Article: Figuring Out Meal Frequency
- Thread starter The Press
- Start date
mountainman33
Well-known member
The 6 small meals a day is for people looking to lose body fat. I used to have great success as a trainer with clients who were over weight using that meal planning method. Besides, most people can only absorb 500-600 calories per meal and anything you eat beyond that gets turned into mostly feces or fat if not used for energy or cell repair.
v4lu3s
Member
One thing i find of interest if the long term effect of elevated blood sugar and insulin levels. Eating every few hours often does not allow those levels to drop down to baseline again. That would concern me in regards to insulin resistance and diabetes in the long term, as well as vascular damage from chalk they blood glucose.
boogyman
Active member
This is not true. If it was, we would not have made it past neanderthals. Ancient man hunted, ate his fill, and may not have eaten again for days. If all you can "absorb" is 600 calories we would gave went extinct.
Besides the fact IF diets work for lots of people, and they sometimes eat half or more of their calories in one meal.
jboatown
New member
What are you basing this on?
sugardaddy69
Member
yes but if you are of normal weight (bmi wise) there is just no way one can split calories into 5-6 or more meals, I realized that honestly 3 max 4 meals of which 2 are really snacks are perfect for me and I see most people doing pretty well with that approach 400 cals is like 2 scoops of protein powder and maybe a teaspoon of pb
v4lu3s
Member
Most food causes insulin secretion to some degree, carbs and certain others have a higher response. Having food in your stomach digesting all the time can lead to frequent insulin secretions. It will also lead to higher blood glucose levels if you eat carbs. If you are eating like i have seen many "body builders" do, every 2-3 hours, your intestinal tract is constantly working, and that means a constant supply of the things I mention, and blood sugar never going back to base line.
Three is even research, a study called the effects if meal frequency on blood sugar and insulin secretions through the day.
Three is even research, a study called the effects if meal frequency on blood sugar and insulin secretions through the day.
mountainman33
Well-known member
Then how do you explain America being the most overweight country in the world? Why are restaraunts offering "Under 500 Calorie Meals"? It's because of absorption ability of the human body. Besides, there are other things from prehitoric times that man doesn't utilize for evolutionary reasons. When was the last time you used your appendix?
boogyman
Active member
Americans are overweight because they eat tons of fast food, don't get enough exercise and eat a lot of processed sugars. Any diet menu in restaurant is just a marketing ploy. Your point about the appendix has nothing to do with the context of this conversation.
Ok, so I answered you. Now you reply to me, and explain how all these IFer's are running around at super low bodyfats while eating meals well over 1000 calories at times. According to your 500 calorie rule (myth), these guys should all be fat, out of shape, or malnourished.
boogyman
Active member
These three guys all defy your laws of science:
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link RemovedInvalid Link Removed
mountainman33
Well-known member
If you really read my first post you would see where I said "most people". The typical American, as you stated, doesn't get enough exercise. People who exercise "vigorously" create a caloric requirement that over time can condition their body to absorb more calories per feeding. I am one of those people. I'm 6'1", 205 pounds now, at roughly 10 - 11% BF. Each of my meals is roughly 800-900 calories 6 times a day on/after training days, so don't get me wrong, I understand your point about how prehistoric man used to gorge and then fast. But as I tried to point out with my appendix comment, we have evloved away from processes that prehistoric man needed. Leptin and ghrelin levels aren't anywhere near what they used to be in modern man vs. prehistoric man. And whether the carbs that people eat are processed or not, simple or complex, if you eat more than your body can absorb, those carb calories are subject to calorie waste partitioning where it is on average a 50/50 split being turned into fat or feces.
boogyman
Active member
I can't find any evidence of this being true. I am not saying eating your way is bad or wrong, I just subscribe to the idea that a person needs a certain amount of calories, divided into certain macros, etc. a day and as long as he gets them he will be fine. Eating them in 6 meals or two, it does not really matter all that much. You still have not explained how IF people get results.
The stuff your saying does not explain how a guy like Herschel Walker could make it through an NFL training camp and season for 13 seasons eating 1 meal a day.
Invalid Link Removed
He is 50 years old in that picture, fights in MMA, and still eats 1 meal a day (I am going to go out on a limb and say he eats more than 500, or even 900 calories in that single meal).
mountainman33
Well-known member
And I'm just going to say you probably have the same thing my step son does, ODD (Oppositional Defiance Disorder). In other words, you just like to argue. You've spent way too much effort on this so I'm guessing you don't have much to do. I have a degree in sports nutrition, with a minor in exercise physiology, I was the head personal trainer and fitness coordinator for Vermont's largest fitness organization for 7 years. I've trained hundreds upon hundreds of clients, most of whom were well over weight with BF %'s that were unhealthy. I had great success with their weightloss by helping them with a 6 meal/day, 500-600 calories/meal diet. That was the point behind my initial post, hence the first sentence in my post "The 6 small meals a day is for people looking to lose body fat".
boogyman
Active member
Dude, i am nor disagreeing that eating the way you are saying will not work. I simply disagreed with the point about absorbing 600 or whatever the number was, in a single meal. Lots of people have lost bodyfat eating 1-3 meals a day. IF works for a lot of people, and you still have not explained how it works going by your logic.
In the past two years, I have done both ways of eating. Typically if i want to gain weight i eat more meals spread out, only because i cannot eat as much in a single sitting as some people without being miserable. But I also experimented with a leangains type diet for 3 months and recomped at a very good rate, losing fat while my weight stayed pretty much the same. And when I did this, i ate over 1000 calories in one meal. My training or health did not suffer.
TexasGuy
Active member
I think the question is best hypertrophy practice, not ability to survive. Ancient man was also a tad over 5' 3" tall and a little over 100 pounds, largely due to dietary restrictions. Not the best muscle building example.
Leangains does work but it's definitely a beginner or possibly intermediate program for a number of reasons, the most important being absorption mentioned by MountainMan.
When you are actually carrying around an appreciable amount of lean mass your metabolism operates at a higher level (and needs to be fed more frequently), you have to eat ridiculous amounts of food to cram in to an 8 hour window and even if you did most of it would literally go to sh!t given the inability to absorb it. You would effectively be taking in nutrient levels below your maintenance, and we all know what that means for bulking.
Newbies in the gym can make gains lifting like jack asses and it's no different than a diet. Leangains protects people from getting fat, its structure is forgiving to diet cheats, while allowing for beginner level hypertrophy. Nobody worth his salt in the gym with genuine muscle mass would think twice about this diet, not unless they wanted to limit their gains or were on a cut.
Leangains does work but it's definitely a beginner or possibly intermediate program for a number of reasons, the most important being absorption mentioned by MountainMan.
When you are actually carrying around an appreciable amount of lean mass your metabolism operates at a higher level (and needs to be fed more frequently), you have to eat ridiculous amounts of food to cram in to an 8 hour window and even if you did most of it would literally go to sh!t given the inability to absorb it. You would effectively be taking in nutrient levels below your maintenance, and we all know what that means for bulking.
Newbies in the gym can make gains lifting like jack asses and it's no different than a diet. Leangains protects people from getting fat, its structure is forgiving to diet cheats, while allowing for beginner level hypertrophy. Nobody worth his salt in the gym with genuine muscle mass would think twice about this diet, not unless they wanted to limit their gains or were on a cut.
TexasGuy
Active member
He also has ridiculous genetics and could most likely see better gains for himself if he ate differently.
Clemenza
Well-known member
And eating larger sized meals which you would if you eat less frequently will cause a larger rise in blood sugar and insulin secretion. So in regards to diabetes prevention and preventing metabolic syndrome which are caused by insulin problems then id say smaller meals frequent meals are better.
And who said if you're hungry you're supposed to eat? I know a lot of obese people who are hungry very often bc their blood sugar peaks and valleys and they should not be eating until they are full.
Large meals weigh me down and make me feel sluggish. So do high gi carbs. Not to mention they make me look watery.
I prefer 5 to 7 meals a day with low glycemic carbs. Am i allowed to still say that on the forums?
jboatown
New member
Agreed. The study he referred to says the exact opposite, haha. Three other studies I found said eating smaller, more frequent meals has no affect on blood sugar as well. I too only stick with whole grains.
boogyman
Active member
I don't understand how my posts got taken so far out of context. I never argued against eating smaller frequent meals. I agree IF diets are probably not the most effective way to add muscle mass, and that a 245lb guy with lots of lean mass would probably not benefit from it. I argued 1 point and 1 only, that a person can only absorb 600 calories in a single meal. Thats it. Mountainman33 argued this with me, while ate the same time saying he conditioned himself to eat 900 at a time. Right there you show your original comment was wrong. I personally think the number is different for most people. And I also believe the number to be much higher. I myself have made gains on eating 2 1000+ calories a day with a few snacks thown in. And I personally doubt I have "ridiculous genetics".
As far as the comment from Texasguy about no one worth his salt would use a IF diet, I think your confusing the average person with a professional bodybuilder, or with someone who as aspirations to acheive that sort of body type. Most people don't. As I said above, I agree a large person with lots of muscle mass would not do well on a IF diet, but a lot of people don't have or want that kind of physique.
I try and stay out of pissing matches, so I will probably not post again in this thread, unless someone can show me definitive proof my original comment was wrong.
As far as the comment from Texasguy about no one worth his salt would use a IF diet, I think your confusing the average person with a professional bodybuilder, or with someone who as aspirations to acheive that sort of body type. Most people don't. As I said above, I agree a large person with lots of muscle mass would not do well on a IF diet, but a lot of people don't have or want that kind of physique.
I try and stay out of pissing matches, so I will probably not post again in this thread, unless someone can show me definitive proof my original comment was wrong.
v4lu3s
Member
Big spikes and a return to base line does not cause diabetes. You're body is supposed to work like that. Insulin resistant diabetes us caused by constant elevated blood sugar and insulin secretion.
In addition to reading, my own experience of eating body building "style" with whole grains and meals every two to the hours bought my baseline fasted blood sugar from 80 to 100 in 5 years. Went back to larger and fewer meals, saw no change in body composition, strength continues to increase and fasted sugar back at 80.
Clemenza
Well-known member
What do you consider elevated blood sugar?
Ive been eating 6 meals a day consisting of low gi carbs for years. My waking fasted blood sugar is around 75. Throughout the day it doesn't go above 115. Ive pricked myself thousands of times , I have scars on my finger tips to prove it.
I studied dietetics in college for 2 years until switching majors... Ive never met a type 2 diabetic who ate 6 small portioned low gi carb meals a day.
I have however met tons of type 2 diabetics who ate 2 or 3 or even 1 large portioned high gi carb meals on a daily basis for years.
Not to mention big spikes DON'T return you to baseline, they return you to under baseline which leads to hosts of other problems.