Idiot's Guide to Getting Big (or: how to stop s***ting up this forum, skinny whiners)

[why]

Timing/macros/whatever doesn't matter much at all. If you believe anyone with a PhD you're a fool.

 

[javyn]

Drinking 16 ounces of whole milk with every meal is helping me greatly. I gained 3 lbs since I started that since Friday. Probably water weight because of all the lactose I've been consuming, but hey, it's something at least lol.

 

[aoluffy]

drinking 2-4 litres always helped me on a bulk. otherwise i find it too hard to fit the calories in.

 

[javyn]

I got the idea from the stronglifts website, a gallon of milk a day program. A gallon is way too much for me, even with the lactose pills, but half a gallon works very well.

 

[dimshum]

Wow, after writing that entire spiel in the other thread, I'm mad at myself for opening this thread last. WTF.

 

[turbozed]

Here's Lyle McDonald's (a guy I do trust) take on meal frequency: http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/mus...ass-gains.html

How long does a meal maintain the body in an anabolic state?

Having looked at the possibility that eating too frequently might actually be detrimental (or at least not particularly beneficial) given how long a typical meal takes to digest, I want to look at how long a given meal might possibly maintain an anabolic state.

Mentioned above, considering the relatively slow rate of protein and other nutrient digestion, it appears that even a moderate sized meal maintains an anabolic state for at least five to six hours (8). Individual whole food meals are still releasing nutrients into the bloodstream at the 5-hour mark (7). Very slowly digesting proteins such as casein may still be releasing AAs into the bloodstream seven to eight hours after ingestion (22). Considering this research, we might set a conservative limit of five hours as the absolute longest time that should pass between eating some source of dietary protein during waking hours.

 

[BBSLM]

Originally Posted by jarude

At least back your words up. Carbs late at night don't get expended, therefore are bad.
at least back your words up? feel free to do so. i would love to see your data on this. as for carbs at night being bad, what about during hypocaloric situations, or after a night-training session? the 'no carbs at night' rule originated from general dieting tards eat their biggest meal (dinner, desert) at night. if they cant have 4 plates of spaghetti for dinner, the eat less, so they lose weight.

And if you really want to eat only 3 meals a day, be my guest - science disagrees with you though.

which science may you be referring to? this science agrees with me just fine.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/en...=pubmed_docsum
Quote:

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.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/en...=pubmed_docsum

Several epidemiological studies have observed an inverse relationship between people's habitual frequency of eating and body weight, leading to the suggestion that a 'nibbling' meal pattern may help in the avoidance of obesity. A review of all pertinent studies shows that, although many fail to find any significant relationship, the relationship is consistently inverse in those that do observe a relationship. However, this finding is highly vulnerable to the probable confounding effects of post hoc changes in dietary patterns as a consequence of weight gain and to dietary under-reporting which undoubtedly invalidates some of the studies. We conclude that the epidemiological evidence is at best very weak, and almost certainly represents an artefact. A detailed review of the possible mechanistic explanations for a metabolic advantage of nibbling meal patterns failed to reveal significant benefits in respect of energy expenditure. Although some short-term studies suggest that the thermic effect of feeding is higher when an isoenergetic test load is divided into multiple small meals, other studies refute this, and most are neutral. More importantly, studies using whole-body calorimetry and doubly-labelled water to assess total 24 h energy expenditure find no difference between nibbling and gorging. Finally, with the exception of a single study, there is no evidence that weight loss on hypoenergetic regimens is altered by meal frequency. We conclude that any effects of meal pattern on the regulation of body weight are likely to be mediated through effects on the food intake side of the energy balance equation.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/en...=pubmed_docsum

To a group of 8 healthy persons a slightly hypocaloric diet with protein (13% of energy), carbohydrates (46% of energy) and fat (41% of energy) was given as one meal or as five meals in a change-over trial. Each person was 2 weeks on each regimen. Under the conditions of slight undernutrition and neutral temperature the balances of nitrogen, carbon and energy were assessed in 7-day collection periods, and according to 48-hour measurements of gaseous exchange (carbon-nitrogen balance method) by the procedures of indirect calorimetry. Changes of body weight were statistically not significant. At isocaloric supply of metabolizable energy with exactly the same foods in different meal frequencies no differences were found in the retention of carbon and energy. Urinary nitrogen excretion was slightly greater with a single daily meal, indicating influences on protein metabolism. The protein-derived energy was compensated by a decrease in the fat oxidation. The heat production calculated by indirect calorimetry was not significantly different with either meal frequency. Water, sodium and potassium balances were not different. The plasma concentrations of cholesterol and uric acid were not influenced by meal frequency, glucose and triglycerides showed typical behaviour depending on the time interval to the last meal. The results demonstrate that the meal frequency did not influence the energy balance.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/en...=pubmed_docsum

Eight young adult males were fed isoenergetic diets of similar composition either in two meals or in six meals per day at defined times. While on each dietary regimen for two weeks the subjects occupied a whole body calorimeter for two 31-h periods, during which they followed a prescribed activity pattern. For each individual the 24-h energy expenditure in the calorimeter was highly reproducible and no discernible effect of meal frequency was observed under these controlled conditions. The total expenditure in the calorimeter on both regimens was substantially less than the energy intake and a progressive small weight gain was observed throughout the 2-week period on the two-meal-a-day system. If feeding frequency alters metabolic efficiency then it does so by mechanisms not readily discernible in a whole body calorimeter.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/en...998&query_hl=1

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.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

no difference in rats either http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/en...693&query_hl=1

The effects of differences in meal frequency on body weight, body composition, and energy expenditure were studied in mildly food-restricted male rats. Two groups were fed approximately 80% of usual food intake (as periodically determined in a group of ad libitum fed controls) for 131 days. One group received all of its food in 2 meals/day and the other received all of its food in 10-12 meals/day. The two groups did not differ in food intake, body weight, body composition, food efficiency (carcass energy gain per amount of food eaten), or energy expenditure at any time during the study. Both food-restricted groups had a lower food intake, body weight gain, and energy expenditure than a group of ad libitum-fed controls. In conclusion, these results suggest that amount of food eaten, but not the pattern with which it is ingested, has a major influence on energy balance during mild food restriction.

Theres also a study that found that dropping meal frequency, and most importantly - keeping cals the same - resulted in better body composition; increases in LBM and lowered fat mass, but i dont have it saved anywhere and cant be bothered to look for it.
Something about your metabolism being more efficient and digesting more food more often = better results. And if you really want to eat 3000+ calories in only 3 meals...

Again, I'm gonna namedrop Dr. John Berardi, check his stuff out. The guy has dedicated his entire life to the science of this kinda stuff, so I'm inclined to believe him more than random claims on an internet forum.

name-dropping berardi in a discussion about nutrition is like name-dropping keanu reeves in a discussion about method acting.

 

[Crane's]

I pay little attention to how many meals I eat in a day and at what time. Personally I think that not keeping a set pattern of eating is the best way to maintain an even energy level versus how many times you eat in a day (within reason). I would hazard to guess that if you eat at specific times everyday the yo yoing energy levels is even more pronounced. Is there scientific evidence to support this? I don't know. All I know is since I started eating like this 20 some years ago I haven't experienced the late morning late afternoon slow downs.

 

[jarude]

Originally Posted by pred02

Dude, you have some serious self-esteem issues.

Attempt at humour on an internet forum. Sorry man, my self esteem is pretty high

And BBSLM - thanks for putting up some science, good to see - except a bunch of the things you were quoting were dealing with weight loss, not necessarily hypertrophy. So its debatable either way - though getting into a habit of eating less more often is just a good habit to get into. I don't have time to go digging through articles online, but there is absolutely no downside to eating less more often. That, and like I said before it's a hell of a lot easier to get mad calories into you over 5 meals.

Turbozed - they put a lot of emphasis on different types of protein, as well as the size of meal - if you're eating huge portions of casein (cottage cheese, whatever) that's one thing to let it digest. Typically people would eat casein before bed either way, during the day I usually take in whey or something similar which I don't think takes as much time to digest.

Ok, so Berardi is a dickmouth, whatever - take it with a grain of salt, its pretty evident to anyone who knows anything about weightlifting about what is conjecture and what is relevant.

 

[BBSLM]

Originally Posted by jarude

And BBSLM - thanks for putting up some science, good to see - except a bunch of the things you were quoting were dealing with weight loss, not necessarily hypertrophy. So its debatable either way - though getting into a habit of eating less more often is just a good habit to get into. I don't have time to go digging through articles online, but there is absolutely no downside to eating less more often. That, and like I said before it's a hell of a lot easier to get mad calories into you over 5 meals.

um...why is that again?

true, there is no physiological downside to a higher meal frequency that I aware of, but as far a practicality is concerned, its just a pain **********. and for some people (myself included), smaller, more frequent meals provide less satiety than less frequent, larger meals.

and 1000 cals/meal is nothing, even using clean bro food.

 

[whacked]

Originally Posted by jarude

there is absolutely no downside to eating less more often. That, and like I said before it's a hell of a lot easier to get mad calories into you over 5 meals.

It depends. For people who hold demanding (read: little time off to sneak into corporate kitchen for foods) 8-6 jobs, something like intermittent fasting can be a lot more viable than eating 5-6 small meals.


Seriously, this meal frequency discussion has been done to death on this very forum. It's ironic that someone who aspires to create an "Idiot's Guide.." thought too highly of his (T-nation fed) knowledge to not do a search query beforehand.

 

[jarude]

Originally Posted by BBSLM

um...why is that again? true, there is no physiological downside to a higher meal frequency that I aware of, but as far a practicality is concerned, its just a pain **********. and for some people (myself included), smaller, more frequent meals provide less satiety than less frequent, larger meals. and 1000 cals/meal is nothing, even using clean bro food.
I don't know about you - it just really works out better for me. I get hungry every 3 hours anyways, so it doesn't make sense to starve myself, gorge, then feel sick and food-drunk and not want to do anything afterwards. It may be a mental thing, but it only takes me a half hour, one hour tops to get my food together for the next day. I guess it doesn't really matter, but a personal preference. I'm hungry all the time, and I like eating an hour or so before I work out. It gives me a nice energy boost, placebo or otherwise. Also, if all your meals are split up, it has less of an impact if you miss a meal / screw up your ratios. EG say I end up having to go out for dinner, forgot my lunch, whatever - instead of having to buy 3 meals worth to get my calorie intake and have my macros get all fucked up, I can take a hit of one relatively insignificant cheat meal and make up for it with my other 4.

 

[BBSLM]

Originally Posted by whacked

intermittent fasting

easiest meal plan ever. love this ****.

 

[turbozed]

Bottom line:

The idea that frequent meals gives you some metabolic advantage is a myth.

The idea that eating carbs at night is significantly worse than eating them at other times is also a myth. People do have different insulin responses according to their circadian rhythm, but the idea that calories aren't burnt during sleep is obviously incorrect. We aren't hibernating grizzly bears at night.

 

[Vernon-Dozier]

How the **** does anyone get in 6-8 meals a day anyway? Are you retired or what? I get one lunch break, not 3 and my boss would not allow me to be stuffing my face all day. Eat however works best with your schedule, for me that's 3 meals with a couple small snacks in between. Works for me and it's not rocket science.

In regards to buying food cheap, go to the grocery store and ask the meat guy if he has anything nearing expiration and tell him you'll buy it all for a discount. Sometimes you can get stuff at or below their cost then freeze it.

In regards to "Getting big" one thing that a noob should consider is how it makes you feel. When I was serious about bodybuilding eating all those calories made me feel like **** - sluggish, bloated and farting all day. And before anyone responds stating "I feel fine" I don't really care. I'm just telling you it made me feel like **** and a noob should take this into consideration.

I now eat less (mostly natural healthy foods) and do exercise that interests me - mountain biking, tennis etc and I also hit the weights but am not all psycho-serious about it. I'm fit, feel better than ever and look just fine without gobs of muscle and I have a hot girlfriend. If I were a kid I'd be so confused reading threads like this with nobody able to agree on anything. Just clear your mind and make things simple. Eat healthy when you want, exercise in a manner that interests you and don't get wrapped up in the nonsense, it's that simple.