Debate on wheter 3 or 6 meals is better for utilizing calories

Will Heffernan

cowzerp wrote: »

I also run a club and am a S&C coach-plus have a few different Nutrition Qualifications and neither are right or wrong-the argument is more about the wrong use of words and quite pointless as it's going nowhere-leave it at that lads as it's off topic and not about supplements anyway, take it to fitness or Nutrition if you's want to carry on the Nutrition debate.


Now please get back on topic and give Supplement advice.

Only too happy to take the debate any where you want Paul. Because this is one of those situations here on boards where someone states something as though it is fact...they get it wrong...they get corrected and it turns into a crap storm because that someone feels like their 'internet credibility' has been tarnished and has to keep trying to fight the good fight.

Siochain could of just said...'Is that right? Tell me more.' or could of presented some evidence to support their argument....that doesn't happen and when we get right down to it...they have nothing to back up the statement but personal experience.

You can say there is no right or wrong like there is some debate about whether siochain is correct...there isn't...he's wrong.

He stated that:

'If you spread your existing daily total calories over 6 portions instead of the usually big 3 it will help as the body will utilize the calories more efficiently.'

Increased meal frequency has never been shown to improve calorie utilisation and efficency.

Simple as that. It isn't a niether is right or wrong situation. It is just not correct.

I tried not to take the thread off topic. I stated over and over again that I was happy to debate this and actually illustrate how flawed and incorrect this statement was anywhere that siochain or a mod deemed more appropriate. I didn't do it here because unlike siochain while we've been busy having this debate I've been busy doing my own little mini literature review to the extent where I've actually been searching for research to try to give some support to siochain's argument and as a counter point to my own and I don't think that the majority of people would be interested in seeing all the material I've collected.

Just so I'm not viewed as being the bad guy or derailing the thread...which I think I tried hard to avoid...I can only say lets take it elsewhere so many times after all...what I will do is to make a post regarding a quick summary of supplements and their efficy with regards MMA.

So lastly...to siochain start a thread anywhere you like as I said numerous times and send me a link and I'll be more than happy to debate meal frequency and it's impact on calorie utilisation and efficiency with you...and by debate I mean show you that you're wrong

siochain

doing something doesn't for a living doesn't make anyone an expert in what they do. That’s one thing about the boom years in Ireland cowboys popped up all over the place.

I have already said it was down to personal experience and by having many years with a personal interest in sports and nutrition. Will hasn’t offered anything to this tread apart from saying your wrong and picking holes in sentences that have nothing to do with the subject.

I’m not claiming to be 100% right on this (go ahead and repost the one sentence for the 5th time) and you are, so again since you’re so sure and the so called professional on this topic please enlighten me how calories spread over 6 meals in no better than over 3 for an athlete.


Don’t let your own little mini literature review go to waste.

Over and out and look forward to your tread.

brianthebard

Did this get sent over here from a different forum?

Will Heffernan

brianthebard wrote: »

Did this get sent over here from a different forum?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055951072

d'Oracle

siochain wrote: »

doing something doesn't for a living doesn't make anyone an expert in what they do. That’s one thing about the boom years in Ireland cowboys popped up all over the place.

You do realise that Will is more experienced Strength and conditioning coaches in the country don't you?

brianthebard

Ah, was wondering if a mod moved it over without saying anything. Anyways, I don't really have a question about the number of meals one should have, but is there anything to the idea of increasing calorie utilisation and efficency? Are there times when a person can make better use of their food?

Will Heffernan

d'Oracle wrote: »

You do realise that Will is more experienced Strength and conditioning coaches in the country don't you?

You mean oldest don't you? Don't worry...you can say it...you won't hurt my feelings...I'm so old that I am numb inside and out.

Doug Cartel

siochain wrote: »

please enlighten me how calories spread over 6 meals in no better than over 3 for an athlete.

Your null hypothesis has to be that - provided the total amount of food consumed remains constant - it makes no difference if you eat 3 or 6 meals a day. You'll then need to produce evidence to reject that hypothesis.

I will say that in my uneducated opinion, having more meals helps if you're trying to eat more so you can train harder. I would also guess that if you're trying to eat less, having regular meals might cut down on your temptation to snack.(EDIT: Of course this is a separate issue to the original topic)

LightningBolt

This will be interesting to read some of the more qualified people's thoughts on this. Personally I've found in the past that I'd eat more meals if bulking up which makes a lot of sense, I'd eat up to 7 times a day.

When trying to shift a few pounds I've taken to eating less frequently so would only eat three normal meals with a small piece of fruit in between. I found when trying to cut and follow a macro nutrient specific diet spread over 6 meals that my food became very bland and boring and I'd have trouble sticking to what I'd planned to eat. Reduce it to three big meals and I found myself enjoying my food more as there was more variety in it.

Whether or not what I did was efficient or not I don't know but it was certainly a lot easier mentally to go through when cutting and not worrying as much about macro breakdowns.

Will Heffernan

brianthebard wrote: »

Ah, was wondering if a mod moved it over without saying anything. Anyways, I don't really have a question about the number of meals one should have, but is there anything to the idea of increasing calorie utilisation and efficency? Are there times when a person can make better use of their food?

Are you trying to derail this thread right from the get go....take it immediately off on a tangent....is that what you are doing? Because if it is....I like your style:)

cardio,shoot me

Will, your fighting an uphill battle , i argued this with a few people here a while back , ended up going in circles.

cowzerp

brianthebard wrote: »

Did this get sent over here from a different forum?

Sorry i thought it was clear, i sent it over as its more suitable for here..

Thanks.

JJayoo

It would be a pain in the ass for an athlete to try and get his calories from just three sessions of chow.

brianthebard

Will Heffernan wrote: »

Are you trying to derail this thread right from the get go....take it immediately off on a tangent....is that what you are doing? Because if it is....I like your style:)

Lol well I would see it as a parallel topic. For instance i have a pot of B vitamins here on the desk and one of the benefits listed is that it/they release energy from foods. Is this bull****? If its not bull****, does a lack or B vitamins mean someone will have problems absorbing all the calories/nutrition of their food? Any other examples would be cool too, its not something I'd thought of much before this week.

Doug Cartel

brianthebard wrote: »

For instance i have a pot of B vitamins here on the desk and one of the benefits listed is that it/they release energy from foods. Is this bull****? If its not bull****, does a lack or B vitamins mean someone will have problems absorbing all the calories/nutrition of their food? Any other examples would be cool too, its not something I'd thought of much before this week.

That's a whole other thread.

brianthebard

Threads' about utilizing calories isn't it?

Doug Cartel

brianthebard wrote: »

Threads' about utilizing calories isn't it?

It's about whether the number of meals you use to get your calories (significantly) affects how those calories are utilised.

brianthebard

Doug Cartel wrote: »

It's about whether the number of meals you use to get your calories (significantly) affects how those calories are utilised.

Fine. Let me rephrase it, just for you, so that we make sure to avoid any possibility of going further off topic.

brianthebard wrote: »

Lol well I would see it as a parallel topic. For instance i have a pot of B vitamins here on the desk and one of the benefits listed is that it/they release energy from foodswhich one eats between three and six times a day. Is this bull****, if you are eating six meals a day already? If its not bull****, does a lack or B vitamins mean someone will have problems absorbing all the calories/nutrition of their food that they eat during their six meals a day? Any other examples would be cool too, its not something I'd thought of much before this week.

You're welcome.

Doug Cartel

It would be so easy for you to start a new thread asking about B vitamins, if that's what you're interested in.

If you would like, I could start if for you.

Will Heffernan

Just wanted to make a quick post just for the sake of clarity.

siochain made a post stating that:

'If you spread your existing daily total calories over 6 portions instead of the usually big 3 it will help as the body will utilize the calories more efficiently.'

I made the comment that this simply wasn't true. Simple as that. I did my best to not derail the thread or to take it off topic.

Happy to talk about anything and everything in this thread...it's mine...so lets wreck it...it'll keep me out of all those other great threads on boards.

Firstly, I am not a nutritionist and I don't pretend to be one....not even on the internet....I have worked on some nutrition related projects...and as part of those projects I had to do a lot of reading...so there are some particular issues I've read a lot about.

So, nothing is off topic but a lot of stuff I have no clue about.

cowzerp

Will Heffernan wrote: »

Just wanted to make a quick post just for the sake of clarity.

siochain made a post stating that:

'If you spread your existing daily total calories over 6 portions instead of the usually big 3 it will help as the body will utilize the calories more efficiently.'

I made the comment that this simply wasn't true. Simple as that. I did my best to not derail the thread or to take it off topic.

Happy to talk about anything and everything in this thread...it's mine...so lets wreck it...it'll keep me out of all those other great threads on boards.

Firstly, I am not a nutritionist and I don't pretend to be one....not even on the internet....I have worked on some nutrition related projects...and as part of those projects I had to do a lot of reading...so there are some particular issues I've read a lot about.

So, nothing is off topic but a lot of stuff I have no clue about.

Ok im not going to categorally say your right or wrong on the subject as i feel your maybe been a bit harsh, it depends how you view it imo! what do you feel about this below?

If your talking 3 large meals as opposed to moderate meals v 6 small meals equaling the value of the 3 large ones i think in the 3 large meals a lot of nutrients wont be used up as the body will only take what is needed so x amount of vitamins and minerals will be void! basically wee'd out, so in that case the body will have more chance of taking all of the vitamins, minerals from the smaller meals as they are arriving in smaller doses and been used more likely.

Will Heffernan

Doug Cartel wrote: »

Your null hypothesis has to be that - provided the total amount of food consumed remains constant - it makes no difference if you eat 3 or 6 meals a day. You'll then need to produce evidence to reject that hypothesis.

Are you talking to me or siochain?

I will say that in my uneducated opinion, having more meals helps if you're trying to eat more so you can train harder.

Agreed but not being argued.

I would also guess that if you're trying to eat less, having regular meals might cut down on your temptation to snack.(EDIT: Of course this is a separate issue to the original topic)

This depends though doesn't it...say you were a lightweight fighter cutting to make weight you could be on as little 1200-1500 calories a day...break that down into 6 meals...that's 200-250 calories per meal...I say meal...but to put it in perspective a snickers bar has 271 calories and a single quarter pounder has over 500 calories. Maybe someone can post some 200 calorie 'meal' options.

So for some...people...it is easier and more suitable being able to eat 3 proper meals rather than 6 completely unfulfilling snacks.

Doug Cartel

Will Heffernan wrote: »

Are you talking to me or siochain?

Siochain. Unless I've missed something, he seemed to be arguing that 6 meals was better and you should prove otherwise. I was saying that the usual way of arguing this would be to assume that the amount of meals doesn't matter, and then search for evidence that breaks that assumption.

I have no idea which one of you is right, btw, that's just the way an experiment would be set up.

Agreed but not being argued.

That's fair enough.

This depends though doesn't it...say you were a lightweight fighter cutting to make weight you could be on as little 1200-1500 calories a day...break that down into 6 meals...that's 200-250 calories per meal...I say meal...but to put it in perspective a snickers bar has 271 calories and a single quarter pounder has over 500 calories. Maybe someone can post some 200 calorie 'meal' options.

So for some...people...it is easier and more suitable being able to eat 3 proper meals rather than 6 completely unfulfilling snacks.

Probably true.

The way I look at it, you have your target for the day, and you break your meals up the way that works out best for you.

Will Heffernan

LightningBolt wrote: »

This will be interesting to read some of the more qualified people's thoughts on this. Personally I've found in the past that I'd eat more meals if bulking up which makes a lot of sense, I'd eat up to 7 times a day.

Agreed and not being argued.

When trying to shift a few pounds I've taken to eating less frequently so would only eat three normal meals with a small piece of fruit in between. I found when trying to cut and follow a macro nutrient specific diet spread over 6 meals that my food became very bland and boring and I'd have trouble sticking to what I'd planned to eat. Reduce it to three big meals and I found myself enjoying my food more as there was more variety in it.

Agreed and not being argued.

Whether or not what I did was efficient or not I don't know but it was certainly a lot easier mentally to go through when cutting and not worrying as much about macro breakdowns.

Agreed and not being argued.

Will Heffernan

cardio,shoot me wrote: »

Will, your fighting an uphill battle , i argued this with a few people here a while back , ended up going in circles.

Well jump in here again...you turn it one way and I'll turn it another way and we'll see if we can meet back at the beginning

Will Heffernan

JJayoo wrote: »

It would be a pain in the ass for an athlete to try and get his calories from just three sessions of chow.

Very much dependent on the athlete.

Will Heffernan

brianthebard wrote: »

Lol well I would see it as a parallel topic. For instance i have a pot of B vitamins here on the desk and one of the benefits listed is that it/they release energy from foods. Is this bull****? If its not bull****, does a lack or B vitamins mean someone will have problems absorbing all the calories/nutrition of their food? Any other examples would be cool too, its not something I'd thought of much before this week.

Have absolutely no experience or knowledge in this area...but if anyone does...feel free to drop a knowledge bomb on us

Nate--IRL--

I thought the idea of more, smaller meals was for the body to better utilise the nutrients provided, not calories. I look forward to reading informed opinions on the matter.

Nate

keane2097

Similar to what the above poster said, I thought the idea of smaller meals more often was to give the body protein at appropriate intervals as much as anything?

Will Heffernan

cowzerp wrote: »

Ok im not going to categorally say your right or wrong on the subject as i feel your maybe been a bit harsh, it depends how you view it imo! what do you feel about this below?

Paul wasn't trying to be harsh...wasn't trying to be anything...there is only a single thing that I commented on...siochain said that increased meal frequency improved calorie utilisation and efficency...I disagreed.

If your talking 3 large meals as opposed to moderate meals v 6 small meals equaling the value of the 3 large ones i think in the 3 large meals a lot of nutrients wont be used up as the body will only take what is needed so x amount of vitamins and minerals will be void! basically wee'd out, so in that case the body will have more chance of taking all of the vitamins, minerals from the smaller meals as they are arriving in smaller doses and been used more likely.

Happy to discuss this in detail...but lets be specific.

Like I said in a previous post...if you were dieting and you were consuming 1500 calories a day...3 meals is 500 calories a meal...to use the same example...that's less than a quarter pounder...is it your contention that there is a difference in the nutrients your body would gain between eating a quarter pounder 3 times a day versus eating a half a quarter pounder 6 times a day?

This is also very different from the point I was making to siochain. His contention was that having 6 meals a day versus 3 meals a day increases calorie utilisation and efficency.

What we're discussing here is that having 6 meals a day versus 3 meals a days increases nutrient utilisation and efficency. Which I am happy to have a discussion about as well but just want to make sure we clarify exactly what we are talking about.

The paper that most people quote when having the...increased meal frequency leads to improved calorie utiloisation is the following:

Bellisle F et. al. Meal frequency and energy balance. Br J Nutr. (1997) 77 (Suppl 1):S57-70.

Quoted it here before someone brings it up...and when they do I am only to happy to discuss the issues I have with this paper.

Will Heffernan

Doug Cartel wrote: »

Siochain. Unless I've missed something, he seemed to be arguing that 6 meals was better and you should prove otherwise. I was saying that the usual way of arguing this would be to assume that the amount of meals doesn't matter, and then search for evidence that breaks that assumption.

My point exactly...I am going to say that it doesn't make any significant difference to calorie utilisation and efficency whether you consume 3 meals or 6 meals and am only too happy to provide the references to back that up.

I have no idea which one of you is right, btw, that's just the way an experiment would be set up. That's fair enough. Probably true.

That very experiment has been done. I just put the quote in my request for clarification from Paul. Check it out if you are interested.

The way I look at it, you have your target for the day, and you break your meals up the way that works out best for you.

Agreed. Like I said I don't think it makes any difference at all.

siochain

First I’ll declare that I’m no expert on sports science and or nutrition and never intended to portray that I was.
I have been involved competed competitively in boxing (very young), rugby & kickboxing. I also have coaching experience in both rugby & kickboxing. I have a passion for sports and as result also nutrition and general health topics. I have some coaching qualifications but I have no qualifications in nutrition.
In the original tread a guy looking was looking to cut down on my weight but put on muscle at the same time?
Hard to do I know but part of my reply was
‘Even as a starter if your spread your existing daily total calories over 6 portions instead of the usually big 3 it will help as the body will utilize the calories more efficiently. ‘

I based this on my own unqualified but I what I believed to be well above average knowledge in nutrition and my own personal experience.
So in general I walk around at about 93kg with a 5 day per week training routine which is 3 nights kickboxing and two days in the gym. As I was getting older I was finding it harder to make weight at -89kg without the last minute calorie deficiency which isn’t good.
So 6 weeks out I aim to have my total daily calories over 6 meals with breakfast the largest and the other 5 very even. I up my daily calories during this time due to the increase in training intensity. (I won’t add the diet at this point as it will derail) This is hard to do and takes discipline.
What I find is this really helps to keep my endurance and strength levels up without any restrictive diet stress right up to the competition date. I land in right on the weight feeling strong and well hydrated.
An additional point to note is that I physically feel better and have higher energy levels about 3 days into this 6 week period even though training intensity has increased.

My own logic behind this
1 Keeping blood sugar levels balanced is an important part of keeping energy and weight levels.
2 Keeping blood sugar levels balanced makes it much easier to keep a good clean diet as glucose levels aren’t dropping and results in less craving for foods of lesser nutritional value.
3 Eating 6 v 3 meals (total calories equal) places less stress on the digestive system. The body can utilize the smaller meals nutritional content more efficiently.
Reason I gave this answer to the guy with the original question is,
When we eat a large meal which is unfortunately for the average person is usually high in carbs and fat, insulin response is triggered and the excess calories that body can’t handle at that time get stored as fat.

So in my basic unqualified nutritional take on this is that if you spread the total calories over 6 meals there’s not going to as high an insulin response (depends too on the card quality) and excess calories then less fat storage. Due to less stress on the digestive system it can also better digest the food and better nutritional update. There are other variable in the process but that description is at a high level.

On another note.
I expect anyone who gets diet, nutrition or training information on an internet forum should then further research the topic and see if it’s right for them.

Will Heffernan looking forward to your thesis, your dying to post it. Waiting for quote "numerous well conducted studies that set out with this exact same hypothesis have shown that this is actually a fallacy".

Will Heffernan

Nate--IRL-- wrote: »

I thought the idea of more, smaller meals was for the body to better utilise the nutrients provided, not calories. I look forward to reading informed opinions on the matter.

Nate

It is important to be specific here. If we're talking about 3000 calories a day we're talking about consuming 3x1000 calorie meals versus 6x500 calorie snacks/meals. Are you saying that you think that 6x500 is better than 3x1000 and what nutrients are we talking about? Are we talking about micronutrients such vitamins and minerals or are we talking about macronutrients such as carbohydrates, fats and proteins?

siochain

I would say both micronutrients and macronutrients

The Shane

Man, the tension. All sorts of threats of someday someone presenting a piece of research and the well researched reprisals that will follow. My favourite was the "quote this study, I dare ya. I'll reference you a new one". Smart ass comment aside.

Will or Barry, who has conducted this meta-analysis?
Where did you find it? Cochrane institute or somewhere equally reputable?
I love google, just sayin'.
Could someone please post a link to a meta-analysis of the topic or at the very least some well run individual studies that deal with it?

Shane, The

Nate--IRL--

Will Heffernan wrote: »

It is important to be specific here. If we're talking about 3000 calories a day we're talking about consuming 3x1000 calorie meals versus 6x500 calorie snacks/meals. Are you saying that you think that 6x500 is better than 3x1000 and what nutrients are we talking about? Are we talking about micronutrients such vitamins and minerals or are we talking about macronutrients such as carbohydrates, fats and proteins?

Sorry, I'm not claiming any specific knowledge here, just asking. Let's take the 3000 cal per day total. IMHO 3000 calories a day is 3000 calories a day, that's just a fact, no matter which way you break it down.

It was my (basic) understanding that consuming Macro-nutrients (Primarily with a view to Proteins) spread out over the day was beneficial. (Positive Nitrogen Balance and all that stuff). Is this not the case?

Nate

Zamboni

Love that this thread has come up.
The whole six meal a day thing has become a mantra over the past few years and I like to question mantras.
Personally (not scientifically) I find it is absolute cack and that the number of calories consumed is of far more importance, irrelevant of meal frequency.
The human body did not evolve on a schedule.

siochain

Zamboni wrote: »

Love that this thread has come up.
The whole six meal a day thing has become a mantra over the past few years and I like to question mantras.
Personally (not scientifically) I find it is absolute cack and that the number of calories consumed is of far more importance, irrelevant of meal frequency.
The human body did not evolve on a schedule.

very good point, were more grazers eating little and often, when ever we could really.

Will Heffernan

siochain wrote: »

very good point, were more grazers eating little and often, when ever we could really.

Seriously?

That must be why all my ancestors were so shredded and had such awesome abs....when they killed several tonnes of wooly mammoth they'd just have an entree size serving of ribs and just leave the rest. It's all about knowing when you've had enough. You've got to keep all those macro's in order

Evolution was all about just grazing? Naturally I am taking the piss....but this issue comes up regularly and some people seem to think that we evolved in the last few thousand years or that all human beings lived in the same environment. The human race has managed to survive and prosper across what is almost the entire face of the Earth...this includes environments where 'grazing' is not an option...where eating a little often is not an option. These human beings do not have unique adaptations.

Personally I think it would much easier to have a proper conversation if we all try to keep it grounded in reality.

We're grazers? Are we going to really base this conversation on subsets of humans? For every 'grazing' example you want to give I'll give you an example to counter it.

I think we should stick with considering that human physiology, biochemistry and anatomy are fairly consistent across the human race.

Doug Cartel

The Shane wrote: »

Will or Barry, who has conducted this meta-analysis?
Where did you find it? Cochrane institute or somewhere equally reputable?
I love google, just sayin'.
Could someone please post a link to a meta-analysis of the topic or at the very least some well run individual studies that deal with it?

The burden of proof is on the people who say that the number of meals does matter. Will doesn't actually need to produce any evidence at the moment.

g'em

Lovely thread As Zamboni said, questioning mantras is a good thing, I wouldn't mind having a bit of a read about this one.

Will Heffernan wrote: »

I think we should stick with considering that human physiology, biochemistry and anatomy are fairly consistent across the human race.

Absolutely, but there's also more we don't know about these topics in relation to human nutrition that what we do know - that's the fun in these discussions, nothing can be proven one way or another because the evidence is still relatively sparse on the ground.

Just to be sure Will are you one essentially arguing one point?

Will Heffernan wrote:

siochain said that increased meal frequency improved calorie utilisation and efficency...I disagreed

I just ask becuase these threads tend to be a mish-mash of discussions about different things and all sorts of topics get discussed and I don't want to go off looking for the wrong answers

The Shane

Burden of proof be damned.

The "argument" is still at the stage where someone has yet to really make an assertion. Siochain said something, Will contradicted him (which while fine, would have ended the entire thing if he posted his lit review then). Since then it has been 6 pages of wrangling and avoiding actually arguing anything in a meaningful way.

Analogy and the possible dining habits of our ancestors is pointless. Somebody post something concrete that can then be argued. A statement followed by some studies/meta-analyses. There has been nothing of value in this thread so far.

Shane, The

Doug Cartel

The Shane wrote: »

The "argument" is still at the stage where someone has yet to really make an assertion.

Then what was this?

Will Heffernan wrote: »

I am going to say that it doesn't make any significant difference to calorie utilisation and efficency whether you consume 3 meals or 6 meals and am only too happy to provide the references to back that up.

Prezatch

siochain wrote: »

3 Eating 6 v 3 meals (total calories equal) places less stress on the digestive system. The body can utilize the smaller meals nutritional content more efficiently.
Reason I gave this answer to the guy with the original question is,
When we eat a large meal which is unfortunately for the average person is usually high in carbs and fat, insulin response is triggered and the excess calories that body can’t handle at that time get stored as fat.

I thought this too up until awhile ago when I read this article which contradicts your point - http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/nutrition/excess-protein-and-fat-storage-qa.html

d-gal

Originally Posted by Will Heffernan
siochain said that increased meal frequency improved calorie utilisation and efficency...I disagreed

I would agree with you, to a certain extent, this is from a sports nutritionist point of view. It's quite simple logic really, you have a target to be met each day with your calorie requirement, and if you burn off more than you eat then you lose weight and if you have a surplus you gain Simples.

Now for the complicated part. Nate pointed out about nutrients/minerals and how they are absorbed in the body, cowzerp also had a bit on this as well. If we are talking on a more athlete basis (presume we are since it's the fitness forum) then 3 meals a day is a load of tripe. You cannot get your nutrient requirements from 3 meals.
Take protein for example, on average the body can absorb a max amount between 40-50g in one serving (aka meal). Anything more and it will be excreted and no way absorbed.
So 3 meals x 40/50 = 120/150 grams of protein total (360/500calories)
Now that is a useless amount for me and for an average 200pound guy there is a shortcoming of between 80/50 grams of protein that your body needs to maintain muscle and for muscle repair and regrowth.

Same goes for carbs to a certain extent. Most popular time to train is 6pm. With the 3 meal bull I would have brekkie/lunch/dinner. So I have lunch at 1pm, are you telling me I am going to have 5hours of no food and then train on it? Fast acting carbs (or creatine or something) are needed before a workout to give you energy to train better and it's key. Now if I ate a 3rd meal before training that would be useless as your body goes into a catabolic state after training and if you don't get food within 1hour of training you might as well scrap your training session.

5-8 meals are the only way to go for an athlete. you are wasting your time with 3, its a huge backward step. So many factors such as nitrogen balance and anabolic hormones (test levels, gh levels and insulin) come into it this and they are key to an athlete. Anyone arguing otherwise is just misinformed.
You can survive on 3 meals a day and build muscle still, just not as effectively. Just look at prisoners!

Any questions feel free to ask as it is a really good topic and there is a lot of depth to it

g'em

Jebus, I started looking for things to read about this and I kept coming up with more questions than answers. I'm going to throw a few thoughts out about this for no other reason than becuase I can

First up, I am highly, highly skeptical of any study that relies on human honesty, and most nutritional studies do just that. Humans aren't lab rats, you can't monitor every scrap that they put into their mouth, you have to rely on proper reporting from your subjects which invariably be incorrect (sometimes by a little, sometimes by a lot). While there are some studies that confine subjects to closely monitor their feeding (one example below) many don't - they're done by casual observation on people's normal habits. So no matter what paper it is, and what results they produce, personally I think there's good basis to argue the validity of the results, especially on long term studies. Plus, simply by including someone in a study it will alter their behaviour and your will get biased results.

Will, I enjoyed that paper you linked to, thank you. The second line of the abstract alone gave me a giggle :

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.

In other words, we didn't find any relationship, but we found results in the opposite to the relationship we were investigating... so by default that's a positive result... right?

So many of the studies quotes were using incredibly small sample sizes, many less than 15, few of them listed the composition of the meals being eaten, and from what I can see they didn't actually support the high-frequency feeding pattern at all, they just found it to be statistically insignificant in comparison to gorging (or am I missing something there?).

There's another study: Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2001 Apr;25(4):519-28. Compared with nibbling, neither gorging nor a morning fast affect short-term energy balance in obese patients in a chamber calorimeter. Taylor MA, Garrow JS. Department of Nutrition and Dietetics, King's College London, London, UK.

Newer, and done under controlled conditions in an obesity clinic for six days. They concluded that "in the short term, meal frequency and a period of fasting have no major impact on energy intake or expenditure but energy expenditure is delayed with a lower meal frequency compared with a higher meal frequency." But the subjects were all female, all with a BMI of over 25 and all meals had an energy breakdown of 13% from protein, 34% from fat and 53% from carbohydrate - not quite the high protein diet that many athletes would favour.

And another one:
Br J Nutr. 2008 Jun;99(6):1316-21. Epub 2007 Dec 6. Acute effects on metabolism and appetite profile of one meal difference in the lower range of meal frequency. Smeets AJ, Westerterp-Plantenga MS.

They looked at two meal vs three meal eating plans and found that "eating three meals compared with two meals had no effects on 24 h energy expenditure, diet-induced thermogenesis, activity-induced energy expenditure and sleeping metabolic rate" although I wouldn't class 2/3 meals a day as either high frequency or low-frequency eating tbh.

In all honesty I don't think the "increased meal frequency improved calorie utilisation and efficency" hypothesis holds weight purely from a biochemical and physiological pov but from a behavioural pov, and as a weight-loss or weight gain strategy for the Average Joe, I think it's a great starting point - it has (to my mind anyway) more behavioural and psycholgoical bonuses than suggesting that someone gorges.

Interesting topic though, very interesting...

Prezatch

d-gal wrote: »

if you don't get food within 1hour of training you might as well scrap your training session.

You've just opened a whole new can of worms

d-gal

JoeyD wrote: »

You've just opened a whole new can of worms

Your body goes into a catabolic state after training, it needs the required amount of nutrients to reverse it. Your basically catabolizing your body tissue. Quicker you get the required nutrients into you the better it is for you in terms of hormone production, muscle growth and muscle repair.

siochain

now we are starting to get some constructive points for, in-between and against the topic.

Great to have adults on board

kevpants

d-gal wrote: »

Take protein for example, on average the body can absorb a max amount between 40-50g in one serving (aka meal). Anything more and it will be excreted and no way absorbed.
So 3 meals x 40/50 = 120/150 grams of protein total (360/500calories)
Now that is a useless amount for me and for an average 200pound guy there is a shortcoming of between 80/50 grams of protein that your body needs to maintain muscle and for muscle repair and regrowth.

Same goes for carbs to a certain extent. Most popular time to train is 6pm. With the 3 meal bull I would have brekkie/lunch/dinner. So I have lunch at 1pm, are you telling me I am going to have 5hours of no food and then train on it? Fast acting carbs (or creatine or something) are needed before a workout to give you energy to train better and it's key. Now if I ate a 3rd meal before training that would be useless as your body goes into a catabolic state after training and if you don't get food within 1hour of training you might as well scrap your training session.

5-8 meals are the only way to go for an athlete. you are wasting your time with 3, its a huge backward step. So many factors such as nitrogen balance and anabolic hormones (test levels, gh levels and insulin) come into it this and they are key to an athlete. Anyone arguing otherwise is just misinformed.

This is an interesting post if you ask me. These seems to be the "rules" of nutrition that can't be questioned but my BS-ometer tingles big time on this. I've accidentally been breaking most of these simply by not paying attention and nothing has gone wrong really.

I'm very much in the camp of nutrition being emphasised and obsessed upon as being key because it's easy. Knowing the amino acid profile of a slice of ham is not going to make you puke from exhaustion or cry at the thoughts of getting out of bed in the morning because you can't move your legs.

It's not a study but IMO had I been casually breaking the laws of training (not lifting enough, not backing off when I need to, doing stupid bodybuilding sets) I'd have ended up getting nowhere and posting threads up here asking for help with my upper chest. By contrast, breaking the laws of nutrition doesn't seem to have that much of an effect.

From the perspective of someone grossly uninformed on the subject but with a fair bit of practical experience it would appear that calories>protein and that timing means nothing. I've tried the eating protein before bed thing and I've gone to bed hungry. If I trained that night the constant is that I creak getting out of the bed in the morning.

Of course I can't back this up at all and if anyone asks me for a meta-analysis I'm going to get embarassed and change the subject.

Khannie

I will start with: I know nothing on this.

But....I had read somewhere (and I will try to dig this out, but someone else on here may have the link handy; I think I got it from rubadub) that it was better to get proteins in more of a drip fed fashion. So your average athlete (yes, I know athletes aren't average ) needs / benefits from quite a bit of protein so if you were a 75KG athlete and trying to get, say 150g+ of protein in per day, then getting 50g a time might not be the ideal.

Now I know this isn't directly "utilising calories", but if a chunk of that protein is just going down the jacks then it's somewhat related.