PDA

View Full Version : big meals vs small meals



one_man_gang
02-03-2007, 01:53 PM
what exactly is considered as being a small meal?

i always hear ppl say u should eat 6 small meals a day rather than 3 big ones?...

Slim Schaedle
02-03-2007, 02:11 PM
what exactly is considered as being a small meal?

i always hear ppl say u should eat 6 small meals a day rather than 3 big ones?...

If you had 6 tripple whoppers/day, 1 small meal would be one of those.


If you consumed an amount of food that yielded 6,000 kcals/day, then the portion of food that yields 1,000 kcals would be a small meal. (That is, if you are dividing total intake intake 6 meals) ( I guess a small meal could also be 1,050, 1,100, or even 1,201 kcal)

It's all relative.

KoolDrew
02-03-2007, 02:20 PM
You should eat every 2-3 hours and for most people that would be about 5 or 6 meals. By feeding yourself so frequently you are keeping your metabolism up and giving your body a steady stream of nutriants rather then have large breaks in between meals and have just 3 large bursts of nutrients.

PoutineEh
02-03-2007, 02:36 PM
You should eat every 2-3 hours and for most people that would be about 5 or 6 meals. By feeding yourself so frequently you are keeping your metabolism up and giving your body a steady stream of nutriants rather then have large breaks in between meals and have just 3 large bursts of nutrients.

correct me if im wrong, but the metabolism thing you just mentioned exists in rats. in humans, your metabolism slows if you have been eating few calories over an extended period of time, ie a cut. so basically just eat in whatever ways you can to accomplish your caloric goals.

i agree its probably better to have smaller meals though, just not for that reason. less blood sugar spikes and a also a steady stream of nutrients.

Slim Schaedle
02-03-2007, 06:05 PM
You should eat every 2-3 hours and for most people that would be about 5 or 6 meals. By feeding yourself so frequently you are keeping your metabolism up and giving your body a steady stream of nutriants rather then have large breaks in between meals and have just 3 large bursts of nutrients.

There are multiple errors with your post.

Searching and reading up around the site will help you out.

KoolDrew
02-03-2007, 07:17 PM
There are multiple errors with your post.

Like?

sCaRz*Of*PaiN
02-03-2007, 07:22 PM
Hmmm...your statement about metabolism and the "large bursts of nutrients"...for starters.

Holto
02-04-2007, 12:00 PM
Like?

If you read any mainstream fitness media you will read that frequent meals accelerate your metabolism. The truth is it is just a myth that has been repeated to the extent of becoming dogma.

Hardwareman
02-04-2007, 01:55 PM
Ok, so eating smaller and more frequently will not accelerate metabolism correct?

I thought it did.





Allen

sCaRz*Of*PaiN
02-04-2007, 01:58 PM
It has other benefits, but having an affect on metabolism is not one of them.

KoolDrew
02-04-2007, 05:29 PM
Hmmm...your statement about metabolism and the "large bursts of nutrients"...for starters.

I think you misunderstood me about the "large bursts of nutrients" thing. I was saying that when you eat six small meals a day you are giving your body a steady stream of nutrients rather then 3 large bursts, like if you were to eat just three large meals a day. How am I wrong by saying that?

As for the metabolism thing, I have read plenty of times that it increases your metabolism, but I guess I am wrong. However, could you explain why it doesn't and why it is said so much if it isn't true? Also, could you list the real benefits to eating six small meals a day if the metabolism thing isn't true?

Holto
02-04-2007, 06:54 PM
I think you misunderstood me about the "large bursts of nutrients" thing. I was saying that when you eat six small meals a day you are giving your body a steady stream of nutrients rather then 3 large bursts, like if you were to eat just three large meals a day. How am I wrong by saying that?

You're not taking into account time of digestion. For example, steak may take in excess of 6 hours to digest. Also, larger meals take longer to digest. Food clears the stomach and then nutrients enter the blood through the small intestine. Food can spend several hours in the small intestine.



As for the metabolism thing, I have read plenty of times that it increases your metabolism, but I guess I am wrong. However, could you explain why it doesn't and why it is said so much if it isn't true?

The reason why it doesn't is quite simple. It would make it easier to die. Humans have adapted over millions of years to be able to survive. If your body decided to burn extra cals at any time, it would challenge your ability to survive. You have to remember that humans adapted to survive in the wild. Since an abundance of food does not challenge our species we will never adapt to it.



As for the metabolism thing, I have read plenty of times that it increases your metabolism, but I guess I am wrong. However, could you explain why it doesn't and why it is said so much if it isn't true?

It is said by people that read opinions and don't gather the facts. If has become dogma in sports nutrition. Meaning it has been repeated so many times and for so long that many people believe it to be true. It is a myth that has been shattered by clinical research.

check this thread to read the studies yourself:

http://wannabebigforums.com/showthread.php?t=66713&highlight=meal+frequency

I also hope that this begs the question, well if *they* were wrong about that what else were they wrong about.



Also, could you list the real benefits to eating six small meals a day if the metabolism thing isn't true?

There is no one distinct benefit. Some find it more convenient, some find it more filling.