Cutting Diet
- Thread starter Lance
- Start date
It (smaller frequent meals) does, however, aid in digestion and nutrient absorbtion. As for the metabo issue, I dont know; although it would sense to assume metabo rate would be effected.[b said:
And maybe I miss understood you, but when I eat smaller more frequent meals I feel like I'm starving. I like to keep my number of meals around 5 ED (5 medium size meals).
superman101
New Member
Im no scientist, but I do know that when I increased my meals per day ( cals stayed bout the same, maybe shade more) I lost more fat. I dont have a scientific degree, but I do know what common sense is. My body was proof that more meals effected something, ( i.e metabolism)[b said:
Well, just as you told me BoSox, you'll need to be more specific & we will need more than "just your word". How about some evidence that suggests metabo is not effected by smaller more frequent meals?[b said:
As everyone else has stated, I too respond better to smaller more frequent meals. I shed more body fat when eating in this fashion even though cals stay maintenance. I'm also less full and uncomfortable feeling after each meal. And smaller more frequent meals keep me hungry and able to eat rather than filling me up and leaving me gasious.
They seem to stimulate my appitite so to speak.The proof is in my experience, IMO - as well as everyone elses it seems. Science might suggest differently, but it seems to work well for me, as opposed to less frequent larger meals.
Now how about that scientifit mumbo jumbo?
I
imported_dkm1987
Guest
Do a pubmed search
1. search for: Thermic effect feeding
2. search for: Metabolic meal frequency
3. search for: Nibbling gorging
You'll see that there is very little evidence associated to any advantages of increasing meal frequency and it's benefical effect on RMR in an isocaloric diet. It is all about energy density and energy use.
1. search for: Thermic effect feeding
2. search for: Metabolic meal frequency
3. search for: Nibbling gorging
You'll see that there is very little evidence associated to any advantages of increasing meal frequency and it's benefical effect on RMR in an isocaloric diet. It is all about energy density and energy use.
While its common in the Bodybuilding world to say that increased meals = increased metabolisms, there is absolutely NO proof for this
it was commonly found that obese people ate less often than lean, but this has the poblems of causality.
for a start there is this
THe main idea that the multiple meals = reduced calorie intake in ad lib diets also doesnt seem to hang around into longer term trails.
but in simpler words, at the same caloric intake, higher meal frequency does not make a difference over lower meal frequency.
it was commonly found that obese people ate less often than lean, but this has the poblems of causality.
for a start there is this
THe main idea that the multiple meals = reduced calorie intake in ad lib diets also doesnt seem to hang around into longer term trails.
but in simpler words, at the same caloric intake, higher meal frequency does not make a difference over lower meal frequency.
This is what I asked people not to provide. Adnecdotes do not constitute anything, as they are uncontrolled. argumentum ad numerum adds nothing to a discussion.[b said:
At the least it probably helped you stay on your diet (i.e worked for you). Your weight loss is calories in versus calories out ;bottomline. Problem with cutting and frequent meals is that the "meals" are total teases. For a lot of folks 3-4 meals atleast satiate hunger better. Anecdotal evidence is just that.[b said:Quote[/b] (MrNasty @ Sep. 16 2004,6:23)]Well, just as you told me BoSox, you'll need to be more specific & we will need more than "just your word". How about some evidence that suggests metabo is not effected by smaller more frequent meals?[b said:
As everyone else has stated, I too respond better to smaller more frequent meals. I shed more body fat when eating in this fashion even though cals stay maintenance. I'm also less full and uncomfortable feeling after each meal. And smaller more frequent meals keep me hungry and able to eat rather than filling me up and leaving me gasious.
The proof is in my experience, IMO - as well as everyone elses it seems. Science might suggest differently, but it seems to work well for me, as opposed to less frequent larger meals.
Now how about that scientifit mumbo jumbo?
I
imported_dkm1987
Guest
Also it is unlikey that eating more frequently helps reduce hunger. A study in 2000 by Johnstone Et al, shows
[b said:
Although I don't have the full text of the review Aaron posted it wouldn't surprise me to see this being one of the studies reviewed, since it is commonly cited in others.[b said:
Oh my Good Gosh, We're in grade school again.[b said:
I was not arguing whether or not meal frequency effected metabo, I was arguing that eating more frequently is better for you -- in terms of digestion and nutrient absorption. I was simply making a statment on how I felt meal frequency effected me.
Which was:
[b said:
I stand by that statement. No science or studies can tell me how I feel or am effected -- they cannot tell me the results of my trials and tribs either. I would much rather eat smaller more frequently then 3 or even 4 larger meals each day. That's just me -- my preference.
Thanks though, to everyone who shared the research and information about the studies concerning this issue. Very informational.
I'm pretty sure the whole reason eating several small meals today became popular in bodybuilding circles is more or less an attempt at allways having protein available in the body.
So i'm wondering ... if in the end it's just calories that matter, hence 3 meals is the same as 6 if the calorie are the same, what about the protein?
Is it safe to assume that eating all that food in 3 meals instead of 6 is going to only keep your amino acid levels high for a couple hours, instead of 6 meals a day, where you would allways have a fresh source of protein digesting?
So i'm wondering ... if in the end it's just calories that matter, hence 3 meals is the same as 6 if the calorie are the same, what about the protein?
Is it safe to assume that eating all that food in 3 meals instead of 6 is going to only keep your amino acid levels high for a couple hours, instead of 6 meals a day, where you would allways have a fresh source of protein digesting?
I
imported_dkm1987
Guest
Amino acid delivery is a different issue especially with someone who is constantly trying to maintain protein systhesis and positve nitrogen balance. So not to hijack this thread, go read the articles on Pre/Post protein (which I know you have Lance) and the protein myths, look up the references Bryan cites you 'll find the answers there.
So your telling me the body can process 20g of protien the same as it would of 80g of protien during one meal? RIGHT! You got to be kidding bro.[b said:Quote[/b] (BoSox @ Sep. 18 2004,10:56)]which it also doesn't really, do but okay. Maybe your body functions differently than everyone else's, who knows.[b said:
If your goal is 240g of protien a day, your much better off eating 40g per meal at 6 meals than 80g per per meal at 3 meals. The body will digest & absorb it much more easily at 40g per meal than 80g. And then the issue of protien synthesis and nitro balance comes in to play - which obviously calls for a constant consumption of protiens anyway.