I think it's recently been proven that the every 2-3 hours thing isn't optimal at all. Something about the decreased insulin sensitivity due to constant influx of nutrients (kind of like building up an immunity).
Most of the top experts I read recommend 3-4 large meals a day scheduled around workout times. (1 Pre-WO, 2-3 PWO)
Also, it depends on how he's eating at 400g/day. If he's doing a paleo-esque diet, I would think it'd be fairly normal if you're a large guy.
Carbs, from what i understand, are protein sparing - meaning the more of them you ingest the less protein you need to eat to increase muscle size.
I personally, while dieting, eat about 225pro/150-200carbs/70fat and while maintaining the only thing that will go up is the carbs/fat slightly
I really don't think it's been "proven".... However, it depends who you read I guess. I've not seen anyone recommend fewer meals over more frequent meals in ages. However, what works and what's optimal are different things. By disagreeing with what you think is 'optimal', i'm not saying that what you're doing isn't working. I just don't see the logic in it, that's all... In my own experience, too, I've recently been somewhat jumping around from more frequent meals to less frequent and larger meals due to schedule and it deffinitly doesn't feel better for me. I can feel Ironmans influence here and want to say that this why anecdotal evidence is insignificant in most cases.
Increased meal frequency does not promote greater weight loss in subjects who were prescribed an 8-week equi-energetic energy-restricted diet.
Cameron JD, Cyr MJ, Doucet E.
Behavioural and Metabolic Research Unit, School of Human Kinetics, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
There have been reports of an inverse relationship between meal frequency (MF) and adiposity. It has been postulated that this may be explained by favourable effects of increased MF on appetite control and possibly on gut peptides as well. The main goal of the present study was to investigate whether using a high MF could lead to a greater weight loss than that obtained with a low MF under conditions of similar energy restriction. Subjects were randomised into two treatment arms (high MF = 3 meals+3 snacks/d or low MF = 3 meals/d) and subjected to the same dietary energy restriction of - 2931 kJ/d for 8 weeks. Sixteen obese adults (n 8 women and 8 men; age 34.6 (sd 9.5); BMI 37.1 (sd 4.5) kg/m2) completed the study. Overall, there was a 4.7 % decrease in body weight (P < 0.01); similarly, significant decreases were noted in fat mass ( - 3.1 (sd 2.9) kg; P < 0.01), lean body mass ( - 2.0 (sd 3.1) kg; P < 0.05) and BMI ( - 1.7 (sd 0.8) kg/m2; P < 0.01). However, there were NS differences between the low- and high-MF groups for adiposity indices, appetite measurements or gut peptides (peptide YY and ghrelin) either before or after the intervention. We conclude that increasing MF does not promote greater body weight loss under the conditions described in the present study.
One on body fat loss.
I've read a few more that show a lack of improvement of protein synthesis due to increased meal frequency. Basically, the old BB belief that you have to constantly infuse the body with protein has been shown false.
It actually takes somewhere around 24-28 hours for muscle to become catabolic (while completely fasted, no food at all).
Obviously, if you train, PWO nutrition is essential and eating a lot right after it is important, but it's not necessary to eat every 2-4 hours like people think.
I personally have always just ate huge meals after I got done lifting (4 dbl cheeseburgers, 2 large fries from BK PWO when I was bulking ^_^).
I actually prefer intermittent fasting now per leangains.com recommendations.