# As Simple As Cals In vs. Cals Out?

Suppose someones caloric needs for a day were 1600 and split up these calories into two meals - 800 per meal. Or, they split up the same number of calories into 4 or 5 meals with the goal to maintain their weight.

Assuming this is just your average person who has an average amount of bodyfat and muscle, I think we can safely assume their body will have no way of using or burning all those calories from that one meal to repair muscle and store glycogen, therefore any extra calories will likely be stored as fat. Based on the calories in vs. out equation, this person would then be able to mobilize all the stored fat from the last meal and burn it in order to basically break even in time for the next meal?

The other option being to eat four or five smaller meals, giving the body a chance to utilize the calories from each meal and thus avoiding any significant amounts of fat being stored.

Is it not more of a burden (thus, less likely)on ones metabolism to mobilize and burn fat from an 800 cal meal than to use the energy from a 400 calorie meal b4 it gets stored as fat? Which leads me back to my original question, considering the above scenario, which may be a bit flawed (I’m sure you’ll let me know if that’s the case;o) does calories in vs. calories out hold true for the person who eats two huge meals? it seems that they would gradually gain weight even though they’re eating just enough to maintain.

Any opinions??

[quote]Evil1 wrote:
www.leangains.com[/quote]

^^this.

also, when you eat a large meal (and 800 calories isn’t a “large meal” by any stretch of the imagination) you’re body doesn’t digest it as fast as a smaller meal. if a small meal takes ~3 hours to fully digest, a larger meal may take 5 hours. a VERY large meal may still be delivering nutrients into the bloodstream after 8-10 hours or so.

the bottom line is, no matter how many meals you eat, total calories at the end of the day is what really matters.