Started by Charles Weill, January 25, 2010 · 21 Replies · 5,107 Views
Hey Guys,
I've been reading bodybuilder Tom Venuto's book Burn the Fat, Feed the Muscle about sports nutrition, and he recommends eating 5-6 complete meals a day for optimal muscle growth. I'm use to eating only three, with possibly a late night snack. So I have decided to implement this new diet for 30 days and see if I get any improved results on strength gains.
I was curious: how many meals do you GB members recommend per day?
It doesn't matter. Eat what is convenient for you so long as you get adequate calories and protein for growth. Many find this easier with more smaller meals per day than with 3.
If you are trying to gain size/mass, eating 5-6x a days can be better. Possibly. The idea being more calories in. It sort of varies. Eating that often could speed up your metabolism to the point where if you wanted to get size, it might make more sense to eat 3x/day instead.
Daily diet:
7:00am: Breakfast: bowl of Raisin Bran, whole milk
8:30am: cake donut (blueberry or devil's food depending on mood)
1:00pm: Lunch: pizza slice and soda or tacos or roast beef sandwich
5:30pm: martini (gin on the rocks, fairly dry but not dusty)
8:00pm: Dinner: macaroni & cheese or pork tenderloin or chicken wings, sometimes fried eggs and bacon
9:00pm: glass of scotch or red wine
Blairbob said:If you are trying to gain size/mass, eating 5-6x a days can be better. Possibly. The idea being more calories in. It sort of varies. Eating that often could speed up your metabolism to the point where if you wanted to get size, it might make more sense to eat 3x/day instead.
Blairbob, I have to respectfully disagree. There is no evidence which suggests that eating more frequently causes any meaningful increase in metabolism.
jl5555 said:Daily diet:7:00am: Breakfast: bowl of Raisin Bran, whole milk
8:30am: cake donut (blueberry or devil's food depending on mood)
1:00pm: Lunch: pizza slice and soda or tacos or roast beef sandwich
5:30pm: martini (gin on the rocks, fairly dry but not dusty)
8:00pm: Dinner: macaroni & cheese or pork tenderloin or chicken wings, sometimes fried eggs and bacon
9:00pm: glass of scotch or red wine
For real dude?
Thanks for your replies.
trianglechoke7 said:There is no evidence which suggests that eating more frequently causes any meaningful increase in metabolism.
Tom Venuto in his book recommends the 5-6 meals/day diet specifically for the increase in metabolism mostly based off of 12 years of experience in bodybuilding and coaching. He says that the increase in metabolism is caused by the increased "Thermic effect of food" from digesting frequent meal. He does cite an experiment that backs up his multi-meal claim:
"In one very interesting study reported in the Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports and Exercise (6:5, pgs. 265-272, 1996), the effects of two versus six meals was examined. Both groups lost the same amount of weight, but the two meal group lost mostly lean body mass while the six meal per day group did not!"
I'm not sure if I could find the actual article myself, but if someone is interested in posting a link, I would be interested in reading it. Also note that the comparison is between two and six meals, NOT three and six, and we all know that two meals is not enough for good development.
schlaffmann,
That study proves my point. I said nothing about preservation of lean mass while on an energy restricted diet, but only an increase in metabolism. Since the subjects lost the same about of weight on a high vs. low feeding frequency, this proves that there was no difference in the rate of metabolism.
A recent study was published that did not show greater lean mass prevention (or total weight loss) during a weight loss diet for higher frequency (6 vs. 3 meals per day).
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1994 ... tionsensor
Furthermore, look at this study:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8383 ... tionsensor
This study was also a weight loss diet and looked at 1m/d vs. 3-5m/d. It found no differences in 24h energy expenditure. Interestingly, it did find that after 4 weeks the higher frequency group had a lower metabolic rate while sleeping. However, this did not make any difference in 24h expenditure.
In defense of Blairbob, the study below shows a greater lean mass gain, but not fat mass gain, while resistance training and on a weight gaining diet for 3 meals per day vs. 6 meals per day.
thankyou for schooling me, really. I didn't know like half of those facts.
Meal frequency is a heavily debated subject for some time now. I'm aware of the study's, meal frequency from my opinion is overrated as long as we get the right amount of macro's and cals. On the other hand practical applications plays a role in this as well. For example:
trianglechoke7 said:For real dude?
Oh yes, quite serious. Life is too short to go about limiting my diet based on "studies". I also feel pretty good both from a short term gratification point of view and from reasonable long term effects.
I have greater results with more meals, plenty of proteins, all carbs timed based on training time and training intensity, good fat and alot of vegetables; then with 3 big meals .
I agree with Gregor, not from studies but just from experience. If I eat constantly I have way better recovery and energy during the day.
I have been consuming five or six meals a day for the past week, and I feel amazing. Though I am not keeping a journal to objectively measure the results, I have been feeling more energetic while not having any cravings for junk food.
I feel that this new multi-meal diet made me realize how terrible my previous eating habits were. I had been consuming only a few more calories per meal only three times a day, and this must have slowed my metabolism and caused me to crave the missing calories in the form of potato chips and chocolate 
.
I never used to be a fan of calorie counting, but now it seems to make sense...Tapering-calorie-meals FTW.
schlaffmann said:I have been consuming five or six meals a day for the past week, and I feel amazing. Though I am not keeping a journal to objectively measure the results, I have been feeling more energetic while not having any cravings for junk food.I feel that this new multi-meal diet made me realize how terrible my previous eating habits were. I had been consuming only a few more calories per meal only three times a day, and this must have slowed my metabolism and caused me to crave the missing calories in the form of potato chips and chocolate
I never used to be a fan of calorie counting, but now it seems to make sense...Tapering-calorie-meals FTW.
So I take you weren't convinced by my argument that meal frequency has no effect on metabolism (caveat: if you don't eat for 3 days then your metabolism WILL slow down)? 
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/resear ... eview.html
In this review, Lyle talks about the study that Tom Venuto referenced, which is the boxer study. He explains why that was a poorly designed study. Venuto should be ashamed of himself, first, for cherry picking a single study, and second, for cherry picking a bad study.
trianglechoke7 said:So I take you weren't convinced by my argument that meal frequency has no effect on metabolism (caveat: if you don't eat for 3 days then your metabolism WILL slow down)?
Surely is 24Hr metabolism is the same and metabolism whilst sleeping is lower the metabolism during the day is raised thus adding giving access to more energy. That won me over-currently 4 meals per day (standard 3+ large snack after school, usually an omelette, 3+healthy snacking here and there) it's not a huge change, but I'm curious about splitting my packed lunch in half, one half in morning break, one at lunch break. Should be fun 
.
Animalonfire said:trianglechoke7 said:So I take you weren't convinced by my argument that meal frequency has no effect on metabolism (caveat: if you don't eat for 3 days then your metabolism WILL slow down)?
Surely is 24Hr metabolism is the same and metabolism whilst sleeping is lower the metabolism during the day is raised thus adding giving access to more energy. That won me over-currently 4 meals per day (standard 3+ large snack after school, usually an omelette, 3+healthy snacking here and there) it's not a huge change, but I'm curious about splitting my packed lunch in half, one half in morning break, one at lunch break. Should be fun
I have no idea what you said here. lol
Repeat, please. 
I believe he said this:
In 24 hours, energy expenditure is the same.
However, energy expenditure at night was decreased.
Therefore, he concludes that energy expenditure during day must have increased to keep the overall expenditure constant.
That was an effect in that one particular study. Even still, 24h energy expenditure is what matters, so the claim that a higher meal frequency will lead to greater weight loss is still false.
Sometimes I like to eat only 2 times in the day.
A friend of mine do the 6-eat thing. He couldn't stand a simple journey of 5 hours (and he is a professional soccer player!) because of hungry.
trianglechoke7 said:I have no idea what you said here. lol
Repeat, please.
Sorry. I really shouldn't write tired :oops:. Also should stop going off on tangents.
RandomHavoc said:I believe he said this:In 24 hours, energy expenditure is the same.
However, energy expenditure at night was decreased.
Therefore, he concludes that energy expenditure during day must have increased to keep the overall expenditure constant.
Thanks for clearing that up for me 