©ALL CONTENT OF THIS WEBSITE IS COPYRIGHTED AND CANNOT BE REPRODUCED WITHOUT THE ADMINISTRATORS CONSENT 2003-2020



Larger and less frequent calorie consumption

roadglide83

Registered User
Feb 9, 2014
319
0
16
America
I have been doing some research and talking with some people who have a lot of knowledge/education/experience in nutrition and they have moved to larger caloric consumption in less frequent feedings. Basically using me for example at around 4K calories I’m pretty close to base caloric needs so I split all my macro nutrients/calories into those 3 meals. It comes out to be around 1,300 cal per meal give or take a few hundred. I’m not so much worried about hitting the macros right on the head but more so hitting that total calorie number each day.

So far I have enjoyed the freedom of not eati as often and also feeling like having 5-6 hrs between meals allows my body to fully digest the food before I start eating again. Think outside the bro science box and don’t get so hung up on what everyone else is doing. I’ll keep you guys informed on how it’s going but after about 7-10 days I’m actually feeling better and lowered my gear intake slightly and I’m fuller and bigger right now compared to couple weeks ago when I was taking the high protein low carb approach.
 

koolio

Registered User
Feb 26, 2017
108
2
18
I gave up on 5-6 meals a day years ago...I found 3 well balanced meals worked as well if not better...a wise old doctor/bodybuilder long since deceased told me 40 years ago that excess gas is your bodies way of telling you that you have eaten too many calories/protein...it is important to let all food be out of your stomach before eating again...now that I am pushing 60 I am down to 2 meals with a few fruit snacks a day........kvh
 

RamboStallone

Registered User
Jul 2, 2017
262
0
0
34
I always liked less frequent, larger meals. Didn't notice a difference in either method as long as diet and macros were on point.
 

BigBob

AnaSCI VET / Donating Member
Nov 10, 2012
2,912
0
36

squatster

AnaSCI VIP
Mar 27, 2014
3,620
22
38
I get fat doing that -,don't feel good - just never worked for me.
Yes - It is much easer
I need more meals my self
 

aon1

AnaSCI VET / Donating Member
Dec 10, 2013
1,087
0
36
dark side of Olympus
Do you think it makes a bigger difference earlier on in building your base ? After you have your muscle I would think keeping it would be easier to do the less meals than when your first building the muscle if there's truth to needing every few hours to keep growth active so to speak.
 

roadglide83

Registered User
Feb 9, 2014
319
0
16
America
I get fat doing that -,don't feel good - just never worked for me.
Yes - It is much easer
I need more meals my self

There is no possible way your body would get “fat” if your base calorie needs were say 3,500 cal and you took it in 3 meals instead of 6...That’s called bro science and holds no weight in real life.
 

roadglide83

Registered User
Feb 9, 2014
319
0
16
America
Do you think it makes a bigger difference earlier on in building your base ? After you have your muscle I would think keeping it would be easier to do the less meals than when your first building the muscle if there's truth to needing every few hours to keep growth active so to speak.

No difference. When I was 18-20 I got up to 270lbs and ate less freequemtly also and gained just as easy.
 

RamboStallone

Registered User
Jul 2, 2017
262
0
0
34
There is no possible way your body would get “fat” if your base calorie needs were say 3,500 cal and you took it in 3 meals instead of 6...That’s called bro science and holds no weight in real life.
I agree but I bet he meant bloated and wrecks his digestion, large meals tend to leave me with a distended gut so I know what he means there.
 

Concreteguy

Super Moderator
Mar 12, 2013
2,608
0
0
Pa
If eating all your 4000calories in one meal isn't good, then dividing it in two meals and eating 2000 calories every twelve hours would be better. Applying this logic, more feedings is optimal. The goal is to find at what point "more" equals "optimal". For the sake of discussion I'm going to assume optimal will increase body mass as aggressively as possible.

We all know why they use I.V. medical applications. For this very same reason a constant feed of nutrients would be optimal. But no one is walking around with an IV hanging from their arm.lol The question is how much food can your body assimilate at one meal? That would come down to the types of foods your eating and how fast they break down in your system.

So what would be optimal for many feedings would look like fish and rice. For what your doing I would move more towards stake and yams with a heavy veggy like broccoli. The stake will get you from one feeding to the next with very little nutrient gaps..IMO.

Bare in mind this is just my opinion. I have zero science other than personal experience to draw upon.
 

Sully

AnaSCI VET / Donating Member
Dec 3, 2012
3,324
0
36
There is no possible way your body would get “fat” if your base calorie needs were say 3,500 cal and you took it in 3 meals instead of 6...That’s called bro science and holds no weight in real life.

This is strictly just an assumption, but I think a lot of the differences that people see in their body composition from meal timing and size are due to changes in blood sugar and insulin sensitivity. There are just too many variables to take into account that I find it difficult to dismiss someone’s personal experiences summarily.

His caloric intake and meal timing are only part of the equation. Macronutrient breakdown, insulin sensitivity, blood sugar, and cardiovascular exercise could all have been playing a part in the changes that squatster experienced. I’m usually the first to dismiss anecdotal evidence as I much prefer hard science and research, but the number of factors potentially at play here is just too high to dismiss anyone’s experiences as broscience.
 

squatster

AnaSCI VIP
Mar 27, 2014
3,620
22
38
There is no possible way your body would get “fat” if your base calorie needs were say 3,500 cal and you took it in 3 meals instead of 6...That’s called bro science and holds no weight in real life.

I said for me - you and I are different
Didn't post to debate you. Or say your wrong - Just to say I don't do good on 3 meals pr day. And that's it.
If you do good on it - that's cool
I'm not a newbie kid.
Been lifting and competing for 35 plus years
Tried to many things over the years -
I personally grow better - feel better and look better with more meals- that's it- plain and simple
 

roadglide83

Registered User
Feb 9, 2014
319
0
16
America
If eating all your 4000calories in one meal isn't good, then dividing it in two meals and eating 2000 calories every twelve hours would be better. Applying this logic, more feedings is optimal. The goal is to find at what point "more" equals "optimal". For the sake of discussion I'm going to assume optimal will increase body mass as aggressively as possible.

We all know why they use I.V. medical applications. For this very same reason a constant feed of nutrients would be optimal. But no one is walking around with an IV hanging from their arm.lol The question is how much food can your body assimilate at one meal? That would come down to the types of foods your eating and how fast they break down in your system.

So what would be optimal for many feedings would look like fish and rice. For what your doing I would move more towards stake and yams with a heavy veggy like broccoli. The stake will get you from one feeding to the next with very little nutrient gaps..IMO.

Bare in mind this is just my opinion. I have zero science other than personal experience to draw upon.

I think the constant supply of nutrients is actually counter productive to things like insulin sinsitivity and absorption of nutrients. Generally when people are eating every 2-3hrs they havnt digested the last meal and your constantly stressing your system with non stop food intake.
 

AGGRO

Registered User
Oct 25, 2012
976
1
0
This is strictly just an assumption, but I think a lot of the differences that people see in their body composition from meal timing and size are due to changes in blood sugar and insulin sensitivity. There are just too many variables to take into account that I find it difficult to dismiss someone’s personal experiences summarily.

His caloric intake and meal timing are only part of the equation. Macronutrient breakdown, insulin sensitivity, blood sugar, and cardiovascular exercise could all have been playing a part in the changes that squatster experienced. I’m usually the first to dismiss anecdotal evidence as I much prefer hard science and research, but the number of factors potentially at play here is just too high to dismiss anyone’s experiences as broscience.

I agree. There are a lot of factors. If overall macros are the same there might not be much difference but for some there could be. Especially if you are going from 6 to 3 meals per day. That is double the amount of food to be digested at one time. They may have double the amount of time to digest that meal but it will change outcome/results for many people. The amount of meals is a big factor.
 

Elvia1023

AnaSCI VET / Donating Member
Oct 28, 2007
5,816
14
38
There is a lot to this. Generally I prefer smaller frequent meals but there has to be a limit with everything. No one opinion is wrong. Although when wanting to consume higher amounts of protein to grow I think frequent meals are much better. Consuming 100g+ protein 3 times per day can have it's disadvantages. I think splitting up protein into approx 50g portions is a better way. Rambo posted about bloating and that is an issue as well. But so can insulin sensitivity when consuming food around the clock.

Somewhere in the middle is the best place for most people. For me when bulking 6 meals per day is about right. 3 meals per day works for me when my goals are different. Generally I think someone wanting to get the best results needs to eat more frequently. People can turn their bodies into processing machines and if they pick the right foods that only adds to things. Now I am not stating guys can't build incredible physiques eating 3 tiems daily as they obviously can. I just think for most goals frequent feeding is optimal for most people when taking everything into account.
 
Last edited:

roadglide83

Registered User
Feb 9, 2014
319
0
16
America
There is a lot to this. Generally I prefer smaller frequent meals but there has to be a limit with everything. No one opinion is wrong. Although when wanting to consume higher amounts of protein to grow I think frequent meals are much better. Consuming 100g+ protein 3 times per day can have it's disadvantages. I think splitting up protein into approx 50g portions is a better way. Rambo posted about bloating and that is an issue as well. But so can insulin sensitivity when consuming food around the clock.

Somewhere in the middle is the best place for most people. For me when bulking 6 meals per day is about right. 3 meals per day works for me when my goals are different. Generally I think someone wanting to get the best results needs to eat more frequently. People can turn their bodies into processing machines and if they pick the right foods that only adds to things. Now I am not stating guys can't build incredible physiques eating 3 tiems daily as they obviously can. I just think for most goals frequent feeding is optimal for most people when taking everything into account.

You always here numbers thrown out like the body can only utilize 50g or 60g or 45g of protein per meal but I’m curious as to where they are getting this information from? I’m sure most of it is just based off what someone else tells them or maybe the fact that when they consumed a large amount of food they got bloated? I personally can consume 100-150g protein and not feel the slightest bit of bloat or fullness. Is my body able to utilize all that protein? I don’t know but I personally think regardless of if it can or not I know I can concistently get in 3 meals per day instead of trying to hit 6-8 per day and consistency usually is the best way in my opinion. I know a good amount of guys who say they eat 6-8 meals daily but it’s not very often that they are nailing that exact amount on a weekly or even daily basis.
 

Concreteguy

Super Moderator
Mar 12, 2013
2,608
0
0
Pa
Are we talking about the best amount of meals for 4000 calories or is it best to remain consistent with the meal schedule? Not an attack just lost me a little. Are you saying 3 to 4 is best for YOU because you can remain consistent? IMO it's still best to have many smaller meals and if you miss a meal or two then that's the time to make it up with a disproportionately larger meal.

BTW: I'm talking about making flesh. Your already a big guy and would look great if you never gained another pound of muscle. In your specific case you could cruise(for lack of a better term) at 3 to 4 meal and remain looking great IMO.
 

roadglide83

Registered User
Feb 9, 2014
319
0
16
America
Are we talking about the best amount of meals for 4000 calories or is it best to remain consistent with the meal schedule? Not an attack just lost me a little. Are you saying 3 to 4 is best for YOU because you can remain consistent? IMO it's still best to have many smaller meals and if you miss a meal or two then that's the time to make it up with a disproportionately larger meal.

BTW: I'm talking about making flesh. Your already a big guy and would look great if you never gained another pound of muscle. In your specific case you could cruise(for lack of a better term) at 3 to 4 meal and remain looking great IMO.

I think potentially both...I think consistency is much better than how many meals you consume. Meaning if you can nail 6 meals daily without ever missing meals than maybe that’s the best option but I am willing to bet majority of people even if they say they do can’t do that year in year out. So if 3 meals or 4 meals is something that you can do everyday regardless of what you having going on maybe that’s a better option. I am not saying this is the best nesesaraly but I feel like as bodybuilders we follow silly bro science crap that makes no sense just because that’s what everyone else does. I am tying to stay open minded and I’ll see what happens.
 

montego

AnaSCI VET / Donating Member
Feb 19, 2018
1,333
0
0
38
I think since digestion would take longer in theory, that you would still stay fed throughout the day with fewer meals if they were bigger.

Only draw back I could see if the size of those meals potentially and, for myself, feeding more frequently cuts down on my wanting to snack.

The thing that pops into my head immediately would be the impact on the GI Tract. Would you cut down on stressing it with fewer meals that were larger or, produce more stress from the sheer volume of food...... I can't say which one I would think more likely to happen honestly.

That would be a big factor.