Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below 
Quite a lot to wade through here. Also a lot of controversial stuff, but I figure these boards are here to discuss the pros and cons of different diet regimes and this seems to be a good topic. Note that most of the stuff stated here appears to be opinion, but I'm pretty sure if you asked the authors they would have a decent sized pile of peer reviewed research from which they have drawn their opinions.
From Lyle McD
The Importance of Meal Frequency
Hi Lyle,
I've always heard that I need to eat at least 6
times per day while dieting. I don't have time to prepare or eat that
many meals but I still want to lose fat efficiently. So what's the deal?
Among bodybuilders, six meals (or more) per day is usually the
de-facto standard, whether dieting or trying to gain size. I'm only
going to talk about dieting here. The question is basically this: Does
it matter if I eat 6 meals per day versus say 2 meals per day? The
answer, of course, depends on what you're talking about. The usual
rationale given for eating more frequently is that when you eat many times per day, your metabolism goes up at each meal and you burn more
calories. But let's think about it for a second. Say you're eating 2000
calories per day, with a nutrient breakdown of 50% carbs, 25% protein
and 25% fat. If you eat 6 meals per day, each one will be about 333
calories or so. If you eat 2 meals per day, they will be 1000 calories
each. Now, the amount that your metabolism goes up in relation to a meal
depends on the composition (carbs, protein, fat) of the meal and its
size. In the examples above, the nutrient breakdown of each meal is the
same, only the size differs. The 333 cal meal will raise metabolism a
smaller amount but will do it more frequently and the 1000 cal meal will
increase metabolism more but do it less frequently. As it turns out
(when it's actually measured and it has been in a lot of studies), the
end result is exactly the same. So from the standpoint of metabolic
rate, it appears to make little difference whether you eat more smaller
meals or less larger meals.
What about weight loss?
Well, since eating more frequently vs. less frequently doesn't affect
metabolic rate differently, you wouldn't expect there to be a difference
in weight loss. And the studies looking at it, assuming that caloric
intake is the same, show no difference between fewer and larger meals.
Again, this assumes that the caloric intake is the same. I'll come back
to this.
What about the composition (muscle vs. fat)
lost?
Very few studies have looked at this, but the few that have showed
basically no difference for one pattern versus another.
So if eating more frequently doesn't change
metabolic rate, the total weight, or composition of the weight lost, why
bother?
Well, there are at least two good reasons to eat more frequently. The
first one is health-related, as studies have shown a decrease in blood
lipid (cholesterol) levels with more frequent vs. less frequent meals.
The second has to do with appetite. All the examples above assumed that
caloric intake is kept the same (i.e. 2000 calories/day in 2 versus 6
meals). But in reality, when people skip meals or go too long without
eating, they do tend to eat more. The reasons are complex and a topic
for much later. But for a lot of people, eating more frequently helps to
control appetite since it keeps blood glucose more stable. That alone
may be reason enough to eat several small meals per day. As a final issue,
one thing that is never considered in the recommendation
to eat 6 meals per day is the total caloric intake. A light female
bodybuilder at 120 pounds may only be eating 1400 calories per day while
dieting. Dividing that into 6 meals of 215 calories each would result in
some depressingly small (and probably unsatisfying) meals. In that case,
eating 3 larger meals (of perhaps 300 calories each) and 2 snacks of 100
calories (perhaps half a food bar) might be the better choice.
Eating at Night
Mr. McDonald:
Is it really true that calories eaten at night
are more easily stored as fat, or that I shouldn't eat anything after
6pm if I want to lose weight?
This is another one of those common ideas and the answer is that it
depends. A lot of diet authors give the 6pm (or even 4 pm) rule for
weight loss without ever really explaining why. In my mind, this is just
a simple trick to get people to eat less, which of course causes them to
lose weight (pretty simple trick too - get people to eat less and they
lose weight. Wow!) The common reason given is that since you're less
active at night, the calories are more likely to be stored as fat. Other
authors have commented that insulin resistance is higher in the evening
and eating carbs will more likely be stored as fat. But is it true?
Again, it depends. Now, if eating a big meal at night (which is quite
common in the US) causes you to eat more calories than normal, of course
you will gain fat from it. But it's not from eating it at night, it's
from eating too much overall (the same thing would happen if you ate too
much earlier in the day too). That is, it still comes down to calories.
But, overall, assuming the same daily caloric intake, there's no real
reason to assume that eating a larger meal at night compared to in the
morning will lead to more being stored as fat. Think about it this way.
Say you're the same person from the previous question eating 2000
calories per day. If you eat more of your calories at night, that means
that you're eating less earlier in the day. So even if you did store
more of those calories eaten at night, your body would be mobilizing
more stored fuel earlier in the day when you were eating less. End
result: no difference.
As a side note, one study of dieting and exercising women found that
eating more calories at night caused less muscle loss, but no difference
in fat loss. Presumably more nutrients were available during the night
to avoid muscle breakdown. The women who ate more in the morning did
lose more total weight, but the entire difference was because they lost
more muscle. Basically, the old bodybuilder idea that you should eat
fewer calories at night appears to be counterproductive to keeping
muscle on a diet.
What really matters in the big scheme of things for weight and fat
loss is total calories in versus total calories out. But assuming you
eat the same number of calories, whether you eat more of them earlier in
the day, or more of them later in the day, it doesn't seem to matter. In
fact, eating a larger meal at dinner (or a small bedtime snack) may
spare more muscle. The only way eating a lot at night will make you fat
is if it causes you to eat more overall.
And from CB athletics:
1
– NUTRITIONAL THEORY: MEAL FREQUENCY & FAT LOSS
Over the past decade, a general belief has been swept the fitness
industry. More nutritionists, personal trainers, magazine
articles, etc. have recommended that we "eat more frequent,
yet smaller meals to help us lose weight". In theory,
this creates a greater metabolic expenditure of digestion, because we have to expend energy in order to break down
food and then absorb it into the blood stream. While
several small meals may be physiologically advantageous,
there is little scientific support for this theory. In fact,
one study showed no difference in energy expenditure between
subjects given either 2 or 6 meals per day (Hum. Nutr. Clin.
Nutr. 36C: 25-39, 1982). So perhaps it is time to reconsider
this "nutritional commandment".
A review of "meal frequency studies" found that 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.
The authors 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. (Bellisle, F. et al. Meal frequency and energy
balance. British Journal of Nutrition 77: s57-s70, 1997.)
Below
is a link to MEDLINE and the search criteria of "Meal frequency
and energy expenditure".
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD=search&DB=PubMed
And
this link is to related articles.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Link&db=PubMed&dbFrom=PubMed&from_uid=9155494
NOTE:
Some of the research found here indicated that limiting
subjects to 2 meals per day might decrease vitamin absorption
and impair protein metabolism. Remember that the focus of
this article is meal frequency and metabolic rate! Does
an increase in meal frequency result in more favorable body
composition changes? Is meal frequency less of a factor
in weight loss than dieticians make it out to be? If a person
consumes the same amount of calories over a day, should
it not require the same metabolic effort by the body to
break this food down, regardless of the number of meals
consumed? Just as people are realizing that a high-carbohydrate
diet may not work best for everyone, people should understand
that a higher meal frequency might not be the key to weight
loss in everyone.
Despite
hordes of nutritional information, numerous weight-loss
products on the market, and a variety of exercise techniques,
over 55% of Americans are overweight (figures unknown for
Canada) and some areas are showing huge increases in obesity
rates. Is
a change in meal frequency really having the positive impact
that it is claimed? It is likely not, and the roots of the
obesity epidemic lie much deeper, most importantly being
the sedentary North American lifestyle. So when you combine
an inactive lifestyle with a "green light" to eat more frequently, you can see the potential for weight problems. Losing
weight is difficult, not only for the individual attempting
this feat, but also for the people that are providing them
with their fitness and nutritional guidance. Weight loss
is frustrating because oftentimes the body is stubborn and
has a great metabolic resistance against change, especially
against severe weight loss. The
biggest problem with weight loss is the issue of sacrifice.
You can't lose the weight you desire without some level
of sacrifice, whether it is your weekend beers, your late-night
snacks, or your sedentary lifestyle. Something has to change
and people don't want to hear that. The
key to a successful weight loss program is individuality,
planning around weaknesses, sacrifices, and developing the
correct goal setting and reward structure. The social impact
of eating can have as great an impact on weight control
than meal structure and timing. The
issue of nutritional discipline needs to be addressed. Does
the average population, those people that these meal recommendations
are geared to, fully understand the concept of eating more frequent, yet smaller meals? In a society overwhelmed by
"extra-big sized value menus", is there any opportunity
for the average North American to stick to this recommendation
on a consistent basis? It is quite possible that the belief
of more frequent meals has simply led to an increase in
caloric intake, and thus the population has just made themselves
fatter by eating more often, and eating more in total. Furthermore,
those that attempt to eat small meals often complain of
being hungry within 1 hour of eating because their meals
do not provide satiety (a feeling of fullness). For example,
the uneducated eater may grab rice cakes as a mini-meal,
but this high-glycemic carbohydrate source has proven to
hold off hunger for only 30 minutes and this may contribute
to overeating. On
the other hand, going back to the traditional way of eating,
a hearty meal, they leave the dinner table full, and this
is likely a more satisfying manner in which to eat. It doesn't
matter if you are eating 12 meals a day or 2, if you are
eating the incorrect foods your ability to lose weight will
be greatly impaired. Basically,
meal frequency is less of a factor in weight loss than believed
and there are many other important factors. An increased
meal frequency may even sabotage most diet plans. It may
be easier to plan and consume 3 larger meals with a balanced
nutrient profile (proper amount of carbohydrate, fat, and protein) than it is to obtain 6 balanced mini-meals. A larger
meal properly proportioned in carbohydrates, fat, and protein
should not lead to energy slumps later in the day...that's
just more propaganda that has not been challenged. Brad
Pilon who is finishing his nutrition degree from Guelph
University had some helpful comments. "You
must know when you are hungry, and you must recognize when
you are full. By following these guidelines, if you were
to eat 6 small meals or 3 larger meals you should still
get to the exact same end total at the end of the day."
Brad
sees the problem as completely separate from how many meals
you eat in a day. Some people may not be able to properly
control their caloric intake on these plans. Perhaps asking
people to be disciplined 6 times in a day is more difficult
and self-destructing then asking them to be disciplined
3 times per day.
Brad
has another good point on overeating, "People don't eat
for hunger/satiety any more. People eat for taste, or to
pass time (like at their desk), or other weird reasons (ever
want to see a friend so you suggest coffee- you end up eating
just as a way to meet with people). Also, because of fast
food, we are given portion sizes, and we don't want to "waste"
any food we get, so we try and eat that portion. For
example, while physiologically you only need the caloric
equivalent of an 8-inch ham sub, the market offers only
smaller and larger sizes. Since a 6-inch sub won't do the
job, you get a foot-long sub and eat the whole thing because,
hey, you don't want to waste the money or the food! Brad
believes it the mentality with which we approach eating
may be more important in weight control than physiological or biochemical significance of meal spacing.
2-3 regular meals, in combination with the correct resistance
training and aerobic exercise program, can be an effective
weight loss regimen. You should not feel forced to consume
6 meals a day. In comparison, eating 6 meals a day may lead
to improper nutrition, and may foil even the strictest adherence
to a great workout program. Regardless, neither meal plan
is perfect. Your success is more dependent on food composition,
activity level, and portion control! Future articles will
deal with more specific nutritional tips for weight loss
and weight gain programs.
With
more and more experience in training and nutrition it becomes
clearer that there are no perfect programs or nutritional
plans. Not only do you have to match the program correctly
to one's physiology and anatomical make-up, but also to
their social and psychological traits as well. One
will not succeed on a program that is greater in sacrifices
then it is in rewards. This article really goes against
the grain and you likely won't see this recommendation anywhere
else. The point is to get people to think for themselves
and determine what meal plan will best suit them in their
weight loss goals.
There is also a lot of info out there on animalbolics/warrior diets. This type of diet most folks either love or hate. I have only used it once (for mass gain) and loved it but maybe that's because I'm a female and benefitted from that muscle sparing effect of a large evening meal??
details can be found at:
http://t-mag.com/html/body_67guide.html (aka warrior diet modified to sell bitoest supps)
or the original animalbolics FAQ:
Q: How do you keep from loosing muscle mass while on this diet? And do you stay on it until you are happy with BF% or do you come of for one or two days a week or what? Is this a good diet to run with a cutting cycle.
A: How do you keep from losing muscle mass while on this diet? I'll let you answer this for yourself. All protein requirements are met as are carb requirements during the postworkout meals. As long as those are met, how are you going to lose muscle? (you can't and constant supply of insulin has NOTHING to do with maintaining muscle as AA's have their own transport system which ARE NOT affected by insulin. And do you stay on it until you are happy with BF% or do you come of for one or two days a week or what? Most people break diets on weekends, anyhow. Watch the alcohol as that seems to screw it up the most.
From Lyle McD
The Importance of Meal Frequency
Hi Lyle,
I've always heard that I need to eat at least 6
times per day while dieting. I don't have time to prepare or eat that
many meals but I still want to lose fat efficiently. So what's the deal?
Among bodybuilders, six meals (or more) per day is usually the
de-facto standard, whether dieting or trying to gain size. I'm only
going to talk about dieting here. The question is basically this: Does
it matter if I eat 6 meals per day versus say 2 meals per day? The
answer, of course, depends on what you're talking about. The usual
rationale given for eating more frequently is that when you eat many times per day, your metabolism goes up at each meal and you burn more
calories. But let's think about it for a second. Say you're eating 2000
calories per day, with a nutrient breakdown of 50% carbs, 25% protein
and 25% fat. If you eat 6 meals per day, each one will be about 333
calories or so. If you eat 2 meals per day, they will be 1000 calories
each. Now, the amount that your metabolism goes up in relation to a meal
depends on the composition (carbs, protein, fat) of the meal and its
size. In the examples above, the nutrient breakdown of each meal is the
same, only the size differs. The 333 cal meal will raise metabolism a
smaller amount but will do it more frequently and the 1000 cal meal will
increase metabolism more but do it less frequently. As it turns out
(when it's actually measured and it has been in a lot of studies), the
end result is exactly the same. So from the standpoint of metabolic
rate, it appears to make little difference whether you eat more smaller
meals or less larger meals.
What about weight loss?
Well, since eating more frequently vs. less frequently doesn't affect
metabolic rate differently, you wouldn't expect there to be a difference
in weight loss. And the studies looking at it, assuming that caloric
intake is the same, show no difference between fewer and larger meals.
Again, this assumes that the caloric intake is the same. I'll come back
to this.
What about the composition (muscle vs. fat)
lost?
Very few studies have looked at this, but the few that have showed
basically no difference for one pattern versus another.
So if eating more frequently doesn't change
metabolic rate, the total weight, or composition of the weight lost, why
bother?
Well, there are at least two good reasons to eat more frequently. The
first one is health-related, as studies have shown a decrease in blood
lipid (cholesterol) levels with more frequent vs. less frequent meals.
The second has to do with appetite. All the examples above assumed that
caloric intake is kept the same (i.e. 2000 calories/day in 2 versus 6
meals). But in reality, when people skip meals or go too long without
eating, they do tend to eat more. The reasons are complex and a topic
for much later. But for a lot of people, eating more frequently helps to
control appetite since it keeps blood glucose more stable. That alone
may be reason enough to eat several small meals per day. As a final issue,
one thing that is never considered in the recommendation
to eat 6 meals per day is the total caloric intake. A light female
bodybuilder at 120 pounds may only be eating 1400 calories per day while
dieting. Dividing that into 6 meals of 215 calories each would result in
some depressingly small (and probably unsatisfying) meals. In that case,
eating 3 larger meals (of perhaps 300 calories each) and 2 snacks of 100
calories (perhaps half a food bar) might be the better choice.
Eating at Night
Mr. McDonald:
Is it really true that calories eaten at night
are more easily stored as fat, or that I shouldn't eat anything after
6pm if I want to lose weight?
This is another one of those common ideas and the answer is that it
depends. A lot of diet authors give the 6pm (or even 4 pm) rule for
weight loss without ever really explaining why. In my mind, this is just
a simple trick to get people to eat less, which of course causes them to
lose weight (pretty simple trick too - get people to eat less and they
lose weight. Wow!) The common reason given is that since you're less
active at night, the calories are more likely to be stored as fat. Other
authors have commented that insulin resistance is higher in the evening
and eating carbs will more likely be stored as fat. But is it true?
Again, it depends. Now, if eating a big meal at night (which is quite
common in the US) causes you to eat more calories than normal, of course
you will gain fat from it. But it's not from eating it at night, it's
from eating too much overall (the same thing would happen if you ate too
much earlier in the day too). That is, it still comes down to calories.
But, overall, assuming the same daily caloric intake, there's no real
reason to assume that eating a larger meal at night compared to in the
morning will lead to more being stored as fat. Think about it this way.
Say you're the same person from the previous question eating 2000
calories per day. If you eat more of your calories at night, that means
that you're eating less earlier in the day. So even if you did store
more of those calories eaten at night, your body would be mobilizing
more stored fuel earlier in the day when you were eating less. End
result: no difference.
As a side note, one study of dieting and exercising women found that
eating more calories at night caused less muscle loss, but no difference
in fat loss. Presumably more nutrients were available during the night
to avoid muscle breakdown. The women who ate more in the morning did
lose more total weight, but the entire difference was because they lost
more muscle. Basically, the old bodybuilder idea that you should eat
fewer calories at night appears to be counterproductive to keeping
muscle on a diet.
What really matters in the big scheme of things for weight and fat
loss is total calories in versus total calories out. But assuming you
eat the same number of calories, whether you eat more of them earlier in
the day, or more of them later in the day, it doesn't seem to matter. In
fact, eating a larger meal at dinner (or a small bedtime snack) may
spare more muscle. The only way eating a lot at night will make you fat
is if it causes you to eat more overall.
And from CB athletics:
1
– NUTRITIONAL THEORY: MEAL FREQUENCY & FAT LOSS
Over the past decade, a general belief has been swept the fitness
industry. More nutritionists, personal trainers, magazine
articles, etc. have recommended that we "eat more frequent,
yet smaller meals to help us lose weight". In theory,
this creates a greater metabolic expenditure of digestion, because we have to expend energy in order to break down
food and then absorb it into the blood stream. While
several small meals may be physiologically advantageous,
there is little scientific support for this theory. In fact,
one study showed no difference in energy expenditure between
subjects given either 2 or 6 meals per day (Hum. Nutr. Clin.
Nutr. 36C: 25-39, 1982). So perhaps it is time to reconsider
this "nutritional commandment".
A review of "meal frequency studies" found that 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.
The authors 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. (Bellisle, F. et al. Meal frequency and energy
balance. British Journal of Nutrition 77: s57-s70, 1997.)
Below
is a link to MEDLINE and the search criteria of "Meal frequency
and energy expenditure".
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD=search&DB=PubMed
And
this link is to related articles.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Link&db=PubMed&dbFrom=PubMed&from_uid=9155494
NOTE:
Some of the research found here indicated that limiting
subjects to 2 meals per day might decrease vitamin absorption
and impair protein metabolism. Remember that the focus of
this article is meal frequency and metabolic rate! Does
an increase in meal frequency result in more favorable body
composition changes? Is meal frequency less of a factor
in weight loss than dieticians make it out to be? If a person
consumes the same amount of calories over a day, should
it not require the same metabolic effort by the body to
break this food down, regardless of the number of meals
consumed? Just as people are realizing that a high-carbohydrate
diet may not work best for everyone, people should understand
that a higher meal frequency might not be the key to weight
loss in everyone.
Despite
hordes of nutritional information, numerous weight-loss
products on the market, and a variety of exercise techniques,
over 55% of Americans are overweight (figures unknown for
Canada) and some areas are showing huge increases in obesity
rates. Is
a change in meal frequency really having the positive impact
that it is claimed? It is likely not, and the roots of the
obesity epidemic lie much deeper, most importantly being
the sedentary North American lifestyle. So when you combine
an inactive lifestyle with a "green light" to eat more frequently, you can see the potential for weight problems. Losing
weight is difficult, not only for the individual attempting
this feat, but also for the people that are providing them
with their fitness and nutritional guidance. Weight loss
is frustrating because oftentimes the body is stubborn and
has a great metabolic resistance against change, especially
against severe weight loss. The
biggest problem with weight loss is the issue of sacrifice.
You can't lose the weight you desire without some level
of sacrifice, whether it is your weekend beers, your late-night
snacks, or your sedentary lifestyle. Something has to change
and people don't want to hear that. The
key to a successful weight loss program is individuality,
planning around weaknesses, sacrifices, and developing the
correct goal setting and reward structure. The social impact
of eating can have as great an impact on weight control
than meal structure and timing. The
issue of nutritional discipline needs to be addressed. Does
the average population, those people that these meal recommendations
are geared to, fully understand the concept of eating more frequent, yet smaller meals? In a society overwhelmed by
"extra-big sized value menus", is there any opportunity
for the average North American to stick to this recommendation
on a consistent basis? It is quite possible that the belief
of more frequent meals has simply led to an increase in
caloric intake, and thus the population has just made themselves
fatter by eating more often, and eating more in total. Furthermore,
those that attempt to eat small meals often complain of
being hungry within 1 hour of eating because their meals
do not provide satiety (a feeling of fullness). For example,
the uneducated eater may grab rice cakes as a mini-meal,
but this high-glycemic carbohydrate source has proven to
hold off hunger for only 30 minutes and this may contribute
to overeating. On
the other hand, going back to the traditional way of eating,
a hearty meal, they leave the dinner table full, and this
is likely a more satisfying manner in which to eat. It doesn't
matter if you are eating 12 meals a day or 2, if you are
eating the incorrect foods your ability to lose weight will
be greatly impaired. Basically,
meal frequency is less of a factor in weight loss than believed
and there are many other important factors. An increased
meal frequency may even sabotage most diet plans. It may
be easier to plan and consume 3 larger meals with a balanced
nutrient profile (proper amount of carbohydrate, fat, and protein) than it is to obtain 6 balanced mini-meals. A larger
meal properly proportioned in carbohydrates, fat, and protein
should not lead to energy slumps later in the day...that's
just more propaganda that has not been challenged. Brad
Pilon who is finishing his nutrition degree from Guelph
University had some helpful comments. "You
must know when you are hungry, and you must recognize when
you are full. By following these guidelines, if you were
to eat 6 small meals or 3 larger meals you should still
get to the exact same end total at the end of the day."
Brad
sees the problem as completely separate from how many meals
you eat in a day. Some people may not be able to properly
control their caloric intake on these plans. Perhaps asking
people to be disciplined 6 times in a day is more difficult
and self-destructing then asking them to be disciplined
3 times per day.
Brad
has another good point on overeating, "People don't eat
for hunger/satiety any more. People eat for taste, or to
pass time (like at their desk), or other weird reasons (ever
want to see a friend so you suggest coffee- you end up eating
just as a way to meet with people). Also, because of fast
food, we are given portion sizes, and we don't want to "waste"
any food we get, so we try and eat that portion. For
example, while physiologically you only need the caloric
equivalent of an 8-inch ham sub, the market offers only
smaller and larger sizes. Since a 6-inch sub won't do the
job, you get a foot-long sub and eat the whole thing because,
hey, you don't want to waste the money or the food! Brad
believes it the mentality with which we approach eating
may be more important in weight control than physiological or biochemical significance of meal spacing.
2-3 regular meals, in combination with the correct resistance
training and aerobic exercise program, can be an effective
weight loss regimen. You should not feel forced to consume
6 meals a day. In comparison, eating 6 meals a day may lead
to improper nutrition, and may foil even the strictest adherence
to a great workout program. Regardless, neither meal plan
is perfect. Your success is more dependent on food composition,
activity level, and portion control! Future articles will
deal with more specific nutritional tips for weight loss
and weight gain programs.
With
more and more experience in training and nutrition it becomes
clearer that there are no perfect programs or nutritional
plans. Not only do you have to match the program correctly
to one's physiology and anatomical make-up, but also to
their social and psychological traits as well. One
will not succeed on a program that is greater in sacrifices
then it is in rewards. This article really goes against
the grain and you likely won't see this recommendation anywhere
else. The point is to get people to think for themselves
and determine what meal plan will best suit them in their
weight loss goals.
There is also a lot of info out there on animalbolics/warrior diets. This type of diet most folks either love or hate. I have only used it once (for mass gain) and loved it but maybe that's because I'm a female and benefitted from that muscle sparing effect of a large evening meal??
details can be found at:
http://t-mag.com/html/body_67guide.html (aka warrior diet modified to sell bitoest supps)
or the original animalbolics FAQ:
Q: How do you keep from loosing muscle mass while on this diet? And do you stay on it until you are happy with BF% or do you come of for one or two days a week or what? Is this a good diet to run with a cutting cycle.
A: How do you keep from losing muscle mass while on this diet? I'll let you answer this for yourself. All protein requirements are met as are carb requirements during the postworkout meals. As long as those are met, how are you going to lose muscle? (you can't and constant supply of insulin has NOTHING to do with maintaining muscle as AA's have their own transport system which ARE NOT affected by insulin. And do you stay on it until you are happy with BF% or do you come of for one or two days a week or what? Most people break diets on weekends, anyhow. Watch the alcohol as that seems to screw it up the most.
And bulking 4000cals ... it might work if youre a bottomless pit, but I think it's a bit too unrealistic, don't you think?
What do you think will be the effect of bulking for 8 weeks with 1 meal a day each consisting of 4000cals? That is extremely unrealstic and no one I know could possibly do that. And not 4000cals from snickers , but from quality foods. 
