PDA

View Full Version : 2 Questions one thread.



TheDon165
10-20-2007, 04:48 PM
Okay everyone talks about 6 meals rather than 3 large ones. If I was having a meal say dinner for example and it was big would it be beneficial for me to eat half and eat the other have 2 or 3 hours later.



Also I just turned 17 a few days ago and am 6'3 285. I'm sure I can stand to lose anywhere from 55-75 pounds. Should I do it really really slow to avoid excess skin or at my age and weight could dropping weight not crazyily but at a fairly quick pace be okay?

Bako Lifter
10-20-2007, 04:55 PM
Okay everyone talks about 6 meals rather than 3 large ones. If I was having a meal say dinner for example and it was big would it be beneficial for me to eat half and eat the other have 2 or 3 hours later.


Doesn't matter. Neither option is more beneficial than the other.

RhodeHouse
10-20-2007, 05:23 PM
Breakfast should be the biggest meal of the day and Dinner should be the smallest. If you're eating a lot of food late in the day, you'll never lose weight. Think about how active you are when you get home from school. Homework and bed?

vdizenzo
10-20-2007, 05:44 PM
Doesn't matter. Neither option is more beneficial than the other.

?

It would be more beneficial to have two smaller meals 2-3 hours apart rather than just one big one. Eating smaller more frequent meals will speed up your metabolism.

Built
10-20-2007, 08:03 PM
Breakfast should be the biggest meal of the day and Dinner should be the smallest. If you're eating a lot of food late in the day, you'll never lose weight. Think about how active you are when you get home from school. Homework and bed?


I eat no breakfast, my first meal at 10 (I'm up at seven), and most of my food between 8PM and midnight, especially when cutting.

Makes dieting easier when I get to look forward to feelling fed before I go to bed.

dscarth
10-20-2007, 09:14 PM
I eat no breakfast, my first meal at 10 (I'm up at seven), and most of my food between 8PM and midnight, especially when cutting.

Makes dieting easier when I get to look forward to feelling fed before I go to bed.

Amen to that, I eat most of my food when I get out of work @ 8pm.

DieselDan1014
10-21-2007, 06:34 AM
the more smaller meals the better

brihead301
10-21-2007, 10:55 AM
Small frequent meals are the best way to keep you metabolism up. Never let yourself go hungry, therefore your body doesn't need to store as much fat for energy. It's also very anabolic to eat 6 rather then 3 because it keeps your body in a positive nitrogen balance (very anabolic). Here's an article that explains about nitrogen balance:

http://bodybuilding.com/fun/drobson75.htm.

It's not that eating 3 large meals a day is horrible, it's just not optimal.

RhodeHouse
10-21-2007, 12:02 PM
Dscarth and Built - I totally understand, but this is a high school kid who probably doesn't have a good idea how to eat and needs to lose weight. Eating most of his food before bed is stupid.

Bako Lifter
10-21-2007, 12:47 PM
Wtf, I thought everyone agreed there was no real benefit to lots of small meals throught the day in another thread about this. Everybody agreed the only benefit was convenience...

brihead301
10-21-2007, 01:23 PM
Wtf, I thought everyone agreed there was no real benefit to lots of small meals throught the day in another thread about this. Everybody agreed the only benefit was convenience...

Can you post a link to that thread. I have never heard that eating small, frequent meals wasn't optimal. Everything I ever read about the subject says to do the 6 meals a day.

Bako Lifter
10-21-2007, 01:28 PM
That's what I thought too, but there was something like if you eat 2 huge meals a day, the rest of the day you are fasting which ALSO speeds up your metablolism to the same "speed" as the frequent meal thing.

I have no clue what the thread title was, maybe the IF diet thread?

RhodeHouse
10-21-2007, 01:36 PM
Bako, that's wrong. When you're fasting, you're body is wasting away. Your metabolism slows to preserve energy.

vdizenzo
10-21-2007, 01:56 PM
Wtf, I thought everyone agreed there was no real benefit to lots of small meals throught the day in another thread about this. Everybody agreed the only benefit was convenience...

I certainly would not agree with that. When I bulked to 328 I cut down on my number of meals. I just focused on eating 3-4 huge meals a day compared to my usual 6-9 small to moderate sized meals. Prior to that I had a terribly hard time getting my weight up.

Con
10-21-2007, 03:10 PM
Short term fasting doesnt give the body enough time to waste away, particularly if you have had a significant amount of slow digesting protein the night before.


I certainly would not agree with that. When I bulked to 328 I cut down on my number of meals. I just focused on eating 3-4 huge meals a day compared to my usual 6-9 small to moderate sized meals. Prior to that I had a terribly hard time getting my weight up.

I'm willing to bet if you had 6-9 huge meals, you would have gained even faster, regardless of the fact that you ate more frequently.

RhodeHouse
10-21-2007, 07:30 PM
Con, please stick to what you know. And, it's been clearly documented that you have no idea about getting big.

As far as wasting away, it's catabolism. And I'm sorry my young nutritionist, that's what happens when you fast.

Con
10-21-2007, 08:02 PM
Con, please stick to what you know. And, it's been clearly documented that you have no idea about getting big.

As far as wasting away, it's catabolism. And I'm sorry my young nutritionist, that's what happens when you fast.

Is there a reason you have to be so arrogant in practically all of your posts?

Personally, I havent even had the chance to get big, until now. I do know however, thats its simple. EAT. But you dont have to be a moron to see results. At one end, dont be completely anal. At the other end, dont eat yourself sick, thinking its going to make you that much better off.

RhodeHouse
10-21-2007, 09:12 PM
:thumbup: Yes, I am arrogant. I can be.

Built
10-27-2007, 12:32 AM
Wtf, I thought everyone agreed there was no real benefit to lots of small meals throught the day in another thread about this. Everybody agreed the only benefit was convenience...
And perhaps comfort. Particularly when bulking, multiple meals may be less uncomfortable because you don't have to stuff yourself so much. When cutting, I find it more comfortable to eat fewer, but more satisfying meals. But that's me.


Can you post a link to that thread. I have never heard that eating small, frequent meals wasn't optimal. Everything I ever read about the subject says to do the 6 meals a day.
It's been refuted for the purpose of increasing metabolism. But as mentioned above, individuals may find it more (or less comfortable).


Bako, that's wrong. When you're fasting, you're body is wasting away. Your metabolism slows to preserve energy.


Short term fasting doesnt give the body enough time to waste away, particularly if you have had a significant amount of slow digesting protein the night before.

Yep.




As far as wasting away, it's catabolism. And I'm sorry my young nutritionist, that's what happens when you fast.

It is, but it takes a while. Certainly longer than half a day.

ray34iyf
10-27-2007, 09:18 AM
Wow seriously Rhodehouse. I don't mean to be a d!ck, but make sure you know what you're talking about before you give out wrong advice. That whole "speed up your metabolism with multiple meals" thing is outdated and false. And like has been said, it takes a hell of a lot longer than a few hours to have your body "waste away". Search "IF Dieting" and inform yourself. Also, there's no need to be condescending in your posts. Just because you're Hyoooge doesn't mean you know your stuff.