Canning the 6 meals, 'clean' eating, the Post Workout Anabolic Window and GI myths

[TheGiftToLift]

I've not seen any studies or literature on that with supportive evidence. If that was true, the weight loss/fat loss would be higher in the lower amounts of meals due to more nutrients/ calories being lost in the digestion process.

Exactly, and for the bodybuilder trying to add mass the weight gain would be more for frequent meals at the same calories - right?

 

[MaxBrenner]

Exactly, and for the bodybuilder trying to add mass the weight gain would be more for frequent meals at the same calories - right?

If that WAS the case that would be correct.

But if you read all the text and my response, that WAS NOT the case. Energy balance and absorption of macronutrients was the SAME regardless of it being a single meal of 900 calories or 3 meals of 300 calories.

I suggested you re-read the text and the studies, as that explains it quite in-depth.

 

[TheGiftToLift]

hmm...

not really seeing this. There is one study about boxers eating 2v 6 meals, but Lyle even says its shody. At any rate, the boxer loses weight on 2 meals.

Just to make my question more concise: does meal size affect food absorption? or I think the term is metabolic efficiency.

Also, TEF is not reflective of absorption. TEF is the effect of food raising the bodies temperature due to metabolism.
Somewhere your articles say fibre affects absorption, by affecting surface area. Obviously this will be minor because fibre is consumed in small amounts. This is not related either.

I don't expect you to have the answer, but it might be worth investigating since you clearly have an interest and I don't think it's been covered.

 

[MaxBrenner]

hmm...

not really seeing this. There is one study about boxers eating 2v 6 meals, but Lyle even says its shody. At any rate, the boxer loses weight on 2 meals.

That is a terrible study that was based on a LIQUID diet. So yes the can't really gather much from that in a practical sense. But again, you are missing the point that meal frequency is irrelevant in most context for most applications. Nutrient absorption included. If that was the case there would be dramatic differences in weight loss or weight gain, hormone balance as well as metabolic function. What do you think?

Study

Increased meal frequency does not promote greater weight loss in subjects who were prescribed an 8-week equi-energetic energy-restricted diet.
Cameron JD, Cyr MJ, Doucet E.
Source
Behavioural and Metabolic Research Unit, School of Human Kinetics, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Abstract
There have been reports of an inverse relationship between meal frequency (MF) and adiposity. It has been postulated that this may be explained by favourable effects of increased MF on appetite control and possibly on gut peptides as well. The main goal of the present study was to investigate whether using a high MF could lead to a greater weight loss than that obtained with a low MF under conditions of similar energy restriction. Subjects were randomised into two treatment arms (high MF = 3 meals+3 snacks/d or low MF = 3 meals/d) and subjected to the same dietary energy restriction of - 2931 kJ/d for 8 weeks. Sixteen obese adults (n 8 women and 8 men; age 34.6 (sd 9.5); BMI 37.1 (sd 4.5) kg/m2) completed the study. Overall, there was a 4.7 % decrease in body weight (P < 0.01); similarly, significant decreases were noted in fat mass ( - 3.1 (sd 2.9) kg; P < 0.01), lean body mass ( - 2.0 (sd 3.1) kg; P < 0.05) and BMI ( - 1.7 (sd 0.8) kg/m2; P < 0.01). However, there were NS differences between the low- and high-MF groups for adiposity indices, appetite measurements or gut peptides (peptide YY and ghrelin) either before or after the intervention. We conclude that increasing MF does not promote greater body weight loss under the conditions described in the present study.

 

[TheGiftToLift]

It seems like more meals would increase weight gain to me - more surface area per meal, more enzyme to food ratio (?), more time in stomach(?).

Anyway, so the studies basically say - weight change is independent of meal frequency. In either case, I think you are right; its not going to make or break your diet.

 

[MaxBrenner]

It seems like more meals would increase weight gain to me - more surface area per meal, more enzyme to food ratio (?), more time in stomach(?).

Anyway, so the studies basically say - weight change is independent of meal frequency. In either case, I think you are right; its not going to make or break your diet.

Ok, so say we had two people consuming 80 grams of Whey Protein two different ways. First person has 2 serves of 40 grams 1 hour apart, while the other has 4 serves of 20 grams 30 minutes apart. If Whey Protein digests at 10 grams per hour (like mentioned) the 80 grams will take 8 hours to digest. So why would either be different in time in the stomach etc, as either way there is a continuous roll over of nutrients. If we have X amount of food in our stomach, we will make X amount of enzymes for digestion. We won't have X amount of enzymes if we have Y amount of food. True?

Our body adapts to the situation at hand. If we have long periods without food (72 hours) our metabolic rate drops to preserve energy and when we train for muscular hypertrophy, either sarcoplasmic or myofibrillar we get bigger or stronger.

 

[IRON TANKS]

MBrenner has given some sound advice in here. I canned the 6 meal a day many a year ago. After majoring in ex physiology/metabolism and nutrition - you begin to see the bullshit you're fed. I've watched the health and fitness industry turn into a McDonalds over the last 10 years. A marketing company which just so happens to sell a burger (supplements/fads). Whatever.

 

[jzpowahz]

So what you're saying is I don't have to eat every hour?

Good info. Thanks

 

[MaxBrenner]

So what you're saying is I don't have to eat every hour?

Well you can push it out to every 1.5 hours

 

[MaxBrenner]

hmm...

not really seeing this. There is one study about boxers eating 2v 6 meals, but Lyle even says its shody. At any rate, the boxer loses weight on 2 meals.

Just to make my question more concise: does meal size affect food absorption? or I think the term is metabolic efficiency.

Also, TEF is not reflective of absorption. TEF is the effect of food raising the bodies temperature due to metabolism.
Somewhere your articles say fibre affects absorption, by affecting surface area. Obviously this will be minor because fibre is consumed in small amounts. This is not related either.

I don't expect you to have the answer, but it might be worth investigating since you clearly have an interest and I don't think it's been covered.

I've looked at more studies and have not found anything about LOWER nutrient absorption with LARGER meals. Quite possibly the opposite.

Food for thought (see what I did there LOL), IF there was a LOWER nutrient absorption in LARGER meals, wouldn't blood glucose (for one) be unstable? In all the studies I've read, blood glucose is BETTER and more STABLE in LARGER meals than smaller more frequent meals of identical macronutirent totals.

 

[TheGiftToLift]

I think out of pure pragmatism the debate probably isn't worth while having, but the take home message should be don't focus on the small details, they won't matter unless you're aiming for mr O.

 

[MaxBrenner]

I think out of pure pragmatism the debate probably isn't worth while having, but the take home message should be don't focus on the small details, they won't matter unless you're aiming for mr O.

I don't think if you are going for Mr Olympia that it would even matter, last Mr Olympia (Jay Cutler) would 'eat' all day and through the night, then Ronnie Coleman would diet with potato chips and having 'breakfast' at 11am and 1am he is having his 4th meal. Vince Taylor would 'diet' on 3 meals and coke! So it is all a case of macronutrient intake and correct calories.

 

[Morgan]

How am I supposed to eat 2 meals at 2500-3000 calories each??? 6x1000 CALS is much easier.

 

[jchen]

Morgan, I think thats the only reason Max has said you would eat 6 x 1000Kcal meals instead of 2 x 3000Kcal (I'm pretty sure I saw this in another thread).

Purely because its 'easier'.

 

[bro]

Don't lie Morgan, you don't eat 6000 calories

 

[Bazza20]

How am I supposed to eat 2 meals at 2500-3000 calories each??? 6x1000 CALS is much easier.

Well really most people have 3 meals a day and if you can't do 3 meals of 2000 calories your not trying.

But like you said just do what's easier for you.

3000 calorie meals sounds like fun to me.

 

[dave]

Good info Chocolate Factory.

 

[Morgan]

Don't lie Morgan, you don't eat 6000 calories

Just did a quick count because I don't know exactly how many I take...

Meal 1 - 900 CALS
Meal 2 - 1063 CALS
Meal 3 - 1063 CALS
Meal 4 - 1063 CALS
Meal 5 - 500 CALS
Meal 6 - No idea, prob 1000 CALS ish, meat, vege + milk
Meal 7 - 900 CALS

TOTAL - 6489 CALS

I have this 5x per week, weight gain is steady.

 

[Rambodian]

Very interesting and informative Max, thanks for your efforts. You have cleared up allot of controversial things Ive heard about diets.

 

[MaxBrenner]

How am I supposed to eat 2 meals at 2500-3000 calories each??? 6x1000 CALS is much easier.

Easy, have 'breakfast' and 'dinner' at your favorite buffet'!

Again how you consume your daily calories is totally up to you. If you WANT to do it over 6 meals YOU CAN, BUT YOU DON'T HAVE TO, as mentioned. Some people have the misconception that eating more frequently has metabolic advantages which again as previously mention is an incorrect assumption