Eat every 3-4 hours. Myth?

[chingyvang]

I have always been doubtful about the Bodybuilding rule of requiring a high protein meal every 2-3 or 3-4 hours. If anyone has experience with this, can you please tell me if it's all a BS Bodybuilding myth to sell powders? Because i'm unemployed and sure as hell cannot afford a high protein meal every freakin 2-3 hours and certainly don't have the time to eat that often. And if it is a BS myth then please tell me the proper eating routine so I can start my summer workout already, which I can't because I need this clarified.

[Cole Dano]

There are many diet options and many opinions out there. I know quite a few guys who do fine without any special supplements or eating every few hours. Its not a deal breaker! There are some other guys here who know allot more than i do about diet, they may choose to weigh in on some specifics.

We have to play the cards we are dealt however, so there is no since worrying over things you can't afford.

One thought though is that whey protein is actually not that expensive as a protein source and its quick and easy to consume. That's a major reason i use it.

Don't let getting hung up on your diet stop you from training, that is the worst case scenario, paralysis by analysis. Get doing! In your free time do your best to educate yourself, and don't buy into any hype, its your life, do the best you can and be happy.

[Mats Trane]

Mr Brady,

When Ido did his seminar at your studio, did he have any thoughts about this (eating every 2-3 hours)?

[Cole Dano]

You know, during the seminar he didn't talk much about nutrition. There is only so much that can be covered over a weekend.

We did talk quite a bit outside of class though, and i don't recall that ever coming up. He did do his best to just get me to shove lots of food down my throat though.

[Blairbob]

Here's the kicker. Your body is always processing food, unless you just have run out of food to process.

Whey, I believe on average processes at 10g/hour. A standard protein drink is generally 20-30, sometimes up to 50. So that's 2-5 hours of protein trickle. Most other food protein digests about half as fast. So eat 50g of meat and that would take 10 hours to process.

I'm sure there are just guesstimate numbers. A guy as big as Sliz probably can process a lot more protein per hour than myself. I'm not sure what it's bound by.

Your stomach is empty generally within 2-3 hours though.

[Philip Chubb]

I tend to eat every three hours or I turn into something that would make the Hulk look like a really patient individual. For me, it keeps me from running to get some sort of carb loaded sugar food to feel better with. I don't think it is absolutely neccessary as you can see people making gains with IF. But I have made the best gains of my life eating protein (Not neccessairly high) every couple hours.

[RatioFitness]

The only reason you would HAVE to eat so frequently is because you are trying to get bigger and you can't put enough food down your throat otherwise. For fat loss, frequent eating is a total myth.

[Razz]

I don't think frequent eating is that much of a myth for fat loss. It is a myth the way people usually talk about it though. The way it helps is that it's excellent to control blood sugar (provided it's not high carb meals) and thus you can also control your cortisol release and thus your fat storage.

[RatioFitness]

Reference?

[Razz]

Reference?

Basic physiology

[RatioFitness]

Basic physiology? Often what you think should follow from your understanding of physiology doesn't always work out the way you think it should.

Has there even been a meal frequency study that has looked at cortisol? There haven't even been that many meal frequency studies, I highly doubt any claim about them could be considered "basic."

[Razz]

If your blood sugar spikes and then drops from a big meal that means cortisol has to bring it back up.

[RatioFitness]

Rebound hypoglycemia isn't going to happen with a large normal meal, especially in a person with normal glucose tolerance/insulin response.

[Quick Start Test Smith]

One thought though is that whey protein is actually not that expensive as a protein source and its quick and easy to consume. That's a major reason i use it.

If you can find some that is palatable! The stuff I get always globs up into a yucky pastey like mixture...

[Razz]

Rebound hypoglycemia isn't going to happen with a large normal meal, especially in a person with normal glucose tolerance/insulin response.

Maybe not with lets say 3 meals a day. If you want to be certain to avoid the insulin roller coaster however, 5-6 meals is the way to go.

[Joshua Naterman]

I don't think frequent eating is that much of a myth for fat loss. It is a myth the way people usually talk about it though. The way it helps is that it's excellent to control blood sugar (provided it's not high carb meals) and thus you can also control your cortisol release and thus your fat storage.

Do you think it is fair to say that the real problem is insulin resistance? Since most people on modern diets are insulin resistant to a moderate degree it seems to me that the major problem here is simply that the average American, I don't know about other countries, has a bigger problem with managing steady blood sugar levels than they should.

I certainly notice that since I have been more focused on getting lots of leafy matter and completely cutting out non-fruit sugar I seem to have a more or less unlimited capacity to handle high or low levels of carbs without any problems. This is fairly new for me, as for most of my adult life I have felt pre-diabetic. Personally, going through a few months of being fat adapted and not having any sugar really made a huge difference in terms of resetting my insulin sensitivity, and now it seems to be very easy to maintain that. Staying lean is easier and I have noticed that it isn't a problem when I have a meal that is all rice or potato. I don't crash and I really don't even feel different. It is nice, and it makes me think that this whole insulin resistance problem is at the root of this "myth."

So, in a way I feel like this may very well be a myth that is true for people with crappy insulin sensitivity and not so true for someone who is very sensitive to insulin.

Also, about that whey protein... there's no way it's only 10g/hour. I am hungry inside of 30 minutes usually when whey is involved. Maybe in people with messed up enzyme and acid levels, but not in a healthy digestive tract. It may just be because I am bigger, but stomachs aren't that different from each other I don't think, regardless of body size. I would certainly be surprised if it were enough to make a significant difference. To me it feels like at least 30g per hour and thats at a minimum, but that is also PURELY anecdotal and opinionated personal observation. I could very well be wrong.

[Razz]

Slizzardman yes insulin resistance to some degree in almost everyone is certainly where most of the problem lies I agree with that. Still though, frequent meals work for everything: fat loss, performance, mental clarity wtv it is that you need from your diet. With lets say 1-3 meals you just don't get all the benefits, instead you get: Intermittent low blood sugar (which can be ok if you're not doing anything at all) which leads to rapid cortisol release and high insulin spikes from meals (even low GI meals), and there is no way you can train and perform optimally with more than 1 training per day unless you have frequent feedings.

With all this being said: Meal frequency is not the issue for most people training 4x week whether it's for fat loss or muscle gain. Most people need to get the quality food down first and then play with meal frequency.

[Joshua Naterman]

Ah, ok! I didn't realize, or really even consider, that we were talking about more than 1 training per day. I definitely know THAT to be true through recent experiences! Good call, thanks!

[Razz]

sorry yeah the 2x daily training was something I brought in as another example why I believe eating every 3-4 hours is superior. The only advantage I see from 3 daily meals to 6 is that it's easier. However as I said, the amount of meals is not the biggest thing for most people, most people need to eat proper foods first imo

[DavidRPacker]

Not a myth.

A quick search on pubmed brings us:

"Highlighting the positive impact of increasing feeding frequency on metabolism and weight management."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15806828

"Acute effects on metabolism and appetite profile of one meal difference in the lower range of meal frequency."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18053311

"Decreased thermic effect of food after an irregular compared with a regular meal pattern in healthy lean women."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15085170

"Regular meal frequency creates more appropriate insulin sensitivity and lipid profiles compared with irregular meal frequency in healthy lean women."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15220950

"Beneficial metabolic effects of regular meal frequency on dietary thermogenesis, insulin sensitivity, and fasting lipid profiles in healthy obese women."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15640455

This appears to be the current summary:

"J Int Soc Sports Nutr. 2011 Mar 16;8:4.

International Society of Sports Nutrition position stand: meal frequency.

La Bounty PM, Campbell BI, Wilson J, Galvan E, Berardi J, Kleiner SM, Kreider RB, Stout JR, Ziegenfuss T, Spano M, Smith A, Antonio J.

Source

Dept, of Health, Human Performance and Recreation, Baylor University, Waco, TX, USA. paul_la_bounty@baylor.edu.

Abstract

ABSTRACT: Position Statement: Admittedly, research to date examining the physiological effects of meal frequency in humans is somewhat limited. More specifically, data that has specifically examined the impact of meal frequency on body composition, training adaptations, and performance in physically active individuals and athletes is scant. Until more research is available in the physically active and athletic populations, definitive conclusions cannot be made. However, within the confines of the current scientific literature, we assert that:1. Increasing meal frequency does not appear to favorably change body composition in sedentary populations.2. If protein levels are adequate, increasing meal frequency during periods of hypoenergetic dieting may preserve lean body mass in athletic populations.3. Increased meal frequency appears to have a positive effect on various blood markers of health, particularly LDL cholesterol, total cholesterol, and insulin.4. Increased meal frequency does not appear to significantly enhance diet induced thermogenesis, total energy expenditure or resting metabolic rate.5. Increasing meal frequency appears to help decrease hunger and improve appetite control.The following literature review has been prepared by the authors in support of the aforementioned position statement."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21410984

[Joshua Naterman]

Before using that data to support any arguments, you have to reconcile your cited pubmed sources with your March 2011 quoted summary.

Allow me to specify. This is from your quoted summary:

1. Increasing meal frequency does not appear to favorably change body composition in sedentary populations.

...

4. Increased meal frequency does not appear to significantly enhance diet induced thermogenesis, total energy expenditure or resting metabolic rate.

These are in direct contradiction with a number of your pubmed sources, as well as the argument that increased meal frequency helps fat burning and thermogenesis in general.

No significant change in body comp or thermogenesis or BMR. That means there is no weight gain or loss advantage to more frequent meals. How interesting!

I am pointing this out to show that despite this from the same summary

5. Increasing meal frequency appears to help decrease hunger and improve appetite control.

there is no advantage in terms of weight gain or loss according to our most recent scientific opinions. Take a second to digest that: despite appetite control advantages there is no advantage in weight loss. What does that tell you?

It SHOULD at least raise the possibility in your mind that there is something in our diets that is making a difference irregardless of meal frequency. Based on current metabolic knowledge it is one of two things: excess sugar (fructose or fructose-containing compounds) intake or excess carbohydrate intake. In most cases it is the first option, because to duplicate the effects you'd have to take in something crazy like 200g of non-fructose carbs per meal. Some people do, but not the majority. The majority don't even get 80g of total carbs per meal.

I make the distinction because of the percentile differences in liver metabolism and the resulting fatty deposits made in the liver, which appear (according to rapidly mounting research) to actually be the most serious health concern for everything from high blood pressure to diabetes to cancer. Strange, perhaps, but this is becoming more and more accepted as the most likely scenario. Nothing's definite scientifically just yet, but from a combination of personal experience with my own body as well as doing a fairly good job of keeping up with mounting research this is an idea to remember, research yourself, and consider starting to at least partially buy into.

[RatioFitness]

Not a myth.

A quick search on pubmed brings us:

"Highlighting the positive impact of increasing feeding frequency on metabolism and weight management."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15806828

"Acute effects on metabolism and appetite profile of one meal difference in the lower range of meal frequency."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18053311

"Decreased thermic effect of food after an irregular compared with a regular meal pattern in healthy lean women."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15085170

"Regular meal frequency creates more appropriate insulin sensitivity and lipid profiles compared with irregular meal frequency in healthy lean women."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15220950

"Beneficial metabolic effects of regular meal frequency on dietary thermogenesis, insulin sensitivity, and fasting lipid profiles in healthy obese women."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15640455

This appears to be the current summary:

"J Int Soc Sports Nutr. 2011 Mar 16;8:4.

International Society of Sports Nutrition position stand: meal frequency.

La Bounty PM, Campbell BI, Wilson J, Galvan E, Berardi J, Kleiner SM, Kreider RB, Stout JR, Ziegenfuss T, Spano M, Smith A, Antonio J.

Source

Dept, of Health, Human Performance and Recreation, Baylor University, Waco, TX, USA. paul_la_bounty@baylor.edu.

Abstract

ABSTRACT: Position Statement: Admittedly, research to date examining the physiological effects of meal frequency in humans is somewhat limited. More specifically, data that has specifically examined the impact of meal frequency on body composition, training adaptations, and performance in physically active individuals and athletes is scant. Until more research is available in the physically active and athletic populations, definitive conclusions cannot be made. However, within the confines of the current scientific literature, we assert that:1. Increasing meal frequency does not appear to favorably change body composition in sedentary populations.2. If protein levels are adequate, increasing meal frequency during periods of hypoenergetic dieting may preserve lean body mass in athletic populations.3. Increased meal frequency appears to have a positive effect on various blood markers of health, particularly LDL cholesterol, total cholesterol, and insulin.4. Increased meal frequency does not appear to significantly enhance diet induced thermogenesis, total energy expenditure or resting metabolic rate.5. Increasing meal frequency appears to help decrease hunger and improve appetite control.The following literature review has been prepared by the authors in support of the aforementioned position statement."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21410984

Firstly, you've confused "regular" meal frequency with higher and lower meal frequency. "Regular" meal frequency means eating the same number of times per day. That could mean 2 times per day on a regular basis or 9 times per day on a regular basis.

Secondly, you shouldn't come to conclusions after a "quick" search. You missed almost every study on the subject. If you look at all the literature on meal frequency then will be there is no metabolic advantage to higher frequency.

Thirdly, that position statement was utterly DESTROYED by Alan Aragon. You can read it here: http://www.leangains.com/2011/04/critiq ... -meal.html

[Chris Hansen]

Personally, I think the whole eat every 3 hours thing is overrated. This is only based on my own experience though.

I don't don't train as hard as some people but I usually don't eat much before dinner. I'll have some almonds and dark (90%) chocolate during the day but I don't usually eat a normal breakfast or lunch. This is just what fits my work schedule best and I've gotten used to it. So far I've been gaining strength and staying trim.

Nothing scientific but don't really like the idea of eating all the time as a way of controlling insulin. It doesn't seem like a healthy person should have to be married to the kitchen like that and I can't imagine our ancestors had that kind of ready access to food all the time. Wouldn't it be better to control insulin by eating less often?

I could be very wrong but that's my opinion.

[DavidRPacker]

I didn't state any conclusion, just posted some links to show how much work is being done, with the most recent one I found stating:

"Until more research is available in the physically active and athletic populations, definitive conclusions cannot be made." I'm not as learned as the people who made that conclusion, so I'm willing to take their word for it.

So, not a myth, but definitely an area of active research.

My personal take on the subject is that the very slight appetite benefits are useful for my weight loss clients, the ability to spread out protein consumption and manage nutrient timing is VERY useful for my performance clients. I'm inclined to disbelieve metabolic change, but inclined to believe in the importance of nutrient timing in general for other reasons (primarily, eating for what you are about to do, are doing, or just did.)

Tools that give people useful habits that result in good nutrition management are positive in and of themselves. I don't particularly care for any magic bullet solutions to any problems.

[DavidRPacker]

These are in direct contradiction with a number of your pubmed sources, as well as the argument that increased meal frequency helps fat burning and thermogenesis in general.

That was intentional. I did learn to listen to listen to both sides of an argument, and weigh them. I assumed others would want to do the same, and use those links to find others if they were interested.

It SHOULD at least raise the possibility in your mind that there is something in our diets that is making a difference irregardless of meal frequency.

Yup. Maybe. I still think activity is the real answer to all problems, with nutrition to support not replace activity as the preferred prescription. I'm not entirely convinced that there is a single component of modern diets that makes so many people fat. Except maybe excessive chair consumption.

I make the distinction because of the percentile differences in liver metabolism and the resulting fatty deposits made in the liver, which appear (according to rapidly mounting research) to actually be the most serious health concern for everything from high blood pressure to diabetes to cancer. Strange, perhaps, but this is becoming more and more accepted as the most likely scenario. Nothing's definite scientifically just yet, but from a combination of personal experience with my own body as well as doing a fairly good job of keeping up with mounting research this is an idea to remember, research yourself, and consider starting to at least partially buy into.

I'd love some more links to this research. For most of my clients it's not gonna matter one way or the other. Not eating McD's or worse 3 times a day is a bigger priority. But I'm a geek who loves knowledge!