Eating six meals a day

[R.A.M.]

That's what he claims. Smoking all that dope helps him eat those 12,000 calories.

[flexingtonsteele]

At last check, you ain't Vince Taylor. That may, and I stress, MAY be all he needed. But, chances are that won't work for you.

Just as some people who hate cardio scurry around, looking for examples of people who don't need cardio to help them get ripped, you have people who don't want to put down the extra calories, scraping for examples of folks who can grow on a fairly low amount of food.

I didn't and don't have a problem. In fact, in my college years it took more than 4,000 calories to put size on my frame.

It doesn't take a "beast" to get it down, hence the reason they have these things (from the evil supplement companies  ) called PROTEIN SHAKES. Whatever I couldn't eat in regular food, I drank in the form of those shakes, either commercial weight gain powders (when I could afford them) or homemade ones (when I couldn't).

I don't know where you got the idea that someone has a problem, if they need 4,000 calories (or more) to get bigger. All that means is that they are likely of the ectomorphic bend.


Your body becomes more efficient at absorbing nutrients (especially when you've been training for a significant period of time). It's similar to when you grow up from a little kid into a teenager. You don't eat the same way you did when you were 5 years old, do you?

As far as the “feeling hungry” thing goes, you can down a bowl of broccoli and celery and consume all of 350 calories (if you’re lucky). Yet, because of the high fiber content, you won’t feel hungry for hours. Does that mean you’ve consume all the nutrients you need to grow? OF COURSE NOT!!

It reminds me of a saying Dorian Yates had, when it came to the subject of "instinctive training". If he trained by "instinct", he'd kick the weights in a corner and urinate on them, instead of half-killing himself trying to lift them.





NOBODY puts on lean mass all the time. That's why bodybuilders have "off-season" and "pre-contest" modes. A lot of people don't make the major gains they seek, because they're so paranoid about putting on a little extra bodyfat.

It's the old Arnold adage about sculpting the slab of granite vs. trying to sculpt a pebble.

I've done that. That's why I know how many meals I need(ed) to eat to get the job done. In my younger (college) years, I ate 4,000 calories per day. That wasn't enough; so I bumped it up to 5,000. That got the ball rolling for a while. I've often told the account on how one spring semester, I went from 189 to 210 lbs. My caloric intake, at that time, was around the 5,500 mark (occasionally jumping over 6,000).

This was the result of "eating" 6 meals per day. "Eating", of course, is a generic word for caloric consumption. At least, half of those calories came from drinking shakes.

So why is six the magic number?

how about growing off of 4 or 5 meals a day?

or why not 7 or 8?

if six is so good, wouldnt 7 meals be better.

come on now bro, why do ppl eat six meals a day? ill tell u why, because the magazines say so.

learn what works for u, then you'll get gains beyond your wildest imagination.

[flexingtonsteele]

cool lil' article i just read on tnation.

Myth: You need to eat every two to three hours to optimally lose fat and get shredded.
Mythbuster: Jamie Hale
This is another common belief held by bodybuilders that often does more harm than good. I mean, who the hell wants to carry around Tupperware containers full of rice and chicken all the time? It's just so damn inconvenient. The reason most bodybuilders eat every couple of hours is because...well, because someone told them to. But if they did some research, they'd see that resting energy expenditure isn't really decreased at all! In fact, there was a study done a while back that showed subjects who did a three-day fast — absolutely no food — had their resting energy expenditure rate actually increase.

Now I've experimented on myself and on my bodybuilder clients with a variety of meal frequency plans and have even tried a couple of 37-hour fasts for experimental purposes. And honestly, I haven't seen that much of a difference between three meals and seven meals a day, if the calories are equal.

The important thing to know is that after you eat a meal, you're still in a "fed state" and absorbing nutrients for six to ten hours after that meal.

True, after about four to six hours you do get an increase in gluconeogenesis, the generation of glucose from non-carbohydrate substances, which is a good reason to eat some more protein to stop any muscle breakdown. But eating seven meals is still ridiculous to me.

My bodybuilders have had great success eating three to five meals per day. As long as macronutrients and energy intake are equal, there really is no difference in the outcome. Of course, it's up to what you like. If you want to eat more often, that's fine.

But I'll leave the Tupperware at home.

[MCWAY]

So why is six the magic number?

how about growing off of 4 or 5 meals a day?

I did that, for a while. But, as I got larger, it took more calories to increase in size. And the meals got too cumbersome to eat.

Besides, you seem to think the magic number is 3. 

or why not 7 or 8?

if six is so good, wouldnt 7 meals be better.

come on now bro, why do ppl eat six meals a day? ill tell u why, because the magazines say so.

learn what works for u, then you'll get gains beyond your wildest imagination.

NEWS FLASH!!! I've done that. My present meal count is at 8 (4 solid, 4 liquid). That works for me, just as six meals did back in college.

The issue here is your ridiculous claim that the six-meals-per-day thing was some concoction of the evil supplement companies. People recommeded it for a reason: IT'S EFFECTIVE (and it has been for DECADES, long before MET-Rx, BSN MuscleTech, EAS, etc. hit the scene).

There is no doubt that when Meal Replacement Powders hit the scene, the 6-Meals-Per-Day hysteria hit an all-time high!  If the supplement companies could convince everyone that they MUST eat 6 times a day - it was simply the most convenient way to do it: Drink MRP Shakes!

Did the supplement companies invent the concept of 6-Meals-Per-Day?  NO.  But they were the ones (Bill Phillips especially) who convinced us that it was absolutely necessary - which it most definitely is not.  Still to this day - any nutrition plan put out by any magazine that's heavily sponsored by a supplement company, has half of your daily meals coming from MRP Shakes.

Supplements be damned!  Why waste your precious calories on a friggin' "shake" when you could be eating some delicous food!?!?!?

If you're trying to bulk up, then MRP's are a nice way to "add calories" to your day. But using MRP's when you're trying to lose weight is absolutely ridiculous.

Who says that drinking a shake is a waste of precious calories? Your boss/professor couldn't care less how much protein you need per day.

Downing a shake in transit or during a meeting or between classes works quite well in real-world settings. While my co-workers are downing coffee or soda, I'm guzzling an MRP or weight-gainer.

The simple fact is that it's easier (not necessarily EASY) to get those calories down by drinking half of them than eating all of them. The one issue left, of course, is the price of the commercial shakes. Worst case scenario, you can go old-school, Vince-Gironda-style, and make your shakes out of eggs, milk/half-n-half, and yogurt.

But nowadays, the commercial shakes are much better than their predecessors. And, thanks to a lay that prohibits stores from selling expired supplements, have a little patience and you can get the goodies for a FRACTION of their retail price (i.e. the markdowns at GNC; most recently I just picked up a 12-pk of IsoPure for $12 and change).

[flexingtonsteele]

I did that, for a while. But, as I got larger, it took more calories to increase in size. And the meals got too cumbersome to eat.

Besides, you seem to think the magic number is 3. 

NEWS FLASH!!! I've done that. My present meal count is at 8 (4 solid, 4 liquid). That works for me, just as six meals did back in college.

The issue here is your ridiculous claim that the six-meals-per-day thing was some concoction of the evil supplement companies. People recommeded it for a reason: IT'S EFFECTIVE (and it has been for DECADES, long before MET-Rx, BSN MuscleTech, EAS, etc. hit the scene).

lol bro, ive never said that its optimal to eat three meals a day, because i dont even do that myself.

and by your drinking your 4 shakes a day, ur doing just what the companies want u to do, buy their products like there going out of business drinking half of your meals per day. Muscletech thanx u bro.

 

[MCWAY]

lol bro, ive never said that its optimal to eat three meals a day, because i dont even do that myself.

That would mean you're eating 4 or5 meals per day. If at some point, you need extra calories, it means one of two things:

Either you will need to stuff yourself with more calories per meal OR.......you may have to take that dreaded SIXTH meal.

and by your drinking your 4 shakes a day, ur doing just what the companies want u to do, buy their products like there going out of business drinking half of your meals per day. Muscletech thanx u bro.

One, notwithstanding the fact that I rarely use MuscleTech's shakes, the company(ies) wouldn't be thanking me, if they knew I was buying their product for a fraction of the retail price.

Two, For the most part, I'm getting the results I seek. So, I don't see what the big problem, regarding my "doing what the companies want u to do".

It appears you have this rebel complex. You want to stand up and fight the mean, evil supplement companies that are terrorizing the masses.

Shaking your fist, Tupperware in hand, at Weider HQ: "You'll never make me eat that SIXTH meal!!!"

[Montague]

There are exceptions to every rule – sometimes more than others.

I would believe someone claiming to get favorable results on 2 meals per day as much as I would believe someone claiming the same results on 9 – especially when seeing the person in front of me. Results speak much more than claims.

The T-mag article Flex quoted may have surveyed trainers with superior genetics – the type who grow like weeds no matter what they do.

“Hard-gainers,” like myself and many others, need every edge we can get – regardless of how minor it may seem. Enough little things can lead to big results.

I’ve tried the 3 larger meals/day plan, and got negligible growth results along with gastric upset.
Smaller meals along with sipping shakes, and/or downing liver tablets or hardboiled eggs between meals throughout the day has helped tremendously.

Bottom line is you do what it takes for you to get where you want.

[tbombz]

heres my opinion

more meals per day is advantageous for those who cant eat an equal amount of food in a lesser amount of meals.


if total food intake is the same, with all nutritional variables equal (macroN, microN etc)two diets..one with 3 meals one with 10 meals... they will result in equal results...

[Montague]

But we’re not all genetic freaks like you, brother.

Remember, you’re a "god" among insects.

[tbombz]

But we’re not all genetic freaks like you, brother.

Remember, you’re a "god" among insects.

LOL i wish

[MM2K]

Wow. There are a lot of contreversies in bodybuilding but I have not known this to be one of them. Very rarely do I hear the 6 Meal A Day  recommedation to be challenged. I think the author of THE WARRIOR DIET disagreed with it because he thought that 3 hours was not enough time for the body to detoxify itself after a meal. But I havent heard anyone else. I will say that sometimes during bulking phases I have increased the number to 8 meals a day. That made getting the calories in easier and I think I actually gained less fat than I had on other bulking phases.

By the way, eating 6 meals a day is easier than every before. Not only do MRPs make it easy, but mixers make them even more convenient. I dont even use a blender any more. I just fill the two mixers with water, take the packets with me, and mix them at work.