Meal Frequency

[Emma-Leigh]

Just because the topic always comes up - thought I would post up a whole heap of references so they were easy to find:



http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1905998
Eur J Clin Nutr. 1991 Mar;45(3):161-9.Links
Influence of the feeding frequency on nutrient utilization in man: consequences for energy metabolism.

Verboeket-van de Venne WP, Westerterp KR.
Department of Human Biology, University of Limburg, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
A study was conducted to investigate whether there is a diurnal pattern of nutrient utilization in man and how this is affected by meal frequency to explain possible consequences of meal frequency for body weight regulation. When the daily energy intake is consumed in a small number of large meals, there is an increased chance to become overweight, possibly by an elevated lipogenesis (fat synthesis and accumulation) or storage of energy after the meal. Thirteen subjects, two males and eleven females, were fed to energy balance in two meals per day (gorging pattern) and seven meals per day (nibbling pattern) over 2-day intervals. On the second day on each feeding regimen, the diurnal pattern of nutrient utilization was calculated from simultaneous measurements of oxygen consumption, carbon dioxide production and urinary nitrogen excretion over 3 h intervals in a respiration chamber. A gorging pattern of energy intake resulted in a stronger diurnal periodicity of nutrient utilization, compared to a nibbling pattern. 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.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11319656
Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2001 Apr;25(4):519-28.Links
Compared with nibbling, neither gorging nor a morning fast affect short-term energy balance in obese patients in a chamber calorimeter.

Taylor MA, Garrow JS.
Department of Nutrition and Dietetics, King's College London, London, UK.
OBJECTIVE: To test if a diet of 4.2 MJ/24 h as six isocaloric meals would result in a lower subsequent energy intake, or greater energy output than (a) 4.2 MJ/24 h as two isocaloric meals or (b) a morning fast followed by free access to food. 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.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18053311
Br J Nutr. 2008 Jun;99(6):1316-21. Epub 2007 Dec 6. Links
Acute effects on metabolism and appetite profile of one meal difference in the lower range of meal frequency.

Smeets AJ, Westerterp-Plantenga MS.
Department of Human Biology, Maastricht University, P.O. Box 616, 6200 MD, Maastricht, The Netherlands. astrid.smeets@hb.unimaas.nl
A gorging pattern of food intake has been shown to enhance lipogenesis and increase body weight, which may be due to large fluctuations in storage and mobilisation of nutrients. In a state of energy balance, increasing meal frequency, and thereby decreasing inter-meal interval, may prevent large metabolic fluctuations. Our aim was to study the effect of the inter-meal interval by dividing energy intake over two or three meals on energy expenditure, substrate oxidation and 24 h satiety, in healthy, normal-weight women in a state of energy balance. The study was a randomised crossover design with two experimental conditions. During the two experimental conditions subjects (fourteen normal-weight women, aged 24.4 (SD 7.1) years, underwent 36 h sessions in energy balance in a respiration chamber for measurements of energy expenditure and substrate oxidation. The subjects were given two (breakfast, dinner) or three (breakfast, lunch, dinner) meals per d. We chose to omit lunch in the two meals condition, because this resulted in a marked difference in inter-meal-interval after breakfast (8.5 h v. 4 h). Eating three meals compared with two meals had no effects on 24 h energy expenditure, diet-induced thermogenesis, activity-induced energy expenditure and sleeping metabolic rate. Eating three meals compared with two meals increased 24 h fat oxidation, but decreased the amount of fat oxidised from the breakfast. The same amount of energy divided over three meals compared with over two meals increased satiety feelings over 24 h. In healthy, normal-weight women, decreasing the inter-meal interval sustains satiety, particularly during the day, and sustains fat oxidation, particularly during the night.
PMID: 18053311 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9155494
Br J Nutr. 1997 Apr;77 Suppl 1:S57-70. 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.
PMID: 9155494 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

[Emma-Leigh]

more:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15806828
Forum Nutr. 2003;56:126-8.Links
Highlighting the positive impact of increasing feeding frequency on metabolism and weight management.

Louis-Sylvestre J, Lluch A, Neant F, Blundell JE.
Laboratoire de Physiologie du Comportement Alimentaire, UFR L?onard de Vinci, Bobigny, France. jlsylv@club-internet.fr
Research on feeding frequency started more than 20 years ago and some studies have shown evidence of nutritional benefits, especially on metabolism and body weight management. Advice on feeding frequency could play an important role in public health policies by reducing levels of overweight and obesity, the prevalence of which has dangerously increased in most countries over the last few decades. The 17th International Congress of Nutrition brought to the forefront the benefits of increasing feeding frequency (i.e. keeping the same total daily energy intake but dividing it into more frequent meals than usual). Recent epidemiological studies, mostly carried out in France, have provided evidence on the beneficial effects of a fourth meal for those individuals who habitually choose this pattern. Supported by metabolic data, these findings have now been supported by experimental studies. The "go?ter", commonly eaten in the afternoon in France by most children and many adults, has the biological characteristics of a meal because it is eaten in response to hunger. Suppressing the "go?ter" in "habitual fourth meal eaters" soon leads to an increase in Body Mass Index (BMI). Further, people who are regular "go?ter" eaters have a higher carbohydrate intake and better metabolic profile than other adults, even though their total energy intake is not greater. Increased feeding frequency leads to a reduction in the total secretion of insulin, an improvement in insulin resistance and a better blood glucose control, as well as an improvement in the blood lipid profile. The experts agreed that, as long as we do not consume more energy than we use up and we only eat when we are hungry, it may be useful to split our total energy intake into as many meals as our social pattern allows. However, the pattern of eating cannot be completely dissociated from the composition of foods consumed. Therefore within this energy intake, we must take care to consume not only a good balance of macronutrients with high carbohydrate and low fat levels, but also ensure that we get an adequate intake of essential micronutrients. "What you eat" and "When you eat it" are public health messages to communicate: frequent consumption of low energy dense high carbohydrate foods, rich in micronutrients, must be encouraged ensuring that energy intakes are not greater than energy expenditures and that eating episodes occur in a hunger state.
PMID: 15806828 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9504318
Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 1998 Feb;22(2):105-12.Links
Evidence that eating frequency is inversely related to body weight status in male, but not female, non-obese adults reporting valid dietary intakes.

Drummond SE, Crombie NE, Cursiter MC, Kirk TR.
Centre for Food Research and Department of Dietetics and Nutrition, Queen Margaret College, Edinburgh, UK.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the relationships between eating frequency (EF) and body weight status and to determine whether these relationships can be explained in terms of differences in physical activity levels, macronutrient intakes or energy compensation. DESIGN: Cross-sectional design; free-living subjects, 48 men and 47 women (aged 20-55 y, body mass index (BMI) 18-30), recruited in a workplace setting. MEASUREMENTS: Height and weight; skinfold thickness (four sites); EF, energy and macronutrient intakes (food diary, unweighed, recorded for seven consecutive days); physical activity (7 d activity diary and heart rate monitoring over 48 h period). RESULTS: In men there was a significant negative correlation between EF and body weight, and an inverse relationship with body mass index (BMI). EF was positively correlated with % energy from carbohydrate, although not with total energy intake. In women, there was no relationship between EF and body weight status; however, there were significant positive correlations between EF and total energy intake, and between EF and intakes of total carbohydrate and sugars. For both men and women, there were associations between EF and physical activity levels, approaching statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS: In men, the association between increased EF and lower body weight status may have been influenced by increased physical activity levels. As energy intake did not increase with EF, men appear to have compensated by reducing the mean energy consumed per eating episode. Energy compensation did not take place in women, with women who ate most frequently having the highest energy intakes, although this did not lead to higher BMIs. Physical activity, through participation in active leisure pursuits, may have been an important factor in weight control in women. The % contribution of carbohydrate to total energy was positively correlated with EF in both men and women, and further analysis showed that snack foods provided a higher proportion of carbohydrate than did foods eaten as meals. These results indicate that a high EF is likely to lead to a high carbohydrate diet, which may be favourable for weight control. Our findings suggest that in this population, a high EF was associated with leanness in men, and there was no link between EF and body weight status in women.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15085170
Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2004 May;28(5):653-60. Links
Decreased thermic effect of food after an irregular compared with a regular meal pattern in healthy lean women.

Farshchi HR, Taylor MA, Macdonald IA.
Centre for Integrated Systems Biology and Medicine, Institute of Clinical Research and School of Biomedical Sciences, Queen's Medical Centre, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK. mbxhrf@nottingham.ac.uk
OBJECTIVES: To investigate the impact of irregular meal frequency on body weight, energy intake, appetite and resting energy expenditure in healthy lean women. DESIGN: Nine healthy lean women aged 18-42 y participated in a randomised crossover trial consisting of three phases over a total of 43 days. Subjects attended the laboratory at the start and end of phases 1 and 3. In Phase 1 (14 days), subjects were asked to consume similar things as normal, but either on 6 occasions per day (regular meal pattern) or follow a variable predetermined meal frequency (between 3 and 9 meals/day) with the same total number of meals over the week. In Phase 2 (14 days), subjects continued their normal diet as a wash-out period. In Phase 3 (14 days), subjects followed the alternative meal pattern to that followed in Phase 1. Subjects recorded their food intake for three predetermined days during the irregular period when they were eating 9, 3 and 6 meals/day. They also recorded their food intake on the corresponding days during the regular meal pattern period. Subjects fasted overnight prior to each laboratory visit, at which fasting resting metabolic rate (RMR) was measured by open-circuit indirect calorimetry. Postprandial metabolic rate was then measured for 3 h after the consumption of a milkshake test meal (50% CHO, 15% protein and 35% fat of energy content). Subjects rated appetite before and after the test meal. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in body weight and 3-day mean energy intake between the regular and irregular meal pattern. In the irregular period, the mean energy intake on the day when 9 meals were eaten was significantly greater than when 6 or 3 meals were consumed (P=0.0001). There was no significant difference between the 3 days of the regular meal pattern. Subjective appetite measurement showed no significant differences before and after the test meal in all visits. Fasting RMR showed no significant differences over the experiment. The overall thermic effect of food (TEF) over the 3 h after the test meal was significantly lower after the irregular meal pattern (P=0.003). CONCLUSION: Irregular meal frequency led to a lower postprandial energy expenditure compared with the regular meal frequency, while the mean energy intake was not significantly different between the two. The reduced TEF with the irregular meal frequency may lead to weight gain in the long term.
PMID: 15085170 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15220950
Eur J Clin Nutr. 2004 Jul;58(7):1071-7. Links
Regular meal frequency creates more appropriate insulin sensitivity and lipid profiles compared with irregular meal frequency in healthy lean women.

Farshchi HR, Taylor MA, Macdonald IA.
Centre for Integrated Systems Biology and Medicine, Institute of Clinical Research, School of Biomedical Sciences, Queen's Medical Centre, University of Nottingham, UK. mbxhrf@nottingham.ac.uk
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the impact of irregular meal frequency on circulating lipids, insulin, glucose and uric acid concentrations which are known cardiovascular risk factors. DESIGN: A randomised crossover dietary intervention study. SETTING: Nottingham, UK--Healthy free-living women. SUBJECTS: A total of nine lean healthy women aged 18-42 y recruited via advertisement. INTERVENTION: A randomised crossover trial with two phases of 14 days each. In Phase 1, subjects consumed their normal diet on either 6 occasions per day (regular) or by following a variable meal frequency (3-9 meals/day, irregular). In Phase 2, subjects followed the alternative meal pattern to that followed in Phase 1, after a 2-week (wash-out) period. Subjects were asked to come to the laboratory after an overnight fast at the start and end of each phase. Blood samples were taken for measurement of circulating glucose, lipids, insulin and uric acid concentrations before and for 3 h after consumption of a high-carbohydrate test meal. RESULTS: Fasting glucose and insulin values were not affected by meal frequency, but peak insulin and AUC of insulin responses to the test meal were higher after the irregular compared to the regular eating patterns (P < 0.01). The irregular meal frequency was associated with higher fasting total (P < 0.01) and LDL (P < 0.05) cholesterol. CONCLUSION: The irregular meal frequency appears to produce a degree of insulin resistance and higher fasting lipid profiles, which may indicate a deleterious effect on these cardiovascular risk factors. SPONSORSHIP:: The Ministry of Health and Medical Education, IR Iran.
PMID: 15220950 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

[Emma-Leigh]

And again:


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17228037
Obesity (Silver Spring). 2007 Jan;15(1):100-6. Links
Association of eating frequency with body fatness in pre- and postmenopausal women.

Yannakoulia M, Melistas L, Solomou E, Yiannakouris N.
Department of Nutrition and Dietetics, Harokopio University, El. Venizelou 70, Athens 17671, Greece.
OBJECTIVE: To examine associations between eating frequency (EF) and body fatness in pre- and postmenopausal women, after excluding potential low-energy reporters. RESEARCH METHODS AND PROCEDURES: In this cross-sectional study of 220 free-living women, 64 pre- and 50 postmenopausal non-low-energy-reporting women were further analyzed (age, 24 to 74 years; BMI, 18.5 to 38.6 kg/m2). Anthropometric and body composition measurements (DXA) were performed in all study participants. EF, energy, and macronutrient intake were assessed by 3-day food record. Physical activity level and energy expenditure were assessed by self-reported questionnaire. RESULTS: No association between EF and adiposity indices was detected in premenopausal women. In contrast, EF was positively correlated with percentage body fat in postmenopausal women (r = 0.30, p = 0.03). EF was positively correlated with total energy intake in both groups and with total energy expenditure in premenopausal women only (r = 0.34, p = 0.02). Multivariate analysis revealed that, in postmenopausal women, EF was a significant predictor of body fatness (standardized beta = 0.41, p = 0.01). DISCUSSION: Frequent eating was not found to be related to adiposity in premenopausal women, but it was associated with increased body fat in postmenopausal women. Possible explanations could be that the frequent eating is not associated with a physically active lifestyle in postmenopausal women or that frequent eating predisposes women after menopause to a higher energy intake by increasing food stimuli and rendering it more difficult for them to control energy balance.
PMID: 17228037 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15640455
Am J Clin Nutr. 2005 Jan;81(1):16-24. Links
Comment in:
Am J Clin Nutr. 2005 Jan;81(1):3-4.
Beneficial metabolic effects of regular meal frequency on dietary thermogenesis, insulin sensitivity, and fasting lipid profiles in healthy obese women.

Farshchi HR, Taylor MA, Macdonald IA.
Centre for Integrated Systems Biology and Medicine, Institute of Clinical Research, School of Biomedical Sciences, Queen's Medical Centre, University of Nottingham, UK. mbxhrf@nottingham.ac.uk
BACKGROUND: Although a regular meal pattern is recommended for obese people, its effects on energy metabolism have not been examined. OBJECTIVE: We investigated whether a regular meal frequency affects energy intake (EI), energy expenditure, or circulating insulin, glucose, and lipid concentrations in healthy obese women. DESIGN: Ten women [x +/- SD body mass index (in kg/m(2)): 37.1 +/- 4.8] participated in a randomized crossover trial. In phase 1 (14 d), the subjects consumed their normal diet on 6 occasions/d (regular meal pattern) or followed a variable meal frequency (3-9 meals/d, irregular meal pattern). In phase 2 (14 d), the subjects followed the alternative pattern. At the start and end of each phase, a test meal was fed, and blood glucose, lipid, and insulin concentrations were determined before and for 3 h after (glucose and insulin only) the test meal. Subjects recorded their food intake on 3 d during each phase. The thermogenic response to the test meal was ascertained by indirect calorimetry. RESULTS: Regular eating was associated with lower EI (P < 0.01), greater postprandial thermogenesis (P < 0.01), and lower fasting total (4.16 compared with 4.30 mmol/L; P < 0.01) and LDL (2.46 compared with 2.60 mmol/L; P < 0.02) cholesterol. Fasting glucose and insulin values were not affected by meal pattern, but peak insulin concentrations and area under the curve of insulin responses to the test meal were lower after the regular than after the irregular meal pattern (P < 0.01 and 0.02, respectively). CONCLUSION: Regular eating has beneficial effects on fasting lipid and postprandial insulin profiles and thermogenesis.
PMID: 15640455 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10578205
Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 1999 Nov;23(11):1151-9.Links
Acute appetite reduction associated with an increased frequency of eating in obese males.

Speechly DP, Rogers GG, Buffenstein R.
Department of Physiology, University of Witwatersrand Medical School, Johannesburg, South Africa. david_p.speechly@virgin.net
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effects of altered feeding frequencies on the relationship between perceived hunger and subsequent food intake and appetite control in obese men. DESIGN: Obese men reported in a fasted state in the morning to the laboratory where an isoenergetic pre-load (4100+/-234 kJ, which was 33% average daily energy requirement (ADER) of each subject) comprising 70% carbohydrate, 15% protein, and 15% fat was given. This was administered either as a SINGLE meal, or divided evenly over 5 meals given hourly as a MULTI feeding pattern. Five hours after the first pre-load, an ad libitum test meal was given to determine whether there was a difference in the amount of energy that was consumed between the two eating patterns. SUBJECTS: Seven non-diabetic, non-smoking, unrestrained obese men (age 37.4+/-18.5; BMI 40.02+/-10. 93 kg/m-2) were recruited for this study. Subjects were not told the precise reasons for this study but rather were informed that changes in blood glucose, insulin and free fatty acids with meal frequency were to be monitored. MEASUREMENTS: Blood glucose, serum insulin and free fatty acid (FFA) concentrations, and visual analogue scales (VAS) were measured prior to commencing the feeding regime and thereafter hourly for 5 h. Thereafter an ad libitum meal was given. The weight (and energy content) of the food consumed, and the time taken to eat lunch were recorded. Following this ad libitum lunch, the same variables were determined again (15, 45, and 75 min post-test meal). RESULTS: When given a SINGLE pre-load, 27% more (t=2.651; P<0.05) energy was consumed in the ad libitum test meal (5261+/-1289 kJ) compared to that eaten after the MULTI pre-load (3763+/-1986 kJ). This increase in food intake occurred despite no significant change in subjective hunger ratings. Over the 315 min pre-load period, peak insulin concentrations were significantly higher (F6,72=7.95, P<0.01) on the SINGLE treatment (171.2+/-129.8 microU ml-1) than on the MULTI treatment (133.7+/-70.2 microU ml-1). Serum insulin remained elevated for longer on the MULTI meal treatment, resulting in no difference in the area under the insulin curves between the two feeding treatments. There was a positive correlation (r=0.87) between the amount of energy consumed at lunch and insulin concentration before lunch in the SINGLE group. However, this relationship was not apparent when subjects were given the MULTI meal preload. CONCLUSION: Obese males fed an isoenergetic pre-load sub-divided into a multi-meal plan consumed 27% less at a subsequent ad libitum test meal than did the same men when given the pre-load as a single meal. Prolonged but attenuated increases in serum insulin concentration on the multi-meal programme may facilitate this acute reduction in appetite.
PMID: 10578205 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

[soundcheck129]

Great stuff as always Emma :)

[DriftMonster]

Some pretty interesting stuff in there. I like the last couple studies discussing how irregular meal frequency may lead to erroneous lipid profiles. I wonder how much of this could be associated with the heart disease endemic in the U.S. today (busy lives leading to irregular meal frequency). I would imagine it has to have some sort of significant effect.

Thanks for the reading Emma :)

[billrich210]

Emma,

What is your eating shedule? Personally I prefer six meals a day just because I never get hungry that way. And it reminds me of my goals on a daily basis.

Thanks
BR

[WRX20PSI]

good info, thanks!

[Awestin]

I'm absolutely wowed... wow. Thanks for all that great info. PS: I actually see p-values in the real world... apparently I will see them Mr. Kallaher (my ap stats teacher)

Repped.

[eekrodg]

Shoot for eating a small meal every 2 - 3 hours, with a balance of Carbohydrates, Proteins, and "Good" Fats

[Emma-Leigh]

Shoot for eating a small meal every 2 - 3 hours, with a balance of Carbohydrates, Proteins, and "Good" Fats

Why? :confused:

[Insight]

why... why?


why? wHy? whY? Why?

why... why




what a concept!

[SEAviator]

I've been so confused after reading that the amount of meals per day doesnt matter and that the only thing that matters is meeting your macronutrients..

Whatever the amount of meals you choose per day, is it still important to keep the amount of time between them the same?

Emma, how many meals per day would you suggest? Or it doesnt matter?

[Emma-Leigh]

I've been so confused after reading that the amount of meals per day doesnt matter and that the only thing that matters is meeting your macronutrients..
Basically - yes. Cals and macro's = the most important thing.


Whatever the amount of meals you choose per day, is it still important to keep the amount of time between them the same?
No.


Emma, how many meals per day would you suggest? Or it doesnt matter?
1. as many as you need to meet your goals (physique and athletic)
2. as many as you want to stay sane
3. what ever fits best into your lifestyle
4. no, it doesn't really matter ;)

[Madevilz]

Lyle Mcdonald on meal frequency:
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/meal-frequency-and-energy-balance-research-review.html

[SEAviator]

Thanks a lot Emma!! You're great!!!!

[k4y]

So lets say you have a period of 8 hours with no food, but at the end of the day, you still meet your macros. There would be NO adverse affect of that? No food for 8 hours wouldnt catabolize your muscles as long as you meet your macros at the end of the day?!

[Reloadguy]

So lets say you have a period of 8 hours with no food, but at the end of the day, you still meet your macros. There would be NO adverse affect of that? No food for 8 hours wouldnt catabolize your muscles as long as you meet your macros at the end of the day?!

Correct.

[Insight]

So lets say you have a period of 8 hours with no food, but at the end of the day, you still meet your macros. There would be NO adverse affect of that? No food for 8 hours wouldnt catabolize your muscles as long as you meet your macros at the end of the day?!

Right. Hence what the recent 16/8 intermittent fasting craze is about. Check out leangains.com for more info. Note that people are doing just fine on it.

[abood-uae]

mmmmm meal frequency for me I eat 6 /day and I feel extremely good

[DoomMetalDarryl]

ok, what about diabetics wanting to regulate blood sugar?
It is much worse to eat a large number of carbs in one sitting, than small amounts throughout the day. The diabetic can only handle so much at once.

[Emma-Leigh]

ok, what about diabetics wanting to regulate blood sugar?
It is much worse to eat a large number of carbs in one sitting, than small amounts throughout the day. The diabetic can only handle so much at once.
^^^ those with issues of insulin resistance (aka: NIDDM) or insulin absence (aka: IDDM) do not fall into the 'norm' - and as with all those who have a medical condition, general 'standards' do not apply.

Thus, their ideal meal frequency should be calculated on their underlying disease, and how best they can control their BSL (to prevent the dangers of hypo's and the health impact of consistent hyperglycaemia).

[doug87]

So is there any advantage to a post workout shake if i still get enough protein some time later in the day?

[MarkVI]

So is there any advantage to a post workout shake if i still get enough protein some time later in the day?
Yes, there is. It's not make or break but just have some protein after you WO.

[lth]

Yes, there is. It's not make or break but just have some protein after you WO.

I'm the f*cking man.

[MarkVI]

I'm the f*cking man.

Exactly, this is why protein after you workout is important same with waxymaize. GET SOME.

[lth]

Exactly, this is why protein after you workout is important same with waxymaize. GET SOME.

This, if you dont' drink waxy maize and eat raw eggs in the morning from a blender...youre a catastrophic f*cking fail.

[MarkVI]

this, if you dont' drink waxy maize and eat raw eggs in the morning from a blender...youre a catastrophic f*cking fail.

but bro!!!! The avadin is going to make you biotin deficient!!!!

[lth]

your big scientific words offend me, son.

[Emma-Leigh]

guyz.... as much as I love the love between you ->>> ^^^ take your shenanigans elsewhere, please and thanking muchly. This be a thread for info on meal frequency.... ;)

[MarkVI]

guyz.... as much as I love the love between you ->>> ^^^ take your shenanigans elsewhere, please and thanking muchly. This be a thread for info on meal frequency.... ;)

Sawry, we were having fun.


For the record, I think meal frequency has very little impact on physique goals if daily energy and nutrient intake goals are met.

[lth]

^^this....

Alot of research has been done on that eating too frequently may inhibit growth a bit.....i try to shoot for 6 meals a day, no matter how frequently i eat. May be a 2 hr difference, may be a 5....all that matters is getting your food in for the day. People overthink this alot.

[jdjprimer19]

^^this....

Alot of research has been done on that eating too frequently may inhibit growth a bit.....i try to shoot for 6 meals a day, no matter how frequently i eat. May be a 2 hr difference, may be a 5....all that matters is getting your food in for the day. People overthink this alot.

Agreed. I definitely used to overthink the issue.

[ll ReNeGaDe ll]

Emma, what about the notion that because protein annot get stored for later use, muscles begin to break down after 3-4 hours of no food?

[Emma-Leigh]

Emma, what about the notion that because protein annot get stored for later use, muscles begin to break down after 3-4 hours of no food?
^^
poppy.... Do you REALLY think the body is that black or white?
How do you explain the IF results if this were the case?

[ll ReNeGaDe ll]

^^
poppy.... Do you REALLY think the body is that black or white?
How do you explain the IF results if this were the case?

Do I really think? Thats silly, I don't :). I actually don't have an opinion on the issue. I'm wondering in terms of muscle growth, if that theory has any validity to it.

[thegymbum]

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).

Just noticed that bit (in the article above, Links Compared with nibbling, neither gorging nor a morning fast..). Interesting... if less carbohydrate is being utilized for energy, I'm assuming more fat is being utilized for energy, thus resulting in greater fat loss? That would certainly give some credibility to IF. I wonder if further research on the specific topic has been conducted...

[Emma-Leigh]

^
Your assumption is muchly incorrect.
YES - It would only hold true if total cals were lower than intake.... but if fat intake was high enough to outway calorie expenditure then dietary fat would = fuel of choice, and fat loss would not occur (and will be stored to boot).

[Wapadaigo]

Although I agree, meal frequency is not as important as many make it out to be. I do not believe there is a one size fits all regiment. I feel metabolism function is similar to muscle tissue in regards to how different exercises/rep range work better for different individuals.

Example, my body might work optimally by following a 16/8 IF diet, while others might work optimally following the "old school" every 2-3 hours diet. Does this make my diet "wrong"? No. Does this make theirs wrong? No.

You have find what works for you

[chriscarter1988]

^^this....

Alot of research has been done on that eating too frequently may inhibit growth a bit.....i try to shoot for 6 meals a day, no matter how frequently i eat. May be a 2 hr difference, may be a 5....all that matters is getting your food in for the day. People overthink this alot.

definately, its all about getting your meals in whenever and however you can, just do your best, noone can eat bang on every 2 hours or whatever. I used to eat like 8-9 meals a day cos i thought i had to eat every 2 hours, so if i got up at 7 and went to bed at like 2 thatd total like 10 meals for that day, i actually think that slowed my progress cos as soon as i relaxed, ate when i could, still got enough macros but didnt overfeed, i began growing again.
Dexter Jackson said in flex once that he just eats whenever he feels he needs to and he won the olympia

[Wapadaigo]

definately, its all about getting your meals in whenever and however you can, just do your best, noone can eat bang on every 2 hours or whatever. I used to eat like 8-9 meals a day cos i thought i had to eat every 2 hours, so if i got up at 7 and went to bed at like 2 thatd total like 10 meals for that day, i actually think that slowed my progress cos as soon as i relaxed, ate when i could, still got enough macros but didnt overfeed, i began growing again.
Dexter Jackson said in flex once that he just eats whenever he feels he needs to and he won the olympia

Did Dex ever mention anything about steroids before or after that statement? It does have a slight effect u know....

[chriscarter1988]

Im sure he takes a ton of steroids, I know that just cos he won the olympia doesnt make it right for the rest of us.
The point im making is that i think it can be beneficial to be a bit relaxed about your diet in terms of meal frequency and actually better than eating to a rigid schedule, as long as you get all your nutrition in over the course of a day and do the best you can to eat at regular intervals, youl do fine.

[Wapadaigo]

Im sure he takes a ton of steroids, I know that just cos he won the olympia doesnt make it right for the rest of us.
The point im making is that i think it can be beneficial to be a bit relaxed about your diet in terms of meal frequency and actually better than eating to a rigid schedule, as long as you get all your nutrition in over the course of a day and do the best you can to eat at regular intervals, youl do fine.

That I agree with. It does not matter if you eat once a day or 6 times a day as long as your are getting in your goal macro/micro nutrients. But, my point was, if I ate whenever I was hungry I would be at a calorie surplus daily and would be gaining way more fat than muscle.

[boomclap]

Just because the topic always comes up - thought I would post up a whole heap of references so they were easy to find:

Everyone should be required to read this before they post anything about supplements

[Budjola]

i eat every 3 hours im used to that rhyth and if i dont eat at strict times i get nervous

[Wapadaigo]

On a "bulk" diet would their be adverse effects to counting total week cals vs day-by-day?

Meaning, if I ate at maintenance 5 days a week, then ate 1200 cals over maintenance 2 days a week having a total of 2400 cal surplus for the week. Less than one lb per week gain.

IE: Maintenance is 2800 cals

2800 x 5 days a week
2800+1200= 4000 x 2 days a week
1200+1200= 2400 cals surplus a week

Would it be more beneficial to have 250 cal surplus a day than to do this? If so why?

[beaul]

On a "bulk" diet would their be adverse effects to counting total week cals vs day-by-day?

Meaning, if I ate at maintenance 5 days a week, then ate 1200 cals over maintenance 2 days a week having a total of 2400 cal surplus for the week. Less than one lb per week gain.

IE: Maintenance is 2800 cals

2800 x 5 days a week
2800+1200= 4000 x 2 days a week
1200+1200= 2400 cals surplus a week

Would it be more beneficial to have 250 cal surplus a day than to do this? If so why?

Just throwing thoughts out there on this... kind of random thinking. while the body doesn't recognize days/weeks. We do signal the building of muscle by working out, and how long does that signal last? 36/48hrs? I can't remember. For example, if you do shoulders on Monday but only eat surplus on Wed/Saturday. Which muscles are actually getting the calories needed? Only the ones directly surrounding your surplus days? I dont have the answer. I just know i wouldn't spend my surplus on 2 days/week while bulking. I would rather have a slight surplus each day. Say you're 1200 cals over and 600 of those get stored as fat because your body couldn't use them for building. But on the other days your body could have used the extra 250 for building muscle, but you gave it maintenance level.

One thing i have looked at before. 24hrs post training gets a surplus. Then you taper off until your next session, really depends on your split though.

[Wapadaigo]

Just throwing thoughts out there on this... kind of random thinking. while the body doesn't recognize days/weeks. We do signal the building of muscle by working out, and how long does that signal last? 36/48hrs? I can't remember. For example, if you do shoulders on Monday but only eat surplus on Wed/Saturday. Which muscles are actually getting the calories needed? Only the ones directly surrounding your surplus days? I dont have the answer. I just know i wouldn't spend my surplus on 2 days/week while bulking. I would rather have a slight surplus each day. Say you're 1200 cals over and 600 of those get stored as fat because your body couldn't use them for building. But on the other days your body could have used the extra 250 for building muscle, but you gave it maintenance level.

One thing i have looked at before. 24hrs post training gets a surplus. Then you taper off until your next session, really depends on your split though.

Yea, I am in agreement with you. I guess I was just wondering how far you could actually push the limits of "meal frequency doesn't matter", as long as macros are hit.

But in case any one has more feed back on this, I lift Sun-Thurs and do cardio twice a week, one of which is Friday.

Surplus meals would have been Sunday and Tuesday.

[Wapadaigo]

Emma, what about the notion that because protein annot get stored for later use, muscles begin to break down after 3-4 hours of no food?

Ren, to add to what Emma said, this is "poppy" because the body take alot longer to digest food, especially protein, than 3-4 hours. It takes the body an hour to digest a measly 8-10 grams of whey, FAST digesting protein. Where as egg, the slowest digest protein, is only 1.3 grams/hr.

Therefore, chances are, by the end of 3-4 hours your body isn't even close to being finished with digesting your last meal.

[romeo196]

so just get all my calories in one meal a day? doesn't make sense to me, smaller meals are more easily absorbed by the body.

[Wapadaigo]

so just get all my calories in one meal a day? doesn't make sense to me, smaller meals are more easily absorbed by the body.

1 meal, 3 meals, 8 meals, it doesn't matter as long as you are hitting your daily macro's.

www.leangains.blogspot.com

[bocheltree]

so just get all my calories in one meal a day? doesn't make sense to me, smaller meals are more easily absorbed by the body.

this. i've been told before that your body can only handle an x amount of protein at a time. either the rest goes through you or is stored as fat.

[bocheltree]

this. i've been told before that your body can only handle an x amount of protein at a time. either the rest goes through you or is stored as fat.


1 meal, 3 meals, 8 meals, it doesn't matter as long as you are hitting your daily macro's.

www.leangains.blogspot.com

eh nevermind^ read above link and now im good. thanks for the info

[Biokinetic]

Not about what but when and how... how to combine our macronutrients so they work for us. And by eating those 2-3 hours we are getting our metabolisms to do what we want! The epidemic of "skinny fat" teens is scary and proof that we need to go back to the basics. And eat simple! Good read guys! Passionate about this stuff!

[Martin Berkhan]

Not about what but when and how... how to combine our macronutrients so they work for us. And by eating those 2-3 hours we are getting our metabolisms to do what we want! The epidemic of "skinny fat" teens is scary and proof that we need to go back to the basics. And eat simple! Good read guys! Passionate about this stuff!

Horse****.

People actually still believe in the 6-meals-a-day-will-boost-your-metabolism-nonsense on this board?

[Emma-Leigh]

just out:

J Nutr. 2010 Dec 1. [Epub ahead of print]
The Effect of Eating Frequency on Appetite Control and Food Intake: Brief Synopsis of Controlled Feeding Studies.
Leidy HJ, Campbell WW.

Department of Nutrition and Exercise Physiology, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211.
Abstract
Increased eating frequency is postulated to increase metabolism, reduce hunger, improve glucose and insulin control, and reduce body weight, making it an enticing dietary strategy for weight loss and/or the maintenance of a healthy body weight. Because past research has primarily focused on the effects of eating frequency on changes in energy expenditure and body weight, limited data exist surrounding the impact of eating frequency on appetite control and energy intake. We provide a brief review of the controlled-feeding studies that primarily targeted the appetitive, hormonal, and food intake responses potentially altered with eating frequency. The 3 meal/d pattern served as the reference for defining increased or reduced eating frequency. In general, increased eating frequency led to lower peaks (P < 0.05) in perceived appetite, satiety, glucose, insulin, ghrelin, and PYY responses compared with reduced eating frequency. However, when examining these responses over the course of the day (i.e. using area under the curve assessments), no differences in any of these outcomes were observed. The rate of gastric emptying also appears to be unaltered with increased eating frequency. Subsequent food intake was examined in several studies with conflicting results. Regarding the effect of reduced eating frequency, several studies indicate significant increases in perceived appetite and reductions in perceived satiety when 1 or 2 meals were eliminated from the daily diet. Taken together, these findings suggest that increased eating frequency (>3 eating occasions/d) has minimal, if any, impact on appetite control and food intake, whereas reduced eating frequency(<3 eating occasions/d) negatively effects appetite control.

PMID: 21123467 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]

[SHARK13]

just out:

Emma,
First of all excellent posts/studies. I applaud your analytical viewpoints. My statement and question pertain to the meal frequency studies. Do any of the studies take into account optimal performance and subjects who want to increase lbw or are all the subjects pulled from a pool of "average people" Most of the posted studies address the thermogenic response to meal frequency. I am sure that you are aware of studies presented on nutrient timing (pre and post workout) for optimal performance/recovery. Thus that is 2 essential "feedings" right there. Breakfast would also be beneficial to break the 8-10 hr fast so this is 3 feedings at minimum for an athlete. Any comments would be appreciated. Respectfully

[Cruxxe]

just out:

Just wanted to thank you for posting this. I've had a long belief and preached 6 meals/day to many friends/family solely because of what I ready in Bill Phillips Body for Life program.

It's nice to see a neutral viewpoint (research papers) on the subject, and I for one, will be much less anxious when I accidentally skip a meal.

Although, I feel like a stray puppy who keeps following the next big thing. Hopefully this will help me in the long run, but I don't think I have it in me to try IF just yet.

[braggable]

Does time of day for certain meals matter if all macros are still met? Example: is it better to eat something high in fats and carbs like pizza at lunch versus at dinner, as long as all your macros are still met?

[PBateman2]

Does time of day for certain meals matter if all macros are still met?

Time of day for meals does not matter.

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=123915821

[braggable]

Time of day for meals does not matter.

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=123915821

Thanks bro. I appreciate the quick reply. BTW, what's your normal macros intake for the day, grams of Protein, Carbs and Fats? Thanks again.

[PBateman2]

Thanks bro. I appreciate the quick reply. BTW, what's your normal macros intake for the day, grams of Protein, Carbs and Fats? Thanks again.

Typically like this (I'm currently on a mini-clean bulk):

~300g protein
~400-450g CHO
~100-120g fat

[braggable]

Typically like this (I'm currently on a mini-clean bulk):

~300g protein
~400-450g CHO
~100-120g fat

Thanks bro. I'm on a mini bulk myself, just trying to figure out what works best. Thanks for the help. Good luck.

[braggable]

BTW bro, I have my degree in Molecular Biology, working in cancer research now and I'm working towards an MD/PhD in Oncology as well! I just read your stats and it seems like we have the same stuff going on! Just wanted to give mad props where they are due.

[usc9]

I eat 6 times a day for the mere fact that my stomach shrinks in size compared to when I used to eat 2-3 times a day. Therefore, when I'm out to dinner, I get fuller quicker. When I'm snacking during a sports game or drinking, I don't eat as much or pound as many beers etc.

[j93]

thanks

[saviorex]

If meal-timing is irrelevant, and your body doesn't truly recognize "a day" as its period of feeding, how does accumulation of fat work?

[Emma-Leigh]

If meal-timing is irrelevant, and your body doesn't truly recognize "a day" as its period of feeding, how does accumulation of fat work?
^ because you eat more calories than you need over time....

[l337g0g0]

Wow, I'm like so taken back by this.
I respect the research and that you started this, but...
PS: i was just thinking about MF for the past month so...

If I don't eat for a long period of time I get weak and shakey, my nerves get shot.
I think it's my sugar levels dropping.
Is that me or do others experence this?
with that question is there atleast a min MF for sugar/glucose levels?

and what about food intake at such big volumes?
If the food comes in at 350 cals a meal then your body can use most of it and give some to the muscle to replace lost glycogen stores.
but if you eat 700 cal meal could the body utilize all that? or would some of it be stored as fat?
If it can't utilize it all and the body stores it would that not be counter productive?
Even if the body will eventually use it?

Very good thread...

[Cumulonimbus]

Your body will "use" everything you give it. It doesn't just excrete any excess calories. It will either store or use those calories depending on your DEE.

[anacoholic]

good read here

[dejan_85]

Emma,
First of all excellent posts/studies. I applaud your analytical viewpoints. My statement and question pertain to the meal frequency studies. Do any of the studies take into account optimal performance and subjects who want to increase lbw or are all the subjects pulled from a pool of "average people" Most of the posted studies address the thermogenic response to meal frequency. I am sure that you are aware of studies presented on nutrient timing (pre and post workout) for optimal performance/recovery. Thus that is 2 essential "feedings" right there. Breakfast would also be beneficial to break the 8-10 hr fast so this is 3 feedings at minimum for an athlete. Any comments would be appreciated. Respectfully

Still waiting for an answer from Emma.

[haines]

interesting to read,

and to read the comments after. Regardless my 6-8 meals a day ; as some have already mentioned keep your eating habits disciplined, are set in stone.

at the end of my workout i dont exit the gym / sports field and lay myself down to rest for the remainder of the day. i dont think anyone does. with work and college commitments a steady stream of energy is vital.

saying "we could in theory eat all our allowance at any period of the day" is just rediculous and PURELY HYPOTHETICAL , i hope some absolute newcomers dont read this sort of thing and get the wrong idea as many are very prone to doing. i seriously doubt someone with wavering motivation towards their goals would ever be able to keep up a 16/8 diet or whatever the fitness fad is these days and i personaly would advise they DO NOT ATTEMPT IT.

eat at minimum breakfast , lunch and dinner, consider supper + dinner or breakfast + elevenses.

im sorry that my views dont strictly follow the evidence but if i thoroughly listened to the advice of the professionals i would quite likely be doing my cardio in a shiny silver raincoat while doing my weight training routine in a swimming pool :P

[mannydawg]

interesting to read,

and to read the comments after. Regardless my 6-8 meals a day ; as some have already mentioned keep your eating habits disciplined, are set in stone.

at the end of my workout i dont exit the gym / sports field and lay myself down to rest for the remainder of the day. i dont think anyone does. with work and college commitments a steady stream of energy is vital.

saying "we could in theory eat all our allowance at any period of the day" is just rediculous and PURELY HYPOTHETICAL , i hope some absolute newcomers dont read this sort of thing and get the wrong idea as many are very prone to doing. i seriously doubt someone with wavering motivation towards their goals would ever be able to keep up a 16/8 diet or whatever the fitness fad is these days and i personaly would advise they DO NOT ATTEMPT IT.

eat at minimum breakfast , lunch and dinner, consider supper + dinner or breakfast + elevenses.

im sorry that my views dont strictly follow the evidence but if i thoroughly listened to the advice of the professionals i would quite likely be doing my cardio in a shiny silver raincoat while doing my weight training routine in a swimming pool :P

it is very possible my friend and maintainable (http://www.leangains.com/)

[haines]

gah brilliant im repped as an internet troll :( ahwell it was good while it lasted

anyway, im yet to see a trainer that recommends this sort of thing, a quote from FLEX magazine "never miss meals, it is almost better to consume a portion of "junk food" then skip a meal altogether".

[Emma-Leigh]

gah brilliant im repped as an internet troll :( ahwell it was good while it lasted

anyway, im yet to see a trainer that recommends this sort of thing, a quote from FLEX magazine "never miss meals, it is almost better to consume a portion of "junk food" then skip a meal altogether".
Flex Magazine....? :o

Oh dear....

:o

[str8player]

Emma,
First of all excellent posts/studies. I applaud your analytical viewpoints. My statement and question pertain to the meal frequency studies. Do any of the studies take into account optimal performance and subjects who want to increase lbw or are all the subjects pulled from a pool of "average people" Most of the posted studies address the thermogenic response to meal frequency. I am sure that you are aware of studies presented on nutrient timing (pre and post workout) for optimal performance/recovery. Thus that is 2 essential "feedings" right there. Breakfast would also be beneficial to break the 8-10 hr fast so this is 3 feedings at minimum for an athlete. Any comments would be appreciated. Respectfully

+2

Emma whats your say on this?

[Snarff]

saying "we could in theory eat all our allowance at any period of the day" is just rediculous and PURELY HYPOTHETICAL ,. . . . . . . . .and i personaly would advise they DO NOT ATTEMPT IT.


There is evidence thats shows that this isnt purely hyopthetical but actually realistic and perfectly achievable. You are purely stating opinion, and I respect that but the fact that you have capped "DO NOT ATTEMPT IT" shows a bit of ignorance. Cutting and subsequent maintaining the weight loss (ie not slipping back into old habits and regaining the fat) takes a lifestyle change for a lot of people and the evidence put forward in this thread helps people achieve this by finding an approach to eating that they can live with. I prefer eating 2 or 3 large meals a day, all in the pm. I tell people, give it a go, if it works then good, on the other hand if this approach is not suitable for them, then find one that is.

Personally I would advise people " DO NOT READ HAINES ADVICE".

And your spelling of ridiculous is also rediculous (im joking with you btw) aim of these forums is to help people find an approach to achieving their goals that they can sustain. Your approach is telling people what works for you and thinking it is superior to all other approaches, without attempting anything else.

[LukeHaslett]

Great posts Emma, here is another journal reference to add to the list.

Within the fitness community today there is a strong belief that high frequency feeding has an advantageous effect on ones metabolism. This belief is down to poor guidance from books and bogus websites, not science!

The Myth...
1. Spreading your meals from 3 to 6 will increase your metabolic rate leading to better fat oxidation.
2. Eating less frequently (2-3 times a day) will cause your metabolism to slow down.
3. Missing a meal(s) will cause your body to go in a catabolic state (break down muscle tissue for fuel).

This myth originated from the misunderstanding of the thermic effect of feeding. The thermic effect of feeding may be described as the amount of calories burned by the body when processing the food you eat.

There are many studies that discredit the theory "high frequency feeding results in a faster metabolic rate". For example, there is a nutritional regime that challenges every fundamental of the high frequency feeding theory and has no adverse effects or muscle mass or metabolism. This regime is called intermittent fasting or is sometimes referred to as the "warriors diet" I.e. eating one big meal a day or 3 meals in a 1 to 8 hour period whilst fasting for 12 to 23 hours. If you would like to read more about the common misunderstanding of high frequency feeding, I have attached a journal regarding 'meal frequency and energy balance'. The journal is one of the many studies that discredits high frequency feeding.

Bellisle et al. (1997). Meal frequency and energy balance. British Journal of Nutrition.

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 hoe 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 t h i s , and most are neutral. More importantly, studies using whole-body calorimetry and doubly-labelled water to assess total 24h 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.

Note: Meal frequency should be determined by an individuals calorie needs, not based upon the idea that it will speed up ones metabolism, suppress appetite or even increase muscle mass (via continuous ingestion of protein every 2 hours). It would be ludicrous to divide the caloric requirement of a person whose daily caloric requirement is 1200 calories into 6 meals. At the same time, it wouldn't be a good idea to divide up the caloric requirement of an individual whose daily caloric requirement is 6000 calories into 3 meals. Instead base meal frequency on what's convenient for you, the frequency that's going to allow you to reach your nutritional goal.

[markymark321]

Wow. Awesome articles and awesome reading the comments after it... I have never come across this concept before. (Where have I been??) I was always lead to believe the old skool way of thinking.

Although, I think eating 6 smaller meals a day is better suited to me because I tend to get hungry every 3 hours or so. Having said that, it's great to know that I don't have to feel so bad when I don't get to eat my meals 3 hours apart.

Thanks Emma

[Emma-Leigh]

Emma,
First of all excellent posts/studies. I applaud your analytical viewpoints. My statement and question pertain to the meal frequency studies. Do any of the studies take into account optimal performance and subjects who want to increase lbw or are all the subjects pulled from a pool of "average people" Most of the posted studies address the thermogenic response to meal frequency. I am sure that you are aware of studies presented on nutrient timing (pre and post workout) for optimal performance/recovery. Thus that is 2 essential "feedings" right there. Breakfast would also be beneficial to break the 8-10 hr fast so this is 3 feedings at minimum for an athlete. Any comments would be appreciated. Respectfully


Still waiting for an answer from Emma.


+2

Emma whats your say on this?

Sorry - only just saw this... will try to get to a detailed answer but a few points:
1. An athlete in training (ie: a triathlete doing multiple training sessions a day) who is trying to improve performance in their sport, is a completely different animal to your 'recreational bodybuilder' trying to gain lean mass.... A lot of people FAIL to realise this.
Why? Their requirements for specific nutrition around / between workouts is something that needs to be looked at closely. Essentially - The metabolic / physiological responses to a training session involving glycogen depleting training (eg: over 90 minutes of running or rowing or cycling at a high intensity), and the requirement to RESTORE adequate glycogen levels such that they can perform this sort of training 2-3 x a day, is VERY different to the needs of someone who sits around an office all day and then does 1 x 45 minute session of weights (eg: most stuff done by gym members). Even IF the second person is looking to 'gain lean mass'.

With this in mind, it is easy to see that the needs of pre/post workout nutrition are/ would be/ should be completely different for both of these things. No?

I will attempt to come back and post up some references soon....


ps - There is NO evidence that 'breakfast' is 'required'. Not for athletes, nor other individuals. [note: this is if you count 'breakfast' after a nights rest as a separate meal to pre workout nutrition]. There is actually recent evidence out suggests that breakfast can, in certain instances, PROMOTE / increase the chance of 'unwanted' weight gain.

[Cumulonimbus]

Wow. Awesome articles and awesome reading the comments after it... I have never come across this concept before. (Where have I been??) I was always lead to believe the old skool way of thinking.

Although, I think eating 6 smaller meals a day is better suited to me because I tend to get hungry every 3 hours or so. Having said that, it's great to know that I don't have to feel so bad when I don't get to eat my meals 3 hours apart.

Thanks Emma

Try eating 4 bigger meals 4-5 hours apart. I found that that type of setup offered me a lot of satiety than 5 or 6 meals a day. Both isocaloric.

[snagency]

http://www.jissn.com/content/pdf/1550-2783-8-4.pdf

cliffs:


1. Increasing meal frequency does not appear to favorably change body composition in
sedentary populations.
2. If protein levels are adequate, increasing meal frequency during periods of
hypoenergetic dieting may preserve lean body mass in athletic populations.
3. Increased meal frequency appears to have a positive effect on various blood markers of
health, particularly LDL cholesterol, total cholesterol, and insulin.
4. Increased meal frequency does not appear to significantly enhance diet induced
thermogenesis, total energy expenditure or resting metabolic rate.
5. Increasing meal frequency appears to help decrease hunger and improve appetite
control.

discuss.

[JohnBrowne]

disagree with #2,3,5

[snagency]

disagree with #2,3,5

you read the study that quick? :D

haven't even read in full myself yet..

[snorkelman]

you read the study that quick? :D

haven't even read in full myself yet..

http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/gif/ppreflex.gif

OP, thanks for the heads-up. Look forward to reading.

[snorkelman]

After a quick read, I was pleased to see the 2010 study by Cameron et al. waved around for all to see. I also liked how the authors explained why the nitrogen balance technique may not be an ideal measure of skeletal muscle protein metabolism.

My favorite excerpts:


The inattention paid to protein intake in previously published meal frequency
investigations may force us to reevaluate their utility.



In relation to optimizing body composition, the most important variables are
energy intake and energy expenditure.



Unfortunately, there is very limited data that has examined the impact of meal frequency on body composition, training adaptations, and performance in physically active individuals and athletes. The primary purpose of this position stand is to discuss the various research findings in which meal/eating frequency has been an independent variable in human studies that assess body composition, various health markers, thermic effect of food (a.k.a. diet induced thermogenesis), energy expenditure, nitrogen retention, and satiety.
* * *
However, when accounting for the effects of under-reporting, exercise, and other confounding variables, the preponderance of the research suggests that increased meal frequency does not play a significant role in decreasing body weight/weight composition.

[Emma-Leigh]

J Nutr. 2011 Jan;141(1):154-7. Epub 2010 Dec 1.
The effect of eating frequency on appetite control and food intake: brief synopsis of controlled feeding studies.
Leidy HJ, Campbell WW.

Department of Nutrition and Exercise Physiology, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211, USA. leidyh@missouri.edu
Abstract
Increased eating frequency is postulated to increase metabolism, reduce hunger, improve glucose and insulin control, and reduce body weight, making it an enticing dietary strategy for weight loss and/or the maintenance of a healthy body weight. Because past research has primarily focused on the effects of eating frequency on changes in energy expenditure and body weight, limited data exist surrounding the impact of eating frequency on appetite control and energy intake. We provide a brief review of the controlled-feeding studies that primarily targeted the appetitive, hormonal, and food intake responses potentially altered with eating frequency. The 3 meal/d pattern served as the reference for defining increased or reduced eating frequency. In general, increased eating frequency led to lower peaks (P < 0.05) in perceived appetite, satiety, glucose, insulin, ghrelin, and PYY responses compared with reduced eating frequency. However, when examining these responses over the course of the day (i.e. using area under the curve assessments), no differences in any of these outcomes were observed. The rate of gastric emptying also appears to be unaltered with increased eating frequency. Subsequent food intake was examined in several studies with conflicting results. Regarding the effect of reduced eating frequency, several studies indicate significant increases in perceived appetite and reductions in perceived satiety when 1 or 2 meals were eliminated from the daily diet. Taken together, these findings suggest that increased eating frequency (>3 eating occasions/d) has minimal, if any, impact on appetite control and food intake, whereas reduced eating frequency(<3 eating occasions/d) negatively effects appetite control.


Obesity (Silver Spring). 2010 Sep;18(9):1725-32. Epub 2010 Mar 25.
The influence of higher protein intake and greater eating frequency on appetite control in overweight and obese men.
Leidy HJ, Armstrong CL, Tang M, Mattes RD, Campbell WW.

Department of Dietetics & Nutrition, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, Kansas, USA. hleidy@kumc.edu
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of dietary protein intake and eating frequency on perceived appetite, satiety, and hormonal responses in overweight/obese men. Thirteen men (age 51 +/- 4 years; BMI 31.3 +/- 0.8 kg/m(2)) consumed eucaloric diets containing normal protein (79 +/- 2 g protein/day; 14% of energy intake as protein) or higher protein (138 +/- 3 g protein/day; 25% of energy intake as protein) equally divided among three eating occasions (3-EO; every 4 h) or six eating occasions (6-EO; every 2 h) on four separate days in randomized order. Hunger, fullness, plasma glucose, and hormonal responses were assessed throughout 11 h. No protein x eating frequency interactions were observed for any of the outcomes. Independent of eating frequency, higher protein led to greater daily fullness (P < 0.05) and peptide YY (PYY) concentrations (P < 0.05). In contrast, higher protein led to greater daily ghrelin concentrations (P < 0.05) vs. normal protein. Protein quantity did not influence daily hunger, glucose, or insulin concentrations. Independent of dietary protein, 6-EO led to lower daily fullness (P < 0.05) and PYY concentrations (P < 0.05). The 6-EO also led to lower glucose (P < 0.05) and insulin concentrations (P < 0.05) vs. 3-EO. Although the hunger-related perceived sensations and hormonal responses were conflicting, the fullness-related responses were consistently greater with higher protein intake but lower with increased eating frequency. Collectively, these data suggest that higher protein intake promotes satiety and challenge the concept that increasing the number of eating occasions enhances satiety in overweight and obese men.


Obes Rev. 2011 Mar 17. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-789X.2011.00873.x. [Epub ahead of print]
Intermittent versus daily calorie restriction: which diet regimen is more effective for weight loss?
Varady KA.

Department of Kinesiology and Nutrition, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.
Abstract
Dietary restriction is an effective strategy for weight loss in obese individuals. The most common form of dietary restriction implemented is daily calorie restriction (CR), which involves reducing energy by 15-60% of usual caloric intake every day. Another form of dietary restriction employed is intermittent CR, which involves 24 h of ad libitum food consumption alternated with 24 h of complete or partial food restriction. Although both diets are effective for weight loss, it remains unknown whether one of these interventions produces superior changes in body weight and body composition when compared to the other. Accordingly, this review examines the effects of daily CR versus intermittent CR on weight loss, fat mass loss and lean mass retention in overweight and obese adults. Results reveal similar weight loss and fat mass loss with 3 to 12 weeks' intermittent CR (4-8%, 11-16%, respectively) and daily CR (5-8%, 10-20%, respectively). In contrast, less fat free mass was lost in response to intermittent CR versus daily CR. These findings suggest that these diets are equally as effective in decreasing body weight and fat mass, although intermittent CR may be more effective for the retention of lean mass.


J Appl Physiol. 2005 Dec;99(6):2128-36. Epub 2005 Jul 28.
Effect of intermittent fasting and refeeding on insulin action in healthy men.
Halberg N, Henriksen M, Söderhamn N, Stallknecht B, Ploug T, Schjerling P, Dela F.

Dept. of Muscle Research Centre, The Panum Institute, University of Copenhagen, Denmark. nilsh@mfi.ku.dk
Abstract
Insulin resistance is currently a major health problem. This may be because of a marked decrease in daily physical activity during recent decades combined with constant food abundance. This lifestyle collides with our genome, which was most likely selected in the late Paleolithic era (50,000-10,000 BC) by criteria that favored survival in an environment characterized by fluctuations between periods of feast and famine. The theory of thrifty genes states that these fluctuations are required for optimal metabolic function. We mimicked the fluctuations in eight healthy young men [25.0 +/- 0.1 yr (mean +/- SE); body mass index: 25.7 +/- 0.4 kg/m(2)] by subjecting them to intermittent fasting every second day for 20 h for 15 days. Euglycemic hyperinsulinemic (40 mU.min(-1).m(-2)) clamps were performed before and after the intervention period. Subjects maintained body weight (86.4 +/- 2.3 kg; coefficient of variation: 0.8 +/- 0.1%). Plasma free fatty acid and beta-hydroxybutyrate concentrations were 347 +/- 18 and 0.06 +/- 0.02 mM, respectively, after overnight fast but increased (P < 0.05) to 423 +/- 86 and 0.10 +/- 0.04 mM after 20-h fasting, confirming that the subjects were fasting. Insulin-mediated whole body glucose uptake rates increased from 6.3 +/- 0.6 to 7.3 +/- 0.3 mg.kg(-1).min(-1) (P = 0.03), and insulin-induced inhibition of adipose tissue lipolysis was more prominent after than before the intervention (P = 0.05). After the 20-h fasting periods, plasma adiponectin was increased compared with the basal levels before and after the intervention (5,922 +/- 991 vs. 3,860 +/- 784 ng/ml, P = 0.02). This experiment is the first in humans to show that intermittent fasting increases insulin-mediated glucose uptake rates, and the findings are compatible with the thrifty gene concept.


^^^ I think that hit every one of those 'points', yes?

[coals]

disagree with #2,3,5

Weren't there numerous studies showing the exact opposite of #2,3, and 5? (I'm agreeing with you)

Edit: Nvm Emma beat me too it, next time I'll actually read the thread to the end lool.

[snagency]

disagree with #2,3,5

in relation to frequency/metabolism correlation:



The inattention paid to protein intake in previously published meal frequency investigations may force us to reevaluate their utility. Nutrient timing research [77, 78] has demonstrated the importance of protein ingestion before, during, and following physical activity. Therefore, future research investigating the effects of meal frequency
on body composition, health markers, and metabolism should seek to discover the impact that total protein intake has on these markers and not solely focus on total caloric intake.

increased meal frequency in and of itself may mean nothing..

however:

increased meal frequency + increased protein intake = ?

and extrapolated:

increased meal frequency + increased protein intake + hypocaloric diet = ?


(and i'll keep my opinion out of it, since this pretty much sums up my personal approach right there, and i may be biased..) :)

[arbit]

Another try:
What about meal frequency variation over multiple days? Eg, eat more meals (overeat) on lifting days, and fewer meals (undereat) on non-lifting days?

The extra calories and nutrients should stick around in the bloodstream on the non-lifting days to keep stimulating muscle growth right?

[Beech27]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17095924

I don't have the full, and the study is 5 years old. Still, it seems to find some benefit to placing protein/carbs around the workout, specifically.

[snagency]

t/y Emma for removing the last post.

(was starting to think your game had slipped a lil bit.) :)

[Alluring]

ps - There is NO evidence that 'breakfast' is 'required'. Not for athletes, nor other individuals. [note: this is if you count 'breakfast' after a nights rest as a separate meal to pre workout nutrition]. There is actually recent evidence out suggests that breakfast can, in certain instances, PROMOTE / increase the chance of 'unwanted' weight gain.

if meal frequency and timing doesn't matter then breakfast shouldn't promote/increase unwanted weight gain? if macro-nutrients are the same, or am i missing something?

so is there an adverse effect/down side of eating more frequently compared to less frequently?

[cimayn]

if meal frequency and timing doesn't matter then breakfast shouldn't promote/increase unwanted weight gain? if macro-nutrients are the same, or am i missing something?

so is there an adverse effect/down side of eating more frequently compared to less frequently?

I just read this entire thread. Very intelligent debates. In regards to the above post, I am also curious to the answer.

If nutrient timing has no effect on weight gain/loss, than why would eating a meal within an hour of waking promote fat gain?

[Emma-Leigh]

if meal frequency and timing doesn't matter then breakfast shouldn't promote/increase unwanted weight gain? if macro-nutrients are the same, or am i missing something?

so is there an adverse effect/down side of eating more frequently compared to less frequently?


I just read this entire thread. Very intelligent debates. In regards to the above post, I am also curious to the answer.

If nutrient timing has no effect on weight gain/loss, than why would eating a meal within an hour of waking promote fat gain?
In some people it simply promotes more calorie intake over the day -->> gain weight.

But Martin discusses a few of the other issues here:
http://www.leangains.com/2011/06/is-late-night-eating-better-for-fat.html

[Emma-Leigh]

A goodie is this one:

Am J Clin Nutr. 2011 Jul 27. [Epub ahead of print]

Rapid aminoacidemia enhances myofibrillar protein synthesis and anabolic intramuscular signaling responses after resistance exercise.West DW, Burd NA, Coffey VG, Baker SK, Burke LM, Hawley JA, Moore DR, Stellingwerff T, Phillips SM.
Exercise Metabolism Research Group, Departments of Kinesiology and Neurology, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.

Abstract
BACKGROUND:Ingestion of whey or casein yields divergent patterns of aminoacidemia that influence whole-body and skeletal muscle myofibrillar protein synthesis (MPS) after exercise. Direct comparisons of the effects of contrasting absorption rates exhibited by these proteins are confounded by their differing amino acid contents.

OBJECTIVE:Our objective was to determine the effect of divergent aminoacidemia by manipulating ingestion patterns of whey protein alone on MPS and anabolic signaling after resistance exercise.

DESIGN:In separate trials, 8 healthy men consumed whey protein either as a single bolus (BOLUS; 25-g dose) or as repeated, small, "pulsed" drinks (PULSE; ten 2.5-g drinks every 20 min) to mimic a more slowly digested protein. MPS and phosphorylation of signaling proteins involved in protein synthesis were measured at rest and after resistance exercise.

RESULTS:BOLUS increased blood essential amino acid (EAA) concentrations above those of PULSE (162% compared with 53%, P < 0.001) 60 min postexercise, whereas PULSE resulted in a smaller but sustained increase in aminoacidemia that remained elevated above BOLUS amounts later (180-220 min postexercise, P < 0.05). Despite an identical net area under the EAA curve, MPS was elevated to a greater extent after BOLUS than after PULSE early (1-3 h: 95% compared with 42%) and later (3-5 h: 193% compared with 121%) (both P < 0.05). There were greater changes in the phosphorylation of the Akt-mammalian target of rapamycin pathway after BOLUS than after PULSE.

CONCLUSIONS:Rapid aminoacidemia in the postexercise period enhances MPS and anabolic signaling to a greater extent than an identical amount of protein fed in small pulses that mimic a more slowly digested protein. A pronounced peak aminoacidemia postexercise enhances protein synthesis. This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT01319513.

[tyseagle]

Whats funny to me is that people who have the best physiques on earth have a very high meal frequency. People aren't stupid and i'm sure would have figured by now that if they could eat less often and have great physiques than they would. But tried techniques always work for a reason. Its hard to really believe all those studies unless you did them yourself because who knows how well and accurate they were done. I eat about 11 times a day right now.

[peteyboy1015]

Whats funny to me is that people who have the best physiques on earth have a very high meal frequency. People aren't stupid and i'm sure would have figured by now that if they could eat less often and have great physiques than they would. But tried techniques always work for a reason. Its hard to really believe all those studies unless you did them yourself because who knows how well and accurate they were done. I eat about 11 times a day right now.

Perhaps you haven't seen this link (http://www.leangains.com/search/label/Client%20results) yet.

They not only practice the avoidance of high meal frequency, but also fast for about 16 hours*throughout*the day, eating all of their caloric intake in a window of eight hours.

Also, coorelation =/= causation.

[snagency]

Whats funny to me is that people who have the best physiques on earth have a very high meal frequency.

I eat about 11 times a day right now.
Perhaps you haven't seen this link yet. what all these "studies" and comparisons miss, are some finer points of the game..



leangains will work well if you are of a certain bodytype. it will not work for all ppl.

likewise, frequent meals will work well if you have a certain metabolism. it will not work for all ppl.

there is no "one-size-fits-all" diet plan, the body is not a textbook, and anybody who swears up & down that "xxx way" is the only way is grossly and sadly mistaken, and has interpreted these "studies" wrongly..



all that said.. eating 11x daily is prolly a lil overkill. :D

[peteyboy1015]

what all these "studies" and comparisons miss, are some finer points of the game..



leangains will work well if you are of a certain bodytype. it will not work for all ppl.

likewise, frequent meals will work well if you have a certain metabolism. it will not work for all ppl.

there is no "one-size-fits-all" diet plan, the body is not a textbook, and anybody who swears up & down that "xxx way" is the only way is grossly and sadly mistaken, and has interpreted these "studies" wrongly..



all that said.. eating 11x daily is prolly a lil overkill. :D

You can eat 11x, 6x, 2x, 3x...it does not matter to the body, as long as you hit your caloric intake and your macros at the end of the day. You cannot manipulate metabolism simply by eating more frequently. Vice versa, you won't manipulate it by eating less frequently either...that's the point of these studies. Adjustment of human metabolism is far more complicated than that.

Therefore, meal frequency is entirely based on preference. Some might find eating three meals convenient while others might like the six meals a day because it helps them split up their caloric intake into more sizable meals, or other reasons.

[snagency]

You can eat 11x, 6x, 2x, 3x...it does not matter to the body, as long as you hit your caloric intake and your macros at the end of the day. You cannot manipulate metabolism simply by eating more frequently. Vice versa, you won't manipulate by eating less frequently...that's the point of these studies. Adjustment of human metabolism is far more complicated than that.you look at it too simply, my friend.

it's not about "manipulating metabolism"..rather, it is about eating suitably for your own metabolic type.

there is a difference.

[peteyboy1015]

you look at it too simply, my friend.

it's not about "manipulating metabolism"..rather, it is about eating suitably for your own metabolic type.

there is a difference.

Aware me on how different metabolic types do better on different meal frequencies.

[snagency]

Aware me on how different metabolic types do better on different meal frequencies.simple concept, really.
you're making it too difficult.

we can all agree that ppl have different metabolisms, yes?
and you yourself just said above we can't change our metabolism by eating, yes?

sooo..why not eat within your metabolism?
ie, if you have a slower metabolism, leangains may suit you well and in fact be an optimal eating pattern.
conversely if you have a higher metabolism (like myself), you might be better suited to smaller more frequent meals thruout the day. and by more frequent i mean ~ 6-7 max, not 10-11.. about every 2-3hrs or so.

besides - i could see myself having a problem fitting, say, 5000cals in over an 8hr period on the days when i am eating that much just to maintain my weight.

i would also theorize that the distribution of weight upon my frame would be different if i were utilizing a leangains protocol, versus my multiple-feedings-thruout-day protocol.

as it is, i feel i've pretty much perfected the guidelines for my own body on how to eat, and what works best for myself.. ;)

bottom line: you simply cannot have it both ways.
ppl have different metabolic types.

makes sense that different eating patterns would be applicable to these different types, if you are trying to manipulate body composition.

[peteyboy1015]

simple concept, really.
you're making it too difficult.

we can all agree that ppl have different metabolisms, yes?
and you yourself just said above we can't change our metabolism by eating, yes?

sooo..why not eat within your metabolism?
ie, if you have a slower metabolism, leangains may suit you well and in fact be an optimal eating pattern.
conversely if you have a higher metabolism (like myself), you might be better suited to smaller more frequent meals thruout the day. and by more frequent i mean ~ 6-7 max, not 10-11.. about every 2-3hrs or so.

besides - i could see myself having a problem fitting, say, 5000cals in over an 8hr period on the days when i am eating that much just to maintain my weight.

i would also theorize that the distribution of weight upon my frame would be different if i were utilizing a leangains protocol, versus my multiple-feedings-thruout-day protocol.

as it is, i feel i've pretty much perfected the guidelines for my own body on how to eat, and what works best for myself.. ;)

And how do you know whether you have "fast" or "slow" metabolism?

The majority of those that I've witnessed who have stated that they have "fast" metabolism are the ones who:
1. underestimate their daily activity and how many calories they actually burn throughout the day
and/or
2. when asked to track calories, they find out they eat fewer calories than required (to maintain/bulk)

Those with "slow" metabolism are the exact opposite:
1. when asked to track calories, they find out that they actually eat in a caloric surplus
and/or
2. overestimate their day-to-day activities

Although I agree that if you have to eat at a rather large caloric intake (such as yourself), fitting all those calories into an eight-hour window is rather difficult, and thus, the splitting up of meals is more preferable. However, what I don't like is what's being preached in the supplement industry: the fact that you have to eat six meals a day (or more) for metabolic advantages. If you told a female who had to eat 1800 calories to maintain her weight, 1800/6 = 300 calories a meal...nothing more than little tiny snacks.

[snagency]

And how do you know whether you have "fast" or "slow" metabolism?

The majority of those that I've witnessed who have stated that they have "fast" metabolism are the ones who:
1. underestimate their daily activity and how many calories they actually burn throughout the day
and/or
2. when asked to track calories, they find out they eat fewer calories than required (to maintain/bulk)

Those with "slow" metabolism are the exact opposite:
1. when asked to track calories, they find out that they actually eat in a caloric surplus
and/or
2. overestimate their day-to-day activities
the failure in your own information here, is dealing with the uninformed.

determining your metabolism is not difficult - it just takes the correct knowledge.

i am not here to give you step-by-step walk thru this philosophy, i am simply disputing the all-encompassing application with which you determine "meal frequency does not matter" in respect to body composition.

that is a misguided statement.

[peteyboy1015]

the failure in your own information here, is dealing with the uninformed.

determining your metabolism is not difficult - it just takes the correct knowledge.

i am not here to give you step-by-step walk thru this philosophy, i am simply disputing the all-encompassing application with which you determine "meal frequency does not matter" in respect to body composition.

that is a misguided statement.

So what do you think will happen to your body if say, a person like yourself, who has the quicker metabolism, eats three meals a day rather than six meals a day split two-three hours apart?

Furthermore, do you realize that a good majority of the nutrition sub-forum of bodybuilding.com actually don't frequent meals? Could you possibly say that all of their metabolic rates are "slow," as you have defined it? I think that would be too much of a generalization.

[snagency]

So what do you think will happen to your body if say, a person like yourself, who has the quicker metabolism, eats three meals a day rather than six meals a day split two-three hours apart?i've eaten like that before, albeit for only short durations as it's not comfortable for me at all.

what i've noticed is, a bit more of a "full" look, more water retention, less tightness..bigger belly, as the stomach stretches to fit 1000-1200cal+ meals in..
less mobility (because of that bigger belly)..less energy as well as far more variances in energy levels (ie energy ebbs and flows, rather than consistent energy thruout day like i usually have)..

a general feeling of not being lean. physically, as well as mentally, such infrequent feedings aer not for me.

[peteyboy1015]

i've eaten like that before, albeit for only short durations as it's not comfortable for me at all.

what i've noticed is, a bit more of a "full" look, more water retention, less tightness..bigger belly, as the stomach stretches to fit 1000-1200cal+ meals in..
less mobility (because of that bigger belly)..less energy as well as far more variances in energy levels (ie energy ebs and flows, rather than consistent energy thruout day like i usually have)..

a general feeling of not being lean. physically, as well as mentally, such infrequent feedings aer not for me.

I feel the exact same way, and I'm sure most would agree that bigger meals tend to do that to them. Bigger meals usually have a larger intake of carbohydrates, which both of us will surely agree, or more water-retensive, and thus, the bloating. However, I wake up the next day, and I"m fully lean again. If you eat more frequent meals, your body will digest the meals quicker...if you eat less frequent meals, and thus, more calories in one sitting, then your body will digest the meals slower. The point is though....total caloric intake is what matters. You will make the same gains on more frequent meals as you would on less frequent meals, given isocaloric diets and the same consistent macros. One just leads to more bloating than the other...but bloating is no way fat...just water weight.

[snagency]

I feel the exact same way, and I'm sure most would agree that bigger meals tend to do that to them. Bigger meals usually have a larger intake of carbohydrates, which both of us will surely agree, or more water-retensive, and thus, the bloating. However, I wake up the next day, and I"m fully lean again. If you eat more frequent meals, your body will digest the meals quicker...if you eat less frequent meals, and thus, more calories in one sitting, then your body will digest the meals slower. The point is though....total caloric intake is what matters. You will make the same gains on more frequent meals as you would on less frequent meals, given isocaloric diets and the same consistent macros. One just leads to more bloating than the other...but bloating is no way fat...just water weight.i would disagree.

and where you say you wake up the next day and you're lean again? that was not the case with me. i woke up bloated and spongy-feeling as well.

aside from that - you conveniently ignore other hugely important issues such as energy levels..
if how/when i eat determines my energy and motivational levels, it follows that:

if one is feeling energetic thruout the day, one's activity level is likely to be increased, therefore energy expenditure is up.
therefore = more cals burned.


conversely, if one is feeling sluggish and lackadaisical, activity level is likely to be decreased and so energy expenditure down = less calories burned.


there are a host of other issues the are directly or indirectly related with what meal frequency suits an individual - beyond just the obvious and debated ones such as do you burn more calories when you eat more frequently thruout the day due to digestion - which are the "scientific studies" everyone seems to love getting caught up in.


my point is, they're getting lost in the irrelevant.

[snagency]

ohh..i just saw your argumentative edit..



Furthermore, do you realize that a good majority of the nutrition sub-forum of bodybuilding.com actually don't frequent meals? Could you possibly say that all of their metabolic rates are "slow," as you have defined it?
this is an absurd statement in itself.

what context does this apply to me?

it is not often when i see somebody make such a ridiculous generalized statement as you have here, and then follow it immediately with what is a summarization of that same statement in your own words:

I think that would be too much of a generalization.

[peteyboy1015]

ohh..i just saw your argumentative edit..


this is an absurd statement in itself.

what context does this apply to me?

it is not often when i see somebody make such a ridiculous generalized statement as you have here, and then follow it immediately with what is a summarization of that same statement in your own words:

My point is that the consumption of frequent meals does not correlate with one's metabolic rate. You've stated that those that eat more frequent meals generally have faster metabolic rates, and those that eat less frequent meals have slower metabolic rates. From what I'm understanding, that's too much of a generalization, because by that logic, you are saying that the majority of the nutrition sub-forum, who don't eat frequent meals from what I've observed, do not have fast metabolic rates. How can you be so sure of that?

Thus, I believe that meal frequency is based on personal preference and therefore, I take back my argument that it doesn't matter. As you have stated, you feel much more energetic and bode better on more frequent meals, while I feel that two meals per day is convenient and suits me fine.

However, what I do have a problem with (and this is not directed towards you) is those that eat frequent meals, not because of personal preference, but because they believe it offers some advantage to metabolic rates and keeps the body in an "anabolic" state. That logic is flawed, as proven by the multiple studies in this thread.

I am glad though, to hear that you experimented with both protocols, and concluded that less frequent meals was not to your liking, and thus, you went back to frequent meals because you do better on that protocol. Too many people do not want to experiment and keep an open mind, and thus, they are usually one-sided and state that the "only" way to do things correctly is to eat frequent meals, or, vice versa, less frequent meals.

[snagency]

a couple points of clarification..

You've stated that those that eat more frequent meals generally have faster metabolic rates, and those that eat less frequent meals have slower metabolic rates.no!
what i'm saying is, those w/ faster metabolisms would do better if they utilized a more frequent feeding approach, whereas those w/ slower metabolisms may be better suited to a leangains approach.

From what I'm understanding, that's too much of a generalization, because by that logic, you are saying that the majority of the nutrition sub-forum, who don't eat frequent meals from what I've observed, do not have fast metabolic rates. How can you be so sure of that?honestly, and no offense, but - you're own understanding and personal views, on observations from a sub-section of an anonymous online forum - really bare no fruit for edifying my understanding. :D


Thus, I believe that meal frequency is based on personal preference and therefore, I take back my argument that it doesn't matter. As you have stated, you feel much more energetic and bode better on more frequent meals, while I feel that two meals per day is convenient and suits me fine.

there ya go mate! :)

the body is not a textbook..you have to experiment and see what formula works best for you.

I am glad though, to hear that you experimented with both protocols, and concluded that less frequent meals was not to your liking, and thus, you went back to frequent meals because you do better on that protocol. Too many people do not want to experiment and keep an open mind, and thus, they are usually one-sided and state that the "only" way to do things correctly is to eat frequent meals, or, vice versa, less frequent meals.absolutely, my friend. i do not come to conclusions based on limited evidence or circumstance.
all of my own "assumptions" and understandings are indeed backed by seeing repetitive and consistent reactions to certain structured chain of actions. i have long experiemented with many different forms of diet, supplementation, training etc, in search of what is "best" as it pertains to me.. my own philosophies do not come as a whim.

[peteyboy1015]

Yea, I guess said observations on an online community would not be reputable enough evidence to instantiate a claim.

However, I'm happy we were able to end a thought-provoking discussion on a good note...one that we can both agree on :).

[snagency]

I'm happy we were able to end a thought-provoking discussion on a good note...one that we can both agree on :).indeed. :cool:

[Siafu4Life]

indeed. :cool:

Time for a group hug!! Seriously though...the amount of knowledge you folks have with regards to nutrition...is remarkable. Thanks!

[zixonija]

a couple points of clarification..
no!
what i'm saying is, those w/ faster metabolisms would do better if they utilized a more frequent feeding approach, whereas those w/ slower metabolisms may be better suited to a leangains approach.
honestly, and no offense, but - you're own understanding and personal views, on observations from a sub-section of an anonymous online forum - really bare no fruit for edifying my understanding. :D

there ya go mate! :)

the body is not a textbook..you have to experiment and see what formula works best for you.
absolutely, my friend. i do not come to conclusions based on limited evidence or circumstance.
all of my own "assumptions" and understandings are indeed backed by seeing repetitive and consistent reactions to certain structured chain of actions. i have long experiemented with many different forms of diet, supplementation, training etc, in search of what is "best" as it pertains to me.. my own philosophies do not come as a whim.

After reading this thread this summs it. We are all different. I tried approach with 3 big meals per day and it didn't work, I tried to fast and it didn't work. After all those tries I tried 5+ meals per day and I feel awesome. I don't feel bloated anymore, I have better sleep at night, in the morning I am more full of energy. However, just because it works for me it doesn't have to mean it will work for others. I feel good doing what I am doing. Maybe when I reach my short term goal to loose excess body fat (to be under 11%) maybe I will switch to different type of dieting that will meet my goals.

This thread is awesome by the way = so many knowledgable people (not book smart - but experience smart)

[Lukelovesyoutoo]

I WANT TO BELIEVE but this flies in the face of everything I was ever taught. Does anyone who competes follow this? Seriously, I would love to not have to sneak off to the back at work to get protein in, but a lot of the guys who repeat this don't look like they lift.

[peteyboy1015]

I WANT TO BELIEVE but this flies in the face of everything I was ever taught. Does anyone who competes follow this? Seriously, I would love to not have to sneak off to the back at work to get protein in, but a lot of the guys who repeat this don't look like they lift.

Look at this (http://www.leangains.com/search/label/Client%20results), this (http://www.leangains.com/search/label/Testimonials), this (http://www.leangains.com/search/label/Success%20Stories), and this (http://www.leangains.com/p/my-transformation.html).

Also, look at a lot of those in the nutrition forum. Most of them eat one-three meals a day.

It's difficult to accept something completely controversial to what you might have been used to. It took me a while too, but I've learned to keep an open mind about different protocols. Try it out for a while and see for yourself. If you don't like it, then simply revert back to your old ways...some people find out they do better on multiple meals while others do better on less meals.

[snagency]

I WANT TO BELIEVE but this flies in the face of everything I was ever taught. Does anyone who competes follow this? Seriously, I would love to not have to sneak off to the back at work to get protein in, but a lot of the guys who repeat this don't look like they lift.in general, it's just a philosophy dude.
the ppl who practice the "doesn't matter when you eat" and "it's all about macros (n/m the micros)" philosophies, or IIFYM, have a base belief that moderation is "good".
many bb'ers who are advanced and have achieved extreme musculature, have a base belief that borders on the "extreme".
practicing moderation and sensible eating patterns works well for the average individual who just wants to look a little better and feel better about themselves.
practicing extreme and rigid eating patterns works well for the mentality of those who like to go above and beyond in both their effort and transformational achievements.

it's all about perspective. do what works for you.

[snagency]

peteyboy, i'm glad you edited your post. ;)


Also, look at a lot of those in the nutrition forum. Most of them eat one-three meals a day.


as i've mentioned before, what a small segment of ppl are doing on a certain anonymous bb'ing forum sub-section is of no practical importance to me, let alone anyone else.

you seem to thrive on the "well everyone else is doing it" mentality.

unfortunately, this is not a valid or worthwhile platform to base a debate on... :D

[peteyboy1015]

peteyboy, i'm glad you edited your post. ;)



as i've mentioned before, what a small segment of ppl are doing on a certain anonymous bb'ing forum sub-section is of no practical importance to me, let alone anyone else.

you seem to thrive on the "well everyone else is doing it" mentality.

unfortunately, this is not a valid or worthwhile platform to base a debate on... :D

Never stated that one way was better than the other. Just wanted to give out examples of people who are following the controversial protocol of less meals, and that meal frequency should be based on preference.

[Rambojohn]

Note: Meal frequency should be determined by an individuals calorie needs, not based upon the idea that it will speed up ones metabolism, suppress appetite or even increase muscle mass (via continuous ingestion of protein every 2 hours). It would be ludicrous to divide the caloric requirement of a person whose daily caloric requirement is 1200 calories into 6 meals. At the same time, it wouldn't be a good idea to divide up the caloric requirement of an individual whose daily caloric requirement is 6000 calories into 3 meals. Instead base meal frequency on what's convenient for you, the frequency that's going to allow you to reach your nutritional goal.

Why?

[mdoghman]

Why?


I think he is basing it on the fact that some people get trouble digesting a huge meal of 2000 or feel sick ...

but if you can, then it has no effect on muscle building etc.

when i eat more frequent meals i am hungry all the time :S i started eating max of 4 meals a day now

[BakedFresh]

Super interesting and informational guys!
Awesome work

[jcparra]

when i eat more frequent meals i am hungry all the time :S i started eating max of 4 meals a day now

Agree, the same happens to me... now i got used to take 6 o even 7 meals a day, and still feeling hungry.

[CR56BB]

MF is complete bs

[clintster442]

This thread contains so much amazing information but it neglects to make two distinct points.

1. Eating frequent meals ISN'T a bad thing
While all the studies have shown that the popular dogma of eating frequent smaller equally spaced meals does NOT increase metabolism, thermogensis, or lipolysis, it also shows that it does not decrease them either. Since it's a change in thought, it seems many posters ITT seem to be putting an emphasis on the 'new discovery' and emphaszing it on the correct method. This is the same train of thought that led to the multiple meal ideology being excepted at fact. If eating 6 meals works for you, do it. If eating 3 meals works for you, do it. The most important part is the amount that you are eating, not when. Eating six meals won't lean you out or build you up but it's still okay to do so if that's your personal preference and it works for you. Lyle's review is the best 'plain English' summation of this: "http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/meal-frequency-and-energy-balance-research-review.html#more-1389" Here

2. All of these studies make one very important assumption that has a gross lack of focus in just about every opinion here. Meal frequency is of no consequence IF the subject is taking in sufficient nutrients to sustain mass. The boxer study Lyle mentions bears absolutely zero relevance for it's intended purpose (which was focused on meal frequency) due to poor guidelines and structure. It does, however, highlight the detrimental effect of insufficient feeding and also suggest meal frequncy DOES have a direct effect on loss of LBM in a submaintenance state. Eating more frequently will not do anything to gain mass or loose fat but it will slow muscle loss (emphasis on slow, not stop) in an underfed situation such as cutting. The study referenced has some definite 'holes' but I believe that it furthur emphasizes that frequest smaller meals throughout the day is not a bad thing.

The underlying message being easily summized into one 'to live by' credo: IIFYM... to each his own.

[zoom88]

Great stuff!

[MrWakaMaka]

I'm a skinny guy and I think that eating frequently is easier for lean people who also are trying to bulk/gain mass. Some skinny people have smaller stomachs than others so eating a large meal could be difficult for them. Everyone eats at a different rate and have their own schedules and duties to do. But I agree that the meal frequency thing should not matter as long as you gain all the calories/macros one needs for the day.

[stewy101]

LOL....I just came on the sight as I frequent others as well. I went through every post very thoroughly and came to one conclusion: And follow very carefully if you can....

We ALL strive to eat a certain amount of protein, carbohydrates, fat and fiber a day correct? My program or formula consist of:

Protein: body weight times 1.5 a day

Carbohydrates: 240 grams a day

Fat: 40 grams a day

Fiber: 40 grams a day

I eat 6 meals a day, Why? because I could never eat all the required amount of food I need to maintain my lean muscle mass in 1, 2, 3 or even 4 meals a day. I just cant do it lol. I used to do 5 meals a day and had to change that up to 6 every 3 hours so i could actually get all this food down. NOTE: I eat VERY healthy so the amount of food I take in for the amount of calories in them is a lot more solid food intake than if I went to Mcdonalds and had a couple big macs, large fries, chocolate milkshake in one sitting. Then I would be able to eat enough calories in one sitting for the whole days total #. That being said when you are eating a very lean proteins, fats and slow/fast complexed carbohydrates, the amount of volume can be much higher than not. Spread your meals through out the day people so you don't overeat or bloat yourselves at one sitting. Or if you like pigging out at one or two sittings through out the day go right ahead. I just know I could not do that when eating a healthy diet.

I could though at Mcdonalds or any other fast food joint where you can eat a couple thousand calories at one sitting. And I really do NOT advise anyone going to the gym in the morning without eating breakfast or taking in a protein shake with some oats in them for energy to get through your workout. I tried that once and puked my guts up. Anyways this was very interesting for what it is worth but when doing high caliber workouts, cardio and having a job where your working all day as well, I would highly recommend to eat something spread through out the day so you have the energy to do so. That's why we eat smaller meals to get us through our day and it keeps us full so we don't decide to pig out and over eat at one sitting. Plus who has gone a few hours without putting something in there stomach and has gotten light headed and nauseating feeling? I know I have. Its because your body needs REFUELING people. Can you go all day and not eat then eat all your caloric needs in one sitting to meet your macro-nutrients needs and be fine ? YES, it's common sense and does not take a rocket scientist or even a monkey to figure that out. Though I found this post to be very interesting I personally will eat my breakfast first thing so it fuels me up for the day and I will eat every 3 hours to keep me going till I lay my head down at night. Thanks.........

[QT]

2. All of these studies make one very important assumption that has a gross lack of focus in just about every opinion here. Meal frequency is of no consequence IF the subject is taking in sufficient nutrients to sustain mass. The boxer study Lyle mentions bears absolutely zero relevance for it's intended purpose (which was focused on meal frequency) due to poor guidelines and structure. It does, however, highlight the detrimental effect of insufficient feeding and also suggest meal frequncy DOES have a direct effect on loss of LBM in a submaintenance state. Eating more frequently will not do anything to gain mass or loose fat but it will slow muscle loss (emphasis on slow, not stop) in an underfed situation such as cutting. The study referenced has some definite 'holes' but I believe that it furthur emphasizes that frequest smaller meals throughout the day is not a bad thing.

The underlying message being easily summized into one 'to live by' credo: IIFYM... to each his own.

Wrong.

[hoffmanxtreme]

I'm glad I found this thread. :)


So we can conclude that eating 6 meals/day while getting all your required macros is not a bad/negative thing......but is not necessary correct?


2nd ?: Eating 3 giant meals per day seems like it would stretch your stomach more so than eating 6 meals a day of the same macros. True/False?

[mrTesto]

Why? :confused:
i get the science behind it but for someone trying to pack on as much lean mass as poss or hold onto as much lean mass as poss eating every 2-3 hours will keep you in a positive state of nitrogen retention and will keep your muscles fed for a bodybuilder every ounce of muscle counts and its about maximising gains at every opportunity and eating protein carbs fat every 2-3hours will do that nicely will do that job nicely

[jillyjill]

Really great articles!! Thanks for the information!! Helps a lot :)

[jnip23141]

Shoot for eating a small meal every 2 - 3 hours, with a balance of Carbohydrates, Proteins, and "Good" Fats

lol what is a "good" fat

[jnip23141]

i get the science behind it but for someone trying to pack on as much lean mass as poss or hold onto as much lean mass as poss eating every 2-3 hours will keep you in a positive state of nitrogen retention and will keep your muscles fed for a bodybuilder every ounce of muscle counts and its about maximising gains at every opportunity and eating protein carbs fat every 2-3hours will do that nicely will do that job nicely

this isn't right man. it seriously doesnt matter AT ALL if you are in a constant "positive N balance" as long as at the END OF THE DAY (ie. over a 24 hour (or even longer) period) you have achieved a NET positive N balance and you could easily do this by eating all your meals in one sitting.

[ScoringThemTDs]

this isn't right man. it seriously doesnt matter AT ALL if you are in a constant "positive N balance" as long as at the END OF THE DAY (ie. over a 24 hour (or even longer) period) you have achieved a NET positive N balance and you could easily do this by eating all your meals in one sitting.

your both right in your own way. I have researched this topic heavily and while you can eat 3000 calories in one sitting, I don't recommend it, being that most people would have a hard time doing that "counting macros to a key and not over or under eating" but I personally like to eat about 800 calories during the day by grazing eating Nuts,an apple, breakfast, post workout shake ect. then I eat at about 5 or 6 pm and go ALLLL OUT. it's much easier on your body. so i basically follow the caveman diet and it's very healthy for you!

[Prepbrah]

Thanks for this

[loganhart]

Lots of interesting material here. Good post!

[Cronos1247]

Awesome thread! I actually read the whole thing and am probably about to get in trouble at work for it =P

Out of curiosity, do we know of any successful natural body builders that currently consume 2-3 meals per day during contest prep?

[MMN1125]

Very interesting, make meals regular!

[brain01ford]

Hi All,
For great health everybody requires right nutrition This post will lead awareness toward right way of get food.
i think i am very health conscious ,at least for me this is very important .
Thanks for your great stuff

[Stevehall09]

This is an interesting post. Only having two meals per day actually increases your weight because of overeating. Have a few smaller meals per day to balance the calories in-between.

[TheWill]

My mind is seriously blown by this whole concept. I have been doing 6 meals a day since probably 2006 because i always feared that missing a meal or not hitting the protein window every 3 hours was going to to ruin my day/week. Awesome material and thanks for all of the knowledge!

[joeyddi]

dunno about meal frequency but i try to spread my protein shakes evernly throughout the day

[determined4000]

dunno about meal frequency but i try to spread my protein shakes evernly throughout the dayThen you obviously do care about meal timing

[omnisis]

So I've played with various different timing schedules and here's my opinion after trying everything from 3-8 meals/day and a brief stint with IF. For me personally 4-5 meals/day is ideal. I say that but then I usually throw in an extra after meal on workout days and if I finish my last "big meal" by 5PM (sometimes I eat my last meal early due to family reasons) I'll follow up with another small protein heavy meal. Thanks to the new science on meal frequency, I have "stopped worrying" about missing a meal. Before I would think that if I didn't eat every 3hours I'd start going "catabolic" and lose all my gains. Maybe that's true for pro bbers on gear but for me that just hasn't been the case.

The reason I still do more than 3 meals has more to do with having a feeling of satiety and avoiding pyschological hunger than anything else. Although I have no scientific evidence to offer I will say that after doing smaller meals it also makes me less likely to "binge" at any one meal. This might be totally psychological as well, but I just feel better this way. If I had to bulk on 3 meals a day I might be having 1000+ cals at every meal and honestly it comes down to a matter of logistics at that point and I just wouldn't want to eat meals that big.

[JelaniTheGreat]

Emma, I know meal frequency doesn't matter in terms of diet and body composition. (Lost 30lbs on IF), but what about performance? For instance if I wanted to carb load for peak performance on a leg day would it matter if I do it the day prior or the day of?

[Emma-Leigh]

Emma, I know meal frequency doesn't matter in terms of diet and body composition. (Lost 30lbs on IF), but what about performance? For instance if I wanted to carb load for peak performance on a leg day would it matter if I do it the day prior or the day of?
There is some evidence to suggest that for ATHLETES -- it matters in terms of performance (especially those doing multiple sessions a day / high intensity sessions).
For others - it depends on your own preference, and your own baseline diet, when in the day you train... etc etc.
Generally speaking - if you train earlier in the day, then having more carbs the day before would be better.
If you train later in the day - then you might do better with a moderate load the day of.

[Farnzey]

ok i have a question .....

lets say one day i decide to just have two meals , i eat both in the morning lets say at 6:30am then at 9:00am. so i fit all my calories and macros into it, this is around 300g protein 420 g of carbs 100 g fat, lets note i train at 7:00 pm at night.

question:
so by the time i have finished my workout will the protein that i had earlier still utilze and be there to be used to repair muscle? then the next day i have two meals again but not till late at night like 7:00 then 10:00pm, this day i do not train its a rest day.

it might sound like a stupid question but is there a difference between this and me having a protein shake after the gym which i normally do?

[JHFS1988]

I am new to this forum (this is my very first post) and this is a topic I would like to hear from you all on. It's nice to "shoot for" a certain number of small meals a day but.... How many of you manage to do it? How many meals are you actually able to reasonably break your day into? Thanks!

[sandycooper000]

I take two meals in a day...!!! And love to know others...

[Ratcher]

I take two meals in a day...!!! And love to know others...

I eat three and I find it way better to lose fat, not like this studies inform. I wish they would do studies on actual athletes. Greg Plitt has one meal a day, look how fat he is..

[jgwaley]

Check out exercisefortummy(dot)org if you want excellent results

[jimmyrae]

Meal one 9:00 A:M
3 cage free eggs, 1/2 cup oatmeal.

Meal two 12:00 P:M
Protien powder gold standard

Meal three 3:00 P:M
4oz chicken breast grilled, 1 cup brown rice, 1 cup broccoli.

Meal four 6:00 P:M
4oz chicken breast grilled, 1 cup brown rice, 1 cup broccoli

Meal five 9:00 P:M
8oz tilapia grilled, 1 cup brown rice, 1 cup broccoli

Meal six 12:00 A:M
Protien powder gold standard

I take a multivitamin so I'm getting my vitamins. I'm new to all of this so any advise would help I already have a gym routine 3 days on 1 day off.

Protien 169 grams
Carbs 144 grams
Fats 33 grams

[Tommytwoguns]

Apologies for the question however the main thing I don't understand is that I was always taught protein couldn't be stored, and excess was always expelled.

The question being; surely (even if you train sufficiently) consuming large amounts of protein in one sitting would lead to the excess being expelled. Whereas eating frequently would lead to sufficient absorption as there would be little excess.

Where is the link changed or broken?

Many thanks.
T2G

[Jerzup]

Basically - yes. Cals and macro's = the most important thing.


No.


1. as many as you need to meet your goals (physique and athletic)
2. as many as you want to stay sane
3. what ever fits best into your lifestyle
4. no, it doesn't really matter ;)

wtf.

[jimsmith9999]

Apologies for the question however the main thing I don't understand is that I was always taught protein couldn't be stored, and excess was always expelled.

The question being; surely (even if you train sufficiently) consuming large amounts of protein in one sitting would lead to the excess being expelled. Whereas eating frequently would lead to sufficient absorption as there would be little excess.

Where is the link changed or broken?

Many thanks.
T2G

Larger meals take longer to digest. The whole "can only absorb so much protein" has been largely debunked by science.

[JoshKoopman]

I try to eat every 3 hours, keep my calories the same at each meal, and have some of each macro in each meal.

[DavidUnderhand]

Meal one 9:00 A:M
3 cage free eggs, 1/2 cup oatmeal.

Meal two 12:00 P:M
Protien powder gold standard

Meal three 3:00 P:M
4oz chicken breast grilled, 1 cup brown rice, 1 cup broccoli.

Meal four 6:00 P:M
4oz chicken breast grilled, 1 cup brown rice, 1 cup broccoli

Meal five 9:00 P:M
8oz tilapia grilled, 1 cup brown rice, 1 cup broccoli

Meal six 12:00 A:M
Protien powder gold standard

I take a multivitamin so I'm getting my vitamins. I'm new to all of this so any advise would help I already have a gym routine 3 days on 1 day off.

Protien 169 grams
Carbs 144 grams
Fats 33 grams

Cycle your carbs would be my advice, if you weigh 237 though you should up protien and fats significantly. I go for 2.5g/kg bodyweight for protien and 1g/kg for fat and i started at 235.