Question about meal times
- Thread starter s2b33
- Start date
scientific muscle
New Member
I read that apart about drugs. But if you go by appearance or strength...you most likely will be picking drug users. I don't think anecdotes are worthless, I just think you are being stubborn in your view of them.
Speaking of anecdotes....how did you get so strong steve? What program did you use to develop the majority of your strength before starting HST? I trust your word that you are natural, and I am curious what has worked for you. I am really interested in getting as strong as possible, and I am currently developing a routine based on my research of other systems and anecdotes like you are useful in my research!
(*-sorry, that this is off-topic, this whole thread has gotten off-topic anyway!)
Speaking of anecdotes....how did you get so strong steve? What program did you use to develop the majority of your strength before starting HST? I trust your word that you are natural, and I am curious what has worked for you. I am really interested in getting as strong as possible, and I am currently developing a routine based on my research of other systems and anecdotes like you are useful in my research!
(*-sorry, that this is off-topic, this whole thread has gotten off-topic anyway!)
stevejones
Member
<div>
(scientific muscle @ Jan. 27 2007,10:43)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I read that apart about drugs. But if you go by appearance or strength...you most likely will be picking drug users. I don't think anecdotes are worthless, I just think you are being stubborn in your view of them.
Speaking of anecdotes....how did you get so strong steve? What program did you use to develop the majority of your strength before starting HST? I trust your word that you are natural, and I am curious what has worked for you. I am really interested in getting as strong as possible, and I am currently developing a routine based on my research of other systems and anecdotes like you are useful in my research!
(*-sorry, that this is off-topic, this whole thread has gotten off-topic anyway!)</div>
Well, I try to be as selective as possible when taking advice based on anecdotes, but you can't ever be 100% positive of anything on the internet, or...even in person for that matter. What anecdotes really help me do is to become interested in the science and then decide that it's worth my time to read up on it.
I'm not incredibly strong, but can be just somewhat competitive. Pound for pound, joe.muscle is stronger than me, or at least he was. I highly doubt I will ever be able to bench press 500 lbs (raw) unless I'm drugs, but time will tell (and there are natural guys who can do that). If I do ever get there it's going to be a long ride that will require patience. On things like the deadlift, I'm just gifted (long arms, big hands, short compact torso, etc.). Even so, I don't believe I am gifted enough to get to 800 lbs (as a natural). Anyway, I could go on forever about all this impertinent info...
I started using MuscleNow, which is a high volume program. I made great gains using the program and thought it was terrific in the beginning. Then, I hit a wall. Once my strength stopped going up, my body was staying the same. So, the administrator of the board suggested I use DC, and I loved it. I was getting stronger again. Unfortunately, this is when I began to pack on tons of weight, both fat and muscle (but mostly fat).
I really got into strength during that period, studied Westside, picked up many books on strength (which is why I recognized Vladimir Z in Dan's post..thought that was cool). DC got to be too much for me. Dante's program involves some very highly stressful short sets and they are best done with a training partner. I never had a good partner, so I got into Westside and some progressive weight resistance methods that I combined with MuscleNow.
In all those different programs I used, one thing remained consistent--my focus on strength. If I wasn't gaining strength I was upset. If my absolute strength wasn't getting better I at least had to be doing more reps with whatever weight. I also ate a ton. I was obese and didn't care. If I was getting stronger I was happy.
Eventually, despite combining other programs with MuscleNow to give myself rest, MuscleNow was burning me out. I could just tell it was zapping my strength, and I hated that. So, I was on the board whining about it and Quadancer posted some stuff about HST and it ticked me off that he was mentioning other programs, so I basically said I was going to go play with my toys elsewhere.
Then I thought about it, and it seemed like Quad and I were experiencing the same thing, and ...yes, while I am larger than him, our basic structures are not that different. Quad is no light weight, and I'm not some dude with this enormous frame like Mendelson (yes, he was large even before drugs). So, I read up on HST and gave it a go. Thus far, I am very pleased in the way it has helped me recover from my overtrained state while also helping me to become stronger. Progressive resistance works very well.
I am not sure how long I will stay with it, because I'm currently doing Ed Coan's PR bench program and might add another progressive resistance training program into the mix. Whatever I do in the future, I'm almost certain it will be based on progressive resistance. I like it and it helps me to get stronger quicker than anything else I have tried, including Westside.
P.S. Nope, I've never done steroids or pro hormones...I live on food, one multi-vitamin, extra vit. C, and glucosamine for the joints. I really should throw some creatine into the mix but I keep forgetting. I don't know enough about that yet to realize which kind I should get, but I will get there
(scientific muscle @ Jan. 27 2007,10:43)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I read that apart about drugs. But if you go by appearance or strength...you most likely will be picking drug users. I don't think anecdotes are worthless, I just think you are being stubborn in your view of them.
Speaking of anecdotes....how did you get so strong steve? What program did you use to develop the majority of your strength before starting HST? I trust your word that you are natural, and I am curious what has worked for you. I am really interested in getting as strong as possible, and I am currently developing a routine based on my research of other systems and anecdotes like you are useful in my research!
(*-sorry, that this is off-topic, this whole thread has gotten off-topic anyway!)</div>
Well, I try to be as selective as possible when taking advice based on anecdotes, but you can't ever be 100% positive of anything on the internet, or...even in person for that matter. What anecdotes really help me do is to become interested in the science and then decide that it's worth my time to read up on it.
I'm not incredibly strong, but can be just somewhat competitive. Pound for pound, joe.muscle is stronger than me, or at least he was. I highly doubt I will ever be able to bench press 500 lbs (raw) unless I'm drugs, but time will tell (and there are natural guys who can do that). If I do ever get there it's going to be a long ride that will require patience. On things like the deadlift, I'm just gifted (long arms, big hands, short compact torso, etc.). Even so, I don't believe I am gifted enough to get to 800 lbs (as a natural). Anyway, I could go on forever about all this impertinent info...
I started using MuscleNow, which is a high volume program. I made great gains using the program and thought it was terrific in the beginning. Then, I hit a wall. Once my strength stopped going up, my body was staying the same. So, the administrator of the board suggested I use DC, and I loved it. I was getting stronger again. Unfortunately, this is when I began to pack on tons of weight, both fat and muscle (but mostly fat).
I really got into strength during that period, studied Westside, picked up many books on strength (which is why I recognized Vladimir Z in Dan's post..thought that was cool). DC got to be too much for me. Dante's program involves some very highly stressful short sets and they are best done with a training partner. I never had a good partner, so I got into Westside and some progressive weight resistance methods that I combined with MuscleNow.
In all those different programs I used, one thing remained consistent--my focus on strength. If I wasn't gaining strength I was upset. If my absolute strength wasn't getting better I at least had to be doing more reps with whatever weight. I also ate a ton. I was obese and didn't care. If I was getting stronger I was happy.
Eventually, despite combining other programs with MuscleNow to give myself rest, MuscleNow was burning me out. I could just tell it was zapping my strength, and I hated that. So, I was on the board whining about it and Quadancer posted some stuff about HST and it ticked me off that he was mentioning other programs, so I basically said I was going to go play with my toys elsewhere.
Then I thought about it, and it seemed like Quad and I were experiencing the same thing, and ...yes, while I am larger than him, our basic structures are not that different. Quad is no light weight, and I'm not some dude with this enormous frame like Mendelson (yes, he was large even before drugs). So, I read up on HST and gave it a go. Thus far, I am very pleased in the way it has helped me recover from my overtrained state while also helping me to become stronger. Progressive resistance works very well.
I am not sure how long I will stay with it, because I'm currently doing Ed Coan's PR bench program and might add another progressive resistance training program into the mix. Whatever I do in the future, I'm almost certain it will be based on progressive resistance. I like it and it helps me to get stronger quicker than anything else I have tried, including Westside.
P.S. Nope, I've never done steroids or pro hormones...I live on food, one multi-vitamin, extra vit. C, and glucosamine for the joints. I really should throw some creatine into the mix but I keep forgetting. I don't know enough about that yet to realize which kind I should get, but I will get there
I've known Steve some years now, as we went through MuscleNow and DC together, and we've bucked heads on everything from religion to form issues, agreed to disagree at times and remained associates in iron regardless. I am 100% sure he has never done AA's or Ph's; he just hasn't needed them, not reaching genetic limits yet, as he said. We split up in HST: he went for strength and I went for hypertrophy. I've gone for strength after a lot of HST cycles and finally slowing down to no gains. I'll be back on HST soon, though, alternating the two.
And yes, Steve is a hardhead. But always logical, and that keeps us friends.
And yes, Steve is a hardhead. But always logical, and that keeps us friends.
So anyway, it's easy to assess someone's genetics? Not really sure how that is so unless you have some sort of DNA analysis augmentation implanted in your eyeballs. So you ask them maybe? Yeah, that's reliable. How many people claim to be "mesomorphs" or endomorphs when they clearly aren't even anything close to what a mesomorph is suppoed to be? Maybe you ask them how they started out... How many people are going to be honest about how they started out?
Anecdotes are usually worthless because people are rarely totally honest. You think so and so is natural? Think again. A lot of guys claim to be natural and aren't. Or they claim to be natural but didn't used to be. My brother is friends with a guy trying to break the world record for clean and jerk. This guy is my height but almost 300 lbs. He isn't that fat, claims he is natural... I think we all know he isn't, but he is adamant.
That's the thing about anecdotes - you have to take the person's word for it, which means that there is no method of review or any way to prove it wrong. Unlike studies, which are subject to the scientific method. At least with studies, you can read the conditions and then conclude whether the study is objective or not.
Anecdotes are usually worthless because people are rarely totally honest. You think so and so is natural? Think again. A lot of guys claim to be natural and aren't. Or they claim to be natural but didn't used to be. My brother is friends with a guy trying to break the world record for clean and jerk. This guy is my height but almost 300 lbs. He isn't that fat, claims he is natural... I think we all know he isn't, but he is adamant.
That's the thing about anecdotes - you have to take the person's word for it, which means that there is no method of review or any way to prove it wrong. Unlike studies, which are subject to the scientific method. At least with studies, you can read the conditions and then conclude whether the study is objective or not.
scientific muscle
New Member
<div>
(Totentanz @ Jan. 27 2007,16:39)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">So anyway, it's easy to assess someone's genetics? Not really sure how that is so unless you have some sort of DNA analysis augmentation implanted in your eyeballs. So you ask them maybe? Yeah, that's reliable. How many people claim to be "mesomorphs" or endomorphs when they clearly aren't even anything close to what a mesomorph is suppoed to be? Maybe you ask them how they started out... How many people are going to be honest about how they started out?
Anecdotes are usually worthless because people are rarely totally honest. You think so and so is natural? Think again. A lot of guys claim to be natural and aren't. Or they claim to be natural but didn't used to be. My brother is friends with a guy trying to break the world record for clean and jerk. This guy is my height but almost 300 lbs. He isn't that fat, claims he is natural... I think we all know he isn't, but he is adamant.
That's the thing about anecdotes - you have to take the person's word for it, which means that there is no method of review or any way to prove it wrong. Unlike studies, which are subject to the scientific method. At least with studies, you can read the conditions and then conclude whether the study is objective or not.</div>
EXACTLY! They aren't worthless, but you really have to use anecdotes with a grain of salt.
e.g.- I wouldn't mind being as strong as Marius, but I certainly am not going to train like him.
(Totentanz @ Jan. 27 2007,16:39)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">So anyway, it's easy to assess someone's genetics? Not really sure how that is so unless you have some sort of DNA analysis augmentation implanted in your eyeballs. So you ask them maybe? Yeah, that's reliable. How many people claim to be "mesomorphs" or endomorphs when they clearly aren't even anything close to what a mesomorph is suppoed to be? Maybe you ask them how they started out... How many people are going to be honest about how they started out?
Anecdotes are usually worthless because people are rarely totally honest. You think so and so is natural? Think again. A lot of guys claim to be natural and aren't. Or they claim to be natural but didn't used to be. My brother is friends with a guy trying to break the world record for clean and jerk. This guy is my height but almost 300 lbs. He isn't that fat, claims he is natural... I think we all know he isn't, but he is adamant.
That's the thing about anecdotes - you have to take the person's word for it, which means that there is no method of review or any way to prove it wrong. Unlike studies, which are subject to the scientific method. At least with studies, you can read the conditions and then conclude whether the study is objective or not.</div>
EXACTLY! They aren't worthless, but you really have to use anecdotes with a grain of salt.
e.g.- I wouldn't mind being as strong as Marius, but I certainly am not going to train like him.
stevejones
Member
Like you said, this 300 lb claims he's natural, but you know better. There's a chance you might be wrong, but I doubt it. I think I would trust your assessment, just as I trust mine. Just the fact that he's trying to break the world record in the clean and jerk should tell you something.
I've been to plifting meets where I know the person giving me advice is physically superior to me (for strength). Just born that way. His hip structure is just huge. So, he might be able to do this extreme heavy weight with good mornings to enhance his squat, but that's something my body can't do without risk of injury.
I've been to plifting meets where I know the person giving me advice is physically superior to me (for strength). Just born that way. His hip structure is just huge. So, he might be able to do this extreme heavy weight with good mornings to enhance his squat, but that's something my body can't do without risk of injury.
neener neener neener
THE EFFECT OF MEAL FREQUENCY ON BODY COMPOSITION DURING 12-WEEKS OF STRENGTH TRAINING
Hansen Øyvind1, Fostervold Mathisen Therese2, Raastad
Truls 2
(Institute of Basic Medical Sciences, University of Oslo1,
Norwegian School of Sport Sciences2, Norway)
Human trials on the effect of meal frequency on body composition are scarce. Short-term studies show increased rate of protein synthesis immediately after intake of amino acids [1], and frequent meals are shown to aid in the preservation of lean body mass when dieting [2]. Consequently it could be hypothesised that in response to strength training, more frequent meals will give larger muscle mass accumulation and lower fat mass (FM) than fewer meals. The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of 3 vs. 6meals per day on changes in body composition in young men and women performing strength training over 12 weeks. Men (n=33) and women (n=15) aged 21 to 35 with at least one year of previous strength training experience were randomly assigned to either a 6 meals a day group or a 3 meals a day group. The prescribed total dietary intake in both groups was equal and calculated to give a positive energy balance of approximately 1200 KJ/day, a protein intake of 1.5-1.7 g/kg/day and a carbohydrate intake of 5-7 g/kg/day. During the training period the dietary intake was controlled by repeated 24-hours recalls. All participants performed the same strength training program, training four times per week, giving each muscle group one heavy session and one light session per week. In the heavy sessions, training intensity varied between 10 and 3 RM sets, and 3-6 sets were performed in each exercise. Determination of body composition was performed with DEXA at the beginning of and immediately after the training period. A total of 16 men and 11 women completed the project. After multiple regression analysis the 3 meal group had a significant greater gain in lean body mass (LBM) than the 6 meal group when adjusted for gender and energy intake (p=0.04), when adjusted for gender and protein intake (p=0.03), and when adjusted for gender, protein intake, carbohydrate intake and fat intake* (p=0.01). (*: Fat intake in g/kg body weight/day showed significance on LBM, p=0.03). No significant differences in regional changes in LBM were observed, although there was a tendency towards a greater gain in the three meal group. There were no significant differences in change in fat mass (FM) between the groups, but a tendency towards a greater gain in the three meal group, 7.33% (-5.23, 19.90), p=0.24. The three meal group had a 2.87%(0.62, 5.12) larger weight gain than the six meal group, p=0.01.The participants had a 2.31% (0.83, 3.79), gain in bone mineral density of the spine during the twelve weeks of strength training, p<0.01, but there were no differences between the groups. In this study, three meals per day resulted in larger muscle gain from strength training than six meals per day over a period of twelve weeks. The reason why 3 meals a day was superior to 6 meals a day in this study needs further investigation. More long-term studies are needed to determine the optimal meal frequency for gain in LBM from strength training.
THE EFFECT OF MEAL FREQUENCY ON BODY COMPOSITION DURING 12-WEEKS OF STRENGTH TRAINING
Hansen Øyvind1, Fostervold Mathisen Therese2, Raastad
Truls 2
(Institute of Basic Medical Sciences, University of Oslo1,
Norwegian School of Sport Sciences2, Norway)
Human trials on the effect of meal frequency on body composition are scarce. Short-term studies show increased rate of protein synthesis immediately after intake of amino acids [1], and frequent meals are shown to aid in the preservation of lean body mass when dieting [2]. Consequently it could be hypothesised that in response to strength training, more frequent meals will give larger muscle mass accumulation and lower fat mass (FM) than fewer meals. The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of 3 vs. 6meals per day on changes in body composition in young men and women performing strength training over 12 weeks. Men (n=33) and women (n=15) aged 21 to 35 with at least one year of previous strength training experience were randomly assigned to either a 6 meals a day group or a 3 meals a day group. The prescribed total dietary intake in both groups was equal and calculated to give a positive energy balance of approximately 1200 KJ/day, a protein intake of 1.5-1.7 g/kg/day and a carbohydrate intake of 5-7 g/kg/day. During the training period the dietary intake was controlled by repeated 24-hours recalls. All participants performed the same strength training program, training four times per week, giving each muscle group one heavy session and one light session per week. In the heavy sessions, training intensity varied between 10 and 3 RM sets, and 3-6 sets were performed in each exercise. Determination of body composition was performed with DEXA at the beginning of and immediately after the training period. A total of 16 men and 11 women completed the project. After multiple regression analysis the 3 meal group had a significant greater gain in lean body mass (LBM) than the 6 meal group when adjusted for gender and energy intake (p=0.04), when adjusted for gender and protein intake (p=0.03), and when adjusted for gender, protein intake, carbohydrate intake and fat intake* (p=0.01). (*: Fat intake in g/kg body weight/day showed significance on LBM, p=0.03). No significant differences in regional changes in LBM were observed, although there was a tendency towards a greater gain in the three meal group. There were no significant differences in change in fat mass (FM) between the groups, but a tendency towards a greater gain in the three meal group, 7.33% (-5.23, 19.90), p=0.24. The three meal group had a 2.87%(0.62, 5.12) larger weight gain than the six meal group, p=0.01.The participants had a 2.31% (0.83, 3.79), gain in bone mineral density of the spine during the twelve weeks of strength training, p<0.01, but there were no differences between the groups. In this study, three meals per day resulted in larger muscle gain from strength training than six meals per day over a period of twelve weeks. The reason why 3 meals a day was superior to 6 meals a day in this study needs further investigation. More long-term studies are needed to determine the optimal meal frequency for gain in LBM from strength training.
Two words. Intermittant Fasting.
You don't really need to eat 6 small meals a day. If you are the typical musclehead eating 400 grams of protein per day, its a lot easier to do this with 6 meals, and you probably feel a lot less like vomiting if you split it up into 6 meals.
With Intermittant Fasting, the studies have shown a huge increase in insulin sensitivity. Your body adapts to not having food for longer periods of time by becoming more efficient when it finally gets food. There are limits to this, of course. If you go for too long without eating, you are going to lose lbm. It is certainly longer than the bullshit 2 to 3 hours most folks preach.
Not to mention, its so much easier to just go to work in the morning without preparing 4 friggen meals. After work, come home to a nice protein shake. After that settles, then a couple of nice high protein meals. It is so easy.
You don't really need to eat 6 small meals a day. If you are the typical musclehead eating 400 grams of protein per day, its a lot easier to do this with 6 meals, and you probably feel a lot less like vomiting if you split it up into 6 meals.
With Intermittant Fasting, the studies have shown a huge increase in insulin sensitivity. Your body adapts to not having food for longer periods of time by becoming more efficient when it finally gets food. There are limits to this, of course. If you go for too long without eating, you are going to lose lbm. It is certainly longer than the bullshit 2 to 3 hours most folks preach.
Not to mention, its so much easier to just go to work in the morning without preparing 4 friggen meals. After work, come home to a nice protein shake. After that settles, then a couple of nice high protein meals. It is so easy.
yeah, i've been wondering about meal frequency too. okay, so LET'S SAY that 3 meals works just as good (or possibly better) than 5-6 meals (hypothetically at the moment). if i was to do this, well, damn i'd have to be eating a LOT in those 3 meals, how would i manage that hey? but then AGAIN, i really struggled when i started eating 5 meals but then got used to it and am fine with it now. i could possibly eat even 4 meals, with the last 2 being at the end of the day... hmmm... is that a wise thing to do though? eat the majority (half actually) of your calories at say 6:30pm and 9:30pm??? cos i know that some of the guys here are eating only three meals and are gaining lean body mass, can you guys talk to me a bit bout that and how you umm, how to say this.... stuff the food down??? LOL 
just throwin round ideas peoples!!!
interesting topic that i'd like to discuss more...
just throwin round ideas peoples!!!
interesting topic that i'd like to discuss more...
Simple, Simon.
Density. Fats are high in cals, leaving the bulk problem in the P/C arena. Leave off the foods that are more 'fluff' and you have less volume to eat. The only problem I see with that is the veggies, which you need to eat, are not really dense.
I still find it easier to munch all day...a bag of trail mix is a LOT of cals and easy on the palate! Bananas and apples. Nuts.
Density. Fats are high in cals, leaving the bulk problem in the P/C arena. Leave off the foods that are more 'fluff' and you have less volume to eat. The only problem I see with that is the veggies, which you need to eat, are not really dense.
I still find it easier to munch all day...a bag of trail mix is a LOT of cals and easy on the palate! Bananas and apples. Nuts.
Simon:
The point is to eat however many meals YOU need to. What fits your daily schedule? Whatever is easiest for you to maintain day after day is what you should do.
Personally, I usually count calories when I am bulking or cutting, so how many meals doesn't matter one bit. I just eat until I've hit my calorie goal, then I don't eat anymore. Depending on what day it is, that can be anywhere from 1 to 8 meals, if you count snacks.
From a standpoint of what the studies show, it won't really matter. How many calories you eat trumps when you eat them. It won't matter when you are eating or in what ratios if you aren't eating enough calories or are eating too many for your goals.
The point is to eat however many meals YOU need to. What fits your daily schedule? Whatever is easiest for you to maintain day after day is what you should do.
Personally, I usually count calories when I am bulking or cutting, so how many meals doesn't matter one bit. I just eat until I've hit my calorie goal, then I don't eat anymore. Depending on what day it is, that can be anywhere from 1 to 8 meals, if you count snacks.
From a standpoint of what the studies show, it won't really matter. How many calories you eat trumps when you eat them. It won't matter when you are eating or in what ratios if you aren't eating enough calories or are eating too many for your goals.
I think eventually, studies will show how and when to eat for the best muscle gains. I think that day is a long way off.
I've read so much bull on diet, its not even funny. I wish that I would have found Lyle's books on diet (and that they had been written back then) 20 years ago.
Everyone is a self-proclaimed expert. Eat low-fat, eat low-carb, eat excrement, blah, blah, blah...
I did a little research on what my ancestors ate and what they thrived on. It was an eye opener. Fruit, vegetables, beef, poutry, pork, cheese, honey, mead, beer, whiskey. Of course, I have a feeling they may have labored a little harder than I currently do (computer programmer).
Of course, the ancestors from the Irish side of the family would have been fined if they were overweight. I'd imagine that this helped them to stay slim.
I've read so much bull on diet, its not even funny. I wish that I would have found Lyle's books on diet (and that they had been written back then) 20 years ago.
Everyone is a self-proclaimed expert. Eat low-fat, eat low-carb, eat excrement, blah, blah, blah...
I did a little research on what my ancestors ate and what they thrived on. It was an eye opener. Fruit, vegetables, beef, poutry, pork, cheese, honey, mead, beer, whiskey. Of course, I have a feeling they may have labored a little harder than I currently do (computer programmer).
Of course, the ancestors from the Irish side of the family would have been fined if they were overweight. I'd imagine that this helped them to stay slim.
thanks for the help guys!
hey guys, i just um found this article by Lyle Mcdonald: http://www.thinkmuscle.com/articles/mcdonald/baseline-diet-01.htm
and on http://bodyrecomposition.com/Articles/baseline1.html
and he's saying that 4-6 meals is better here! now i'm really confused......... lol
i know that on the bodyrecomposition.com there's supposed to be articles against this (well not AGAINST, but in favour of other options), can someone note where exactly that is???
thanks heaps!
Simon
hey guys, i just um found this article by Lyle Mcdonald: http://www.thinkmuscle.com/articles/mcdonald/baseline-diet-01.htm
and on http://bodyrecomposition.com/Articles/baseline1.html
and he's saying that 4-6 meals is better here! now i'm really confused......... lol
i know that on the bodyrecomposition.com there's supposed to be articles against this (well not AGAINST, but in favour of other options), can someone note where exactly that is???
thanks heaps!
Simon
Bulldog
Active Member
I think this line from the "Think muscle" newsletter says it best.
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">The biggest part of this is because it's difficult to consume sufficient calories for mass gains in only three meals.</div>
I don't have that problem because I only need about 3,000 calories per day to grow (I only weigh around 160 lb.). I can easily eat that much in 3 meals. Sometimes only two meals will do it for me. I just need to eat more calorie dense food. Obviously if you are over 200 lb. and very active it would be a lot tougher to do in 3 meals.
Bottom line....Eat as many times as you need to to reach your daily calorie intake goal.
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">The biggest part of this is because it's difficult to consume sufficient calories for mass gains in only three meals.</div>
I don't have that problem because I only need about 3,000 calories per day to grow (I only weigh around 160 lb.). I can easily eat that much in 3 meals. Sometimes only two meals will do it for me. I just need to eat more calorie dense food. Obviously if you are over 200 lb. and very active it would be a lot tougher to do in 3 meals.
Bottom line....Eat as many times as you need to to reach your daily calorie intake goal.