The "6 Meals A Day" Myth

[Aldin]

Here is a little interesting tid bit I ran into just today:

http://doubleyourgains.com/the-6-meals-a-day-myth

It deals with the Thermal Effect of Food (TEF).

What are peoples thoughts on this?

[Starter Kit]

Unless I've waited to long to eat my next meal and I'm drained because of it or it's following exercise I don't really care.

[Ouriço]

Check out this other totally awesome article written by the same person two months prior to his "6 Meals A Day Myth" one.

http://doubleyourgains.com/how-to-eat-to-build-muscle-and-lose-fat

The first step is to change your eating patterns — the size and frequency of your feedings. Instead of 2-3 big meals, you’re going to eat more meals more frequently throughout the day (but the portions will be smaller).

The idea of this is to increase your metabolism. This will help you burn fat - in fact after four hours or so without food, your body switches into catabolic mode, where you begin to accumulate fat; a holdover from the days of being hunter/gatherers who literally didn’t know where their next meal was coming from.

Instead, eat about every three hours (4-6 smaller meals a day).

lololololol

[Caveman]

Personally I'm a fan of the multiple smaller meals method, keeping you nearer your energy balance targets (be they positive, negative or maintenance) throughout the day.

[Ashtar]

Tom Venuto is one of those guys who popularized this 'thermic effect of food' stuff. I fucking hate it.

Whoever wrote the article that ourico quoted is a fucking moron. 'Catabolic mode' would not make you accumulate fat. Catabolism is when the body breaks down tissue, so it would involve the breakdown of fat and/or muscle. Anabolic mode is when you store fat.

It's really relative to what you're talking about. This is why people often specify 'muscle anabolism' and 'muscle catabolism'. You need the type of tissue you're talking about used adjectively preceding the word to specify what tissue you're talking about losing or gaining.

I think whoever wrote that was trying to express that if your body enters into a starvation mode that muscle proteins can be broken down for energy. Losing muscle would lower your metabolism because muscle is more metabolically active tissue. It would also lower your strength and the amount of energy you can expend during exercises.

This doesn't inherantly make you gain fat, but if you are eating the same amounts as before, with a lower metabolism, you are in effect eating more than you need and you would put on more fat if you were not burning that excess energy. So, if you have been starving yourself and losing muscle then you need to eat a bit less or else you gain fat.

The thing is that if you're lifting heavy, muscle tends to not want to break down so much, and instead it will burn fat when you need energy, within the confines of aerobic metabolism anyway.

[Rize]

I suppose maybe I dont take my nutrition seriously enough but I just basically eat when Im hungry. If I have a hard workout that day I eat a bit more, and a bit more frequently.

[DeMaar]

the article is a big lie..

http://www.threadbombing.com/data/media/42/wrong2.jpg

[tpvlyrm]

I'm glad I stopped giving a serious shit about meal frequency years ago now. Avoiding going hungry helps when gaining muscle and strength, and allowing periods of hunger (so a lower meal frequency) helps me cut well. That's about it, who gives a shit otherwise. I eat when I feel like it and when the opportunity arises.

The only benefit I can see of a higher meal frequency is if it allows the dieter to better acheive their total food intake goals. Some people find that eating smaller meals, more often, lets them eat more, or less, with greater ease. Others prefer larger meals, less often. So eat in whatever way you find allows you to consume what you want/need to.

[Honken]

Bigger meals takes longer time to digest and gives your body longer time to absorb nutrients. It's not like your metabolism shoots through the roof because you chose to eat a handfull of nuts every 20 minutes.

We're hunter gatherers. Kill, eat everything then nibble on berries when hungry.

[Jackamaideshwang]

Food is integrated into our bodies through the lumen of the GI tract. So surface area plays a large part in how much we can digest. (Celiacs become malnourished because their reactions greatly lessen the surface area) So the lumen around the food assimilates the very outside layer of the food you eat. If you eat more food, there won't be any increased surface area, so the rate of assimilation stays the same, just there will be more food in the middle not in contact with the lumen that can't be digested. More food means possible wasting of food.

[Kris]

I just eat when Im hungry and maybe know that the next few hours I wont be able to eat something and then get hungry. Meal frequency is really overrated, but I got used to it so much that my body tells me to ingest some kcals every 2 or 3 hours otherwise Im not feeling good. I know some people who like the warrior diet(no eating except for really small things like an apple until the evening where you put all your main caloric needs in, which takes many people more than an hour of eating) and they never have that feeling of emptiness when they dont get something to eat every 2 or 3 hours and are not dizzy or slightly tired after eating which occurs often in peoples days who have a high meal frequency.

[Rahf]

Food is integrated into our bodies through the lumen of the GI tract. So surface area plays a large part in how much we can digest. (Celiacs become malnourished because their reactions greatly lessen the surface area) So the lumen around the food assimilates the very outside layer of the food you eat. If you eat more food, there won't be any increased surface area, so the rate of assimilation stays the same, just there will be more food in the middle not in contact with the lumen that can't be digested. More food means possible wasting of food.

You will still digest the vast majority of the food you eat. Stop making it sound like people need to eat small and controlled meals.

[Aiden Bloodaxe]

People also act like portions & frequency are the only variables when it comes to eating, what about caloric / nutrient density etc.? I only care about how many calories & nutrients I'm getting down the chute, not how often & the portion sizes. I happen to eat 5 or 6 BIG(portion & calorie / nutrient density wise) meals a day, HOLY SHIT! Frequent big meals!?

[Jackamaideshwang]

Yeah, the vast majority will be digested, I'm just a tight ass, so I don't like the idea of wasting any precious food that I've paid for.

[lostfoxeh]

Some cool info on the subject that says there is no evidence that multiple meals is better or worse than few large meals.

http://thetruthaboutfatlossforwomen.com/2009/01/27/mini-meals-metabolic-rates-fact-or-fitness-myth/