Meal Timing

[Android]

(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?

Arrogant?

You've highlighted my comment about Phedder in reply to a bodybuilder, Sonja.

Phedder is a competitive PowerLifter dude, what anecdotal proof are you asking me to supply here about my comment to Sonja.... :shock:

He...is....a...Power Lifter. It's a fact, why do I need more proof about the comment youve quoted me saying?

I get that u think I'm arrogant, i don't get that I need more proof of my comment...sorry dude u got me

[karm015]

naw man i didn't mean it like that. from the tone, the way the quoted post comes across is, "i have competed and he hasn't so whatever he has to say about this is wrong". that is imo arrogant because i'm pretty sure you're perfectly capable of arguing your point convincingly without belittling him

um are you deliberately misconstruing my post? is it really that vague? :-s i wasn't talking about phedder not competing as a bb'er, i'm well aware that he hasn't. i was talking about your claim that his method won't work... and the "arrogant" thing was in regard to the way you chose to go about arguing your point... don't take it personally man, what i said only goes as far as this thread

must i also reinforce my point that i agree with you with the meal timing thing?

anyway i'm not here to defend the system, i prefer to eat "regularly" too

[thatwaslight]

im def not even close to being even a shit amateur bber but i put on 5kg of lean mass eating 3 times a day at random times

[Android]

Be good to get back on topic Phedder.

You're right I haven't presented anything I really thought you guys would have read them yourself before, but here are a few.

My first post was aimed at RAKICH who claims quite clearly that body composition is NOT affected by meal timings. With that in mind...

In 1960 the common studies were with rats.

At that time they used to tube-feed them, some twice a day and some continuously. The ones that were fed twice a day gained almost twice as much fat.

Analysis of published work which compared rats fed by stomach tube twice daily on amounts of food that allowed them to gain weight equally with rats which had food always available, termed meal-eaters and nibblers, respectively, showed that the former laid down almost twice as much body fat. The same was true when the groups were pair-fed not to gain equal weights but with equal amounts of food. The meal-eating rat conserved more calories, retained as fat, and on the basis of calories retained in relation to calories eaten was twice as efficient. Studies of carbohydrate metabolism suggested that in the meal-eater more glucose was metabolised by the phosphogluconate oxidative pathway and hence that lipogenesis proceeded faster. Further study showed that thyroids of meal-eaters were less active than those of nibblers and that this was secondary to lower rate of release of thyrotropic hormone. But when meal-eaters were given thyroxine injections the difference in fat deposition did not disappear. It is suggested that rate of ingestion and absorption of nutrients may have widespread effects on enzyme systems. Some implications for human eating habits are suggested.-D. Duncan.

I like that the thyroids were less active in the meal-eaters just as we observe in preparing for bodybuilding comps.

I also like that the rats show that meal timing does impact body composition, completely. This study was repeated on other types of animals as well.

Into the late 80's the same tests were being conducted on humans.

Here's the outcome of just one of many studies done on men comparing 3 meals a day with 17 meals a day.

As compared with the three-meal diet, the nibbling diet reduced fasting serum concentrations of total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and apolipoprotein B by a mean (±SE) of 8.5±2.5 percent (P<0.02), 13.5±3.4 percent (P<0.01), and 15.1±5.7 percent (P<0.05), respectively. Although the mean blood glucose level and serum concentrations of free fatty acids, 3-hydroxybutyrate, and triglyceride were similar during both diets, during the nibbling diet the mean serum insulin level decreased by 27.9±6.3 percent (P<0.01) and the mean 24-hour urinary C-peptide output decreased by 20.2 ±5.6 percent (P<0.02). In addition, the mean 24-hour urinary cortisol excretion was lower by 17.3±5.9 percent (P<0.05) at the end of the nibbling diet than at the end of the three-meal diet. The blood glucose, serum insulin, and C-peptide responses to a standardized breakfast and the results of an intravenous glucose-tolerance test conducted at the end of each diet were similar.

We conclude that in addition to the amount and type of food eaten, the frequency of meals may be an important determinant of fasting serum lipid levels, possibly in relation to changes in insulin secretion. (N Engl J Med 1989; 321:929–34.)

This study was done on more than 2,000 black and white girls over 10yrs. This is longer than any study presented by the "meal timings are irrelevant" camp. There was no calorie restriction on any type of meal timing habit, these girls were allowed to just eat and record.

OBJECTIVE:

To document meal frequency and its relationship to body mass index (BMI) in a longitudinal sample of black and white girls from ages 9-19 years.

DESIGN:

Ten-year longitudinal observational study.

SUBJECTS:

At baseline, 1209 Black girls (539 age nine years, 670 age 10 years) and 1,166 White girls (616 age nine years, 550 age 10 years) were enrolled in the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute Growth and Health Study (NGHS).

MEASUREMENTS:

Three-day food diaries, measured height and weight and self-reported physical activity and television viewing were obtained at annual in-person visits.

RESULTS:

Over the course of the study, the percentage of girls eating 3+ meals on all 3 days was reduced by over half (15 vs 6%). Participants who ate 3+ meals on more days had lower BMI-for-age z-scores. Black girls, but not white girls, who ate 3+ meals on more days were less likely to meet criteria for overweight.

In 2006 a small study was done titled "Consequence of Omitting or Adding a Meal in Man on Body Composition, Food Intake, and Metabolism"

Objective: To investigate in man the consequence on body composition and related biological and metabolic parameters of omitting or adding a meal.

Research Methods and Procedures: Twenty-four young normal-weight male subjects were recruited, 12 usual four-meal and 12 usual three-meal eaters, differing only in the consumption of an afternoon meal. They omitted or added a fourth meal during a 28-day habituation period and were asked to report their intake on three 3-day occasions. Before and after this habituation period, subjects participated in a session with a time-blinded procedure, and blood was collected continuously from lunch to the spontaneously requested dinner. Body composition, respiratory quotient, and biochemical parameters were measured in the late evening preceding each session.

Results: Omitting a meal was followed by increases in fat mass (360 plusminus 115 grams, p < 0.05), late evening leptin concentration (20.7 plusminus 11.0% , p < 0.05), and respiratory quotient (3.7 plusminus 1.4% , p < 0.05). Increase in the percentage of dietary fat during the habituation period (+4.1 plusminus 2.0% , p < 0.05) was correlated with fat mass (r = 0.66, p < 0.05). Adding a meal had no effect, but, in both groups, the change in energy content at this fourth eating occasion was correlated with the change in adiposity.

I don't have time to show all the articles because this research has been going on for so long and continues to.

But body composition IS affected by meal timings.

What I'd like to avoid is presenting website links like the one you did as proof that debunk frequent feeding with comments like:

The myths I'll debunk today are being kept alive by:

1. Repetition. Repeat something often enough and it becomes the truth.

2. Commercial forces. For example, the supplement industry benefits greatly from people believing that frequent feedings provide a metabolic advantage.

3. Few people have the knowledge or interest needed to interpret the scientific evidence and draw their own conclusions.

[Shutupandsquat]

I can see both sides of the argument here.

Android has competed, and has got down to a low bf% and knows what it takes to get there and has done it by eating regularly.

Phedder, has not been there, and there for gets no respect for his evidence. Phedder's evidence is reasonable, and he's not saying that eating one big meal is the ONLY way to do it, but people have successfully got to a competition body from it. Look at the guy with the shredded quads and well shredded body. That's enough for me.

If someone can hit the conditioning, then why not? I eat regularly, in fact bout 8 small meals a day on my diet, but that's just so I don't get hungry and feel like shit.

Let's ask this. Andy, have you done the fasting diet? No. Have I done it? No. And both of us probably won't. But for all we know, that could be one way that gets us into perfect condition. I wouldn't listen to MOST NZ bodybuilders, because MOST of their conditioning isn't really anything credible (I'm sure everyone else would agree). But the fact is, if it works, then it works. If it doesn't, then it doesn't.

Studies don't count for shit, if someone proves that they can defy the "laws" of a certain aspect.

[Bobsta]

Babies know how to grow best and they eat every 3 hours

[Android]

I can see both sides of the argument here.

Android has competed, and has got down to a low bf% and knows what it takes to get there and has done it by eating regularly.

Phedder, has not been there, and there for gets no respect for his evidence. Phedder's evidence is reasonable, and he's not saying that eating one big meal is the ONLY way to do it, but people have successfully got to a competition body from it. Look at the guy with the shredded quads and well shredded body. That's enough for me.

If someone can hit the conditioning, then why not? I eat regularly, in fact bout 8 small meals a day on my diet, but that's just so I don't get hungry and feel like shit.

Let's ask this. Andy, have you done the fasting diet? No. Have I done it? No. And both of us probably won't. But for all we know, that could be one way that gets us into perfect condition. I wouldn't listen to MOST NZ bodybuilders, because MOST of their conditioning isn't really anything credible (I'm sure everyone else would agree). But the fact is, if it works, then it works. If it doesn't, then it doesn't.

Studies don't count for shit, if someone proves that they can defy the "laws" of a certain aspect.

Hahaha

Yeah the argument shouldn't be ablout one person's personal experience that was a side-track mate. We shouldn't think just because it works for us it works for others and Phedder also says that himself.

The masses of athletes and the medical community working in areas of health and nutrition know which one to recommend to keep the metabolism burning.

TEF isn't metabolism as Phedder suggested in ealrier posts, it accounts for like 10% of metabolism, but there you go...facts and fiction get blurred

[startinfromscratch]

i think this thread has ended up with a great wealth of info. now it has run its course, as a mod i will lock it to prevent it getting ruined.

[Phedder]

You're right I haven't presented anything I really thought you guys would have read them yourself before, but here are a few.

As I said, I have read plenty of them. I haven't, however, read any that used sound methodology, and were calorie and macronutrient controlled, where the only differing variable was the number of meals consumed. You still haven't shown me any evidence that fits those criteria.

In 1960 the common studies were with rats.

At that time they used to tube-feed them, some twice a day and some continuously. The ones that were fed twice a day gained almost twice as much fat.

A rat study does not count as evidence for human meal frequency. Sure it gave them reason to continue research on humans, but are you seriously trying to use rats to back up your argument?

Into the late 80's the same tests were being conducted on humans.

Here's the outcome of just one of many studies done on men comparing 3 meals a day with 17 meals a day.

As compared with the three-meal diet, the nibbling diet reduced fasting serum concentrations of total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and apolipoprotein B by a mean (±SE) of 8.5±2.5 percent (P<0.02), 13.5±3.4 percent (P<0.01), and 15.1±5.7 percent (P<0.05), respectively. Although the mean blood glucose level and serum concentrations of free fatty acids, 3-hydroxybutyrate, and triglyceride were similar during both diets, during the nibbling diet the mean serum insulin level decreased by 27.9±6.3 percent (P<0.01) and the mean 24-hour urinary C-peptide output decreased by 20.2 ±5.6 percent (P<0.02). In addition, the mean 24-hour urinary cortisol excretion was lower by 17.3±5.9 percent (P<0.05) at the end of the nibbling diet than at the end of the three-meal diet. The blood glucose, serum insulin, and C-peptide responses to a standardized breakfast and the results of an intravenous glucose-tolerance test conducted at the end of each diet were similar.

We conclude that in addition to the amount and type of food eaten, the frequency of meals may be an important determinant of fasting serum lipid levels, possibly in relation to changes in insulin secretion. (N Engl J Med 1989; 321:929–34.)

This one looks somewhat promising, but again no mention of whether or not they were calorie controlled. Could you give me the reference for this study so I can track down the full version?

This study was done on more than 2,000 black and white girls over 10yrs. This is longer than any study presented by the "meal timings are irrelevant" camp. There was no calorie restriction on any type of meal timing habit, these girls were allowed to just eat and record.

Again, this does not fit the criteria. All this does is show a trend, correlation does not equal causation. This was not calorie or macronutrient controlled. The high frequency eaters may have eaten less total calories, or have had a more active lifestyle in general.

In 2006 a small study was done titled "Consequence of Omitting or Adding a Meal in Man on Body Composition, Food Intake, and Metabolism"

Objective: To investigate in man the consequence on body composition and related biological and metabolic parameters of omitting or adding a meal.

Research Methods and Procedures: Twenty-four young normal-weight male subjects were recruited, 12 usual four-meal and 12 usual three-meal eaters, differing only in the consumption of an afternoon meal. They omitted or added a fourth meal during a 28-day habituation period and were asked to report their intake on three 3-day occasions. Before and after this habituation period, subjects participated in a session with a time-blinded procedure, and blood was collected continuously from lunch to the spontaneously requested dinner. Body composition, respiratory quotient, and biochemical parameters were measured in the late evening preceding each session.

Results: Omitting a meal was followed by increases in fat mass (360 plusminus 115 grams, p < 0.05), late evening leptin concentration (20.7 plusminus 11.0% , p < 0.05), and respiratory quotient (3.7 plusminus 1.4% , p < 0.05). Increase in the percentage of dietary fat during the habituation period (+4.1 plusminus 2.0% , p < 0.05) was correlated with fat mass (r = 0.66, p < 0.05). Adding a meal had no effect, but, in both groups, the change in energy content at this fourth eating occasion was correlated with the change in adiposity.

The part in bold is all that I needed to see. They gained weight because they ate more total calories, shocking!

I've read plenty of studies similar to what you've provided, everyone single one of them that has showed a positive result for higher meal frequency increasing metabolism has used terrible methodologies, and has not controlled for calories or macronutrients. It's no surprise that when someone eats more, they gain weight :roll:

So, I ask again. Show me some studies with sound methods, that control for total calorie intake and the only manipulated variable being meal frequency. Every study in the Review I posted was conducted with controlled calorie intakes, and only the meal frequency varying. Every study in that review showed no significant difference between meal frequencies.

Here's a screenshot of one of the tables for others to see:

Notice that the studies used the same total energy intake (some studies using both men and women had 2 different intakes) and listed the total number of meals per day, and none of them show a statistical significance.

TEF isn't metabolism as Phedder suggested in ealrier posts, it accounts for like 10% of metabolism, but there you go...facts and fiction get blurred

I never suggested TEF was the same as total metabolism, that's ridiculous. But when calculating metabolic changes due to food consumption, the change in total metabolism will be the same as the change in TEF. The only part of energy metabolism that eating affects is TEF.

[Android]

A rat study does not count as evidence for human meal frequency. Sure it gave them reason to continue research on humans, but are you seriously trying to use rats to back up your argument?

You read this and missed the whole point of the study and the thyroids. You still only equate a meal as provding TEF and this is wrong.

Every single time we all eat a meal...leptin levels rise.

Leptin tells the brain to stop eating. It's antagonist hormone is grehlin (GHRP-6 users will know this one) and when leptin drops the brain receives signals from grehlin.

When you don't eat for a while leptin signals the thyroid hormomes to decrease metabolic rate.

The only part of energy metabolism that eating affects is TEF.

why?

This has nothing to with the TEF or the energy expended to consume food, it's all about meal timing and it's effect on metabolsim

please do not ask that I now prove that low leptin does in fact lower thyroid to you :shock:

meal timing is important

[greemah]

I agree with Phedder, I worked out and dieted for around 3 years with average results - then found lean gains and it turned my life around. Keeping same calorie intake and switching to intermittent fasting I was able to bulk for 6 months straight while keeping lean which I was never able to do when eating lots of small meals all day long. And cutting takes much less time, I now get back down to round 8% bf in 2 months or less which would take me 2-3 times longer if I wasn't on IF

[Phedder]

Every single time we all eat a meal...leptin levels rise.

Leptin tells the brain to stop eating. It's antagonist hormone is grehlin (GHRP-6 users will know this one) and when leptin drops the brain receives signals from grehlin.

When you don't eat for a while leptin signals the thyroid hormomes to decrease metabolic rate.

Okay, I admit I oversimplified the TEF and metabolism. I know leptin can greatly affect metabolism, but it is also mediated by a dose-response relationship. Eat a small meal, get a small rise in leptin. Eat a large meal, get a large rise in leptin. Same as with TEF, given the same total daily intake, spread across many meals or few, the total leptin response will be very similar.

Here's a gem for you;

Short-term fasting-induced autonomic activation and changes in catecholamine levels are not mediated by changes in leptin levels in healthy humans.

Chan JL, Mietus JE, Raciti PM, Goldberger AL, Mantzoros CS.

Source

Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Metabolism, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02215, USA.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE:

In animal models, the adipocyte-secreted hormone leptin increases energy expenditure by increasing sympathetic outflow but its role in humans remains to be elucidated. We evaluated whether inducing hypoleptinaemia (with and without administration of leptin at replacement doses) for 3 days would influence catecholamine levels and sympathetic and parasympathetic activity in healthy humans.

METHODS:

We studied six normal-weight subjects in the General Clinical Research Center (GCRC) under three conditions: baseline fed state (control study) and two 72-h fasting studies (to decrease leptin levels), with administration of either placebo or replacement-dose recombinant methionyl human leptin (r-metHuLeptin) in a randomized, double-blind fashion. In each condition, 24-h urinary catecholamine levels, heart rate and heart rate variability (HRV), a standard tool for assessing cardiac autonomic modulation, were measured.

RESULTS:

Study parameters remained stable during the control condition and the baseline assessment of all three studies. In response to 72-h fasting, which decreased serum leptin levels by 80%, 24-h urinary norepinephrine and dopamine levels and heart rate increased while cardiac vagal modulation decreased (all P < 0.05). Replacement-dose r-metHuLeptin to keep leptin levels within the physiological range during fasting did not alter fasting-associated changes in heart rate, catecholamine levels or cardiac vagal tone.

CONCLUSIONS:

The findings of this controlled, interventional study indicate that changes in heart rate, catecholamine levels and cardiac vagal modulation associated with 72-h fasting are independent of regulation by leptin. Thus, changes in leptin levels within the physiological range do not seem to play a role in regulating autonomic function during short-term starvation in healthy humans.

The changes that will occur to leptin levels with short term fasting compared to continuous grazing, are insignificant to account for any change in metabolism. Over the period of a week of fasting, sure your metabolism will plummet. Over 16 hours when you've eaten a normal daily intake prior to that fast, it's not going to matter.

You've still failed to address this point;

So, I ask again. Show me some studies with sound methods, that control for total calorie intake and the only manipulated variable being meal frequency.

If they're as plentiful as you say, this should be easy. I've yet to read one, and thus still believe in a null effect of meal frequency on metabolism.

We don't need to go into detail about leptin, thyroid, and catecholamines. I'm aware of their actions and how they're mediated. They also happen to fall under the category of total metabolism, so focusing on studies that measure total metabolic response should be sufficient to cover the important aspects of these other hormones too. If there's no change in overall metabolic rate (which you still haven't shown otherwise) then a slight change in leptin, thyroid, or catecholamines is insignificant.

[HarryB]

Interesting thread. I think it's just horses for courses. Phed will find a bunch of stuff to support his argument, Android will do the same.

I would have to say that whilst Phed has provided plenty of pictures supporting the effectiveness of the system he espouses, there aren't any pro bodybuilders in amongst that lot. Which I see is what Android started off saying in a typically amusing Android way.

I guess the thing is different things work, half the battle is having a system you can actually adhere to and have faith in.

[Phedder]

Good post Harry, brings us back to the bigger picture that can easily get lost when debates heat up a bit

I would have to say that whilst Phed has provided plenty of pictures supporting the effectiveness of the system he espouses, there aren't any pro bodybuilders in amongst that lot. Which I see is what Android started off saying in a typically amusing Android way.

I really wish there were a few pros eating less frequently, just to help lend a bit more anecdotal evidence. I don't think it's an issue of would it work in theory for them, obviously from my standpoint i'm confident it would. But given the sheer amount of food many of them eat to maintain that sort of size, it's likely just not possible to consume that much in fewer meals. Some days I find 4000-4500 calories difficult, and if my needs increased into the 5000-6000 range I'd likely seriously considering switching back to more frequent meals. Which ties in perfectly with this;

I guess the thing is different things work, half the battle is having a system you can actually adhere to and have faith in.

Any system is only as good as you make it :nod: As I said earlier, many small meals leaves me hungry after every meal, and it makes dieting a nightmare. Whereas if I'm allowed to eat until I'm satisfied and I actually feel full, I'm much more likely to adhere to the diet. Conversely others won't cope well at all going for many hours without food, no matter how big their meals are. For them many smaller meals is a necessity to get that satisfied feeling and not want to chew there arm off half way between meals.

As a student I also find the fasting regime fits perfectly with my schedule, most of my classes are in the mornings and I simply fast through them while in class or studying, then I have my afternoons free to eat, train, and eat plenty more Trying to fit meals in between classes and studying would just be more hassle than it's worth. For others than can easily fit them in, and have that preference, it would clearly work well with their lifestyle.

[Android]

It's tired me out Harry :pfft:

I'm being asked to provide proof and he's allowed to just say "not good enough". I'm done, am saying the same about his proof and we're even.

His studies must show me "sound methods" as well. And I'll be the judge of "sound methods" - yeah sounds dodgy ay Phedder

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.

okay so you imply that TEF is it for increase in metabolism from food :shock:

....when calculating metabolic changes due to food consumption, the change in total metabolism will be the same as the change in TEF. The only part of energy metabolism that eating affects is TEF.

okay so TEF is the only part of energy metabolsim that eating affects :shock:

Okay, I admit I oversimplified the TEF and metabolism.

okay :shock: a total backflip then.

I didn't bold your quotes btw, you made the points quite clear that you think TEF is the only rise in metabolism from food. You were using this to make your point yet this is complete non-fiction. Nice

I had a question for you in an earlier post that seems to have been ignored...

...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...

[Riccardo]

With respect to amino acids, you do not need to be swimming in a pool of them all day to grow, the rate of protein synthesis will generally not outweigh the availability of substrate, protein is constantly being turned over in your body and there is a constant circulating pool of substrate. The true value of amino acids can generally be placed on their ability to stimulate protein synthesis. Protein synthesis is stimulated and then becomes refractory for several hours and it works out to be that the ideal spacing of protein appears to be in intervals greater than 4hrs. Although again whether this actually translates to any significant difference in body composition remains to be seen.

I agree that the question of meal timing it quite more than just whether or not it increases your metabolism (which most recent research suggests it doesn't). Satiety is an important factor, one meal a day certainly wouldn't keep me full. Also when you are talking about guys with 90-100kg+ of LBM it becomes almost impossible to consume all of ones required macronutrients in one sitting, so convenience is also a factor.

Most of the myths about the need to eat every 5 mins or you will waste away come from bad/old science. Im not going to write a systematic review to prove my point, the literature is all there for anyone to read. The majority of most recent literature points towards meal frequency being largely irrelevant. What I don't understand is why some guys so vehemently defend this way of eating? Maybe its because they have been doing it so long that they can't bare to think that what they were doing was unnecessary all along? I dunno.

And please don't spout anecdotal evidence from "successful bodybuilders" as most of these guys are on gear and therefore their eating strategy becomes completely different. When your body is filled with supra-physiological doses of various hormones normal science flies out the window and I suspect eating becomes a manner of supplying constant substrate to build muscle as opposed to subtly altering your body's physiology. Seriously whats the point in trying to cause minor alterations in leptin/thyroid feedback when most dieting high level bb'ers would be using clen/T3 anyway? Why try to alter protein synthesis with meal timing when your muscles are subjected to large amounts of exogenous testosterone, GH and insulin etc? While all this debate is very interesting lets be honest most bb'ers at a high competitive level fall into the juiced category so what they do is probably irrelevant to an 80 something kg natty guy. Maybe these threads should have [natty] or [enhanced] tags in the subject line.

[startinfromscratch]

thats a great suggestion, exept natty and enhanced tags would require something nzbb users dont have alot of on that subject.... honesty

[steak]

[Phedder]

I'm being asked to provide proof and he's allowed to just say "not good enough". I'm done, am saying the same about his proof and we're even.

His studies must show me "sound methods" as well. And I'll be the judge of "sound methods" - yeah sounds dodgy ay Phedder

I don't want to be rude here, but do you actually know what a good study is? We're talking about the affect of meal frequency on metabolism. Therefore, a relevant study would be one where ONLY meal frequency was altered, all other variables remain unchanged. This means all subjects consuming the same calories, and if perfect the same macronutrients, between the differing meal frequencies. That would mean any results they got, could likely be attributed to the different meal frequencies. The studies I quoted did exactly that, none of yours did. In one of your own studies, they even concluded that the lower meal frequency group gained weight, because they ate more calories.

I'm not asking much here. Debate aside, as I think we can both tell this isn't going anywhere, I'd be genuinely interested in reading any studies you could show me that fit that criteria. PM them to me if you want, I'm done arguing but would really like to read those studies. As I've said, I've read plenty of 'higher meal frequency raises metabolism studies' but they all have confounding factors that contributed to that metabolic increase, not the meal frequency itself.

Thanks for contributing Riccardo

I agree that the question of meal timing it quite more than just whether or not it increases your metabolism (which most recent research suggests it doesn't). Satiety is an important factor, one meal a day certainly wouldn't keep me full. Also when you are talking about guys with 90-100kg+ of LBM it becomes almost impossible to consume all of ones required macronutrients in one sitting, so convenience is also a factor.

I agree about one meal a day, I brought it up in the first place to make a point. 2-3 meals is much more realistic and manageable, and where I said I often only eat 1 meal on rest days, it's more like 3 hours of gorging with many courses

I also wanted to avoid the whole exogenous testosterone/GH/insulin/T3 etc, it just brings too many factors into the debate, and frankly invalidates a lot of research done on normal individuals when you're drastically altering your bodies hormonal profile.

You seem to keep up with a lot of research, not trying to be a dick to Android here, but do you know of any metabolism studies that would fit the criteria I've mentioned above? I really would like to read some, and be able to compare them to those that showed no difference in metabolism.

[Android]

You're not being rude Phedder.

You use a system that works for you so of course u believe it works.

Originally the claim was that meal timings do not affect body composition of which I disagree on more levels than just metabolism.

There's nitrogen balance, which JK will when explaining IIFYM will lead us to believe is based on a 24hr clock where as long as you supply the protein within the same day (total daily amount) everything is fine. he says the same about a single large insulin spike can equal many small complex carb ones, as long as it's within 24hrs (ok he says as long total daily simple carbs equal total daily complex carbs, but still it's within a day...24hrs). Convenient.

There's the thyroid downgrade when no food is consumed for a while the very regulator of our metabolism is affected.

I don't have access to full research papers so I'm not the best person to defend what works for pretty much everyone...Obesity Societies, Australian Institute of Sport, bodybuilders, sumo wrestlers, and everyone else (anecdotal sure, causative sure...ummm because it works)

Research on feeding frequency started more than 20 years ago and some studies have shown evidence of nutritional benefits, especially on metabolism and body weight management. Advice on feeding frequency could play an important role in public health policies by reducing levels of overweight and obesity, the prevalence of which has dangerously increased in most countries over the last few decades. The 17th International Congress of Nutrition brought to the forefront the benefits of increasing feeding frequency (i.e. keeping the same total daily energy intake but dividing it into more frequent meals than usual). Recent epidemiological studies, mostly carried out in France, have provided evidence on the beneficial effects of a fourth meal for those individuals who habitually choose this pattern. Supported by metabolic data, these findings have now been supported by experimental studies. The "goûter", commonly eaten in the afternoon in France by most children and many adults, has the biological characteristics of a meal because it is eaten in response to hunger. Suppressing the "goûter" in "habitual fourth meal eaters" soon leads to an increase in Body Mass Index (BMI). Further, people who are regular "goûter" eaters have a higher carbohydrate intake and better metabolic profile than other adults, even though their total energy intake is not greater. Increased feeding frequency leads to a reduction in the total secretion of insulin, an improvement in insulin resistance and a better blood glucose control, as well as an improvement in the blood lipid profile. The experts agreed that, as long as we do not consume more energy than we use up and we only eat when we are hungry, it may be useful to split our total energy intake into as many meals as our social pattern allows. However, the pattern of eating cannot be completely dissociated from the composition of foods consumed. Therefore within this energy intake, we must take care to consume not only a good balance of macronutrients with high carbohydrate and low fat levels, but also ensure that we get an adequate intake of essential micronutrients. "What you eat" and "When you eat it" are public health messages to communicate: frequent consumption of low energy dense high carbohydrate foods, rich in micronutrients, must be encouraged ensuring that energy intakes are not greater than energy expenditures and that eating episodes occur in a hunger state.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE:

To investigate the relationships between eating frequency (EF) and body weight status and to determine whether these relationships can be explained in terms of differences in physical activity levels, macronutrient intakes or energy compensation.

DESIGN:

Cross-sectional design; free-living subjects, 48 men and 47 women (aged 20-55 y, body mass index (BMI) 18-30), recruited in a workplace setting.

MEASUREMENTS:

Height and weight; skinfold thickness (four sites); EF, energy and macronutrient intakes (food diary, unweighed, recorded for seven consecutive days); physical activity (7 d activity diary and heart rate monitoring over 48 h period).

RESULTS:

In men there was a significant negative correlation between EF and body weight, and an inverse relationship with body mass index (BMI). EF was positively correlated with % energy from carbohydrate, although not with total energy intake. In women, there was no relationship between EF and body weight status; however, there were significant positive correlations between EF and total energy intake, and between EF and intakes of total carbohydrate and sugars. For both men and women, there were associations between EF and physical activity levels, approaching statistical significance.

CONCLUSIONS:

In men, the association between increased EF and lower body weight status may have been influenced by increased physical activity levels. As energy intake did not increase with EF, men appear to have compensated by reducing the mean energy consumed per eating episode. Energy compensation did not take place in women, with women who ate most frequently having the highest energy intakes, although this did not lead to higher BMIs. Physical activity, through participation in active leisure pursuits, may have been an important factor in weight control in women. The % contribution of carbohydrate to total energy was positively correlated with EF in both men and women, and further analysis showed that snack foods provided a higher proportion of carbohydrate than did foods eaten as meals. These results indicate that a high EF is likely to lead to a high carbohydrate diet, which may be favourable for weight control. Our findings suggest that in this population, a high EF was associated with leanness in men, and there was no link between EF and body weight status in women.

And yep we aren't talking about enhanced peeps Riccardo. "successful" doesn't have to imply "juiced", or American or European lol. Anyone that does well and looks decent amongst other decent competitors is a success imo. They all (ok except for The 9 pics posted) feed frequently to maintain their mass during the bulking and dieting phases of their preparations ...99.9% of them to be exact.

[AZIDE]

.

[HarryB]

":3uei2b6b]question:

why cant you eat every 2 days instead of once every 24 hours? or every week even? if there's no difference between eating every 3 hours and eating only every 24 hours why is there suddenly a difference between eating every 24 hours and eating every 48 hours?

BANG!!! Actual sense...

[nate225]

":k0co08mi]question:

why cant you eat every 2 days instead of once every 24 hours? or every week even? if there's no difference between eating every 3 hours and eating only every 24 hours why is there suddenly a difference between eating every 24 hours and eating every 48 hours?

BANG!!! Actual sense...

I have been doing this for my next show. I only eat one meal every 84 hours, so twice weekly. I eat 8750 kcals with 1050g Protein.

It's working awesome........

Come on guys!! :pfft:

There's enough crappy science to support any theory. We're bodybuilders (mainly) here and I cant see too many Pros / Top Level BBers who would've got by on 1-2 big feeds a day.

Put your periodicals & online journals down for a second....it's time to eat! :grin:

[Riccardo]

Just because successful natural guys eat frequently doesn't mean that if they didn't they would become less successful. There are also plenty who don't eat a million meals a day. All this does is highlight the fact that meal frequency is largely irrelevant.

":23cf9upy]question:

why cant you eat every 2 days instead of once every 24 hours? or every week even? if there's no difference between eating every 3 hours and eating only every 24 hours why is there suddenly a difference between eating every 24 hours and eating every 48 hours?

BANG!!! Actual sense...

I have been doing this for my next show. I only eat one meal every 84 hours, so twice weekly. I eat 8750 kcals with 1050g Protein.

It's working awesome........

Come on guys!! :pfft:

There's enough crappy science to support any theory. We're bodybuilders (mainly) here and I cant see too many Pros / Top Level BBers who would've got by on 1-2 big feeds a day.

Put your periodicals & online journals down for a second....it's time to eat! :grin:

Now that's a straw man argument if ever I saw one. Your body works on a circadian rhythm that is on roughly a 24 hour clock so this is why fluctuations within that 24hr period essentially make no difference, when you are talking about changes that last greater than that 24hr period then you are going to have appreciable physiological effects. Come on now, use some common sense.

[Android]

Just because successful natural guys eat frequently doesn't mean that if they didn't they would become less successful. There are also plenty who don't eat a million meals a day. All this does is highlight the fact that meal frequency is largely irrelevant.

You're using the same logic about evidence that you don't accept from others...anecdotal evidence

Nothing u said above highlights any fact about meal timings being irrelevant. Your premise is false, or instead prove that it's not just anecdotal pictures of lean guys off the leangains website that you're relying on for proof...not much to ask for

Back on topic, Couple of nice articles Phedder asked for, are they proper research or are there issues with those ones?