Meal Timing

[startinfromscratch]

IIFYM= if i f*ck ya mamma

[Shutupandsquat]

IIFYM= if i f*ck ya mamma

Hey, I created that, phaggot!

[PeterDolan]

One thing Id like to add to this is if you were to eat 1 large meal containing all the calories you wanted for the day... what do you do when you get hungry

again?.

Id rather eat when Im hungry and when trying to change body composition limit my total calories, while spreading my meals so not to get hungry.

The good thing with bro-science in this case is it just works better, even if its for different reasons.

Most would struggle to eat fewer meals through the day, more meals spread throughout is just easier to curb hunger and maintain energy on.

Id like to see Josef try living on 1 meal for any length of time :wink:

I fully agree McMass but their argument isn't based around what ifs, it's based around THIS is how it would be if you followed everything to the T

[Phedder]

One thing Id like to add to this is if you were to eat 1 large meal containing all the calories you wanted for the day... what do you do when you get hungry

again?.

Id rather eat when Im hungry and when trying to change body composition limit my total calories, while spreading my meals so not to get hungry.

The good thing with bro-science in this case is it just works better, even if its for different reasons.

Most would struggle to eat fewer meals through the day, more meals spread throughout is just easier to curb hunger and maintain energy on.

Id like to see Josef try living on 1 meal for any length of time :wink:

Have you ever done any reading into Intermittent Fasting? There's a variety of protocols out there, probably the most popular being LeanGains by Martin Berkhan. I follow the LeanGains approach, we've had a few discussions about it on here if you want to use the search function to read a bit more.

I eat all my daily calories within an 8 hour window, and that usually ends up being 2 meals and a post training shake. On rest days, it's not uncommon for me to only eat 1 meal for that day. It may take me 2 hours or so to eat it all, but it's still 1 meal

I prefer the fast and feast style of eating, it suits me better. When spreading the food out across 5+ small meals a day I'm just hungry all the time, never satisfied. Whereas eating fewer, but larger meals I actually feel full and satisfied after them, and then have no issue with hunger for the rest of the days. It's worked well for me with both dieting down and bulking up. Don't knock it till you've tried it :wink:

For the record, I do think the importance of meal timing is overstated but I just don't believe it to be irrelevant

Pretty much my take on things as well. Even though I do get the majority of my daily calories within 3-4 hours post training.

[Android]

I eat all my daily calories within an 8 hour window

Not bad, my breakfast starts at 7:30am and my last meal is 9:30pm so I have a 12hr window, similar concepts then.

And my fasting period would be while I'm sleeping so that's 8.5-9hrs.

We're doing the same thing mate :pfft:

[Phedder]

I eat all my daily calories within an 8 hour window

Not bad, my breakfast starts at 7:30am and my last meal is 9:30pm so I have a 12hr window, similar concepts then.

And my fasting period would be while I'm sleeping so that's 8.5-9hrs.

We're doing the same thing mate :pfft:

Your math's a bit off mate Otherwise your days are only 20-21hours long :shock:

7.30am-9.30pm = 14 hours :wink:

[bella22]

The HCG diet is new diet technique, in which hormone drops are used which causes weight reduction.

hcg drops

homeopathic hcg

hcg diet plan

[bella22]

The HCG diet is new diet technique, in which hormone drops are used which causes weight reduction.

hcg drops

homeopathic hcg

hcg diet plan

[Android]

I eat all my daily calories within an 8 hour window

Not bad, my breakfast starts at 7:30am and my last meal is 9:30pm so I have a 12hr window, similar concepts then.

And my fasting period would be while I'm sleeping so that's 8.5-9hrs.

We're doing the same thing mate :pfft:

Your math's a bit off mate Otherwise your days are only 20-21hours long :shock:

7.30am-9.30pm = 14 hours :wink:

Minor issue, damn your attention to detail.

I sense your Mod powers are strong with you

[trainlikeafreak]

does this theory disregard metabolism? or does it say that regular meals have no direct effect on it? it obviously does but just wondering what the "experts" are thinking lol.

[Phedder]

does this theory disregard metabolism? or does it say that regular meals have no direct effect on it? it obviously does but just wondering what the "experts" are thinking lol.

It doesn't disregard metabolism. Meal frequency has no affect on metabolism, the content of those meals does. Given the same total daily intake of food, it could be split across 10 meals or 1, and it would still result in the same total rise in metabolic activity. Look into the 'Thermic Effect of Food' which is basically the energy cost of processing the food you eat. Given the same intake, the total TEF will be same with 10 meals or 1. The 10 meals will result in many small peaks and troughs, whereas the 1 meal will result in one very large spike that stays elevated for quite a while.

Not aimed at anyone, but this pic is classic

[vracula]

Love lean gains.

[Android]

does this theory disregard metabolism? or does it say that regular meals have no direct effect on it? it obviously does but just wondering what the "experts" are thinking lol.

It doesn't disregard metabolism. Meal frequency has no affect on metabolism, the content of those meals does. Given the same total daily intake of food, it could be split across 10 meals or 1, and it would still result in the same total rise in metabolic activity. Look into the 'Thermic Effect of Food' which is basically the energy cost of processing the food you eat. Given the same intake, the total TEF will be same with 10 meals or 1. The 10 meals will result in many small peaks and troughs, whereas the 1 meal will result in one very large spike that stays elevated for quite a while.

Not aimed at anyone, but this pic is classic

I find it hard to believe that 1 large meal will amp your metabolism up 10 times more than 10 small meals and therefore be an equal result.

Please show me where this is so...doesn't have to be an online study, just show me where it says the metabolism (not TEF) increases to 10 times the amount if you ate 10-fold food in one sitting.

TEF is great when you're talking protein. 25% of a gram of protein (or 1 calorie) goes towards it's own consumption. But don't compare 10 meals of 30gms protein to 1 meal of 300gms protein mate. Come on, apart from the physical limit of digestion and processing our bodies have to protein, amino acids circulate for about 3hrs before being excreted so you're starving yourself of aminos for 10-12hrs.

Sure the body can pull them from within the body, but why do you want to pull them out of one place to then use them elsewhere in a muscle repair...don't make it hard to grow, make it easy! Swim in amino acids all day long if you can afford to.

Anyway if I ate 1 meal and got 10 times the effects I'd be dead.

I could find a way to eat 3,000 cals in one sitting and I am sure I would get a bit of a high from it, but not 10 times. The body has feedback mechanisms to cope with all of these situations.

Go to any show around the world (earth-world to be precise) where guys and girls get down to the small percentage body fat and ask them which ones only eat once a day...I bet you can't find a single one and every single one of them (including myself) would love to find a better more economical way. People are searching for new ideas every day, and they're not resorting to candy canes (IIFYM) and a single meal (IF).

[trainlikeafreak]

saying meal frequency has no effect on metabolism is a bit of a joke if you ask me but hey each to their own. anyway moving on..

[Phedder]

I find it hard to believe that 1 large meal will amp your metabolism up 10 times more than 10 small meals and therefore be an equal result.

Please show me where this is so...doesn't have to be an online study, just show me where it says the metabolism (not TEF) increases to 10 times the amount if you ate 10-fold food in one sitting.

Let's get one thing straight first; When it comes to an increase in metabolism from food consumption, it is the TEF that is responsible for that increase. When examining various effects of food, an increase in metabolism is interchangeable with an increase in the Thermic Effect of Food, it's just semantics to argue otherwise.

Anyway if I ate 1 meal and got 10 times the effects I'd be dead.

I could find a way to eat 3,000 cals in one sitting and I am sure I would get a bit of a high from it, but not 10 times. The body has feedback mechanisms to cope with all of these situations.

What makes you say you'd be dead :shock:

The 10 meals vs 1 was just to make my point, and I'll admit isn't very practical. 2-3 meals versus 6-8 is more realistic, and the same principals still hold. If you ate that 3000 cal meal, you would get 10 times the metabolic (TEF) response of a 300 cal meal with the same proportional macronutrient composition. If you had 10 of those 300 cal meals, they would add up to a total TEF, and thus metabolic increase, just the same as that single 3000 cal meal.

Here's a fantastic article to read in general about many diet myths, and the very first point it makes is about meal frequency: http://www.leangains.com/2010/10/top-te ... unked.html

This study - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9155494 is the main review cited, and in it's abstract states

More importantly, studies using whole-body calorimetry and doubly-labelled water to assess total 24 h energy expenditure find no difference between nibbling and gorging.

Nibbling being many small meals, gorging being fewer large meals.

I don't know if you can get access to the whole review, so I'll quote some of the key sections on meal frequency and TEF here;

SHORT-TERM STUDIES OF DIET-INDUCED THERMOGENESlS

It is reasonable to suppose that any differences in energy expenditure between nibbling and gorging meal patterns will be most apparent during the period of postprandial nutrient handling when energy is being used for the absorption, transport, interconversion and storage of substrates. The rate of ingestion and absorption of nutrients might influence their short-term metabolic fate with energetic consequences. For instance, a very large bolus meal with a high carbohydrate content might saturate the maximal rate of glycogen synthesis and force additional disposal via de novo lipogenesis; there is much evidence to support a hyperlipogenic effect of gorging in animal studies (Fabry & Tepperman, 1970). The ‘inefficiency’ of glycogen synthesis (approximately 2%) is much lower than the inefficiency of lipogenesis (approximately 25 %; Flatt, 1985) and, hence, a larger meal might be expected to be associated with a greater heat production. Similarly, a large meal might stimulate a greater proportion of ‘facultative’ thermogenesis, the component which is mediated (especially by carbohydrate) through activation of the sympathetic nervous system (JCquier, 1992). For these reasons, and because most investigators do not possess whole-body calorimeters, there have been a number of short-term studies of the thermic effect of feeding (TEF), alternatively referred to as diet-induced thermogenesis. The results of these studies, employing intermittent postprandial measures of energy expenditure by ventilated hood or Douglas bag methods, are summarized in Table 3. A central problem with short-term studies is the question of whether the postprandial measurements capture the entire area under the thermogenic peak. Many studies of TEF restrict their measurements to about 3 h duration because it is difficult for subjects to remain completely still for longer periods. However, the thermogenic peak may take much longer to subside, particularly after a very large meal. This may be especially pertinent in studies of nibbling v. gorging, and it is noteworthy that the two shortest studies in Table 3, by Tai et al. (1991) and LeBlanc et al. (1993), have yielded almost exactly opposite findings despite their rather similar investigative protocols. In a slightly longer study, Molnar (1992) corroborates the findings of Tai et al. (1991) (TEF is greater on the gorging regimen), but the difference amounts to only 3.4 % of the ingested energy. The other longer studies recorded no significant differences in TEF (Belko & Barbieri, 1987; Kinabo & Durnin, 1990). We conclude that there is no strong evidence in support of a biologically-significant difference in TEF according to meal patterns. The 24 h studies discussed later (p. S66) entirely corroborate this summary. Further subsidiary support for this conclusion can be drawn from the observation that extraordinarily large doses of carbohydrate (500 g per meal) can be disposed of without recourse to any net lipogenesis (Acheson et al. 1982), thus undermining one of the initial arguments in favour of the hypothesis that TEF might differ according to meal pattern.

These studies provide a very strong consensus that there is no effect of meal pattern on total energy expenditure. In most of the studies the group mean values for 24 h energy expenditure are almost identical on the different treatments. The single doubly-labelled-water study corroborates the calorimetry results. Within the 24 h period several studies observed shifts in the diurnal pattern of energy expenditure in a predictable direction. For instance, Dallosso et al. (1982) reported

significantly raised night-time expenditure on the gorging regimen. This was caused by ingestion of the second large meal at 19.00 hours, at the same time as the last of the much smaller nibbling meals when on the alternative treatment. The significantly raised night- time expenditure was compensated for by a lower daytime expenditure

Here's a link to Lyle Mcdonalds summary/write up about that paper, and makes for much easier reading - http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/resear ... #more-1389 I'll also save that Study as a PDF and PM it to you if you'd like to read it properly instead of just the Abstract and sections I've quoted.

Go to any show around the world (earth-world to be precise) where guys and girls get down to the small percentage body fat and ask them which ones only eat once a day...I bet you can't find a single one and every single one of them (including myself) would love to find a better more economical way. People are searching for new ideas every day, and they're not resorting to candy canes (IIFYM) and a single meal (IF).

If you look through the LeanGains website and find some client results and testimonials, there's plenty of people getting ridiculously lean by eating very large meals Post workout, and fasting for 16 hours or more a day. Here's just a few pictures;

3 weeks out from competition;

Martin Himself, the guy behind LeanGains;

Some of his clients;

don't make it hard to grow, make it easy! Swim in amino acids all day long if you can afford to.

All of those above, and myself aren't finding it hard at all. I've gained almost 12kgs since Dec last year, certainly not all muscle but I'm far from fat. My strength has sky rocketed (yes natty) and it's all happened eating 2-3 meals a day within an 8 hour window. If my body was only able to process x amount of protein at once, and the rest goes to waste, do you really think myself or any that I've posted above would be able to make progress?

I'm really not sure what else I can say or show you, have a read of everything I've linked and if you've still got any questions I'll try my best to give some answers. I'm far from an expert on any of this, but the evidence is there. I'm not saying 6 meals spread through the day is bad either, it obviously works for many many people and they get fantastic results. This is just another alternative, that does work, and possibly works better for some individuals.

[Android]

Thanks for the main paper you mention in the response.

If I may quote from the conclusion of the paper for everyone to see, it just saves reading all the graphs and studies chosen by the hypothesizing researchers...I am not making this up

We conclude that there is robust evidence from several Independent laboratories to refute the hypothesis that feeding frequency is a significant determinant of energetic efficiency in human subjects when assessed over 24h or longer. Consequently, feeding frequency has no significant impact on the rate of weight loss during energy restriction.

They go on, but it is of the same vein.... and then say....

Since we conclude that feeding frequency has no discernible effect on 24hr energy expenditure, then any putative effects on regulation of body weight must be mediated through effects on the intake side of the energy balance equation.

There's no new research done, they merely conclude from graphs that they admit show that meal frequency "appears" to show lower fat...is all wrong.

Their conclusion jumps from "since we conclude..." therefore ..."it's got to be mediated through effects etc etc".

This isn't science that proves by analysis and sound reasoning backed by evidence that because A, B, and C therefore D. This is "Although A shows B we hypothesis that it isn't leading on to C and therefore E, not D".

Not convinced at all. Sorry Phedder. This paper talks about fat loss and you say you gained 12kg...so the concept works both ways, that's incredible.

I'm not saying you didn't get to where r today any other way. But lay down your goal and I bet u could have got there much sooner with frequent feeding. But we can't turn back time, neither you nor me, so it comes down to you believing in the system, or faith. Hence why it should be a cult, therefore tax-free by definition of a religion...sound logic? I rest my case

[HarryB]

I am going to try just eating 1 small meal a day... see if that works. I read somewhere on the net it was the way to go.

[crazyfacials]

I am going to try just eating 1 small meal a day... see if that works. I read somewhere on the net it was the way to go.

best not be trying to come to Athletic class bro...let me get my plastic trophy first atleast.....jerk!

[Phedder]

:doh:

Not convinced at all. Sorry Phedder. This paper talks about fat loss and you say you gained 12kg...so the concept works both ways, that's incredible.

I'm not saying you didn't get to where r today any other way. But lay down your goal and I bet u could have got there much sooner with frequent feeding.

You asked me to show you evidence that metabolic activity is the same regardless of meal frequency, I've done exactly that, and those conclusions you quoted say exactly that to help back up my point.

Go to any show around the world (earth-world to be precise) where guys and girls get down to the small percentage body fat and ask them which ones only eat once a day...I bet you can't find a single one

I showed you plenty. I don't know if they only ate 1 meal a day, which I was simply using as an example to show a principal in the first place. I do know they ate all their food within an 8 hour window and fasted for 16 hours a day, usually fasting longer on rest days, and most eating only 2 or 3 meals.

This isn't science that proves by analysis and sound reasoning backed by evidence that because A, B, and C therefore D. This is "Although A shows B we hypothesis that it isn't leading on to C and therefore E, not D".

That wasn't an experiment based study, no. It was a review, of many other experiment based studies that all show exactly what I stated. How you can ignore that I truly don't understand. It is science, and it did prove by analysis of those many other experimental studies done on the topic that meal frequency has no impact on total energy expenditure or metabolism, which is is exactly what my argument initially stated and what I wanted to show.

But we can't turn back time, neither you nor me, so it comes down to you believing in the system, or faith. Hence why it should be a cult, therefore tax-free by definition of a religion...sound logic? I rest my case

Was that really called for? There's no faith or religion here, there's sound and proven scientific principals. Hell, I could call the 'eat frequent small meals or your metabolism will drop, you'll get fat and make no gains' brigade a bunch on brain washed idiots without the ability to think critically and analyse evidence. That seems more faith, cult, and religion like than what I've presented. I know you're a lot more intelligent than them, and you analyse many aspects relating to training and diet instead of being spoon fed. I just don't understand how you can't accept the evidence I present above :?

I'll state again, I'm not saying a low meal frequency and fasting is superior to a high meal frequency spread throughout the day. I'm saying that they're both valid methods of eating that get results when applied correctly. Whether one is better than the other is likely down to the individual and how well they can apply it. Could I have gotten the same results eating frequently, quite probably. But as I stated earlier, I despise frequent small meals. It makes me even hungrier, and thus more likely to overeat. So that 12kg I've gained without excess fat gain could have been 15-20kg with excess fat gain. I'm not trying to convert you or anyone else to this style of eating, the entire debate was based around meal frequency affecting metabolism, and I've shown it does not.

So, if you have any issues with the principals behind it and want to discuss it logically and with evidence, I'm more than happy to. But I'm not going to be belittled because you're close minded and can't accept that other methods are just as valid as the many small meals that has been beaten into all of us by supplement companies and successful body builders for years.

[Sonja]

Hi Guys, my meals were timed to the "T" by my trainer/nutritionist for my first ever show, calories broken down to protein, carbs, fats, training schedule + cardio this worked for me as I gained a first place Womens Open middle weight @ 53kg, 2nd place in Masters 40+. 7 months to get ready a long time to diet and train, but I gained 20kgs then leaned it all out in 10 weeks when he changed my diet plan nearly every week reducing my carbs, increased my fats, maintained good protein for muscle, workouts and cardio changes. My show was June 16th 2012 North Carolina USA. Yes I am a kiwi and a personal trainer too. Nov 3 is my next show and I am already dieting, and yes putting on more muscle mass, diet different to last time and as you see I have 5 months to get ready again. I was the lightest in my weight class but ripped to shreads. Thanks to my trainer/nutritionist.

Personally meal timing is important for getting the best results, building muscle and maximising your workouts to always hit failure. You need

failure to grow!!!! Sonja

[Android]

Hi Guys, my meals were timed to the "T" by my trainer/nutritionist for my first ever show, calories broken down to protein, carbs, fats, training schedule + cardio this worked for me as I gained a first place Womens Open middle weight @ 53kg, 2nd place in Masters 40+. 7 months to get ready a long time to diet and train, but I gained 20kgs then leaned it all out in 10 weeks when he changed my diet plan nearly every week reducing my carbs, increased my fats, maintained good protein for muscle, workouts and cardio changes. My show was June 16th 2012 North Carolina USA. Yes I am a kiwi and a personal trainer too. Nov 3 is my next show and I am already dieting, and yes putting on more muscle mass, diet different to last time and as you see I have 5 months to get ready again. I was the lightest in my weight class but ripped to shreads. Thanks to my trainer/nutritionist.

Personally meal timing is important for getting the best results, building muscle and maximising your workouts to always hit failure. You need

failure to grow!!!! Sonja

That's what the majority of successful bodybuilders do Sonja.

Unfortunately (and Phedder will likely take this personally) but he hasn't been at that level and doesn't know that "his way" won't take anyone there.

That wasn't an experiment based study, no. It was a review...

:shock:

Hell, I could call the 'eat frequent small meals or your metabolism will drop, you'll get fat and make no gains' brigade a bunch on brain washed idiots without the ability to think critically and analyse evidence.

No you can't.

There's way more studies proving frequent feeding for metabolism and performance is the right choice. Otherwise AIS would change the way they fed athletes if your suggestion showed even a 1% gain.

Phedder,

I think it's obvious this topic is as much about your belief in the system as it is about pride in your ability to select the best system.

Me?

I'll follow the flock and pray that millions of athletes and bodybuilders worldwide can't be that wrong :pray:

I'll gladly say I have faith in frequent feeding and not take offence

[karm015]

But we can't turn back time, neither you nor me, so it comes down to you believing in the system, or faith. Hence why it should be a cult, therefore tax-free by definition of a religion...sound logic? I rest my case

Was that really called for? There's no faith or religion here, there's sound and proven scientific principals. Hell, I could call the 'eat frequent small meals or your metabolism will drop, you'll get fat and make no gains' brigade a bunch on brain washed idiots without the ability to think critically and analyse evidence. That seems more faith, cult, and religion like than what I've presented. I know you're a lot more intelligent than them, and you analyse many aspects relating to training and diet instead of being spoon fed. I just don't understand how you can't accept the evidence I present above :?

So, if you have any issues with the principals behind it and want to discuss it logically and with evidence, I'm more than happy to. But I'm not going to be belittled because you're close minded and can't accept that other methods are just as valid as the many small meals that has been beaten into all of us by supplement companies and successful body builders for years.

gave reps for this. i'm loathe to get caught up in this conversation to be honest, especially now given that it would be hard to one up the quoted post.

(and Phedder will likely take this personally) but he hasn't been at that level and doesn't know that "his way" won't take anyone there.

ad hominem aside (is that really necessary? coming across as arrogant tbh), how do you know this? do you have proof, anecdotal or otherwise? no one is saying that the tried and tested method of regular feeding is bad, or inferior to lean gains, are they? you keep asking for proof, but when its presented to you, you come back with this little gem (see emboldened section of above quote), and start spouting nonsense about science...

anyway i'm not here to defend the system, i prefer to eat "regularly" too. i'm just really surprised by the content (and tone) of your posts, they've really come out of left field... i'm actually inclined to ask, are you serious or just messing with people?

[Phedder]

That's what the majority of successful bodybuilders do Sonja.

Unfortunately (and Phedder will likely take this personally) but he hasn't been at that level and doesn't know that "his way" won't take anyone there.

No, I haven't been at that level. I don't take it personally at all, I know if I had been, my argument would hold a little more credibility. But did I not show you earlier many people who used this approach successfully, and had been to that level? I understand that you prefer the frequent feeding, I'm not attacking that methodology at all. But you simply denying that a low meal frequency and fasting works also, especially when shown evidence both scientific and on stage, baffles me.

There's way more studies proving frequent feeding for metabolism and performance is the right choice. Otherwise AIS would change the way they fed athletes if your suggestion showed even a 1% gain.

I'm not talking about athletes, at all.

Please, show me these studies that show frequent feeding boosts metabolism, compared to a low frequency protocol, when both groups consume the exact same total food intake. I've read a fair few studies that show this metabolism boost, and not one of them had what I would consider valid methods. When controlling for calorie and macronutrient intake, there will be no difference between various feeding frequencies, as the review I posted showed. I'd be happy to read any studies you could show me to the contrary, showing a significant metabolic boost from high frequency feeding.

I think it's obvious this topic is as much about your belief in the system as it is about pride in your ability to select the best system.

Not at all, as I've already said multiple times both, and other systems all work when applied correctly. I'm happy to prescribe frequent feeding when it's appropriate to a persons goals or individual traits, just as I am happy to prescribe infrequent feeding. This is the system that I've found works best for me, yes. I by no means believe it is the best system for everyone, I'm well aware that some people, and some athletes with a very high training volume and energy demands, will not do well on my approach. I also don't believe many bodybuilders, at least at an amateur level, fall into that category.

We clearly have very different view points, and I can happily accept that. My issue is more with your total denial of any other system working. I happily admit that frequent feeding works well for many and gets amazing results, and at it's base my argument is that for some people, those results can be achieved or even surpassed using other dietary systems as well. I suppose it comes down to the very cliché , Can't we all just get along :pfft:

no one is saying that the tried and tested method of regular feeding is bad, or inferior to lean gains, are they? you keep asking for proof, but when its presented to you, you come back with this little gem (see emboldened section of above quote)

Thanks Karm, for seeing both view points

[AZIDE]

.

[karm015]

":7jpfjyck]

i know who you are now :nono:

(as in other handle)