PDA

View Full Version : eating less than every 3 hours...does it help?



onimusha
11-28-2007, 03:56 AM
My new job allows me the opportunity to eat every two hours instead of three. If I break up my meals (healthy and balanced ones of course) into every two hours will I be fighting the catabolic process even more? I ask this because i am a hardgainer trying to save as much muscle as possible while getting my BF down to 9%.

Dedicatedforlife
11-28-2007, 04:47 AM
Yes. The more often you eat, the more constant flow of nutrients you have going into your blood stream and in turn your muscles. Also helps to keep your metabolism reving...:cool:

onimusha
11-28-2007, 05:01 AM
excellent thanks for the advice. I guess its every two hours from now on then!

Dedicatedforlife
11-28-2007, 05:08 AM
excellent thanks for the advice. I guess its every two hours from now on then!

If you have time then why not, eating smaller amounts more frequently is great, however most people just don't have the time for it. :)

lollerskatez
11-28-2007, 06:45 AM
i eat every 2-3 hours at work, i love it

baarat
11-28-2007, 06:51 AM
I know Alan Argon has an article basically saying meal frequency is meaningless.

jaymed
11-28-2007, 06:51 AM
Eating every 2 hours will help you if/when you decide to bulk up. I've read a few different articles that suggest making yourself eat every 2 hours when you start bulking. By doing that now, you'll be well on your way when you change your goals to gaining weight.

gbauers
11-28-2007, 06:59 AM
i agree with eating often, but i was curious if anyone has found any articles on the point where it becomes less effective

example:

eating 300 cals eery 2 hrs
eating 150 cals every hr
eating 75 cals every 30 in

obviously its not practicle to eat 75 cals every 30 min, but if it was would it be better than say 450 cals every 3 hours???

Hopefully this question makes sense

Dedicatedforlife
11-28-2007, 07:04 AM
i agree with eating often, but i was curious if anyone has found any articles on the point where it becomes less effective

example:

eating 300 cals eery 2 hrs
eating 150 cals every hr
eating 75 cals every 30 in

obviously its not practicle to eat 75 cals every 30 min, but if it was would it be better than say 450 cals every 3 hours???

Hopefully this question makes sense


IMO it WOULD be more effective to eat 75 cal every 30 minutes....but that would mean you would be eating like ummmmmmmmm 30-40 meals a day! :eek:

Grazing is the greatest way to consistantly add nutrients to the body. How do you think cows get so damn bulky? :D

gbauers
11-28-2007, 07:09 AM
I knew that bag of grass i carried around all day long was going to pay dividends...btw, i happen to agree with you, just wandering if anyone had heard otherwise

onimusha
11-29-2007, 01:58 AM
OK so wait...I should only do every 2 hours when bulking? What about the person who said it will speed up my metabolism? Right now I am trying to lose the little belly covering my last two abs while stopping the catabolic process as much as possible. Will it stop the catabolic process but not help my abs?

gbauers
11-29-2007, 08:31 AM
OK so wait...I should only do every 2 hours when bulking? What about the person who said it will speed up my metabolism? Right now I am trying to lose the little belly covering my last two abs while stopping the catabolic process as much as possible. Will it stop the catabolic process but not help my abs?

You should still be eating every few hrs (cutting or bulking). Just lower the calories per meal while cutting, increase while bulking ect

grapemaster
11-29-2007, 08:43 AM
i guess if you wanna be ocd about it and have people like wtf...

not necessary... eating that frequently is more for getting the calories in

personally i would much rather chill... for me it is the beginning of an unhealthy obsession with food.

IraHays
11-29-2007, 08:55 AM
It doesn't help, it really seems like a major pain in the arse.

gbauers
11-29-2007, 09:42 AM
It doesn't help, it really seems like a major pain in the arse.

What doesn't help? Eating small portions frequently?

gbauers
11-29-2007, 09:45 AM
IraHays...is that Clinton comment in support of her or to show us how unsuitable she is??? I think it's funny that her quote can either be the best thing or the worst thing depending if your a republican or democrat (or based on that quote a socialist)...sorry to get off the bb topic, just curious

terracotta
11-29-2007, 09:55 AM
Usually there is little benefit to eating more often than every 4 hours except to stave off hunger.

However, if you are bulking and your meals would be 800 calories each without frequent eating, you may not digest as many of the nutrients as you would with smaller meals. Yes, there have been studies that showed that 6 meals was no better than 4. BUT none of those are on ectomorphs eating 4000-5000 calories per day. Those are based on normal food consumption (think 2500 calories maintenance).

baarat
11-29-2007, 10:00 AM
What doesn't help? Eating small portions frequently?Correct.

gbauers
11-29-2007, 10:44 AM
Correct.

So eting 1 3000 calorie meal is just as good for you as eating 6 500 calorie meals? Same for your body and metabolism?

-Aaron-
11-29-2007, 10:45 AM
I know Alan Argon has an article basically saying meal frequency is meaningless.

Yet, he claims the IF diet doesn't work. I think you're mistaken. ;)

lollerskatez
11-29-2007, 10:46 AM
i find eating frequently helps with the hunger issue. i used to be a very voracious eater, constantly being hungry and overeating a lot when i did it (also notorious for skipping breakfast etc etc). for me, eating 6 small meals rather than 3 big ones is so much easier and helps me plan around my day.

Rodzilla
11-29-2007, 10:47 AM
My new job allows me the opportunity to eat every two hours instead of three. If I break up my meals (healthy and balanced ones of course) into every two hours will I be fighting the catabolic process even more? I ask this because i am a hardgainer trying to save as much muscle as possible while getting my BF down to 9%.

I don't feel that there is any real benefit (there may be studies on this) after 6 meals.

SolidSteel86
11-29-2007, 11:09 AM
I eat every 1.5-2 hours, alternating solid and liquid meals.

I only recently started this practice as opposed to just eating bigger meals every 3 hours, I feel much better (I don't get insulin crashes from huge amounts of carbs in a sitting) and I've put on more weight.

As far as quality of life goes it's better, having to hibernate because of the carbs I was eating isn't cool.

MEStrange
11-29-2007, 11:17 AM
Hmmm I thought your body took around 2.5 hours to digest, so 2.5 hours was the minimum time between meals. (Burn the Fat, feed the muscle I think is where I got that).

grapemaster
11-29-2007, 11:48 AM
So eting 1 3000 calorie meal is just as good for you as eating 6 500 calorie meals? Same for your body and metabolism?

why would you want to do that ... most people need to eat 3 times a day just to not be hungry in between...your body can take way more than 2.5 hours to digest...

I think a better question for some of you... are you pros? do you plan on competing and making a salary for this... if not, chill the **** out...seriously.

tinyman5000
11-29-2007, 11:50 AM
Think about it like this-

breakfast
lunch
dinner
preworkout
postworkout
prebed

6 meals

passionate
11-29-2007, 12:05 PM
Eating every 2 hours would drive me crazy in the long run! Always watching the clock and worrying about getting a meal is FAR more catabolic than eating every 3-4 hours.

Myself, I eat every 3-4 hours on weekdays and every 3-5 hours on the weekends. I tried the more frequent feedings in the past myself, but after some time I felt somewhat 'burned-out' and stressed.

Try it for yourself and do what suits you best. :)

gbauers
11-29-2007, 12:10 PM
why would you want to do that ... most people need to eat 3 times a day just to not be hungry in between...your body can take way more than 2.5 hours to digest...

I think a better question for some of you... are you pros? do you plan on competing and making a salary for this... if not, chill the **** out...seriously.

I was simply making a reference to the other post that said meal frequency doenst matter. Not saying I would want to eat 1 3000 cal meal.

I dont think people have to want to be a pro b-builder to want a nice body and reach personal lifting goals.

baarat
11-29-2007, 12:20 PM
Yet, he claims the IF diet doesn't work. I think you're mistaken. ;)I wouldn't know :), It's what Alan says...and yup he includes IF in the mix.......3 or 6 meals or the IF makes no diff. If I can find the article I'll post it.

EDIT: found it. http://www.alanaragon.com/an-objective-look-at-intermittent-fasting.html