# Eating frequency



## kyle64 (Feb 4, 2010)

I am eating 7 times a day starting at 8 am ending at 8:30 pm, I read somewhere that the more times we eat the faster our metabolism works. Is this a fact?


----------



## FMJ (Feb 4, 2010)

I think that's old science, though some still advocate it. You'll find some people here who eat 80% of thier daily calories within 3 hours of going to bed and others who strictly eat every three hours. I've heard more meals speeds it up too, don't really know if it's true or not.


----------



## VILBAUGH (Feb 4, 2010)

kyle64 said:


> I am eating 7 times a day starting at 8 am ending at 8:30 pm, I read somewhere that the more times we eat the faster our metabolism works. Is this a fact?



I believe thats a little OCD, 4-5 is a little more conveinient.


----------



## kyle64 (Feb 4, 2010)

I agree, I am getting tired of eating so many times a day, I think I am gonna cut back to 5 times a day.


----------



## kyoun1e (Feb 4, 2010)

The meal frequency thing will be debated till the end of time. Many advocates along with scientific data on either side of the fence.

I personally think it's hogwash.

And who has the time to plan out 7 meals? It's a lifestyle nightmare.

At the end of the day, if you get your calories in you're set.

KY


----------



## NJ-Surfer (Feb 4, 2010)

kyle64 said:


> I am eating 7 times a day starting at 8 am ending at 8:30 pm, I read somewhere that the more times we eat the faster our metabolism works. Is this a fact?



There is scant evidence in the literature to support meal frequency speeds metabolism. In general its more about convenience. The bottom line is calories/day.


----------



## MAC24/7 (Feb 5, 2010)

kyle64 said:


> I am eating 7 times a day starting at 8 am ending at 8:30 pm, I read somewhere that the more times we eat the faster our metabolism works. Is this a fact?


 you're eating a ton of food there...are you supplementing too? and yes this is true your metabolism does become faster...i'd go buy some whey if i were you seems like you have alot of time on your hands. me myself i intake alot of calories but sometimes i just dont have it in me and seem to go to a failure point..i think i'm going to stay away from ponderosa for awhile


----------



## NJ-Surfer (Feb 6, 2010)

MAC24/7 said:


> ... and yes this is true your metabolism does become faster...



What are you basing this statement on? I would like to see the literature that backs this up.


----------



## Curt James (Feb 6, 2010)

*Access : The relationship between meal frequency and body mass index in black and white adolescent girls: more is less : International Journal of Obesity*

*Metabolic effects of alterations in meal frequency... [Diabetes Care. 1997] - PubMed result*
*
Influence of Meal Frequency on Body Weight, Plasma Metabolites, and Glucose and Cholesterol Metabolism in the Dog -- Romsos et al. 108 (2): 238 -- Journal of Nutrition*

The last abstract was related to dogs. :| So, I can't state whether any of it applies to bodybuilders directly.

From the _dog _text: 

"Young adult female beagles were fed one 2 hour meal per 48 hours or were pair-fed twice daily for 246 days. The canned diet contained 36, 40, and 24% of metabolizable energy from protein, fat and carbohydrate, respectively. Both groups of dogs lost approximately 200 g body weight during the first days and then maintained relatively constant body weight thereafter. *Meal frequency did not influence body weight or body fat (estimated from body water). *Intravenous and oral glucose tolerance tests were conducted. No differences in the ability of the two groups of dogs to clear glucose from the circulation were noted, provided both groups of dogs had been fed similar amounts of food prior to the test."


----------



## NJ-Surfer (Feb 6, 2010)

> ....*Meal frequency did not influence body weight or body fat (estimated from body water)*....



Thanks Curt James, more proof that there is no link between meal frequency and metabolic rate:



> CONCLUSIONS: This longer-term *study could not confirm the potential benefits of increased meal frequency *suggested by comparable 4-week studies in type 2 diabetic individuals and acute experiments in individuals with diabetes. However, as there were no adverse effects of consuming nine meals per day, it would seem appropriate that meal frequency in those with type 2 diabetes should be left to personal choice, provided that energy balance is maintained.


----------



## DaMayor (Feb 6, 2010)

I think meal frequency has more of an impact on absorbtion and/or assimilation of nutrients, and not so much on actual metabolic rate. In other words, by eating smaller meals more frequently, you are allowing your body to convert and distribute nutrients more *efficiently*...not necessarily speeding up the process. 
Personally, I think that this is an argument without an absolute conclusion simply because each individual is physiologically different to some degree.


----------



## kyle64 (Feb 7, 2010)

Eating more frequently is giving me a lot of energy it seems, I am far more energetic like this than I was on 3-4 meals a day. After thinking about it I want to continue on 6-7 meals a day, it seems to be working well for me. 
I do own my business so I have more freedom to do what I want however I do not have a lot of time on my hands, I have a great wife who prepares a lot of the food for me!!


----------



## FMJ (Feb 7, 2010)

Like DaMayor implied, it comes down to what works best for the individual. It's certainly not going to hinder you by eating more often. It's nice to be free of the fear though. Especially when you're caught off guard and haven't eaten for 5 hours. In the old days, I would be stressing over that.


----------



## NJ-Surfer (Feb 10, 2010)

Agreed, you will find that most people eat more frequently as it's more satiating when cutting and more practical when bulking. However, in regard to the science there is no data in the literature that has been able to show any statistical significance in regard to changes in metabolic rates.


----------



## Arnold (Feb 10, 2010)

Meal Frequency and Mass Gains


----------



## rubika (Feb 16, 2010)

Hello,

Before you rule out meal frequency as another exaggerated propaganda, let me quickly point out some important reasons why spread out meal is a must for quick weight loss:
· Small frequent meals increase our metabolism. We burn calories to digest, absorbed and utilized food.
· Frequent feeding prevent binges and craving and thus control calorie intake. Meal frequency also makes sense because it takes about 3 hours to digest meal and the body is ready for more calorie intake after that.
· When we follow 3-4 meals a day frequency we tend to eat more to satisfy our hunger. Here, we consume more calories than required, and excess calories are converted into body fats after utilizing what is needed. Eating smaller and frequent meals prevent excess calories intake and avoid storing body fats.


Thanks.


----------



## FMJ (Feb 16, 2010)

No one is ruling out eating frequency, we're just saying you don't have to be inprisioned by the idea that if you don't eat every 3 hours you will become catabolic. Folks who eat a calorie surplus may indeed require frequent eating, not because of the reasons you stated but simply to get the huge amount of food in. Believe me, it's not an easy thing to do. It requires almost constant eating to hit 4500 or more calories of clean food.
Those who are on a deficit or low carb diet, it's been shown that going hours or even a day without food are no more at a disadvantage than those who adhere to the 3 hour rule. I'd like to see some science on your statement of eating more frequent prevents cravings and binges. I think thats a load of crap. People seldom eat because of hunger. It's things like HFCS and other sugars that prevent the brain from receiving the "I'm full" signals. Bordom and habit are also reasons for cravings and binges, not meal frequency. I sometimes eat 3 times a day and never do I lose control of my caloric intake. My target macros are always met be it in 5 meals or 2. Doesn't really matter. Most people involved in fitness have developed the same dicipline with thier eating habits as they have with thier training. That discipline has little to do with how often we decide to eat IMO.


----------



## nkira (Feb 16, 2010)

Aha! That's what I was gonna post, you beat me to it though 

Lesser but larger meals is so much easier....



Robert said:


> Meal Frequency and Mass Gains


----------



## NJ-Surfer (Feb 16, 2010)

rubika said:


> Hello,
> 
> Before you rule out meal frequency as another exaggerated propaganda, let me quickly point out some important reasons why spread out meal is a must for quick weight loss:
> · Small frequent meals increase our metabolism. We burn calories to digest, absorbed and utilized food.
> Thanks.



Good Lord, will this nonsense ever stop. 
EATING MORE FREQENTLY *DOES NOT* INCREASE METABOLISM. 
Read the scientific literature in the links.
Eating more frequently is more satiating when cutting and more practical when bulking but beyond that it has no bearing on body weight what so ever.
Stressing out over missing a meal is more detrimental as stress is well established in the literature to have a significant impact on body fat and overall health. So do me a favor and stop stressing me out on this subject and just eat when it best suits your schedule. The bottom line is calories/day.


----------



## Smash (Feb 24, 2010)

kyoun1e said:


> The meal frequency thing will be debated till the end of time. Many advocates along with scientific data on either side of the fence.
> 
> I personally think it's hogwash.
> 
> ...


I eat 5 to 6 meals a day, every 2 to 3 hours. It's like constantly keeping your fire stoked when you eat constantly throughout the day, with a steady supply of the nutrients your body needs. when you load up with a ton of calories at once a few times a day your body's gonna take longer to process it and you're probably gonna feel sluggish for a bit. I think timing is huge. for example if you eat the bulk of your calories later in the day and don't get enough during the morning hours after your body has fasted all night, what is your body gonna feed on? your muscle, that's what


----------



## pitman (Feb 24, 2010)

FMJ said:


> I think that's old science, though some still advocate it. You'll find some people here who eat 80% of thier daily calories within 3 hours of going to bed and others who strictly eat every three hours. I've heard more meals speeds it up too, don't really know if it's true or not.


 my big ass hero patrick...


----------



## FMJ (Feb 24, 2010)

pitman said:


> my big ass hero patrick...


 
Thanks sweetheart!


----------



## Built (Feb 24, 2010)

rubika said:


> Hello,
> 
> Before you rule out meal frequency as another exaggerated propaganda, let me quickly point out some important reasons why spread out meal is a must for quick weight loss:
> · Small frequent meals increase our metabolism. We burn calories to digest, absorbed and utilized food.
> ...



Nope...



Smash said:


> I eat 5 to 6 meals a day, every 2 to 3 hours. It's like constantly keeping your fire stoked when you eat constantly throughout the day, with a steady supply of the nutrients your body needs. when you load up with a ton of calories at once a few times a day your body's gonna take longer to process it and you're probably gonna feel sluggish for a bit. I think timing is huge. for example if you eat the bulk of your calories later in the day and don't get enough during the morning hours after your body has fasted all night, what is your body gonna feed on? your muscle, that's what



...and nope.  In fact, there's nothing wrong with eating once a day at bedtime. Nothing wrong with eating more frequently  either - if you prefer. 

I do find Lyle's meal frequency article rather interesting - kinda flies in the face of conventional bodybuilder brainwashing.


----------



## Merkaba (Feb 24, 2010)

BUILT

              .......


----------



## kyoun1e (Feb 25, 2010)

Smash said:


> I eat 5 to 6 meals a day, every 2 to 3 hours. It's like constantly keeping your fire stoked when you eat constantly throughout the day, with a steady supply of the nutrients your body needs. when you load up with a ton of calories at once a few times a day your body's gonna take longer to process it and you're probably gonna feel sluggish for a bit. I think timing is huge. for example if you eat the bulk of your calories later in the day and don't get enough during the morning hours after your body has fasted all night, what is your body gonna feed on? your muscle, that's what



Leangains - Intermittent Fasting for Strength Training and Fat Loss

Take a look at Martin Berkhan's pic on the right about halfway down the page. This guy is Mr IF. 

And it sure as hell doesn't look like his body is feeding on his muscle.

I'm telling ya, meal frequency is crap.

KY


----------



## Smash (Feb 25, 2010)

Built said:


> Nope...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well then how about tomorrow you get up, eat nothing. go to the gym around noon, early afternoon, whenever you workout. workout intense, eat nothing. wait 6 or 7 hours and still eat nothing. then eat 3500-4000 calories and tell me how that works for ya. Extreme example, but I think you can see my point. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with eating less frequently but I personally prefer the 5-6 times a day and feel that it benefits me. I guess everyone's different.


----------



## FMJ (Feb 25, 2010)

Smash said:


> Well then how about tomorrow you get up, eat nothing. go to the gym around noon, early afternoon, whenever you workout. workout intense, eat nothing. wait 6 or 7 hours and still eat nothing. then eat 3500-4000 calories and tell me how that works for ya. Extreme example, but I think you can see my point. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with eating less frequently but I personally prefer the 5-6 times a day and feel that it benefits me. I guess everyone's different.


 

 There's always one...  You do realize those are her abs in the avatar?
Don't take this personally newbie.. but I'm going with Built on this one. 
Maybe you should pick up a book on the subject that was written in this century?


----------



## FMJ (Feb 25, 2010)

ectomorph141 said:


> Back when I bulked up I took the advice from the members on the board. I ate 6-7 times a day, ate 4,000-5,000 calories,300-350 grams protein and it worked. But it really depends on your bodytype. I am a hardgainer/ectomorph.
> Is that your avatar pic?? If it is I would say you are doing something right. lol


 
Both ways work.. but what we're all trying to say here is, stop overcomplicating things. We've all followed the 6 meals a day rule at one point. And everyone knows it's a huge pain in the ass. I used to have to pack meals because a meal every three hours is the most inconvienient part of bodybuilding. 
The point is.. you don't HAVE to do that. If you like doing it, go right ahead. Personally, I rather eat when easy to do so. If that means eating 3000 calories 2 hours before bed, so be it. At least I didn't have to lug around a bag of stuff and be shackled to the idea. Set yourself free man.


----------



## ectomorph141 (Feb 25, 2010)

EDIT...Cleared up some confusion.
Thanks for letting me know that we dont really have to eat 6 times a day.  I was under the impression we needed to do that. Listen to *Built *she knows what she is talking about for sure.


----------



## Marat (Feb 25, 2010)

Built said:


> In fact, there's nothing wrong with eating once a day at bedtime. Nothing wrong with eating more frequently  either - if you prefer.





FMJ said:


> The point is.. you don't HAVE to do that. If you like doing it, go right ahead. Personally, I rather eat when easy to do so.



I think these are pretty good 'bottom lines'.


----------



## ectomorph141 (Feb 25, 2010)

One thing I would like to point out is the OP mentioned he eats from 8am to 8:30. That is indeed a lot to eat within 12 hours.  Mine was spread out over 16 hours like this and they were smaller meals to get my 4000-5000 calorie, 250-300 protein intake for ectomorph/hardgainer. Pre workout was hardly a meal. Just a snack.

-6:00 am

-9:00 am

-12:00 pm

-2:45 pm

-4:45 pm (pre-workout)

-7:45 pm (post-workout)

-10:00-10:30 pm (before bedtime)

I did that 5 days a week (mon-fri) then on the weekend not as strict.   This worked for me but as suggested....listen to *Built*.


----------



## dave 236 (Feb 25, 2010)

ectomorph141 said:


> EDIT...Cleared up some confusion.
> Thanks for letting me know that we dont really have to eat 6 times a day.  I was under the impression we needed to do that. Listen to *Built *she knows what she is talking about for sure.



Couldn't have said it better.


----------



## Smash (Feb 25, 2010)

FMJ said:


> There's always one...  You do realize those are her abs in the avatar?
> Don't take this personally newbie.. but I'm going with Built on this one.
> Maybe you should pick up a book on the subject that was written in this century?



All right, as a couple others have said, there's more than one way to skin a cat, as there are different ways to get your calories. I said I prefer more meals and why I prefer it. There's all kinds of people on both sides of the issue claiming one way is best, so to say one way is the THE way is wrong. Everyone's bodies and goals are different and you need to find out and do what works best for you. And as far as picking up a book written in this century...don't be a moron. It's hard NOT to find a current book or article talking about frequent meals.


----------



## danzik17 (Feb 25, 2010)

The only thing I'd say here is if you have a job interacting with people, you might want to spread out the carbs a bit (the other stuff doesn't matter as much).

It has absolutely nothing to do with metabolism, energy, or any of that bullshit. Large amounts of undigested carbs in the intestines = OH MY GOD GAS.  I believe I'm a registered biological weapon on my carbups


----------



## Built (Feb 25, 2010)

Smash said:


> All right, as a couple others have said, there's more than one way to skin a cat, as there are different ways to get your calories. I said I prefer more meals and why I prefer it. There's all kinds of people on both sides of the issue claiming one way is best, so to say one way is the THE way is wrong. Everyone's bodies and goals are different and you need to find out and do what works best for you. And as far as picking up a book written in this century...don't be a moron. *It's hard NOT to find a current book or article talking about frequent meals*.



Indeed. It's hard not to find a current book or article talking about how wonderful glutamine is (it doesn't do shit unless you're in a burn unit getting 40g of it a day through an IV), or how a high protein diet will wreck your kidneys (it won't, unless you have diseased kidneys in which case you're already terribly ill with wrecked kidneys), or how "muscle confusion" is the latest and greatest (here's a tip: you can't confuse your muscles. They don't think). It's hard not to find a current book or article extolling the virtues of a low fat diet and cardio-cardio-CARDIO for leanness, either. 

Repetition doesn't equal fact. 

We've said it before - the difference here is small - if you feel better, personally, if you're more comfortable and feel more "fed" eating frequent meals, go for it. There's no science to support its superiority over other eating patterns, and in fact there is science to support superiority over other eating patterns, but the advantages is small over simply eating the right amount of the right food for your body. 

But the "debate" portion has been closed now since at least 1997. 

Br J Nutr. *1997 *Apr;77 Suppl 1:S57-70.

*Meal frequency and energy balance.*
Bellisle F, McDevitt R, Prentice AM.

INSERM U341, Hotel Dieu de Paris, France.

Several epidemiological studies have observed an inverse relationship between people's habitual frequency of eating and body weight, leading to the suggestion that a 'nibbling' meal pattern may help in the avoidance of obesity. A review of all pertinent studies shows that, although many fail to find any significant relationship, the relationship is consistently inverse in those that do observe a relationship. However, this finding is highly vulnerable to the probable confounding effects of post hoc changes in dietary patterns as a consequence of weight gain and to *dietary under-reporting which undoubtedly invalidates some of the studies. *We conclude that the epidemiological evidence is at best very weak, and almost certainly represents an artefact. A detailed review of the possible mechanistic explanations for a metabolic advantage of nibbling meal patterns failed to reveal significant benefits in respect of energy expenditure. Although some short-term studies suggest that the thermic effect of feeding is higher when an isoenergetic test load is divided into multiple small meals, other studies refute this, and most are neutral. 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.* *Finally, with the exception of a single study, there is no evidence that weight loss on hypoenergetic regimens is altered by meal frequency. We conclude that any effects of meal pattern on the regulation of body weight are likely to be mediated through effects on the food intake side of the energy balance equation.*
PMID: 9155494 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]


The one study that shows a possible effect cannot be trusted because of dietary self-reporting, a problem that is rampant in these types of studies. You really have to lock people up and feed them weighed and prepared food if you really want to see the results - just like they have done with animals - where no effect has ever been noted. 

My .02


----------



## danzik17 (Feb 25, 2010)

Built - does the same thing hold true for bulking?  I haven't done a lot of research on that and have much much more experience/knowledge about cutting at this point, so I don't know 100%.

I doubt it's a massive difference if any, just curious.


----------



## Built (Feb 25, 2010)

There are no good studies on meal timing, nutrient partitioning and bulking, sadly. My strong feeling is that there is a heirarchy to follow here:


Make sure your intake is correct (ie calories, grams protein, carb, fat, fibre)
Make sure you are comfortable
Make sure your comfort isn't making you unhealthy/too fat/too thin. If it is, adjust your calories and your macros as per step 1. 
Take steps to maintain/improve insulin sensitivity (ie move, fool - also take creatine etc)
NOW spend time micromanaging the other shit, stuff like the specific macronutrient mix that will lead to optimal hypertrophy; which type of microcellular casein-infused blah blah blah to take at bedtime yada yada yada.


----------



## FMJ (Feb 26, 2010)

Smash said:


> All right, as a couple others have said, there's more than one way to skin a cat, as there are different ways to get your calories. I said I prefer more meals and why I prefer it. There's all kinds of people on both sides of the issue claiming one way is best, so to say one way is the THE way is wrong. Everyone's bodies and goals are different and you need to find out and do what works best for you. And as far as picking up a book written in this century...don't be a moron. It's hard NOT to find a current book or article talking about frequent meals.


 
Hey, I'm not trying to be a moron, I'm not saying eating often is the wrong way either. I'm saying it's a pain in the ass to eat that way and being inprisioned by the idea is pointless and needless. 
You stated "if you eat the bulk of your calories later in the day and don't get enough during the morning hours after your body has fasted all night, what is your body gonna feed on? your muscle, that's what "
That's just outright wrong. So again, I say, read more recent science on the subject before making such statements.
That's not me being a moron. That's me helping you to not look like one.


----------



## kyle64 (Apr 22, 2010)

With all due respect for those with the opinion that eating frequency makes no difference I beg to differ, at least as far as I am concerned.
For the last 3 weeks I went back down to 3 square meals a day + 1 protein shake and maintained around a 400 calorie deficit a day without changing my macros, I gained 6 pounds after going to bathroom in morning. 
I noticed that the weight gain was all in my belly area, neck and face and it was obvious as day light, it was horrifying. I have put in a lot of effort and work into losing the weight. 
I am back to eating 7 small meals a day again and already lost 2 pounds in 2 days and my energy is through the roof, also my gut appears smaller already. 
Again, I am not trying to disrespect any of the experts here who had a different opinion but it seems the only way for me is the eating frequently option.


----------



## gtbmed (Apr 22, 2010)

If you gained weight you were in a caloric surplus, there's no denying that.

If you're now losing weight, you're in a caloric deficit.

Try tracking your intake and eating the exact same amount over 3 meals that you're eating over 7 meals and I doubt you'll see any difference in weight gain.  There are numerous articles in the literature denying any relationship between weight loss and meal frequency.

If you really did keep everything the same, then the only answer can be water retention.  Losing 2lbs. in 2 days on a 400cal deficit is impossible.


----------



## kyle64 (Apr 22, 2010)

Thanks for your input but I have been tracking everything I eat to the T for the last 4 months, I was not in surplus on any day during the 3 weeks. I am very puzzled about it. I have an appointment with my doctor who has a PHD as a Nutritionist, I am going to have blood works done. According to all the experts I should not have gained any weight, maybe stayed at the weight I was at but not gain.


----------



## ectomorph141 (Apr 22, 2010)

Did you wait 3 weeks to weigh yourself or did I mis-read that somehow?   I weigh in at least 1 time each week on the same day each week.


----------



## gtbmed (Apr 22, 2010)

kyle64 said:


> Thanks for your input but I have been tracking everything I eat to the T for the last 4 months, I was not in surplus on any day during the 3 weeks. I am very puzzled about it. I have an appointment with my doctor who has a PHD as a Nutritionist, I am going to have blood works done. According to all the experts I should not have gained any weight, maybe stayed at the weight I was at but not gain.



Water weight then...  Or maybe you got a haircut.

There is no possible way, on a 400 calorie deficit, that you lose 2lbs. in 2 days.  It's just not metabolically possible.


----------



## kyle64 (Apr 22, 2010)

> Did you wait 3 weeks to weigh yourself or did I mis-read that somehow? I weigh in at least 1 time each week on the same day each week.


I weighed myself every 3 days or so and figured I might be just fluctuating then when I did hit the 6 pound gain I just had to stop and change back to frequent eating.




gtbmed said:


> Water weight then... Or maybe you got a haircut.
> 
> There is no possible way, on a 400 calorie deficit, that you lose 2lbs. in 2 days. It's just not metabolically possible.


 
I am finding that dieting is not an exact science, we all react differently to similar diets. Built stated in several posts I have seen that the body can fluctuate up to 4 pounds over night. So why is it so impossible that I lost 2 pounds in 2 days?


----------



## Built (Apr 22, 2010)

kyle64 said:


> With all due respect for those with the opinion that eating frequency makes no difference I beg to differ, at least as far as I am concerned.
> For the last 3 weeks I went back down to 3 square meals a day + 1 protein shake and maintained around a 400 calorie deficit a day without changing my macros, I gained 6 pounds after going to bathroom in morning.
> I noticed that the weight gain was all in my belly area, neck and face and it was obvious as day light, it was horrifying. I have put in a lot of effort and work into losing the weight.
> I am back to eating 7 small meals a day again and already lost 2 pounds in 2 days and my energy is through the roof, also my gut appears smaller already.
> Again, I am not trying to disrespect any of the experts here who had a different opinion but it seems the only way for me is the eating frequently option.





kyle64 said:


> I weighed myself every 3 days or so and figured I might be just fluctuating then when I did hit the 6 pound gain I just had to stop and change back to frequent eating.
> I am finding that dieting is not an exact science, we all react differently to similar diets. Built stated in several posts I have seen that the body can fluctuate up to 4 pounds over night. So why is it so impossible that I lost 2 pounds in 2 days?



It can fluctuate four - or more - pounds from a dump or water-weight. Or glycogen depletion/loading. Or hormones. 

Fat - nope. 3500 calories = one pound of bodyfat. No way to gain or lose four of those overnight. 

Daily meal frequency does not impact metabolic rate.

It may, however, impact upon appetite.


----------



## kyle64 (Apr 22, 2010)

Built said:


> It can fluctuate four - or more - pounds from a dump or water-weight. Or glycogen depletion/loading. Or hormones.
> 
> Fat - nope. 3500 calories = one pound of bodyfat. No way to gain or lose four of those overnight.
> 
> ...


 
I never suggested that I gained 6 pounds of fat but what is on my face, belly and neck?  
I am not trying to dispute anything with anyone I am just sharing my experience and frustration. It might be all water and I hope it is but why did I gain so much water? I am drinking 64 oz of water plus coffee and other liquids through out the day, that has not changed in the last 4 months so what happened to cause me to gain 6 pounds of whatever? I know it is not muscle mass because I measured and even though I am getting more definitition I have not gained any muscle size in the last 3 weeks. 
The only change is the eating frequency or there is something physically wrong with me  this is why i am having the physical and blood tests done.


----------



## sassy69 (Apr 22, 2010)

Many people who make a change to their eating program note that they "gain weight" - the body takes a while to accommodate the change. I'm not sure 3 weeks is proof of anything. The weight change may be +/- 1-2 lb of "fat" but is more likely water weight. Not sure I'd read a lot into that. 

Personally I've found I'm happy at 6 meals / day (or however many my body tells me I need. I've cut successfully several times down to 6-7% bf on the 5-6 meals/ day approach.  I'm also conditioned to start feeling ultra depleted when I hit about 2.5 hrs between meals.


----------



## kyle64 (Apr 22, 2010)

sassy69 said:


> Many people who make a change to their eating program note that they "gain weight" - the body takes a while to accommodate the change. I'm not sure 3 weeks is proof of anything. The weight change may be +/- 1-2 lb of "fat" but is more likely water weight. Not sure I'd read a lot into that.
> 
> Personally I've found I'm happy at 6 meals / day (or however many my body tells me I need. I've cut successfully several times down to 6-7% bf on the 5-6 meals/ day approach. I'm also conditioned to start feeling ultra depleted when I hit about 2.5 hrs between meals.


 
I do like the feeling of being depleted, eating 3 times a day I was feeling stuffed and bloated all the time and my sleep got messed up, in the mornings I felt like crap. I am like you frequent eating is the way to go for me.


----------



## Built (Apr 22, 2010)

If it's more comfortable for you to eat six times than to eat three times, why did you change to three?


----------



## dave 236 (Apr 23, 2010)

FMJ said:


> There's always one...  You do realize those are her abs in the avatar?
> Don't take this personally newbie.. but I'm going with Built on this one.
> Maybe you should pick up a book on the subject that was written in this century?


LOL. Sometimes it would be prudent for thes new folks to hang around the forums a bit longer and learn a few things they don't know.The first thing is DON'T argue with Built.


----------



## kyle64 (Apr 23, 2010)

Built said:


> If it's more comfortable for you to eat six times than to eat three times, why did you change to three?


 
Convinience, I am very busy with work and stopping to eat 7 times a day was a little annoying even though it was satisfying plus I saw many posts on these forums saying it did not matter how many times you ate and I wanted to try what you guys said. I hope I did not offend you by stating my experience.



> LOL. Sometimes it would be prudent for thes new folks to hang around the forums a bit longer and learn a few things they don't know.The first thing is DON'T argue with Built.


----------



## Built (Apr 23, 2010)

Why would I be offended by your sharing of experience?

You clearly bloated, this part is obvious. I don't know why you bloated, but there's no way you gained more fat from eating this way - not unless your calories went up. 

What macros did you run, out of curiosity? And what were your food choices? I wonder if you have some sort of food intolerance that doesn't bug you if you eat small portions at a time, but flares up when you eat a lot of it all at once? I'm like this with lactose, for instance. If I trickle in a little milk in my tea etc through the day, I'm fine. I knock back a glass of milk all at once, and, well, let's just say it's amazing the paint doesn't peel off walls!  And wheat, in large quantities, makes me bloat so bad I once gained 13 lbs over the course of a long weekend. Just water of course, but it was pretty unpleasant!


----------



## Phineas (Apr 23, 2010)

sassy69 said:


> Many people who make a change to their eating program note that they "gain weight" - the body takes a while to accommodate the change. I'm not sure 3 weeks is proof of anything. The weight change may be +/- 1-2 lb of "fat" but is more likely water weight. Not sure I'd read a lot into that.
> 
> Personally I've found I'm happy at 6 meals / day (or however many my body tells me I need. I've cut successfully several times down to 6-7% bf on the 5-6 meals/ day approach.  I'm also conditioned to start feeling ultra depleted when I hit about 2.5 hrs between meals.



I'm the exacty same way, sassy.

I can't believe all of this. I mean, I guess I have to. I had always read and been taught that after too long without eating our body's go into a catabolic state, and cortisol is released. When I haven't eaten in more than 5 or 6 hours I get extremely hungry, I lose focus, and I can even get angry. I guess, as Built, said this is more just appetite.

I just can't imagine that it's equally healthy to eat 4000 calorie once a day right before bed than it is to eat those calories steadily and evenly throughout the day.

This goes again everything I've learned about fitness and health. This is bizarre. I'm going to take it upon myself to read as much as possible. I trust all our renowned members, but I need to prove this to myself.


----------



## kyle64 (Apr 23, 2010)

Built said:


> Why would I be offended by your sharing of experience?
> 
> You clearly bloated, this part is obvious. I don't know why you bloated, but there's no way you gained more fat from eating this way - not unless your calories went up.
> 
> What macros did you run, out of curiosity? And what were your food choices? I wonder if you have some sort of food intolerance that doesn't bug you if you eat small portions at a time, but flares up when you eat a lot of it all at once? I'm like this with lactose, for instance. If I trickle in a little milk in my tea etc through the day, I'm fine. I knock back a glass of milk all at once, and, well, let's just say it's amazing the paint doesn't peel off walls!  And wheat, in large quantities, makes me bloat so bad I once gained 13 lbs over the course of a long weekend. Just water of course, but it was pretty unpleasant!



My 3 kids are all Celiacs so maybe I am as well, I never bothered to have myself checked. I know I am lactose intolerant. In the 3 weeks I did change my diet somewhat and was eating 3 larger meals, there was fried food a couple of times a week and that is breaded with wheat.  I was staying in a different town as well away from home for most of that period but I did keep track of my total calories as close as possible. I did not take a scale with me to restaurants but I have learned to estimate the size of what I am eating and I made it a purpose to eat less than what I thought I should.
I will look into the wheat thing, it could be I am a Celiac as well.
I can't say exactly what my macros were during the 3 weeks but I know Protein and fat were substantially higher than Carbs during the entire time.
Now that I am back on my plan I am doing 45/35/20 P/F/C


----------



## sassy69 (Apr 23, 2010)

Phineas said:


> I'm the exacty same way, sassy.
> 
> I can't believe all of this. I mean, I guess I have to. I had always read and been taught that after too long without eating our body's go into a catabolic state, and cortisol is released. When I haven't eaten in more than 5 or 6 hours I get extremely hungry, I lose focus, and I can even get angry. I guess, as Built, said this is more just appetite.
> 
> ...



I think you can condition yourself to eat any particular way - all the way thru HS (living at home), of course we always ate 3 meals / day. When I was in college I wouldn't eat until noon because I spent all morning in class and I found that if I ate food and then sat for 4 hrs, I'd have a worse stomach ache than if I ate nothing. We adapt.

But I've been following a "many small meals" schedule since the early 90s so I'm adapted to it. In fact I'm so in tune w/ how much I metabolize within a given amount of time - forget getting hungry - I start getting light-headed because I'm completely depleted - and I can anticipate this happening within 5 min of it actually happening based on how long its been since I last ate, and based on what I last ate. It would be very hard for me to change where I'm at - also because I'm conditioned to eat a competition diet where it does matter that i'm burning everything efficiently. But I will also eat something if I feel a crash coming on - I know I'm depleted, so eat or suffer the consequences (which for me is an agonizing stomach ache and a pounding headache that will stay w/ me for 3 days --> I hold tension in the base of my head and it doesn't go away.


----------



## Built (Apr 23, 2010)

kyle64 said:


> My 3 kids are all Celiacs so maybe I am as well, I never bothered to have myself checked. I know I am lactose intolerant. In the 3 weeks I did change my diet somewhat and was eating 3 larger meals, there was fried food a couple of times a week and that is breaded with wheat.  I was staying in a different town as well away from home for most of that period but I did keep track of my total calories as close as possible. I did not take a scale with me to restaurants but I have learned to estimate the size of what I am eating and I made it a purpose to eat less than what I thought I should.
> I will look into the wheat thing, it could be I am a Celiac as well.
> I can't say exactly what my macros were during the 3 weeks but I know Protein and fat were substantially higher than Carbs during the entire time.


Forgive me, but were I to summarize what you just said, it would sound like "Although I did not weigh my food and cannot tell you what my actual calories were, much less macronutrient breakdown, I gained weight when I ate three times a day in restaurants rather than six times a day from home-made food."

You see my problem.


> Now that I am back on my plan I am doing 45/35/20 P/F/C


Calories and grams please. Percentages tell us nothing. 




sassy69 said:


> I think you can condition yourself to eat any particular way - all the way thru HS (living at home), of course we always ate 3 meals / day. When I was in college I wouldn't eat until noon because I spent all morning in class and I found that if I ate food and then sat for 4 hrs, I'd have a worse stomach ache than if I ate nothing. We adapt.



We really do.


----------



## kyle64 (Apr 23, 2010)

Sassy, When you say competitive, is that bodybuilding?


----------



## sassy69 (Apr 23, 2010)

kyle64 said:


> Sassy, When you say competitive, is that bodybuilding?



Yep.


----------



## Phineas (Apr 23, 2010)

kyle64 said:


> Sassy, When you say competitive, is that bodybuilding?



Have you seen her avatar??? lol


----------



## kyle64 (Apr 23, 2010)

Phineas said:


> Have you seen her avatar??? lol


 
Avatars dont necessarily mean it is the person posting, several other members have women in their Avatars but they are men!

Sassy is there a link for pictures of you in competition? Interesting to see the condition of the folks I am getting advise from!


----------



## sassy69 (Apr 23, 2010)

www.myspace.com/gondivin - where i keep most of my pix.


----------



## kyle64 (Apr 25, 2010)

sassy69 said:


> www.myspace.com/gondivin - where i keep most of my pix.


 
Thanks for sharing, great pictures, very impressive.


----------



## maseco63 (Apr 25, 2010)

True. But wow! Good dicipline.  As long as your keeping your meals around 350-500 calories you'll bee find.  And ripped for a long time!

No spam


----------



## kyle64 (Apr 25, 2010)

Would love to see pictures of Built and others who are experts on this forum, it is inspirational. I mean you can buy magazines and look at the pictures of the follks in them but it is different when you are looking at the pictures of those you can actually ask a question and learn from.
This forum is truly awesome, I am glad I found it.


----------



## Built (Apr 25, 2010)

Me a few years ago, age forty two, 14% bodyfat, confirmed by DEXA. 
(Recall I was a fat jogger for most of my twenties and almost all of my thirties):


----------



## kyle64 (Apr 25, 2010)

Built said:


> Me a few years ago, age forty two, 14% bodyfat, confirmed by DEXA.
> (Recall I was a fat jogger for most of my twenties and almost all of my thirties):


 
Amazing obilques and abs, I would love to have a mid section in that good of a condition. Will I ever get it! I can only hope and diet!


----------



## Built (Apr 25, 2010)

Thanks - I was a little surprised myself, although my ass never did lean out, even then.

I had lost forty pounds at this point, over about four years. I'm cautiously optimistic I gained about 10 lbs of lean over this time, and dropping fifty pounds of fat leaves the skin of an over-forty woman a little loose. Damned leg fat. 

The abs - I do so little ab work, although they sure showed up when I leaned out. I do a little weighted ab work while bulking, but I really think sprinting and chinups did the rest.


----------



## kyle64 (Apr 25, 2010)

Are you still in this condition? Are you bigger muscle wise? I want to know if I can maintain my results and continue to look good in my later 40s and then into my 50s and 60s. I look at recent pictures of Arnold and his body now looks like shit!


----------



## Built (Apr 25, 2010)

I'll be forty seven in a few weeks, and I have gained six or seven pounds of lean mass since that shot was taken. 

I am currently just under 20% bodyfat, and cutting. 

I think I look better now than I did the last time I was at 20% bodyfat, and I'll post up pix at the end of cut later this summer. 

My squat has increased since that shot was taken, as has my bench and my power clean.


----------



## kyle64 (Apr 25, 2010)

That is very encouraging, makes me want to pump more iron. I want to reach a point where I am in better shape than I ever was, even in my mid 20s. I know I can do it, I ran into Samir Bannout last year and the guy looks incredible for 55 years of age. I realize I cannot compare myself to an x Mr. Olympia nor do I expect those sorts of results but still we are all humans and I believe with enough hard work and dieting I can achieve some great resluts.


----------



## Phineas (Apr 26, 2010)

Built said:


> Me a few years ago, age forty two, 14% bodyfat, confirmed by DEXA.
> (Recall I was a fat jogger for most of my twenties and almost all of my thirties):



That's 14%??? That looks like low- to mid-single digits. I'm baffled. All pics I've seen of the 13-18% range most definitely does NOT look like that.

Explain, please? lol


----------



## SubSolar (Apr 27, 2010)

I've found I get hungry every 3 hours no matter if the previous meal was big or small, so I basically have to eat 7-8 small meals a day.  Otherwise I'd be eating 7-8 big meals a day, lol.


----------



## Built (Apr 27, 2010)

Phineas - yep, that's 14%, and like I said, confirmed by x-ray. 

Mid section is about 7%, arms around 11%, legs around 23%. Women carry more essential fat than men - and of course most folks don't bother to get an x-ray to check their bodyfat levels; I see a lot of posts by women who say they're at 12%, and yet they don't have abs. At 14%, I had a veins popping around my navel. 

Still no vascularity in my legs, though. Vascularity wouldn't have shown on my legs without my getting emaciated - I was entirely natural in that shot. Without assistance, there isn't a diet in the world that would have gotten the rest off me without seriously sacrificing LBM. 

SubSolar, what macros do you run?


----------



## Phineas (Apr 28, 2010)

Built said:


> Phineas - yep, that's 14%, and like I said, confirmed by x-ray.
> 
> Mid section is about 7%, arms around 11%, legs around 23%. Women carry more essential fat than men - and of course most folks don't bother to get an x-ray to check their bodyfat levels; I see a lot of posts by women who say they're at 12%, and yet they don't have abs. At 14%, I had a veins popping around my navel.
> 
> ...



Wow. I didn't know you could determine BF through x-rays. I assume health care doesn't cover this? How much does it cost?

This is interesting because I've seen so many pictures from fitness blogs/journals with pictures of men who had their BFs tested. In the pics of your BF range they look DRASTICALLY different. 

How/why do women store this essential fat? If women store this fat then why doesn't it show? I mean, I'm not an expert on BF but based on pictures of men I've seen my initial guess was you were around 5 or 6%. I mean, it looks like you have absolutely none on you.

Can you please go in to more detail on this, Built? Thanks for the info 

Can you just move to Victoria and be my trainer? lol


----------



## ectomorph141 (Apr 28, 2010)

kyle64 said:


> Avatars dont necessarily mean it is the person posting, several other members have women in their Avatars but they are men!


That reminds me, the avatar you are using, where are those abs from?  Thats like crazy perfection right there.  Who is that??


----------



## sassy69 (Apr 28, 2010)

Phineas said:


> Wow. I didn't know you could determine BF through x-rays. I assume health care doesn't cover this? How much does it cost?
> 
> This is interesting because I've seen so many pictures from fitness blogs/journals with pictures of men who had their BFs tested. In the pics of your BF range they look DRASTICALLY different.
> 
> ...




Women have estrogen which promotes more bodyfat storage in all the places we hate it - hips / thighs/ butt/ waist - this is all nature's survival strategy to provide a mechanism that both protects a fetus w/ more "padding" as well as promotes the storage of fat which would be available as a reserve energy source to help support the growth of a fetus.

Generally when you're talking about comparing bodyfat % on men vs women - at the ultra extreme. men can get down to about 3.5% and women down MAYBE around 5% but more likely around 6%. Because bodyfat % is a ratio of lean muscle mass to bodyfat, a "perceived degree of leanness" can be gotten at different numbers because you're looking at a ratio and identifying 'leanness' by the presence of abs, etc. But because we hold different proportions of fat in different areas and develop muscles do a differing degree across the body, a perceived leanness in one area won't be the same in another area. For ex, at my first BB competition I had a tight Christmas tree in my lower back but no abs and not much detail in my legs. 10 yrs later, I'm still trying to get my ass tight and I have good abs, have gotten cross striations a few times in my quads but harder to get the x-mas tree because I am > 40 and I tend to carry more of my bodyfat in my lower back (very common issue as you get older). In all cases I'm probably around 6.5-7% bf but the look is quite different because over the years i've increased my lean mass, and improved the bodyfat but still have some. It also becomes sooo much more apparent if you have ANY bodyfat, the more muscle you have. Its all relative.


----------



## Built (Apr 28, 2010)

ectomorph141 said:


> That reminds me, the avatar you are using, where are those abs from?  Thats like crazy perfection right there.  Who is that??



ectomorph, my avatar is (or at least, was) me. Good lighting helps, remember that. 

Sassy, if I ever see striations in my quads I'll fall over dead from joy.


----------



## ectomorph141 (Apr 28, 2010)

^Yes Built your ab pic is amazing for sure especially for female abs. I read a lot of your material and you are a massive inspiration for women and men.   Congrats on all the hard work.   
However, my question was actually directed to the kyle64 avatar.  Who is the person in that avatar?  Those abs are quite amazing too.


----------



## Built (Apr 28, 2010)

Aren't those nuts? I've wondered about that myself. Great shot.


----------



## kyle64 (Apr 28, 2010)

They sure as heck are not my abs. I can only wish. It was a picture I had on my hard drive of abs, no idea who it might be.


----------



## ectomorph141 (Apr 29, 2010)

Oh ok yeah they are just insanely perfect.  Almost like they are made out of clay.


----------

