Question about meal times

As much as you feel the way you do about this subject, I encountered it first hand, and my results make it optimum for me. My wife experienced the same metabolic boost when switching to 6 meals vs. 3.  I attribute my "amazing" weight loss to the 6 meals per day approach as the years before, were a struggle.  

I also learned, through bulking, my metabolism floats to meet my input. When I was eating sub-mtce, and increased my calories (it was about 600) I lost 5 pounds in three weeks. This was moving my calories up. I won't push my beliefs on you as being right for you, but for me, it works. I eat more, I lose more fat. I slow down on the food, I usually wither stall at a weight, or my gut increases slightly.  I have heard this called "starvation mode" and I have it well documented.  AS soon as I raise calories randomly, I tend to drop fat. AFter about 4 weeks, i start to gain weight (neither fat or muscle, just weight).  If I then reduce food, i stabilize.  So my personal experience has taught me the following lessons for me:

1. Metabolism FLoats up and down based on food consumption

2. MUltiple meals keep my metabolism high.

3. IT's not as clear cut as eat less, lose weight, eat more, gain weight.

Point #1: If you state the following: Eat more, weigh more -or- Eat less, weigh less, you ASSUME your metabolism is FIXED and cannot move. This, again FOR ME, is not true. Very much to my surprise.

Research wise, you may be right. Three is better. Howvever, with everything, we are ALL different being sharing similiar structures, however, nothing is 100% for everyone.
 
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">AFter about 4 weeks, i start to gain weight (neither fat or muscle, just weight)</div>

Neither fat nor muscle...there`s not much else to gain there-only water retention and undigested food could explain what you`re saying happens
rock.gif
 
I think there may some day be research showing that nutrient timeing may effect fat'muscle partitioning, but who knows for sure. I have been reading of a guy on Lyle's site who is doing an interfal fasting diet, or something like that. He eats 4500 cal per day in three meals on non lifting days, and on lifting days, he eats 500 calories pre-workout, then 4000 calories within a couple hours of working out.

That's it.

He's super lean.

This is his bulking diet. He's used it, with far fewer calories, for cutting too.
 
<div>
(JonPaul @ Jan. 24 2007,13:49)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">As much as you feel the way you do about this subject, I encountered it first hand, and my results make it optimum for me. My wife experienced the same metabolic boost when switching to 6 meals vs. 3.  I attribute my &quot;amazing&quot; weight loss to the 6 meals per day approach as the years before, were a struggle.  

I also learned, through bulking, my metabolism floats to meet my input. When I was eating sub-mtce, and increased my calories (it was about 600) I lost 5 pounds in three weeks. This was moving my calories up. I won't push my beliefs on you as being right for you, but for me, it works. I eat more, I lose more fat. I slow down on the food, I usually wither stall at a weight, or my gut increases slightly.  I have heard this called &quot;starvation mode&quot; and I have it well documented.  AS soon as I raise calories randomly, I tend to drop fat. AFter about 4 weeks, i start to gain weight (neither fat or muscle, just weight).  If I then reduce food, i stabilize.  So my personal experience has taught me the following lessons for me:

1. Metabolism FLoats up and down based on food consumption

2. MUltiple meals keep my metabolism high.

3. IT's not as clear cut as eat less, lose weight, eat more, gain weight.

Point #1: If you state the following: Eat more, weigh more -or- Eat less, weigh less, you ASSUME your metabolism is FIXED and cannot move. This, again FOR ME, is not true. Very much to my surprise.

Research wise, you may be right. Three is better. Howvever, with everything, we are ALL different being sharing similiar structures, however, nothing is 100% for everyone.</div>
I strongly agree with your post. I don't quite understand the &quot;gaining weight, neither fat nor muscle&quot; part of your post, but other than that I have experienced the same things. When cutting, I actually have better progress when I eat small amounts every 2 hours instead of 3, and calories at end of day are the same.
 
My experience has been similar to JonPaul's.

I don't believe for one second that eating only 2 or 3 times per day does not negatively affect MY metabolism.  I have first hand experience that proves that I store much less body fat when I eat frequently regardless of total calorie intake.  Even though there are studies saying different I don't believe it is as simple as calories in vs. calories out.  And I'm actually surprised that all of you think it is that simple considering how complex the human body is.
 
<div>
(Morgoth the Dark Enemy @ Jan. 24 2007,14:55)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"> <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">AFter about 4 weeks, i start to gain weight (neither fat or muscle, just weight)</div>

Neither fat nor muscle...there`s not much else to gain there-only water retention and undigested food could explain what you`re saying happens
rock.gif
</div>
Let me put a little more clearly.

I didn't notice it being muscle over fat, or fat over muscle.  In some cases it was muscle, in some it was fat. There was no real difference.  That's what I meant by that statement. One didn't stand out over the other. Heck, it could even be bone weight. We know that goes up and down.

etothepii, I agree. I think we are way to invdividual to say &quot;only this works&quot; or &quot;That's it for everybody&quot;.

On average caffiene wires people. In me, it puts me to sleep like a baby. That's because were all are NOT the same.



After seeing the last post, I have to say I agree.
If A &quot;calorie is a calorie&quot;, and you want to eat 4000 calories (your goal)why not just get all your calories in sugar? After all, a calorie is a calorie!

What is not discussed is how fast does that sugar hit your blood stream, and at that speed, sis it do any good for your body? NO. On the flip side, let's eat something that digests super slowly, over hours... of course more energy will be available from that food over sugar which is &quot;gone in sixty seconds&quot;.
 
You can believe what you want, despite the fact that studies show otherwise. Obviously what you eat can make a difference, since if you are getting no protein, you probably won't be sparing much muscle mass on a diet, but when you are on a diet, as long as calories remain the same, your weight loss will not be different when you eat more meals versus fewer.

Unfortunately, all the people who have been observed under clinical conditions have always held true to this statement. The only people who seem to somehow lose more weight by eating more meals but the same amount of calories are people who are out in the real world and aren't subject to laboratory controls.

Kinda like the fat people who claim to not lose weight on 1000 calorie diets, but once the whole thing is under someone else's control, the 1000 calorie diet miraculously starts to work. Probably because the fattie forgot to mention the 3500 calorie gorge fest they had at night.

The human body may be complex, but there is nothing magical inside it that makes things work outside of a lab that don't work inside a lab under scientific observation.
 
<div>
(JonPaul @ Jan. 24 2007,13:49)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Research wise, you may be right. Three is better. Howvever, with everything, we are ALL different being sharing similiar structures, however, nothing is 100% for everyone.</div>
I don't think you are understanding what is being said here.

No one has said that three meals is better than six meals. All that has been said is that you should eat as many or as few meals as you need to in order to reach your caloric goals.

Obviously metabolism isn't fixed either. It goes up and down, but not so much on a daily basis. Your metabolism isn't going to go down into the gutter in one day because you only ate one meal. The metabolism WILL go down after an extended period of a hypocaloric state though. But this is easily remedied by increasing calories for a week or two.

You do know that you can monitor your body temperature to see if your metabolism is actually depressed, right? Take your temp immediately upon waking in the morning for a while - that is your baseline temp. After you've been dieting for a while, you may notice that your temp in the morning goes down, that is usually a pretty good indicatory that your metabolism has become supressed.
But note that unless you are already very lean, it takes weeks for this to occur, not a matter of days.
 
It's hard to read emotion on these boards, but it seems you may be taking offense to this. If so, I am sorry.  I just have learned things by experience, and nothing will sway me from knowing what works for me, and 6+ meals &quot;work for me&quot;.  

On a side note, individuals are so individual, research cannot be 100% accurate for every human body.

GRAYS ANATOMY IS AN AVERAGE OF HUMAN CADAVERS. What does that say?  
rock.gif
 
I found anecdotal evidence to be much more valuable than pure science in my quest to obtain the kind of physique I want. Much of scientific analysis is bunk because there are too many flaws in their experiments. Using good judgement and gauging who is getting results and who is not can get you much farther in this sport than listening to a bunch of lab rats who usually aren't running experiments on bodybuilders. Plus, anecdotal evidence can lead you to the 'good' science instead of the bad. Quadancer's anecdotal evidence led me to hst. I let him worry about the science aspect, I cared more about his own personal experiences. Dr. Graham, the &quot;brilliant&quot; expert on nutrition and former coach of Martina Navratilova and many other athletes in the 80's, once wrote a book claiming that all his research on studies showed that athletes, regardless of how much they trained with weights, needed very little protein. At 16 yrs old, I followed his advice, regardless of the fact that Lee Haney and Rich Gaspari and many other bbers were telling me &quot;hey dude, eat a lot of protein if you wanna build muscle&quot; in their articles in Muscle &amp; Fitness. Oh, but I knew that they were wrong because Dr. Graham ran his studies ! Unfortunately, at that age I wasn't wise enough to pay attention to anecdotal evidence.
 
But if you followed the anecdotes in muscle and fiction, you would have been more massive than lee haney...

Lou Ferrigno has commented in the past that htat he requires little protein to grow, does that mean his anecdote is worse than lee haneys? or better?

Franco columbo recommends quite modest levels of protein compared to some around today, does that mean his anecdotes are wrong?

If Nasser comments on only eating a small amount of protien to grow, does his additional size mean his anecdote is better than rich gaspari, cos Nasser was a hell of a lot bigger?

of course there is flaws in research, but do you think there are no flaws in relatively uncontrolled ancedotes? The fun part of science is critically analysing and understanding the differences nad flaws within a peice of research. its just a tool to use, but like all tools it requires some specific training in their use and application of the concepts. MDs perform a lot of nutrition reesarch, most of which is utterly pointless and stupid, becuase they have a medical background rather than something more sutable.

Dr Graham has a doctorate from Life Chiropractic College, the closest thing to clown college that is available.

Just because somebody has a Dr in front of their name, does not make them a scientist.
 
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">of course there is flaws in research, but do you think there are no flaws in relatively uncontrolled ancedotes?  The fun part of science is critically analysing and understanding the differences nad flaws within a peice of research.</div>

Yes, if you want to be a scientist then that is fun for you.  It's not fun for me because it's not my job, therefore most of it just wastes my time.  Unfortunately, analyzing the flaws in different bbers' opinion wastes a lot of time too, just not as much.  I'm a bodybuilder, and I, like many other bbers, am interested in spending my time getting results, not reading through pages of research only to find out later that it's inept. It's far more expedient for me to quickly scan scientific studies and then scrutinize the guinea pigs (bbers), as they are easier to observe than scientific studies.  I'll overlook far more when studying lab experiments than I will by trying to discern which bber is correct.

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Lou Ferrigno has commented in the past that htat he requires little protein to grow, does that mean his anecdote is worse than lee haneys? or better?

Franco columbo recommends quite modest levels of protein compared to some around today, does that mean his anecdotes are wrong?

If Nasser comments on only eating a small amount of protien to grow, does his additional size mean his anecdote is better than rich gaspari, cos Nasser was a hell of a lot bigger?</div>

If that were Lou's &amp; Franco's advice, it would be  easy for me to discount because the number of bbers who advocate high protein diets outweigh those who don't.  High protein diets are rampant in bbing &amp; powerlifting.  Therefore, it takes me less than a second to ignore that advice.  That's a lot easier and far less time consuming than analyzing tons of scientific experiments and assessing all of the variables to determine which science is correct.
 
It's too simplistic to me to accept the word of a &quot;big&quot; guy and assume his training philosophy is ultimately correct. Maybe this BB'er holds 75% of his muscle fibers as Fast Twitch and growth is easy. Maybe he's a mesomorph. Maybe he didn't really have to work hard to build his body (we all know the types and they are NOT on this board, they don't even have to think about the why's and how's!!). Am I supposed to be impressed by this? Maybe not, since I am 80% slow twitch fibered, ectomorph and don't hardly grow even under ideal conditions....

OH but wait, not true, a study said you'd grow like a weed if you did this or that! Oh please. The studies are averages, and if you have less than average genes (in my case) then your Crap out of Luck (SOL). If it's easy for you, then beat there's someone out there that doesn't get results a certain way. They made YOU average or above average by being below average. Saying that a &quot;Study&quot; is said to do something or another is NOT directly relative to everybody, except the middle range of the average people. THe below range won't respond, and the upper range won't care...
cool.gif
 
<div>
(stevejones @ Jan. 26 2007,03:48)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Yes, if you want to be a scientist then that is fun for you.  It's not fun for me because it's not my job, therefore most of it just wastes my time.  Unfortunately, analyzing the flaws in different bbers' opinion wastes a lot of time too, just not as much.  I'm a bodybuilder, and I, like many other bbers, am interested in spending my time getting results, not reading through pages of research only to find out later that it's inept. It's far more expedient for me to quickly scan scientific studies and then scrutinize the guinea pigs (bbers), as they are easier to observe than scientific studies.  I'll overlook far more when studying lab experiments than I will by trying to discern which bber is correct.</div>
I never said you had to follow science, but to decry it because you cannot decipher things from it is a bit rich.  Anecdotes are worthless because they are associated with a large amount of bias.

If I get an anecdote from BigbodybuilderA that he gained 20lbs from upping his protein to 3g./lb, what caused this effect?

protein?

or something else he isnt telling us?  maybe the extra gram of test he injected a week?

Or the guy saying his high calorie diet caused the best fat loss ever, while avoiding mentioning the 600mg of DNP he took a day?

But then on that tangent, Who is the best bodybuilder in the world?

Doe he train HST?

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">If that were Lou's &amp; Franco's advice, it would be  easy for me to discount because the number of bbers who advocate high protein diets outweigh those who don't.  High protein diets are rampant in bbing &amp; powerlifting.  .</div>

Both sports have something else in common, rampant use of drugs... hmmm I wonder where the application of massive protein intakes fits with that?  Oh and in terms of PL, you would be surprised how low protein some of the strongest men in the world eat... but drugs work well.

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Therefore, it takes me less than a second to ignore that advice.  </div>

of course, which is where the biases come into it, just as the people who are eating multiple times per day look at the bbrs doing it and conclude this is part of the reasons bbrs look like they do.  

Two things can be correlative, but does not mean that is the cause of it.  cum hoc ergo propter hoc if ya like latin.

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">That's a lot easier and far less time consuming than analyzing tons of scientific experiments and assessing all of the variables to determine which science is correct</div>
Of course, which leads to fantastic Bro-logic that abounds on Bbing.com and similar websites. It also leads to fantastic quantities of money being spent on pointless supplements, but thats anotehr industry.
 
<div>
(JonPaul @ Jan. 26 2007,08:45)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">The studies are averages</div>
Studies provide ranges, confidence intervals and similar.

As the sample size increases, its mean and distribution start to represent the populations true mean and distribution.

Which is why when you go to a doctor for medical treatment, he bases his decisions on a scientific evidence base and then alters it to suit you.
He wont just randomly grab approaches becuase Bill in Springfield once took A for B and saw a result.
 
<div>
(quadancer @ Jan. 26 2007,08:11)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I listen to Steve's anecdotes because he is twice my size!  
laugh.gif


Actually, you're both right.</div>
Ronnie is the biggest, so you should do what he does


tounge.gif
 
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I listen to Steve's anecdotes because he is twice my size!</div>

Sometimes my stuff works for you, sometimes it doesn't, and I experience the same thing pertaining to your advice.  Fortunately, both you and I were getting our asses kicked on that high volume program we were using, so your advice for HST was very valuable to me (even though I was bothered by you talking about it at first).  What kept me interested was your personal experiences with it.  Since you and I have similiar problems with our chests, I pay close attention when you talk about chest growth.  

The most frustrating part of learning about my body was cutting.   I'll never listen to a steroid user again when it comes to cutting.  I believe it's just a different world for them, even when their natural metabolism might be similiar to mine.  However, I don't regret trying an unnamed steroid user's advice.  At least I learned what not to do (for me as a natural..once I'm on drugs, and I definitely will be some day--things change).    So, these are just examples of using anecdotes to help you in bbing.  

Now, what was the initial topic of this thread again ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top