PDA

View Full Version : The Best way to Consume Calories



MM
09-28-2005, 09:55 AM
This is going to be relatively short.

Is it better, when bulking, to:

(1) Consume ~4,500 calories in fewer meals (4-5)

Or

(2) Consume ~3,500 calories in a greater number of meals (6-7).

Or doesn't it make a difference? And, most importantly, why?

Thanks,

MM

Wierz
09-28-2005, 10:10 AM
Um.. I think the first would be more beneficial because you're eating 1000 more calories a day.

Did you mean to put both at 4,500 a day?

ReelBigFish
09-28-2005, 10:13 AM
the amount of meals aren't as important as the calories. If you maintain at 3500 and only eat that many cals. w/ 6 meals you won't gain but if you eat 4500 at 4 meals you will

HILL
09-28-2005, 10:16 AM
If you want to bulk you will need 4500 no matter what but id divide it into 6 meals as i dnt like having huge meals and feeling tired/sleepy/stomach pains etc after big meals

MM
09-28-2005, 10:21 AM
Um.. I think the first would be more beneficial because you're eating 1000 more calories a day.

Did you mean to put both at 4,500 a day?

Nope. A number of nutritionists advise "grazing" throughout the day, to increase metabolism, energy, and to keep a steady stream of calories to your body. I'm curious if anyone thinks grazing at fewer calories is better than eating more calories at fewer meals.

Holto
09-28-2005, 10:27 AM
Nope. A number of nutritionists advise "grazing" throughout the day, to increase metabolism, energy, and to keep a steady stream of calories to your body. I'm curious if anyone thinks grazing at fewer calories is better than eating more calories at fewer meals.

This is correct except for the part in bold. This has been disproven by clinical study and you can find them if you search this forum.

Wierz
09-28-2005, 10:32 AM
Nope. A number of nutritionists advise "grazing" throughout the day, to increase metabolism, energy, and to keep a steady stream of calories to your body. I'm curious if anyone thinks grazing at fewer calories is better than eating more calories at fewer meals.

In this case I would think def. not. 1000 extra calories is alot of extra calories. Assuming the diet is balanced, the difference between 3500 and 4500 calories I would think is much greater than the difference between splitting them up into 5 or 7 meals. As far as I understand it, it's the time between meals that is important.

If you eat at 8:00am, 11:00am, 2:00pm, 5:00pm, 8:00pm that is 5 meals and they are spaced 3 hours apart. I would think that that would be plenty of meals, and if you can pack 4500 into that, rather than 3500 into one or two more meals per day, you would see better weight gain.

hope that answered your question, it's just imo.

Edit: However, if you are finding problems eating enough food during the day to reach your bulking caloric needs, adding a meal to your diet and spacing your other exisiting meals accordingly is a great idea, rather than trying to pack those extra calories into the same # of meals.

AzBboy
09-28-2005, 10:34 AM
If the body is being required to metabolise foods very often it gets more efficient over time no?

Built
09-28-2005, 10:41 AM
Not really.

MM
09-28-2005, 11:09 AM
Maybe 1000 calories was too big a difference; what do people think about a 500 calorie difference?

It's not necessarily applicable to me at the moment, but I am trying to decide on the optimum eating strategy for (a) a lack of time and (b) needing to eat a lot.

Let's say that this is a meal I eat twice a day five days a week.

Nesquick Lowfat Strawberry Milk: 400 calories
Chicken Cesear Wrap: est. 600 Calories
StoneyBrook Organic Yogurt: 120 calories

Total Calories: 1120 calories

I can do that without much of an issue, but I'm curious if it would be smarter to, say, space out the eating over a longer time frame, even if this means I'm not hungry enough to eat a larger meal later (i.e. because I've been continuously eating). Probably using a 1000 calorie difference was too extreme -- I was just typing quickly on a work break.

MM
09-28-2005, 11:17 AM
This is correct except for the part in bold. This has been disproven by clinical study and you can find them if you search this forum.

Well, I just searched the forum and couldn't find it. Part of the problem is that the WBB search feature is generally a pain in the ass. I'd be very interested in the thread if you could remember its title or whatnot. Tons of places recommend eating smaller meals throughout the day to increase metabolism, though rarely are studies actually cited.

Anthony
09-28-2005, 11:20 AM
If you required 4500 calories to bulk (we'll assume a maintenance of 4000), how do you plan to bulk on 3500??? And if you only required 3500 to bulk, why would you bother with 4500??

If you are bulking, you need to consistently consume more calories than you burn. Period.

Maybe I don't get the question.

MM
09-28-2005, 11:29 AM
If you required 4500 calories to bulk (we'll assume a maintenance of 4000), how do you plan to bulk on 3500??? And if you only required 3500 to bulk, why would you bother with 4500??


That's a good point, though I thought it was somewhat obvious that my question was just a generic, theoretical question. Like I said above, I think a 1,000 calorie difference was too extreme.

The difference in calories was based on the assumption that a constant feed of calories is better than big spurts of calories. Are you of the opinion that it makes little or no difference?

Wierz
09-28-2005, 11:30 AM
Ok, well I may have not understood the question but I think you're going about this backwards. The goal is to figure out what you need to eat in calories to maintain your bodyweight. Take this number and add XXX amount of calories to begin your bulk (how many calories and what these calories consist of are up to you). Take that new number of calories for your bulk and split it as evenly as you can throughout the time you are awake. If you split it 5 times, but find you're sick and too stuffed eating only 5 meals per day, split it 6 times evenly throughout the time you're awake and try that.

When I try to make a meal plan, I don't have the number of meals figured out ahead of time. I see how I feel when I eat that certain amount of calories, and if I feel too full or sick or it interferes with things I need to do, I add a meal and space the other meals accordingly.

Edit: I am of the opinion that 3 meals a day would be nearly impossible for me to eat enough calories. But the difference between eating 5 meals/4000 calories per day and 7 meals/4000 calories per day would be almost nil.

MM
09-28-2005, 11:35 AM
Ok, well I may have not understood the question but I think you're going about this backwards. The goal is to figure out what you need to eat in calories to maintain your bodyweight. Take this number and add XXX amount of calories to begin your bulk (how many calories and what these calories consist of are up to you). Take that new number of calories for your bulk and split it as evenly as you can throughout the time you are awake. If you split it 5 times, but find you're sick and too stuffed eating only 5 meals per day, split it 6 times evenly throughout the time you're awake and try that.

When I try to make a meal plan, I don't have the number of meals figured out ahead of time. I see how I feel when I eat that certain amount of calories, and if I feel too full or sick or it interferes with things I need to do, I add a meal and space the other meals accordingly.

Hey, I understand how to bulk. This is more like a "does anyone have any specific information on grazing vs. guzzling" thread. So far -- with the possible exception of Holto -- the answer is no.

MM
09-28-2005, 11:37 AM
Edit: I am of the opinion that 3 meals a day would be nearly impossible for me to eat enough calories. But the difference between eating 5 meals/4000 calories per day and 7 meals/4000 calories per day would be almost nil.

Really? You're 153 pounds according to your sig, so your maintenance calories can't be much more than 3000, if that. I can easily eat 3300 calories from just three meals.

Anthony
09-28-2005, 11:41 AM
I think your approach to the question is what confused most. If you need 3500 calories to bulk, you need 3500 calories to bulk. If you manipulate your routine to use less calories, whether it's a result of lowered BMR or AMR, then you no longer need 3500 calories to bulk. So let's agree that you do, in fact, require 3500 calories to bulk.

There will be very little or no measurable difference in eating 3 meals a day or 6 meals a day.

Anthony
09-28-2005, 11:43 AM
And if the difference in metabolism caused by eating more/less frequently would be anything more than ... let's say ... 1% ... well, I'd be extremely surprised.

Wierz
09-28-2005, 11:53 AM
Really? You're 153 pounds according to your sig, so your maintenance calories can't be much more than 3000, if that. I can easily eat 3300 calories from just three meals.

I wish man. I eat approx 3800 calories/210g of protein a day and haven't really gained weight for a few weeks now. I'm trying to figure out how to make it to 4000 without feeling like I'm gonna explode. Opticen helps me quite a bit.

.. and I stripped all cardio (much to my disappointment) a few weeks back.

Manveet
09-28-2005, 01:09 PM
Mike, it makes little to no difference.

www.bodyrecomposition.com

Probably one of the better sites out there on diet and nutrition, read up!

CarlP
09-28-2005, 07:07 PM
Mike, it makes little to no difference.

www.bodyrecomposition.com

Probably one of the better sites out there on diet and nutrition, read up!

I agree. The total calories is THE most important part.

So just make up a super ultra mega weight gainer 9000 shake, and take it at once. ;)

Holto
09-29-2005, 09:57 AM
Mike, it makes little to no difference.

www.bodyrecomposition.com

Probably one of the better sites out there on diet and nutrition, read up!

Hey Manveet:

What happened to their forum?

Where did it go?

spencerjrus
09-29-2005, 10:21 AM
Nope. A number of nutritionists advise "grazing" throughout the day, to increase metabolism, energy, and to keep a steady stream of calories to your body. I'm curious if anyone thinks grazing at fewer calories is better than eating more calories at fewer meals.


I don't know about that, sounds fishy. I do know that you can do a "cheat" bulk by simply keeping food in your stomach 24/7, even if overall your calories are less than what they would be, simply because it changes the rate of absorption and allows your body to slowly and steadily utilize the calories.




Really? You're 153 pounds according to your sig, so your maintenance calories can't be much more than 3000, if that. I can easily eat 3300 calories from just three meals.


Not nescesarrily true, I I was eating 3700-3800 calories a day for a long time at 150 lbs and not gaining. 4000 calories is a slow bulk for me, and I'm not a big guy by any means. Some people just have outrageous metabolisms.

Holto
09-29-2005, 02:33 PM
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frequency of feeding, weight reduction and energy metabolism.

Verboeket-van de Venne WP, Westerterp KR.

Department of Human Biology, University of Limburg, Maastricht, The Netherlands.

A study was conducted to investigate the effect of feeding frequency on the rate and composition of weight loss and 24 h energy metabolism in moderately obese women on a 1000 kcal/day diet. During four consecutive weeks fourteen female adults (age 20-58 years, BMI 25.4-34.9 kg/m2) restricted their food intake to 1000 kcal/day. Seven subjects consumed the diet in two meals daily (gorging pattern), the others consumed the diet in three to five meals (nibbling pattern). Body mass and body composition, obtained by deuterium dilution, were measured at the start of the experiment and after two and four weeks of dieting. Sleeping metabolic rate (SMR) was measured at the same time intervals using a respiration chamber. At the end of the experiment 24 h energy expenditure (24 h EE) and diet-induced thermogenesis (DIT) were assessed by a 36 h stay in the respiration chamber. There was no significant effect of the feeding frequency on the rate of weight loss, fat mass loss or fat-free mass loss. Furthermore, fat mass and fat-free mass contributed equally to weight loss in subjects on both gorging and nibbling diet. Feeding frequency had no significant effect on SMR after two or four weeks of dieting. The decrease in SMR after four weeks was significantly greater in subjects on the nibbling diet. 24 h EE and DIT were not significantly different between the two feeding regimens.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effect of the pattern of food intake on human energy metabolism.

Verboeket-van de Venne WP, Westerterp KR, Kester AD.

Department of Human Biology, University of Limburg, Maastricht, The Netherlands.

The pattern of food intake can affect the regulation of body weight and lipogenesis. We studied the effect of meal frequency on human energy expenditure (EE) and its components. During 1 week ten male adults (age 25-61 years, body mass index 20.7-30.4 kg/m2) were fed to energy balance at two meals/d (gorging pattern) and during another week at seven meals/d (nibbling pattern). For the first 6 d of each week the food was provided at home, followed by a 36 h stay in a respiration chamber. O2 consumption and CO2 production (and hence EE) were calculated over 24 h. EE in free-living conditions was measured over the 2 weeks with doubly-labelled water (average daily metabolic rate, ADMR). The three major components of ADMR are basal metabolic rate (BMR), diet-induced thermogenesis (DIT) and EE for physical activity (ACT). There was no significant effect of meal frequency on 24 h EE or ADMR. Furthermore, BMR and ACT did not differ between the two patterns. DIT was significantly elevated in the gorging pattern, but this effect was neutralized by correction for the relevant time interval. With the method used for determination of DIT no significant effect of meal frequency on the contribution of DIT to ADMR could be demonstrated.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Influence of the feeding frequency on nutrient utilization in man: consequences for energy metabolism.

Verboeket-van de Venne WP, Westerterp KR.

Department of Human Biology, University of Limburg, Maastricht, The Netherlands.

A study was conducted to investigate whether there is a diurnal pattern of nutrient utilization in man and how this is affected by meal frequency to explain possible consequences of meal frequency for body weight regulation. When the daily energy intake is consumed in a small number of large meals, there is an increased chance to become overweight, possibly by an elevated lipogenesis (fat synthesis and accumulation) or storage of energy after the meal. Thirteen subjects, two males and eleven females, were fed to energy balance in two meals per day (gorging pattern) and seven meals per day (nibbling pattern) over 2-day intervals. On the second day on each feeding regimen, the diurnal pattern of nutrient utilization was calculated from simultaneous measurements of oxygen consumption, carbon dioxide production and urinary nitrogen excretion over 3 h intervals in a respiration chamber. A gorging pattern of energy intake resulted in a stronger diurnal periodicity of nutrient utilization, compared to a nibbling pattern. However, there were no consequences for the total 24 h energy expenditure (24 h EE) of the two feeding patterns (5.57 +/- 0.16 kJ/min for the gorging pattern; 5.44 +/- 0.18 kJ/min for the nibbling pattern). Concerning the periodicity of nutrient utilization, protein oxidation during the day did not change between the two feeding patterns. In the gorging pattern, carbohydrate oxidation was significantly elevated during the interval following the first meal (ie from 1200 h to 1500 h, P less than 0.01) and the second meal (ie from 1800 h to 2100 h, P less than 0.05). The decreased rate of carbohydrate oxidation observed during the fasting period (from rising in the morning until the first meal at 1200 h), was compensated by an increased fat oxidation from 0900 to 1200 h to cover energy needs. In the nibbling pattern, carbohydrate and fat oxidation remained relatively constant during the active hours of the day.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effects of meal frequency on body composition during weight control in boxers.

Iwao S, Mori K, Sato Y.

First Division of Health Promotion Science, Graduate School of Medicine, Nagoya University, Japan.

The effects of meal frequency on changes in body composition by food restriction were investigated. Twelve boxers were divided between a two meals day-1 group (the 2M group) and a six meals day-1 group (the 6M group). Both groups ingested 5.02 MJ (1200 kcal) day-1 for 2 weeks. Although there was no difference in change of body weight by food restriction between the two groups, the decrease in lean body mass (LBM) was significantly greater in the 2M group than in the 6M group. The decrease in urinary 3-methylhistidine/creatinine was significantly greater in the 6M group than in the 2M group. These results suggest that the lower frequency of meal intake leads to a greater myoprotein catabolism even if the same diet is consumed.

Holto
09-29-2005, 02:35 PM
If you want the full text for any of those just slam the title into google.

Manveet
09-29-2005, 07:22 PM
Hey Manveet:

What happened to their forum?

Where did it go?

It's still there.

That link takes you to their main page. There should be a tab up at the top with the label "forums", click that and it should take you there.

Holto
09-30-2005, 09:04 AM
Thanks Manveet but if I do that I just get announcements.

Do I have to register now ? (I'll figure it out thanks.)