Need A Eating Program

Page 1 of 2 12 Last
  1. Need A Eating Program


    Im new to the whole fitness thing and would like to first get my eating under control: im 19 5'10" and roughley 185 pounds. Can someone help me out with some guidelines.


  2. Quote Originally Posted by Icarus91
    Im new to the whole fitness thing and would like to first get my eating under control: im 19 5'10" and roughley 185 pounds. Can someone help me out with some guidelines.
    Cool man, welcome aboard. I am just going to give you a couple very general guidelines. How much you eat depends on what you want to do, if you want to gain muscle (bulk), or lower your body fat percentage and become ripped (cut). Would you say you have a lot of muscle definition right now, like you can see your abs and such?

    In general:

    ** 6-8 meals a day
    **at least 1gram of protein per pound of bodyweight
    ** Drink at least a gallon of water a day
    ** Take a multi vitamin
    ** Eat clean foods like oatmeal, rice, chicken breasts, steak, broccoli, tuna, and avoid Fast food
    ** only supplement you might need in the begining is whey protein shakes after you workout, but don't worry about taking anything else just yet


    Hope this helps!!!
    •   
       


  3. Learn the difference between high and low GI carbs. Eat low GI carbs throughout the day and high GI carbs after working out. Get yourself some whey protein mix (I like www.allthewhey.com), and stay away from saturated or trans fat. The number of calories you consume depends on your goals but the diet I prefer for cutting and bulking is about a 40/40/20 ratio of calories obtained from carbs, protein, and fat respectively. Remember that fat has 9 calories per gram and carbs and protien only have 4 calories per gram, so if you consumed 300 grams each of carbs and protein throughout the day you would only need 67 grams of fat to keep your calorie ratio correct (that'd be a 3000 calorie diet, BTW). Remember these carbs and fats are "healthy" carbs and fats. Meaning low GI carbs for the most part and mono or polyunsaturated fats (found in nuts, flax, natural peanut butter, etc), Any sugary high GI carbs (sugar is a good indicator of high GI) like sweets, deserts, and to an extent fruits and fruit juices, and also fast food should be kept under control or eliminated. Fruit has it's place post workout, IMHO, that's when I drink a lot of fruit juice.

    I could keep writing for hours but you will need to do your own research. When I joined the board I knew less than you and now I have no problem gaining muscle while constantly burning fat, simply by manipulating my diet. Learning how it all works is half the fun.

  4. Contact Bobo and sign up for his nutrition program.


    Click here!
    http://anabolicminds.com/forum/training-forum/

  5. Quote Originally Posted by hypo
    Learn the difference between high and low GI carbs. Eat low GI carbs throughout the day and high GI carbs after working out. Get yourself some whey protein mix (I like www.allthewhey.com), and stay away from saturated or trans fat. The number of calories you consume depends on your goals but the diet I prefer for cutting and bulking is about a 40/40/20 ratio of calories obtained from carbs, protein, and fat respectively. Remember that fat has 9 calories per gram and carbs and protien only have 4 calories per gram, so if you consumed 300 grams each of carbs and protein throughout the day you would only need 67 grams of fat to keep your calorie ratio correct (that'd be a 3000 calorie diet, BTW). Remember these carbs and fats are "healthy" carbs and fats. Meaning low GI carbs for the most part and mono or polyunsaturated fats (found in nuts, flax, natural peanut butter, etc), Any sugary high GI carbs (sugar is a good indicator of high GI) like sweets, deserts, and to an extent fruits and fruit juices, and also fast food should be kept under control or eliminated. Fruit has it's place post workout, IMHO, that's when I drink a lot of fruit juice.

    I could keep writing for hours but you will need to do your own research. When I joined the board I knew less than you and now I have no problem gaining muscle while constantly burning fat, simply by manipulating my diet. Learning how it all works is half the fun.
    Good advice but from recent discussions on this board i dont think it is necessary to consume High GI carbs post workout, stick to your oats.
    •   
       


  6. I will second that..

  7. Quote Originally Posted by BigCasino

    ** 6-8 meals a day
    **at least 1gram of protein per pound of bodyweight
    ** Drink at least a gallon of water a day
    ** Take a multi vitamin
    ** Eat clean foods like oatmeal, rice, chicken breasts, steak, broccoli, tuna, and avoid Fast food
    Yeah! Take all the fun out of eating while you're at it

    I'm fairly sure that the 6-8 meals a day thing comes from the fact that when eating clean food, you would throw up if you tried to stuff it all down in 3 meals...

    LOL, it's funny to think that you can get to a point where cake/cookies/ice cream/mcdonalds are "dietary supplements" (I'm not joking about this either)!

  8. Quote Originally Posted by exnihilo
    Yeah! Take all the fun out of eating while you're at it

    I'm fairly sure that the 6-8 meals a day thing comes from the fact that when eating clean food, you would throw up if you tried to stuff it all down in 3 meals...
    Wrong!

  9. Quote Originally Posted by xXx
    Wrong!
    Ok there supersmart, lol!

    I've actually talked with lyle about this one a couple times, he's got some good research that refutes it pretty well - FYI. He has plenty of research that pretty clearly indicates that there's no real difference between results with 3 and 6 meals besides meal size. Just to toss out a niblet that I remmeber for ya, so you can go digging on pubmed:

    2: Arnal MA, Mosoni L, Boirie Y, Houlier ML, Morin L, Verdier E, Ritz P, Antoine JM, Prugnaud J, Beaufrere B, Mirand PP. Protein feeding pattern does not affect protein retention in young women. Journal of Nutrition. 2000 Jul;130(7):1700-4.

    There's plenty more but I'm lazy and it wouldn't change your behavior anyway so why bother wasting my time.

  10. It would be helpful if you gave us an idea of what your current goals are, your bw is not a specific indicator as you could be lean or fat at 185 depending on your build, previous activity levels, genetics and so forth. If your just looking to 'clean up' your diet than the basic guidelines noted would follow, if you are looking for specifics then more detail is needed.

  11. Quote Originally Posted by exnihilo
    Ok there supersmart, lol!

    2: Arnal MA, Mosoni L, Boirie Y, Houlier ML, Morin L, Verdier E, Ritz P, Antoine JM, Prugnaud J, Beaufrere B, Mirand PP. Protein feeding pattern does not affect protein retention in young women. Journal of Nutrition. 2000 Jul;130(7):1700-4.
    At least you knew the reason i said you were wrong without me explaining BTW are you a young woman

  12. Of course I knew the reason you said I was wrong - I'm well versed in all the bodybuilding myths...

    As for me being a young woman... Yes. A 270 lb young woman with a 400lb bench press! Now run before I rip your balls off and add them to my collection

    All jokes aside, the big difference between young women and bodybuidlers is the amounts of fuel required. The metabolic machinery is the same, though the hormonal mileau is significantly different - but that's not what we're talking about here.

    Anything you eat is going to take about 12 hours to fully digest, with the exception of liquids which are done in four. Larger meals with a mixture of fat, fiber, carbs and protein are going to digest and be absorbed more slowly, thus a longer, more prolonged nutrient spike. Food has a thermic effect this is true, but that's fairly constant and you get the same effect whether you eat a big meal or two small ones.

  13. Quote Originally Posted by Tahq
    It would be helpful if you gave us an idea of what your current goals are, your bw is not a specific indicator as you could be lean or fat at 185 depending on your build, previous activity levels, genetics and so forth. If your just looking to 'clean up' your diet than the basic guidelines noted would follow, if you are looking for specifics then more detail is needed.
    yep!What are your goals?Type of lifting, for mass, endurance,power etc....

  14. Quote Originally Posted by exnihilo
    Ok there supersmart, lol!

    I've actually talked with lyle about this one a couple times, he's got some good research that refutes it pretty well - FYI. He has plenty of research that pretty clearly indicates that there's no real difference between results with 3 and 6 meals besides meal size. Just to toss out a niblet that I remmeber for ya, so you can go digging on pubmed:

    2: Arnal MA, Mosoni L, Boirie Y, Houlier ML, Morin L, Verdier E, Ritz P, Antoine JM, Prugnaud J, Beaufrere B, Mirand PP. Protein feeding pattern does not affect protein retention in young women. Journal of Nutrition. 2000 Jul;130(7):1700-4.

    There's plenty more but I'm lazy and it wouldn't change your behavior anyway so why bother wasting my time.

    Could you please post some more because I have plenty that state otherwise.

    Here is one.

    Effects of meal frequency on body composition during weight control in boxers.

    Iwao S, Mori K, Sato Y.

    First Division of Health Promotion Science, Graduate School of Medicine, Nagoya University, Japan.

    The effects of meal frequency on changes in body composition by food restriction were investigated. Twelve boxers were divided between a two meals day-1 group (the 2M group) and a six meals day-1 group (the 6M group). Both groups ingested 5.02 MJ (1200 kcal) day-1 for 2 weeks. Although there was no difference in change of body weight by food restriction between the two groups, the decrease in lean body mass (LBM) was significantly greater in the 2M group than in the 6M group. The decrease in urinary 3-methylhistidine/creatinine was significantly greater in the 6M group than in the 2M group. These results suggest that the lower frequency of meal intake leads to a greater myoprotein catabolism even if the same diet is consumed.
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.

  15. Heh, you're gonna make me go digging around on lyle's board for the refs eh...

    Ok, hold on

  16. Quote Originally Posted by exnihilo

    All jokes aside, the big difference between young women and bodybuidlers is the amounts of fuel required. The metabolic machinery is the same, though the hormonal mileau is significantly different - but that's not what we're talking about here.

    Anything you eat is going to take about 12 hours to fully digest, with the exception of liquids which are done in four. Larger meals with a mixture of fat, fiber, carbs and protein are going to digest and be absorbed more slowly, thus a longer, more prolonged nutrient spike. Food has a thermic effect this is true, but that's fairly constant and you get the same effect whether you eat a big meal or two small ones.
    1. THe hormonal profile is quite different and so is the "metabolic machinery" because of this hormonal difference (increased estrogne, GH, etc...)

    2. No, anything you eat does not take 12 hours to ingest. I don't know where you got that from.

    3. The thermic effect of food is MUCH greater and exhausts many more calories when small, high protein meals are ingested. Comparing normal diets with FDA recommendations of protein will not show the differences between normal people and a bodybuilder consuming an excess of 1.5g/kg of bodyweight. Most studies are based on those factors so looking at the normal feeding patterns of woman is hardly conclusive at all.
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.

  17. Quote Originally Posted by exnihilo
    Heh, you're gonna make me go digging around on lyle's board for the refs eh...

    Ok, hold on
    I have already seen those and they are not conclusive at all.

    You need studies that compare low and high frequency diets that are high in protein since protein is most thermogenic nutrient. You also need studes that take into account a very large increase in activity (bodybuilders) that reuqires larger thena normal protein intake.

    Every study that accounts for catabolic activity shows that an increased meal frequency with adequate amounts of protein decreases catabolic activity compared to low meal frequency with the same amounts of protein over a 24 hour peroid. It is also present in women.

    Hum Nutr Clin Nutr. 1984 Jan;38(1):31-8. Related Articles, Links

    Feeding frequency and nitrogen balance in weight-reducing obese women.

    Antoine JM, Rohr R, Gagey MJ, Bleyer RE, Debry G.

    In a prospective trial, ten obese women, each her own reference, ate a 1200 kcal/d slimming diet in six meals a day compared with three meals a day during two 14-d periods. Loss of weight was slightly greater during the six-meal periods when loss of nitrogen was lower and thus loss of lean mass was also lower.

    Publication Types:

    * Clinical Trial
    * Randomized Controlled Trial


    PMID: 6693294 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.

  18. Quote Originally Posted by Bobo
    1. THe hormonal profile is quite different and so is the "metabolic machinery".

    2. No, anything you eat does not take 12 hours to ingest. I don't know where you got that from.

    3. The thermic effect of food is MUCH greater and exhausts many more calories when small, high protein meals are ingested. Comparing normal diets with FDA recommendations of protein will not show the differences between normal people and a bodybuilder consuming an excess of 1.5g/kg of bodyweight. Most studies are based on those factors so looking at the normal feeding patterns of woman is hardly conclusive at all.
    Um, given that food will spend up to 4 hours in the stomach alone, then easily another 6 in the small intestines (and at that point there is still some minor digestion which takes place in the large intestines) I think my comment was valid. I exempted liquids, which process much more quickly of course. You can google that one easily enough.

    Gotta beg to differ on the metabolic machinery comment. Hormones are different, sure, and this certainly causes *SOME* changes on a macroscopic level, but protein metabolism is *BASIC*. That's like saying women don't use the TCA cycle - that damned developmental pattern is nearly universal among life on earth. It just sounds silly.

    Yes, the thermic effect of protein is the highest of all the macronutrients, however I've never seen anything to indicate that small, spaced out protein meals provide a greater thermic effect than larger meals.

    As always, if you've got some pubmed goods I'm happy to see them. I know you collect those things like bottle caps.

  19. Quote Originally Posted by Bobo
    I have already seen those and they are not conclusive at all.

    You need studies that compare low and high frequency diets that are high in protein since protein is most thermogenic nutrient. You also need studes that take into account a very large increase in activity (bodybuilders) that reuqires larger thena normal protein intake.

    Every study that accounts for catabolic activity shows that an increased meal frequency with adequate amounts of protein decreases catabolic activity compared to low meal frequency with the same amounts of protein over a 24 hour peroid.
    >.<

    Give up the goods if you've got them.

  20. I already did, twice.

    You seem to worried about weight loss. I'm worried about FAT loss while maintaing LBM.
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.

  21. Quote Originally Posted by exnihilo
    Um, given that food will spend up to 4 hours in the stomach alone, then easily another 6 in the small intestines (and at that point there is still some minor digestion which takes place in the large intestines) I think my comment was valid. I exempted liquids, which process much more quickly of course. You can google that one easily enough.

    Gotta beg to differ on the metabolic machinery comment. Hormones are different, sure, and this certainly causes *SOME* changes on a macroscopic level, but protein metabolism is *BASIC*. That's like saying women don't use the TCA cycle - that damned developmental pattern is nearly universal among life on earth. It just sounds silly.

    Yes, the thermic effect of protein is the highest of all the macronutrients, however I've never seen anything to indicate that small, spaced out protein meals provide a greater thermic effect than larger meals.

    As always, if you've got some pubmed goods I'm happy to see them. I know you collect those things like bottle caps.
    Where do you get this from because its completly wrong. There is NO set rate for ANY food. I don't "google" things. I've learned it in class and the host of reference texts I have sitting here right next to me. By the time it reaches the small intestine its not really "FOOD" anymore. Its chyme and depending on nutrient composition takes various times to absorb. So givin these set times is ridiculous.

    As far as "metabolic machinery" (whatever that means) there are many differences in rates and total protein turnover which causes either increases protein synthesis and/or increased nitrogen retention. Your general statements comparing weigtht loss in women who do not exercise is ridiculous. THe amounts of rates for men and women is highly different. If you talking about the overall physiology then you could say its relatively the same but the rates and amoutns are completely different.
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.

  22. Don't know about the study with obese women, but in the boxer study the daily protein intake was 60g (from a liquid source even)? I'm guessing the fat girls didn't get much protein either... when I get down that low I'll be sure to spread it out. Oh, if you have any dietary macronutient composition studies done on advanced strength athletes which are objective with n>1, I'd dig getting a chance to look at them...

    I'm more worried about strength loss than anything else If I couldn't at least rep out 315 on the bench I'd feel like a ****ing *****, lol

  23. Quote Originally Posted by exnihilo
    U

    Yes, the thermic effect of protein is the highest of all the macronutrients, however I've never seen anything to indicate that small, spaced out protein meals provide a greater thermic effect than larger meals.

    .
    That is because most studies use FDA recommendations of protein intake wihch for most men is around 60-80g/day. Now try tripling that and you will see a difference. There is a reason high protein diets show increased thermogenic effects.
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.

  24. Quote Originally Posted by exnihilo

    I'm more worried about strength loss than anything else If I couldn't at least rep out 315 on the bench I'd feel like a ****ing *****, lol

    Almost 90% of my clients INCREASE strenght while cutting.
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.

  25. Quote Originally Posted by exnihilo
    Don't know about the study with obese women, but in the boxer study the daily protein intake was 60g (from a liquid source even)? I'm guessing the fat girls didn't get much protein either... when I get down that low I'll be sure to spread it out. Oh, if you have any dietary macronutient composition studies done on advanced strength athletes which are objective with n>1, I'd dig getting a chance to look at them...

    Il
    The study on boxers is more significant than your study with young women. They have increased acitivty and will correlate much more to bodybuilders than your study. And both show less catabolic activity with spaced out meals. I'm not worried about metabolic rate, even though I still think it is increased when those small meals are high in protein (which will increase thermogenic effects). If you retain more muscle, you will many more advantages in the long run in terms of fat burning.

    I can find a million studies supporting your claim on metabolic rate and that it has no change but it doens't take into effect the almost triple amouint of protein intake most members here consume, and it does not take into account increased activity. You have to look at the whole picture and not just take studies out of context and state "there is no difference between low or high meal frequency". It simply isn't true.
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.

  26. in the diet recommendations, i see people consistently (like in other threads) downplay the importance of vegetables and fruit

    macronutrient ratios are important. so are supplements (multivitamin, creatine), water, etc. but i can't stress this enough. fruits and vegetables are good. they have tons of stuff in them that you can't get anywhere else, or it's hard to get. get them from the source. they can easily fit into the caloric load (although i realize keto dieters may have some problem with fruits)

    generally speaking, the more intense and/or dark the fruit color, the more packed with nutrients, anti-oxidants, phyto's etc.

    some good ones are : spinach, dark plums, pomegranate, ruby grapefruit, carrot, brussel sprouts, tomatoes, etc.

  27. Quote Originally Posted by Bobo
    Where do you get this from because its completly wrong. There is NO set rate for ANY food. I don't "google" things. I've learned it in class and the host of reference texts I have sitting here right next to me. By the time it reaches the small intestine its not really "FOOD" anymore. Its chyme and depending on nutrient composition takes various times to absorb. So givin these set times is ridiculous.

    As far as "metabolic machinery" (whatever that means) there are many differences in rates and total protein turnover which causes either increases protein synthesis and/or increased nitrogen retention. Your general statements comparing weigtht loss in women who do not exercise is ridiculous. THe amounts of rates for men and women is highly different. If you talking about the overall physiology then you could say its relatively the same but the rates and amoutns are completely different.
    Hey man, I wouldn't ask you to pull a scientific reference for something stupidly simple like digestion. What it looks like when it reaches the small intestines doesn't matter - what does matter is that there is still matter there which is incompletely digested and will not be digested/absorbed for anywhere from 2-6 hours. With the exception of glucose drinks, even the fastest digesting foods take longer than 3 hours (even whey in water takes longer than this to completely digest and be available). Also, because I have a feeling that there is a communications breakdown, in my original statement I was referring to the amount of time blood glucose/ffa/amino acid levels stay elevated after a meal, NOT the time for those said levels to begin to rise (which, from your statements is the only thing I could really see that would explain the comments you've made).

    And when I say "metabolic machinery" I am referring to the myriad of enzyme-reaction complexes which go on in the cell... Now if you had SEM pictures of a female and a male muscle cell how would you tell the difference between them? If they weren't mitotic and the chromatin was uncondensed... They're pretty much exactly the same guy. Hormones play a role, of course, and I'm sure this is going to be the next thing we're going to argue.

    As for the study on protein intake in young women, I actually think that is more applicable in some ways, since they weren't eating 1500+ calories below maintenance, and I think the RDAs are moderately applicable for completely sedentary people. It's ATHLETES who need 2-4x more... So with the study on young women you get to see a baseline of how humans respond to timing of protein ingestion as far as absorbtion profile goes. In the case of the boxer study, it would be incredibly applicable if they had fed them 200g pro/day... Shame they didn't. So like I said before, if I ever decide to diet @ 1200 calories/day and only ingest 60g/pro day, I will for SURE spread that **** out.

  28. Quote Originally Posted by exnihilo
    Hey man, I wouldn't ask you to pull a scientific reference for something stupidly simple like digestion. What it looks like when it reaches the small intestines doesn't matter - what does matter is that there is still matter there which is incompletely digested and will not be digested/absorbed for anywhere from 2-6 hours. With the exception of glucose drinks, even the fastest digesting foods take longer than 3 hours (even whey in water takes longer than this to completely digest and be available). Also, because I have a feeling that there is a communications breakdown, in my original statement I was referring to the amount of time blood glucose/ffa/amino acid levels stay elevated after a meal, NOT the time for those said levels to begin to rise (which, from your statements is the only thing I could really see that would explain the comments you've made).

    And when I say "metabolic machinery" I am referring to the myriad of enzyme-reaction complexes which go on in the cell... Now if you had SEM pictures of a female and a male muscle cell how would you tell the difference between them? If they weren't mitotic and the chromatin was uncondensed... They're pretty much exactly the same guy. Hormones play a role, of course, and I'm sure this is going to be the next thing we're going to argue.

    As for the study on protein intake in young women, I actually think that is more applicable in some ways, since they weren't eating 1500+ calories below maintenance, and I think the RDAs are moderately applicable for completely sedentary people. It's ATHLETES who need 2-4x more... So with the study on young women you get to see a baseline of how humans respond to timing of protein ingestion as far as absorbtion profile goes. In the case of the boxer study, it would be incredibly applicable if they had fed them 200g pro/day... Shame they didn't. So like I said before, if I ever decide to diet @ 1200 calories/day and only ingest 60g/pro day, I will for SURE spread that **** out.
    I don't need studies to know how digestion takes place. I have already had to teach thos spreading the myth flax slows absortion how wrong they were. Its a old arguement. And for you to place any time limits on digestion and absortion rates of ALL foods is ludicrous.

    Your orignal statements? Like these?

    "Anything you eat is going to take about 12 hours to fully digest"

    "Um, given that food will spend up to 4 hours in the stomach alone, then easily another 6 in the small intestines"

    "I've actually talked with lyle about this one a couple times, he's got some good research that refutes it pretty well - FYI. He has plenty of research that pretty clearly indicates that there's no real difference between results with 3 and 6 meals besides meal size."

    Well where is it?


    You were the one stating the eating 3 meals a day was no different than 6 so please give us evidence of this. I have already shown you evidence of the postive effects when it comes to catabolic activity. So you are going to tell everyone that those studies are showing you nothing and that your study on young women is what we should base our feeding patterns on? Sendentary women? Well if you are reading this and you are a sendetary woman, then eat your 3 meals a day.



    Hormones play a MAJOR role. I don't even think we need to argue about that.


    As for this comment:

    "Also, because I have a feeling that there is a communications breakdown, in my original statement I was referring to the amount of time blood glucose/ffa/amino acid levels stay elevated after a meal,"


    Meal frequency has a much more positive effect on a timed out 6 meals per day than 3-9 irregualr meal frequency.

    Regular meal frequency creates more appropriate insulin sensitivity and lipid profiles compared with irregular meal frequency in healthy lean women.

    Farshchi HR, Taylor MA, Macdonald IA.

    Centre for Integrated Systems Biology and Medicine, Institute of Clinical Research, School of Biomedical Sciences, Queen's Medical Centre, University of Nottingham, UK. [email protected]


    Nibbling versus gorging: metabolic advantages of increased meal frequency.

    Jenkins DJ, Wolever TM, Vuksan V, Brighenti F, Cunnane SC, Rao AV, Jenkins AL, Buckley G, Patten R, Singer W, et al.

    Department of Nutritional Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, St. Michael's Hospital, University of Toronto, ON, Canada.

    We studied the effect of increasing the frequency of meals on serum lipid concentrations and carbohydrate tolerance in normal subjects. Seven men were assigned in random order to two metabolically identical diets. One diet consisted of 17 snacks per day (the nibbling diet), and the other of three meals per day (the three-meal diet); each diet was followed for two weeks. As compared with the three-meal diet, the nibbling diet reduced fasting serum concentrations of total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and apolipoprotein B by a mean (+/- SE) of 8.5 +/- 2.5 percent (P less than 0.02), 13.5 +/- 3.4 percent (P less than 0.01), and 15.1 +/- 5.7 percent (P less than 0.05), respectively. Although the mean blood glucose level and serum concentrations of free fatty acids, 3-hydroxybutyrate, and triglyceride were similar during both diets, during the nibbling diet the mean serum insulin level decreased by 27.9 +/- 6.3 percent (P less than 0.01) and the mean 24-hour urinary C-peptide output decreased by 20.2 +/- 5.6 percent (P less than 0.02). In addition, the mean 24-hour urinary cortisol excretion was lower by 17.3 +/- 5.9 percent (P less than 0.05) at the end of the nibbling diet than at the end of the three-meal diet. The blood glucose, serum insulin, and C-peptide responses to a standardized breakfast and the results of an intravenous glucose-tolerance test conducted at the end of each diet were similar. We conclude that in addition to the amount and type of food eaten, the frequency of meals may be an important determinant of fasting serum lipid levels, possibly in relation to changes in insulin secretion.


    Eur J Clin Nutr. 1994 Jun;48(6):402-7. Related Articles, Links

    The effects of altered frequency of eating on plasma lipids in free-living healthy males on normal self-selected diets.

    McGrath SA, Gibney MJ.

    Department of Clinical Medicine, Trinity College Medical School, St James' Hospital, Dublin, Ireland.

    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.


    The effect of food frequency on serum glucose, triglyceride and total cholesterol in niddm patient.

    Keshavarz A.

    Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Health, Tehran-Iran.

    Conclusion: this result shows that high frequency diet reduces fasting serum glucose and triglyceride.



    Diabetes Care. 1993 Jan;16(1):4-7. Related Articles, Links

    Effect of meal frequency on blood glucose, insulin, and free fatty acids in NIDDM subjects.

    Bertelsen J, Christiansen C, Thomsen C, Poulsen PL, Vestergaard S, Steinov A, Rasmussen LH, Rasmussen O, Hermansen K.


    CONCLUSIONS--A higher meal frequency acutely subdues glucose excursions and reduces insulin and FFA levels during the daytime in older NIDDM subjects.




    That is just scratching the surface. So after all is said and done, there are many benefits of having 6 meals per day and your statement that their is no difference simply isn't true.
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.

  29. After that, we can get into personal experiences but that really doesn't hold much water....


    But then again why would I recommend 6 meals a day if it didn't work better. I would be out of business fairly quick.
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.

  30. Ok well I used to be in really good shape about a year and a half ago, since then ive grown and inch or 2 and gained id say 25 pounds im leaning towards of fat lol. I have developed some handles and a pot and im disgusted in myself. Id like to get on a 3-4 month program that would help lower my bodyfat level, im not looking to gain any mass at all, id like to slim down first. Thanks for all the respones guys.
  •   

      
     

Similar Forum Threads

  1. Do I need to eat more?
    By Cervantes in forum Nutrition / Health
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 02-05-2010, 03:06 PM
  2. Surgery Intern- Need a good program
    By adnscmplx in forum Training Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-31-2009, 01:46 AM
  3. Need a new program for summer
    By goldenroll in forum Powerlifting/Strongman
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 05-04-2009, 09:54 PM
  4. Need a Strength program for bench
    By theshocker21 in forum Powerlifting/Strongman
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 05-27-2006, 07:54 PM
  5. need bench specialty program
    By julius kelp in forum Training Forum
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 07-20-2005, 01:55 AM
Log in
Log in