<div> (etothepii @ Oct. 30 2006,19:43)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">People who support the six meal a day, or whatever philosophy have, I think, a valid argument against these studies. The studies measure weight change (not measured in fat gain/loss vs. muscle gain/loss) over a short period of time, with no exercise. The people who eat this way do it in order to maximixe muscle fat ratios in conjunction with exercise over extended periods -- entire bulking or cutting cycles. Frankly, these studies aren't valid under these scenarios. They may still be 100% correct. That's not what I'm arguing. But I do question their validity to body builders especially.</div> Well actually NO, what they espouse, continually I might add, is that meal frequency affects BMR or somehow increases DIT which would add to increases in TEE. This is not the case, this argument has been debated about a bizillion times here before and each time it ends up the same. Now throw in the energy expense of exercise and you have a whole another argument, which still does not validate the need for increased meal frequency, it validates the need to exercise?