3 solid meals???

Printable View

06-20-2012, 02:42 PM
Mr_Prop_var_Testen

3 solid meals???

I've been reading about nutrition for more than 10 years now and expierinced guys tell u to eat 6 meals a day bla bla bla...
But more expierienced guys (nutrition scientists and writers) tell u to (intermitted fasting.. 3 meals a day....bla bla)
What do u guys think would be the long term difference on body composition
From say a diet 250c 250p 50f on a 12% bf 170 lbs 5'7 person (in this case me)
Over 5 meals vs 3 meals with exact same food???
I'm no bodybuilder I train crossfit and care about the way I look and don't mind an increase in lean body weight but don't need to bulk I like my size....
06-20-2012, 03:09 PM
DanB

good question, I cant see it making much of a difference really once its the same macros but I'm no expert on the subject and looking forward to seeing some educated opinions

I think it was Haz who said he eats 3 large meals a day, not sure if that has changed recently but by looking at his previous avi's it didnt seem to hamper him much lol
06-20-2012, 05:27 PM
Tx89

I firmly believe you would be leaner eating 3 larger meals. Why? Because obviously you'd be in a fasted state longer meaning stable and low levels of blood Sugar and Insulin and resulting higher levels of glucagon.
06-20-2012, 06:24 PM
Mr_Prop_var_Testen

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tx89

I firmly believe you would be leaner eating 3 larger meals. Why? Because obviously you'd be in a fasted state longer meaning stable and low levels of blood Sugar and Insulin and resulting higher levels of glucagon.

3 meals a day are healthier and much more fun in my opinion and more convenient and I just take 5 2g amino acid tabs before / after workout and upon awaking /before bed I take 3 .
06-20-2012, 06:29 PM
dooie

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tx89

I firmly believe you would be leaner eating 3 larger meals. Why? Because obviously you'd be in a fasted state longer meaning stable and low levels of blood Sugar and Insulin and resulting higher levels of glucagon.

Ur reasoning actually proves against your statement! If u don't eat for a while, ur blood levels will drop, when u eat again, you will spike insulin an blood sugar etc!

But if u eat more frequently, you will actually keep levels stable! But in saying all of this!

It's been proven that no matter if u eat 7 meals or 3meals as long as your getting the same macros then there is no significant difference! Obviously there will be practical implications with both these types of eating, do what fits your day best!
06-20-2012, 06:43 PM
Mr_Prop_var_Testen

Quote:

Originally Posted by dooie

Ur reasoning actually proves against your statement! If u don't eat for a while, ur blood levels will drop, when u eat again, you will spike insulin an blood sugar etc!

But if u eat more frequently, you will actually keep levels stable! But in saying all of this!

It's been proven that no matter if u eat 7 meals or 3meals as long as your getting the same macros then there is no significant difference! Obviously there will be practical implications with both these types of eating, do what fits your day best!

Actually what I read is that ur body gets better and better at things when u do them and one of them is sustaining stable levels of blood sugar without relying on constant grazing and loosing the ability to sustain blood sugar levels by without frequent feeding and all ur system rests more and when u eat it performs optimally..... What do u guys think of that?
06-20-2012, 06:53 PM
dooie

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr_Prop_var_Testen

Actually what I read is that ur body gets better and better at things when u do them and one of them is sustaining stable levels of blood sugar without relying on constant grazing and loosing the ability to sustain blood sugar levels by without frequent feeding and all ur system rests more and when u eat it performs optimally..... What do u guys think of that?

So it's the same with frequent meals, all you need to worry about is cals in vs cals burned! Your body is very good at using what it has, almost all bro science comes from the idea that the body works the same, and doesn't change! Thus is very different to what we see in scientific studies
06-20-2012, 07:20 PM
Sgt. Hartman

Meal timing and frequency is irrelevant as far as body composition goes imo. Hitting your macros each day is by far more important.
06-20-2012, 11:00 PM
Tx89

Quote:

Originally Posted by dooie

Ur reasoning actually proves against your statement! If u don't eat for a while, ur blood levels will drop, when u eat again, you will spike insulin an blood sugar etc!

But if u eat more frequently, you will actually keep levels stable! But in saying all of this!

It's been proven that no matter if u eat 7 meals or 3meals as long as your getting the same macros then there is no significant difference! Obviously there will be practical implications with both these types of eating, do what fits your day best!

This whole insulin spiking thing is far overrated imo. Except I'm breaking the fast with a glass of honey and a bottle of coke of course ;-) with a solid, thought out low gi meal you dont get a Spike.
Also eating consistently will never give me as stable blood Sugar levels as fasting, how could it?
06-20-2012, 11:46 PM
Peter32

I've always wondered how it worked as I've stuck to the 6-7 meals a day while I'm on bulk cycle but in theory it makes more sense that only eating 3 meals a day would e better for bulking. As it slows down your metabolism because your body would breakdown digested food at a slower rate so it was able to supply energy as it was needed and also store larger amounts of glucose within muscle tissue and stored fat so it had excess energy when required between meals (fasting) where as eating more frequently 6-7 meals a day would increase your metabolism and therefore breakdown digested food at a faster rate and store less as it wasn't required to store as much it has a readily available source of digested food an therefore be better suited to cutting or fat loss?? Correct me if I'm wrong as I'm still reading an tryin to play with my own diet
06-20-2012, 11:58 PM
dooie

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter32

I've always wondered how it worked as I've stuck to the 6-7 meals a day while I'm on bulk cycle but in theory it makes more sense that only eating 3 meals a day would e better for bulking. As it slows down your metabolism because your body would breakdown digested food at a slower rate so it was able to supply energy as it was needed and also store larger amounts of glucose within muscle tissue and stored fat so it had excess energy when required between meals (fasting) where as eating more frequently 6-7 meals a day would increase your metabolism and therefore breakdown digested food at a faster rate and store less as it wasn't required to store as much it has a readily available source of digested food an therefore be better suited to cutting or fat loss?? Correct me if I'm wrong as I'm still reading an tryin to play with my own diet

Dont think too much into it, just eat your cals for the day! Your metabolism will not speed up or slow down so much that it will have an effect on cutting or bulking! If u can eat 5-7times a day then do it, me personally can only eat 3 times, there is no significant difference between the two, just hit your macros
06-21-2012, 07:31 AM
jpowell

i think the important factor here is making sure you hit your macros whether its in 3-5-7-or even 8 meals. i like to you a the latter end as i don't have to worry about force feeding. think bout it like this: 150 grams a pro in 3 meals, or 56 grams a pro in 8 meals.
06-21-2012, 07:34 AM
Back In Black

Quote:

Originally Posted by jpowell

i think the important factor here is making sure you hit your macros whether its in 3-5-7-or even 8 meals. i like to you a the latter end as i don't have to worry about force feeding. think bout it like this: 150 grams a pro in 3 meals, or 56 grams a pro in 8 meals.

460g pro per day? Wow!!
06-21-2012, 08:20 AM
Turkish Juicer

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr_Prop_var_Testen

I've been reading about nutrition for more than 10 years now and expierinced guys tell u to eat 6 meals a day bla bla bla...
But more expierienced guys (nutrition scientists and writers) tell u to (intermitted fasting.. 3 meals a day....bla bla)
What do u guys think would be the long term difference on body composition
From say a diet 250c 250p 50f on a 12% bf 170 lbs 5'7 person (in this case me)
Over 5 meals vs 3 meals with exact same food???
I'm no bodybuilder I train crossfit and care about the way I look and don't mind an increase in lean body weight but don't need to bulk I like my size....

You are eating more protein than you need to, considering your stats and the fact that you are not intended to juice and bulk.
06-21-2012, 08:35 AM
jpowell

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteM

460g pro per day? Wow!!

Yea, super high jumped pros. 2lbs per pound.

Sent from my iPhone using Forum
06-21-2012, 08:35 AM
gbrice75

Quote:

Originally Posted by dooie

Ur reasoning actually proves against your statement! If u don't eat for a while, ur blood levels will drop, when u eat again, you will spike insulin an blood sugar etc!

But if u eat more frequently, you will actually keep levels stable! But in saying all of this!

I disagree, in part.

Every time you eat, you are raising glucose (and therefore insulin) levels some what. I don't care whether you're eating every 6-8 meals every few hours, or 3 meals in 8 hours. With the former, levels will rise for a short period, dip back down, and rise again for a short period at the next feeding. Rinse and repeat. With the latter example, levels will rise for a longer period (because the meal will be larger) but will not be any higher than with the first example (assuming the food choices are the same). i.e. the quantity of food doesn't dictate the severity of the 'spike' - the food choices themselves do. The quantity of food only dictates the duration of the 'spike'. A larger meal will simply take longer to digest than a smaller meal. This is along the same lines as the argument of smaller frequent feedings vs. fewer larger meals with regards to raising metabolism. Smaller frequent feedings do not raise metabolism; at the end of the day (figuratively speaking), your body has to metabolize 3000 calories (for example) whether said calories are taken in 8 meals, or 1.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dooie

It's been proven that no matter if u eat 7 meals or 3meals as long as your getting the same macros then there is no significant difference! Obviously there will be practical implications with both these types of eating, do what fits your day best!

Now with this I agree 100%. OP - some people do better eating smaller frequent meals (whether it's psychological, physiological, or a combination of both), and some do better with larger infrequent feedings. Like everything else in this lifestyle, you need to figure out what works best for your body via a little trial and error.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sgt. Hartman

Meal timing and frequency is irrelevant as far as body composition goes imo.

I disagree... as you know. ;)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sgt. Hartman

Hitting your macros each day is by far more important.

I agree. Calories in/calories out is the most important factor by far, but not the only factor, IMO. I am still a firm believer that nutrient timing does impact overall body composition.
06-21-2012, 08:44 AM
Back In Black

Quote:

Originally Posted by jpowell

Yea, super high jumped pros. 2lbs per pound.

Sent from my iPhone using Forum

Haha I thought you meant you!
06-21-2012, 08:47 AM
JAB1

Dooie, you avatar is fkn unreal, I have nothing else to contribute.....
06-21-2012, 08:55 AM
Noles12

I personally prefer more meals spread throughout the day. My reasoning has nothing to do with which is better in sense of nutrition but rather in terms of satiety.

If I eat three large meals I find I am full right after but I still am very hungry in between which can often lead to more eating. WIth small meals I eat enough that it covers my cravings and needs and I never feel hungry in between as its a shorter period
06-21-2012, 09:36 AM
gbrice75

Quote:

Originally Posted by Noles12;604***7

I personally prefer more meals spread throughout the day. My reasoning has nothing to do with which is better in sense of nutrition but rather in terms of satiety.

If I eat three large meals I find I am full right after but I still am very hungry in between which can often lead to more eating. WIth small meals I eat enough that it covers my cravings and needs and I never feel hungry in between as its a shorter period

Interesting how different people can be. I find the exact opposite to be true for me. When I follow a smaller frequent feeding schedule, I find myself constantly hungry. No sooner than I finish my meal, i'm already thinking about the next one... and ~3 hours seems so far away. I feel like i'm chronically underfeeding my body... giving it just enough every few hours to squeak by. When following a larger and more infrequent schedule, the meals are very satisfying and I thoroughly enjoy them. As for the long fast period - part of it is spent sleeping, but even while i'm awake I find myself less hungry than during those 3 hours periods... the hormonal response to fasting is pretty amazing, particularly with regards to ghrelin, leptin, and epinephrine/norepinephrine.
06-21-2012, 10:16 AM
traindude

re

Quote:

Originally Posted by jpowell

i think the important factor here is making sure you hit your macros whether its in 3-5-7-or even 8 meals. i like to you a the latter end as i don't have to worry about force feeding. think bout it like this: 150 grams a pro in 3 meals, or 56 grams a pro in 8 meals.

Many people are accidentally following pro bodybuilders route.
Not everyone 250lbs and lean,you do not need 400g pro per day,and not all the people do not go to work,6 meals a day is crazy,and unconvenient.
pro bbers eat 6 meals per day,because they can not finish all the foods if they eat 3 times a day.force feed is pain.

so reach your cals
then
3 meals g2g.
06-21-2012, 10:20 AM
traindude

Quote:

Originally Posted by Turkish Juicer

You are eating more protein than you need to, considering your stats and the fact that you are not intended to juice and bulk.

so tell me,why OP eat too much protein?
170 lbs require 250g p is fine no matter bulk or cut or juice up.

IMO
06-21-2012, 11:47 AM
gbrice75

Quote:

Originally Posted by traindude

Many people are accidentally following pro bodybuilders route.
Not everyone 250lbs and lean,you do not need 400g pro per day,and not all the people do not go to work,6 meals a day is crazy,and unconvenient.
pro bbers eat 6 meals per day,because they can not finish all the foods if they eat 3 times a day.force feed is pain.

so reach your cals
then
3 meals g2g.

Agreed. I don't think the bold is the ONLY reason, but definitely one of them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by traindude

so tell me,why OP eat too much protein?
170 lbs require 250g p is fine no matter bulk or cut or juice up.

IMO

General rule of thumb - 1.5g protein/lb of LBM is my protocol. At times a bit higher (2g max) but no lower, just not necessary. Too many people base their protein needs on total body weight which is a mistake. We shouldn't be taking bodyfat into account when calculating protein requirements, as bodyfat does not require protein to 'live'. I see so many people eating tons of protein and not enough carbs and fats... and wonder why they're not growing.
06-21-2012, 12:19 PM
Turkish Juicer

Quote:

Originally Posted by gbrice75

General rule of thumb - 1.5g protein/lb of LBM is my protocol. At times a bit higher (2g max) but no lower, just not necessary. Too many people base their protein needs on total body weight which is a mistake. We shouldn't be taking bodyfat into account when calculating protein requirements, as bodyfat does not require protein to 'live'.

Thank you for doing the job for me, as my response would have been pretty much the same.