Relevance of meal frequency?

[MS]

Quite a lot to wade through here. Also a lot of controversial stuff, but I figure these boards are here to discuss the pros and cons of different diet regimes and this seems to be a good topic. Note that most of the stuff stated here appears to be opinion, but I'm pretty sure if you asked the authors they would have a decent sized pile of peer reviewed research from which they have drawn their opinions.

From Lyle McD

The Importance of Meal Frequency

Hi Lyle,

I've always heard that I need to eat at least 6
times per day while dieting. I don't have time to prepare or eat that
many meals but I still want to lose fat efficiently. So what's the deal?

Among bodybuilders, six meals (or more) per day is usually the
de-facto standard, whether dieting or trying to gain size. I'm only
going to talk about dieting here. The question is basically this: Does
it matter if I eat 6 meals per day versus say 2 meals per day? The
answer, of course, depends on what you're talking about. The usual
rationale given for eating more frequently is that when you eat many times per day, your metabolism goes up at each meal and you burn more
calories. But let's think about it for a second. Say you're eating 2000
calories per day, with a nutrient breakdown of 50% carbs, 25% protein
and 25% fat. If you eat 6 meals per day, each one will be about 333
calories or so. If you eat 2 meals per day, they will be 1000 calories
each. Now, the amount that your metabolism goes up in relation to a meal
depends on the composition (carbs, protein, fat) of the meal and its
size. In the examples above, the nutrient breakdown of each meal is the
same, only the size differs. The 333 cal meal will raise metabolism a
smaller amount but will do it more frequently and the 1000 cal meal will
increase metabolism more but do it less frequently. As it turns out
(when it's actually measured and it has been in a lot of studies), the
end result is exactly the same. So from the standpoint of metabolic
rate, it appears to make little difference whether you eat more smaller
meals or less larger meals.
What about weight loss?
Well, since eating more frequently vs. less frequently doesn't affect
metabolic rate differently, you wouldn't expect there to be a difference
in weight loss. And the studies looking at it, assuming that caloric
intake is the same, show no difference between fewer and larger meals.
Again, this assumes that the caloric intake is the same. I'll come back
to this.
What about the composition (muscle vs. fat)
lost?
Very few studies have looked at this, but the few that have showed
basically no difference for one pattern versus another.

So if eating more frequently doesn't change
metabolic rate, the total weight, or composition of the weight lost, why
bother?

Well, there are at least two good reasons to eat more frequently. The
first one is health-related, as studies have shown a decrease in blood
lipid (cholesterol) levels with more frequent vs. less frequent meals.
The second has to do with appetite. All the examples above assumed that
caloric intake is kept the same (i.e. 2000 calories/day in 2 versus 6
meals). But in reality, when people skip meals or go too long without
eating, they do tend to eat more. The reasons are complex and a topic
for much later. But for a lot of people, eating more frequently helps to
control appetite since it keeps blood glucose more stable. That alone
may be reason enough to eat several small meals per day. As a final issue,
one thing that is never considered in the recommendation
to eat 6 meals per day is the total caloric intake. A light female
bodybuilder at 120 pounds may only be eating 1400 calories per day while
dieting. Dividing that into 6 meals of 215 calories each would result in
some depressingly small (and probably unsatisfying) meals. In that case,
eating 3 larger meals (of perhaps 300 calories each) and 2 snacks of 100
calories (perhaps half a food bar) might be the better choice.

Eating at Night

Mr. McDonald:

Is it really true that calories eaten at night
are more easily stored as fat, or that I shouldn't eat anything after
6pm if I want to lose weight?

This is another one of those common ideas and the answer is that it
depends. A lot of diet authors give the 6pm (or even 4 pm) rule for
weight loss without ever really explaining why. In my mind, this is just
a simple trick to get people to eat less, which of course causes them to
lose weight (pretty simple trick too - get people to eat less and they
lose weight. Wow!) The common reason given is that since you're less
active at night, the calories are more likely to be stored as fat. Other
authors have commented that insulin resistance is higher in the evening
and eating carbs will more likely be stored as fat. But is it true?
Again, it depends. Now, if eating a big meal at night (which is quite
common in the US) causes you to eat more calories than normal, of course
you will gain fat from it. But it's not from eating it at night, it's
from eating too much overall (the same thing would happen if you ate too
much earlier in the day too). That is, it still comes down to calories.
But, overall, assuming the same daily caloric intake, there's no real
reason to assume that eating a larger meal at night compared to in the
morning will lead to more being stored as fat. Think about it this way.
Say you're the same person from the previous question eating 2000
calories per day. If you eat more of your calories at night, that means
that you're eating less earlier in the day. So even if you did store
more of those calories eaten at night, your body would be mobilizing
more stored fuel earlier in the day when you were eating less. End
result: no difference.
As a side note, one study of dieting and exercising women found that
eating more calories at night caused less muscle loss, but no difference
in fat loss. Presumably more nutrients were available during the night
to avoid muscle breakdown. The women who ate more in the morning did
lose more total weight, but the entire difference was because they lost
more muscle. Basically, the old bodybuilder idea that you should eat
fewer calories at night appears to be counterproductive to keeping
muscle on a diet.
What really matters in the big scheme of things for weight and fat
loss is total calories in versus total calories out. But assuming you
eat the same number of calories, whether you eat more of them earlier in
the day, or more of them later in the day, it doesn't seem to matter. In
fact, eating a larger meal at dinner (or a small bedtime snack) may
spare more muscle. The only way eating a lot at night will make you fat
is if it causes you to eat more overall.

And from CB athletics:

1
– NUTRITIONAL THEORY: MEAL FREQUENCY & FAT LOSS

Over the past decade, a general belief has been swept the fitness
industry. More nutritionists, personal trainers, magazine
articles, etc. have recommended that we "eat more frequent,
yet smaller meals to help us lose weight". In theory,
this creates a greater metabolic expenditure of digestion, because we have to expend energy in order to break down
food and then absorb it into the blood stream. While
several small meals may be physiologically advantageous,
there is little scientific support for this theory. In fact,
one study showed no difference in energy expenditure between
subjects given either 2 or 6 meals per day (Hum. Nutr. Clin.
Nutr. 36C: 25-39, 1982). So perhaps it is time to reconsider
this "nutritional commandment".
A review of "meal frequency studies" found that 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.
The authors 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. (Bellisle, F. et al. Meal frequency and energy
balance. British Journal of Nutrition 77: s57-s70, 1997.)
Below
is a link to MEDLINE and the search criteria of "Meal frequency
and energy expenditure".
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD=search&DB=PubMed
               
And
this link is to related articles.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Link&db=PubMed&dbFrom=PubMed&from_uid=9155494
NOTE:
Some of the research found here indicated that limiting
subjects to 2 meals per day might decrease vitamin absorption
and impair protein metabolism. Remember that the focus of
this article is meal frequency and metabolic rate! Does
an increase in meal frequency result in more favorable body
composition changes? Is meal frequency less of a factor
in weight loss than dieticians make it out to be? If a person
consumes the same amount of calories over a day, should
it not require the same metabolic effort by the body to
break this food down, regardless of the number of meals
consumed? Just as people are realizing that a high-carbohydrate
diet may not work best for everyone, people should understand
that a higher meal frequency might not be the key to weight
loss in everyone.
Despite
hordes of nutritional information, numerous weight-loss
products on the market, and a variety of exercise techniques,
over 55% of Americans are overweight (figures unknown for
Canada) and some areas are showing huge increases in obesity
rates. Is
a change in meal frequency really having the positive impact
that it is claimed? It is likely not, and the roots of the
obesity epidemic lie much deeper, most importantly being
the sedentary North American lifestyle. So when you combine
an inactive lifestyle with a "green light" to eat more frequently, you can see the potential for weight problems. Losing
weight is difficult, not only for the individual attempting
this feat, but also for the people that are providing them
with their fitness and nutritional guidance. Weight loss
is frustrating because oftentimes the body is stubborn and
has a great metabolic resistance against change, especially
against severe weight loss. The
biggest problem with weight loss is the issue of sacrifice.
You can't lose the weight you desire without some level
of sacrifice, whether it is your weekend beers, your late-night
snacks, or your sedentary lifestyle. Something has to change
and people don't want to hear that. The
key to a successful weight loss program is individuality,
planning around weaknesses, sacrifices, and developing the
correct goal setting and reward structure. The social impact
of eating can have as great an impact on weight control
than meal structure and timing. The
issue of nutritional discipline needs to be addressed. Does
the average population, those people that these meal recommendations
are geared to, fully understand the concept of eating more frequent, yet smaller meals? In a society overwhelmed by
"extra-big sized value menus", is there any opportunity
for the average North American to stick to this recommendation
on a consistent basis? It is quite possible that the belief
of more frequent meals has simply led to an increase in
caloric intake, and thus the population has just made themselves
fatter by eating more often, and eating more in total. Furthermore,
those that attempt to eat small meals often complain of
being hungry within 1 hour of eating because their meals
do not provide satiety (a feeling of fullness). For example,
the uneducated eater may grab rice cakes as a mini-meal,
but this high-glycemic carbohydrate source has proven to
hold off hunger for only 30 minutes and this may contribute
to overeating. On
the other hand, going back to the traditional way of eating,
a hearty meal, they leave the dinner table full, and this
is likely a more satisfying manner in which to eat. It doesn't
matter if you are eating 12 meals a day or 2, if you are
eating the incorrect foods your ability to lose weight will
be greatly impaired. Basically,
meal frequency is less of a factor in weight loss than believed
and there are many other important factors. An increased
meal frequency may even sabotage most diet plans. It may
be easier to plan and consume 3 larger meals with a balanced
nutrient profile (proper amount of carbohydrate, fat, and protein) than it is to obtain 6 balanced mini-meals. A larger
meal properly proportioned in carbohydrates, fat, and protein
should not lead to energy slumps later in the day...that's
just more propaganda that has not been challenged. Brad
Pilon who is finishing his nutrition degree from Guelph
University had some helpful comments. "You
must know when you are hungry, and you must recognize when
you are full. By following these guidelines, if you were
to eat 6 small meals or 3 larger meals you should still
get to the exact same end total at the end of the day."
Brad
sees the problem as completely separate from how many meals
you eat in a day. Some people may not be able to properly
control their caloric intake on these plans. Perhaps asking
people to be disciplined 6 times in a day is more difficult
and self-destructing then asking them to be disciplined
3 times per day.
Brad
has another good point on overeating, "People don't eat
for hunger/satiety any more. People eat for taste, or to
pass time (like at their desk), or other weird reasons (ever
want to see a friend so you suggest coffee- you end up eating
just as a way to meet with people). Also, because of fast
food, we are given portion sizes, and we don't want to "waste"
any food we get, so we try and eat that portion. For
example, while physiologically you only need the caloric
equivalent of an 8-inch ham sub, the market offers only
smaller and larger sizes. Since a 6-inch sub won't do the
job, you get a foot-long sub and eat the whole thing because,
hey, you don't want to waste the money or the food! Brad
believes it the mentality with which we approach eating
may be more important in weight control than physiological or biochemical significance of meal spacing.

2-3 regular meals, in combination with the correct resistance
training and aerobic exercise program, can be an effective
weight loss regimen. You should not feel forced to consume
6 meals a day. In comparison, eating 6 meals a day may lead
to improper nutrition, and may foil even the strictest adherence
to a great workout program. Regardless, neither meal plan
is perfect. Your success is more dependent on food composition,
activity level, and portion control! Future articles will
deal with more specific nutritional tips for weight loss
and weight gain programs.
With
more and more experience in training and nutrition it becomes
clearer that there are no perfect programs or nutritional
plans. Not only do you have to match the program correctly
to one's physiology and anatomical make-up, but also to
their social and psychological traits as well. One
will not succeed on a program that is greater in sacrifices
then it is in rewards. This article really goes against
the grain and you likely won't see this recommendation anywhere
else. The point is to get people to think for themselves
and determine what meal plan will best suit them in their
weight loss goals.


There is also a lot of info out there on animalbolics/warrior diets. This type of diet most folks either love or hate. I have only used it once (for mass gain) and loved it but maybe that's because I'm a female and benefitted from that muscle sparing effect of a large evening meal??

details can be found at:
http://t-mag.com/html/body_67guide.html (aka warrior diet modified to sell bitoest supps)


or the original animalbolics FAQ:


Q: How do you keep from loosing muscle mass while on this diet? And do you stay on it until you are happy with BF% or do you come of for one or two days a week or what? Is this a good diet to run with a cutting cycle.

A: How do you keep from losing muscle mass while on this diet? I'll let you answer this for yourself. All protein requirements are met as are carb requirements during the postworkout meals. As long as those are met, how are you going to lose muscle? (you can't and constant supply of insulin has NOTHING to do with maintaining muscle as AA's have their own transport system which ARE NOT affected by insulin. And do you stay on it until you are happy with BF% or do you come of for one or two days a week or what? Most people break diets on weekends, anyhow. Watch the alcohol as that seems to screw it up the most.

 

[PwB]

Interesting

I think this topic is great, and well timed b/c over the last few days I've really been thinking about meal frequency. I just started a Keto diet at 40% protein/60% fat and even though the high fat meals are much more satisfying, I hate having to eat 5-6 times per day with small meals that don't fill me as much, almost like a tease. Instead i'm eating 4 larger meals and enjoy them much more, and the 4 hours I wait inbetween meals I don't feel hungry like I would on a lower fat/higher carb diet. I haven't thought about the warrior diet or animalbolics for a long time b/c I thought that it could never work, but reading the details again it does make sense. If the glucagon system is working at peak effeciency, as it would be during fasting or even during a strict ketogenic diet, fat loss should be maximized, and just as important, muscle loss should be minimized. Although I understand the logic of 6 meals, it seems to be a great idea for supplement companies to sell their MRP's and Protein shakes rather than being optimal for everyone. Also, the research of 6 meals per day comes from research on diabetics. It is found to be the best way to control blood sugar levels but the research was done giving them high carb/low fat meals which would cause rises and dips in blood sugar. Well most bodybuilders arent diabetics, and when following a ketogenic diet or fasting, controlling blood sugar isn't as much an issue b/c withought the rise in blood sugar from a high carb meal, there won't be a large drop as well. Again, if one is utilizing glucagon properly they are releasing fat from their fat stores once glycogen becomes depleted. It just doesn't make sense that the human body will start breaking down muscle after a 3 hour time period, if this is the case then we would never have made it today b/c all the hunter gatherers would have died a long time ago. The human body is an efficient machine, and when given its natural diet which is higher in protein and fat, and lower in carbs it will utilize fat and small amounts of carbs for energy (especially for emergencies), and preserve muscle mass. I doubt our bodies were ever designed to eat 5-6 meals a day, hunter/gathers were active people and food wasn't available like it is today, they picked or hunted their food while we just need to hop in the car and have access to whatever we want when we want. As people with success on the warrior and animalbolics diet can attest, the body doesnt just rob muscles of their Amino Acids that fast so you can get away withought eating every 2.5-3 hours. Well I'm going to experiment more, i'll stick with 4 meals a day and may progress to the Warrior diet soon, either way some people may be doing themselves a disservice by forcing themselves to eat 5-6 meals a day, especially if their meals stimulate insulin, which shuts down fat loss. If I do try the warrior diet, I will eat only natural foods lower in carbs, I believe following the warrior diet and eating Paleolithic, there is the greatest chance of success. I've heard feedback at t-mag that bodyopus/warrior diet combined produced great results, which is similar to what I would try.

 

[blood_drinker]

I agree with your points MS. But with Sonnys example of a burger and Snickers, I was aiming at how one meal a day does not work because he asked if it boiled down to caloric intake. In this, he asked if he could eat what he wanted. Now Im sure you agree with me in that you cannot do that now. MY personal reason to eat 6 meals a day is to reach my daily protein needs. His burger and snickers wont satisfy his protein needs, especially when he lifts. He will thus lose muscle and lose. Do you agree with me? Fat loss does not boil down to caloric intake. However, about the eating at night article, I do agree with the point that for fat gain overall calories is what counts. Was that the point you were trying to make in the other thread? I must have misunderstood. Meal frequency is a different subject - and I agree on your take. However, your choices for the meal have to be wise - not just a burger n snickers. For fat gain, I agree with your view on caloric intake. However for fat loss, it does not work. My views on muscle gain are contained in the sticky.

 

[Ana]

HELLO from Greece MS, you helped awhile back, remember?
Anyway, great article.

I eat twice per day. I cannot force feed myself in the A.M., I instead guzzle water until I feel hungry, which is around 3:00 or 4:00...this is my first meal. Around 9:30 is my last meal (I go to bed at 2:00am.).

It seems to work for me. To keep metabolism up if need
be than I'll take one yohimbe and one ripped in the morn.(only if I feel sluggish).
Bye for now ....OH, the pharmacies are nothing short of AWESOME over here.

 

[MS]

I'm with you ana. At the monemt I'm maintaining on 2 meals of 1000cals per day and it's great. I'm never hungry and I have lots of energy. I eat at around 10:30 am and again about 8 pm. Of course the composition of the meals is important for overall health, and as I've said previously eating just one meal per day (of say, 4000cals for blood drinker) with mess with your hormones BIG TIME. It is not healthy I think I have been very clear on that. However "not healthy" is not the same as "won't work" for bulking (or dieting). And let's be honest, many many most bodybuilders do things that are not healthy to achieve their goals.

I think blood drinker's stand is silly. Maybe that's impolite to say about a mod, and it can get ya banned. But since the original post by sonny I was pretty clear that AS LONG AS YOU CAN GET ENOUGH PROTEIN and don't over eat then one meal a day will work. I later had to clarify that that meal should be post workout (I thought this was obvious but now understand it wasn't). If you read something like animalbolics you will see that the one meal a day plan is really more of 2-3 meals all post workout and before bedtime. ie protein+carbs after workout, then a regular meal an hour later, then another meal an hour after that if you're still hungry.


Personally I will never use a 1 meal per day diet again since I am now more aware of the potential to screw up your endocrine system and have long term negative consequences. But it worked. It's that simple. And frankly I don't think it screws up the endocrine system much more than a CKD which is another popular BB diet. I will not be doing that diet again either. So to reitierate I do not recommend this approach to bulking or dieting, but I recognize that it can work well for some people. I don't think you can knock it until you've tried it.

BTW 2 quarter pounders with cheese and a snickers bar have only 60 grams of protein with 74 grams of fat and 110 grams of carbs. This gives a grand total of 1350 cals. Clearly this is not enough protein OR calories to sustain muscle gains for anyone except maybe a small child!

 

[blood_drinker]

MS, could you please clarify as to why you think my stand is silly? You say that, but then you seem to agree.

BTW 2 quarter pounders with cheese and a snickers bar have only 60 grams of protein with 74 grams of fat and 110 grams of carbs. This gives a grand total of 1350 cals. Clearly this is not enough protein OR calories to sustain muscle gains for anyone except maybe a small child!

Basically that is what I am saying. Sonnys approach will not work. You say you need to get enough protein - like I said. Basically, we agree on many points. But how the hell do you ingest 200g+ of protein in one sitting? And bulking 4000cals ... it might work if youre a bottomless pit, but I think it's a bit too unrealistic, don't you think? What do you think will be the effect of bulking for 8 weeks with 1 meal a day each consisting of 4000cals? That is extremely unrealstic and no one I know could possibly do that. And not 4000cals from snickers , but from quality foods.

Anyway, could you explain why you think the one meal a day bulk works? Is it just because it is a shocker to the system? What do you think about my point made on the sticky thread, you have not replied there.

 

[MS]

You seem to be fixated on the 2 burgers and snickers bar. Sonny's question was:

does it really matter wat you eat in terms of not gaining fat as long as you dont go over maintenance calories???In other words let say on one day you eat 2 mcdonalds hamburgers and a snickers ( i know im exagerating a litlle...i normally dont eat this crap myself) during a day and fries...but your calories stayed below maintenance...will you gain fat????Does it matter wat foods u eat or wat combos of foods u eat (fat and carbs, protein and fat...etc)...or how many calories u eat during the day???"

The meal was hypothetical, and the question was "will you gain fat?" The whole question (forget about the stupid burgers for a moment) was basically "will you gain fat if you eat below maintenance calories and only 1 meal a day?". The answer to that is quite simply no. However it was obvious that this is a different question to "can you gain muscle or maintain muscle while losing fat this way"? This seems to be the question you wish to address (even though it wasn't explicitly asked). Well the answer to that is "yes, if you get enough protein and calories, and have your meal post workout".

You then said
"A quick recap:
You lose weight, not purely fat, but muscle and minimal fat. Because of the muscle loss, fat gain will be much easier now because muscle burns calories, and because that muscle is now gone, less calories make you more fat. Theoretically, it works. But in reality, it just doesn't. Don't even start me again on the muscle *gain*. This is for weight *loss* - but seemingly I have been lost on what was the original question anyway. In any case, it's definetely not something you would want to do."

You have no substantiation for this claim. You state it as an absolute fact but cannot back it up at all.

Then you say:
"In any case, your goal was fat loss, and as far as I am concerned, muscle gain will not happen especially if you are trying to lose fat. There have been no studies on meal frequency and muscle gain, no . That was just not my point, sorry - you must have misunderstood. Again, my point was, if you eat your meal in the morning or afternoon, instead of post workout, you are even more sure to lose muscle. Since the goal was fat loss, even eating your huge meal post workout would not make a difference - as it just does not work to have muscle gain and fat loss (or weight loss as you put it) at the same time. You confused the whole topic, by putting your muscle gaining experience post workout. We are talking weight loss. I have not seen anyother studies on the subject, nor do I care to - it just was not my point. It was an ABSENCE of a post workout meal"

Well, first of all the goal wasn't fat loss, but aside from that it now sounds as if you agree that it will work if you have your meal post workout as long as you bulking, but not for fat loss?
Then we have:
"In any cutting diet, one would peform both endurance and strength training. Since you are on a one meal a day diet, ideally you would place your meals after one of these exercises."

To which there are two valid answers. The first is that you can (as many dieters do) do weights and cardio back to back. You can also do them on alternate days. But even that is not necessary because medium intensity cardio burns mainly fat as a fuel, plus glycogen which your liver is very full of especially first thing in the morning after a very large evening meal. A brisk 45 minute walk is not gonna eat all your precious muscle away. It will help deplete liver glycogen and is not that catabolic. In a low insulin environment with depleted liver glycogen you will continue burning off all that fat stored from the previous evening meal.

Then we have:

"And the one meal a day diet, that, it does not work. Plain and simple. You can sugar coat it - but it does not work. Again - it is unnecessary a progress retarding suffering. And, it does not work.

There is plenty of real life people that can attest that it does work. Again you have no evidence to back up your statement which is issued as if it was a carved in stone fact.

Next is :
"1) The point of frequent meals is to CONSTANTLY provide your muscle for needed nutrients needed for growth."

What is your evidence for this statement?

"2) There have been studies and many bros with pers. exp that wake in the middle of the night and have a snack - this makes them significantly more muscular than they would with a normal day cuttting diet. What do you attribute this to , then? Meal frequency isn't related to muscle gain? I HIGHLY and wholeheartedly doubt it."

Please post the studies so we can all make informed decisions. I agree that if your body is accustomed to having small, frequent feeds then it will become almost 'addicted' to them. I also don't argue that having lots of meals per day can be a very effective method of cutting OR bulking. I have used this method successfully many times. I don't know what your evidience is for saying that this frequent feeding makes the bros "significantly more muscular" Then you say that you think muscle gains are directly related to meal frequency with nothing more than your opinion as a reason.

"3) We all know the needs of a high cal diet while bulking. I bulk with around 4000cals. You saying Im gonna consume a 4000cal meal ? OR is less needed?
Perhaps your one meal a day thing works as it is a shocker, but (yes this is a gut feeling) I bet my ass your body will adapt to it. But, perhaps it works. If you would be able to consume 4000cals, those are too many cals and chances are many will be stored as fat - your body cannot possibly use so many cals at a time. But again, perhaps the fat will be mobilized for fuel. "

It is not that hard to eat 4000 cals over the space of 3-4 hours post workout. As I've said before this way of bulking (or cutting) does not suit everyone and if you have trouble eating that much in a short period of time then it is not for you. Of course your body adapts (to any diet). And yes much of the excess cals will be stored as fat to be burned again tomorrow. But you also have blasted you muscle cells with nutrients and I can assure you that it takes all night (and then some) for your digestive system to process all that food so you have a constant supply of nutrients while sleeping (which is when the muscles grow the most).

"4) Your body is constantly growing. You do not just feed it once and hope for the best. Look at babies for example. You feed them many times a day, and this is real anabolic and they need this for their early life growth spurt if you will - when they have their first test boost in life. My point is, post workout nutrition, while very important, is not the only time your body repairs your muscle fibers. Thus, the one meal a day bulk is not OPTIMUM for muscle gain by a long shot."

I never said it was an optimal diet. In fact I have quite clearly stated several times that it is not optimal and I don't recommend it. And we're not babies. Babies nutritional needs are (in all respects) different to full grown adults. Babies also sleep most of the time and don't do any weight training. Babies gain a huge amount of fat while they're breastfeeding. As PwB said, if we needed to constantly eat to grow then our ancestors would have never survived. Everytime they went a day or two (or more) between huge feeds they would have lost more muscle than they gained by your reasoning and dwindled away to nothing before even reaching adulthood.


I don't understand why this topic bugs you so much. After all of this back and forth discussion you can't give us a single bit of evidence that a 1 meal a day diet won't work. You just don't like the idea. I can understand that. But you can't ignore the people that have done well on this type of diet (unless you think they're lying?) I remeber when Atkins first came out with his diet everyone said the same things. Now Atkin's isn't much good for BBs, but it works very well for sedentary obese people in spite of what his critics said. And you try to explain to a mainstream dietician the beauty of a CKD and see what kind of response you get! Does this mean a CKD is ineffective?

 

[gy]

MS, from repeated personal attempts, one meal a day in a hypocaloric or eucaloric state has lead to lipolytic attenuation and in some cases lipogenesis. I've experienced the same phenomena when dropping calories and or protein too low. However, the most important point is when you say that these methods can work for *some* people. I totally agree, however it can also be disaster for others.

By the way I'm pretty interested in your 2 meals at 1000 calories each plan. Would you mind sharing your meal descriptions and cardio regimen. Maybe I'll give it a try as well. Thanks.

 

[Ana]

Some questions for you, MS.

Why 1000 cals.?

Isn't that so low you'll actually slow your matabolism?

Or, your body may reset your metab. so when you do up your cals...you may gain. Again, why?

Also do you take an E/C or something to keep things from slowing?

Now for me I'm low carb and I'm living off of (for past two days) No-sugar Peanutbutter, heavy cream, raw
coconut and an assortment of nuts....
I'm trying to get rid of these by consuming them, but thinking I should just toss my beloved PB in the trash so I can begin a clean Keto diet...pure protein.

I take glucophage....have been for two mths.

Can I take glucophage to put me in to ketosis quicker and
how should I go about doing this?

Thanks a whole lot. Oh, another question..

Glucophage may be used as a glucose disposal agent.

Where is the glucose disposed of when muscles are full?
Is the rest urinated out?
Does it go to the fat stores if muscle is full?

I hope you can help me here....

 

[MS]

Wow there's a few Q's there.

First for gy, I agree that this diet is not for everyone. Nor is a keto diet (it was a disaster for me). Neither would I recommend most people follow my normal diet, mainly because it takes a lot of effort and goes against the mainstream BB way of thinking. Also a lot of people physically could not eat the volume of food I eat.

The diet I'm on at the moment is a maintenance diet so the only 'cardio' I do revolves around fun activities such as hiking, skiing (it's winter where I live) sea kayaking and biking to work. I eat my first meal around 10:30am and it might be something like a couple of PB+honey sandwiches (thick whole grain bread and natural PB) and a soymilk shake plus some leftovers from the night before. I munch on some carrots and celery afterwards to clean my teeth. I train around 6pm then have my second meal around 8pm which might be something along the line of pasta/rice/spuds or beans/chickpeas/lentils (choose one) with a sauce or stew of lots of veggies. Depending on the composition of the meal I may add tofu, egg whites, nuts or just another protein shake if I'm lazy. Each of these meals averages around 60g protein, 150g carbs and 20g fat. I don't actually weigh or measure the food precisely since I rely on my appetite to dictate when to stop, so some days I'll eat more and other days less (also depends on activity levels). I also take multis.

Ana, if you read the above that should answer the first Q. I eat 2000-2400 cals each day. No ECA since I'm not dieting.

Glucophage will assist you into ketosis but I think it's a bad idea to continue taking it once you're in ketosis. When your muscles are full of glycogen the excess glucose will get stored as fat.