Log In

Your email is not your username

Register

If you were a member of the old Bodybuilding.com forums and would like to reuse your previous username, you can request it below. We use your email only for registration and do not store it. For more information, please see our Privacy Policy.

Confirm your email

A registration code was sent to your email. Enter it here.

Welcome

You have successfully setup your account.

Sign in

Quick Navigation Bottom Misc
Forum » Meal frequency is not a myth
  1. Results 1 to 30 of 148
  2. Page 1 of 5
  3. 1
  4. 2
  5. 3
  7. Last

Thread: Meal frequency is not a myth

post 1540426391 01-12-2018, 05:56 PM
-
#1
  1. AshWar
  2. Registered User
  1. AshWar
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Sep 2013
  4. Posts: 31,101
  5. Rep Power: 483689

Meal frequency is not a myth

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...tb00469.x/full
The effects of meal frequency on changes in body composition by food restriction were investigated. Twelve boxers were divided between a two meals day−1 group (the 2M group) and a six meals day−1 group (the 6M group). Both groups ingested 5.02 MJ (1200 kcal) day−1 for 2 weeks. Although there was no difference in change of body weight by food restriction between the two groups, the decrease in lean body mass (LBM) was significantly greater in the 2M group than in the 6M group. The decrease in urinary 3-methylhistidine/creatinine was significantly greater in the 6M group than in the 2M group. These results suggest that the lower frequency of meal intake leads to a greater myoprotein catabolism even if the same diet is consumed.
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056...98910053211403
As compared with the three-meal diet, the nibbling diet reduced fasting serum concentrations of total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and apolipoprotein B by a mean (±SE) of 8.5±2.5 percent (P<0.02), 13.5±3.4 percent (P<0.01), and 15.1±5.7 percent (P<0.05), respectively. Although the mean blood glucose level and serum concentrations of free fatty acids, 3-hydroxybutyrate, and triglyceride were similar during both diets, during the nibbling diet the mean serum insulin level decreased by 27.9±6.3 percent (P<0.01) and the mean 24-hour urinary C-peptide output decreased by 20.2 ±5.6 percent (P<0.02). In addition, the mean 24-hour urinary cortisol excretion was lower by 17.3±5.9 percent (P<0.05) at the end of the nibbling diet than at the end of the three-meal diet. The blood glucose, serum insulin, and C-peptide responses to a standardized breakfast and the results of an intravenous glucose-tolerance test conducted at the end of each diet were similar.
TLDR higher meal frequency = Less catabolic (preserve more muscle), lower LDL (by 13%), total cholesterol, lower insulin levels (by 28%)





Slowly realizing how wrong the whole "just iifym bro" fad has been
post 1540426471 01-12-2018, 05:57 PM
-
#2
  1. xtrah
  2. Banned
  1. xtrah
  2. Banned
  3. Join Date: Feb 2013
  4. Age: 30
  5. Posts: 6,223
  6. Rep Power: 0
kick rocks

Spoiler!
nerd
post 1540426671 01-12-2018, 05:58 PM
-
#3
  1. phillyfreak7
  2. Registered User
  1. phillyfreak7
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Nov 2009
  4. Posts: 9,411
  5. Rep Power: 10142
Stopped reading at 12 boxers
355 Bench
565 Dead
520 Parallel Box Squat
post 1540426821 01-12-2018, 05:59 PM
-
#4
  1. SerbianSickKant
  2. The Eccentric SickKant
  1. SerbianSickKant
  2. The Eccentric SickKant
  3. Join Date: Jul 2013
  4. Posts: 7,503
  5. Rep Power: 24671
i thought this is commong knowlage
i eat every 3h
iifym fad was bad but now we are in IF era which is even worse
most ppl dont realise IF is only a cutting diet(and not even a good one imo) and use IF all the time cuz its easier for them just to eat in that eating period just lol
5-8 meals is goat( depending on your size, meals and goals)
degenmaxx
post 1540426871 01-12-2018, 05:59 PM
-
#5
  1. wincel
  2. Banned
  1. wincel
  2. Banned
  3. Join Date: Aug 2016
  4. Location: Chad
  5. Posts: 64,937
  6. Rep Power: 0
It doesn't make a huge difference though. I mean there is a reason all the hardcore IFBB bros are on that 6-8 meal a day time. But for regular people, it probably makes like a 2% difference at most.
post 1540426931 01-12-2018, 06:00 PM
-
#6
  1. Brozef
  2. ‎ ‎ ‎
  1. Brozef
  2. ‎ ‎ ‎
  3. Join Date: Mar 2013
  4. Location: Maine, United States
  5. Posts: 17,033
  6. Rep Power: 210050
Originally Posted By AshWar⏩
Slowly realizing how wrong the whole "just iifym bro" fad has been
Not sure what iifym has to do with meal frequency...?

It does prove that IF is inferior to eating more normally as far as preservation of muscle tissue is concerned.
post 1540426981 01-12-2018, 06:00 PM
-
#7
  1. 4everalone
  2. Registered User
  1. 4everalone
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Mar 2012
  4. Location: Oslo, Oslo, Norway
  5. Age: 34
  6. Posts: 10,980
  7. Rep Power: 41395
The IIFYM meme was hilarious. Everyone on misc was doing it. Brb going on the protein shake & candy diet. Sounds legit.
Follows Chestbrah's training routine crew
post 1540426991 01-12-2018, 06:00 PM
-
#8
  1. Mr.PissShivers
  2. Shiverin' since '92
  1. Mr.PissShivers
  2. Shiverin' since '92
  3. Join Date: Nov 2009
  4. Age: 41
  5. Posts: 39,118
  6. Rep Power: 305683
So eating less more often is good?
OLD MOVIE CREW
post 1540427021 01-12-2018, 06:00 PM
-
#9
  1. AshWar
  2. Registered User
  1. AshWar
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Sep 2013
  4. Posts: 31,101
  5. Rep Power: 483689
Originally Posted By wincel⏩
It doesn't make a huge difference though. I mean there is a reason all the hardcore IFBB bros are on that 6 meal a day time. But for regular people, it probably makes like a 2% difference at most.
I think it's more important for us natty bros tbh. Lowering insulin levels by 28% is a huge deal for fat storing isn't it
post 1540427201 01-12-2018, 06:02 PM
-
#10
  1. DolphinPilot
  1. DolphinPilot
  3. Join Date: May 2015
  4. Posts: 49,469
  5. Rep Power: 367822
I'm sure the assertion that it IS a myth was proven with only one study, too.
post 1540427231 01-12-2018, 06:02 PM
-
#11
  1. AshWar
  2. Registered User
  1. AshWar
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Sep 2013
  4. Posts: 31,101
  5. Rep Power: 483689
Originally Posted By Brozef⏩
Not sure what iifym has to do with meal frequency...?

It does prove that IF is inferior to eating more normally as far as preservation of muscle tissue is concerned.
I mean everyone hopped on the bandwagon where only the macros matter- timing, quality of food etc doesn't count at all
post 1540427361 01-12-2018, 06:03 PM
-
#12
  1. wincel
  2. Banned
  1. wincel
  2. Banned
  3. Join Date: Aug 2016
  4. Location: Chad
  5. Posts: 64,937
  6. Rep Power: 0
Originally Posted By AshWar⏩
I think it's more important for us natty bros tbh. Lowering insulin levels by 28% is a huge deal for fat storing isn't it
but reduced insulin usually also = reduced anabolism...so there are competing effects at play here

logically speaking, humans were never meant to eat the way we eat now...so it is hard to say what the "best" way to eat is...we are well adapted for eating intermittently, but also well adapted for snacking/short meals

macros, timing, quality, etc all matter, but it's just that timing only really becomes important if you compete or something...i doubt you would see much of a difference as a natty on the 6 meal a day plan vs IF if your macros were the same...

There is even a lot of doubt about how much fat/carb/protein to eat, and what a "good" diet even is.

Best thing as always is to experiment and see what works for you.
post 1540427511 01-12-2018, 06:04 PM
-
#13
  1. WorldClassDBag
  2. Professional Toner
  1. WorldClassDBag
  2. Professional Toner
  3. Join Date: Feb 2016
  4. Location: California, United States
  5. Posts: 13,774
  6. Rep Power: 114786
Im not a pro bodybuilder so I don't really care.
S/B/D/OHP: 405/265/495/180

suf·fer Beau·ti·(ful)·ly

SA Spurs
post 1540427791 01-12-2018, 06:06 PM
-
#14
  1. SerbianSickKant
  2. The Eccentric SickKant
  1. SerbianSickKant
  2. The Eccentric SickKant
  3. Join Date: Jul 2013
  4. Posts: 7,503
  5. Rep Power: 24671
Originally Posted By wincel⏩
but reduced insulin usually also = reduced anabolism...so there are competing effects at play here

logically speaking, humans were never meant to eat the way we eat now...so it is hard to say what the "best" way to eat is...we are well adapted for eating intermittently, but also well adapted for snacking/short meals

macros, timing, quality, etc all matter, but it's just that timing only really becomes important if you compete or something...i doubt you would see much of a difference as a natty on the 6 meal a day plan vs IF if your macros were the same...

There is even a lot of doubt about how much fat/carb/protein to eat, and what a "good" diet even is.
eating every 3h has a lot more benefits, wincel
degenmaxx
post 1540427821 01-12-2018, 06:06 PM
-
#15
  1. jonmcd46
  2. Registered User
  1. jonmcd46
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Sep 2012
  4. Location: United States
  5. Posts: 11,612
  6. Rep Power: 84813
Originally Posted By phillyfreak7⏩
Stopped reading at 12 boxers
Agreed, who gives a phuck how many meals some stupid pairs of underwear are eating, pretty sure they can't even lift
post 1540427951 01-12-2018, 06:07 PM
-
#16
  1. TrinnieBuu
  2. insatiable
  1. TrinnieBuu
  2. insatiable
  3. Join Date: May 2017
  4. Posts: 6,469
  5. Rep Power: 131922
While I agree with you. The frequent meals thing hasn’t been supported by as many studies as its proponents seem to think.

This meta study was pretty interesting.

https://academic.oup.com/nutritionre...3/2/69/1820875
However, sensitivity analysis of the data showed that the positive findings were the product of a single study, casting doubt as to whether more frequent meals confer beneficial effects on body composition. In conclusion, although the initial results of this meta-analysis suggest a potential benefit of increased feeding frequencies for enhancing body composition, these findings need to be interpreted with circumspection.
What I like is the meta study includes more recent studies too not just the two you cited from a few decades ago.

Still eat smaller more frequent meals though bc it makes more physiological sense to me.
They said she's gone too far this time

¯\_(ツ)_/¯
post 1540428001 01-12-2018, 06:07 PM
-
#17
  1. 401Delta
  2. ☠ ☠ ☠ ☠ ☠
  1. 401Delta
  2. ☠ ☠ ☠ ☠ ☠
  3. Join Date: May 2017
  4. Posts: 25,167
  5. Rep Power: 417920
A better argument than whether it's a myth or not might be howrelevantmeal timing actually is...

From Alan Aragon:

The Primary Laws of Nutrient Timing
The First Law of Nutrient Timing is: hitting your daily macronutrient targets is FAR more important than nutrient timing.
The Second Law of Nutrient Timing is: hitting your daily macronutrient targets is FAR more important than nutrient timing.

NOTE: Please do not misinterpret the above to mean that timing is irrelevant. On the contrary, it's very relevant. Timing just happens to have MUCH LESS impact on results than hitting your macro totals for the day. This doesn't diminish the fact that people need to individualize their meal timing so that it maximizes their training performance (& does not hinder it). The latter manipulations vary widely, because people have different training protocols, goals, and tolerances. For example, some people experience their best training performance in an immediately fed state, while others do best in a semi-fasted or fasted state. Endurance athletes who neglect carbohydrate timing will not optimize their training capacity. Strength/power athletes with minimal endurance demands have much less of a concern for this. There's no way to 'universalize' a nutrient timing prescription that applies to everyone & all types of athletes. But to reiterate, macro totals for the day overshadow timing in terms of importance, especially for bodybuilding. If macro totals for the day are not hit, the most precisely neurotic timing of meals is all for sh!t.
post 1540428061 01-12-2018, 06:07 PM
-
#18
  1. xtrah
  2. Banned
  1. xtrah
  2. Banned
  3. Join Date: Feb 2013
  4. Age: 30
  5. Posts: 6,223
  6. Rep Power: 0
Originally Posted By jonmcd46⏩
Agreed, who gives a phuck how many meals some stupid pairs of underwear are eating, pretty sure they can't even lift
Agreed, who gives a phuck how many meals some stupid dogs are eating, pretty sure they can't even lift
post 1540428161 01-12-2018, 06:08 PM
-
#19
  1. SerbianSickKant
  2. The Eccentric SickKant
  1. SerbianSickKant
  2. The Eccentric SickKant
  3. Join Date: Jul 2013
  4. Posts: 7,503
  5. Rep Power: 24671
i know my boi AshWar is trying to get thick, tight and solid, if this is what u care about look at every bodybuilders diet, meals every 3h, all the proof u need
degenmaxx
post 1540428201 01-12-2018, 06:09 PM
-
#20
  1. phillyfreak7
  2. Registered User
  1. phillyfreak7
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Nov 2009
  4. Posts: 9,411
  5. Rep Power: 10142
This "study" is bull****. 6 people per group? Are you kidding me?

Besides that, total caloric intake and adherence is what matters. If you hit your macros and micros, it's next to completely irrelevant as to how frequent you eat, whether it's all in one meal, whether you're doing IF, anything
355 Bench
565 Dead
520 Parallel Box Squat
post 1540428211 01-12-2018, 06:09 PM
-
#21
  1. Crysthal
  2. Registered User
  1. Crysthal
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Jan 2016
  4. Age: 36
  5. Posts: 2,019
  6. Rep Power: 12993
While it certainly makes sense and I'm trying to eat every 2-3 hrs I would not trust any study with 12 participants.

make it 100 at least or you get just another "NEW STUDY SHOWS : DOCTORS HAVE BEEN WRONG ALL THE TIME.." fake news BS
6'3 - 230

Collect things, not moments
post 1540428451 01-12-2018, 06:11 PM
-
#22
  1. AshWar
  2. Registered User
  1. AshWar
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Sep 2013
  4. Posts: 31,101
  5. Rep Power: 483689
[QUOTE=TrinnieBuu post_id=1540427951]While I agree with you. The frequent meals thing hasn’t been supported by as many studies as its proponents seem to think.

This meta study was pretty interesting.

[URL=https://academic.oup.com/nutritionreviews/article/73/2/69/1820875]https://academic.oup.com/nutritionre...3/2/69/1820875[/URL]



What I like is the meta study includes more recent studies too not just the two you cited from a few decades ago.

Still eat smaller more frequent meals though bc it makes more biological sense to me.[/QUOTE][QUOTE=401Delta post_id=1540428001]A better argument than whether it's a myth or not might be how[i]relevant[/i]meal timing actually is...

From Alan Aragon:

[i]The Primary Laws of Nutrient Timing
The First Law of Nutrient Timing is: hitting your daily macronutrient targets is FAR more important than nutrient timing.
The Second Law of Nutrient Timing is: hitting your daily macronutrient targets is FAR more important than nutrient timing.[/QUOTE]

[img]https://i.imgur.com/AtIzGXM.jpg[/img]
post 1540428541 01-12-2018, 06:12 PM
-
#23
  1. meenman83
  2. Registered User
  1. meenman83
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Aug 2007
  4. Posts: 7,638
  5. Rep Power: 54289
Originally Posted By AshWar⏩
I think it's more important for us natty bros tbh. Lowering insulin levels by 28% is a huge deal for fat storing isn't it
No 3/4 meals is best natty you're not 24/7 catabolic mode like hell's angels.

You also need less protein than a 24/7 person preferably under a gram if bulking and slightly over a gram if cutting/caloric deficit

Stop the broscience as everyone's body is different, find what works best for you and stick to it.
★cVc★ Waterboarding - Baptizing terrorists with Freedom since 02'
post 1540429081 01-12-2018, 06:16 PM
-
#24
  1. DemiBrah
  2. Registered User
  1. DemiBrah
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Jan 2014
  4. Posts: 4,918
  5. Rep Power: 21903
Eats 60% of his daily calories after 9pm crew
Hm.

If you're reading this, you're probably a *******

Bringer of the trigger
post 1540429101 01-12-2018, 06:16 PM
-
#25
  1. SerbianSickKant
  2. The Eccentric SickKant
  1. SerbianSickKant
  2. The Eccentric SickKant
  3. Join Date: Jul 2013
  4. Posts: 7,503
  5. Rep Power: 24671
Originally Posted By JewSeeJohn⏩
LMFAO, I actually fell for the IIFYM garbage when I was 18/19.

By the time I'd done biochemistry, I realized that the IIFYM crowd are a band of retards, and are just following garbage advice from a bunch of 'natty' twinks that can't break 180lbs, even with all the treining and goat-whore-moaning by their side..

BRB oats and sugar are the same thing inside your body
BRB forget to mention that oats takes a while to break down, there-for the release of glucose into blood stream is slow and steady.
BRB high blood sugar = lipogenesis = you get fat
90% of the misc was on iffym train, some are still on it probs, just a way to cope by being mentally weak to hold a proper diet
degenmaxx
post 1540429111 01-12-2018, 06:16 PM
-
#26
  1. WorldClassDBag
  2. Professional Toner
  1. WorldClassDBag
  2. Professional Toner
  3. Join Date: Feb 2016
  4. Location: California, United States
  5. Posts: 13,774
  6. Rep Power: 114786
Originally Posted By JewSeeJohn⏩
LMFAO, I actually fell for the IIFYM garbage when I was 18/19.

By the time I'd done biochemistry, I realized that the IIFYM crowd are a band of retards, and are just following garbage advice from a bunch of 'natty' twinks that can't break 180lbs, even with all the treining and goat-whore-moaning by their side..

BRB oats and sugar are the same thing inside your body
BRB forget to mention that oats takes a while to break down, there-for the release of glucose into blood stream is slow and steady.
BRB high blood sugar = lipogenesis = you get fat
good thing im not a twink
S/B/D/OHP: 405/265/495/180

suf·fer Beau·ti·(ful)·ly

SA Spurs
post 1540429261 01-12-2018, 06:17 PM
-
#27
  1. meenman83
  2. Registered User
  1. meenman83
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Aug 2007
  4. Posts: 7,638
  5. Rep Power: 54289
Originally Posted By JewSeeJohn⏩
BRB oats and sugar are the same thing inside your body
BRB forget to mention that oats takes a while to break down, there-for the release of glucose into blood stream is slow and steady.
BRB high blood sugar = lipogenesis = you get fat
Only eat complex carbs in morning crew.
don't eat carbs before bed crew.
★cVc★ Waterboarding - Baptizing terrorists with Freedom since 02'
post 1540429561 01-12-2018, 06:21 PM
-
#28
  1. repsDTGdaily
  2. Angus Destroyer
  1. repsDTGdaily
  2. Angus Destroyer
  3. Join Date: Aug 2007
  4. Location: Maryland, United States
  5. Posts: 45,872
  6. Rep Power: 66255
Originally Posted By meenman83⏩
Only eat complex carbs in morning crew.
don't eat carbs before bed crew.
same
"Is that really a fukin question? Do you need two hands to count your IQ, or is one enough." - residesinAZ
post 1540429591 01-12-2018, 06:21 PM
-
#29
  1. AshWar
  2. Registered User
  1. AshWar
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Sep 2013
  4. Posts: 31,101
  5. Rep Power: 483689
Originally Posted By JewSeeJohn⏩
LMFAO, I actually fell for the IIFYM garbage when I was 18/19.

By the time I'd done biochemistry, I realized that the IIFYM crowd are a band of retards, and are just following garbage advice from a bunch of 'natty' twinks that can't break 180lbs, even with all the treining and goat-whore-moaning by their side..

BRB oats and sugar are the same thing inside your body
BRB forget to mention that oats takes a while to break down, there-for the release of glucose into blood stream is slow and steady.
BRB high blood sugar = lipogenesis = you get fat
They're just tryna be like their favourite yootoob celeries that they watch all day, eating poptarts and burritos, barely squatting 3 plates with sbd knee sleeves, wraps, belt etc. ****ing cringe tbh.
post 1540429651 01-12-2018, 06:21 PM
-
#30
  1. WorldClassDBag
  2. Professional Toner
  1. WorldClassDBag
  2. Professional Toner
  3. Join Date: Feb 2016
  4. Location: California, United States
  5. Posts: 13,774
  6. Rep Power: 114786
Originally Posted By AshWar⏩
They're just tryna be like their favourite yootoob celeries that they watch all day, eating poptarts and burritos, barely squatting 3 plates with sbd knee sleeves, wraps, belt etc. ****ing cringe tbh.
good thing i squat more than 3 plates
S/B/D/OHP: 405/265/495/180

suf·fer Beau·ti·(ful)·ly

SA Spurs
Quick Navigation Top Misc
Bookmarks
Digg.com
Digg
del.icio.us
del.icio.us
Stumbleupon.com
StumbleUpon
Google.com
Google
Facebook.com
Facebook
Posting Permissions
  1. You may not post new threads
  2. You may not post replies
  3. You may not post attachments
  4. You may not edit your posts