# Eatin every 2-3 hours



## tayab (Sep 14, 2010)

Has anyone tried this method as i am going on to a cycle of sus an deca and want to gain as much weight as possible and was thinking if this would be a good way rather than jus eating the 3 big meals and shakes.. has this method worked for anyone?


----------



## Josh1436114527 (Apr 3, 2007)

A good diet should consist of 5-8 small meals a day for gaiing mass,this is basic knolegde that should be learned even before you know what steroids are, so to answer your question yes this is a very good tried and tested method


----------



## kgb (Sep 13, 2009)

Yes.

Quite a few in here eat 6 times a day


----------



## DJay (Feb 6, 2011)

Your capasity to gain weight when on cycle goes through the roof, the more calories you can eat the more weight you will gain and more of the weight will be LBM as compared to fat.

The idea of eating multiple small means a day to keep matabolisim high is a bit of a mixed up fact. Check out these links to read a bit more:

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/muscle-gain/meal-frequency-and-mass-gains.html

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/meal-frequency-and-energy-balance-research-review.html

Your metabolic rate raises and lowers depending on the amount of food you are consumeing, if you eat a huge meal its increases hugely small meal it increases a small amount etc.

If however you are trying to eat 6000 calories per day think about trying to eat 3 2000 calorie meals, its possible but will leave you feeling uncomfortable. Its much easier to divide your calories into seperate meals and also to eat the right type of food at the most apropriate times of the day. I.e. whole grains and protein in the morning, carbs and protein pre-workout and a huge

meal after a workout etc.

Personally i eat 4 meals a day. One when i wake up, one lunch which i normally buy someware, a big meal when i get home from the gym and another big meal at around 9-10 o'clock. Currently gaining about 1.5kg a month and im happy with that.

Work out your calorie intake and spread it over as many meals as you feel necesary. Saying you have to eat 8-10 meals a day to keep your metabolisim running is just absurd.

Bodybuilders eat so many meals a day because its the only possible way they can consume the vast amounts of calories they need to gain the weight they want.


----------



## BigRichG (Nov 26, 2010)

i have 8 meals a day (5 food meals, 2 protein shakes post training and pre bed and one weight gainer as meal replacement at work) 5000kcal a day


----------



## JoePro (Aug 26, 2009)

I eat like 7-8 meals daily.

I've just gotten bored as sh1t lately with it and I'm starting to go to 3-5 meals now because it's getting me down lately.


----------



## BigRichG (Nov 26, 2010)

How comes joe what about it is getting you down?


----------



## JoePro (Aug 26, 2009)

BigRichG said:


> How comes joe what about it is getting you down?


I don't really know man. Like, I love it and all, but it's just getting a bit **** thinking every 1-2 hours what's the time over and over again.

I'll still do it, I've done it for 3 years lol


----------



## BigRichG (Nov 26, 2010)

ive been doing it 6 years its like a way of life lol, have a week off im sure you will get that itching feeling to be in the gym and more focused


----------



## JoePro (Aug 26, 2009)

BigRichG said:


> ive been doing it 6 years its like a way of life lol, have a week off im sure you will get that itching feeling to be in the gym and more focused


My week off is due after next week man.

I'm gonna' deload next week until Friday and then go for a 1RM.. then take my week off.


----------



## bayman (Feb 27, 2010)

No need to eat every 2-3hours unless you have a very high calorie load. Do whatever meal frequency that is most convenient for you.


----------



## SteamRod (Oct 1, 2007)

get in as much as you can. if you can do it in 3-4 meals great. if you need 8 I don't blame you.


----------



## Big Dawg (Feb 24, 2008)

Josh said:


> A good diet should consist of 5-8 small meals a day for gaiing mass,this is basic knolegde that should be learned even before you know what steroids are, so to answer your question yes this is a very good tried and tested method


Based on what? Based on nothing dude, that's what! Stop talking rubbish as if it's fact! It's pretty much the consensus now that meal frequency is unimportant as long as you hit your macros and take care of your PWO nutrition. Read some studies dude FFS!


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

AlasTTTair said:


> Based on what? Based on nothing dude, that's what! Stop talking rubbish as if it's fact! It's pretty much the consensus now that meal frequency is unimportant as long as you hit your macros and take care of your PWO nutrition. Read some studies dude FFS!


 Why the aggressive post?

It is not rubbish, it is fact multiple meals through the day works......this is not to say 3 meals per day does not......but it is down to the individual as what works for one may not work for another so to say it is unimportant is incorrect unless you can show me one of these studies that say eating every 2-3hrs does not work?

I eat every 2.5hrs which has enabled me to hold 217lbs at 5'5" tall after 5 months off cycle.......so I would say it does work and it is fact that it works......


----------



## defdaz (Nov 11, 2007)

Yep, was reading a study the other day - calorie restricted diet, although there was no stat. significant difference in fat loss between the groups of high or low meal count the high meal count group lost much less muscle and had better physiological health indicators.


----------



## Tinytom (Sep 16, 2005)

I normally eat around 5-6 meals a day.

my training days look like this

8.30 - Oats and protein drink

11.30 - chicken and rice

2pm - Extreme Mass

5pm - Chicken and rice

7pm - Train

8pm - Build and recover and pro 6

10pm - BUrgers or eggs

Thats just an example.


----------



## Tinytom (Sep 16, 2005)

AlasTTTair said:


> Based on what? Based on nothing dude, that's what! Stop talking rubbish as if it's fact! It's pretty much the consensus now that meal frequency is unimportant as long as you hit your macros and take care of your PWO nutrition. Read some studies dude FFS!


Not the consensus among some of the more succesful athletes I know. And myself.

Studies are good but real world application I prefer TBH


----------



## Big Dawg (Feb 24, 2008)

Pscarb said:


> Why the aggressive post?
> 
> It is not rubbish, it is fact multiple meals through the day works......this is not to say 3 meals per day does not......but it is down to the individual as what works for one may not work for another so to say it is unimportant is incorrect unless you can show me one of these studies that say eating every 2-3hrs does not work?
> 
> I eat every 2.5hrs which has enabled me to hold 217lbs at 5'5" tall after 5 months off cycle.......so I would say it does work and it is fact that it works......


It's not a case of it not "working" mate; it's more the fact that he said that having to eat 5-8 meals a day is basic bbing knowledge and he should know it before using gear. I'm saying that, while most people seem to think you need to either be a recluse or carry tuppaware around all day to bodybuild successfully, this might not actually be the case. If eating 6 meals a day helps you to stick to your diet then great! Personally it just makes me hungry and constantly thinking about food! If it's a personal choice then I'm all for that, but I don't think people should spout that it's the only way to do things when the basis for small regular meals has been mostly hearsay among gym members over the past 40+ years 



Tinytom said:


> Not the consensus among some of the more succesful athletes I know. And myself.
> 
> Studies are good but real world application I prefer TBH


I don't doubt it mate. I'm sure 95% of people who train conform to the standard 6 meals a day thing. But just because everyone does it doesn't necessarily mean it's optimal (although it might be). I imagine you and the athletes you talk about have never given any other approach a fair chance? So 6 meals a day would win by default right?


----------



## Big Dawg (Feb 24, 2008)

defdaz said:


> Yep, was reading a study the other day - calorie restricted diet, although there was no stat. significant difference in fat loss between the groups of high or low meal count the high meal count group lost much less muscle and had better physiological health indicators.


I'll admit I've not been able to do as much reading around this area as I'd like recently; mind fully on finishing this fooking degree first!

However, I've read articles finding evidence to the contrary: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21410865?dopt=Abstract. I've got access to the full text but you have to pay for it if you haven't got an institutional log-in. The abstract gives you the basics though obv.

Point is, there is plenty of research available now suggesting that increased meal frequency has no effect on metabolism, nutrient partitioning or any of the other benefits it is purported to offer. Now I've only read a few of them and I'm very very far from being any sort of an expert on it, but being open minded has allowed me to question some of the things that still get spouted round as fact. Like the "your body can only digest 20g of protein every 2 hours - if you eat any more than that it gets wasted". Do people still believe that one?


----------



## The Ultimate Warrior (Dec 20, 2010)

Tinytom said:


> Not the consensus among some of the more succesful athletes I know. And myself.
> 
> Studies are good but real world application I prefer TBH


Beautiful! Totally off topic, but I think this is the first time i've heard this used on this forum.

I always say that, REAL WORLD APPLICATION, that is one of the most important thing that people seem to overlook.

I say it about 6 times a day and people just laugh at me now haha


----------



## BigRichG (Nov 26, 2010)

a regular constant influx of food is good for increasing metabolism. little and often is better than big and very few.


----------



## luke80 (Aug 6, 2010)

BigRichG said:


> a regular constant influx of food is good for increasing metabolism. little and often is better than big and very few.


I agree, I also find with small regular meals its easier to take in a lot of high protein food without feeling bloated.


----------



## bayman (Feb 27, 2010)

Double post, see below.


----------



## BigRichG (Nov 26, 2010)

very true, i dont see why eople disagree with this being basic knowledge because it is.

i can understand the oint being made about total daily calorie intake but you would do better to have 8 500kcal meal than 5 8kcal meals for example. this way there is food in your belly for more time in the day


----------



## bayman (Feb 27, 2010)

BigRichG said:


> a regular constant influx of food is good for increasing metabolism. little and often is better than big and very few.


That's not true, I don't know how many times I've had to point this out on here!

If calories and macro's are the same between two meal frequencies, it doesn't matter if you take those calories in over 3 vs 6 meals because the net effect on metabolism will be the same.

In the 3 meal example you'd get 3 large spikes in thermal effect of feeding (metabolism), a short of "peak and trough" shape if you plotted it on a graph. In the 6 meals group you'd get 6 smaller spikes overthe course of the day, your graph line would look like a gentle oscillating wave. Again though, ultimately the net effect would be the same.

As for real world application. If 6 meals per day helps with adherence (keeping to your plan, hitting cals and macros constantly) then for some it might be superior. For me it just leads to hunger (when dieting), and is just plain inconvenient when bulking. Larger less frequent meals suits me just fine, and if anything since ditching the 6 meals per day mantra my results have been superior too.

In summary, do what works for you, but not in the false reasoning that more meals "stokes the metabolic fire" or because "you can only absorb 20g of protein per meal" or other bull**** that's been popular bb'ing heresay for years. The science simple doesn't support it.


----------



## Outtapped (Dec 10, 2012)

BigRichG said:


> a regular constant influx of food is good for increasing metabolism. little and often is better than big and very few.


Show me studies to show little and often is better than big a few, there are plenty of studies to show that if u have at least 3 whole meals a day that there is no difference other than convenience as large meals can be hard to consume.

I'm with Allastair on this one, I'm not saying one or the other is better, I'm saying they are the same

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## BigRichG (Nov 26, 2010)

ive always eaten every 2 hours over the past 6 years and put on a good 4 stone in the process.


----------



## bayman (Feb 27, 2010)

BigRichG said:


> very true, i dont see why eople disagree with this being basic knowledge because it is.
> 
> i can understand the oint being made about total daily calorie intake but you would do better to have 8 500kcal meal than 5 8kcal meals for example. this way there is food in your belly for more time in the day


It's basic rubbish is what it is.

I don't understand your point? 8 x 500kcal meals or 5 x 800kcal meals, at the end of the day they're the same. I'm not sure I understand your point about your belly being full either, because the smaller meals will br digested quicker and all over lap to some extent, the 800kcal meals would take longer to digest.

1, 3, 5, 50 meals per day, it doesn't matter if calories and macros are the same. It's basic understanding of human metabolism and digestion. Bigger meals just take longer to digest.


----------



## bayman (Feb 27, 2010)

BigRichG said:


> ive always eaten every 2 hours over the past 6 years and put on a good 4 stone in the process.


And your point is? Individual examples mean nothing in thr context of the debate. It's worked for you as you've been taking in enough calories to grow. How do you know your results would have been any different if you'd got your cals in over fewer meals?

A high calorie intake is probably the only situation that merits a high meal frequency IMO, getting 5000kcal in over 3 meals might be uncomfortable for some as an example. Having said that for others it might be just fine. Again, it's what works for the individual.


----------



## BigRichG (Nov 26, 2010)

you get 8 meals instead of 5 so you get to eat for more of the day, i dont get bloated on small meals where as big meals i do. am able to keep a nice small waist this way because the frequency of meals helps to stabalize blood sugar so i dont get that big high n low from spread out meals. if your way works for you great mine certainly works for me.

besides if you can absorb all the nutrients from eating a large meal without being bloated then fair play too you, but i wont be changing to that.


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

Guys we can argue all we want but as Tom has said real world is what counts, I have said this before actually after bayman insisted there is no difference in metabolism with multiple meals.....my temp increased more in a day where I eat 6 meals than on a weekend when I eat 3 ......not incredibly scientific but defiantly true.....

Now when your metabolism spikes your hunger does to as you body burns the food quicker.......Alastttair says he get hungrier when he eats more food does that not prove that point?

Then you have to consider what 3 heavy meals would do for your digestion over 6 smaller ones, as trying to squeeze say 3000cals in to 3 meals is stupid and would cause you to be bloated and tired a lot more than you would be if you split that 3000cals over 6 meals. even more than that as BB you want a constant flow of aminoes through the day eating more meals makes this more achievable would you not agree?

Alastttair I would agree with your post apart from the last sentence, multiple meals has not been he****y for 40yrs people do this because it works......as I said in my last post this does not mean less meals does not work as I know very good bodybuilders who only eat 4 meals most of the time but then I know guys who cannot and need to eat 7-8 meals....so does that mean one is right and one is wrong? No it means both work so defiantly not hearsay......

Now I appreciate you are keen to get your point across but please do it without totally dismissing another members point......unless you feel yours is more valid?

At the end of the day guys we all judge ourselves on results.....so if you are eating 3 or 6 meals a day and you are getting the required results then stick to it but don't try and push your views on others and state them as fact because in BB there is only one thing that matters....."do what works for you"


----------



## BigRichG (Nov 26, 2010)

exactly my point there pscarb you can absorb more in more frequent meals and in keeping a constant flow of aminos along with less bloat.


----------



## RickMiller (Aug 21, 2009)

As the old saying goes 'there's more than one way to skin a cat' and it applies to the meal frequency issue.

I agree with bayman, there is no evidence that multiple meals increases metabolism on a daily basis, there may be other benefits to increased meal frequency (possibly lean muscle mass retention during a calorie deficit), however, there is no complete consensus on this and arguments both ways should be appreciated and listened to.

Any dietary intervention comes down to individual application.

The 'best diet' is the one that is nutritionally compete (provides all the micro/macronutrients essential for life and your training needs), one that obeys the basic laws of thermodynamics based on your goals (i.e. Calories in vs calories out depending on whether you are cutting/bulking) and one that (most importantly) YOU can adhere to, be this low carb, high carb, Paleo, liquid-based, high meal frequency, low meal frequency etc. to meet your current physique/training goals.

Everyone is different, but ultimately if you obey those 3 points above, you'll reach your physique goals (which you've all proven) and the rest is fine-tuning depending on your beliefs/interpretation of the literature.


----------



## bayman (Feb 27, 2010)

Pscarb said:


> Guys we can argue all we want but as Tom has said real world is what counts, I have said this before actually after bayman insisted there is no difference in metabolism with multiple meals.....my temp increased more in a day where I eat 6 meals than on a weekend when I eat 3 ......not incredibly scientific but defiantly true.....


Are your cals and macros the same over the weekend compared to the week? Protein intake the same? Fluctuations in body temp aren't necessarily associated with metabolism. An n=1 experiment doesn't prove anything Paul.



Pscarb said:


> Now when your metabolism spikes your hunger does to as you body burns the food quicker.......Alastttair says he get hungrier when he eats more food does that not prove that point?


Hunger isn't always related to metabolism either. You can get hungry due to habituatal nature (always eating at a certain time) plus other factors.

I'm pretty sure Alasttairs example was in the context of dieting.



Pscarb said:


> Then you have to consider what 3 heavy meals would do for your digestion over 6 smaller ones, *as trying to squeeze say 3000cals in to 3 meals is stupid and would cause you to be bloated and tired* a lot more than you would be if you split that 3000cals over 6 meals. even more than that as BB you want a constant flow of aminoes through the day eating more meals makes this more achievable would you not agree?


That's a pretty absolute statement (in bold), why is it stupid? I regulary eat 1000kcal meals without any tiredness or bloating. Again, individual response / real world results as you keep refering back too.

As for aminos, protein intake being the same you'd still be fed and absorbing aminos, larger meals just take longer to digest.



Pscarb said:


> Alastttair I would agree with your post apart from the last sentence, multiple meals has not been he****y for 40yrs people do this because it works......as I said in my last post this does not mean less meals does not work as I know very good bodybuilders who only eat 4 meals most of the time but then I know guys who cannot and need to eat 7-8 meals....so does that mean one is right and one is wrong? No it means both work so defiantly not hearsay......
> 
> Now I appreciate you are keen to get your point across but please do it without totally dismissing another members point......unless you feel yours is more valid?
> 
> At the end of the day guys we all judge ourselves on results.....so if you are eating 3 or 6 meals a day and you are getting the required results then stick to it but don't try and push your views on others and state them as fact because in BB there is only one thing that matters....."do what works for you"


I don't think anyone who has posted agaisnt the 6 meals per day crowd is pushing it as optimal or the only way.

Having said that you get lots of people who comment on diet threads on here saying "you must get 6 meals per day in", I've lost count of the amount of times people blanket statement this.

All I and others on this thread have attempted to do is show there's actually no science behind the recommendation, I've not referenced stuff but have done on countless other thread on here.

I agree with what you say about individual results, people just need to accept neither approach is superior to the other, each have their pros and cons.


----------



## usc277 (Mar 4, 2010)

Josh said:


> A good diet should consist of 5-8 small meals a day for gaiing mass,this is basic knolegde that should be learned even before you know what steroids are, so to answer your question yes this is a very good tried and tested method


What constitutes a small meal


----------



## Tinytom (Sep 16, 2005)

AlasTTTair said:


> I don't doubt it mate. I'm sure 95% of people who train conform to the standard 6 meals a day thing. But just because everyone does it doesn't necessarily mean it's optimal (although it might be). *I imagine you and the athletes you talk about have never given any other approach a fair chance*? So 6 meals a day would win by default right?


Not true, thats an assumptive post. My own success in gaining muscle and other peoples success comes from trying everything until you find somehing that works.

I would say that the more successful people are the ones that HAVE tried every approach and thats why they are successful because they have found something that works for them.

So your assumption is not logical


----------



## Tinytom (Sep 16, 2005)

I also like to point out that I did use the 3 meals a day routine for a while and although I did gain on it I found that it made me bloated because my stomach is small. Splitting the same amount over 5 0r 6 meals worked better for me because there was less load on my system in terms of digestion over time.

What matters is that you get the results you want and that comes from experimentation so for some on here to say that theres only one way and thats it then I doubt your gains will ever be equal to what the more sucessful guys achieve and Im not talking baout geneticly gifted pro athletes because many guys I know who experiment do so to make the most of their physique and never want to compete.

Paul and I have tried almost every approach in terms of gear, food, supplements etc and we are just sharing that. The evidence of our knwoledge and applied knowledge is in how we look. Not that every one with knowledge looks like a bodybuilder but the guys who have knowledge and apply it look better than the average, at least in my experience.


----------



## Tinytom (Sep 16, 2005)

UKStrength said:


> As the old saying goes 'there's more than one way to skin a cat' and it applies to the meal frequency issue.
> 
> I agree with bayman, there is no evidence that multiple meals increases metabolism on a daily basis, there may be other benefits to increased meal frequency (possibly lean muscle mass retention during a calorie deficit), however, there is no complete consensus on this and arguments both ways should be appreciated and listened to.
> 
> ...


Exactly right.

See what options are out there and apply it to your own physique and timetable.


----------



## bayman (Feb 27, 2010)

Tinytom said:


> Exactly right.
> 
> See what options are out there and apply it to your own physique and timetable.


This is what most of us on the thread has being saying already!


----------



## Big Dawg (Feb 24, 2008)

BigRichG said:


> you get 8 meals instead of 5 so you get to eat for more of the day, i dont get bloated on small meals where as big meals i do. am able to keep a nice small waist this way because the frequency of meals helps to stabalize blood sugar so i dont get that big high n low from spread out meals. if your way works for you great mine certainly works for me.
> 
> besides if you can absorb all the nutrients from eating a large meal without being bloated then fair play too you, but i wont be changing to that.


OK so eating small meals helps keep your waist the same size? So what are you saying there, that you gain less fat eating 6 meals a day than 1, 2 or 3? Cos last time I checked, body fat level is the main influence on waist size. Do you have any proof for the constant stream of nutrients claim? Because if the human organism was designed so we had to eat constantly throughout the day, we'd have died out a long time ago. If you eat one meal a day you will utilise all the nutrients from that meal. Why wouldn't you?



Pscarb said:


> Guys we can argue all we want but as Tom has said real world is what counts, I have said this before actually after bayman insisted there is no difference in metabolism with multiple meals.....my temp increased more in a day where I eat 6 meals than on a weekend when I eat 3 ......not incredibly scientific but defiantly true.....
> 
> Now when your metabolism spikes your hunger does to as you body burns the food quicker.......Alastttair says he get hungrier when he eats more food does that not prove that point?
> 
> ...





BigRichG said:


> exactly my point there pscarb you can absorb more in more frequent meals and in keeping a constant flow of aminos along with less bloat.


*Sigh* - prove it.



Tinytom said:


> Not true, thats an assumptive post. My own success in gaining muscle and other peoples success comes from trying everything until you find somehing that works.
> 
> I would say that the more successful people are the ones that HAVE tried every approach and thats why they are successful because they have found something that works for them.
> 
> So your assumption is not logical


Yes it's massively assumptive. Please don't be offended though; I would assume most successful bbers have only ever followed the frequent meal plan. This would be due to the fact that we're constantly told we have to on forums and in gyms. All the big guys do it so it must work, right? Yes it works as much as any other plan with the same macros works, but it's the claims behind it that I have a problem with.

Have you tried intermittent fasting? I've been doing that for a while and find it much easier to stick to than a regular feeding diet. Now there has been some good evidence for a number of benefits, but I wouldn't say it's significantly more effective 6 meals a day. I find it easier to stick to which is why I'm doing it, but to say it's the only way would be incredibly arrogant. However, this seems to be the approach that the 6 meals a day brigade have, constantly talking about a constant stream of aminos, increased metabolism, stable blood sugar etc. But I never see any proof of these claims!

I'll admit that I've done very little reading into it as of late, but if anyone could show me the studies people are basing these claims on I'd be more than happy to be proved wrong (genuinely)!


----------



## bayman (Feb 27, 2010)

In this post: http://www.uk-muscle.co.uk/muscle-research-forum/127664-fasted-training-2.html#post2160809

I referred to 3 examples of bb'ers / athletes who eat only 2-3meals per day maximum and fast for 16hrs most days.

Just an example of people being very successful physique wise without 6 meals per day.


----------



## Outtapped (Dec 10, 2012)

I think a lot of people are getting confused when you say this bayman. I think they think you are saying one is better than the other but you are not you are saying they are the same. There's no doubt it's easier to consume the calorific intake over 6 meals especially if consuming in the region of 3500-4000 calories a day but there is no science to say it's scientifically any better or worse. It would be interesting to see some one from here actually try it, based on same calories makros etc. In fact I might try it after show, give it 4 weeks for my body to return to normal then do 8 weeks at 7 meals a day and 8 weeks at 4 meals and see what differences I notice.

There are other underlying factors to large meals tho that can benefit, for example if your 2nd meal sits not too long before training, a 1200 calorie meal sitting in your stomach could have some variants on your training.

But I agree as the science suggests, other than these practicalities there is no science that I have seen to suggest 6 meals will benefit muscle increase more than 3 meals

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Big Dawg (Feb 24, 2008)

WhySoSerious said:


> I think a lot of people are getting confused when you say this bayman. I think they think you are saying one is better than the other but you are not you are saying they are the same. There's no doubt it's easier to consume the calorific intake over 6 meals especially if consuming in the region of 3500-4000 calories a day but there is no science to say it's scientifically any better or worse. It would be interesting to see some one from here actually try it, based on same calories makros etc. In fact I might try it after show, give it 4 weeks for my body to return to normal then do 8 weeks at 7 meals a day and 8 weeks at 4 meals and see what differences I notice.
> 
> There are other underlying factors to large meals tho that can benefit, for example if your 2nd meal sits not too long before training, a 1200 calorie meal sitting in your stomach could have some variants on your training.
> 
> ...


I believe bayman follows an intermittent fasting protocol mate. If you do decide to do a comparison of methods I'd suggest you follow the same protocol too for your less frequent meals test. R.e. pre-wo, this approach doesn't recommend having a huge meal beforehand as, like you say, this would impair training. It suggests having around 25% of your intake pre-wo, although if you've got a crazy high intake this could defo be reduced. The majority of your calories are consumed PWO, and by PWO this doesn't mean the mythical 30 minute window, but in fact the hours following training. So you might have 500cals pre-wo, 900 cals PWO and 600 cals in your last meal. I've never tried this bulking so can't comment on how easy it is to get the cals in. I will admit that going all day without food takes some getting used to but you get over it pretty quick.


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

Bayman at no point did I say 6 meals where better than 3 I said that they both work.....you and alastttair have said there is no proof that 6 works better than 3 please show me proof 3 works better than 6?

Alastttair the reason I got into this thread was the aggressive nature you replied to someone who was of the belief 6 was better than 3 meals, as I have said on many times in this thread there is no one way to do anything and you need to find something that fits you.......so I am not sure why you are both pushing the point with me?

As I have said I know plenty who are big that eat few meals and those who are big who eat multiple meals....

I see that both alastttair and bayman are quoting studies can you tell me was the participants in these studies bodybuilders? Was they using PEDs as I am keen to see these results if they where?

Alastttair you may scoff at real world results over studies but in bodybuilding it is all about real world results no studies have been done on the effect of stacking tren and test on muscle growth but we all know it works?

So Alastttair the next time you disagree with someone and there methods put you point across in a less aggressive manner than you did in this thread.


----------



## pumphead (Feb 9, 2011)

Pscarb. what you say is totaly true man. are you currently looking for any discipels ?


----------



## Big Dawg (Feb 24, 2008)

Pscarb said:


> Bayman at no point did I say 6 meals where better than 3 I said that they both work.....you and alastttair have said there is no proof that 6 works better than 3 please show me proof 3 works better than 6?
> 
> Alastttair the reason I got into this thread was the aggressive nature you replied to someone who was of the belief 6 was better than 3 meals, as I have said on many times in this thread there is no one way to do anything and you need to find something that fits you.......so I am not sure why you are both pushing the point with me?
> 
> ...


I'll take that on board mate; re-reading it, it was unnecessarily aggressive, so apologies to everyone for that. I do think I've made some valid points though. I think the most important thing is to question everything that seems to be taken as gospel. If someone tells you that 50 rep sets lead to more hypertrophy then you need to ask why and do some research into it before taking it as a fact. Recently thanks to certain websites, books, journal articles and people on forums, I've started to question all the stuff we take for facts in bbing, so I guess my point is, think about the logic behind everything you do, and if there isn't any then don't do it. I.e. does incline bench really hit your "upper pecs"? Do you need 20 sets per body part or would 2 sets be enough for max hypertrophy? Why do we eat 6 meals a day? etc?

I think it's really important that everything you do has a purpose and that you're never just winging it. Every rep and nutritional rule should be important, and the majority of the time, with most of bbing, a good backing of scientific research will lay the foundations. Now I'm a million times less knowledgeable than many of the members here, but hopefully we can agree that it's important to question everything and have good reasoning for everything you do.

But I do apologise for being aggressive initially; there was no need for that


----------



## Big Dawg (Feb 24, 2008)

pumphead said:


> Pscarb. what you say is totaly true man. are you currently looking for any discipels ?


Rule 1 of being a disciple: you have to be able to spell disciple.

Just so I'm 100%, which bits of what Paul said were true and which bits of what we said were untrue (which seems like the implication there)?


----------



## pumphead (Feb 9, 2011)

:nono:



AlasTTTair said:


> Rule 1 of being a disciple: you have to be able to spell disciple.
> 
> Just so I'm 100%, which bits of what Paul said were true and which bits of what we said were untrue (which seems like the implication there)?


----------



## pumphead (Feb 9, 2011)

i wasn't impling that at all man. i didn't read your posts, just his.


----------



## Big Dawg (Feb 24, 2008)

pumphead said:


> i wasn't impling that at all man. i didn't read your posts, just his.


Ah OK mate, no worries


----------



## Outtapped (Dec 10, 2012)

Pscarb said:


> Bayman at no point did I say 6 meals where better than 3 I said that they both work.....you and alastttair have said there is no proof that 6 works better than 3 please show me proof 3 works better than 6?
> 
> Alastttair the reason I got into this thread was the aggressive nature you replied to someone who was of the belief 6 was better than 3 meals, as I have said on many times in this thread there is no one way to do anything and you need to find something that fits you.......so I am not sure why you are both pushing the point with me?
> 
> ...


Also at no point have I said 3 is better than 6 and also pointed out that the point he was trying to make was they are the same so I'm lost to what your point is there?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SteamRod (Oct 1, 2007)

Pscarb said:


> Guys we can argue all we want but as Tom has said real world is what counts, I have said this before actually after bayman insisted there is no difference in metabolism with multiple meals.....my temp increased more in a day where I eat 6 meals than on a weekend when I eat 3 ......not incredibly scientific but defiantly true.....
> 
> Now when your metabolism spikes your hunger does to as you body burns the food quicker.......Alastttair says he get hungrier when he eats more food does that not prove that point?
> 
> ...


All I'm gonna say is that having 5000 cals over 4 meals is a ****ing nightmare I spend most of the day alseep.


----------



## Big Gunz (Jun 9, 2009)

Like UKstrength said, its each to their own. What I find rather annoying though is when people say that you must have at least 6 meals a day, it's a must! Well thats just BS and could only make things harder for the person following the diet. I have started the "leangains" diet today and even though i'm only on 2500 kcal's (cutting) it's been relatively easy going about getting that number in. I obviously cannot comment more on anything else because like i said its my first day but i am definitely looking forward to it. The reason why I started this is because in the past when bulking/cutting my diet was on/off, it was too hard for me to maintain especially being at uni and everything - i just can't do it. You can call it lazyness or whatever, but if theres no scientific evidence for the 6 meals a day vs 3, then whats the point sticking to it, i'm only going to not stick to it...again. And also, i'm interested obviously because of the fat loss related to the fasting. I may bump the leangains thread for a couple of q's.



Pscarb said:


> you want a constant flow of aminoes through the day eating more meals makes this more achievable would you not agree?


Yes you want a constant supply of amino's throughout the day but that doesn't mean you have to eat very frequently. Eating 2 or 3 meals providing their is sufficient protein would provide amino's throughout the day since protein digests quite slowly.


----------



## Big Dawg (Feb 24, 2008)

Big Gunz said:


> Like UKstrength said, its each to their own. What I find rather annoying though is when people say that you must have at least 6 meals a day, it's a must! Well thats just BS and could only make things harder for the person following the diet. I have started the "leangains" diet today and even though i'm only on 2500 kcal's (cutting) it's been relatively easy going about getting that number in. I obviously cannot comment more on anything else because like i said its my first day but i am definitely looking forward to it. The reason why I started this is because in the past when bulking/cutting my diet was on/off, it was too hard for me to maintain especially being at uni and everything - i just can't do it. You can call it lazyness or whatever, but if theres no scientific evidence for the 6 meals a day vs 3, then whats the point sticking to it, i'm only going not going to stick to it...again. And also, i'm interested obviously because of the fat loss related to the fasting. I may bump the leangains thread for a couple of q's.
> 
> Yes you want a constant supply of amino's throughout the day but that doesn't mean you have to eat very frequently. Eating 2 or 3 meals providing their is sufficient protein would provide amino's throughout the day since protein digests quite slowly.


Exactly! Suggesting that you need to eat frequently because you get a constant flow of aminos (as if you don't when you eat one meal a day) is exactly what I'm talking about! It's like saying "Well surely decline bench stimulates your lower chest, don't you agree?". Like I said - they're just bodybuilding myths that really shouldn't be getting thrown around in this day and age.


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

This is an ever continuing question. There's one point that's important when looking at the studies on meal frequency, in that most of them are not conducted on bodybuilders or on athletic populations but overweight sedentry people looking to loose weight primarily through diet. This disctinction is important as it's not always the case that results can be transfered from one group to another.

I've posted this on this forum I think already but here's a link to a review of studies on meal frequency which does it's best to look at how changes effect athletes - http://www.jissn.com/content/8/1/4

For those who just want the highlights -



> 1. Increasing meal frequency does not appear to favorably change body composition in sedentary populations.
> 
> 2. If protein levels are adequate, increasing meal frequency during periods of hypoenergetic dieting may preserve lean body mass in athletic populations.
> 
> ...


Personally I'm like Paul - have a small stomach and very limited capacity to eat large meals without feeling bloated or appetite suppressed too much afterwards, so for me to eat enough to keep active I do best when having 4-5 feeds a day... I don't notice any detrement when I eat fewer larger meals to growth or body composition, is just that I usually find myself unable to eat as much overall, and for me this is a bad thing because I have low appetite anyway (on three meals a day I can't eat more than a little over 2000kcals without felling full, whereas by splitting I can get up to about 2700kcal without difficulty, and 2.7k is about what I need to maintain bodyweight).

Simply do what works for you - I think the differences people have demonstrated between how they respond individually in this thread show pretty clearly that neither method is superior or worse overall, but that for each individual there may be one approach that suits slightly better.


----------



## dannymak (Jul 2, 2010)

my god, i would of thort that just looking at what the pros eat and how offen was enough to settle this. go tell jay or ronnie just eat 3 meals a day, i think they would just laugh at ya n tell ya t **** off.

you are waht you eat, and depending on what you want and were ya want to go determins how much you eat. you want little gains eat a few meals you want t be big and try to make it with the pro's then eat like them......6-10 times a day. it aint hard. look and learn.


----------



## bayman (Feb 27, 2010)

Dtlv, thought you might find this interesting, it's a critique of ISSN review you posted above:

Taken from: http://www.leangains.com/2011/04/critique-of-issn-position-stand-on-meal.html



> *Introduction*
> 
> The International Society of Sports Nutrition (ISSN) is a forerunner in the movement toward providing reliable nutrition information for sports and fitness professionals. By virtue of its academically decorated staff and peer-reviewed research journal (JISSN), the ISSN is in a justifiable position to consider itself one of the world's top authorities on sports nutrition. Thus, when they issue a position statement on any given topic, it's frequently cited as solid evidence, and not taken lightly. For example, along with other literature reviews, I regularly cite their position paper on protein requirements for athletes [1]. However, I typically follow that up with what I do in personal practice, which isn't always research-backed. It's important to keep an eye on both the research and the trenches, since field knowledge can take years and sometimes decades to make it into academic publication.
> 
> ...


----------



## Aggression (Apr 13, 2009)

To all the peeps bashing theories and studies, 3 big meals/6-8 small(er) meals, as stated, look at real world results aswell as your own. We are all different and one of the hardest points of bodybuilding is finding where you fit in with training/nutrition. It can take a while, but eventually after trial and error (maybe not for a few lucky s.o.b's), you will find what training you respond best to and what eating patterns/macros your body reacts to better, in a positive way. I have a friend who is just a freak. Incredible upper body (**** legs, doesnt bother with them), best chest i've seen (and i train at Muscleworks in London so the competition is heavy). Good arms, capped bally delts, big thick back & a 6 pack. He doesnt even take a basic multi, creatine or Whey protein, let alone gear and his diet is shocking (no brekkie, chocolate, crisps, mars shake and an M&S Sarnie for lunch, whatever his mum cooks him for din dins), yet he just grows and if he cant be assed to train for a few months, he loses no size. Yet for me to grow, without feeling ****ty and keeping BF% respectable, i consume 6 decent sized meals (8 on training days, through the day, every 2-3hrs. Tried getting the same carbs/pro/fats in with 3 big meals and shakes in between and just bloated up, digestion was ****ty, felt less energy and gained less. Find what works FOR YOU!


----------



## Big Dawg (Feb 24, 2008)

dannymak said:


> my god, i would of thort that just looking at what the pros eat and how offen was enough to settle this. go tell jay or ronnie just eat 3 meals a day, i think they would just laugh at ya n tell ya t **** off.
> 
> you are waht you eat, and depending on what you want and were ya want to go determins how much you eat. you want little gains eat a few meals you want t be big and try to make it with the pro's then eat like them......6-10 times a day. it aint hard. look and learn.


This really is like debating with 5-year-olds sometimes. So you're saying that because they're pros they do everything right? Dude, Lee Haney comes out with some pretty stupid comments; in fact, I'll go as far as saying that a good number of pros have very practical advice to offer. These are people with great genetics who have a great capacity for muscle growth. Add even half-assed training, a load of food and a good amount of anabolics to these genetics and they're gonna blow up. Seriously mate, you'll find that most of what pros say (except Dorian for a lot of things) is based on nothing. And by nothing, I mean nothing scientific. There's probably a lot of reasons why they train and eat the way they do, but the main one will be because whatever they do will work, and they therefore don't need to worry about optimising everything for growth. Dorian's the only one I can think of who even had a pseudo-scientific approach to it. Yes yes, real-life experience is good, but please don't use pros as an example for anything. You'll learn one day that the best bodybuilder in the world might be doing a lot of things sub-optimally but is still the best at their game.



Aggression said:


> To all the peeps bashing theories and studies, 3 big meals/6-8 small(er) meals, as stated, look at real world results aswell as your own. We are all different and one of the hardest points of bodybuilding is finding where you fit in with training/nutrition. It can take a while, but eventually after trial and error (maybe not for a few lucky s.o.b's), you will find what training you respond best to and what eating patterns/macros your body reacts to better, in a positive way. I have a friend who is just a freak. Incredible upper body (**** legs, doesnt bother with them), best chest i've seen (and i train at Muscleworks in London so the competition is heavy). Good arms, capped bally delts, big thick back & a 6 pack. He doesnt even take a basic multi, creatine or Whey protein, let alone gear and his diet is shocking (no brekkie, chocolate, crisps, mars shake and an M&S Sarnie for lunch, whatever his mum cooks him for din dins), yet he just grows and if he cant be assed to train for a few months, he loses no size. Yet for me to grow, without feeling ****ty and keeping BF% respectable, i consume 6 decent sized meals (8 on training days, through the day, every 2-3hrs. Tried getting the same carbs/pro/fats in with 3 big meals and shakes in between and just bloated up, digestion was ****ty, felt less energy and gained less. Find what works FOR YOU!


I take it that's breakfast in the morning, lunch in the afternoon, dinner in the evening? That's not what we're suggesting, but for a lot of factors it shouldn't make much of a difference. If you're bloated fine; no one's asking you to do it, but I don't see what you're trying to achieve by bashing science and offering an anecdotal report of your mate. My brother only eats one sandwich a day and he's massive - explain that!


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

bayman said:


> Dtlv, thought you might find this interesting, it's a critique of ISSN review you posted above:
> 
> Taken from: http://www.leangains.com/2011/04/critique-of-issn-position-stand-on-meal.html


Nice find and has some valid points in it. I think the most important bit though is the uniform agreement of the statement below:



> "Nonetheless, more well-designed research studies involving various meal frequencies, particularly in physically active/athletic populations are warranted."


This subject is so massively lacking in studies that represent how bodybuilders eat and exercise that any generalisation can only ever said to be theory or a subjective observation rather than anything proven.


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

AlasTTTair said:


> I'll take that on board mate; re-reading it, it was unnecessarily aggressive, so apologies to everyone for that. I do think I've made some valid points though. I think the most important thing is to question everything that seems to be taken as gospel. If someone tells you that 50 rep sets lead to more hypertrophy then you need to ask why and do some research into it before taking it as a fact. Recently thanks to certain websites, books, journal articles and people on forums, I've started to question all the stuff we take for facts in bbing, so I guess my point is, think about the logic behind everything you do, and if there isn't any then don't do it. I.e. does incline bench really hit your "upper pecs"? Do you need 20 sets per body part or would 2 sets be enough for max hypertrophy? Why do we eat 6 meals a day? etc?
> 
> I think it's really important that everything you do has a purpose and that you're never just winging it. Every rep and nutritional rule should be important, and the majority of the time, with most of bbing, a good backing of scientific research will lay the foundations. Now I'm a million times less knowledgeable than many of the members here, but hopefully we can agree that it's important to question everything and have good reasoning for everything you do.
> 
> But I do apologise for being aggressive initially; there was no need for that


thats cool mate......

i agree with this post above that winging it just does not bring long term goals in the average person.....

we all have to remember that what works for one certainly does not mean it works for everyone...there certainly is not true way to follow with meal frequency, i run with 6 meals and it works and works well.......i have tried more and tried less meals but the results have not been as good or i have been uncomfortable.....


----------



## Jack92 (Aug 23, 2010)

7 times a day plus shakes


----------



## bayman (Feb 27, 2010)

Jack92 said:


> 7 times a day plus shakes


Did you even read the thread? All I can say is that must be damn inconvenient.


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

Today am not even sure I can slpit what I'm eating into meals... got the day off so am at home and almost 'drip feeding' food by constantly grazing.

Related to this, earlier on I read an article not at all related to bodybuilding but child development that suggested that the typical three meals a day thing that humans get into is purely cultural and designed around convenience for the working day, and that there is actually no biological need to eat like this at all (but no detriment either).

It suggested that if allowed to develop eating patterns totally naturally, children would grow to adults without a concept of meal times at all, instead they would just graze if food was always available, eating slightly more when more physically active. As babies we drink milk multiple times per day, and it is suggested that it's only cultural factors and the non avaialability of food 24 hours a day that cause us to ever change this pattern.


----------



## Rekless (May 5, 2009)

Dtlv74 said:


> Today am not even sure I can slpit what I'm eating into meals... got the day off so am at home and almost 'drip feeding' food by constantly grazing.
> 
> Related to this, earlier on I read an article not at all related to bodybuilding but child development that suggested that the typical three meals a day thing that humans get into is purely cultural and designed around convenience for the working day, and that there is actually no biological need to eat like this at all (but no detriment either).
> 
> It suggested that if allowed to develop eating patterns totally naturally, children would grow to adults without a concept of meal times at all, instead they would just graze if food was always available, eating slightly more when more physically active. As babies we drink milk multiple times per day, and it is suggested that it's only cultural factors and the non avaialability of food 24 hours a day that cause us to ever change this pattern.


most intresting idea of this whole thread imo.......


----------

