• musclemecca does not sell or endorse any bodybuilding products.
    Musclemecca has no affiliation with advertisers; they simply purchase advertising space here. If you have questions go to their site and ask them directly.
    Advertisers are responsible for the content in their forums.
King Bodybuilding Labs

how many meals per day

joshuaaa

Active member
Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2008
Messages
31
Points
6
am wonderin how many meals per day??? im on 7 atm, 5 are food meals and 2 are protein shakes (1 after my workout and 1 before bed), now i was talking to a personal trainer at my gym and he said 7 meals is to much only have like 4, coz too many meals increases ur metabolism which i dont want. is this tru??? or is he full of shit???
 

SerbMarko

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Jul 13, 2006
Messages
3,429
Points
38
smaller, more frequent meals are what you want while dieting.. but as far as off-season/bulking, i personally think you can get away with 4 bigger solid food meals and one PWO shake with dextrose, but thats just my opinion.
 

BigBen

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Jul 11, 2006
Messages
5,132
Points
38
broski if i was you and u dont have any problem eating 7 meals a day and they arent making u fat. keep on eating 7 meals a day.
 

The Creator

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Sep 29, 2006
Messages
2,506
Points
38
broski if i was you and u dont have any problem eating 7 meals a day and they arent making u fat. keep on eating 7 meals a day.

I agree. I have no idea why your trainer told you not to eat 7 meals a day...An increased metabolism is something that would be benificial in the off-season or while dieting. Like Serb said, in the off-season you could probably get away with 4 meals and a PWO shake. I personally feel I grow better and put on more lean mass when I eat 7-8 smaller meals per day rather than 4-5, but thats just me.
 

The_KM

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Mar 22, 2008
Messages
894
Points
18
I agree. I have no idea why your trainer told you not to eat 7 meals a day...An increased metabolism is something that would be benificial in the off-season or while dieting. Like Serb said, in the off-season you could probably get away with 4 meals and a PWO shake. I personally feel I grow better and put on more lean mass when I eat 7-8 smaller meals per day rather than 4-5, but thats just me.

Couldn't agree more.

There's no reason why you wouldn't want to increase your BMR (basal metabolic rate). Depending on personal feeling, 7 meals, focusing less on meal size but more on what you're consuming and when, would be more beneficial during any type of stage.

As always, we respond differently to different stimuli's and nutrition plans. Also depending on your current goal, find which works for you.
 

philosopher

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Jul 12, 2006
Messages
3,057
Points
38
Eating more meals does not give you a faster metabolism.

Exactly, in fact meal frequency is overrated. Eating 6 meals a day doesnt give any more benefids than eating 3-4 meals a day. As long as you get the right amounts of cals and nutrients like Proteins/carbs/fat.
 

Fatality

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Dec 30, 2007
Messages
644
Points
16
Everyone's correct about how eating more meals with increase your meto. is over-rated. I never listen and never will be listening to the trainers at my gym because they tell their patients crap. Here's an example, one dude said that inorder to get the 6 pack you want, you need to do abs everyday for about 30 minutes. Total crap huh? IMO, you can have as little or as much meals a day as you want, just as long as you get in the proper ratios and amounts of the nutrients your body needs! Good Luck!
 

Napol3onator

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Jan 28, 2008
Messages
1,424
Points
38
I find it super hard for me to eat even 6 a day with school. I kept gaining with 5 meals a day when I was bulking. I think during the summer though it will be easy to eat 7 meals.
But yes I agree with everyone else. But you seem to sound like the metabolism increase is a BAD thing. It's just normal, or it can be good if your fat. I'm guessing your a hardgaining-endomorph. Don't worry about it. Yes, you do need "some" fat to help you bulk, but exessive is not good. There's no reason, even if you are a hardgainer, that you should try to increase your body's fat stores. I know it sucks, but hey, even if you are a hardgainer, your still gaining muscle, it's just not fake muscle with a bunch of fat on it to make you look slightly bigger. But yea keep on pluggin man.
 

Napol3onator

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Jan 28, 2008
Messages
1,424
Points
38
hey dudelerz

Everyone's correct about how eating more meals with increase your meto. is over-rated. I never listen and never will be listening to the trainers at my gym because they tell their patients crap. Here's an example, one dude said that inorder to get the 6 pack you want, you need to do abs everyday for about 30 minutes. Total crap huh? IMO, you can have as little or as much meals a day as you want, just as long as you get in the proper ratios and amounts of the nutrients your body needs! Good Luck!

Well, most bodybuilders would disagree. I see your point man, but I truly believe that frequency does increase metabolism. Think about it. The definition of metabolism is the sum of all chemical reactions in the body. The smaller more frequent meals will and can only shock and speed up this process, as the body gets used to the fact that your eating 6 meals a day, so it will have to work on metabolising one meal, and it will have to speed up faster to have to start digesting and metabolising the next meal. I mean it seriously has to, or you will literally blow up. Picture food as food in a fast food restaurant. Lets say there is a drive time(metabolism) in which the employees have to make food in order to stay "consistent". I hope this is making sense. Well, if the employees take way too long preparing 1 meal, then they will have to work faster and harder to get the next meal out the drive through window quicker to make up for the time.
that was the shittiest illustration, but still, eating 6 small meals is better. If I ate 2 meals a day with 150 grams protein and carbs, then my metabolism will only be on "cruise control" after the first meal. The body simply doesn't have to work faster because the meals are so spaced out. I'm sorry for being a dork lol.HOpe some agree with me. *Cough creator cough*.
 

Ironslave

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Jul 12, 2006
Messages
4,853
Points
38
But yes I agree with everyone else. But you seem to sound like the metabolism increase is a BAD thing. It's just normal, or it can be good if your fat.

It's not normal, nor is it a good or bad thing, its just a not true thing. :dunnodude:
 

Ironslave

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Jul 12, 2006
Messages
4,853
Points
38
Oh boy.... I'll bite...


Well, most bodybuilders would disagree.

True, but that doesn't make it right.

I see your point man, but I truly believe that frequency does increase metabolism.

Opinion typically means very little when discussing physiology.

The smaller more frequent meals will and can only shock and speed up this process, as the body gets used to the fact that your eating 6 meals a day, so it will have to work on metabolising one meal, and it will have to speed up faster to have to start digesting and metabolising the next meal.

Is "shocking" the metabolism the same as drop sets "shock" the muscle into growth? :dunnodude: This is not how metabolisms works.

I mean it seriously has to, or you will literally blow up.

Picture food as food in a fast food restaurant. Lets say there is a drive time(metabolism) in which the employees have to make food in order to stay "consistent". I hope this is making sense. Well, if the employees take way too long preparing 1 meal, then they will have to work faster and harder to get the next meal out the drive through window quicker to make up for the time.
that was the shittiest illustration, but still, eating 6 small meals is better.

Cute analogy, however it is (not surprisingly) lacking any science. Here is another analogy:

Say I get paid a smaller salary at the end of every week, or I get 4 weeks worth of salary all at once every 4th Friday. Does either change the total salary I would make over a year?

If I ate 2 meals a day with 150 grams protein and carbs, then my metabolism will only be on "cruise control" after the first meal. The body simply doesn't have to work faster because the meals are so spaced out. I'm sorry for being a dork lol.HOpe some agree with me. *Cough creator cough*.

Incorrect, this is all theory, but it's lacking science.

However, fear not, I will now provide some.

Meal frequency and energy balance.
Bellisle F, McDevitt R, Prentice AM
Br J Nutr. 1997 Apr ; 77 Suppl 1: S57-70

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.

Influence of the feeding frequency on nutrient utilization in man: consequences for energy metabolism.
Verboeket-van de Venne WP, Westerterp KR
Eur J Clin Nutr. 1991 Mar ; 45(3): 161-9

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.

Frequency of feeding, weight reduction and energy metabolism.
Verboeket-van de Venne WP, Westerterp KR
Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 1993 Jan ; 17(1): 31-6

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.


Effect of the pattern of food intake on human energy metabolism.
Verboeket-van de Venne WP, Westerterp KR, Kester AD
Br J Nutr. 1993 Jul ; 70(1): 103-15

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.
 

The_KM

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Mar 22, 2008
Messages
894
Points
18
Awesome finds Ironslave, thank you.

That last study was the exact one I was going to show on here, as I was inevitably wrong about my statement, pretty much as the same as the general public. There seems to be mainly conflicting studies on whether or not the effects of consistent meals has on the human energy metabolism. However, the conclusion is undoubtedly that the degree in which it speeds up someone's BMR is insignificant to an active person.

We all learn mate, appreciate it.
 

sweerie_banana

Well-known member
Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2020
Messages
151
Points
18
I normally take five meals a day. I have such an appetite. It most certainly isn't normal. I read its best to take three heavy meals a day. I am not sure. I think it depends if you are on a diet and what you are consuming making a huge impact on the meals you should consume.
 

luri

Banned
Joined
May 6, 2019
Messages
36
Points
0
I think three meals per day is enough for most of us. If you are doing a lot of snacking, two meals can be enough. I believe a lot of us are eating too much, our calorie intake surpasses the calorie requirements, that's the reason why we are "obese", "fat," and "out of shape." I think people need to eat less, however, include more nutritious foods in the menu.
 

Alexandoy

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Dec 17, 2016
Messages
3,249
Points
38
For bulking my take is more food to eat. Of course, the physical activity is also important but you cannot gain weight if your food intake is minimal. As long as your stomach can withstand the food then eat some more up to the extent that the food will banish the hunger. Maybe 6 meals will do. That’s breakfast, mid morning snack, lunch, mid afternoon snack, early dinner and late night snacking.
 
Top