant futureliftsiron has a brilliant futureliftsiron has a brilliant futureliftsiron has a brilliant futureliftsiron has a brilliant futureliftsiron has a brilliant future
It seems to be the overwhelming view, that frequent smaller meals is preferred by most.
__________________
ADMIN/OWNER@Peak-Muscle
liftsiron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2016, 06:54 AM   #13
liftsiron
Administrator
 
liftsiron's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Cimmeria
Posts: 18,384
liftsiron has a brilliant futureliftsiron has a brilliant futureliftsiron has a brilliant futureliftsiron has a brilliant futureliftsiron has a brilliant futureliftsiron has a brilliant futureliftsiron has a brilliant futureliftsiron has a brilliant futureliftsiron has a brilliant futureliftsiron has a brilliant futureliftsiron has a brilliant future
A good conversation from before.
__________________
ADMIN/OWNER@Peak-Muscle
liftsiron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2018, 10:37 AM   #14
liftsiron
Administrator
 
liftsiron's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Cimmeria
Posts: 18,384
liftsiron has a brilliant futureliftsiron has a brilliant futureliftsiron has a brilliant futureliftsiron has a brilliant futureliftsiron has a brilliant futureliftsiron has a brilliant futureliftsiron has a brilliant futureliftsiron has a brilliant futureliftsiron has a brilliant futureliftsiron has a brilliant futureliftsiron has a brilliant future
Most people like more smaller meals, even though it results lower N2 retention i.e. less muscle growth over a 24 hour period.
__________________
ADMIN/OWNER@Peak-Muscle
liftsiron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2018, 06:41 PM   #15
b52
Moderator
 
b52's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,389
b52 is a splendid one to beholdb52 is a splendid one to beholdb52 is a splendid one to beholdb52 is a splendid one to beholdb52 is a splendid one to beholdb52 is a splendid one to beholdb52 is a splendid one to behold
I believe if you get the adequate amount of calories in it doesn't matter if you eat 6 times or 3 times. That being said I prefer smaller meals. It's hard to smash 16oz chicken, 2 cups rice and 2 cups veggies. So I break it up.
b52 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:05 AM.


Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.