Eat every two hours is bull**** correct?

CompeteNPC

CompeteNPC

Banned
Awards
0
Eating every two hours I don’t really know where this started. Now you got most people thinking they have to eat tiny meals over the course of the day. What kind of bs is that? Why not enjoy your food and eat 3-4 big nice sized meals instead?
 

Anabolic Goat

Member
Awards
0
Personal preference, but I understand where you are coming from.
 
Whisky

Whisky

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
  • Best Answer
Yep, no need to eat every 2 hours at all. That said when trying to get 4,000 Cals in it’s sometimes easier over a number of meals.

Nutrient timing and frequency is nothing in the bigger context of total calories (and macro split to a lesser degree).

Nothing wrong with eating every two hours if that’s what you prefer, just don’t be doing it because of a misguided believe it’s beneficial.
 
APC80

APC80

Active member
Awards
0
Don't think there's any difference in how often you eat but I prefer 6 meals a day while bulking it's just easier to get the cals in. When I'm cutting i usually just eat 4. Problem is when you get used to eating so often you feel hungry all the time, miss a meal and your stomach lets ya know.
 
NurseGray

NurseGray

Well-known member
Awards
0
I can’t foresee any real benefit to eating smaller meals. It’s all about calories in and calories out
 
jdwaca

jdwaca

Member
Awards
0
Eating every two hours I don’t really know where this started. Now you got most people thinking they have to eat tiny meals over the course of the day. What kind of bs is that? Why not enjoy your food and eat 3-4 big nice sized meals instead?
If you’re trying to compete, it’s a must.
 
Onedrew2

Onedrew2

New member
Awards
0
Maybe a lifter with diabetes I understand, but I'm with you. I do the 3 meals a day and enjoy them!
 
MrKleen73

MrKleen73

Legend
Awards
5
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
  • Best Answer
  • First Up Vote
Eating every two hours I don’t really know where this started. Now you got most people thinking they have to eat tiny meals over the course of the day. What kind of bs is that? Why not enjoy your food and eat 3-4 big nice sized meals instead?
Nautilus was who started that practice back when they started selling protein powder. Basically information put out to drive the marketing of their protein powders. Has been proven that people actually tend to stay leaner eating 3-4 meals a day, and have increased protein synthesis due to actually having some lower points in protein levels in the blood throughout the day. It takes a noticeable increase to cause synthesis, but it nitrogen levels are always high you do not get the same stimulation.

However as far as caloric balance, and metabolism go the number of meals a day has nothing to do with it. However in general it works like this. If you eat 200 grams of protein, 200g of carbs, and 100g of fats in a day it does not matter how you break it up the TEF, or Thermic Effect of Food is going to be the same for that 24 hours. The TEF does not change based on frequency, only on consumption and the need to digest.

As an example and these are not correct numbers, I am not going to look them up so just as an example.

If we decided that the TEF for protein was 25%, (not actual TEF of protein by the way) but works for the example. Then that would mean every gram of protein provided only 3 calories since the 4rth was burned to digest it. So multiply that by 200 and you get 600 calories. Now according to the "frequent meals speed up the metabolism people" somehow having 6 meals increases metabolism. It does not, you would still only get 600 calories out of it even if you had 20 meals that day. The body does not have to work harder to digest it because it is spread out farther. That isn't how it works.

Does not matter how much you break it up, the TEF does not change so it can not increase the metabolism further.
 
APC80

APC80

Active member
Awards
0
If you’re trying to compete, it’s a must.
If you're competing you most likely have everything else dialled in but for the average gym goer there's usually other things they could be doing to maximise their results that are more important than nutrient timing.
 
MrKleen73

MrKleen73

Legend
Awards
5
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
  • Best Answer
  • First Up Vote
If you’re trying to compete, it’s a must.
Not even close to being true. People prep on Intermittent fasting all of the time, same with Carb Night, and Carb Back loading. Sorry but this is just incorrect.
If you're competing you most likely have everything else dialled in but for the average gym goer there's usually other things they could be doing to maximise their results that are more important than nutrient timing.
If competing and not using some sort of nutrient timing then you are choosing to leave about 5% on the table... that is ridiculous for any person competing not to use every advantage they can. However you can definitely use nutrient timing with even down to 1 meal. Timing has nothing to do with frequency when it comes to a 24 hr period.

Timing = I have one meal to eat a day. I am going to put it after my training where I can make the most out of it. or I eat 6 meals a day but I want my biggest meal with the most carbs to be my intra and post workout nutrition.

Frequency = How often you eat.
 
jdwaca

jdwaca

Member
Awards
0
Not even close to being true. People prep on Intermittent fasting all of the time, same with Carb Night, and Carb Back loading. Sorry but this is just incorrect.


If competing and not using some sort of nutrient timing then you are choosing to leave about 5% on the table... that is ridiculous for any person competing not to use every advantage they can. However you can definitely use nutrient timing with even down to 1 meal. Timing has nothing to do with frequency when it comes to a 24 hr period.

Timing = I have one meal to eat a day. I am going to put it after my training where I can make the most out of it. or I eat 6 meals a day but I want my biggest meal with the most carbs to be my intra and post workout nutrition.

Frequency = How often you eat.
You’re incorrect. Find me a SUCCESSFUL competitor that eats less than 5 times a day. Results speak for themselves. While SOME of what you said is correct, it does not apply to all individuals. Some of what you said is actually wrong though. If you want to get into it, i’ll be happy to school you. I have a masters degree in food science, and currently work as a medical nutrition therapist. So pack your bags. I’m ready when you are.
 
Whisky

Whisky

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
  • Best Answer
You’re incorrect. Find me a SUCCESSFUL competitor that eats less than 5 times a day. Results speak for themselves. While SOME of what you said is correct, it does not apply to all individuals. Some of what you said is actually wrong though. If you want to get into it, i’ll be happy to school you. I have a masters degree in food science, and currently work as a medical nutrition therapist. So pack your bags. I’m ready when you are.
0614A101-9EC0-4EC1-9996-59267F30CC83.png
 
APC80

APC80

Active member
Awards
0
You’re incorrect. Find me a SUCCESSFUL competitor that eats less than 5 times a day. Results speak for themselves. While SOME of what you said is correct, it does not apply to all individuals. Some of what you said is actually wrong though. If you want to get into it, i’ll be happy to school you. I have a masters degree in food science, and currently work as a medical nutrition therapist. So pack your bags. I’m ready when you are.
And there is the problem with telling people they are wrong just because the latest study said so. Don't worry next year they'll be saying IF wastes away muscle and you need to eat every half hour lol
 
jdwaca

jdwaca

Member
Awards
0
And there is the problem with telling people they are wrong just because the latest study said so. Don't worry next year they'll be saying IF wastes away muscle and you need to eat every half hour lol
LATEST study!??? There are studies dating back to the 80’s on this subject. And the results have been consistent to date. References upon request.
 
APC80

APC80

Active member
Awards
0
LATEST study!??? There are studies dating back to the 80’s on this subject. And the results have been consistent to date. References upon request.
I think everyone's on this "I can eat whatever I want, whenever I want" train because of a recent study that showed GH levels were doubled by IF and the rise of the IIFYM diets. To me they're just trying to appeal to people's laziness.

I don't think it's a MUST to eat every few hours but I'm sure it matters if you wanna maximise your results. Eating enough calories, macro breakdown, training properly, limiting alcohol, sleep and managing stress all matter more and most are lacking in at least one of these areas making meal frequency unimportant.
 
MrKleen73

MrKleen73

Legend
Awards
5
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
  • Best Answer
  • First Up Vote
You’re incorrect. Find me a SUCCESSFUL competitor that eats less than 5 times a day. Results speak for themselves. While SOME of what you said is correct, it does not apply to all individuals. Some of what you said is actually wrong though. If you want to get into it, i’ll be happy to school you. I have a masters degree in food science, and currently work as a medical nutrition therapist. So pack your bags. I’m ready when you are.
Oh so now we are changing things to find me a "Successful" competitor... which is pretty relative. If a person has placed in a local competition that makes them successful if that was there goal...

Do I have a list of professionals, no but I have seen enough who are competitive against those they competed against and know there are others who have won and places in shows. Also you are the one making absolute statements that it is a must, so the burden of proof is on you, not me. I said you were incorrect and all I have to do to prove so is to find 1 person that has ever competed that did intermittent fasting to do so. If there is 1 that has competed then it is indeed not a must...

How about instead of intentionally being condescending you just "school" me on where you think I am wrong and why you are right first... maybe we can all learn something other than that you think very highly of yourself... Also, I know that there are not many nutritional theories or practices that apply to everyone. Again I'm not the one stating absolutes, you did, I simply stated that you are wrong that it was not an absolute that you MUST eat high frequency to compete.

You could have just said what you had to say instead of that ridiculous condescending posturing... If you had a decent point I would have simply tipped my hat to you and thanked you for the information. So go ahead and school me and hopefully it will be worth the build up that the use of the phrase "schooling me" implies.
 
jdwaca

jdwaca

Member
Awards
0
Oh so now we are changing things to find me a "Successful" competitor... which is pretty relative. If a person has placed in a local competition that makes them successful if that was there goal...

Do I have a list of professionals, no but I have seen enough who are competitive against those they competed against and know there are others who have won and places in shows. Also you are the one making absolute statements that it is a must, so the burden of proof is on you, not me. I said you were incorrect and all I have to do to prove so is to find 1 person that has ever competed that did intermittent fasting to do so. If there is 1 that has competed then it is indeed not a must...

How about instead of intentionally being condescending you just "school" me on where you think I am wrong and why you are right first... maybe we can all learn something other than that you think very highly of yourself... Also, I know that there are not many nutritional theories or practices that apply to everyone. Again I'm not the one stating absolutes, you did, I simply stated that you are wrong that it was not an absolute that you MUST eat high frequency to compete.

You could have just said what you had to say instead of that ridiculous condescending posturing... If you had a decent point I would have simply tipped my hat to you and thanked you for the information. So go ahead and school me and hopefully it will be worth the build up that the use of the phrase "schooling me" implies.
I’d love to. After meal #3. Lol. To be continued.
 
MrKleen73

MrKleen73

Legend
Awards
5
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
  • Best Answer
  • First Up Vote
I’d love to. After meal #3. Lol. To be continued.
You know you don't really need a 3rd meal...


I kid, I kid. Poking the bear so to speak. :)

Honestly waiting, I know a good bit, so if you can teach me something new then it will be awesome. I do truly hope you have something I have not already been made aware of to share with us. I have been researching nutrition for years, no degrees or anything, but research and am also a certified nutrition coach so I know more than average but would expect you to know some stuff I don't with your degrees.
 
Martyfnemec

Martyfnemec

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
You know you don't really need a 3rd meal...


I kid, I kid. Poking the bear so to speak. :)

Honestly waiting, I know a good bit, so if you can teach me something new then it will be awesome. I do truly hope you have something I have not already been made aware of to share with us. I have been researching nutrition for years, no degrees or anything, but research and am also a certified nutrition coach so I know more than average but would expect you to know some stuff I don't with your degrees.
Oh, man. I have never seen someone so gracefully take the high road after being treated so rudely. We could all learn from Kleen's example here. You're a man of great character!
 
MrKleen73

MrKleen73

Legend
Awards
5
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
  • Best Answer
  • First Up Vote
Oh, man. I have never seen someone so gracefully take the high road after being treated so rudely. We could all learn from Kleen's example here. You're a man of great character!
It would be easy, and was easy for me to write up some blistering responses here but that would be about me being butt hurt that he was being condescending toward me. So I deleted and reworded things a few times to a reasonable response. I have to say that I am proud of myself because when I am "on" I typically do not have the self control to remain silent, and or diplomatic. So I am taking this as a win for me personally in that regard.

As for the other reasons, he has the credentials, and obviously some knowledge. If I let the pissing match continue instead of asking what it is he thinks I have wrong then I am choosing to pass up on a possible learning opportunity. I would rather learn than be too proud to open myself up to the possibility there may be a better way I am unaware of or at least a piece of information that I can then figure out where it fits in my puzzle.
 

Jstrong20

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
You’re incorrect. Find me a SUCCESSFUL competitor that eats less than 5 times a day. Results speak for themselves. While SOME of what you said is correct, it does not apply to all individuals. Some of what you said is actually wrong though. If you want to get into it, i’ll be happy to school you. I have a masters degree in food science, and currently work as a medical nutrition therapist. So pack your bags. I’m ready when you are.

So if I eat like Ronnie Coleman Ill have the same build?. Genetics are what make successful athletes. I used to eat every few hours but now I use If. Real world results won't show a diffrence.
 
MrKleen73

MrKleen73

Legend
Awards
5
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
  • Best Answer
  • First Up Vote
So if I eat like Ronnie Coleman Ill have the same build?. Genetics are what make successful athletes. I used to eat every few hours but now I use If. Real world results won't show a diffrence.
I actually saw a video where they reported the results of a muscle biopsy for genetics that Ronnie Coleman did at the Olympia. They found the he had extremely high markers for a lot of things that basically made it impossible for him not to grow so long as he stimulated the muscle and fed himself. For instance he had 3 of the 4 top things that have to do with carbohydrate processing, and it made it so that he could eat unreal amounts of carbs without getting fat, or losing insulin sensitivity. He also had very high markers for something that made it extremely hard for him to actually damage his muscles. So he was not digging as deep of a hole with training because he was physically harder to break down. It is really pretty interesting.

It is on the guy Jerry from Primeval Labs youtube if you want to hear the specifics, but it was very interesting. Basically he had all the genetic markers to be the perfect bodybuilder and they proved it. Pretty cool!
 
Whisky

Whisky

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
  • Best Answer
It would be easy, and was easy for me to write up some blistering responses here but that would be about me being butt hurt that he was being condescending toward me. So I deleted and reworded things a few times to a reasonable response. I have to say that I am proud of myself because when I am "on" I typically do not have the self control to remain silent, and or diplomatic. So I am taking this as a win for me personally in that regard.

As for the other reasons, he has the credentials, and obviously some knowledge. If I let the pissing match continue instead of asking what it is he thinks I have wrong then I am choosing to pass up on a possible learning opportunity. I would rather learn than be too proud to open myself up to the possibility there may be a better way I am unaware of or at least a piece of information that I can then figure out where it fits in my puzzle.
This is an excellent approach to the situation and I commend it. I hope to instill some of it into my own actions.
 
B5150

B5150

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
As for the other reasons, he has the credentials, and obviously some knowledge. If I let the pissing match continue instead of asking what it is he thinks I have wrong then I am choosing to pass up on a possible learning opportunity. I would rather learn than be too proud to open myself up to the possibility there may be a better way I am unaware of or at least a piece of information that I can then figure out where it fits in my puzzle.
As much as I admire the humility don't ever self denigrate and roll to patronizing condescension.

Any ******* can buy an education. As I get older and learn more of what's most important [bigger piece of puzzle] in life I start to value the substance of character I can display and or observe in others far greater than the value of knowledge I can gleen when engaging others at any level on any matter.
 
MrKleen73

MrKleen73

Legend
Awards
5
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
  • Best Answer
  • First Up Vote
As much as I admire the humility don't ever self denigrate and roll to patronizing condescension.

Any ******* can buy an education. As I get older and learn more of what's most important [bigger piece of puzzle] in life I start to value the substance of character I can display and or observe in others far greater than the value of knowledge I can gleen when engaging others at any level on any matter.
Thanks David, and I hope I wasn't taken as self denigrating. I had already commented on the condescending tone of his response and there was no reason to stay aggressive. Plus I also wanted to debate him not run him off.

I consider myself pretty much an expert on nutrition but I know that I would know more than I do now if I had a Masters in nutrition. I don't know his aptitude and decided not to assume he wasn't as intelligent as I am until his next response. So if he even had 1 piece of the puzzle I didn't it, then would have been worth exercising the humility. If not then he would probably learn something from me.
 
CompeteNPC

CompeteNPC

Banned
Awards
0
I think the eating every two hours was created by the supplement industry to sell food prep containers and protein shakers.
 
hairygrandpa

hairygrandpa

Legend
Awards
5
  • Best Answer
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
I currently eat 1 meal A DAY since over 70 days... I must do everything wrong, LOL!
 
MrKleen73

MrKleen73

Legend
Awards
5
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
  • Best Answer
  • First Up Vote
I think the eating every two hours was created by the supplement industry to sell food prep containers and protein shakers.
Not really related, but it is crazy whey used to be considered pretty much dairy waste product. Now it is big business.
 
jswain34

jswain34

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
Must be a long meal #3 ☕
 
hairygrandpa

hairygrandpa

Legend
Awards
5
  • Best Answer
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
made by error...deleted.....
 
jdwaca

jdwaca

Member
Awards
0
Well He has to be on 6 or 7 by now... I think he's trying to compete
No trying about it. I just have more important things to do, and don’t want to ruin my night by responding to everyone that feels the need to chime in. I’ll respond in the morning.
 
hairygrandpa

hairygrandpa

Legend
Awards
5
  • Best Answer
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
No trying about it. I just have more important things to do, and don’t want to ruin my night by responding to everyone that feels the need to chime in. I’ll respond in the morning.
Was looking at your avatar. Arnold, is it you?
 
John Smeton

John Smeton

Legend
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
Its common to eat every 2.5-3 hours of your serious about muscle gain. Ive done it for fifteen years now

Now Im in the offseason I take in whey shakes and bcaas between meals , due to my job, however when its contest time I make sure Im getting in no less than every 2-3 hours
 
Yomo

Yomo

Active member
Awards
1
  • Established
obviously off topic, but taking a trip down memory lane here...

I had a discussion with a random Gym Bro who kept insisting I eat every 2 - 3 hrs...his rationale and honest belief was because "science" shows the greatest timeframe for growth is with newborn babies, who happen to eat every 2-3 hrs..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................?
 
Whisky

Whisky

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
  • Best Answer
obviously off topic, but taking a trip down memory lane here...

I had a discussion with a random Gym Bro who kept insisting I eat every 2 - 3 hrs...his rationale and honest belief was because "science" shows the greatest timeframe for growth is with newborn babies, who happen to eat every 2-3 hrs..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................?
Did he also suggest you choke down 500ml of breast milk with your protein powder?
 
hairygrandpa

hairygrandpa

Legend
Awards
5
  • Best Answer
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
Did he also suggest you choke down 500ml of breast milk with your protein powder?
There! I gonna buy a rubber nipple for my shaker bottle!
 
jdwaca

jdwaca

Member
Awards
0
You are correct on your above statement. Success is relative, and you're right about the "must" statement. When I say must, I mean that in order to be successful, you are most likely going to have to follow that type of regimen. Sure you can compete without doing it that way, and there may even be a select few that are able to do it successfully. As we all know, genetics play a huge role in this sport. Genetics may allow one person to achieve what another cannot through conventional methods (i.e. training style/methods, diet, drug protocol, etc.). You could also argue that taking AAS are not a must to compete, but let's face it, you won't be a real contender without it if you're competing on a national stage. I personally have not met one person, male or female, competing on the national stage that haven't used some sort of drug, and every one of them follow a frequent eating schedule. There is a reason behind it.

There has been consistent scientific research showing that people who eat consistent meals throughout the day, meaning 5 or more, are able to stay leaner than people who only consume 3. When your body goes without eating for several hours, it senses deprivation. As a result, your body has a multitude of responses. In no particular order, the following decrease: metabolic rate (to conserve energy), resting energy expenditure, thyroid hormone activity (T3). Frequent meals has also been shown to improve glucose tolerance, and serum insulin levels show a decrease of 25-30%. Decreased serum insulin leads to a decrease in lipase enzyme activity. Metabolism is shown to increase with frequent meals as well (diet induced thermogenesis, resting metabolic rate, protein metabolism). I will note that after consuming large meals, RMR spiked, but then dramatically decreased. In groups consuming more frequent meals, the increase was not as great, but was more consistent throughout the day. Frequent meals also show an increase in fat oxidation (measured by labeling fatty acids), carbohydrate oxidation, and reduced nitrogen loss (This increases when you eat protein. Retention is important for muscle preservation/building).

As a correlation, a couple factors increase as well. One of the hormones secreted by the gut is ghrelin. Basically just tells you that you're hungry, but aside from increasing appetite, it also slows down fat metabolization. During the absence of food, this hormone is increased. That hunger feeling you feel, is because of this hormone. Insulin is also negatively effected by reducing meal frequency. As we all know, I assume, insulin is a fat storage hormone. Also, individuals who consumed a small number of large meals/day showed significant increases in BP, total cholesterol, and LDL levels (in a particular study). Those who ate frequently showed decreases in the above biomarkers as well as C-reactive protein (responsible for inflammation).

Consistent and regular eating inhibit the above from occurring.

There have been numerous human studies on the above. Some dating back 50 years, although more accurate studies have been conducted recently. Some on your average person, some on overweight/obese persons, and on athletes as well. Studies based on consuming a small number of larger meals, show an increase in lipogenesis following meals, and an increased chance of obesity. Those who ate smaller, more frequent meals showed an increase in metabolic activity, and weight gain varied inversely.

There may be contradictory studies out there, but remember to consider the parameters of the study. What were they eating, how much, what is their body composition, what age group, was the total daily caloric intake hypo, or hypercaloric? Lot's of factors come into play, and changing just (1) variable can skew an entire study either way.

Some scientists even suggest that blood markers (BP, CPR, LDL, atherosclerotic plaque, plasma glucose, etc.) may improve with varying meal frequency, but there doesn't seem to be much information on the topic. I think a controlled clinical study on this topic would be very interesting.

I could keep going, but I would basically just be building on the above, unless I got into the chemistry of food and how it affects the body, and that's boring as ****. I am a science based guy, and trust in research and facts. Facts are, that there is enough scientific evidence to support that eating more frequent meals throughout the day is more beneficial than eating just 1-3. To be honest, if I wasn't a bodybuilder, and didn't compete, I would probable just eat 3/day, with maybe a snack in between. The reasons I eat the way I do are because of my lifestyle. Also, I get hungry, and because of assimilation. Your body can only metabolize a given number of carbs, protein, and fats per meal. What that number is varies by individual. The more muscle you have, the more you can take in without adverse effects (genetics does play a role in this as well). To eat only a couple meals a day doesn't mean you're WRONG, but it also doesn't mean that it's best suited for your goals. If you're serious about the sport, and want to IMPROVE, and build muscle, there is no way around the fact that you need to eat frequently, and take in the proper nutrients (macro and micro). Sure you can stay in good shape by eating your basic 3 meals, but are you getting all the macros you should? Why not take every advantage you have in order to improve? Eating properly, and frequently, is one of the most simple things you can do to improve your lifestyle, health, body, performance etc. For maintenance, sure, you can just eat a couple times a day and be fine. For many people, this would be adequate. But for most of us, I think optimizing our potential is a high priority. I can only assume, since we are all members of a bodybuilding forum. We may all have different goals, but I think it's safe to say that health and fitness is a lifestyle we all enjoy, whether we compete or not. Let's make the most of it! But to each their own...

Lastly...Did the supplement industry try to preach this in order to make a profit? Probably. But this doesn't negate the fact that bodybuilders have been eating this way virtually since the sport began. Dietary supplements (i.e. protein powders, weight gainers, MR shakes etc.) weren't always around. I believe that they did capitalize on the opportunity in order to make profits though. Good business practice, but I don't think it's all BS.

*If I missed a topic, want me to go deeper (that's what she said. haha), or you have a question, ask (nicely lol). I'll be happy to answer if I can. I'm not here to get into a pissing match. Just want to spread the knowledge. I would have posted this first if I had time, but as you can see, it's not a simple answer, and I do get busy, as I'm sure most of you do as well.
 
AntM1564

AntM1564

Legend
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
Eating every couple of hours is not needed nor is needing to eat 6 small meals versus 3 bigger meals. It will come down to your schedule and how you process food. For example, some people cannot eat often throughout the day due to work or other circumstances. If that is the case, follow IF. Some people have the ability to eat smaller meals more frequently. I prefer that method because I do not like a lot of food sitting in my belly at once. However, I have followed IF as well and in terms of body composition differences, there are none between the two patterns. Here are some good articles to read.

The claims of "stoking the metabolic furnace" by spreading meals throughout the day are wildly overstated. At best, research on the topic is highly discrepant, leaving more questions than answers.

There's some evidence that eating multiple small meals can have a positive impact on increasing protein synthesis (22, 26, 27), but this has only been shown in cases where protein intake is very low (at or below RDA guidelines). It's highly speculative whether these findings hold true when consuming the recommended levels of protein for a hard-training lifter (>1.6 grams/ kilograms).

If you're a bodybuilder looking to win a show, even small improvements in body composition can be the difference between winning and losing a competition. So if your goal is to reduce body fat levels as low as possible while retaining muscle, then the best advice is to experiment with different meal frequencies and see what works best for you. Individual variation always has an impact on optimal results.
https://biotest.t-nation.com/articles/what-s-best-3-or-6-meals-per-day

Intermittent fasting, time-restricted feeding, or whatever you want to call it, doesn't reduce the effect of strength training on strength or muscle mass. But it doesn't have a positive effect either, write sports scientists at Texas Tech University soon in the European Journal of Sport Science.
http://www.ergo-log.com/strength-athletes-time-restricted-feeding.html

Recent studies have shown that eating frequency doesn't have a significant impact on fat loss if everything else is equal. But even if that way of eating WAS optimal, it wouldn't be the best choice for a lot of people because each small meal may actually make them crave more food.
https://www.t-nation.com/supplements/tip-3-big-meals-vs-6-small-meals
 
booneman77

booneman77

Legend
Awards
5
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
  • Best Answer
i came for the normal laughs of an npc thread... instead i got actual useful info! stunned . com haha
 
MrKleen73

MrKleen73

Legend
Awards
5
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
  • Best Answer
  • First Up Vote
Excellent, and thanks for the response. Now we can have a conversation.

I have to be honest and say that there is nothing new here in what you are saying. Which is what I expected. I do not mean that in a bad way either. This is the information that has been being put out for many years. I don't argue that the frequency method is tried and true, it works and anyone arguing that would be in a losing battle.

Forgive the structure of my response, I was responding to things as I remembered you mentioning them so it is a bit sporadic I am sure.

I have read and looked at many of the same studies, as well as many conflicting studies based off of those championing less frequency and or even fasting. For instance, I do not know how long between meals your study stated that metabolism begins to slow, but studies on fasting show an increase in metabolism during the first 36-48 hours, as well as an increase in insulin sensitivity, and health markers like lipids and what not often improve after initial adjustment as well.

I also agree that you have to look at the controls and what not of each of the studies to see the validity or how much weight it holds in real world life. Some studies aren't long enough to allow some of the adaptations to take place, some are not controlled well enough, or do not use the correct target groups to apply directly to trained athletes, or physique athletes. It is also very easy to shape the controls of a study to lean toward the result you want as well. I found flaws in many of them most are simply too acute in nature and do not conrol enough things or use the correct time frames to get an accurate picture of what happens once the body adjusts to changes.

I think it was an Alan Aragon review of several studies that debunked a lot of this meal frequency stuff with regards to how much of what is eaten can or can't be processed, and what the body does when overfed to allow all of the food to get processed. If interested you can also read that. It is a good read no matter what side of the fence you are on.

Then there is the argument of nitrogen retention over protein synthesis or visa versa that gets brought up. Both equally important in my opinion, and both can be addressed very easily with proper nutrient choices. EI You eat 3-4 meals a day, that comes out to at the longest average 8 hours between meals, although really probably 4 maybe 5 hours as most do not wake in the middle of the night to eat. So say you have 4 meals, and each one contains some casien, then nitrogen retention is simply not going to be an issue. Casein is still dropping protein into the system 7 hours later so there would always be nitrogen available and retention is not a problem.

There are some studies showing that the body actually burns fat better and faster with a few less meals, EI 3-4 a day, and that allowing nitrogen levels to dip a little between meals enhanced the next protein feedings protein synthesis stimulation. This is biological, as opposed to the behavior based benefits of a 5-6 meal persons day, IE those people already tend to be more disciplined in general so it makes sense they would tend to stay leaner longer and whatnot. You have to be disciplined to choose the most inconvenient approach to fitness or in this case body composition when there is not actually a definitive best. I know you believe there is but that is like people believe they are right about what God they worship. Everybody can't be right and without definitive proof you are just saying that you have faith in what you believe. I mean all of them have compelling stories that look like they could and should be true, but that doesn't make all or any of them right for that matter.

As far as the how many carbs, protein and fats can be absorbed in a meal that is a bit of a gray area as it is more based on time, and not a meal or feeding. It takes a certain amount of time to process these macronutrients once in the intestines. It will vary a bit for each person, and certainly it is going to take that time no matter what. However the sphincter of the small intestines closes down to limit the amount of food / nutrients entering the system to what is manageable and releases over a much longer time for larger meals so that everything can be used. I am sure you know this as well. So everything ends up getting processed over time, it's not like it takes 30g protein and you poop out the rest because it was over what could be processed quickly.

Correlations Section
Ghrelin is also controlled by circadian rhythms and adjusts over time, which is why when you eat 5-6 meals a day you gradually want 5-6 meals a day at the same times. When it comes to 5-6 meal a day eaters, people start to get hungry 20-30 minutes before they are supposed to eat due to this and then assume their insulin sensitivity must be very high and that their metabolism must be going faster since they are hungry but it is just Ghrelin adjusting to the new circadian rhythm and autoregulating to your feeding patterns. In the case of fasting it does exactly the same thing, once adjusted to fasting Ghrelin release only happens at the same time daily just before you break your fast. It, and is not an issue during the normal hours of the fasting period. Again some studies are too short, to show the whole picture...

You mentioned insulin being a problem for those on less frequent eating patterns, and I notice you mentioned it was a specific study. I can only assume there was some error, or that the macros for these meals were absurd... You are hard pressed to find a study on fasting that does not show an increase in insulin sensitivity. Also meal frequency does not mean frequency of carbohydrate feeding. I can only assume that study was done with relatively high carb levels, and that once truncated into 3-4 meals the carbohydrates were high enough at each meal to illicit a strong insulin response. Adjustment of macro and meal timing can also address that. Obviously protein and fat cause an insulin release but nothing like carbs so if only the meal following training was high carb then this insulin part falls apart quickly, 2 moderate insulin releases and one large post workout while Glut 4 is in high effect is going to be better for sensitivity than exposing the receptors to 5-6 moderate insulin releases daily. Average blood sugar levels are going to be higher throughout the day as well. See there are too many things to easily adjust to say one or the other is the best without sure fire proof... Also Insulin is not just a Fat storage hormone, it is a storage / anabolic hormone, and is specifically geared toward blood sugar management. However other nutrients get pulled in with the glucose. As a matter of fact and you are also aware of this I am sure but the body doesn't really even start converting carbohydrates to fats until after the glycogen stores start signalling they are full and the glucose needs to be stored elsewhere. So in general storage related to insulin and fat are going to be limited to a high concentration of saturated fatty acids in the blood stream while high levels of insulin are present, or from eating too many carbohydrates and causing lipogenisis. All of these factors can be managed by the control of macros and meal timing. EI low fat around the workout, and high carbs allows for the most glycogen storage with minimal fat accrual...

As far as studies showing increased lipogenisis following larger more infrequent meals, I assume nobody mentioned the fact that lipolosys was heightened during the longer time between the last meal and the current one? Especially when it comes to intermittent fasting!!! There really isn't anything about any of this that can't be managed easily through timing and macro choices.

Certainly people who eat 5-6 times a day tends to stay leaner. This is not due to a specific biological effect, it is the result of being more disciplined which by eating 5-6 meals a day you are already proving you tend to be.

Like you mentioned there are tons of studies out there and there are definitely far more studies supporting 5-6 meals a day. However that doesn't mean much. If you were to look at studies on Heart Disease you would find far more studies saying that dietary cholesterol is the silent killer, but it is now pretty commonly accepted by those in the know that inflammation is a bigger killer when it comes to heart disease. On top of that it is widely accepted in the medical field now that chronically high insulin levels increase cholesterol levels far more than eating saturated fats does as dietary fat only accounts for 2% of your blood lipids. However I am sure you can find more studies on the dietary cholesterol being an issue than chronically high insulin levels.

I would love to see a solid study of at least 6 months comparing frequency, fasting and the typical 3 meals a day diets taken in a head to head to see which one is truly the most beneficial in each aspect. However there really isn't any money in that for anyone so it is not going to happen. Until then people will continue to have these arguments and with so many conflicting studies it really comes down to which nutritional religion you want to put your faith into. I am a Dietary Agnostic as John Berardi mentions, I do not follow any one method of nutrition dogmatically. I follow the science of both the old and the new. I make my decisions based on a good understanding of both philosophies and by having good knowledge of both I have a pretty good view of the whole picture.

Bottom line when prepping there are so many benefits to some of the fasting type of methods due to the bodies defense of skeletal muscle during a fast for the first 36 hours that less muscle is often lost during the dieting phase. Their are studies out showing that muscle is naturally and intentionally spared by the body during fasting. Not starvation, but fasting. Intermittent Fasting has actually been shown to be more muscle sparing during a caloric deficit than the typical 5-6 meals a day in more than one study. There are simply just too many factors to definitively say one way is better than the other especially with all of the differences in people as far as genetics are concerned. Add to that the conflicting studies that can be changed completely by changing one tiny variable which you mentioned as well just proves that we really don't know, but we have some good theories based on the pieces of the puzzle as they get presented to us.

I agree that for anyone trying to be a professional body builder in the regular bodybuilding class probably needs to eat high frequency in the off season. Getting in that many calories otherwise can be uncomfortable and a challenge. For someone competing in classic, physique, fitness, bikini and the like they probably don't need as many calories it is still pretty easy to get those calories in with 3-4 meals or even one big one.

Intermittent Fasting is pretty new to the physique competitor world, so the population doing it is a very small sample of the entire fitness population, and even smaller when you go into the fitness competitor arena. So say you have 1 out of every 300 using IF in general life then there is probably going to be 1 in 1000 in competition I wouldn't expect you to run across a bunch of "successful" by your standards competitors because you aren't even going to find that many who do it not being in competition. Like you mentioned at this point in how things are changing I wouldn't expect you to have come across 1, much less many. It is too new in the fitness community to have that many adopters and like you said you want the best for your prep so people go with what they are told is best. We will see as more people adopt if there is a best or not, or if they are just two separate roads that take you to the same place.

I am of the OPINION that there is more than one way to get there and that they can actually be equally efficient when based on the persons lifestyle, genetics, hormones and personal preferences. This really is not much different than the keto vs balanced diet arguments. What it really comes down to it the persons preference and general attitude toward the process are going to be more important. If I have someone who tends to miss meals on a strict high frequency plan even if it is a perfect plan but has no problems following a timing and macro based approach with lower meal frequency then he is going to get better results with the 2nd approach because he can adhere to it better.
 
MrKleen73

MrKleen73

Legend
Awards
5
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
  • Best Answer
  • First Up Vote
i came for the normal laughs of an npc thread... instead i got actual useful info! stunned . com haha
Every once in a while we come across a surprise like that. Happy to be a part of it and this has in my opinion made a positive turn into a thread of information sharing and discussion.
 
Distilled Water

Distilled Water

Board Sponsor
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
I eat every 2hrs bc I’m starving and no way I can get my calories in, in the off season not eating like that.

I’ve tried eating 3-4 bigger meals but it’s tough and my digestion gets a little Whacky.

Even then I struggle with my post workout meals.

I do believe some nutrient timing can play a role but that’s more so around training and eating. There’s a high level national guy who basically uses interment fasting but has very few of his clients use that approach.

Use what works for you.....most guys will struggle getting the an elite BB level not eating like that (not eating every 2-3hrs) and using things like IIFYM but there’s alway genetic outliers and not everyone wants to be at that level. You can look “gym” or “beach” good eating sparingly, for sure.
 

Similar threads


Top