Dozen hard boiled eggs a day...good or bad?

[Hrock]

I dont know much about healthy eating....but I gotta start somewhere.
I heard that a local gym owner eats 15 hard boiled eggs a day (no salt) and I thaught hey, thats easy enough for a start....Im not huge, I just need to trim up and stay healthy.
could someone fill me in on the pros and cons.

[j wil]

Since you mentioned "trimming up," stick to just eating the whites of the eggs. You don't need all of the extra fat and cholesterol.

Man, the best advice I can offer is to eat a low-fat, low-sugar diet that is high in protein. I don't really watch my carbs because I'm not what you would call "carb-sensitive," but I try to eat most of my daily carbs during the first half of the day. Also, with carbs, eat clean carbs such as oatmeal, rice, and potatoes. Keep your protein pretty high--I recommend at least 1 gram/lb of body weight. Most people don't realize how much protein this really is. You may need to resort to adding a protein shake (in between meals) to your diet.

If you have specific questions, feel free to PM me and I'll do my best to help you out. I used to compete in competitive bodybuilding, so dieting while retaining muscle mass is an area that I feel somewhat comfortable. Also, if you PM me during the week, I'll answer, but I don't usually get on the computer over the weekend.

[ACIDBATHBELFORT]

If you wanna lean out, eat the whie part like j will said. Stick with chicken breast as well tuna as your main protein source from foods. Drink one or two protein shakes as well. Try and eat moderate portion of well balanced meals. Try and eat every 3-4 hours to keep that metabolism sparked. Also, lay off the sodas. Drink lots of water.

[Nice ol' Rat]

If you wanna lean out, eat the whie part like j will said. Stick with chicken breast as well tuna as your main protein source from foods. Drink one or two protein shakes as well. Try and eat moderate portion of well balanced meals. Try and eat every 3-4 hours to keep that metabolism sparked. Also, lay off the sodas. Drink lots of water.


That's just a myth--eating every 3-4 hours to "spike" metabolism is completely unsubstantiated. There is such a thing as TEF (thermic effect of food), but that isn't the same as raising metabolic rate. The only way to raise BMR is with drugs/thyroid meds.

Calories in vs. calories out and macronutrient breakdown (% of proteins/carbs/fats) is all that matters. The reason many high-end athletes, powerlifters, bodybuilders, etc. eat 6+ meals per day is because their meals would be too large if only divided into three meals. If your daily intake is 4500+ calories (as is the case with large athletes), then 1500cals/meal is a bit much, so to make eating more reasonable, they divide meals up even more. But let's say you're cutting and are only consuming 2500cals/day or less, then it's plenty reasonable to only eat three meals a day plus a snack (protein shake) thrown in.

[ACIDBATHBELFORT]

That's just a myth--eating every 3-4 hours to "spike" metabolism is completely unsubstantiated. There is such a thing as TEF (thermic effect of food), but that isn't the same as raising metabolic rate. The only way to raise BMR is with drugs/thyroid meds.

Calories in vs. calories out and macronutrient breakdown (% of proteins/carbs/fats) is all that matters. The reason many high-end athletes, powerlifters, bodybuilders, etc. eat 6+ meals per day is because their meals would be too large if only divided into three meals. If your daily intake is 4500+ calories (as is the case with large athletes), then 1500cals/meal is a bit much, so to make eating more reasonable, they divide meals up even more. But let's say you're cutting and are only consuming 2500cals/day or less, then it's plenty reasonable to only eat three meals a day plus a snack (protein shake) thrown in.

The human body is made to sustain itself. Look at Ethiopians for instance. They rarely eat. The body will start to eat itself, its own muscle tissue in order to get its nutrients and sustain life. Eating every 3-4 hours helps because it keeps a constant flow of nutrients in the body. Also, glucose levels stay high and you are functioning at peak performance. When you eat every 3-4 hours your body becomes accustomed to that. So when its fed, it knows that it will be fed again in a few hours. So it burns that food up quickly. If you eat every 8 hours, your glucose levels will drop below the stablized levels. Thats when muscle tissue may be broken down. Thats also when the body will store foor(fat), for future use. Knowing that it may be another 8 hours before its fed. Thats also why its good to eat a small sandwhich or a shake + banana or something before bed. You are keeping nutrients flowing in the body. The body makes its changes when you are in total rest. Which is when you sleep. So its especially good to have some protein in your body while sleeping. A little bit of carbs is also good because it helps to facilitate the repair work.

[Beachbum]

I'm no expert, but I do try to live what Acid just said and it's then that I see my best results. I wake up less sore and attain/keep a higher of development. The "experts" used to say eat 5-6 x/day because your body will only use just so much of that last meal and whatever you don't use in the next 2-3 hours becomes waste. Is that still said?

Hrock, that gym owner might be having serious toilet-time issues :) Why not get your protein from multiple sources, plus you won't then grow to hate eggs and chickens.

[ACIDBATHBELFORT]

I'm no expert, but I do try to live what Acid just said and it's then that I see my best results. I wake up less sore and attain/keep a higher of development. The "experts" used to say eat 5-6 x/day because your body will only use just so much of that last meal and whatever you don't use in the next 2-3 hours becomes waste. Is that still said?

Hrock, that gym owner might be having serious toilet-time issues :) Why not get your protein from multiple sources, plus you won't then grow to hate eggs and chickens.

If you are a bodybuilder and on 8-10thou calories a day on the offseason, how can you possibly eat that up in 3-4 meals? You eat that much in one sitting and you are spent for a few hours. Trying to digest that food. Eating smaller meals enables you to have more energy and do whatever it is you hav e to. Many bodybuilders are now eating 8-10 meals a day. Now some of my "meals" arent much of a standard meal. I may eat a health bar for one of my smaller meals. It has the proteins though, some carbs and fats that my body needs. While giving me arond 200+ calories. I usually eat two really big meals a day. The rest are smaller meals.

[ACIDBATHBELFORT]

Im a certified personal trainer. My certifications are with Apex and NASM.

[Nice ol' Rat]

The human body is made to sustain itself. Look at Ethiopians for instance. They rarely eat. The body will start to eat itself, its own muscle tissue in order to get its nutrients and sustain life.

From The Ketogenic Diet: A Complete Guide for the Dieter and Practitioner by McDonald and Volk:

"Before looking in detail at the adaptations to starvation, we will briefly discuss the major events which occur. Starvation can be broken into 5 distinct phases. In the first phase, during the first 8 hours of starvation, the body is still absorbing fuel from previous meals. Within 10 hours after the last carbohydrate containing meal, roughly 50% of the body’s total energy requirements are being met by free fatty acids (FFA). In the second phase, the first day or two of starvation, the body will rely on FFA and the breakdown of liver glycogen for its energy requirements. Liver glycogen is typically gone within 12-16 hours. "

Actually, unless we're talking periods of starvation lasting longer than 2 days at a time, then you can expect to lose very little lbm, if any at all. Your initial losses are liver glycogen and FFA's. On top of that, if you're maintaining nitrogen balance via adequate protein consumption, then you can protein fast for months, i.e. eat basically no carbs or fats, and not only survive, but not lose any significant lbm. The body isn't as volitile as you portray it. It doesn't freak out just because you haven't eaten in 3 or 4 hours. In my next post, I'll illustrate that not only are frequent meals not necessary, but they're not even optimal if that's what the 6+ meal faction is hoping for.

BTW, what athlete goes more than two days without eating? I'm guessing unless caught in extreme circumstance, e.g. a stranded island, then none of them. Subsequently, we can conclude that increased meal frequency is unnecessary, only calories out vs. calories in and macronutrient breakdown. It's all about energy balance, and our bodies are designed to store and utilize nutrients in the same manner regardless of how frequent or infrequent we eat. WE CANNOT CHANGE THE WAY WE METABOLIZE AND UTILIZE NUTRIENTS, at best wse can partition them better via drugs. Or, we can increase BMR through thyroid manipulation. Therefore, the 6+ meals sparking metabolism is just bull****.

[Nice ol' Rat]

Eating every 3-4 hours helps because it keeps a constant flow of nutrients in the body. Also, glucose levels stay high and you are functioning at peak performance. When you eat every 3-4 hours your body becomes accustomed to that. So when its fed, it knows that it will be fed again in a few hours. So it burns that food up quickly. If you eat every 8 hours, your glucose levels will drop below the stablized levels. Thats when muscle tissue may be broken down. Thats also when the body will store foor(fat), for future use. Knowing that it may be another 8 hours before its fed. Thats also why its good to eat a small sandwhich or a shake + banana or something before bed. You are keeping nutrients flowing in the body. The body makes its changes when you are in total rest. Which is when you sleep. So its especially good to have some protein in your body while sleeping. A little bit of carbs is also good because it helps to facilitate the repair work.


Here are studies showing that meal frequency means jack **** for energy balance or utilization:

Br J Nutr. 1997 Apr;77 Suppl 1:S57-70. Related Articles, Links

Meal frequency and energy balance.

Bellisle F, McDevitt R, Prentice AM.

INSERM U341, Hotel Dieu de Paris, France.

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.

and

Wolfram G, Kirchgessner M, Muller HL, Hollomey S.

To a group of 8 healthy persons a 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.

Hill JO, Anderson JC, Lin D, Yakubu F.

Department of Pediatrics, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee 37232.

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.

Taylor MA, Garrow JS.

Department of Nutrition and Dietetics, King's College London, London, UK.

DESIGN: Subjects were confined to the Metabolic Unit from 19:00 h on day 1 to 09:30 h on day 6. Each day they had a fixed diet providing 4.2 MJ with three pairs of meal patterns which were offered in random sequence. They were: six meals vs two meals without access to additional foods (6vs2), or six meals vs 2 meals with access to additional food (6+vs2+), or six meals vs four meals (6+vsAMFAST). In the AMFAST condition the first two meals of the day were omitted to reduce daily intake to 2.8 MJ and to create a morning fast, but additional food was accessible thereafter. Patients were confined in the chamber calorimeter from 19:00 h on day 2 until 09:00 h on day 4, and then from 19:00 h on day 4 to 09:00 h on day 6. The order in which each meal pattern was offered was balanced over time. MEASUREMENTS: Energy expenditure (chamber calorimetry), spontaneous activity (video) and energy intake (where additional foods were available) during the final 24 h of each dietary component. SUBJECTS: Ten (6vs2), eight (6+vs2+) and eight (6+vsAMFAST) women were recruited who had a BMI of greater than 25 kg/m2. RESULTS: From experiment 6vs2 the difference between energy expenditure with six meals (10.00 MJ) and two meals (9.96 MJ) was not significant (P=0.88). Energy expenditure between 23:00 h and 08:00 h ('night') was, however, significantly higher (P=0.02) with two meals (9.12 MJ/24 h) compared with six meals (8.34 MJ/24 h). The pattern of spontaneous physical activity did not differ significantly between these two meal patterns (P>0.05). Total energy intake was affected by neither meal frequency in experiment 6+vs2+ (10.75 MJ with six, 11.08 MJ with two; P=0.58) nor a morning fast in experiment 6+vsAMFAST (8.55 MJ/24 h with six, 7.60 MJ with AMFAST; P=0.40). The total diet of subjects who had a morning fast tended to have a lower percentage of total energy from carbohydrate (40%) than when they had six meals per 24 h (49%) (P=0.05). Subsequent energy balance was affected by neither meal frequency (6vs2; P=0.88, 6+vs2+; P=0.50) nor a morning fast (P=0.18). CONCLUSIONS: In the short term, meal frequency and a period of fasting have no major impact on energy intake or expenditure but energy expenditure is delayed with a lower meal frequency compared with a higher meal frequency. This might be attributed to the thermogenic effect of food continuing into the night when a later, larger meal is given. A morning fast resulted in a diet which tended to have a lower percentage of energy from carbohydrate than with no fast.



Again, cals in vs. cals out and macro breakdown over each 24 hour period is all that matters in terms of nutrient utilization and energy balance. At best, the 6+ meals/day is just out of convenience to further divide enormous meals as I've already stated, and at worst, it's a bull**** myth that the "bros" tell each other at the gym because they read it in the latest Flex written by some idiot with no academic background in nutritional science.

[Nice ol' Rat]

Im a certified personal trainer. My certifications are with Apex and NASM.

So, I take it you're a trainer at 24 hour fitness or Bally's, or whatever? No offense, but my cousin works at a 24 and has Apex, NASM, NSCA-CPT, and ACE certs and the guy barely knows **** about training, and knows nothing about nutrition metabolism and utilization.

What's your nutritional science background? That's the issue at hand. I'm guessing none?

BTW, I'm not trying to be a dick, but there's too many bull**** myths being propagated, and I'm hoping a little education can curb the tide.

[Nice ol' Rat]

I'm no expert, but I do try to live what Acid just said and it's then that I see my best results. I wake up less sore and attain/keep a higher of development. The "experts" used to say eat 5-6 x/day because your body will only use just so much of that last meal and whatever you don't use in the next 2-3 hours becomes waste. Is that still said?



I'm guessing that's all placebo, the science just doesn't support your assertions--in fact, science supports the opposite. Unless, you're conducting controlled experiments, then your "results" are anecdotal at best.

[ACIDBATHBELFORT]

So, I take it you're a trainer at 24 hour fitness or Bally's, or whatever? No offense, but my cousin works at a 24 and has Apex, NASM, NSCA-CPT, and ACE certs and the guy barely knows **** about training, and knows nothing about nutrition metabolism and utilization.

What's your nutritional science background? That's the issue at hand. I'm guessing none?

BTW, I'm not trying to be a dick, but there's too many bull**** myths being propagated, and I'm hoping a little education can curb the tide.

Im not your cousin. I know that I know what Im talking about. Ill be the first to say though, that what works for one, doesnt always work for another. Thats the tricky part, to find each individiual persons best designed workout/nutrition program. Maybe your cousin attained his certifications by cheating? I took my test online. No I wasnt training at either 24 Hr Fitness or Ballys. It was a local gym that featured Apex. Im not training anymore, Im currently in school for massage therapy. I never denied that the food is burned in a 24hr period. Im just saying its much easier to eat it in small meals. Also, I was saying if you eat 2 very big meals, your body will be digesting for a much longer time. Which in turn will take away your energy levels. There will always be studies supporting a theory. You can denounce my thinking all you want. Whatever works for you is fine.

[Beachbum]

I'm guessing that's all placebo, the science just doesn't support your assertions--in fact, science supports the opposite. Unless, you're conducting controlled experiments, then your "results" are anecdotal at best.

The controlled experiment is my life. I train in many different ways and I change up the way I eat looking for better and better results, and have been doing it for 23 years now. How is breaking down my body and rebuilding it faster, bigger, & leaner (tangible experiences) a placebo? We're not talking about me taking a benign pill or brainwashing myself into better shape here. How is carrying a tired body for days vs waking up mentally and physically fresher the next morning a placebo when I can go back and forth and see the same results? I have a medical degree and a half so I don't need a lecture on placebo, but the fact is my experimentation is more valuable than your assertion of placebo.

The most common words in the medical world are MAYBE and COULD BE. Things are constantly changing and "scientists" rarely know as much as they spout off (not to mention the $$ factor that influences most medical grants/studies), so I take your "science" with a grain of salt.

Now that you've trashed Acid's and my experience (I do see that you're trying to be nice), fill me in on your experiences. I think experience means a lot (like experimentation), so I'd like to know if you're just quoting books/instructors, or you actually apply this stuff. Do you workout, train, condition yourself, spar, fight, what?...

[j wil]

Again, cals in vs. cals out and macro breakdown over each 24 hour period is all that matters in terms of nutrient utilization and energy balance. At best, the 6+ meals/day is just out of convenience to further divide enormous meals as I've already stated, and at worst, it's a bull**** myth that the "bros" tell each other at the gym because they read it in the latest Flex written by some idiot with no academic background in nutritional science.

There is a major problem with the research you have given. The individual at hand was not merely questioning weight loss, but body shaping (fat-loss).

It seems that your studies are concerned with mere "weight loss," whereas calories in vs. calories out would be the primary concern. However, when eating for bodybuilding/body shaping, the game is quite a bit different.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm guessing that neither you nor your scientists have ever competed in bodybuilding or gone on a diet with a goal of loosing fat while retaining muscle. First, I'm sure it is obvious that to loose fat and retain muscle, the content of the diet must change. In order to get in enough calories while eating things such as tuna, chicken breasts, egg whites, etc., one must eat quite a large amount of food. It would have been virtually impossible for me to get in the required caloric intake for my body (while on my bodybuilding diets) if I were only eating 2-3 meals/day. In the studies you presented, I see no mention of WHAT the participants were eating.

Just for background information, I was getting up to 220lbs in the off-season, dieting down for about 13 weeks, and competing at 176lbs. Regardless of what your "scientists" tell you, eating frequent meals will help to increase the metabolism. It seems these days, I can find some scientist, somewhere, to back up any statement I make, regardless of how absurd the statement itself may be.

[Hrock]

Thanks J wil and acid your info was very helpful. After posting this and talking to a friend who also knows what he is doing, I have turned "eating well" into a strict diet...I am eating tuna egg whites, turkey slices, cold veggies, chicken breast, etc.-6-8 times a day, and I havn't felt full, bloated or as tired as I was before (and I could eat). I am also mixing 3 protien shakes a day, doing cardio in the morning (bike or hike) and Some weight training at night, just what I can do at home with 30lb DBs and pushups and what not.
Anyway, I am taking this serious and plan on keeping it that way. I was 6'1 220 lbs and I want to get down to at least 190...I'll keep you posted.

[j wil]

Thanks J wil and acid your info was very helpful. After posting this and talking to a friend who also knows what he is doing, I have turned "eating well" into a strict diet...I am eating tuna egg whites, turkey slices, cold veggies, chicken breast, etc.-6-8 times a day, and I havn't felt full, bloated or as tired as I was before (and I could eat). I am also mixing 3 protien shakes a day, doing cardio in the morning (bike or hike) and Some weight training at night, just what I can do at home with 30lb DBs and pushups and what not.
Anyway, I am taking this serious and plan on keeping it that way. I was 6'1 220 lbs and I want to get down to at least 190...I'll keep you posted.

This diet/workout plan that you describe sounds very good to me. Stay consistent and the results will come in time. Good luck!

[ACIDBATHBELFORT]

Thanks J wil and acid your info was very helpful. After posting this and talking to a friend who also knows what he is doing, I have turned "eating well" into a strict diet...I am eating tuna egg whites, turkey slices, cold veggies, chicken breast, etc.-6-8 times a day, and I havn't felt full, bloated or as tired as I was before (and I could eat). I am also mixing 3 protien shakes a day, doing cardio in the morning (bike or hike) and Some weight training at night, just what I can do at home with 30lb DBs and pushups and what not.
Anyway, I am taking this serious and plan on keeping it that way. I was 6'1 220 lbs and I want to get down to at least 190...I'll keep you posted.


Stick to it and stay motivated. It will happen for you. Good luck.

[Beachbum]

I need to do the same thing. Though I still workout (up until my recent rotator cuff injury anyway), I've fallen in love with the snacks and lost a couple notches in the belt along with feeling more tired. It sucks.

[nhbfan8080]

I will have to agree with Rat here. There is no scientific justification apart from brotelligence that increasing meal frequency past a 3/4 meals per day is helpful apart from the thermic effect if post workout nutrition is adequate.

This has led or lent support to other myths about shakes, amount of protein absorped at a single sitting and protein combining and protein utilization.

Personally I've done very well on only a 3 meal schedule with a preworkout meal because of time contraints. Far better than what I would've expected if it was in fact inferior to a higher meal frequency schedule.

[ACIDBATHBELFORT]

I will have to agree with Rat here. There is no scientific justification apart from brotelligence that increasing meal frequency past a 3/4 meals per day is helpful apart from the thermic effect if post workout nutrition is adequate.

This has led or lent support to other myths about shakes, amount of protein absorped at a single sitting and protein combining and protein utilization.

Personally I've done very well on only a 3 meal schedule with a preworkout meal because of time contraints. Far better than what I would've expected if it was in fact inferior to a higher meal frequency schedule.

Try eating more meals. It works. For me there is no way I could eat just 3 meals. Id be far too stuffed.

[nhbfan8080]

I used to and it gave no advantage. imo pre/post workout nutrition to be more important than increasing meal frequency.