To eat or not to eat ...

[petrocles]

From what i understand, it is best to eat every 2-3 hours. The reasoning behind this is so as not to overload your body and waste resources but also because this will make you bloated and lethargic and obviously effect training. however, knowing this and sticking to this is easier said than done unless you are very disciplined.
I sometimes miss eating to this plan and the first reaction is mental distress and stress can have a physical impact upon the body, so not only am i missing out on steady flow of resources but also possible physical damage at a cellular level.

therefore, my question is what difference if any will long periods between meals have upon a bodybuilder?

The traditional nutritionist opinion is still supporting the eat 3 times a day option which obviously deviates from eating every 2-3 hours, and also the meal regimes in the military are based along these lines. Therefore, i do not suppose it is harmful but maybe not optimal for mass bulking.

i dont have the time at present but will check later whether the delay between meals has any effect upon fat loss or whether the opposite and fat gain is apparent. if anyone can link in the meantime it will be appreciated.

[Turkish Juicer]

You do NOT have to eat every 2-3 hours to grow.

Supplement industry will advocate otherwise, since producers of proteins and amino acids are well aware of the fact that most people simply cannot afford to eat every 2-3 hours and hence will tend to drink a shake.

Do NOT fall for the ''catabolism argument'' when you see or hear it. Your body will NOT get into ketosis especially if your 3-4 meals consist of slow digesting protein and carbs.

I eat a 12oz lean steak as the last meal of the day. This is usually 2 hrs before I go to sleep. It takes about 10-12 hrs for your body to fully digest and metabolize red meat -meaning constant flow of amino acids in blood stream in this time frame- and only sleep for about 7 hrs. Do the math now. If anyone comes around and tells me that my body has gone catabolic because I did not wake up and drink a shake a few hrs after I went to sleep, I would bitch slap that person for parroting the supplement industry.

As for the delay between meals having an effect upon fat loss, eating every 2-3 hrs obviously has an inhibiting effect as opposed to fasting in between meals.

Now, one may ask why most pro BBs eat every 2-3 hrs. Well, if I were to stay on high doses of every anabolic invented so far throughout the year with a specific goal in mind that is turning into a monster, I too would make sure I eat as many meals as possible throughout the day.

[petrocles]

nice reply turkish, thank you

[gbrice75]

You do NOT have to eat every 2-3 hours to grow.

Definitely not.

Supplement industry will advocate otherwise, since producers of proteins and amino acids are well aware of the fact that most people simply cannot afford to eat every 2-3 hours and hence will tend to drink a shake.

Yep

Do NOT fall for the ''catabolism argument'' when you see or hear it. Your body will NOT get into ketosis especially if your 3-4 meals consist of slow digesting protein and carbs.

Your body wouldn't go into a state of ketosis even if you ate one meal/day. Ketosis is reached when there is no glucose in the bloodstream and glycogen stores are completely depleted, therefore fat becomes the primary fuel source. Unless you're doing tons of intense activity, chances of depleting glycogen (and assuming your one meal/day includes carbs obviously) are slim.

I eat a 12oz lean steak as the last meal of the day. This is usually 2 hrs before I go to sleep. It takes about 10-12 hrs for your body to fully digest and metabolize red meat -meaning constant flow of amino acids in blood stream in this time frame- and only sleep for about 7 hrs. Do the math now. If anyone comes around and tells me that my body has gone catabolic because I did not wake up and drink a shake a few hrs after I went to sleep, I would bitch slap that person for parroting the supplement industry.

I always have a good laugh at guys who eat a nice beef meal for dinner, then panic when they miss their bedtime shake!!

As for the delay between meals having an effect upon fat loss, eating every 2-3 hrs obviously has an inhibiting effect as opposed to fasting in between meals.

Now, one may ask why most pro BBs eat every 2-3 hrs. Well, if I were to stay on high doses of every anabolic invented so far throughout the year with a specific goal in mind that is turning into a monster, I too would make sure I eat as many meals as possible throughout the day.

To expand on this, these guys are also likely eating a huge amount of calories, and eating less frequently becomes more difficult, i.e. getting 6000 calories in over the course of 6-8 meals is a helluva lot easier than cramming those same 6000 calories in over 2-3 meals.

From what i understand, it is best to eat every 2-3 hours. The reasoning behind this is so as not to overload your body and waste resources but also because this will make you bloated and lethargic and obviously effect training. however, knowing this and sticking to this is easier said than done unless you are very disciplined.

I look at it in the opposite way. For people who have a problem with overeating, specifically, sitting down to a large meal and not knowing when to stop - eating smaller meals every few hours reconditions them over time. It helps establish an eating routine vs. just eating at will like so many do.

I sometimes miss eating to this plan and the first reaction is mental distress and stress can have a physical impact upon the body, so not only am i missing out on steady flow of resources but also possible physical damage at a cellular level.

Then don't stress, because it's a waste of energy over nothing. Oh, and stress has been linked to elevated cortisol levels, not ideal for anybody wanting to maintain/gain muscle tissue.

therefore, my question is what difference if any will long periods between meals have upon a bodybuilder?

Nothing really. The whole 'stoking the metabolic fire' argument has been debunked; whether you eat 3000 calories over 1 meal or 8, your body has to metabolize 3000 calories. Metabolism isn't increased by meal frequency.

The traditional nutritionist opinion is still supporting the eat 3 times a day option which obviously deviates from eating every 2-3 hours, and also the meal regimes in the military are based along these lines. Therefore, i do not suppose it is harmful but maybe not optimal for mass bulking.

You have to be smart with your diet. If you eat 3 meals per day and rely on whey as your protein source, you'll likely have a problem as whey won't do much in terms of slow release of aminos, not to mention the issue of satiation (lack thereof) and subsequent binging.

Eating a good variety and/or slower digesting foods will help on that front.

I dont have the time at present but will check later whether the delay between meals has any effect upon fat loss or whether the opposite and fat gain is apparent. if anyone can link in the meantime it will be appreciated.

If anything, I think less frequent meals can be beneficial to fat loss. Think about it. Fat burning is inhibited whenever insulin is present. Even without eating carbs, protein will cause insulin to be released, albeit on a smaller scale. You can see where this is going. Food every few hours = insulin every few hours. Longer periods of fasting = longer period of time where there is no insulin present.

[petrocles]

very nice reply gbrice75, many thanks

[petrocles]

Protein Amount
The amount of protein in a diet has a major effect on the magnitude of change of protein metabolism in the gut and in the rest of the body. With a balanced meal
approximately 90% of the dietary amino acids are absorbed by the gut. About 30-5O% will be used by the intestine itself, and the remainder is released to the
portal system. An excessive amount of protein intake potentially could lead to limitation of gut absorption and thus to a reduction of the percentage protein absorption. It is more likely, however, that the maximum that the gut cells can utilize for own metabolism is reached more quickly and that, consequently, higher protein
intake will reduce the percentage of protein extracted. The amino acids that are not absorbed and undigested proteins will flow into the colon. During low protein intake, the percentage protein extracted by the gut will be higher, although the intestine can adapt to reduced protein intake by reducing its amino acid oxidation

i obviously need to be more precise as i find when adding whey protein shakes to my diet i just end up going to the toilet more as highlighted from the above article. Would that be because i was consuming too much protein and not absorbing enough protein? or just natural side effect from increased caloried diet? some people also argue that one shouldnt need to take supplements such as protein powder as eating chicken etc is better



(source = Absorption Kinetics of Amino Acids, Peptides, and Intact Proteins.
Authors:
Ten Have, Gabriella A. M.1
Engelen, Marielle P. K. J.1
Luiking, Yvette C.1
Deutz, Nicolaas E. P.1
Source:
International Journal of Sport Nutrition & Exercise Metabolism Aug2007 Supplement, Vol. 17, pS23 14p.)

[calstate23]

From what i understand, it is best to eat every 2-3 hours. The reasoning behind this is so as not to overload your body and waste resources but also because this will make you bloated and lethargic and obviously effect training. however, knowing this and sticking to this is easier said than done unless you are very disciplined.
I sometimes miss eating to this plan and the first reaction is mental distress and stress can have a physical impact upon the body, so not only am i missing out on steady flow of resources but also possible physical damage at a cellular level.

therefore, my question is what difference if any will long periods between meals have upon a bodybuilder?

The traditional nutritionist opinion is still supporting the eat 3 times a day option which obviously deviates from eating every 2-3 hours, and also the meal regimes in the military are based along these lines. Therefore, i do not suppose it is harmful but maybe not optimal for mass bulking.

i dont have the time at present but will check later whether the delay between meals has any effect upon fat loss or whether the opposite and fat gain is apparent. if anyone can link in the meantime it will be appreciated.

I do tend to believe eating 2-3 hours is the most effective and beneficial for a few reasons....#1 - Everytime you put food down your throat you help to speed up your metabolism...Meaning, the more frequent meals the faster metabolism...#2- Protein takes a long time digest and actually down into the beneficial amino acids for your body. By having a constant flow of nutrients in your body you will always have the protein when needed.#3- Every protein has a different time length at which it takes to break down. Eating one meal a day would be horrible because imagine if your one meal a day was after your workout?? You would be soo dead for your workout it wouldn't be funny....And you would up your chances of injury...Some may say otherwise, but from my own trial and error 2-3 hours is typically when I will have a meal..

I believe a lot of people will never truly understand the meaning of meal frequency or macro timing until they are diabetic....To me, the importance of what you eat and when you eat it proves itself when looking at a diabetic....Tell a someone with diabetes food timing of marcos isn't important....They will laugh in your face

[Tx89]

Gb and Turkish nailed it, you guys speak my mind!:-)
Meal frequency is completely overrated and definitely it is not necessary to eat every 2-3 hours to grow. It can be done of course, but it has no right to serve as THE one and only BB dogma out there!

Gotta go and get a shake in now, i think i just got catabolic typing this Post :-D

[Turkish Juicer]

Gotta go and get a shake in now, i think i just got catabolic typing this Post :-D

Hahahahaha, this was completely awesome!

[Turkish Juicer]

I do tend to believe eating 2-3 hours is the most effective and beneficial for a few reasons....#1 - Everytime you put food down your throat you help to speed up your metabolism...Meaning, the more frequent meals the faster metabolism...#2- Protein takes a long time digest and actually down into the beneficial amino acids for your body. By having a constant flow of nutrients in your body you will always have the protein when needed.#3- Every protein has a different time length at which it takes to break down. Eating one meal a day would be horrible because imagine if your one meal a day was after your workout?? You would be soo dead for your workout it wouldn't be funny....And you would up your chances of injury...Some may say otherwise, but from my own trial and error 2-3 hours is typically when I will have a meal..

I believe a lot of people will never truly understand the meaning of meal frequency or macro timing until they are diabetic....To me, the importance of what you eat and when you eat it proves itself when looking at a diabetic....Tell a someone with diabetes food timing of marcos isn't important....They will laugh in your face

1. Food intake has a negligible effect on metabolism. Some foods, including those with caffeine, may slightly and temporarily increase metabolism, but the effect is too small to help you lose weight. What most affects your basal metabolic rate (BMR), the rate at which your body burns calories at rest, is body composition and size. More muscles and bigger bodies generally burn more calories overall.

2. Frequent small meal concept is aimed primarily at diabetics, which is all good considering that frequent small meals could lead to more stable blood sugar and insulin levels. There is no reason to extend this to healthy individuals with normal body weight.

3. The ultimate downside of eating every 2-3 hrs is that you will be keeping insulin active throughout the day and this leads to inhibited burning of fat, if not further development of the current reserves.

4. Not all protein sources take a long time to digest, as a matter of fact. It takes about 45-60 min for a scoop of whey concentrate to enter the blood stream, about 30 min for whey isolate and even a shorter time frame is required for fast acting amino acids such as BCAA, not to mention many people nowadays use complex protein powders that consist of multiple protein sources with different lengths of digestion. Egg white also makes a good example of a quick digesting macro nutrient protein source. As for slow digesting proteins, they are exactly responsible for providing the muscles with a constant, stable flow of amino acids, which is why it is always a good idea to finish the day with a last meal that involves a generous amount of steak. Your muscles will be provided with constant and stable AA flow for up to 12 hrs by doing so.

5. You are right, a lot of people will truely never understand the meaning of meal frequency or macro timing, but not before they turn diabetic, rather before they stop reading the BB magazines of Weider industry. On a last note, I don't see why the majority of lifters with no diabetes would take strict advices from the minority who are diabetic. It is like telling a cup of water to go take a shower.

[gbrice75]

I do tend to believe eating 2-3 hours is the most effective and beneficial for a few reasons....#1 - Everytime you put food down your throat you help to speed up your metabolism...Meaning, the more frequent meals the faster metabolism...

As mentioned above, recent studies have debunked this myth. I'll try and look a few up and post them here. Meal timing has no appreciable impact on metabolism.

#2- Protein takes a long time digest and actually down into the beneficial amino acids for your body. By having a constant flow of nutrients in your body you will always have the protein when needed.

Slow digesting proteins take care of this. It's not like your body digests something and then a huge 'dump' of aminos into your bloodstream occurs. The only time I can see the need for a 'constant flow' is if the subject eats only fast acting protein sources, e.g. whey, egg whites, etc. In those cases, I would definitely suggest eating every few hours. However, most people have a diet rich in variety, and include slower protein sources that make this a non-issue.

#3- Every protein has a different time length at which it takes to break down. Eating one meal a day would be horrible because imagine if your one meal a day was after your workout?? You would be soo dead for your workout it wouldn't be funny....And you would up your chances of injury...Some may say otherwise, but from my own trial and error 2-3 hours is typically when I will have a meal..

Then how would you explain the many people having huge success with intermittent fasting diets? Some of these diets are literally based on a single meal per day. So what if it's after your workout? If my body can use 700 calories immediately after my workout, and I consume 2500... I still have a surplus of 1800 calories my body can and will use throughout the day, especially if said meal includes slow digesting protein sources. A bigger meal will simply take a longer time to digest.

Again, I am certainly not against smaller frequent meals. In fact, I am currently eating 6 smallers meals/day myself at the moment. This is for my own reasons though, it fits my lifestyle at the moment. However, I have also run IF in the past, and can attest to it's potency.

I know i'm only echoing what Turkish put so much more eloquantly than I did... but just wanted to add my .02

Gotta go and get a shake in now, i think i just got catabolic typing this Post :-D

You are right, a lot of people will truely never understand the meaning of meal frequency or macro timing, but not before they turn diabetic, rather before they stop reading the BB magazines of Weider industry. On a last note, I don't see why the majority of lifters with no diabetes would take strict advices from the minority who are diabetic. It is like telling a cup of water to go take a shower.

x2. I'm pretty sure if we really traced back the 'meal every 2-3 hours' gospel, we'd find the magazine/supplement industry involved somewhere.

[spywizard]

I can speak to the effectivness of eating 2-3 hours, if the meal is correct with protein/fats/low carb it can be very effective.. practical?? not really, can drop me to 10% in 1-2 months..

Intermittent fasting?? works great for my wife, and that's 1st had observations, i was not able to follow it... shows that change is more difficult than some believe..

Paleo is working for me, mixed with longer and longer periods of fasting..

will do a log on it for sure..

[calstate23]

1. Food intake has a negligible effect on metabolism. Some foods, including those with caffeine, may slightly and temporarily increase metabolism, but the effect is too small to help you lose weight. What most affects your basal metabolic rate (BMR), the rate at which your body burns calories at rest, is body composition and size. More muscles and bigger bodies generally burn more calories overall.

I personally disagree with this...If you took 2 people, one ate there whole caloric intake right before bed and the other split their meals throughout the day you HONESTLY believe the person who ate their meal at bed time benefit the same or better???


2. Frequent small meal concept is aimed primarily at diabetics, which is all good considering that frequent small meals could lead to more stable blood sugar and insulin levels. There is no reason to extend this to healthy individuals with normal body weight.

Again, I would disagree with this. For me, the primary reason is because small frequent meals is broken down and used by the body in a more effective manner..Trying to squeeze in all your marcos in 2-3 meals is way to difficult. Not to mention, it would be too difficult for your body to break down and use all the nutrients when over loaded..

If you have a car that has a half full gas tank and you try to put in a full tank of gas you're going spill and waste half the gas. But if you filled up a little, drove around, filled up some more you car could eventually use up a full tank of gas with nothing to waste.



3. The ultimate downside of eating every 2-3 hrs is that you will be keeping insulin active throughout the day and this leads to inhibited burning of fat, if not further development of the current reserves.

Your insulin levels would be more effected by consuming huge meals...Your insulin would sky rocket and would stay at a much elevated level longer then if you had eaten smaller portions...I'd rather have small little spikes throughout the day then bombard my body with massive insulin spikes that last waayyyyyy longer.

Also, as we all know, unneeded energy is stored as fat....Let's say someone eats 2 meals a day...One at breakfast and one when they sit on their ass at home after work....To consume that many calories in one sitting is WAYY too much. There would be too many unused calories that would be stored as fat. Eating small frequent meals will reduce fat storage...


4. Not all protein sources take a long time to digest, as a matter of fact. It takes about 45-60 min for a scoop of whey concentrate to enter the blood stream, about 30 min for whey isolate and even a shorter time frame is required for fast acting amino acids such as BCAA, not to mention many people nowadays use complex protein powders that consist of multiple protein sources with different lengths of digestion. Egg white also makes a good example of a quick digesting macro nutrient protein source. As for slow digesting proteins, they are exactly responsible for providing the muscles with a constant, stable flow of amino acids, which is why it is always a good idea to finish the day with a last meal that involves a generous amount of steak. Your muscles will be provided with constant and stable AA flow for up to 12 hrs by doing so.


5. You are right, a lot of people will truely never understand the meaning of meal frequency or macro timing, but not before they turn diabetic, rather before they stop reading the BB magazines of Weider industry. On a last note, I don't see why the majority of lifters with no diabetes would take strict advices from the minority who are diabetic. It is like telling a cup of water to go take a shower.

They take strict advices because diabetics are masters of insulin...Insulin is a HUGE growth factor. Perfect example way most pros will take insulin post workout with simple carbs...Yet, meal timing and frequency means nothing, right. Why eat a meal before a workout, sip on simple carbs and amino acids during workout, take in an abundance of simple carbs and protein insulin after workout when you can JUST EAT 2 MEALS A DAY?!?!?! Because it's not the most effective that is why.................

[gbrice75]

Cal - I know the below are replies to Turkish, so a) I don't want it to appear i'm trying to pile on or 'attack' you, because i'm not, and b) I don't mean to hijack!! Just having an intelligent debate.

I personally disagree with this...If you took 2 people, one ate there whole caloric intake right before bed and the other split their meals throughout the day you HONESTLY believe the person who ate their meal at bed time benefit the same or better???

Personally, I've SEEN it... so I have no choice but to believe it. I don't think it's necessarily better, but it's not less effective from what I've experienced and witnessed.

Again, I would disagree with this. For me, the primary reason is because small frequent meals is broken down and used by the body in a more effective manner..Trying to squeeze in all your marcos in 2-3 meals is way to difficult. Not to mention, it would be too difficult for your body to break down and use all the nutrients when over loaded..

If you have a car that has a half full gas tank and you try to put in a full tank of gas you're going spill and waste half the gas. But if you filled up a little, drove around, filled up some more you car could eventually use up a full tank of gas with nothing to waste.

Some would argue that eating small meals every 2-3 hours (at least in the world of bodybuilding/weight training) is chronically underfeeding your body every 2-3 hours, where eating fewer, larger meals will provide your body with the surplus of materials it needs to grow. As for squeezing macros into 2-3 meals being too difficult - that's a matter of opinion. I found eating 3 meals WAY eaiser. Having to eat 3 times per day instead of 6-8 is more difficult? With as busy as people are these days, it seems logical to me that the exact opposite is true... BUT I realize that, as I said, this is a matter of opinion and/or personal preference.

Why would it be too difficult for your body to break down and use all the nutrients when overloaded?

I don't like the gas tank analogy at all. Our bodies are WAY more complex than that and I don't think you're giving them enough credit. It's an apples to watermelons comparison IMO. We've adapted over millions of years to be storage machines... it's how our bodies work. I don't think we were meant to use immediate energy, we were meant to use energy stores. If eating one huge meal per day is less than ideal, why were the Romans (just as an example) depicted (granted, we can't see them and are relying on the possibility of romanticized history) as generally being lean and muscular, although it's a fact that they often fasted all day (not by choice, but by need) and had one huge feast at night?

Your insulin levels would be more effected by consuming huge meals...Your insulin would sky rocket and would stay at a much elevated level longer then if you had eaten smaller portions...I'd rather have small little spikes throughout the day then bombard my body with massive insulin spikes that last waayyyyyy longer.

Sorry, I disagree with this too. Why would insulin levels skyrocket? Again, you don't eat food and then see a huge DUMP of nutrients into the bloodstream all at once. Insulin levels would be the same IMO. I do agree however that they would stay elevated for a longer period... but it would be a SINGLE longer period vs. many shorter periods. With a single period, you still get the benefits of low stable levels for many, many hours.

Also, as we all know, unneeded energy is stored as fat....Let's say someone eats 2 meals a day...One at breakfast and one when they sit on their ass at home after work....To consume that many calories in one sitting is WAYY too much. There would be too many unused calories that would be stored as fat. Eating small frequent meals will reduce fat storage...

Why, if there is a demand for calories due to the lack thereof for many hours prior? If anything, they would store excess calories and then readily use those stores hours later when there are no calories available. A moot point IMO.

[Turkish Juicer]

calstate23: I can't help but to feel frustrated by the insertion of the word ''belief'' when discussing over a matter that has to do with science as opposed to personal discourse. Would you have also ''personally disagreed'' with the statement that ''meal frequency does NOT increase metabolic rate'' and/or ''timing of meals does NOT influence the energy balance in humans'' if these statements has been already demonstrated by the discourse of hard science? If not, I would like to share a few human studies with you regarding our very subject here.

.................................................. ....................

Br J Nutr. 2010 Apr;103(8):1098-101. Epub 2009 Nov 30.

Increased meal frequency does not promote greater weight loss in subjects who were prescribed an 8-week equi-energetic energy-restricted diet.

Cameron JD, Cyr MJ, Doucet E.

Source: Behavioural and Metabolic Research Unit, School of Human Kinetics, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

Abstract

There have been reports of an inverse relationship between meal frequency (MF) and adiposity. It has been postulated that this may be explained by favourable effects of increased MF on appetite control and possibly on gut peptides as well. The main goal of the present study was to investigate whether using a high MF could lead to a greater weight loss than that obtained with a low MF under conditions of similar energy restriction. Subjects were randomised into two treatment arms (high MF = 3 meals+3 snacks/d or low MF = 3 meals/d) and subjected to the same dietary energy restriction of - 2931 kJ/d for 8 weeks. Sixteen obese adults (n 8 women and 8 men; age 34.6 (sd 9.5); BMI 37.1 (sd 4.5) kg/m2) completed the study. Overall, there was a 4.7 % decrease in body weight (P < 0.01); similarly, significant decreases were noted in fat mass ( - 3.1 (sd 2.9) kg; P < 0.01), lean body mass ( - 2.0 (sd 3.1) kg; P < 0.05) and BMI ( - 1.7 (sd 0.8) kg/m2; P < 0.01). However, there were NS differences between the low- and high-MF groups for adiposity indices, appetite measurements or gut peptides (peptide YY and ghrelin) either before or after the intervention. We conclude that increasing MF does not promote greater body weight loss under the conditions described in the present study.

Ann Nutr Metab. 1987;31(2):88-97.

[Thermogenesis in humans after varying meal time frequency].

[Article in German]

Wolfram G, Kirchgessner M, Müller HL, Hollomey S.

Abstract

To a group of 8 healthy persons a slightly hypocaloric diet with protein (13% of energy), carbohydrates (46% of energy) and fat (41% of energy) was given as one meal or as five meals in a change-over trial. Each person was 2 weeks on each regimen. Under the conditions of slight undernutrition and neutral temperature the balances of nitrogen, carbon and energy were assessed in 7-day collection periods, and according to 48-hour measurements of gaseous exchange (carbon-nitrogen balance method) by the procedures of indirect calorimetry. Changes of body weight were statistically not significant. At isocaloric supply of metabolizable energy with exactly the same foods in different meal frequencies no differences were found in the retention of carbon and energy. Urinary nitrogen excretion was slightly greater with a single daily meal, indicating influences on protein metabolism. The protein-derived energy was compensated by a decrease in the fat oxidation. The heat production calculated by indirect calorimetry was not significantly different with either meal frequency. Water, sodium and potassium balances were not different. The plasma concentrations of cholesterol and uric acid were not influenced by meal frequency, glucose and triglycerides showed typical behaviour depending on the time interval to the last meal. The results demonstrate that the meal frequency did not influence the energy balance.


Effect of meal frequency on glucose and insulin excursions over the course of a day

by Michael E Holmstrup, Christopher M Owens, Timothy J Fairchild, Jill A Kanaley

eSPEN the European eJournal of Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism (2010)
Volume: 5, Issue: 6, Publisher: Elsevier Ltd, Pages: e277-e280

Abstract

Background & aims: This study characterized the glucose and insulin responses to temporal alterations in meal frequency, and alterations in the macronutrient composition. Methods: Eight subjects underwent three separate 12-h meal tests: three high carbohydrate (3CHO) meals, 6 high carbohydrate meals (6CHO), 6 high-protein meals (6HP). Blood samples were taken at 15-min intervals. Integrated area under the curve (AUC) concentrations for glucose and plasma insulin were determined (total, 4-h, and 2-h blocks) for each meal condition. Results: Baseline glucose and insulin values were not different between study days. Peak glucose levels were highest on the 3CHO day; however the 12 h glucose AUC was higher during the 6CHO condition (p 0.029) than 3CHO condition, with no difference in the insulin response. The 6HP condition resulted in a decreased glucose AUC (p 0.004) and insulin AUC (p 0.012) compared to 6CHO. Conclusions: In non-obese individuals, glucose levels remained elevated throughout the day with frequent CHO meals compared to 3CHO meals, without any differences in the insulin levels. Increasing the protein content of frequent meals attenuated both the glucose and insulin response. These findings of elevated glucose levels throughout the day warrant further research, particularly in overweight and obese individuals with and without type 2 diabetes.

[calstate23]

calstate23: I can't help but to feel frustrated by the insertion of the word ''belief'' when discussing over a matter that has to do with science as opposed to personal discourse. Would you have also ''personally disagreed'' with the statement that ''meal frequency does NOT increase metabolic rate'' and/or ''timing of meals does NOT influence the energy balance in humans'' if these statements has been already demonstrated by the discourse of hard science? If not, I would like to share a few human studies with you regarding our very subject here.

.................................................. ....................

Br J Nutr. 2010 Apr;103(8):1098-101. Epub 2009 Nov 30.

Increased meal frequency does not promote greater weight loss in subjects who were prescribed an 8-week equi-energetic energy-restricted diet.

Cameron JD, Cyr MJ, Doucet E.

Source: Behavioural and Metabolic Research Unit, School of Human Kinetics, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

Abstract

There have been reports of an inverse relationship between meal frequency (MF) and adiposity. It has been postulated that this may be explained by favourable effects of increased MF on appetite control and possibly on gut peptides as well. The main goal of the present study was to investigate whether using a high MF could lead to a greater weight loss than that obtained with a low MF under conditions of similar energy restriction. Subjects were randomised into two treatment arms (high MF = 3 meals+3 snacks/d or low MF = 3 meals/d) and subjected to the same dietary energy restriction of - 2931 kJ/d for 8 weeks. Sixteen obese adults (n 8 women and 8 men; age 34.6 (sd 9.5); BMI 37.1 (sd 4.5) kg/m2) completed the study. Overall, there was a 4.7 % decrease in body weight (P < 0.01); similarly, significant decreases were noted in fat mass ( - 3.1 (sd 2.9) kg; P < 0.01), lean body mass ( - 2.0 (sd 3.1) kg; P < 0.05) and BMI ( - 1.7 (sd 0.8) kg/m2; P < 0.01). However, there were NS differences between the low- and high-MF groups for adiposity indices, appetite measurements or gut peptides (peptide YY and ghrelin) either before or after the intervention. We conclude that increasing MF does not promote greater body weight loss under the conditions described in the present study.

Ann Nutr Metab. 1987;31(2):88-97.

[Thermogenesis in humans after varying meal time frequency].

[Article in German]

Wolfram G, Kirchgessner M, Müller HL, Hollomey S.

Abstract

To a group of 8 healthy persons a slightly hypocaloric diet with protein (13% of energy), carbohydrates (46% of energy) and fat (41% of energy) was given as one meal or as five meals in a change-over trial. Each person was 2 weeks on each regimen. Under the conditions of slight undernutrition and neutral temperature the balances of nitrogen, carbon and energy were assessed in 7-day collection periods, and according to 48-hour measurements of gaseous exchange (carbon-nitrogen balance method) by the procedures of indirect calorimetry. Changes of body weight were statistically not significant. At isocaloric supply of metabolizable energy with exactly the same foods in different meal frequencies no differences were found in the retention of carbon and energy. Urinary nitrogen excretion was slightly greater with a single daily meal, indicating influences on protein metabolism. The protein-derived energy was compensated by a decrease in the fat oxidation. The heat production calculated by indirect calorimetry was not significantly different with either meal frequency. Water, sodium and potassium balances were not different. The plasma concentrations of cholesterol and uric acid were not influenced by meal frequency, glucose and triglycerides showed typical behaviour depending on the time interval to the last meal. The results demonstrate that the meal frequency did not influence the energy balance.


Effect of meal frequency on glucose and insulin excursions over the course of a day

by Michael E Holmstrup, Christopher M Owens, Timothy J Fairchild, Jill A Kanaley

eSPEN the European eJournal of Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism (2010)
Volume: 5, Issue: 6, Publisher: Elsevier Ltd, Pages: e277-e280

Abstract

Background & aims: This study characterized the glucose and insulin responses to temporal alterations in meal frequency, and alterations in the macronutrient composition. Methods: Eight subjects underwent three separate 12-h meal tests: three high carbohydrate (3CHO) meals, 6 high carbohydrate meals (6CHO), 6 high-protein meals (6HP). Blood samples were taken at 15-min intervals. Integrated area under the curve (AUC) concentrations for glucose and plasma insulin were determined (total, 4-h, and 2-h blocks) for each meal condition. Results: Baseline glucose and insulin values were not different between study days. Peak glucose levels were highest on the 3CHO day; however the 12 h glucose AUC was higher during the 6CHO condition (p 0.029) than 3CHO condition, with no difference in the insulin response. The 6HP condition resulted in a decreased glucose AUC (p 0.004) and insulin AUC (p 0.012) compared to 6CHO. Conclusions: In non-obese individuals, glucose levels remained elevated throughout the day with frequent CHO meals compared to 3CHO meals, without any differences in the insulin levels. Increasing the protein content of frequent meals attenuated both the glucose and insulin response. These findings of elevated glucose levels throughout the day warrant further research, particularly in overweight and obese individuals with and without type 2 diabetes.

I know some may take this as me being close minded, but honestly, studies mean shit to me...There are SOO many studies out there and quite frankly you often see many that used the same protocol yet yielded complete opposite results. And many times, studies are biased without the researcher even realizing it. There is soo many variables that could effect a study they are endless...Most studies are found on the web and people take them verbatim..By a no name doctor who people don't know or who have never met..Who can even say they were actually done or even done in a correct unbiased manner? I could create a web site and write up a fake study and people would pull it and say look at this! Yet it really means shit...

My information comes from personal experience, experience of other individuals, and trial and error. Real true life scenarios that cannot be refuted. Dude, no pro eats 2 meals a day I put my life on it. That's seriously stupid to even debate. I hate to be so up front but you're just plain wrong.

Let me ask you a question....Do you eat breakfast? Do you eat before the gym? Do you eat after the gym? These are the most important meals of the day and they have to do with timing and frequency. This itself already proves that frequency and meal timing are true. Our bodies need certain foods at certain times, bottom line.

And if you claim that glycogen stores will be replaced and it doesn't matter if you eat 6 hours after you workout then why is insulin ALWAYS taken immediately post workout? Please elaborate on that and tell me it makes no difference....

[Tx89]

I have my very best workouts completely fasted and around 15hours After my last meal. Just sayin..
If main Goal is to cut theres no doubt if style eating superior! If you wanna gain I'd say it depends and Individual preference

[gbrice75]

I guess i'm sitting the rest of this one out since nobody loves me.

I'll leave it at this - read some of Alan Aragon's and/or Martin Berkham's material for an alternate approach to the mantra that's been hammered into our heads by magazines and supplement companies for so many decades. These are 2 guys who are very well known in the field, not some random unknown potentially phony doctors posting up studies.

[Tx89]

Exactly! I changed my mindset concerning this topic completely over the past 2 years and was more succesful than ever during that Period!

[calstate23]

I guess i'm sitting the rest of this one out since nobody loves me.

I'll leave it at this - read some of Alan Aragon's and/or Martin Berkham's material for an alternate approach to the mantra that's been hammered into our heads by magazines and supplement companies for so many decades. These are 2 guys who are very well known in the field, not some random unknown potentially phony doctors posting up studies.

Ha ha sorry not trying to leave you out at all...It just that I have so much to say I can't even fit it all into replying to one person. I was just too lazy to reply on your comments ha ha..But I know you're reading them and will reply, killing two birds with one stone

[calstate23]

I guess i'm sitting the rest of this one out since nobody loves me.

I'll leave it at this - read some of Alan Aragon's and/or Martin Berkham's material for an alternate approach to the mantra that's been hammered into our heads by magazines and supplement companies for so many decades. These are 2 guys who are very well known in the field, not some random unknown potentially phony doctors posting up studies.

i will read up on some of that when I get a chance...Honestly though I never read those magazines or take any info from research supplemental companies. i know most of it is just blowin smoke. Any info I get it's personal experience or experience from other serious lifters I train with...

[calstate23]

i use common sense along with the info I have learned over the years...I honestly have never seen eating 2 large meals or similar ever being more effective. Based off this analogy of 1,2,3 or 6 meals a day makes no difference then that would go against the natural adaptation of our bodies....

Based off that model it also wouldn't matter if you didn't eat for 3 days straight and then made up for it the next 3 days....Obviously this would have MAJOR downfalls...Our bodies can be adapted to many different eating styles, so eventually if someone did this 3 days off, 3 days on our body would naturally adapt to this eating style...I can guarantee you that if this was put into play during the 3 days off the body would naturally start to slow it's metabolism on those days to conserve what it has...

There has been many times where my diet has been 500 gram carbs and 500 grams protein daily....I can't even imagine eating that in 2 meals...250 grams carbs and 250 grams protein in one meal! No way is that more effective, there is just no way..I mean, there has been different theories on how much protein our bodies can digest in one sitting but 250 grams protein...That's just too much man

[Tx89]

My results and experiences with both styles of eating show that 2-3 meals CAN be better.
Especially for cutting.
Maybe you should be more open minded for "new" things and just try them before you state they couldnt be as effective or better than what u did until now. You just dont know what Works for YOU until you try.

[calstate23]

I have my very best workouts completely fasted and around 15hours After my last meal. Just sayin..
If main Goal is to cut theres no doubt if style eating superior! If you wanna gain I'd say it depends and Individual preference

Thats horrible man...Not eating before lifting...Not eating before cardio is fine but not lifting...

Believe me I've tried it, 2 weeks is all one needs to see how a diet effects their body..It's not about being close minded, I know for a fact it's not better..It's honestly ridiculous to even debate that 2 meals a day is better for you.

I'll just leave it at NO ONE PRO eats 2 meals a day. It's not mumbo jumbo man, it what works the best and will always work the best.

[Tx89]

its nonsense to compare hobby lifters to pros as turkish already said.

Well, whats so horrible about a bunch of New PR's and a leaner, more aesthetic physique?
And no, by no means it is ridiculous to debate the pros and cons of different eating styles, just because your personal experience might be different. Have you ever tried it? I mean really tried and not 2 weeks, which is nothing in this sport..
To me it is the Most Natural style of eating. Show me one animal that eats small portions all day. Animals rest, go Out and hunt and then eat up their prey or at least as much as they need and rest again ;-)

I am like you no big fan of studies, because all of this is highly individual and you can always find contradicting studies if you search long enough. But what really is horrible is to go Out and say Option A is superior to Option B, because you who maybe Never really tried Option B liked A better. And even if you reallY tried both, its just you man. You dont know it all and plenty of guys here prove that both styles work.

[dooie]

I guess i'm sitting the rest of this one out since nobody loves me.

I'll leave it at this - read some of Alan Aragon's and/or Martin Berkham's material for an alternate approach to the mantra that's been hammered into our heads by magazines and supplement companies for so many decades. These are 2 guys who are very well known in the field, not some random unknown potentially phony doctors posting up studies.

Alan argon is great! Ian McCarthy is also great, these guys are purely science based though, it's their job to go through a whole bunch of studies and present the facts, no bro science with these guys!

[gbrice75]

Ha ha sorry not trying to leave you out at all...It just that I have so much to say I can't even fit it all into replying to one person. I was just too lazy to reply on your comments ha ha..But I know you're reading them and will reply, killing two birds with one stone

No worries.

i will read up on some of that when I get a chance...Honestly though I never read those magazines or take any info from research supplemental companies. i know most of it is just blowin smoke. Any info I get it's personal experience or experience from other serious lifters I train with...

Yep - I didn't mean to imply you were getting your info from BB mags or supp. companies, etc., it was more of a general statement. You are doing what works for you, regardless of where you learned it, and that's really all that matters in the end. Others are starting to realize there are alternate approaches to the 'jail sentence' that the widely accepted diet template for a bodybuilder can feel like... and are yielding great results.

When I ran my IF diet, I started my fast at 8pm, went to bed around 10pm, woke up and weight trained (follwed by cardio) at 5:30am, and didn't break my fast with a delayed PWO meal until 12pm. Note that I did take BCAA's both before my weight training session and after cardio.

Sounds terrible, right? I had some of the most intense workouts of my life. I had more energy than my usual training in the fed state. But most importantly, I made strength gains on nearly every lift, consistently for the duration of said diet. Why? Because there are hormonal responses to being in the fasted state after a given length of time. It dates back to our ancestory - we certainly hunted in an extended fasted state at times (because food wasn't easy to come by)... hunting (without guns etc) must've been one long, intense 'workout'. If we were sluggish, lethargic, tired, etc - we wouldn't have survived, and flourished. Quite the contrary - our hormonal response actually INCREASED energy (burning fat stores, hey that's what they're for) and alertness, allowing us to give the hunt everything we had.

It's not so cut and dry man. I think it IS close-minded to believe there is only one way to skin a cat. To compare what we do to what pro's (who are on a ton of gear) do is pointless. The majority of people on this board aren't chasing their meals with slin. BB mags constantly post up the pro's lifting routines, but very few regular people see success when using them. Why? Because we're comapring apples and oranges. Pro's are eating HUGE amounts of food (offset by huge amounts of gear)... so eating 2 meals per day would not be realistic for them. I LOVE to eat, but doubt I could consume 6000 clean calories in 2 meals. In fact, I KNOW I can't. But most people here aren't eating 6000 calories. Most are eating half that amount. I know I CAN eat 3000 clean calories in 2 meals. I've done it. Simply put, comparing pro's (who already have a body composition which is NOTHING like most on this board) + all their gear + super high calories + ridiculously high volume and/or intensity training routines (again, possible because of the gear) to the average joe who is looking to build some muscle but isn't making it his life's work... is a poor comparison to make, IMHO.

Again, I want to reiterate that I am not opposed to several smaller meals per day - I am eating that way right now. But the beauty of this sport and science in general is keeping an open mind, because there's always more to learn, as new science and technology becomes available to us, and many widely accepted theories, throughout history, have been proven wrong. Hey, they thought the world was flat once... just sayin.

[gbrice75]

Bump - because this topic/debate is a good learning experience for our members.

[petrocles]

posted twice by accident

[petrocles]

liking the debate, however i couldnt help but reply to this comment ;-)
calstate said "I know some may take this as me being close minded, but honestly, studies mean shit to me...There are SOO many studies out there and quite frankly you often see many that used the same protocol yet yielded complete opposite results. And many times, studies are biased without the researcher even realizing it. There is soo many variables that could effect a study they are endless...Most studies are found on the web and people take them verbatim..By a no name doctor who people don't know or who have never met..Who can even say they were actually done or even done in a correct unbiased manner? I could create a web site and write up a fake study and people would pull it and say look at this! Yet it really means shit..."

This is an appalling comment and does show an unnerving naivety that i would not like to see on these forums. just a quick note though about sources, clearly a source from a magazine or supplement company is going to be poor quality and is very similar to advertising semantics or twists upon words or statistics. Furthermore, websites are also a ridiculously poor source. However, when you are talking about scientific journals then there is a hierachy of quality. At the top of the scale you have journals which implement randomised controlled trials. The lowest level of a scientific journal is expert opinion (however this is indeed by academic experts not people with none evidenced experience) and although these type of journals are lower in quality they can lead to further studies and testing by others. Within scientific journals there is also very clear evidence of how they chose subjects and all the ways of testing which was used in the study, not all studies are going to be perfect however they will usually highlight factors which are not optimal or could influence the results. And finally to become published within a legitimate reputable journal (this is a seperate matter but again there is a differing level of quality when talking about journals) there is a stringent requirement that the paper is blind peer reviewed by experts within that field prior to publishing.

that is not taking away the quality of personal experience but please for people just taking an interest in bodybuilding dont shove them down the wrong path by doubting scientific journals without having adequate knowledge of what takes place to create these studies

[petrocles]

in the medical profession all practices are required to be done on a evidenced based manner, rather than on a customary basis. there is nothing worse in the medical profession of people doing things because thats what they have always done and youll find a magnitude of these matters such as the old wive tales stories of cures for varying illnesses and ailments and even having guiness to increase iron deficiency etc etc everyone will know of one or two of these sort of ideas. these theories are always tested scientifically and as knowledge progresses so do the proposed best approach to remedy certain illnesses. i think this translates into most practices in life including bodybuilding, so when considering what you do then there must be a reason why this is the best practice and hence scientific studies are conducted to identify those practices, it is never going to be black and white and best practice will change continuously but if you are not even in the slipstream of scientific knowledge then it is a pitiable position to be in.

[Ishallnocheatmyself]

only reason i like to split meals every 3-4 hrs is because of the 300g+ of protein im suppose to consume, and if i ate 3 meals a day id probably feel like shit after each meal because of the protein intake

[Warrior1700]

I eat a 12oz lean steak as the last meal of the day. This is usually 2 hrs before I go to sleep.

Every nite? Isn't that too much fat even if it is lean?

[calstate23]

Bump - because this topic/debate is a good learning experience for our members.

Again, I just have to say there has been times were I have eaten 2-3 meals a day for 2 weeks+ while training the same....Personally, I did not like it and felt like crap. To me there was less of a benefit, not only the way I felt, but the intensity of my training and on my physique. I have never tried 1 meal a day and will never to be honest. I just know my body too well and I couldn't function like that, especially when training hard and heavy almost everyday..

I do think comparing pros vs. the average weight lifter is pretty vast....But at the end of the day, most body builders use a standard protocol which works the best and then increase it's effectiveness with timing and hormones...For example, the theory that after a workout it might be a good idea to take in simple carbs to spike insulin and push all the nutrients back into the muscle...For the average person, some may like this and some may not...And for those not using insulin it may actually not be the best protocol...But still at the end of the day that is typical of a pro using insulin to inject after a workout..So technically, that is most likely the best way our body can benefit. Just because a bodybuilder is using insulin does not take away the essence of what that means, that it works...I personally have never used insulin, but I know many that do and I can also tell you....It really works...

[gbrice75]

Every nite? Isn't that too much fat even if it is lean?

It depends on your total daily fat intake. For me, it would be way too much.

Again, I just have to say there has been times were I have eaten 2-3 meals a day for 2 weeks+ while training the same....Personally, I did not like it and felt like crap. To me there was less of a benefit, not only the way I felt, but the intensity of my training and on my physique. I have never tried 1 meal a day and will never to be honest. I just know my body too well and I couldn't function like that, especially when training hard and heavy almost everyday..

This is what's most important. You have to listen to your body and do what feels best. If you felt like crap when eating 2-3 meals a day, chances are you'd feel like crap eating 1 meal per day. Maybe not. But what you DO know is you do best when you eat several times per day, i.e. you've found what works best for you, and if it ain't broke.....

I just want to debunk the idea that eating 1-3 meals per day is BAD or has some negative impact. It may have for you, but just like several meals/day works well for you, less frequent larger meals work just as well for others, me included. It works both ways... again it comes down to trial and error and doing what you feel yields the best results.

I do think comparing pros vs. the average weight lifter is pretty vast....But at the end of the day, most body builders use a standard protocol which works the best and then increase it's effectiveness with timing and hormones...For example, the theory that after a workout it might be a good idea to take in simple carbs to spike insulin and push all the nutrients back into the muscle...For the average person, some may like this and some may not...And for those not using insulin it may actually not be the best protocol...But still at the end of the day that is typical of a pro using insulin to inject after a workout..So technically, that is most likely the best way our body can benefit. Just because a bodybuilder is using insulin does not take away the essence of what that means, that it works...I personally have never used insulin, but I know many that do and I can also tell you....It really works...

Again - pro's are using insulin in conjunction with ridiculous amounts of gear, food, and training intensity/volume that the average lifter can't fathom. To assume the average person can benefit from insulin spikes the same way a pro does without all other things being equal and in place is flawed logic, IMHO.

[Turkish Juicer]

Every nite? Isn't that too much fat even if it is lean?

Yes, every night I eat it up with a large bowl of salad.

Beef fillet is what I eat and 12oz of it has 24gr of ''anabolic'' fat so I don't really see why you perceive this to be ''too much''.

Rest of my fats strictly come from fish oils, nuts, egg yolks and EVOO.

FYI, I have been on a low carb diet for a while by now and I get most of my daily cals from protein and fat, I burn about 600cals on the treadmill ED, lift weights 5 times a week with high volume.

[Warrior1700]

Yes, every night I eat it up with a large bowl of salad.

Beef fillet is what I eat and 12oz of it has 24gr of ''anabolic'' fat so I don't really see why you perceive this to be ''too much''.

I guess because every time i get BW and my Cholesterol is "high"...Total and LDL., they say..."cut out red meat". I love me some red meat. only about 1 maybe 2 x a week tho.

And there I am again, I had no idea that fat was "anabolic"

[Turkish Juicer]

I guess because every time i get BW and my Cholesterol is "high"...Total and LDL., they say..."cut out red meat". I love me some red meat. only about 1 maybe 2 x a week tho.

And there I am again, I had no idea that fat was "anabolic"

If you are genetically inclined to maintaining high cholesterol levels then red meat is not to blame for, but this is something your average doctor just can't understand. Moreover, AAS increases your cholesterol levels quite a bit, although I am not sure if you are regularly cycling with AAS or not.

As for cholesterol being bad, it is the building block of Testosterone, namely the male hormone, which is why it has an important place in BB diet.

Lastly, beware that NOT all fat sources are anabolic. The fat sources I listed above, however, are.

[Turkish Juicer]

Olive oil converts cholesterol more easily into testosterone

The more fat you eat, the more testosterone your body produces. More fat, more testosterone. The best source of testosterone boosting fat, Argentinean researchers concluded a year ago after a study on rats, is olive oil. The same researchers have now published the results of another animal study in Lipids, which shows how olive oil increases the production of testosterone. Olive oil helps the testes to absorb more cholesterol.

The researchers, working at the Instituto de Investigaciones Bioquimicas de La Plata, did an experiment with male rats. For sixty days, the rats were given feed to which seventy grams of soya oil [S], olive oil [O], coconut oil [C] or grapeseed oil [G] per kilogram had been added. At the end of the period the researchers measured how much testosterone the animals were producing. The figure below shows that coconut oil and olive oil were the best testosterone boosters.



The testes of the rats that had had olive oil added to their feed were also heavier. Because the grapeseed oil diet produced the same results as the soya oil diet, we have left that column out of the table below.

Attachment 123007

The Argentineans described how this happens a year ago. Olive oil and coconut oil increase the activity of the 3beta-HSD and 17beta-HSD enzymes. These are involved in the manufacture of testosterone. Olive oil and coconut oil also raise the concentration of the body’s own antioxidants in the Leydig cells, which produce testosterone. In the present study, the researchers went a step further. They found a relationship between the diet, the amount of free cholesterol in the Leydig cells and the testosterone level.

Attachment 123008

The Leydig cells make testosterone from cholesterol. A diet that is rich in coconut oil or olive oil apparently helps the cells to absorb more cholesterol. The cells are also more able to extract the cholesterol from its ester. The more free cholesterol a Leydig cell has available, and the less estered cholesterol there is in a cell, the higher the rate of testosterone production.

Attachment 123009

So natural athletes could optimise their testosterone production by making olive oil their main form of fat. Another nutritional strategy that might help is to eat cranberries. Cranberries increase the uptake of cholesterol by the testes.

Source: Lipids. 2009 Apr;44(4):345-57.

[Turkish Juicer]

I can post a similar study for each anabolic fat source namely nuts too, milk, butter, cheese, red meat, egg yolks, fish oils and so forth but it would probably be an overkill for this thread.

The idea is anabolic fat is anabolic.