Hello all, just wondering something in regards to the commonly heard myth/fact (depending on the source) regarding meal size/frequency. Please indulge me.
Personally, I've found pretty great success up to this point in a intermittent fasting approach; my desire for a huge meal trumps everything else, so I tend to not eat at all until late afternoon at which point I can have 1-2 huge meals and a snack in between while hitting all of my macros. I know it is believed as fact here on Nutrition that meal timing and size doesn't matter, as long as you hit your proper macros; my personal experience says the same. However, I have always wondered why the bodybuilding industry perpetuates such a myth?
I understand that the focus on fistfuls of supplemental pills/vitamins makes them money; I also get that they push hard on protein requirements via powders/shakes/bars for that same reason. I just can't figure out how it at all benefits them to insist on small meals over time. Unless the BB mechas have stake in Tupperware companies whose products are used to tote 100g of grilled chicken to the workplace, I can't make the connection. Rob Riches recent tweet "Nothing like eating clean to stay lean! Eating frequently, small balanced meals is a sure fire way to ensure progress" made me finally post this, but I've wondered about this for a while. Thanks!
|
-
06-01-2012, 01:07 PM #1
Why Perpetuate The Frequent, Small Meal 'Myth'?
------------------------------------------
#Fat to Fit Crew
#Horsehead Crew
-
06-01-2012, 01:11 PM #2
-
06-01-2012, 01:11 PM #3
-
06-01-2012, 01:12 PM #4
-
-
06-01-2012, 01:12 PM #5
-
06-01-2012, 01:13 PM #6
-
06-01-2012, 01:14 PM #7
-
06-01-2012, 01:17 PM #8
- Join Date: May 2012
- Location: hull, yorkshire, United Kingdom (Great Britain)
- Age: 34
- Posts: 1,313
- Rep Power: 676
I lost a LOT of fat using the 6 meals mechanism. but it isn't the be all- end all.
I think the focal point of that method for me, was that when I first started restricting calories. I was tempted to snack a lot.
having meals planned to fit my macros, at the times I'd normally snack (coffe break ect) helped prevent me from going over my macros.
basically, i was just acounting for snacks in between meals.There is no substitute for hard work
-
-
06-01-2012, 01:19 PM #9
-
06-01-2012, 01:20 PM #10
-
06-01-2012, 01:24 PM #11
-
06-01-2012, 01:31 PM #12
-
-
06-01-2012, 01:34 PM #13
- Join Date: Sep 2010
- Location: New York, New York, United States
- Posts: 52,345
- Rep Power: 323442
-
06-01-2012, 01:36 PM #14
-
06-01-2012, 01:37 PM #15
-
06-01-2012, 01:38 PM #16
-
-
06-01-2012, 01:39 PM #17
You seriously have to ask what that means?
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/satiation
I perpetuate this "myth" (if you like to call it that) because of what I have seen and experienced on a daily basis. For instance, When building a fire, that one would like to last throughout the whole day, would you dump all the logs on the fire at once? or do you space the logs out so that the fire can always have a source of energy to continually burn?
This is how I look at my body and metabolisim.3 Year transformation: http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=143999931
Competition Log:http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=160279391
Current pics (05/14) http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=162012893&page=1
-
06-01-2012, 01:39 PM #18
There are a couple things, and in some cases may be combined.
1. Convenience: The average person thinks they can t cook, so the thought of having to prepare 6 meals a day scares the crap out of them. 3 meals and 3 shakes is less daunting. Also the convenience of bringing powder vs having to refrigerate chicken and portion it and bring tupperware, worry about how to heat it, etc.
2. Previously, incorrect assumptions were made based on studies about the thermic effect of food. Thinking if each time you ate it "stoked your metabolic furnace" that it would make sense to keep it "stoked" all day with multiple smaller meals. Only this was incorrect, as the "stoketitude" was split evenly vs just having one big "stoke" from one larger meal.
So originally, I think it was based on the incorrect assumptions in 2. Now some people/companies might just still actually believe this. However, I am sure there are plenty of unscrupulous people/coompanies who recognized that they could capitalize on this and perpetuate it for these reasons.2 time survivor of The Great Misc Outages of 2022
Survivor of PHP/API Outage of Feb 2023
-
06-01-2012, 02:06 PM #19
-
06-01-2012, 02:28 PM #20
-
-
06-01-2012, 02:36 PM #21
- Join Date: Jan 2012
- Location: Fort Myers, Florida, United States
- Posts: 2,537
- Rep Power: 3588
-
06-01-2012, 02:44 PM #22
-
06-01-2012, 03:20 PM #23
Not really... you say that if you run out of wood the fire dies, and then go on too say if you run out of food "for the day" do you die? Your implying a supposed timeline that was previously not addressed. And yes, you would die. If you stop eating EVENTUALLY you die. Now the life expectancy for the fire, versus the human is the only thing that will chage. Where it could take 3 hours for a fire to burn out, it will take 3 weeks before your fire (life) burns out.
3 Year transformation: http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=143999931
Competition Log:http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=160279391
Current pics (05/14) http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=162012893&page=1
-
06-01-2012, 03:27 PM #24
-
-
06-01-2012, 03:38 PM #25
-
06-01-2012, 03:41 PM #26
If the wood on the fire took way over 24hours (more like 48 or 72 hours) to completely burn then this would be a more accurate analogy, as foods eaten take this length of time at least to completely be absorbed within an average individuals diet. In this situation then it would not matter if I put it all on at the start of spaced the logs out.
As it is however this is a false analogy fallacy.
-
06-01-2012, 04:07 PM #27
- Join Date: Jun 2003
- Location: New York, United States
- Posts: 34,428
- Rep Power: 275266
It's a secret scam by the tupperware industry to get you to buy more tupperware
Seriously it's pretty simple, many people don't feel good eating large meals. Personally I feel bloated, sluggish, tired, gassy, etc. when I eat one big meal. Bodybuilders are eating copious amounts of food and it's easier to digest in smaller meals. Plus many feel more energy through the day eating more frequently.Free Agent
Instagram.com/naturalguy2.0
-
06-01-2012, 04:25 PM #28
Settle down... No one is arguing here. I presented my answer to the question; satiation. However, someone didnt understand the word (go figure, considering what thread were in) so I used the wood and fire analogy to explain what it meant.
I am well aware that theese concepts have been "debunked" as it was ridiculed here with your "stupid analogy" comment, but I know what has been working for me, and so im gonna stick with it. OH NOES THE GO TO RESPONSE FOR SOMEONE SEEING RESPONSE FROM ANY PROGRAM.
Inb4 its not the program but the simple fact your ingesting calories while working out.3 Year transformation: http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=143999931
Competition Log:http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=160279391
Current pics (05/14) http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=162012893&page=1
-
-
06-01-2012, 04:27 PM #29
- Join Date: Jan 2012
- Location: United Kingdom (Great Britain)
- Posts: 70
- Rep Power: 153
i have often thought of the metabolism as a burning fire as well, but your text here got me thinking. we all know that most fires would burn out after a few hours without wood, which is where the whole 'eating every few hours to keep the fire burning' thing comes in. But as you have written just now the human body wont die for at least a few weeks without fuel (food)...showing the timeline for the body is alot longer then a 'fire'. Perhaps a couple large meals a day are enough to fuel the bodies fire, since we know the 'timeline' is longer?
excuse the possibly incoherant ramblings of my mind haha!... it makes sence to me, but perhaps sounds like nonsence to you guys:L
-
06-01-2012, 05:49 PM #30
I remember only a few years ago here on BB how just about everyone here advocated 5 - 6 meals a day like a cult scripture (lost the pass to my old account.). Fast forward a few years and now everyone believes otherwise, lol. I don't disagree with either method as it really does come down to personal preference.
Usually, if you're not the breakfast type, you'd do better on the intermittent fasting routine and vise versa. Its all the same, really - as long as you stay on a deficit. Anyway, I thought I'd point that out.
Bookmarks