Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
.jpg "Research Chemical Sciences")
.png "Research Chemical Sciences")
Benefits of Freakquent Feeding
- Thread starter Enock
- Start date
Heres the sumup
1. There is no metabolic advantage to any eating pattern. The net amount of metabolism rise is the same.
2. Frequent feed (MAY) help stave off hunger you are less likely to screw up on your diet.
3. There is no roller coaster of energy w/ frequent feeds, your energy lvls are constant. Meaning no lack of fuel lethargy and no post huge meal crashes.
4. Body makes better use of protien for muscle repair w/ frequent feedings (unproven), the other side is that while its constantly available w/ frequent feeds, the few meals kinda implements some of the principles of protein cycling as to why it really doesn't matter and is just as effective.
5. Frequent feeds ensure that insulin never spikes too high. Therefore better results for cutting. The opposing argument is that, yes it spikes high but then it drops again and during that dropped off time its lower than w/ the frequent meal setup. (reading some of the new posts on this board about insulin and fatloss, you can also arrive at it doesn't really matter much eitherway, cals in vs cals out. (note this is not considering keto, in which insulin is verylow all the time w/ no real daily spike)
6. GHG lvls rise when fasting (for some of the same reasons it does while we sleep), point it kinda moot, yes it raises but its just to counter the fact that theres no fuel, its not big enough of a difference to make an argument out of.
7. Some ramblings about how constant feedings let you keep a constant store of glycogen. I don't think this matters much either when you look at the success of CKD and the fact that they carb up only so often, it doesn't seem the the glycogen tanks need to be always topped off to reap the rewards so to speak.
8. better use of the nutrients in frequent feedings since the body only needs to worry about small portions at a time, (this may be true) it counter argument is along the same theory as protein cycling
9. With a large meal all the excess is spilled over into fat storage. counter is its all calories in versus out, my thoughts I can see how the body would store a little as fat, but because its going to use it during the 1st half of the next day, (and then some if your cutting) so the net might still be the same as w/ frequent feeds (again cal in vs out)
10. All the protien can't be used at once same goes for other nutrients. Counter argument it doesn't just disapear it takes time to digest it will sit around untill it can be.
Those were the top 10 points brought up,
My thoughts are as follows and are for when cutting. As bulking changes things a bit.
The best argument for constant meals are appetite control and constant energy lvls. These are not problems for everyone, I personally do not find not eating for the 1st half of the day effects my training or energy I also find I have about the same lvl of hunger regardless of how much I ate that day, so if I can hold off eating till later, I will have more calories to fullfull that hunger, this is just me, some people will get much more hungary and end up over eating. (for the record I eat many meals, but its 1 in the morning w/ a huge gap then the rest streamed in about a 6 hours period w/ about a 3-4 hour gap before I sleep [hate sleeping on full stomach])
Other than those other 2 reasons I can't find any hard proven facts to fortify an argument for eating 6 times a day.
In society one of the reason frequent eatings it taunted as being better is because of the reported tendancy for people to binge when they do not. (and the energy dip)
Conclusion, I don't think it really matters that much, UNLESS you experience benefits of appetite supression and stable sustained energy. While cutting that is, bulking I have other theories but its less important since its harder to get your calories in unless you split it up anyway, so the less frequent meals isn't even an option.
1. There is no metabolic advantage to any eating pattern. The net amount of metabolism rise is the same.
2. Frequent feed (MAY) help stave off hunger you are less likely to screw up on your diet.
3. There is no roller coaster of energy w/ frequent feeds, your energy lvls are constant. Meaning no lack of fuel lethargy and no post huge meal crashes.
4. Body makes better use of protien for muscle repair w/ frequent feedings (unproven), the other side is that while its constantly available w/ frequent feeds, the few meals kinda implements some of the principles of protein cycling as to why it really doesn't matter and is just as effective.
5. Frequent feeds ensure that insulin never spikes too high. Therefore better results for cutting. The opposing argument is that, yes it spikes high but then it drops again and during that dropped off time its lower than w/ the frequent meal setup. (reading some of the new posts on this board about insulin and fatloss, you can also arrive at it doesn't really matter much eitherway, cals in vs cals out. (note this is not considering keto, in which insulin is verylow all the time w/ no real daily spike)
6. GHG lvls rise when fasting (for some of the same reasons it does while we sleep), point it kinda moot, yes it raises but its just to counter the fact that theres no fuel, its not big enough of a difference to make an argument out of.
7. Some ramblings about how constant feedings let you keep a constant store of glycogen. I don't think this matters much either when you look at the success of CKD and the fact that they carb up only so often, it doesn't seem the the glycogen tanks need to be always topped off to reap the rewards so to speak.
8. better use of the nutrients in frequent feedings since the body only needs to worry about small portions at a time, (this may be true) it counter argument is along the same theory as protein cycling
9. With a large meal all the excess is spilled over into fat storage. counter is its all calories in versus out, my thoughts I can see how the body would store a little as fat, but because its going to use it during the 1st half of the next day, (and then some if your cutting) so the net might still be the same as w/ frequent feeds (again cal in vs out)
10. All the protien can't be used at once same goes for other nutrients. Counter argument it doesn't just disapear it takes time to digest it will sit around untill it can be.
Those were the top 10 points brought up,
My thoughts are as follows and are for when cutting. As bulking changes things a bit.
The best argument for constant meals are appetite control and constant energy lvls. These are not problems for everyone, I personally do not find not eating for the 1st half of the day effects my training or energy I also find I have about the same lvl of hunger regardless of how much I ate that day, so if I can hold off eating till later, I will have more calories to fullfull that hunger, this is just me, some people will get much more hungary and end up over eating. (for the record I eat many meals, but its 1 in the morning w/ a huge gap then the rest streamed in about a 6 hours period w/ about a 3-4 hour gap before I sleep [hate sleeping on full stomach])
Other than those other 2 reasons I can't find any hard proven facts to fortify an argument for eating 6 times a day.
In society one of the reason frequent eatings it taunted as being better is because of the reported tendancy for people to binge when they do not. (and the energy dip)
Conclusion, I don't think it really matters that much, UNLESS you experience benefits of appetite supression and stable sustained energy. While cutting that is, bulking I have other theories but its less important since its harder to get your calories in unless you split it up anyway, so the less frequent meals isn't even an option.
Similar threads
