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.
|
Thread: Meal Frequency
-
01-19-2011, 01:05 PM #61
-
01-26-2011, 10:05 PM #62
-
02-01-2011, 11:02 AM #63
-
02-19-2011, 11:32 AM #64
-
-
02-19-2011, 04:54 PM #65
-
02-20-2011, 03:08 PM #66
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...
-
02-20-2011, 04:29 PM #67
-
02-25-2011, 01:34 PM #68
-
-
03-06-2011, 11:17 AM #69
-
03-06-2011, 02:06 PM #70
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
-
03-06-2011, 02:29 PM #71
it is very possible my friend and maintainable
-
03-07-2011, 12:21 AM #72
-
-
03-07-2011, 12:54 AM #73
-
03-07-2011, 11:22 AM #74
-
03-07-2011, 11:40 AM #75
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.
-
03-10-2011, 08:26 PM #76
- Join Date: Feb 2008
- Location: Belfast, County Antrim, United Kingdom (Great Britain)
- Age: 34
- Posts: 4
- Rep Power: 0
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.Luke Haslett, Physique Consultant coach, http://physiqueconsultant.com/
-
-
03-16-2011, 09:13 AM #77
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 EmmaMy website: http://www.posturedirect.com
The sole purpose of creating PostureDirect.com is to help those who want to improve their posture. Come visit :)
-
03-16-2011, 03:11 PM #78
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.Last edited by Emma-Leigh; 03-16-2011 at 03:17 PM.
-
03-16-2011, 03:13 PM #79
-
03-21-2011, 12:57 PM #80
Meal Frequency - The Latest From ISSN
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.
-
-
03-21-2011, 01:00 PM #81
-
03-21-2011, 01:01 PM #82
-
03-21-2011, 01:14 PM #83
-
03-21-2011, 01:33 PM #84
- Join Date: Sep 2007
- Location: Florida, United States
- Age: 51
- Posts: 22,582
- Rep Power: 91685
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:
Originally Posted by
Originally Posted by
Originally Posted by
-
-
03-21-2011, 02:08 PM #85J 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?
-
03-21-2011, 03:52 PM #86
-
03-22-2011, 03:56 AM #87
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.
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..)
-
05-27-2011, 08:02 AM #88
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?http://www.fitday.com/WebFit/PublicJournals.html?Owner=arbitperson
My protein reviews:
http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?p=44828011
-
-
05-28-2011, 04:30 AM #89
- Join Date: Sep 2008
- Location: Lawrence, Kansas, United States
- Age: 35
- Posts: 1,114
- Rep Power: 4682
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.
-
07-04-2011, 06:22 AM #90
Similar Threads
-
Meal frequency, metabolism, and bulking
By Rocckk in forum NutritionReplies: 4Last Post: 03-29-2004, 03:46 PM -
meal frequency
By powergrip in forum NutritionReplies: 7Last Post: 10-08-2003, 10:47 AM -
meal frequency question
By mic19790 in forum NutritionReplies: 10Last Post: 05-31-2003, 12:46 PM -
Appetite and meal frequency
By Jack-MA in forum Teen BodybuildingReplies: 8Last Post: 07-28-2002, 11:38 AM
Bookmarks