# Studys that prove eating more meals throughout the day is beneficial for fat loss



## standardflexer (Jul 16, 2008)

Hi guys

Do you know of any studys that show eating smaller meals more frequently throughout the day is more beneficial?

For either fat loss, metabolism etc


----------



## kernowgee (Jan 30, 2011)

Why would you need to study this mate?

It's logical if you work out how long protein takes to be absorbed into the system, more meals expands this window.


----------



## engllishboy (Nov 1, 2007)

Toby1 said:


> Every time you eat your metabolism is raised by something like 20% for about an hour therefore if you eat lots of little meals you will burn off more fat.


But surely a bigger meal would increase the metabolic rate even more and for longer?


----------



## Fatstuff (Mar 2, 2010)

I think the only real benefit to eating 6 times a day is it's easier to get more calories. That's it!!!! I dont buy into this raised metabolism nonsense, if it does I wouldn't imagine it doing it by much.


----------



## bayman (Feb 27, 2010)

kernowgee said:


> Why would you need to study this mate?
> 
> It's logical if you work out how long protein takes to be absorbed into the system, more meals expands this window.


Hmm. Given that whey protein absorbs at around 10g per hour, adn wholefoods at around 3-6g per hour, why is it logical to assume more meals = faster metabolism?



Toby1 said:


> Every time you eat your metabolism is raised by something like 20% for about an hour therefore if you eat lots of little meals you will burn off more fat.


Incorrect.

Have a read of this: http://www.uk-muscle.co.uk/losing-weight/128524-can-you-lose-bf-while-cal-surplus-cycle-2.html#post2164166

If you eat lots of smaller meals you just get lots of little raises in metabolism, eat 3 big meals you get 3 big rises in metabolism. Calories being equal between both meal frequencies the net effect on metabolism works out to be the same however.


----------



## Rekless (May 5, 2009)

bayman said:


> Hmm. Given that whey protein absorbs at around 10g per hour, adn wholefoods at around 3-6g per hour, why is it logical to assume more meals = faster metabolism?
> 
> Incorrect.
> 
> ...


Bang on.

eating 6 small meals has no benefit over eating 3 larger meals with the same macros.


----------



## bayman (Feb 27, 2010)

Rekless said:


> Bang on.
> 
> eating 6 small meals has no benefit over eating 3 larger meals with the same macros.


Exactly.

Here's one of the best summaries of the issue I've come across, also for the OP it's referenced, so if you were after some material for uni study or personal research the studies at the end are a great start point:



Martin Berkhan said:


> You've probably heard that eating smalls meals throughout the day 'stokes the metabolic fire' or is the ideal way to eat in order to control cravings and blood sugar; as consequence, this should also be the ideal way to eat for fat burning purposes. This belief is partly based on a gross and blatantly incorrect interpretation of research concerning TEF (Thermic Effect of Food).
> 
> Besides body weight, activity patterns and genetics, TEF is part of the equation that determines your metabolic rate for each given day. Paradoxically, ingesting energy costs energy and TEF is the increase in metabolic rate above basal conditions due to the cost of processing food for storage and use (ref). Simply put, every time you eat, the body expends a certain percentage of energy just to process the food you just ate. TEF varies between the macronutrients; protein is given a value of 20-25%, carbs 5% and fat 2-3% (ref). In a mixed diet, TEF is usually estimated to 10% of the calorie intake.
> 
> ...


----------



## Wardy211436114751 (Jan 24, 2011)

Ha this is great so all this 8 mini meal bull**** is no better than me having my 3 big meals


----------



## bayman (Feb 27, 2010)

On The Rise said:


> Ha this is great so all this 8 mini meal bull**** is no better than me having my 3 big meals


No better at all mate.


----------



## a.notherguy (Nov 17, 2008)

ignoring the 'does it or doesnt it affect metabolism' debate its certainly more beneficial for me eating more small meals as i never feel bloated or lethargic as a result of stuffing a huge meal down me.


----------



## Andrew Jacks (Sep 29, 2010)

Even if there was it would be soon followed by another study showing the exact opposite, given the amount of variables and known fact metabolism slows the older you get. One thing that has been studied is not how many but the importance of the first meal of the day on metabolism


----------



## bayman (Feb 27, 2010)

a.notherguy said:


> ignoring the 'does it or doesnt it affect metabolism' debate its certainly more beneficial for me eating more small meals as i never feel bloated or lethargic as a result of stuffing a huge meal down me.


Well that's fine. Some people prefer eating more often, some less. There is no "one size fits all approach" to diet - as you can see from the various approaches on here.

And so long as you realise any results you get from eating more often are down to diet compliance rather than any spurious "speeding up your metabolism" rubbish, then it's all good.


----------



## bayman (Feb 27, 2010)

Andrew Jacks said:


> Even if there was it would be soon followed by another study showing the exact opposite, given the amount of variables and known fact metabolism slows the older you get.


Metabolism may slow, but that doesn't change the fact of how it responds to feeding. The research cited above is pretty conclusive, and modern day at that.



Andrew Jacks said:


> *One thing that has been studied is not how many but the importance of the first meal of the day on metabolism *


Really?

I know I've posted the research on here before, but up to 60hrs of complete fasting has shown to have no impact on metabolism, in fact it goes up slightly (~5%) during the inital period of the fast.

So of far greater importance to when you eat, is making sure you hit your daily calories and macros.

When some of these myths will finally be put to bed I don't know...


----------



## Big Dawg (Feb 24, 2008)

a.notherguy said:


> ignoring the 'does it or doesnt it affect metabolism' debate its certainly more beneficial for me eating more small meals as i never feel bloated or lethargic as a result of stuffing a huge meal down me.


I'm the other way around. Eating every 3 hours just makes me starving and I'm constantly thinking about food. That's why dieting's so hard for me! With IF I barely think about food at all during the day, get to eat 3 really satisfying meals at night and can drop fat piece of pi55! I've never felt satisfied when eating 6 small meals and I think for anyone who doesn't want to be carrying tuppaware around all day then 3 meals is a much better option. Most of the information passed around in bodybuilding is based on various myths, so I'm glad people are now starting to challenge some of them. Soon maybe people will stop believing in an "upper pec" too :lol: .


----------



## BillC (Jun 11, 2009)

bayman said:


> Metabolism may slow, but that doesn't change the fact of how it responds to feeding. The research cited above is pretty conclusive, and modern day at that.
> 
> Really?
> 
> ...


If this was the case, then surey the pros, who know how important rest is, wouldn't wake themselves up in the middle of the night to eat. They do it to keep a constant suplly of aminos to build muscle, not becuase they haven't been able to eat enough. I think for the average trainer, you're probrably right though as they don't have the nutritional requirements as pros.

I don't need studies to prove what works for me though, and that is I can eat more in a day spread over 6 meals than over 3 and stay the same weight.

Also, when having 6 smaller meals, your stomach isn't being stretched as much as it is with 3 large meals, so eventually you don't need to eat as much to feel hunger satisfied, as your stomach shrinks. This can be a hinderance when trying to bulk as I find it difficult now to force enough calories in due to never having large meals.


----------



## Andrew Jacks (Sep 29, 2010)

No sorry bayman I have no time for your argumentative warped ideas, your theories work on dwarfs but not large body builders, more small rugby players who can live on nectar blossom and roam the valleys, you keep thinking your theories apply to all when they clearly don't. Enjoy playing with the more gullible among us


----------



## Rekless (May 5, 2009)

Andrew Jacks said:


> No sorry bayman I have no time for your argumentative warped ideas, your theories work on dwarfs but not large body builders, more small rugby players who can live on nectar blossom and roam the valleys, you keep thinking your theories apply to all when they clearly don't. Enjoy playing with the more gullible among us


love to hear your theories?


----------



## xpower (Jul 28, 2009)

I only have 4-5 meals a day now.

Much easier to get on with "normal" life this way


----------



## bayman (Feb 27, 2010)

Andrew Jacks said:


> No sorry bayman I have no time for your argumentative warped ideas, your theories work on dwarfs but not large body builders, more small rugby players who can live on nectar blossom and roam the valleys, you keep thinking your theories apply to all when they clearly don't. Enjoy playing with the more gullible among us


Great thoughtful, logical, clear reasoning there.

Ask yourself this: What motivation do I have for disspelling these myths? Answer: To stop people wasting their time worrying about minutae where diets are concerned that make not one bit of difference.

I've backed my arguments up with research and sound arguments, I'm not the only one convinced by this either, go check the sources of my information is you don't believe what I've written. You're a very closed minded individual, a marketing man's dream.

And rugby players being small and weak? Please. Also I forgot bodybuilders were genetically different to the rest of the population.


----------



## bayman (Feb 27, 2010)

Rekless said:


> love to hear your theories?


Me too!


----------



## Big Dawg (Feb 24, 2008)

BillC said:


> If this was the case, then surey the pros, who know how important rest is, wouldn't wake themselves up in the middle of the night to eat. They do it to keep a constant suplly of aminos to build muscle, not becuase they haven't been able to eat enough. I think for the average trainer, you're probrably right though as they don't have the nutritional requirements as pros.
> 
> I don't need studies to prove what works for me though, and that is I can eat more in a day spread over 6 meals than over 3 and stay the same weight.
> 
> Also, when having 6 smaller meals, your stomach isn't being stretched as much as it is with 3 large meals, so eventually you don't need to eat as much to feel hunger satisfied, as your stomach shrinks. This can be a hinderance when trying to bulk as I find it difficult now to force enough calories in due to never having large meals.


Don't concern yourselves with what pros do; just because they do it doesn't make it right. If they find it easier to get in more calories that way then cool, but arguments about metabolism being continually elevated (and that being a good thing), and more protein being absorbed etc, seem to be based largely on conjecture.


----------



## kernowgee (Jan 30, 2011)

standardflexer said:


> Hi guys
> 
> Do you know of any studys that show eating smaller meals more frequently throughout the day is more beneficial?
> 
> For either fat loss, metabolism etc


I can see where the OP is coming from, but even if we went down the road of Basal metabolic rate (BMR) and metabolic rate (RMR) and created a typical metabolic rate and found a cross sample it still leaves the fact we are the unknown variable, our metabolic rate is unique to us, but saying this logic would say, eating 6 times a day and reducing our calories by say 20% would be a more efficient way of burning fat than had we only eaten three times, but the difference would be verging on microscopic.


----------



## bayman (Feb 27, 2010)

kernowgee said:


> I can see where the OP is coming from, but even if we went down the road of Basal metabolic rate (BMR) and metabolic rate (RMR) and created a typical metabolic rate and found a cross sample it still leaves the fact we are the unknown variable, our metabolic rate is unique to us, but saying this logic would say, *eating 6 times a day and reducing our calories by say 20% would be a more efficient way of burning fat than had we only eaten three times,* but the difference would be verging on microscopic.


What?

Explain why (the bolded bit), given the info I've already given you in this thread - I'm all ears.


----------



## tomass1342 (Nov 12, 2009)

Ok, so if eating smaller meal does not affect fat loss, What does it do to muscle building? the 'keeping the body anabolic theory' Does eating smaller meals often help build more muscle?


----------



## Big Dawg (Feb 24, 2008)

tomass1342 said:


> Ok, so if eating smaller meal does not affect fat loss, What does it do to muscle building? the 'keeping the body anabolic theory' Does eating smaller meals often help build more muscle?


I would imagine only in the sense that for hard gainers you'd probably be able to put down more food. But in terms of protein absorption and all that shiznit, there's probs not a jot of difference.


----------



## bayman (Feb 27, 2010)

tomass1342 said:


> Ok, so if eating smaller meal does not affect fat loss, What does it do to muscle building? the 'keeping the body anabolic theory' Does eating smaller meals often help build more muscle?


Nope. If anything it can de-sensitise the body to the amino response, at least in naturals anyway - Layne Norton has done some good work on this.

Smaller meals more often only really helps if you struggle to get your cals in over less meals. If you get 3500cals over 3 meals, thats around 1200per meal, which some of you may find difficult (not me I might add). Or if you get it in over 7 meals that's 500cal per meal. All depends on what suits you best.

Also, the "keeping the body anabolic" crap assumes there is an upper limit on protein digestion per meal, and that it's absorbed quicker than the scientific literature shows.


----------



## tomass1342 (Nov 12, 2009)

interesting, so the only real benifit depends on how much food you can eat at once?


----------



## Chris4Pez1436114538 (Sep 3, 2007)

guys impo too many people are getting too scientific on what works and what doesn't. Guys everyone's body is different so it does not matter what study is done and what isnt try your own study on your own body and see what works for your self.

this is the best part of the training cycle yet everyone seems to be forgetting this, and this is what i feel makes you all learn the best possible way. too many people now are following some sort of diet or training wrote by someone else that they dont even understand the basics of and cant understand why when they come to a platue the cant change the way they train or how to gain.

now i am not claiming to be an expert (far frm it) but if you look at my old posts when i first joined and my knowledge now i have learnt where most of the guys on here havent (this is no way in a blaze to the post starter or anyone on here but jus my observation).

guys if you wanna know about macros, micros, supplements, etc try it out and see what you get from it, some people are ok on 5-7 small meals and some on only 3 larger ones.


----------



## tomass1342 (Nov 12, 2009)

ill stick to 6-7 large meals


----------



## Bish83 (Nov 18, 2009)

There is a study done on this i cant remember what the title was but it did actually prove 6 meals were better than 3 at holding onto muscle mass. This was done in a calorie *deficit*.

Also at what point would you need to worry about this, most guys on here however much they'd like to believe are not that lean, so i dont think (just a theory) the body is that concerned about giving up some fat stores, sparing the muscle.

I really do believe all this 6-8 meals a day, have a post work out with xxg of dextrose, walking on an empty stomach blah blah blah is for the ultra insulin sensitive guys that are actually reducing their body fat to several pounds worth of weight. Ofcourse all the wannabe bb'ers want to imitate their idols:whistling:.


----------



## Big Gunz (Jun 9, 2009)

How is this bayman's theory when clearly the research states it is a fact - that eating more meals (same total kcal's) has no effect on the metabolism.

Jeez, why are guy's so against science? All i hear is "ohh what about the pro's though, they dont do that do they...so therefore it's BS...blah blah" or "But this is MY body and I know what WORKS best"

The fact is, as humans we are very very similar physiologically speaking. Therefore the studies like this can be applied to the population.


----------



## Big Dawg (Feb 24, 2008)

Bish83 said:


> There is a study done on this i cant remember what the title was but it did actually prove 6 meals were better than 3 at holding onto muscle mass. This was done in a calorie *deficit*.
> 
> Also at what point would you need to worry about this, most guys on here however much they'd like to believe are not that lean, so i dont think (just a theory) the body is that concerned about giving up some fat stores, sparing the muscle.
> 
> I really do believe all this 6-8 meals a day, have a post work out with xxg of dextrose, walking on an empty stomach blah blah blah is for the ultra insulin sensitive guys that are actually reducing their body fat to several pounds worth of weight. Ofcourse all the wannabe bb'ers want to imitate their idols:whistling:.


Sorry, why are 6-8 meals a day for insulin sensitive guys? And if that's the case, why would the pros, who obviously have among the best bbing genetics in the world, do it?

Maybe you've just worded it strangely or I'm not fully interpreting what you mean. Do you mean that because three larger meals will cause three large insulin spikes, as opposed to 6 small insulin spikes (all things being equal), people with poor carb sensitivity will gain fat in the former approach? I have very poor carb sensitivity and am currently leaning out nicely using IF. I'd like to think the benefits of fasting for 16 hours are superior to stuffing yourself all day, and I'd imagine that the sum of all insulin spikes will be fairly equal if calories and macros are the same. This is just based on my opinion though, as is what you've said.


----------



## bayman (Feb 27, 2010)

Bish83 said:


> There is a study done on this i cant remember what the title was but it did actually prove 6 meals were better than 3 at holding onto muscle mass. This was done in a calorie *deficit*.


Yep there is one, done on boxers who were fed 1200cals of a liquid diet, either over 3 or 6 meals. Trouble is, it was a tiny sample size so you can't interprit the results with any confidence, and who eats 1200 liquid cals per day when dieting? The results go against a lot more research in the area showing no difference between normal meal frequency and multiple meal, and aren't really that applicable to normal dieting situations.


----------



## bayman (Feb 27, 2010)

Big Gunz said:


> How is this bayman's theory when clearly the research states it is a fact - that eating more meals (same total kcal's) has no effect on the metabolism.
> 
> Jeez, why are guy's so against science? All i hear is "ohh what about the pro's though, they dont do that do they...so therefore it's BS...blah blah" or "But this is MY body and I know what WORKS best"
> 
> The fact is, as humans we are very very similar physiologically speaking. Therefore the studies like this can be applied to the population.


I'm only glad a few people on here seem to get what I'm saying. Reps mate!


----------



## Big Dawg (Feb 24, 2008)

It's all well and good quoting "studies" bayman, if that is your real name, but you're ignoring the fact that all bbing facts are based on common sense, not on science.

So on that note, I intend to keep my lifestyle of eating 6 meals a day, not eating carbs after 6pm (not even if it's 6:01), having my PWO shake within 60 seconds of my last set, training my "upper pec" with incline press, training my "middle pec" with flat press, training my "lower pec" with decline press, eating 6000cals a day when bulking because you have to put fat on to put muscle on, waking up at 3am to have a shake because everyone knows you go catabolic if you leave more than 3 hours between meals, eating 10,000cals on cheat day because if you don't your metabolism will hit the floor after 6 days of dieting, not eating fat because it makes you fat (the clue is in the name, duh!), training with high reps when I want to cut and low reps when I want to gain, wearing a belt all workout to keep my waist small, and last but not least, praying to Jesus Christ our saviour to give me more muscle.

None of these practises are based on "scientific fact" bayman, but everyone knows that this is how you're supposed to do stuff if you wanna be a bodybuilder!


----------



## Wevans2303 (Feb 18, 2010)

For every study saying more frequent meals are better for fat loss and muscle retention there's another that says the opposite.

Bottom line is there are guys who eat all the time and guys who eat 1 meal a day and do fantastically well out of it, instead of looking for proof and pulling your hair out reading studies why don't you just formulate a healthy diet that works for YOU?


----------



## hackskii (Jul 27, 2003)

Well, I eat small meals during the day and do so because I tend to eat less.

Once the body triggers a hunger responce for me I tend to over eat.

I also feel myself less energy when spiking blood sugars with a big meal and this makes me feel tired.

If I wait too long before my next meal I tend to over eat.

So, to me eating smaller more frequent meals controls my body weight easier, and I feel better.

Now, if I felt like I was not going to eat for a day due to some strange reason then I would overeat/binge as I would not know where or when the next meal was comming from.


----------



## Mars (Aug 25, 2007)

bayman said:


> I'm only glad a few people on here seem to get what I'm saying. Reps mate!


 :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:, here we go again, the uneducated who believe they are educated by reading a few studies they found by googling  .


----------



## bayman (Feb 27, 2010)

Wevans2303 said:


> *For every study saying more frequent meals are better for fat loss and muscle retention there's another that says the opposite.*
> 
> Bottom line is there are guys who eat all the time and guys who eat 1 meal a day and do fantastically well out of it, instead of looking for proof and pulling your hair out reading studies why don't you just formulate a healthy diet that works for YOU?


Go ahead an post them then? I've read a lot of the so called studies, and they either flat out misinterprit the results, or decent studies (like the ones I've posted) don't support the theory of more meals being better than less.

The second part of what you said is the most important take home bit bar none though.


----------



## bayman (Feb 27, 2010)

mars1960 said:


> :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:, here we go again, the uneducated who believe they are educated by reading a few studies they found by googling  .


I could say the same to you Mars. The onus is on you to disprove it, you didn't do anything of the sort in the last thread you chimed in on regarding this topic. From memory it went something like this:

Me: Meal frequency has no bearing on metabolism, calories being equal (cited studies).

You: It's scientific fact

Me: Show me if it's "fact"

You: .....

I'm still waiting.


----------



## hsmann87 (Jun 22, 2010)

i consume approx 4,200 cals a day split over 7 meals

there is no way i could break that down into 3 meals of 1,400 cals each. i would puke lol

what im doign now seems to be working so i will carry on doing it.


----------



## Big Dawg (Feb 24, 2008)

hsmann87 said:


> i consume approx 4,200 cals a day split over 7 meals
> 
> there is no way i could break that down into 3 meals of 1,400 cals each. i would puke lol
> 
> what im doign now seems to be working so i will carry on doing it.


I don't reckon it'd be that hard. 100g rice, 200g turkey and broccoli for the main (600cals); 500g quark, 50g peanut butter, 150g berries, 1 apple for the dessert (750cals) equals 120g protein, 1350 calories. Plus, you'll actually feel full afterwards


----------



## Guest (Mar 7, 2011)

I eat 1600-2000 calories in my main meal of the day.

a whey shake and fruit is all i'll have before that.

I like eating til Im stuffed.


----------



## kernowgee (Jan 30, 2011)

ALR said:


> I eat 1600-2000 calories in my main meal of the day.
> 
> .


You must look like a wire brush


----------



## bayman (Feb 27, 2010)

Here's another study for anyone interested:

http://journals.cambridge.org/download.php?file=%2FBJN%2FBJN70_01%2FS0007114593001096a.pdf&code=0b3c159ed78594383592b187924f0996

From the study conclusions:



> Our findings indicated no influence of meal frequency on BMR. EE was significantly elevated in the gorging pattern due to an increased DIT. However, when correcting the data on DIT for the relevant time interval, the effect of meal frequency was neutralized.


BMR = Basal Metabolic Rate.

EE = Energy Expenditure.

DIT = Dietary Induced Thermogenesis

How's that for you then Mars? No infulence on basal metabolic rate given differening meal frequency. Conclusive enough?


----------



## Guest (Mar 7, 2011)

kernowgee said:


> You must look like a wire brush


190lbs 6'1, 6 pack.

Shows how much you know.


----------



## hackskii (Jul 27, 2003)

I think behind the couple of hormones Grehlin (signals hunger), and Leptin (signals the brain you are not hungry) the size of the meal and the number of meals would in fact factor in over consumption of food or being able to diet down without feeling massivly hungry.

Eating more frequently with smaller meals would allow one to not feel as hungry and thus eat less food overall.

I also feel that if you wait too long to eat you tend to over feed, and if it takes like 20 minutes before cholecystokinin (CCK) gets sent to the brain to tell you to stop, you could over eat.


----------



## bayman (Feb 27, 2010)

hackskii said:


> I think behind the couple of hormones Grehlin (signals hunger), and Leptin (signals the brain you are not hungry) the size of the meal and the number of meals would in fact factor in over consumption of food or being able to diet down without feeling massivly hungry.
> 
> Eating more frequently with smaller meals would allow one to not feel as hungry and thus eat less food overall.
> 
> I also feel that if you wait too long to eat you tend to over feed, and if it takes like 20 minutes before cholecystokinin (CCK) gets sent to the brain to tell you to stop, you could over eat.


Not really Scott. Ghrelin can become entrained to any meal frequency, it takes around a week to re-set it from say a high meal frequency to a low one. For instance as I now always have my first meal of the day at 2pm I never get hungry until 1hour or so before this time, I never feel hungry on waking as a result. Your theory above also assumes the individual isn't aware of / actively tracking his caloric intake.

For some, when dieting, lots of small, unsubstantial meals can feel very unsatisfying, possibly trigger cravings. Bigger meals can actually be a pro in this instance. Like I've said countless times already in the thread already though - totally individual specific, what works for one might not for the other, just no need to tout either approach as gospel.


----------



## Bish83 (Nov 18, 2009)

AlasTTTair said:


> Sorry, why are 6-8 meals a day for insulin sensitive guys? And if that's the case, why would the pros, who obviously have among the best bbing genetics in the world, do it?


I ment in regards to having dextrose for a post workout insulin spike, most guys that are very lean would naturally be very insulin sensitive. But theres guys with guts that might be thinking dextrose raising the most anabolic hormone will benefit them in the same way. It wont work that way.

As far as diet is concerned i really believe its what works for you most consistantly and is the most convenient. Having 6 or more meals a day would just not be convenient for the shifts i do and i hate the way some muscle magazines/websites make out it will ruin your chances of looking good. But i dont think eating til your full is terribly effective for general performance either but since none of us live in a pre-historic caveman era we have to set a few comprimises.

Also you really do need to be skeptical of what pro bb'ers say (infact anyone) not all have found out by themselves what works what doesnt, they were spoon fed by their trainers/dieticians/word of mouth.


----------



## Stvjon41 (Jan 16, 2011)

Surely it is best to just say personal preference should prevail here. Some people believe 6 meals are better, other swear by 3 meals. Just concentrate on hitting macros and I'm sure you won't go far wrong.


----------



## hilly (Jan 19, 2008)

joshnow said:


> experts in protein metabolism and ultilisation dr scott connelly and layne norton believe their research namely nortons.
> 
> for higher protein synthesis a period of at least 3 hours is needed for motor to be reset for another equally as high protein ultilisation from a protein meal they believe larger meals would mean less frequency of eating, so rather than 7 small meals which might be 2-2.30hours apart which results in less absorbtion and ultilisation than the previous meal.
> 
> ...


i no for a fact layne N does not preach this at all and i believe that its nonsense. if you eat more than 20g protein per meal protein synthesis decreases???? no chance

I saw a post by layne on intense muscle just recently and if i remember right he said 50g protein provided enough leucine to maximise protein synthesis.

not directed at you pal but some of the stuff posted in this thread is stupid to say the least.

Wether you eat 3/4/5/6/7 meals per day if you hit your totals for the day the difference will be very small. eat to your schedule and make sure you get all your macros in. dont worry about anything else


----------



## MarkFranco (Aug 26, 2010)

I just eat large meals as i dont have the time, patients, money etc etc so prepare 6 meals... just eat a ****load when i wake up... tonnes midday and my bodyweight at night


----------



## Fatstuff (Mar 2, 2010)

All I know for definite is that when I use IF I'm getting lean, I wasn't before because small meals don't satisfy


----------



## MarkFranco (Aug 26, 2010)

Been lean is over rated, the muscle makes my fat hang allright so i aint fussed.

People in the know might think im a 20%+ water retaining mess, but bitches just thing im LARGE


----------



## hilly (Jan 19, 2008)

joshnow said:


> no the efficiency rate decreases e.g two times the amount does not =two times the effect.


well thats different however this still isnt relative to bodybuilders IMO. if you can eat more protein and get more protein synthesis then you want to do so to get max protein synthesis available.


----------



## Andrew Jacks (Sep 29, 2010)

Stvjon41 said:


> Surely it is best to just say personal preference should prevail here. Some people believe 6 meals are better, other swear by 3 meals. Just concentrate on hitting macros and I'm sure you won't go far wrong.


There is no secret ingredient

The biggest problem is people ask direct questions without experimenting themselves with what works for their lifestyle, I sit around in an office all day and nearly 40 so my lifestyle and metabolism is very different from a builder or university graduate, the most important thing is to find what works for you and keep experimenting because over time as your body grows what works one day does not another, there is no perfect answer or as they say there is no secret ingredient no matter what team bayman says


----------



## Rekless (May 5, 2009)

I think a thread like this is good though as many of the newbies starting out will fret over NEEDING to eat 6 times a day etc as this is generally what is advised by people.

Bayman is simply bringing it to peoples attention this is not crucial. Getting enough protein for muscle repiar, enough carbs or fat for energy is more important that meal frequency.


----------



## bayman (Feb 27, 2010)

Andrew Jacks said:


> There is no secret ingredient
> 
> The biggest problem is people ask direct questions without experimenting themselves with what works for their lifestyle, I sit around in an office all day and nearly 40 so my lifestyle and metabolism is very different from a builder or university graduate, the most important thing is to find what works for you and keep experimenting because over time as your body grows what works one day does not another, there is no perfect answer or as they say there is no secret ingredient no matter what team bayman says


Please tell me where I said there is a perfect answer or secret ingredient in this thread?

I said that meal frequency has no influence on fat loss or metabolism (which is doesn't), you then chimed in saying that the research is all contradictory (which it isn't), and that breakfast is the most important meal of the day on metabolism (which, again, it isn't).

The truth is, it doesn't matter how you get you daily calories in, be that 1, 3, 5, or 15 meals per day, it doesn't matter if you miss breakfast and make up for it later in the day, it doesn't matter if you get all of your cals in early and have fewer in the evening. *All this food timing crap comes massively secondary to hitting you daily cals and macros.*As the research I've posted shows.

You don't seem to be able to grasp this issue and you keep giving out moronic advice on topics you have no proper knowledge on, repeating oft heard bodybuilding myths as above. If you haven't anything properly useful to contribute, don't, but don't take exception with what I post because it doesn't fit with your limited view of bodybuilding nutrition.


----------



## bayman (Feb 27, 2010)

Rekless said:


> I think a thread like this is good though as many of the newbies starting out will fret over NEEDING to eat 6 times a day etc as this is generally what is advised by people.
> 
> Bayman is simply bringing it to peoples attention this is not crucial. Getting enough protein for muscle repiar, enough carbs or fat for energy is more important that meal frequency.


 :thumb:


----------



## Brotein (Mar 22, 2010)

bayman said:


> :thumb:


You are really doing the work to spread the knowledge of IF mate good job, lets hope that they take in the knowledge.


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

For effects of different eating frequency and meal patterns on metabolism, there are differing effects on specific physiological aspects that relate to metabolism, but these differences get 'averaged out' to no significant difference overall. Gotta love homeostasis.

Effects on certain markers of health however can be more varied between eating patterns - there are some interesting studies suggesting that eating the same mixed macro food divided over more frequent smaller meals may well result in lower total insulin and c-pep response. Cholesterol levels also tend to be more stable and lower overall with multiple feeds (if you worry about such things).


----------



## Guest (Mar 8, 2011)

Dtlv74 said:


> For effects of different eating frequency and meal patterns on metabolism, there are differing effects on specific physiological aspects that relate to metabolism, but these differences get 'averaged out' to no significant difference overall. Gotta love homeostasis.
> 
> Effects on certain markers of health however can be more varied between eating patterns - there are some interesting studies suggesting that eating the same mixed macro food divided over more frequent smaller meals may well result in lower total insulin and c-pep response. Cholesterol levels also tend to be more stable and lower overall with multiple feeds (if you worry about such things).


Care to post these as I've read the opposite. ie intermittent fasting decreases cholesterol etc.

In fact I've read that alternate day fasting (no calories one day, 2x the normal the next) is in fact the superior eating method for health markers...but I don't fancy trying it and although I'm not certain, I really can't see such long fasting beind good for muscle growth.


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

ALR said:


> Care to post these as I've read the opposite. ie intermittent fasting decreases cholesterol etc.
> 
> In fact I've read that alternate day fasting (no calories one day, 2x the normal the next) is in fact the superior eating method for health markers...but I don't fancy trying it and although I'm not certain, I really can't see such long fasting beind good for muscle growth.


Intermittant fasting between well fed periods is good for health markers, but then so is eating small meals frequently or a grazing/nibbling diet... it's the middle position of eating nutrient dense meals frequently (a typical bulking type diet) that comes off least healthy of all.



> *Nibbling versus Gorging: Metabolic Advantages of Increased Meal Frequency*
> 
> David J.A. Jenkins, M.D., Ph.D., Thomas M.S. Wolever, M.D.., Ph.D., Vladimir Vuksan, Ph.D., Furio Brighenti, Ph.D., Stephen C. Cunnane, Ph.D., A. Venketeshwer Rao, Ph.D., Alexandra L. Jenkins, R.P.DT., Gloria Buckley, M.SC, Robert Patten, M.D., William Singer, M.B., B.S., Paul Corey, Ph.D., and Robert G. Josse, M.B., B.S.
> 
> ...





> *Effect of isoenergetic intake of three or nine meals on plasma lipoproteins and glucose metabolism*
> 
> LM Arnold, MJ Ball, AW Duncan and J Mann
> 
> ...





> *Increased meal frequency associated with decreased cholesterol concentrations*
> 
> Rancho Bernardo, CA, 1984-1987
> 
> ...





> *Metabolic advantages of spreading the nutrient load: effects of increased meal frequency in non-insulin-dependent diabetes*
> 
> DJ Jenkins, A Ocana, AL Jenkins, TM Wolever, V Vuksan, L Katzman, M Hollands, G Greenberg, P Corey and R Patten
> 
> ...





> *Meal-frequency effects on plasma hormone concentrations and cholesterol synthesis in humans*
> 
> PJ Jones, CA Leitch and RA Pederson
> 
> ...


etc.


----------



## Fatstuff (Mar 2, 2010)

Just to let everyone know I have just had my first meal of the day 1100 calories roughly 90g protein, i worked out at half 2 and now I feel lovely and full and will be till my next large feast - wouldnt swap IF for any other eating plan, I'm shedding fat slowly but surely and hitting pb's regularly!! Please - everybody give it a go!!! U will never go back to tiny little unfulfilling meals ever!!!


----------



## Guest (Mar 8, 2011)

Dtlv74 said:


> Intermittant fasting between well fed periods is good for health markers, but then so is eating small meals frequently or a grazing/nibbling diet... it's the middle position of eating nutrient dense meals frequently (a typical bulking type diet) that comes off least healthy of all.
> 
> etc.


Interesting, thanks for actually responding with the studies. I hadn't seen those ones.

I'm enjoying intermittent fasting purely on the basis that I like to eat til stuffed, and it's the only way I can do so on a cut so I won't be changing it. Esp not for the 6 meals a day I used to base my life around!


----------

