I am starting hst soon and wanted to confirm something about the diet. According to this website, i should be eatinf 2500 calories spread over 6 meals. If i am awake from 6 in the morning to around 11 at night, will it be necessary for me to eat more? From a lot of other nutrition information i've read, it seems that it is important to eat atleast every 2 hours or so. if this is the case, being awake for 17 hours, i would have to eat closer to eight meals right?
Question about meal times
- Thread starter s2b33
- Start date
It depends on your goals but I might say that taking more meals will sure help...
But in the real life when you go in the morning out and then return home in the evening is hard to walk around with a bag full of capsules in which we have our food.
Try to eat in the morning, at noon and in the morning and have some suplements with you:
For example I am taking powder protein with me in 2 small plastic bags(1 small plastic bag contain the composition for 1 shake=protein, glutamine and creatine) in the morning and in the office I am blending it with water and drink it.
3 solid meal and 2 protein shakes = 5 easy meals a day.
But in the real life when you go in the morning out and then return home in the evening is hard to walk around with a bag full of capsules in which we have our food.
Try to eat in the morning, at noon and in the morning and have some suplements with you:
For example I am taking powder protein with me in 2 small plastic bags(1 small plastic bag contain the composition for 1 shake=protein, glutamine and creatine) in the morning and in the office I am blending it with water and drink it.
3 solid meal and 2 protein shakes = 5 easy meals a day.
Eating more meals isn't better than eating fewer. We've posted the references to the studies time and time again. Eat however many meals you need to. If you are bulking, generally you will need more meals to get in enough calories. If you are trying to lose weight, eating more meals is probably going to make it very hard to keep your calories in line.
Yeah, and since I go by pushing under or over my body's natural maintenance urges, (for gaining or losing) I tend to just eat when I can. If I'm munching every 3 hours, then the meals are small, but like today, we went to a buffet after church, and ate like toads...so the rest of my day is just eating enough to stay away from catabolism. I simply don't need more calories, even though I worked out today, a couple hours after the big meal. 5-6 meals isn't a lock-in, just a recommendation. It's pretty hard for most of us to eat for bulk in 3-4 meals. Sometimes I eat 8-9 times in a day. To us, a banana and a handful of nuts IS a meal.
I
imported_etothepii
Guest
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">a banana and a handful of nuts IS a meal.
</div>
Just make sure you keep your hands on your own banana and nuts!!
</div>
Just make sure you keep your hands on your own banana and nuts!!
LittleBigHorn
New Member
Yep, I concur with what has been said here. It's not about a fixed number of meals per day.. it's about meeting the calorie quota at the end of the day, whether you manage to do that with 3 or 8 meals.
Personally I prefer to eat 5 times a day, spaced about 3-4 hours apart. It just feels natural and easy; the meals are not too big to cause discomfort and a feeling of being stuffed, and yet I don't have to spend all day eating because I'm nibbling away at small handfuls of food every hour or so. It's a good compromise between the two extremes.
Of course, if you count the post workout recovery shake as a meal, then I eat 6 times on my workout days.
Just go with whatever feels natural to you, as long as you're getting in the right amount of calories at the end of the day.
Personally I prefer to eat 5 times a day, spaced about 3-4 hours apart. It just feels natural and easy; the meals are not too big to cause discomfort and a feeling of being stuffed, and yet I don't have to spend all day eating because I'm nibbling away at small handfuls of food every hour or so. It's a good compromise between the two extremes.
Of course, if you count the post workout recovery shake as a meal, then I eat 6 times on my workout days.
Just go with whatever feels natural to you, as long as you're getting in the right amount of calories at the end of the day.
I should mention that if you do decide to munch continuously, monitor for a day or two your total intake. I've read that for some people, it's a diet trick of slow munching to keep you from feeling hungry: that can backfire on you and cause you to eat LESS overall than if you keep getting a bit hungry and sitting down to eat. Me, I can munch and still hit the meals, albeit a bit forced.
<div>
(Totentanz @ Jan. 14 2007,12:36)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Just eat however many or few meals it takes to hit your calorie goal. The amount of meals you eat in a day won't matter.</div>
This doesn't sound right. I know the more meals you eat, the faster your metabolism goes. I thought that was pretty well known. When food is inserted into the body, the body works to digest food the inputted and increases the metabolic process for the next few hours, right in time for another meal.
I don't know how that impedes weight gain, but for general health, 6 meals a day seems to be recommended norm with pretty good reason to back it up.
(Totentanz @ Jan. 14 2007,12:36)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Just eat however many or few meals it takes to hit your calorie goal. The amount of meals you eat in a day won't matter.</div>
This doesn't sound right. I know the more meals you eat, the faster your metabolism goes. I thought that was pretty well known. When food is inserted into the body, the body works to digest food the inputted and increases the metabolic process for the next few hours, right in time for another meal.
I don't know how that impedes weight gain, but for general health, 6 meals a day seems to be recommended norm with pretty good reason to back it up.
bluejacket
New Member
<div>
(JonPaul @ Jan. 23 2007,17:45)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(Totentanz @ Jan. 14 2007,12:36)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Just eat however many or few meals it takes to hit your calorie goal. The amount of meals you eat in a day won't matter.</div>
This doesn't sound right. I know the more meals you eat, the faster your metabolism goes. I thought that was pretty well known. When food is inserted into the body, the body works to digest food the inputted and increases the metabolic process for the next few hours, right in time for another meal.
I don't know how that impedes weight gain, but for general health, 6 meals a day seems to be recommended norm with pretty good reason to back it up.</div>
Meal frequency and energy balance.
Bellisle F, McDevitt R, Prentice AM.
INSERM U341, Hotel Dieu de Paris, France.
Several epidemiological studies have observed an inverse relationship between people's habitual frequency of eating and body weight, leading to the suggestion that a 'nibbling' meal pattern may help in the avoidance of obesity. A review of all pertinent studies shows that, although many fail to find any significant relationship, the relationship is consistently inverse in those that do observe a relationship. However, this finding is highly vulnerable to the probable confounding effects of post hoc changes in dietary patterns as a consequence of weight gain and to dietary under-reporting which undoubtedly invalidates some of the studies. We conclude that the epidemiological evidence is at best very weak, and almost certainly represents an artefact. A detailed review of the possible mechanistic explanations for a metabolic advantage of nibbling meal patterns failed to reveal significant benefits in respect of energy expenditure. Although some short-term studies suggest that the thermic effect of feeding is higher when an isoenergetic test load is divided into multiple small meals, other studies refute this, and most are neutral. More importantly, studies using whole-body calorimetry and doubly-labelled water to assess total 24 h energy expenditure find no difference between nibbling and gorging. Finally, with the exception of a single study, there is no evidence that weight loss on hypoenergetic regimens is altered by meal frequency. We conclude that any effects of meal pattern on the regulation of body weight are likely to be mediated through effects on the food intake side of the energy balance equation.
this was posted by ARRON F a few yrs back in the "how many meals a day" thread/poll in this very diet/nutr. section. all who are concerned with this issue should read that thread 1st, there is a lot of outstanding info in it as well as a variety of opinions, approaches etc etc.
for my money it comes down to cals in vs cals out. how you get them in is a matter of preference. if your lifestyle (work, family, sched, habits) leads to eat 6 meals or 3 or even 12 it doesnt matter. what does matter is eating enough to grow.
cutting diet does seem to be slightly diff. but only from the standpoint of higher meal freq helps some with appetite control.
good luck
(JonPaul @ Jan. 23 2007,17:45)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(Totentanz @ Jan. 14 2007,12:36)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Just eat however many or few meals it takes to hit your calorie goal. The amount of meals you eat in a day won't matter.</div>
This doesn't sound right. I know the more meals you eat, the faster your metabolism goes. I thought that was pretty well known. When food is inserted into the body, the body works to digest food the inputted and increases the metabolic process for the next few hours, right in time for another meal.
I don't know how that impedes weight gain, but for general health, 6 meals a day seems to be recommended norm with pretty good reason to back it up.</div>
Meal frequency and energy balance.
Bellisle F, McDevitt R, Prentice AM.
INSERM U341, Hotel Dieu de Paris, France.
Several epidemiological studies have observed an inverse relationship between people's habitual frequency of eating and body weight, leading to the suggestion that a 'nibbling' meal pattern may help in the avoidance of obesity. A review of all pertinent studies shows that, although many fail to find any significant relationship, the relationship is consistently inverse in those that do observe a relationship. However, this finding is highly vulnerable to the probable confounding effects of post hoc changes in dietary patterns as a consequence of weight gain and to dietary under-reporting which undoubtedly invalidates some of the studies. We conclude that the epidemiological evidence is at best very weak, and almost certainly represents an artefact. A detailed review of the possible mechanistic explanations for a metabolic advantage of nibbling meal patterns failed to reveal significant benefits in respect of energy expenditure. Although some short-term studies suggest that the thermic effect of feeding is higher when an isoenergetic test load is divided into multiple small meals, other studies refute this, and most are neutral. More importantly, studies using whole-body calorimetry and doubly-labelled water to assess total 24 h energy expenditure find no difference between nibbling and gorging. Finally, with the exception of a single study, there is no evidence that weight loss on hypoenergetic regimens is altered by meal frequency. We conclude that any effects of meal pattern on the regulation of body weight are likely to be mediated through effects on the food intake side of the energy balance equation.
this was posted by ARRON F a few yrs back in the "how many meals a day" thread/poll in this very diet/nutr. section. all who are concerned with this issue should read that thread 1st, there is a lot of outstanding info in it as well as a variety of opinions, approaches etc etc.
for my money it comes down to cals in vs cals out. how you get them in is a matter of preference. if your lifestyle (work, family, sched, habits) leads to eat 6 meals or 3 or even 12 it doesnt matter. what does matter is eating enough to grow.
cutting diet does seem to be slightly diff. but only from the standpoint of higher meal freq helps some with appetite control.
good luck
there may be no real difference between 3 meals vs. 8 meals a day, but I believe that taken to extremes there are some additional rulings that have to be considered. For one, how long can our empty stomachs go before the body enters a state of catabolism? Especially if you skip breakfast...I understand that you're allready there when you wake up. So you eat breakfast to offset that, and then according to your energy expenditures and metabolism, some hours later you reach that state again: where I would prefer to eat prior to that.
On the other extreme, say you eat before bed, lots of carbs/and/or/fat. I call that dietary suicide because you're not gonna burn it while sleeping.
In summation, meal timing would be an issue when taken to such extremes as two meals a day, IMO.
On the other extreme, say you eat before bed, lots of carbs/and/or/fat. I call that dietary suicide because you're not gonna burn it while sleeping.
In summation, meal timing would be an issue when taken to such extremes as two meals a day, IMO.
<div>
(quadancer @ Jan. 23 2007,18:57)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">On the other extreme, say you eat before bed, lots of carbs/and/or/fat. I call that dietary suicide because you're not gonna burn it while sleeping.
In summation, meal timing would be an issue when taken to such extremes as two meals a day, IMO.</div>
But if on a hypoenergetic diet what difference would it make in the long run you are still hypoenergetic and eating before bed isn't changing that.
Even sleeping you still burn calories.
If eating hyperenergetically and trying to ward off any catabolism during the night from being unfed for several hours, again where is the harm.
Even in the face of ingesting fat with carbs doesn't mean all CHO is being stored as fat. In fact most isn't.
What makes you fat is overeating not eating before bed.
(quadancer @ Jan. 23 2007,18:57)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">On the other extreme, say you eat before bed, lots of carbs/and/or/fat. I call that dietary suicide because you're not gonna burn it while sleeping.
In summation, meal timing would be an issue when taken to such extremes as two meals a day, IMO.</div>
But if on a hypoenergetic diet what difference would it make in the long run you are still hypoenergetic and eating before bed isn't changing that.
Even sleeping you still burn calories.
If eating hyperenergetically and trying to ward off any catabolism during the night from being unfed for several hours, again where is the harm.
Even in the face of ingesting fat with carbs doesn't mean all CHO is being stored as fat. In fact most isn't.
What makes you fat is overeating not eating before bed.
Okay, then I digress...some of the 'studies' from the ABC site may still be interfering with my thinking, (they DID post some regarding catabolism after sleep) but another thing I was influenced by was this guy I worked with for years who only ate once a day, at night just before bed: after working 10-14 hours all day...and grew a potbelly, a large one. The meals didn't look unhealthy to me (I lived with him for a year) but were large. It always seemed to me that he didn't even get enough calories to make the day, let alone work too.
Personally, I noticed a large difference between eating carbs before bed and an entire tub of cottage cheese with pineapple, but I'll have to look into the calories on that.
So the question burning is: how long before catabolism sets in? Say for a normal guy doing low/moderate activity with one workout in there. And aren't there some strips for diabetics or something that you can test yourself with? I'm thinking you could maximise your cuts that way.
Personally, I noticed a large difference between eating carbs before bed and an entire tub of cottage cheese with pineapple, but I'll have to look into the calories on that.
So the question burning is: how long before catabolism sets in? Say for a normal guy doing low/moderate activity with one workout in there. And aren't there some strips for diabetics or something that you can test yourself with? I'm thinking you could maximise your cuts that way.
<div>
(JonPaul @ Jan. 23 2007,17:45)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(Totentanz @ Jan. 14 2007,12:36)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Just eat however many or few meals it takes to hit your calorie goal. The amount of meals you eat in a day won't matter.</div>
This doesn't sound right. I know the more meals you eat, the faster your metabolism goes. I thought that was pretty well known. When food is inserted into the body, the body works to digest food the inputted and increases the metabolic process for the next few hours, right in time for another meal.
I don't know how that impedes weight gain, but for general health, 6 meals a day seems to be recommended norm with pretty good reason to back it up.</div>
Read the thread that bluejacket referenced. Like I said, we've all posted studies disproving that more meals increases metabolism time and time again, and I don't really feel like digging it all up again.
If you want, you can look up the studies yourself on pubmed.com with a pretty simple search. Try "meal frequency" and see what you get.
(JonPaul @ Jan. 23 2007,17:45)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(Totentanz @ Jan. 14 2007,12:36)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Just eat however many or few meals it takes to hit your calorie goal. The amount of meals you eat in a day won't matter.</div>
This doesn't sound right. I know the more meals you eat, the faster your metabolism goes. I thought that was pretty well known. When food is inserted into the body, the body works to digest food the inputted and increases the metabolic process for the next few hours, right in time for another meal.
I don't know how that impedes weight gain, but for general health, 6 meals a day seems to be recommended norm with pretty good reason to back it up.</div>
Read the thread that bluejacket referenced. Like I said, we've all posted studies disproving that more meals increases metabolism time and time again, and I don't really feel like digging it all up again.
If you want, you can look up the studies yourself on pubmed.com with a pretty simple search. Try "meal frequency" and see what you get.
If you had counted the calories, you would have found that you were eating less when you ate more meals, otherwise you wouldn't have lost fat. Also, if you increased your activity, obviously that would cause more calores to be burned.
It is easier for some people to eat more meals because by eating more frequently, they feel more sated and end up eating less overall. But... in the end, the only way to lose weight is to consume fewer calories than you burn. Whatever helps you do that is good.
It is easier for some people to eat more meals because by eating more frequently, they feel more sated and end up eating less overall. But... in the end, the only way to lose weight is to consume fewer calories than you burn. Whatever helps you do that is good.
Peak_Power
New Member
<div>
(JonPaul @ Jan. 23 2007,23:02)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">In my experience, I ate three meals a day and good food at that. AS soon as I increased that to 6-8 meals a day, eating the same foods, I lost a ton of fat. SO for me, multiple meals work, and three squares didn't.</div>
To support what Tot is saying, I buy tubs of rice, chicken and veg from a chinese shop near where I work.
When bulking I can eat two of these tubs after a workout in one go.
When cutting, I buy one tub, divide it into 4 parts, eat 1 part, then wait about 30mins-1hr (until I start to feel hunrgy again), eat the 2nd part and so on, so it takes me about 3-4hrs to eat the whole tub. It lasts me all morning, from 7am to lunchtime, and I don't feel hungry the whole time. That 1/4 of a tub makes me feel "satiated" enough to not want to eat, but I can eat 2 tubs in one go before filling "full".
(JonPaul @ Jan. 23 2007,23:02)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">In my experience, I ate three meals a day and good food at that. AS soon as I increased that to 6-8 meals a day, eating the same foods, I lost a ton of fat. SO for me, multiple meals work, and three squares didn't.</div>
To support what Tot is saying, I buy tubs of rice, chicken and veg from a chinese shop near where I work.
When bulking I can eat two of these tubs after a workout in one go.
When cutting, I buy one tub, divide it into 4 parts, eat 1 part, then wait about 30mins-1hr (until I start to feel hunrgy again), eat the 2nd part and so on, so it takes me about 3-4hrs to eat the whole tub. It lasts me all morning, from 7am to lunchtime, and I don't feel hungry the whole time. That 1/4 of a tub makes me feel "satiated" enough to not want to eat, but I can eat 2 tubs in one go before filling "full".
<div>
(quadancer @ Jan. 23 2007,21:19)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I was influenced by was this guy I worked with for years who only ate once a day, at night just before bed: after working 10-14 hours all day...and grew a potbelly, a large one. The meals didn't look unhealthy to me (I lived with him for a year) but were large. It always seemed to me that he didn't even get enough calories to make the day, let alone work too.
how long before catabolism sets in? Say for a normal guy doing low/moderate activity with one workout in there.
And aren't there some strips for diabetics or something that you can test yourself with? I'm thinking you could maximise your cuts that way.</div>
So obviously his one meal intake was more than he expended but then again he may have been at maintenance and the potbelly was there previously. When Muslims go on Ramadan fast, they eat and drink only at night, some reports show weightloss some don't, the ones that report weight loss show that they are hypocaloric. One that don't show they are eating their maintenance level. So again it's not so much when you eat as how much, granted there may be some other issues in eating in this manner but not neccessarily related to weight loss.
It will depend on many things, especially when you throw in a resistance training session which (hopefully) keeps PS high for ~ 24 hours. When was the last meal? How much (in volume) was it? How much (in energy) was it? What was it (not in line with carbs make you fat simply saying that the faster digestion rates of certain foods will make a difference in gastric emptying).
Their are all kinds of strips, some are specific to one agent others have up to ten on the same strip.
(quadancer @ Jan. 23 2007,21:19)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I was influenced by was this guy I worked with for years who only ate once a day, at night just before bed: after working 10-14 hours all day...and grew a potbelly, a large one. The meals didn't look unhealthy to me (I lived with him for a year) but were large. It always seemed to me that he didn't even get enough calories to make the day, let alone work too.
how long before catabolism sets in? Say for a normal guy doing low/moderate activity with one workout in there.
And aren't there some strips for diabetics or something that you can test yourself with? I'm thinking you could maximise your cuts that way.</div>
So obviously his one meal intake was more than he expended but then again he may have been at maintenance and the potbelly was there previously. When Muslims go on Ramadan fast, they eat and drink only at night, some reports show weightloss some don't, the ones that report weight loss show that they are hypocaloric. One that don't show they are eating their maintenance level. So again it's not so much when you eat as how much, granted there may be some other issues in eating in this manner but not neccessarily related to weight loss.
It will depend on many things, especially when you throw in a resistance training session which (hopefully) keeps PS high for ~ 24 hours. When was the last meal? How much (in volume) was it? How much (in energy) was it? What was it (not in line with carbs make you fat simply saying that the faster digestion rates of certain foods will make a difference in gastric emptying).
Their are all kinds of strips, some are specific to one agent others have up to ten on the same strip.
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">It will depend on many things, especially when you throw in a resistance training session which (hopefully) keeps PS high for ~ 24 hours. When was the last meal? How much (in volume) was it? How much (in energy) was it? What was it (not in line with carbs make you fat simply saying that the faster digestion rates of certain foods will make a difference in gastric emptying).
Their are all kinds of strips, some are specific to one agent others have up to ten on the same strip. </div>
With that in mind, I've had an idea in the back of my mind that probably isn't plausible, or someone would have made a diet, a routine, a book, and a lot of money on it...but IF, after gastric emptying and some energy expenditure, you could pinpoint the time of the beginning of catabolism and eat at that point only...and continue in that manner (which is why I thought of the strips), you would be fine-tuning the cutting procedure. But I think that there is more than just catabolism as an issue. Perhaps at that point of catabolism you are WAY under maintenance calories anyway, and losing muscle regardless, unless catabolism is a TRUE marker...?
Just thinking out loud here. Or maybe I'm actually on to something?
Their are all kinds of strips, some are specific to one agent others have up to ten on the same strip. </div>
With that in mind, I've had an idea in the back of my mind that probably isn't plausible, or someone would have made a diet, a routine, a book, and a lot of money on it...but IF, after gastric emptying and some energy expenditure, you could pinpoint the time of the beginning of catabolism and eat at that point only...and continue in that manner (which is why I thought of the strips), you would be fine-tuning the cutting procedure. But I think that there is more than just catabolism as an issue. Perhaps at that point of catabolism you are WAY under maintenance calories anyway, and losing muscle regardless, unless catabolism is a TRUE marker...?
Just thinking out loud here. Or maybe I'm actually on to something?