frequent feedings

Discussion in 'Diet & Nutrition' started by kurnia38, Jan 8, 2004.

  1. kurnia38

    kurnia38 New Member

    I got this from Lyle's forum. Comments? I always thought that I HAVE TO eat 6 meals to grow.

    Please state the comments in the context of hypocaloric and hypercaloric situations.
     
  2. Aaron_F

    Aaron_F New Member

    either way who cares :)

    Hypocaloric, larger meals give more satiety

    Hypercaloric, larger meals are harder to eat, so you try to eat smaller meals more often to get adequate calories.
     
  3. kurnia38

    kurnia38 New Member

    Hi Aaron,

    I prefer eating 3 large meals than 6 meals. I always thought that supplying the body with constant flow of amino acid every 3 hours are the ONLY way to go. If I can get the same results with 3 meals, I would go for it because I hate stopping what I'm doing every 3 hours just to eat. :)

    Kurnia
     
  4. Aaron_F

    Aaron_F New Member

    larger meal will have a longer digestion time, which means the flow of aminos happens over a longer period.

    The body is smarter than we are :D
     
  5. kurnia38

    kurnia38 New Member

    Aaron,

    In other words, meal frequency DOESN'T matter?

    Other comments, guys?
     
  6. spartacus

    spartacus New Member

  7. Chupacabra

    Chupacabra New Member

    Meal frequency matters insofar as:

    1) more frequent meels tend to keep blood sugar levels more stable than less frequent meals. This really only matters when you're eating eu- or hypercalorically, because if you're eating hypocalorically, you're probably going to feel like crap no matter how you divide your calories up. Your body doesn't like you when you starve it.

    2) when eating a hypercaloric diet, it's usually physically easier to divide the calories up into a greater number of smaller meals rather than trying to down a bunch of calories all at once. Conversely, when you're eating hypocalorically, I find that fewer larger meals keeps me feeling relatively more full than lots of little snacks. I lose fat best on 8 kcal/lb/day, which works out to around 1200 kcal/day for me. 6x200 kcal meals don't do jack except make me miserable.

    Otherwise, AFAIC, convenience rules.
     
  8. kurnia38

    kurnia38 New Member

    I'll try to summarize all the points above. Let me know if I got it right or wrong.

    In hypocaloric diet, eating more meals only help people to feel less hungrier and don't have any effect on LBM/adipose ratio in weight loss.

    In hypercaloric diet, eating more meals are just a way to help you eat more food, but don't have any effect on LBM/adipose ratio in weight gain.

    Which brings me to a new question. One of the reasons people suggest eating around 6 meals are the claim that the body will become catabolic if not fed protein every 3 hours. How much truth is in this statement? Could it be that the body DOES become catabolic ONLY if it is not fed protein for a longer period of time (more like 6 - 8 hours), not 3 hours as most people believe?
     
  9. Aaron_F

    Aaron_F New Member

    if your body is adapatedto a way of eating, adn tehn suddenly you stop, it will cause some catabolism, but probbakly such a low amount it could be insignificant.
    Bbrs in general will say you have to eat 6x day for protein, to inc metabolism, blah blah blah
    Potentially it will have an effect at the extremes of BF and LBM, but in the end that will be relying on anecdotes, and they are usually uncontrolled, and for hte most part untrustworthy
     
  10. pete69

    pete69 New Member

    I started a thread a while back in regards to meal frequency, it turned out to be a good discussion here. You can search it. Keeping calories equal, i've switched from 4 meals to 2 meals a day (spaced 12 hours apart) and noticed no change in body composition, no extra muscle loss. I find life much easier and enjoy the larger meals. I don't agree w/ some of what was said on wannabebigs forum. Esp. the idea that only x amount of protein can be absorbed, this is utter nonsense. An ileal break mechanism slows down gastric emptying, or the rate at which food leaves the stomach to the small intestines, when larger meals are eaten, and there is still a 90+ % absorption rate for protein when extremely large amounts are eaten.

    The study on boxers was done without a breakfast, as was said on the discussion board, and Lyle has told me as well. This is leaving over 12hrs. between meals, probably around 14-16 hours which would be too long w/out protein and would result in muscle loss, but this does not mean a large amount of protein eaten every 12 hours will have the same results. Remember the casein/whey study by Biorie showing just 30g of casein elevates amino acid levels for 7 hours, imagine a meat source taken in, which will likely take as long or longer to digest, with extra fat, and a larger amount of protein (100-150g). Either way i've done this with myself and it hasn't caused any muscle loss that is noticable.
     
  11. On a personal level [something I really dont like to do in posts] i believe that 5 meals a day tends to fit my lifestyle adequately. I eat at 7am, again at 12pm, again at 5pm, postworkout at 10pm, before bed @ 2am - then sleep! Yes this is my lifestyle, its horrible, alas, im still a school boy and it is the way it is :)
     
  12. restless

    restless New Member

    I eat three large meals and a few snacs. Even if it had any disadvantages concernin body composition, the positives would probably still make up for it. Especially dieting I feel so less hungry eating large meals as opposed to smaller more frequent feedings.

    Personally, I think the theory of more stable blood sugar levels with frequent feedings holds very little water, it does sound nice in theory but the delayed gastric emptying that large meals give keeps hunger away a lot more.
     

Share This Page