meal frequency - JP Fitness Forums

kariev34 · 03-02-2008, 06:03 PM

Ok, I know what most of you do on this board: eat every few hours. I've been seeing some posts on other boards stating that frequency isn't important. Its important to get your pre/post workout meals in but other than that it doesn't matter if you eat every 3,4,or 6 hours. What are your thoughts on this? I know sometimes i eat 6 and sometimes i eat 3 and i haven't noticed any difference in my physique or energy level. I know that eating frequently started with bodybuilders getting their calories in since they had to eat so many cals a day. If someone is eating low cal anyway, whats the point of eating so frequently? If a woman eats 1500cals per day what difference would it be if she eats 3 500 cals or 6 at 250cals?

Cynic · 03-02-2008, 09:37 PM

No, not metabolically. A nibbling diet helps for insulin, cholesterol and blood glucose levels, but it doesn't boost your metabolism.

JoshDunn · 03-03-2008, 04:48 AM

Research has shown that consistency counts. People define meals differently. Some some its bfast, lunch, dinner, plus a shake or some fruit or something thrown in which they count as 5 meals. Others have a small steak and veg or whatever but real meals.

Do whatever suits your lifestyle. However if your not eating regularly then you might need to pay alittle more attention to nutrient timing.

Someone more qualified might add more.

Espi · 03-03-2008, 06:55 AM

It's about that.

Generally I would say that someone who goes into hypoglycemic episodes easily is better served with eating more frequently, while someone whose blood sugar levels are very stable (or even a tad high) can go without meals for much longer.

Another approach would be to look whether the hypoglycemic episodes can be solved by sharply reducing the amount of carbs eaten when switching to more meals and low glycemic carbs doesn't help or is too cumbersome.

If anything: I find bigger meals much more fun to eat and love having more time available that is not spent preparing or eating meals. Also, I'm one of those that only work up an appetite from actually SEEing and EATing food (sometimes also READing about food is tricky). No food = no appetite = very easy diet adherance.

Again, this is entirely different for those who get the 'shakes' due to low blood sugar levels (hypo) when they don't eat for longer periods of time.

Ian Kay · 03-03-2008, 08:50 AM

I like meal frequency for "fitness newbies" for these reasons:

-It gets them planning their meals.
-It keeps their mind on what they're eating.
-If they just had an apple and two cheese sticks, they're at least a little less likely to grab a mini-bag of chips because they're starving.
-It's much easier for a beginner to eat larger amounts of protein, fruits and vegetables when it's spread out over many meals. It's easy to pound the starchy carbs and fats in one sitting. This one is more in the line of "promoting health" rather than strictly "physique change", but I refuse to simply assign calorie limits and tell them to eat whatever they want.

graycyn · 03-05-2008, 09:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ian Kay

I like meal frequency for "fitness newbies" for these reasons:

-It gets them planning their meals.
-It keeps their mind on what they're eating.
-If they just had an apple and two cheese sticks, they're at least a little less likely to grab a mini-bag of chips because they're starving.
-It's much easier for a beginner to eat larger amounts of protein, fruits and vegetables when it's spread out over many meals. It's easy to pound the starchy carbs and fats in one sitting. This one is more in the line of "promoting health" rather than strictly "physique change", but I refuse to simply assign calorie limits and tell them to eat whatever they want.

I'm a relative newbie to the frequent meal thing, but I have to admit, I think it has been good for me. Especially the planning part. Before, I was too tempted all the time to just grab the handiest food item, which wasn't always the healthiest.

I also used to be a huge meal skipper. I'd skip breakfast, I'd skip lunch, and 'round about 4-6 PM... I'd suddenly become RAVENOUS... at which point, I'd way overeat an enormous meal. That sure didn't get me thin! BTW... did not get the shakes... just got HUNGRY. And sometimes it actually didn't happen until the evening.

Also, I'm not super keen on proteins, so it is easier for me to eat reasonable amounts by having more meals.

The other thing that has been good... my body is, finally, after about a year, starting to have actual hunger signals before meals, something that I used to never experience, until, as mentioned, late in the afternoon.

Cynthia

Jack P · 04-09-2008, 11:45 AM

What Ian says makes a lot of sense for me - -I am a newbie to the fitness thing. I figured when I got more than 10 lbs overweight and hit my mid-30's I better start paying attention. Going from eating one or two times a day to 6 times a day has been a lot of work, but my mood is more stable and I'm paying a lot more attention to what I'm eating. Overall, I'm getting good results.

The only downside is that I'm becoming a forum addict! I didn't know there was so much I didn't know!

Karen P · 04-09-2008, 05:55 PM

I've asked some of those very same questions. I mean, calories are calories. Does it really matter when you eat them? But, I have to admit when I've tried eating 5 small meals a day, I can tell a difference in my energy, which helps me stay energized enough to work out in the evenings. I don't know if it really does anything for your metabolism, but it's definitely great for energy. But that's just my experience.