PDA

View Full Version : Are Six meals a day Impoprtant if you trying to lose more than 30lbs?



FREAKZILLA
05-15-2003, 04:27 PM
I have about 80lbs to lose And I was wondering if 6 meals are a bit to much for someone on my size? Wouldnt 3 meals be a bit smarter? I was just wondering.

Starting Monday I am starting my diet and was not sure as to how many meals I should have a day.

Here are my stats 6'2 345lbs and im 22yrs

bradley
05-15-2003, 04:34 PM
I think 6 small meals would be better than 3 larger meals. It really depends more on overall calories, but the more frequent feedings would help keep your metabolism up.

raniali
05-15-2003, 04:34 PM
the idea behind 6 or more meals a day is too spread your daily caloric intake throughout -- instead of eating 6 FULL meals, you eat 6 HALF meals, for instance. by eating less more often, you allow your metabolic processes to turn on more frequently and become more efficient and thereby actually burning more calories. people can actually lose weight (albeit not alot) eating the same amount but spread out over the day without exercise.

steveo
05-15-2003, 04:38 PM
Yup I ea around 8 times to loose wait. too add to the recent responces. You body can only absorbe so much nutrient at one time so if you big meals body only absorbes so much and the rest passes by and later when it more it has to wait. This way your body in constantly taking nutrient. also like said it helps raise your motabolism. more meals burns more fat.

GhettoSmurf
05-15-2003, 07:28 PM
IMO 6 meals a day is good for bulking or cutting

Ironman8
05-15-2003, 07:49 PM
IMO, 6 meals a day is better for cutting. As the other guys mentioned, it keeps your metabolism up.

When you're bulking, I would have 8 or 9 meals, but that's just me :)

restless
05-15-2003, 11:52 PM
6 Meals won't make a difference compared to three as what matters is overall calories. I once came across a study that showed less lean body mass with more frequent meals though, I don't think it was six but it was more than three. If losing wieght is the goal it shouldn't matter, because contrary to popular belief you won't burn any nore calories by eating more frequently.

bradley
05-16-2003, 03:02 AM
Originally posted by restless
6 Meals won't make a difference compared to three as what matters is overall calories. I once came across a study that showed less lean body mass with more frequent meals though, I don't think it was six but it was more than three. If losing wieght is the goal it shouldn't matter, because contrary to popular belief you won't burn any nore calories by eating more frequently.

I am assuming you are saying less LBM losses with more than 3 meals??

I agree, I read through some studies on pubmed and came to the same conclusion:)

I did run across this which I thought was kind of interesting.

http://www.foodandhealth.com/cpecourses/snack.php

restless
05-16-2003, 12:05 PM
Originally posted by bradley


I am assuming you are saying less LBM losses with more than 3 meals??

I agree, I read through some studies on pubmed and came to the same conclusion:)

I did run across this which I thought was kind of interesting.

http://www.foodandhealth.com/cpecourses/snack.php

Yes, I did mean that. Posting in a hurry at 6 AM doesn't produce the clearest posts.

I think it's pretty safe to say that this LBM sparing effect happens due to the more stable aminoacids levels in the blood achieved with the extra frequency. I honestly don't think that having 3 normal meals and a few protein shakes in between would produce worse results than 5 or 6 regular meals troughout the day as long as calories and protein quantities are kept the same.

Interesting link, I'll have to read it tonight.