T Nation

Study: 3 Meals Superior to 6 for Mass Gain

http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:MhUHJ63asxgJ:https://ecss2007.cc.jyu.fi/schedule/proceedings/pdf/1796.pdf+the+effect+of+meal+frequency+on+body+composition+during+12+weeks&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1

Quite interesting. I think the point behind it is there’s a difference between eating for strength/size and eating like a bodybuilder.

I wish it went in to more detail, but that is very interesting…good find.

Pretty interesting but if we were in a statistics class I would call this a small sample size. 16 men and 11 women? That’s a bit paltry, considering they were applying their hypothesis to all adults around the world.

I would say redo the study with double-blinding, completely randomized experimental design, and with a sample size of 1000.

Ok, so the tendency toward “a greater gain” is mentioned regarding FAT MASS, then it is said that the three meal group had a larger “weight gain” as well?

Yes, just before what I quoted it says a tendency towards “a greater gain [in LBM],” but come on, how quantitative is “a greater gain” ? Is that an SI or Standard unit of measurement? (I am being sarcastic)

I also don’t like the diet set up. Positive net energy balance of 1200 Kj/day? Isn’t that like 286 calories per day?

Thanks for posting.

The basic point is that the 3 meal group gained more LBM. The bit you’ve singled out seems to suggest that 3 meals results in a greater tendency to mass gain (LBM and fat) than 6 meals. Hopefully someone will clarify it later.

This study was on Mark Rippetoe’s forum. He commented on it approvingly, saying the 3 meals probably gave a better anabolic hormonal response than 6 and highlighted the difference between eating for maximum size and strength gain on the one hand and eating to stay lean and/or maintain LBM whilst dieting on the other. I know he recommends 4 meals a day in Starting Strength.

[quote]wsk wrote:
http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:MhUHJ63asxgJ:https://ecss2007.cc.jyu.fi/schedule/proceedings/pdf/1796.pdf+the+effect+of+meal+frequency+on+body+composition+during+12+weeks&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1

Quite interesting. I think the point behind it is there’s a difference between eating for strength/size and eating like a bodybuilder.[/quote]

Haha I hate it when “common knowledge” is turned on its head like this.

Perhaps 3 “meals” and another 2-3 amino acid/protein only feeding opportunities to keep amino supply constant?

[quote]PonceDeLeon wrote:

I also don’t like the diet set up. Positive net energy balance of 1200 Kj/day? Isn’t that like 286 calories per day?

Thanks for posting.[/quote]

I’m pretty sure Positive energy balance means Daily Caloric needs + 286 calories. I.e. Eating 286 MORE calories than they need to maintain. Seems perfectly reasonable to me.

I always was under the impression that the whole 5-6 meals a day thing was much more important for dieting than it was for gaining weight. While I dont feel like looking for them right now, I’ve seen studies that show that more fat is lost when eating the same amount of calories spread over 6 meals instead of 3.

The main reason to eat frequently when bulking was simply because you can eat more that way, yes?

I heard that more frequent meals, like one every 2-3 hrs, would speed up your metabolism. So eating LESS often would slow it down, no? Slower metabolism = more calories left for mass building right?

That is interesting, but it is retarded to throw everything out everytime a new study comes along. Hopefully this will inspire further research with larger sample sizes, etc.

Layne Norton has been supporting 3 meals a day + shake for a long time.

[quote]ahzaz wrote:
I heard that more frequent meals, like one every 2-3 hrs, would speed up your metabolism. So eating LESS often would slow it down, no? Slower metabolism = more calories left for mass building right?[/quote]

No. Metabolism is directly tied to lean body mass. If you have 2 people who are the same height who both weigh 200 lbs, one is 10% body fat and the other is 20%, the one with 10% body fat will have the faster metabolism. The only way he can slow down his metabolism is to lose lean body mass, which is the opposite of what you want to do.

Well, metabolism is just a way of maintaining our bodies. Anabolism and catabolism are both categories of metabolism, if you will.

If your metabolism is kept high, but you maintain a caloric surplus for each meal, I would think one would maintain a highly anabolic state, versus only maintaining a highly anabolic state a few times a day. I really am not sure about it though.

[quote]Uncle Gabby wrote:
ahzaz wrote:
I heard that more frequent meals, like one every 2-3 hrs, would speed up your metabolism. So eating LESS often would slow it down, no? Slower metabolism = more calories left for mass building right?

No. Metabolism is directly tied to lean body mass. If you have 2 people who are the same height who both weigh 200 lbs, one is 10% body fat and the other is 20%, the one with 10% body fat will have the faster metabolism. The only way he can slow down his metabolism is to lose lean body mass, which is the opposite of what you want to do.[/quote]

Well muscle isnt the only thing that uses up calories. A lot of calories are used to heat ur body, and a significant amount is used by ur brain. You know how drinking green tea can speed up ur metabolism too? thats the type of things im talking about.

AH FOR FUCK’S SAKE!

Training is like whack-a-mole. Just when I think I got one issue nailed, the little cunt pops back up.

[quote]ahzaz wrote:
Uncle Gabby wrote:
ahzaz wrote:
I heard that more frequent meals, like one every 2-3 hrs, would speed up your metabolism. So eating LESS often would slow it down, no? Slower metabolism = more calories left for mass building right?

No. Metabolism is directly tied to lean body mass. If you have 2 people who are the same height who both weigh 200 lbs, one is 10% body fat and the other is 20%, the one with 10% body fat will have the faster metabolism.

The only way he can slow down his metabolism is to lose lean body mass, which is the opposite of what you want to do.

Well muscle isnt the only thing that uses up calories. A lot of calories are used to heat ur body, and a significant amount is used by ur brain. You know how drinking green tea can speed up ur metabolism too? thats the type of things im talking about.[/quote]

There are a lot of marginal things that supposedly affect metabolism, for example, spicy food supposedly increases your metabolism by up to 25%, and drinking ice water supposedly causes you to burn up to 100 extra calories a day, because your body has to warm up the water before it can absorb it.

But in my opinion that’s all diet guru-bullshit. Also, you can’t decrease the number of calories that your brain uses, and even if you could you wouldn’t want to.

Edit: Illiteracy

I was under the impression that the 6 “meals” a day meant this:

Meal 1: Comparatively Large Breakfast

Snack 1

Meal 2: Lunch

Snack 2

Meal 3: Dinner

Snack 3

The snacks being a small portion of protein and fat or carbohydrate

I see that is the normal trend for body composition. . .

The thing is: WHAT IS A MEAL!?

I don’t consider a 6 MEALS a day diet a good choice for people that aren’t VERY physically active, or those with genetics for burning things off nutrients quick as hell.

Someone should establish what’s being discussed here. . . Specifically what a meal actually is, and if it counts as another MEAL when you pop a protein shake and some fish oil tablets between lunch and dinner or whatever.

Also, do you guys count your pre and post work out shakes as MEALS? I dunno, to each their own I guess.

It’s how many of each nutrient you need that matters most for your goals. Eat less energy nutrients (fats and carbs) and you’ll have a tendency towards losing weight (what that weight consists of depends on your diet’s structure and your own individual genetic tendencies).

Eat more energy nutrients and you’ll have a tendency towards gaining weight, and you’ll have the added bonus of not having to focus on those protein shakes if your diet is majorly composed of protein sparing carbohydrates.

It all works. I do think that there is some logic to spacing meals out a bit more if you are in the presence of an excess of nutrients. This makes sense because your body may be more receptive to being ‘refueled’ again if you give it adequate time to utilize the previously ingested nutrients.

That may make for a more anabolic milieu, but I have no studies to point to in this assertion.

Eh, what do I know? LOL

[quote]Flow wrote:

The thing is: WHAT IS A MEAL!?

[/quote]

Yes, that is a good question. I’ll drink a protein shake with 2oz. nuts in between meals, but the macro nutrients are about the same as a full meal.

[quote]wsk wrote:
The basic point is that the 3 meal group gained more LBM. The bit you’ve singled out seems to suggest that 3 meals results in a greater tendency to mass gain (LBM and fat) than 6 meals. Hopefully someone will clarify it later.

This study was on Mark Rippetoe’s forum. He commented on it approvingly, saying the 3 meals probably gave a better anabolic hormonal response than 6 and highlighted the difference between eating for maximum size and strength gain on the one hand and eating to stay lean and/or maintain LBM whilst dieting on the other. I know he recommends 4 meals a day in Starting Strength.
[/quote]

Then I would assume the sheer amount of nutrients you can intake in one of those three meals (that would be technically equivalent to two of the meals you’d have if you were eating 6 times daily) causes some greater rise in protein synthesis or something, that would not occur to the same degree when you intake half that amount of nutrients/calories.

As UG said, exciting stuff but not worth throwing out routines.

Lonnie,

I agree with you…

[quote]Flow wrote:
I was under the impression that the 6 “meals” a day meant this:

Meal 1: Comparatively Large Breakfast

Snack 1

Meal 2: Lunch

Snack 2

Meal 3: Dinner

Snack 3

The snacks being a small portion of protein and fat or carbohydrate

I see that is the normal trend for body composition. . .

The thing is: WHAT IS A MEAL!?

I don’t consider a 6 MEALS a day diet a good choice for people that aren’t VERY physically active, or those with genetics for burning things off nutrients quick as hell.

Someone should establish what’s being discussed here. . . Specifically what a meal actually is, and if it counts as another MEAL when you pop a protein shake and some fish oil tablets between lunch and dinner or whatever.

Also, do you guys count your pre and post work out shakes as MEALS? I dunno, to each their own I guess.

It’s how many of each nutrient you need that matters most for your goals. Eat less energy nutrients (fats and carbs) and you’ll have a tendency towards losing weight (what that weight consists of depends on your diet’s structure and your own individual genetic tendencies).

Eat more energy nutrients and you’ll have a tendency towards gaining weight, and you’ll have the added bonus of not having to focus on those protein shakes if your diet is majorly composed of protein sparing carbohydrates.

It all works. I do think that there is some logic to spacing meals out a bit more if you are in the presence of an excess of nutrients. This makes sense because your body may be more receptive to being ‘refueled’ again if you give it adequate time to utilize the previously ingested nutrients.

That may make for a more anabolic milieu, but I have no studies to point to in this assertion.

Eh, what do I know? LOL [/quote]

You missed a crucial point to the experiment. All the subjects were assigned a daily caloric intake, which was their maintenance level + ~280 calories.

The definition of a meal is irrelevant next to the total calories consumed in a day. Whether that is done in 3 ‘meals’ or 6 ‘meals’ is what matters. Not what constitutes those feedings.