Thoughts on frequent feeding

[zachvanslyke]

Arkansas- It's not about eating two lone meals a day. It's about eating very small amounts of whole foods throughout the day and a single large meal at night. Oranges. Raw Almonds. Sunflower seeds. Water. Greens. Yogurt. Then a big meal at night. Tons of people do it, including myself, and are extremely lean and muscular. Hunter gatherer diet is NOT for somebody trying to gain strength and size, as I said earlier. It is for people that want to get lean, strong, and healthy, and put their bodies in a more natural state

[Boss Man]

I believe however that one key reason for Japanese longevity is because they don't smoke.

To me the feeding thing isn't an issue. I prescribe it here as opposed to 3 bulky meals a day like some people are used to and do it myself as it feels normal and right for me personally.

What you could argue though is not that humans were not predisposed to eat 6 Eggs, Bacon etc etc, it's because they couldn't.

The Greeks and Romans probably first entertained the notion of the "feast", but no doubt the most high ranking and richest, feasted perhaps on a daily basis, though not necessarily on things all of which would please or interest the modern diner, because some of it was parts of animal heads or things made from organs or strange plants.

So history cultivated the notion of big meals, possibly before the recording of time actually began.

Humankind does however have the capacity to consume and digest frequent caloric intake, save for some exceptions like people with Gastroparesis for example, but for many people looking to add mass or lose weight, I believe it is a methodology that provides enough nutrients, to assist the desired goal when applied sensibly.

It isn't a one size fits all thing, nor an exacting science, because people are different the world over and don't have a near identical genetic blueprint, right across the board, but for me, I believe it is a most worthy ideology to live by.

As a for instance, since you've altered what you did, have you had things like a T or Z score for Bones perhaps, or a Cholesterol and Triglycerides test, to ascertain if your dietary changes have left you with any problems?

As cutting back to some extent would reduce micronutrient intake and possibly therefore elevate things, like Cholesterol levels and bone thinning potential.

[zachvanslyke]

Boss- yes, "sensibly" is the key word.

I haven't had any physical work ups regarding cholesterol or bone density, although that is probably a good thought. My diet consists primarily of lots of fruits, veggies, nuts, seeds, some grains, meats, dairy, whey powder, flax and fish oils, plus a multi for extra insurance. Like I said earlier, "My main argument isn't really against frequent feeding in the sense that eating often isn't always bad, especially if one is eating small, token amounts of healthy whole foods. Simple fact is that I'll never be convinced that eating 5 to 8 thousand calories a day, in the form of 5 to 8 complete meals, with 1.5 to 2 grams of protein per pound bodyweight and all that jazz, is good for anybody."

I also happen to believe that going without eating anything whatsoever for 4 to 6 or even 8 hours on occasion, while just drinking plain old water, is a natural, healthy thing to do-I usually do that at least every other day. But that is just me. I've read tons of stuff about "starvation mode" and storing fat when faced with "impending starvation" and all that when one is fasting. Tell that to my abs lol. I'm 5'11 and weight 165, with probably around 8 percent bodyfat. My arms are over 15" cold and near 16" after a workout, and my waist measures 30" at the navel. Not incredibly poor figures for a 38 year old.

I used to weigh 200 and have 15 to 20 percent bodyfat when I ate 300 grams of protein a day and tons of calories in the form of around 6 complete meals, and the waist was 36 to 38 around the navel, depending on the season. But I will say the arms were nearly 18" then, and that was nice:)

The last few years I've taken in anywhere from roughly 2000 to maybe 3,500 thousand calories a day, depending on how active I am and accounting for several other factors. I might scrounge 500 to 1000 calories off and on through the day, and eat another 1000 to 2500 at night at one shot- a real free-for-all meal.

Was I taking in TOO many calories before on the frequent feed deal, and could I find a middle ground? Perhaps. But this way of eating is so much freakin easier and it just simply feels better. Plus I happen to despise carrying around coolers full of perishable food in tupperware. And I'm completely burned out on bars and the like. I'd rather just grab an orange, or some raw almonds, and/or some seeds, and be on my way for the day.

I also affirm that everyone is different and gray area abounds, for sure. I simply feel better doing this kind of diet; it seems inherently more organic and natural

[zachvanslyke]

Boss- about the Japanese and smoking- several studies have them ranked fairly high on the list from a world-wide standpoint. One such link:

http://lungcancer.about.com/od/causesof ... aradox.htm

Turns out they smoke their fare share and then some, yet still have the highest longevity on the planet.

I will concede that diet is not the only factor involved, however.

[Boss Man]

I thought they didn't smoke. I now think I might have been mistaking them for another countries inhabitants.

[Athene]

I like this thread - I used to feel like such a slave to nutrition in the past when I was eating 6 times per day, but now I try to follow the 'Paleo' principles and eat a small breakfast, larger lunch, small dinner, and little snacks of some nuts or fruit, and I feel much better.

A book I have mentioned in other threads, Pollan's In Defense of Food, also talks about how eating fewer calories is better for longevity, and how eating more plants and less meat is better for a lot of things - your health, your body composition, your wallet, the environment, and your local economy. I don't have an agenda here either, it's just my experience and my two cents.

[Athene]

Duly noted Les, thanks for the context - Pollan makes is sound like many studies have been done and cites 2 human studies,and one animal; saying that calorie restriction slows cell division, stifles the production of free radicals, curbs inflammation, and reduces the risk of most "Western diseases" - obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, and cancer. I'll look into the sources a bit more and see if the two studies with human titles are actually not the result of human research!

[Athene]

Of course, in the world I live in, Calorie Restriction basically comes down what we're supposed to eat anyway, since most people I see seem to go overboard on that. Who knows.

That's the thing, right? I'm not an extremist at all, Calorie restriction in North America seems to equal eating more like the way the rest of the humans on Earth do, not less.