Meal Frequency

[Alluring]

ps - There is NO evidence that 'breakfast' is 'required'. Not for athletes, nor other individuals. [note: this is if you count 'breakfast' after a nights rest as a separate meal to pre workout nutrition]. There is actually recent evidence out suggests that breakfast can, in certain instances, PROMOTE / increase the chance of 'unwanted' weight gain.

if meal frequency and timing doesn't matter then breakfast shouldn't promote/increase unwanted weight gain? if macro-nutrients are the same, or am i missing something?

so is there an adverse effect/down side of eating more frequently compared to less frequently?

[cimayn]

if meal frequency and timing doesn't matter then breakfast shouldn't promote/increase unwanted weight gain? if macro-nutrients are the same, or am i missing something?

so is there an adverse effect/down side of eating more frequently compared to less frequently?

I just read this entire thread. Very intelligent debates. In regards to the above post, I am also curious to the answer.

If nutrient timing has no effect on weight gain/loss, than why would eating a meal within an hour of waking promote fat gain?

[Emma-Leigh]

if meal frequency and timing doesn't matter then breakfast shouldn't promote/increase unwanted weight gain? if macro-nutrients are the same, or am i missing something?

so is there an adverse effect/down side of eating more frequently compared to less frequently?

I just read this entire thread. Very intelligent debates. In regards to the above post, I am also curious to the answer.

If nutrient timing has no effect on weight gain/loss, than why would eating a meal within an hour of waking promote fat gain?

In some people it simply promotes more calorie intake over the day -->> gain weight.

But Martin discusses a few of the other issues here:
http://www.leangains.com/2011/06/is-...r-for-fat.html

[Emma-Leigh]

A goodie is this one:

Am J Clin Nutr. 2011 Jul 27. [Epub ahead of print]

Rapid aminoacidemia enhances myofibrillar protein synthesis and anabolic intramuscular signaling responses after resistance exercise.West DW, Burd NA, Coffey VG, Baker SK, Burke LM, Hawley JA, Moore DR, Stellingwerff T, Phillips SM.
Exercise Metabolism Research Group, Departments of Kinesiology and Neurology, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.

Abstract
BACKGROUND:Ingestion of whey or casein yields divergent patterns of aminoacidemia that influence whole-body and skeletal muscle myofibrillar protein synthesis (MPS) after exercise. Direct comparisons of the effects of contrasting absorption rates exhibited by these proteins are confounded by their differing amino acid contents.

OBJECTIVE:Our objective was to determine the effect of divergent aminoacidemia by manipulating ingestion patterns of whey protein alone on MPS and anabolic signaling after resistance exercise.

DESIGN:In separate trials, 8 healthy men consumed whey protein either as a single bolus (BOLUS; 25-g dose) or as repeated, small, "pulsed" drinks (PULSE; ten 2.5-g drinks every 20 min) to mimic a more slowly digested protein. MPS and phosphorylation of signaling proteins involved in protein synthesis were measured at rest and after resistance exercise.

RESULTS:BOLUS increased blood essential amino acid (EAA) concentrations above those of PULSE (162% compared with 53%, P < 0.001) 60 min postexercise, whereas PULSE resulted in a smaller but sustained increase in aminoacidemia that remained elevated above BOLUS amounts later (180-220 min postexercise, P < 0.05). Despite an identical net area under the EAA curve, MPS was elevated to a greater extent after BOLUS than after PULSE early (1-3 h: 95% compared with 42%) and later (3-5 h: 193% compared with 121%) (both P < 0.05). There were greater changes in the phosphorylation of the Akt-mammalian target of rapamycin pathway after BOLUS than after PULSE.

CONCLUSIONS:Rapid aminoacidemia in the postexercise period enhances MPS and anabolic signaling to a greater extent than an identical amount of protein fed in small pulses that mimic a more slowly digested protein. A pronounced peak aminoacidemia postexercise enhances protein synthesis. This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT01319513.

[tyseagle]

Whats funny to me is that people who have the best physiques on earth have a very high meal frequency. People aren't stupid and i'm sure would have figured by now that if they could eat less often and have great physiques than they would. But tried techniques always work for a reason. Its hard to really believe all those studies unless you did them yourself because who knows how well and accurate they were done. I eat about 11 times a day right now.

[peteyboy1015]

Whats funny to me is that people who have the best physiques on earth have a very high meal frequency. People aren't stupid and i'm sure would have figured by now that if they could eat less often and have great physiques than they would. But tried techniques always work for a reason. Its hard to really believe all those studies unless you did them yourself because who knows how well and accurate they were done. I eat about 11 times a day right now.

Perhaps you haven't seen this link yet.

They not only practice the avoidance of high meal frequency, but also fast for about 16 hours*throughout*the day, eating all of their caloric intake in a window of eight hours.

Also, coorelation =/= causation.

[snagency]

Whats funny to me is that people who have the best physiques on earth have a very high meal frequency.

I eat about 11 times a day right now.

Perhaps you haven't seen this link yet.

what all these "studies" and comparisons miss, are some finer points of the game..



leangains will work well if you are of a certain bodytype. it will not work for all ppl.

likewise, frequent meals will work well if you have a certain metabolism. it will not work for all ppl.

there is no "one-size-fits-all" diet plan, the body is not a textbook, and anybody who swears up & down that "xxx way" is the only way is grossly and sadly mistaken, and has interpreted these "studies" wrongly..



all that said.. eating 11x daily is prolly a lil overkill.

[peteyboy1015]

what all these "studies" and comparisons miss, are some finer points of the game..



leangains will work well if you are of a certain bodytype. it will not work for all ppl.

likewise, frequent meals will work well if you have a certain metabolism. it will not work for all ppl.

there is no "one-size-fits-all" diet plan, the body is not a textbook, and anybody who swears up & down that "xxx way" is the only way is grossly and sadly mistaken, and has interpreted these "studies" wrongly..



all that said.. eating 11x daily is prolly a lil overkill.

You can eat 11x, 6x, 2x, 3x...it does not matter to the body, as long as you hit your caloric intake and your macros at the end of the day. You cannot manipulate metabolism simply by eating more frequently. Vice versa, you won't manipulate it by eating less frequently either...that's the point of these studies. Adjustment of human metabolism is far more complicated than that.

Therefore, meal frequency is entirely based on preference. Some might find eating three meals convenient while others might like the six meals a day because it helps them split up their caloric intake into more sizable meals, or other reasons.

[snagency]

You can eat 11x, 6x, 2x, 3x...it does not matter to the body, as long as you hit your caloric intake and your macros at the end of the day. You cannot manipulate metabolism simply by eating more frequently. Vice versa, you won't manipulate by eating less frequently...that's the point of these studies. Adjustment of human metabolism is far more complicated than that.

you look at it too simply, my friend.

it's not about "manipulating metabolism"..rather, it is about eating suitably for your own metabolic type.

there is a difference.

[peteyboy1015]

you look at it too simply, my friend.

it's not about "manipulating metabolism"..rather, it is about eating suitably for your own metabolic type.

there is a difference.

Aware me on how different metabolic types do better on different meal frequencies.

[snagency]

Aware me on how different metabolic types do better on different meal frequencies.

simple concept, really.
you're making it too difficult.

we can all agree that ppl have different metabolisms, yes?
and you yourself just said above we can't change our metabolism by eating, yes?

sooo..why not eat within your metabolism?
ie, if you have a slower metabolism, leangains may suit you well and in fact be an optimal eating pattern.
conversely if you have a higher metabolism (like myself), you might be better suited to smaller more frequent meals thruout the day. and by more frequent i mean ~ 6-7 max, not 10-11.. about every 2-3hrs or so.

besides - i could see myself having a problem fitting, say, 5000cals in over an 8hr period on the days when i am eating that much just to maintain my weight.

i would also theorize that the distribution of weight upon my frame would be different if i were utilizing a leangains protocol, versus my multiple-feedings-thruout-day protocol.

as it is, i feel i've pretty much perfected the guidelines for my own body on how to eat, and what works best for myself..

bottom line: you simply cannot have it both ways.
ppl have different metabolic types.

makes sense that different eating patterns would be applicable to these different types, if you are trying to manipulate body composition.

[peteyboy1015]

simple concept, really.
you're making it too difficult.

we can all agree that ppl have different metabolisms, yes?
and you yourself just said above we can't change our metabolism by eating, yes?

sooo..why not eat within your metabolism?
ie, if you have a slower metabolism, leangains may suit you well and in fact be an optimal eating pattern.
conversely if you have a higher metabolism (like myself), you might be better suited to smaller more frequent meals thruout the day. and by more frequent i mean ~ 6-7 max, not 10-11.. about every 2-3hrs or so.

besides - i could see myself having a problem fitting, say, 5000cals in over an 8hr period on the days when i am eating that much just to maintain my weight.

i would also theorize that the distribution of weight upon my frame would be different if i were utilizing a leangains protocol, versus my multiple-feedings-thruout-day protocol.

as it is, i feel i've pretty much perfected the guidelines for my own body on how to eat, and what works best for myself..

And how do you know whether you have "fast" or "slow" metabolism?

The majority of those that I've witnessed who have stated that they have "fast" metabolism are the ones who:
1. underestimate their daily activity and how many calories they actually burn throughout the day
and/or
2. when asked to track calories, they find out they eat fewer calories than required (to maintain/bulk)

Those with "slow" metabolism are the exact opposite:
1. when asked to track calories, they find out that they actually eat in a caloric surplus
and/or
2. overestimate their day-to-day activities

Although I agree that if you have to eat at a rather large caloric intake (such as yourself), fitting all those calories into an eight-hour window is rather difficult, and thus, the splitting up of meals is more preferable. However, what I don't like is what's being preached in the supplement industry: the fact that you have to eat six meals a day (or more) for metabolic advantages. If you told a female who had to eat 1800 calories to maintain her weight, 1800/6 = 300 calories a meal...nothing more than little tiny snacks.

[snagency]

And how do you know whether you have "fast" or "slow" metabolism?

The majority of those that I've witnessed who have stated that they have "fast" metabolism are the ones who:
1. underestimate their daily activity and how many calories they actually burn throughout the day
and/or
2. when asked to track calories, they find out they eat fewer calories than required (to maintain/bulk)

Those with "slow" metabolism are the exact opposite:
1. when asked to track calories, they find out that they actually eat in a caloric surplus
and/or
2. overestimate their day-to-day activities

the failure in your own information here, is dealing with the uninformed.

determining your metabolism is not difficult - it just takes the correct knowledge.

i am not here to give you step-by-step walk thru this philosophy, i am simply disputing the all-encompassing application with which you determine "meal frequency does not matter" in respect to body composition.

that is a misguided statement.

[peteyboy1015]

the failure in your own information here, is dealing with the uninformed.

determining your metabolism is not difficult - it just takes the correct knowledge.

i am not here to give you step-by-step walk thru this philosophy, i am simply disputing the all-encompassing application with which you determine "meal frequency does not matter" in respect to body composition.

that is a misguided statement.

So what do you think will happen to your body if say, a person like yourself, who has the quicker metabolism, eats three meals a day rather than six meals a day split two-three hours apart?

Furthermore, do you realize that a good majority of the nutrition sub-forum of bodybuilding.com actually don't frequent meals? Could you possibly say that all of their metabolic rates are "slow," as you have defined it? I think that would be too much of a generalization.

[snagency]

So what do you think will happen to your body if say, a person like yourself, who has the quicker metabolism, eats three meals a day rather than six meals a day split two-three hours apart?

i've eaten like that before, albeit for only short durations as it's not comfortable for me at all.

what i've noticed is, a bit more of a "full" look, more water retention, less tightness..bigger belly, as the stomach stretches to fit 1000-1200cal+ meals in..
less mobility (because of that bigger belly)..less energy as well as far more variances in energy levels (ie energy ebbs and flows, rather than consistent energy thruout day like i usually have)..

a general feeling of not being lean. physically, as well as mentally, such infrequent feedings aer not for me.

[peteyboy1015]

i've eaten like that before, albeit for only short durations as it's not comfortable for me at all.

what i've noticed is, a bit more of a "full" look, more water retention, less tightness..bigger belly, as the stomach stretches to fit 1000-1200cal+ meals in..
less mobility (because of that bigger belly)..less energy as well as far more variances in energy levels (ie energy ebs and flows, rather than consistent energy thruout day like i usually have)..

a general feeling of not being lean. physically, as well as mentally, such infrequent feedings aer not for me.

I feel the exact same way, and I'm sure most would agree that bigger meals tend to do that to them. Bigger meals usually have a larger intake of carbohydrates, which both of us will surely agree, or more water-retensive, and thus, the bloating. However, I wake up the next day, and I"m fully lean again. If you eat more frequent meals, your body will digest the meals quicker...if you eat less frequent meals, and thus, more calories in one sitting, then your body will digest the meals slower. The point is though....total caloric intake is what matters. You will make the same gains on more frequent meals as you would on less frequent meals, given isocaloric diets and the same consistent macros. One just leads to more bloating than the other...but bloating is no way fat...just water weight.

[snagency]

I feel the exact same way, and I'm sure most would agree that bigger meals tend to do that to them. Bigger meals usually have a larger intake of carbohydrates, which both of us will surely agree, or more water-retensive, and thus, the bloating. However, I wake up the next day, and I"m fully lean again. If you eat more frequent meals, your body will digest the meals quicker...if you eat less frequent meals, and thus, more calories in one sitting, then your body will digest the meals slower. The point is though....total caloric intake is what matters. You will make the same gains on more frequent meals as you would on less frequent meals, given isocaloric diets and the same consistent macros. One just leads to more bloating than the other...but bloating is no way fat...just water weight.

i would disagree.

and where you say you wake up the next day and you're lean again? that was not the case with me. i woke up bloated and spongy-feeling as well.

aside from that - you conveniently ignore other hugely important issues such as energy levels..
if how/when i eat determines my energy and motivational levels, it follows that:

if one is feeling energetic thruout the day, one's activity level is likely to be increased, therefore energy expenditure is up.
therefore = more cals burned.


conversely, if one is feeling sluggish and lackadaisical, activity level is likely to be decreased and so energy expenditure down = less calories burned.


there are a host of other issues the are directly or indirectly related with what meal frequency suits an individual - beyond just the obvious and debated ones such as do you burn more calories when you eat more frequently thruout the day due to digestion - which are the "scientific studies" everyone seems to love getting caught up in.


my point is, they're getting lost in the irrelevant.

[snagency]

ohh..i just saw your argumentative edit..

Furthermore, do you realize that a good majority of the nutrition sub-forum of bodybuilding.com actually don't frequent meals? Could you possibly say that all of their metabolic rates are "slow," as you have defined it?

this is an absurd statement in itself.

what context does this apply to me?

it is not often when i see somebody make such a ridiculous generalized statement as you have here, and then follow it immediately with what is a summarization of that same statement in your own words:

I think that would be too much of a generalization.

[peteyboy1015]

ohh..i just saw your argumentative edit..


this is an absurd statement in itself.

what context does this apply to me?

it is not often when i see somebody make such a ridiculous generalized statement as you have here, and then follow it immediately with what is a summarization of that same statement in your own words:

My point is that the consumption of frequent meals does not correlate with one's metabolic rate. You've stated that those that eat more frequent meals generally have faster metabolic rates, and those that eat less frequent meals have slower metabolic rates. From what I'm understanding, that's too much of a generalization, because by that logic, you are saying that the majority of the nutrition sub-forum, who don't eat frequent meals from what I've observed, do not have fast metabolic rates. How can you be so sure of that?

Thus, I believe that meal frequency is based on personal preference and therefore, I take back my argument that it doesn't matter. As you have stated, you feel much more energetic and bode better on more frequent meals, while I feel that two meals per day is convenient and suits me fine.

However, what I do have a problem with (and this is not directed towards you) is those that eat frequent meals, not because of personal preference, but because they believe it offers some advantage to metabolic rates and keeps the body in an "anabolic" state. That logic is flawed, as proven by the multiple studies in this thread.

I am glad though, to hear that you experimented with both protocols, and concluded that less frequent meals was not to your liking, and thus, you went back to frequent meals because you do better on that protocol. Too many people do not want to experiment and keep an open mind, and thus, they are usually one-sided and state that the "only" way to do things correctly is to eat frequent meals, or, vice versa, less frequent meals.

[snagency]

a couple points of clarification..

You've stated that those that eat more frequent meals generally have faster metabolic rates, and those that eat less frequent meals have slower metabolic rates.

no!
what i'm saying is, those w/ faster metabolisms would do better if they utilized a more frequent feeding approach, whereas those w/ slower metabolisms may be better suited to a leangains approach.

From what I'm understanding, that's too much of a generalization, because by that logic, you are saying that the majority of the nutrition sub-forum, who don't eat frequent meals from what I've observed, do not have fast metabolic rates. How can you be so sure of that?

honestly, and no offense, but - you're own understanding and personal views, on observations from a sub-section of an anonymous online forum - really bare no fruit for edifying my understanding.

Thus, I believe that meal frequency is based on personal preference and therefore, I take back my argument that it doesn't matter. As you have stated, you feel much more energetic and bode better on more frequent meals, while I feel that two meals per day is convenient and suits me fine.

there ya go mate!

the body is not a textbook..you have to experiment and see what formula works best for you.

I am glad though, to hear that you experimented with both protocols, and concluded that less frequent meals was not to your liking, and thus, you went back to frequent meals because you do better on that protocol. Too many people do not want to experiment and keep an open mind, and thus, they are usually one-sided and state that the "only" way to do things correctly is to eat frequent meals, or, vice versa, less frequent meals.

absolutely, my friend. i do not come to conclusions based on limited evidence or circumstance.
all of my own "assumptions" and understandings are indeed backed by seeing repetitive and consistent reactions to certain structured chain of actions. i have long experiemented with many different forms of diet, supplementation, training etc, in search of what is "best" as it pertains to me.. my own philosophies do not come as a whim.

[peteyboy1015]

Yea, I guess said observations on an online community would not be reputable enough evidence to instantiate a claim.

However, I'm happy we were able to end a thought-provoking discussion on a good note...one that we can both agree on .

[snagency]

I'm happy we were able to end a thought-provoking discussion on a good note...one that we can both agree on .

indeed.

[Siafu4Life]

indeed.

Time for a group hug!! Seriously though...the amount of knowledge you folks have with regards to nutrition...is remarkable. Thanks!

[zixonija]

a couple points of clarification..
no!
what i'm saying is, those w/ faster metabolisms would do better if they utilized a more frequent feeding approach, whereas those w/ slower metabolisms may be better suited to a leangains approach.
honestly, and no offense, but - you're own understanding and personal views, on observations from a sub-section of an anonymous online forum - really bare no fruit for edifying my understanding.

there ya go mate!

the body is not a textbook..you have to experiment and see what formula works best for you.
absolutely, my friend. i do not come to conclusions based on limited evidence or circumstance.
all of my own "assumptions" and understandings are indeed backed by seeing repetitive and consistent reactions to certain structured chain of actions. i have long experiemented with many different forms of diet, supplementation, training etc, in search of what is "best" as it pertains to me.. my own philosophies do not come as a whim.

After reading this thread this summs it. We are all different. I tried approach with 3 big meals per day and it didn't work, I tried to fast and it didn't work. After all those tries I tried 5+ meals per day and I feel awesome. I don't feel bloated anymore, I have better sleep at night, in the morning I am more full of energy. However, just because it works for me it doesn't have to mean it will work for others. I feel good doing what I am doing. Maybe when I reach my short term goal to loose excess body fat (to be under 11%) maybe I will switch to different type of dieting that will meet my goals.

This thread is awesome by the way = so many knowledgable people (not book smart - but experience smart)

[Lukelovesyoutoo]

I WANT TO BELIEVE but this flies in the face of everything I was ever taught. Does anyone who competes follow this? Seriously, I would love to not have to sneak off to the back at work to get protein in, but a lot of the guys who repeat this don't look like they lift.

[peteyboy1015]

I WANT TO BELIEVE but this flies in the face of everything I was ever taught. Does anyone who competes follow this? Seriously, I would love to not have to sneak off to the back at work to get protein in, but a lot of the guys who repeat this don't look like they lift.

Look at this, this, this, and this.

Also, look at a lot of those in the nutrition forum. Most of them eat one-three meals a day.

It's difficult to accept something completely controversial to what you might have been used to. It took me a while too, but I've learned to keep an open mind about different protocols. Try it out for a while and see for yourself. If you don't like it, then simply revert back to your old ways...some people find out they do better on multiple meals while others do better on less meals.

[snagency]

I WANT TO BELIEVE but this flies in the face of everything I was ever taught. Does anyone who competes follow this? Seriously, I would love to not have to sneak off to the back at work to get protein in, but a lot of the guys who repeat this don't look like they lift.

in general, it's just a philosophy dude.
the ppl who practice the "doesn't matter when you eat" and "it's all about macros (n/m the micros)" philosophies, or IIFYM, have a base belief that moderation is "good".
many bb'ers who are advanced and have achieved extreme musculature, have a base belief that borders on the "extreme".
practicing moderation and sensible eating patterns works well for the average individual who just wants to look a little better and feel better about themselves.
practicing extreme and rigid eating patterns works well for the mentality of those who like to go above and beyond in both their effort and transformational achievements.

it's all about perspective. do what works for you.

[snagency]

peteyboy, i'm glad you edited your post.

Also, look at a lot of those in the nutrition forum. Most of them eat one-three meals a day.

as i've mentioned before, what a small segment of ppl are doing on a certain anonymous bb'ing forum sub-section is of no practical importance to me, let alone anyone else.

you seem to thrive on the "well everyone else is doing it" mentality.

unfortunately, this is not a valid or worthwhile platform to base a debate on...

[peteyboy1015]

peteyboy, i'm glad you edited your post.



as i've mentioned before, what a small segment of ppl are doing on a certain anonymous bb'ing forum sub-section is of no practical importance to me, let alone anyone else.

you seem to thrive on the "well everyone else is doing it" mentality.

unfortunately, this is not a valid or worthwhile platform to base a debate on...

Never stated that one way was better than the other. Just wanted to give out examples of people who are following the controversial protocol of less meals, and that meal frequency should be based on preference.

[Rambojohn]

Note: Meal frequency should be determined by an individuals calorie needs, not based upon the idea that it will speed up ones metabolism, suppress appetite or even increase muscle mass (via continuous ingestion of protein every 2 hours). It would be ludicrous to divide the caloric requirement of a person whose daily caloric requirement is 1200 calories into 6 meals. At the same time, it wouldn't be a good idea to divide up the caloric requirement of an individual whose daily caloric requirement is 6000 calories into 3 meals. Instead base meal frequency on what's convenient for you, the frequency that's going to allow you to reach your nutritional goal.

Why?