Eat LESS OFTEN when BULKING!*

[BigNShredded]

Eating less often while bulking will enable you to consume FAR MORE CALORIES than you'd be able to eating every 2-3 hours.

Even if you have a naturally strong appetite, it will be even STRONGER if you WAIT to eat, priming your body to uptake nutrients and release digestive enzymes!

By eating so often, you actually PREVENT your body from going in to this avid hunger mode(not catabolism!) and you therefore actually end up UNDEREATING. This is why eating often is an effective strategy for fat-loss--but not for muscle gain. Eating often is a way to control your appetite.

You can do 2 meals, 3 meals, 4 meals, or more depending on how long you are awake. The bottom line is--do NOT EAT UNTIL YOU ARE VERY HUNGRY! This usually means 3-5 hours, NO MORE. We don't want you going 6-8 hours with no calories, as this would interfere with muscle protein synthesis. However, the MYTH that you MUST eat every 2 hours is just that--a MYTH.

At the end of the day, as we all know: It's calories IN vs calories OUT! Take in MORE CALORIES and you GROW!!

 

[TractionIssues]

Eating less often while bulking will enable you to consume FAR MORE CALORIES than you'd be able to eating every 2-3 hours.

Even if you have a naturally strong appetite, it will be even STRONGER if you WAIT to eat, priming your body to uptake nutrients and release digestive enzymes!

There is not downregulation of enzymes nor nutrients

By eating so often, you actually PREVENT your body from going in to this avid hunger mode(not catabolism!) and you therefore actually end up UNDEREATING. This is why eating often is an effective strategy for fat-loss--but not for muscle gain.

Starvation mode is starvation mode, it IS catabolism. Fat-loss and muscle gain can happen together, it is called anabolism. Eating often is made to constantly stay in anabolism, both for fat-loss AND muscle gain. The reason you burn more is because your body will use the nurtients to feed the muscle more often as it is not scared to starve, in which case it would store fats instead of nourish muscle. This is quite basic...

You can do 2 meals, 3 meals, 4 meals, or more depending on how long you are awake. The bottom line is--do NOT EAT UNTIL YOU ARE VERY HUNGRY! This usually means 3-5 hours, NO MORE. We don't want you going 6-8 hours with no calories, as this would interfere with muscle protein synthesis. However, the MYTH that you MUST eat every 2 hours is just that--a MYTH.

Please show some kind of proof of this. I personally am against people commenting their opinion as if it is fact with no proof to back it up. This has been proven countless times before, and has always been why the general population of "3x a day eaters" are flabby and out of shape.


At the end of the day, as we all know: It's calories IN vs calories OUT! Take in MORE CALORIES and you GROW!!

You clearly did not view my post of what a diet really is, and it is NOT about CALORIE IN VS. CALORIE OUT. NUTRITION IS A SCIENCE, PLEASE STOP SPEWING THIS NONSENSE. I believe you should leave nutrition advice to people with a degree in it like me. While you are at it, please read my thread and you learn much.

http://www.professionalmuscle.com/f...527-truths-about-dieting-including-guide.html

In red. By the way I am not trying to be disrespectful, but some things need to be clarified.

 

[Theone233]

The way i see it is, if you cut using 6 meals then when you bulk drop it down to 4. My girls coach is a firm believer in this. The more often you eat the more it effects your metabolism. Why would you want a super fast metabolism while bulking? It will just burn more calories making it harder to gain.

 

[BigNShredded]

In red. By the way I am not trying to be disrespectful, but some things need to be clarified.

Are you claiming that you will be CATABOLIC if you do not eat every 2 hours? PRECISELY 2 hours? THIS IS THE PROVEN "TIME-LIMIT"? NO..

You can go 3-5 hours without entering a catabolic state, especially on ANABOLIC STEROIDS/HGH/Peptides. Don't be silly.

Additionally, the body is in a constantl FLUX, and it has been shown already that small changes in cortisol are always occuring and have no effect on total anabolism.

 

[TractionIssues]

The way i see it is, if you cut using 6 meals then when you bulk drop it down to 4. My girls coach is a firm believer in this. The more often you eat the more it effects your metabolism. Why would you want a super fast metabolism while bulking? It will just burn more calories making it harder to gain.

The real myth is that you need to "gain fat" to gain muscle.

 

[Theone233]

Never said you need to gain fat. But if your diet is clean and especially if your taking supplements I really doubt fat gain would be much different from 4-6 meals. I'm def not telling people how to eat. When we hired him as her coach he was telling me what he does. hes 290 in the offseason. Yes i know what works for him may not work for me, but it does seem to make sense

 

[BigNShredded]

Effects of meal frequency on energy utilization in rats.
Hill JO, Anderson JC, Lin D, Yakubu F. Department of Pediatrics, Vanderbilt University

“The effects of differences in meal frequency on body weight, body composition, and energy expenditure were studied in mildly food-restricted male rats. Two groups were fed approximately 80% of usual food intake (as periodically determined in a group of ad libitum fed controls) for 131 days. One group received all of its food in 2 meals/day and the other received all of its food in 10-12 meals/day. The two groups did not differ in food intake, body weight, body composition, food efficiency (carcass energy gain per amount of food eaten), or energy expenditure at any time during the study. Both food-restricted groups had a lower food intake, body weight gain, and energy expenditure than a group of ad libitum-fed controls. In conclusion, these results suggest that amount of food eaten, but not the pattern with which it is ingested, has a major influence on energy balance during mild food restriction.“

and……


Meal frequency and energy balance.
Br J Nutr. 1997 Apr;77 Suppl 1:S57-70.
“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.”

and…….


Thermogenesis in humans after varying meal time frequency
Wolfram G, Kirchgessner M, Miller HL, Hollomey S.
To a group of 8 healthy persons a slightly hypocaloric diet with protein (13% of energy), carbohydrates (46% of energy) and fat (41% of energy) was given as one meal or as five meals in a change-over trial. Each person was 2 weeks on each regimen. Under the conditions of slight undernutrition and neutral temperature the balances of nitrogen, carbon and energy were assessed in 7-day collection periods, and according to 48-hour measurements of gaseous exchange (carbon-nitrogen balance method) by the procedures of indirect calorimetry. Changes of body weight were statistically not significant. At isocaloric supply of metabolizable energy with exactly the same foods in different meal frequencies no differences were found in the retention of carbon and energy. Urinary nitrogen excretion was slightly greater with a single daily meal, indicating influences on protein metabolism. The protein-derived energy was compensated by a decrease in the fat oxidation. The heat production calculated by indirect calorimetry was not significantly different with either meal frequency. Water, sodium and potassium balances were not different. The plasma concentrations of cholesterol and uric acid were not influenced by meal frequency, glucose and triglycerides showed typical behaviour depending on the time interval to the last meal. The results demonstrate that the meal frequency did not influence the energy balance.

 

[Theone233]

& just so you know I read your post about dieting and I think it makes a lot of sense.

 

[TractionIssues]

Are you claiming that you will be CATABOLIC if you do not eat every 2 hours? PRECISELY 2 hours? THIS IS THE PROVEN "TIME-LIMIT"? NO..

You can go 3-5 hours without entering a catabolic state, especially on ANABOLIC STEROIDS/HGH/Peptides. Don't be silly.

Additionally, the body is in a constantl FLUX, and it has been shown already that small changes in cortisol are always occuring and have no effect on total anabolism.

I never said anything about precisely 2 hours. I would normally recommend eating between every 2-3 hours, but 5 hours will have its effect on anabolism. The thing is you cannot calculate it as black and white. There are differently levels of anabolism and catabolism, but eating more often will lead to anabolism where eating less often leads to the opposite. And 5 hours is pushing it, you "might" be able to get away with it, but why? There's no advantage to this unless you are trying to gain more "fat", and not muscle - this is how you stay flabby.

 

[jimmyjones]

2500 calories, whether broken out 3x, or 4x, or 5x, is STILL 2500 calories.

You can train your body to do anything!

Shit if you really wanted to, you can have 2500 calories in ONE sitting if youre capable, and fast for the rest of the entire day, allowing the massive meal to process for the rest of the day, and you will end up at the same result as if u you were to split it up 2x or 3x or 6x. There is no ONE SIZE FITS ALL!

 

[BigNShredded]

BOOM. DONE. CASE CLOSED.

However, I came to this realization based on my EXPERIENCE alone, and then when I investigated the SCIENCE, I confirmed my own personal hypthesis. Those studies CLEARLY SHOW that it doesn't matter how often you eat, it's HOW MUCH YOU EAT.

 

[BigNShredded]

I never said anything about precisely 2 hours. I would normally recommend eating between every 2-3 hours, but 5 hours will have its effect on anabolism. The thing is you cannot calculate it as black and white. There are differently levels of anabolism and catabolism, but eating more often will lead to anabolism where eating less often leads to the opposite. And 5 hours is pushing it, you "might" be able to get away with it, but why? There's no advantage to this unless you are trying to gain more "fat", and not muscle - this is how you stay flabby.

You are completely brainwashed by "the muscle media" powers that be. You need to get with the SCIENCE my man, not the BROSCIENCE! READ THE STUDIES I POSTED, PLEASE. Stop acting like a know it all..

 

[TheAnabolicFreak]

BOOM. DONE. CASE CLOSED.

However, I came to this realization based on my EXPERIENCE alone, and then when I investigated the SCIENCE, I confirmed my own personal hypthesis. Those studies CLEARLY SHOW that it doesn't matter how often you eat, it's HOW MUCH YOU EAT.

What does a typical day's nutrition look like for you? Like what exactly did you eat yesterday and at what times?

 

[TractionIssues]

Effects of meal frequency on energy utilization in rats.
Hill JO, Anderson JC, Lin D, Yakubu F. Department of Pediatrics, Vanderbilt University

“The effects of differences in meal frequency on body weight, body composition, and energy expenditure were studied in mildly food-restricted male rats. Two groups were fed approximately 80% of usual food intake (as periodically determined in a group of ad libitum fed controls) for 131 days. One group received all of its food in 2 meals/day and the other received all of its food in 10-12 meals/day. The two groups did not differ in food intake, body weight, body composition, food efficiency (carcass energy gain per amount of food eaten), or energy expenditure at any time during the study. Both food-restricted groups had a lower food intake, body weight gain, and energy expenditure than a group of ad libitum-fed controls. In conclusion, these results suggest that amount of food eaten, but not the pattern with which it is ingested, has a major influence on energy balance during mild food restriction.“

You need to understand these before coming to a conclusion. This is in rats that are fed a lower calorie diet, who are constantly in starvation mode, no matter what, everything they eat will be stored as fat either way.

and……


Meal frequency and energy balance.
Br J Nutr. 1997 Apr;77 Suppl 1:S57-70.
“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.”

This doesn't give any information to the study, and is based on energy expenditure, not metabolism - in other words, eating food differently will not make you hyperactive.

and…….


Thermogenesis in humans after varying meal time frequency
Wolfram G, Kirchgessner M, Miller HL, Hollomey S.
To a group of 8 healthy persons a slightly hypocaloric diet with protein (13% of energy), carbohydrates (46% of energy) and fat (41% of energy) was given as one meal or as five meals in a change-over trial. Each person was 2 weeks on each regimen. Under the conditions of slight undernutrition and neutral temperature the balances of nitrogen, carbon and energy were assessed in 7-day collection periods, and according to 48-hour measurements of gaseous exchange (carbon-nitrogen balance method) by the procedures of indirect calorimetry. Changes of body weight were statistically not significant. At isocaloric supply of metabolizable energy with exactly the same foods in different meal frequencies no differences were found in the retention of carbon and energy. Urinary nitrogen excretion was slightly greater with a single daily meal, indicating influences on protein metabolism. The protein-derived energy was compensated by a decrease in the fat oxidation. The heat production calculated by indirect calorimetry was not significantly different with either meal frequency. Water, sodium and potassium balances were not different. The plasma concentrations of cholesterol and uric acid were not influenced by meal frequency, glucose and triglycerides showed typical behaviour depending on the time interval to the last meal. The results demonstrate that the meal frequency did not influence the energy balance.

Again "HYPOCALORIC" diet, as I explained above.

 

[Solo_]

Thread backfire for BNS lol.

 

[BigNShredded]

LOL @AlphaDawg unliking my POST!

 

[TractionIssues]

Those posts have nothing to do with muscle gain to a bodybuilder on a heavy training pattern with objectives of maximum growth.

 

[BigNShredded]

Serge Nurbet, Ronnie Coleman, Nasser, Dorian, and many others ONLY ATE 3-4 MEALS PER DAY. STOP BEING BRAINWASHED.

 

[AlphaMaleDawg]

I never said anything about precisely 2 hours. I would normally recommend eating between every 2-3 hours, but 5 hours will have its effect on anabolism. The thing is you cannot calculate it as black and white. There are differently levels of anabolism and catabolism, but eating more often will lead to anabolism where eating less often leads to the opposite. And 5 hours is pushing it, you "might" be able to get away with it, but why? There's no advantage to this unless you are trying to gain more "fat", and not muscle - this is how you stay flabby.

I'm sorry but you won't get catabolic if you don't eat for five hours. That is just the last generation stuff that has been parroted for years. You can easily eat only 4 meals per day 5 hours apart and get the same results as 7 meals a day. Meal frequency is just not that important. Either method will work and I tend to eat 5-6 meals a day only because I have the appetite of a fat kid. For the most part (though not all), I agree with Ross in this instance.

LOL @AlphaDawg unliking my POST!

what are you talking about?

 

[BigNShredded]

Those posts have nothing to do with muscle gain to a bodybuilder on a heavy training pattern with objectives of maximum growth.

Again, many boybuilders use this type of eating regimen, as do I. have you seen my pics, just curious?