2 meals vs.4 or 5 a day..Need strong arguments ~

[TerraNoble]

I have a friend who doesnt understand the benefit of having 4 0r 5 meals a day instead of 2 or 3 meals a day. He does a lot of cardio in order to lose weight and in his opinion 2 meals a day would do the job.

Could you guys come up with some arguments so I can show it to him and make him aware of the reality.

Thanks

 

[NateDogg]

I'll start. Eating 4 or 5 meals a day will...

1. Speed up your metabolism. If you eat every 2 or 3 hours, your body always has enough energy just from the food you eat. If you eat only 2 meals a day, your body will store much more of the food you eat as fat, to expend as energy later.

NEXT...

ND

 

[THE BOUNCER]

plus, every time you digest a meal your metabolism speeds up which means your actually burning cals while your eating. 5-6 meals a day means your burning alot more cals than say 2-3 meals a day.

 

[plornive]

Actually, the thermic effects of food is no different with 3 meals vs. 4 or 5. Lyle McDonald confirmed this for me, and it was in studies. I think there are many many subtle reasons to eat frequent meals.

One is better nutrient absorption. On a diet, that is VERY important.

Another is blood sugar stability. Like NateDogg was saying, the insulin rush can store the carbs as fat. This won't happen if you're dieting, though --- it will get pushed mostly to glycogen. Protein and fat meals won't be stored very quickly, either. However, spreading carbs and protein out over several meals is important. Protein causes insulin secretions through a few different means (protein itself and glucose from gluconeogenesis causes insulin secretions). You want your insulin to stay at a level at which it protects muscle from gluconeogenesis and also allows the burning of fat. The only way to stay in this insulin zone is by eating frequent meals. This means that in a keto diet, you really don't need to worry about meal frequency/number/etc.

Last one I can think of right now is protein digestion and assimilation. If you want to preserve muscles, you should keep your amino acid stores full. On a diet, they can become depleted very quickly. You body has a hard time digesting a lot of protein at once. Also, your body will be less likely to convert protein to glucose via gluconeogenesis if you eat more frequent meals. This is similar to the last paragraph. Frequent protein in small amounts does not let glucagon nor insulin get out of control. this means less gluconeogenesis, more fat burning and more muscle sparing.

Anything else?

 

[plornive]

Also, it allows you to compose meals with fat and protein with only slightly raises insulin, and meals with carbs and protein that raises insulin more. There is less fat-storage this way (fat eaten when insulin is high is immediately stored in adipose tissue). You can't seperate fat and carbs with only a few meals... doing so would present lots of problems, like too many carbs at once raising insulin a lot... all of the problems I mentioned above.

 

[PwB]

If you look at research from studies of a Frenchman named Yves Boirie. His work is probably the most referenced work in the protein literature, and he's conducted several studies comparing protein in a spread pattern vs protein in a "pulse" fashion, getting 80% protein in one large meal. Protein is actually digested better in a pulse pattern, protein synthesis increases dramatically so u basically utilize more protein, needing to take in less. Subsequent protein meals in a spread pattern, eating protein several times a day, does cause it to necessarily be used for tissue growth/repair/maintenance, but causes the subsequent protein meals to be burned as fuel. Now this can be beneficial as protein has a greater thermic effect than fats and carbs, but its not optimal to preserve muscle since muscles has receptor sites to aminos that downregulate for a period of time when fed protein. Even with amino acid infusion (injecteded into the body) the body stopped utilizing protein after a few hours, all excess went to waste. 2 ways to resensitize muscles is a protein fast (not eating protein for a period of time) and intense muscle contractions (lifting). And those studies mentioned by Lyle tell how metabolism is either raised more often but less w/ frequent meals or less often but raised a greater amount w/ less meals, if both groups follow the same diet the results are the same.
So in a traditional sense, yes, 6 meals a day works great. But there is definitely merit to eating less frequently as well. When I have a client that wants a diet to lose fat, one of the 1st questions is how many meals/protein shakes can they manage to have a day (or are they willing to have) based on this they may be getting in 5-6 meals and some may be getting in 2, but they know that their post-workout shake/meal is gonna be huge. My most recent client followed my principles and went from 217lbs to 187lbs in just over 4 weeks, his doctor couldnt get over it and all his blood parameters went from high to normal range, blood sugar dropped 80 points and triglyceride levels/cholesterol became completely normal. Before this the Dr. said to try to lose maybe 10 lbs and improve his diet, since he was borderline diabetic. The weight keeps coming off and he's only doing 2-3 meals TOPS w/ most food after his workout on workout days.

 

[MS]

Quite simply, eating more frequent meals helps with appetite, glycemic and calorie control. I don't know of any other good reasons for eating more often. When I'm dieting to lose fat I increase my meal frequency for these reasons. When eating to increase mass, I drop back to 2 larger meals a day. I find this more anabolic for me, but everyone is different. Thermic effect is a non-issue. If you want a higher diet induced thermogenesis then all you have to do is eat a higher percentage of protein. Increasing frequency has no impact on total thermogenesis. It sounds to me like your friend needs to track his calories and macronutrient intake more than worrying about how many meals he's getting in a day.

 

[MS]

Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 2001 Apr;25(4):519-28

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.

 

[PwB]

MS, nice study. I've read many of your posts and you are definitely one of the most intelligent I've come across with concerns to exercise and nutrition, someone i'd like to talk more with. I'm curious, how do you structure your diet when gaining mass with 2 meals. I'm currently on a cutting cycle eating 1-2 meals a day, and love the freedom it provides. Serge Nubret used to use the same approach to dieting. I tend to work out in the morning and eat my huge meal right afterwards. One thing i've learned from my years of working out/dieting and research is that things must be tailored to the individual. I personally can't handle fats well so my plan is high protein, low carbs and low fat. I basically eat a big meal of lean protein, some fish oils and sometimes chopped spinach. Every few days for a carb load meal I'll use sweet potato's.
Are you aware of the research I am talking about comparing the spread vs. pulse pattern of protein. There were 2 articles a few months ago about it in Ironman Magazine. Brian Batchelor uses it w/ his athletes and wrote an article called protein Pulse at Testosterones site, and some people seem to do well w/ the Warrior/Animalbolics diet. I'd like to hear your views on this, since i'm compiling as much research as I can to make this plan not just work but be backed up by science as well. To me it makes sense from an evolutionary standpoint since food was available when it was, we didn't have supermarkets so portions were not an option, we ate since we didnt always know when the next meal would be. I believe our bodies are meant to function this way and that is why there is research showing our bodies handle proteins better in larger amounts less often. It may sound odd but the thing that really got me thinking about this is nature shows where predators kill and gorge on foods after a hunt (all extremely lean), and us being hunter/gatherers it makes sense that we would eat in a similar fashion.

 

[MS]

Yeah, I’m a fan of protein pulse feeding in certain situations, but as a female I think the more recent work (eg http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/entr...ve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10867039&dopt=Abstract) shows it makes little difference to premenopausal women. More importantly I think that protein, like anything else you put in your body, needs to be ‘cycled’ if you don’t want your body to become inefficient at using it. This is true of vitamins and mineral, AAS, carbs and fats as well IMHO. I think BBs that keep their protein the same 24/7 whether cutting or bulking are doing themselves a disservice. My protein intake changes quite a lot when I’m not dieting, but I keep it pretty high when dieting. Here’s some recent research that supports the effectiveness of high protein diets for thermogenesis, at least in women:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/entr...ve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11838888&dopt=Abstract

We’ve ‘known’ this for years, but finally someone has got around to measuring it more rigorously. I’m pretty sure it applies to men too! So my point about watching macronutrients and total calories rather than meal frequency reflects a lot of the more current research. If you eat a diet that is very high protein and moderately below maintenance calories then you WILL lose fat. Doesn’t matter how many meals you divide it into. The important thing is to draw up a plan and stick to it.

 

[TerraNoble]

So my point about watching macronutrients and total calories rather than meal frequency reflects a lot of the more current research. If you eat a diet that is very high protein and moderately below maintenance calories then you WILL lose fat. Doesn’t matter how many meals you divide it into. The important thing is to draw up a plan and stick to it. [/QUOTE][/B]

So in your view, 3 meals can be as good as 6 meals as long as you get the macronutrients and total calories and is high in proteine and below maintainance calories?


From what I read, they say that would be tough to get the right amount of protein by eating only 3 meals, as they say that you cannot digest more than 30 g protein in one meal!

So for someone who might need 180 g protein a day in my view there should be 5 meals a day.

Any thoughts on this?[


c

 

[=w=]

as they say that you cannot digest more than 30 g protein in one meal!

I would love to see a study on this. IMO this is the biggest myth floating around. You cant make blanket statements like this (A 250lb hard trained athelete w/ <10% BF is not gonna have the same protein utilization abilaties as a 150lb couch potato w/ 20%BF.

 

[plornive]

MS,
Do you think that protein assimilation is unaffected by protein intake frequency? Also, do you think that fat-loss vs. muscle loss is the same regardless of meal frequency?

I have seen this in studies and read it from Lyle McDonald's book, but I have a hard time believing it. It seems like keeping blood sugar at a constant would allow the body to constantly be in a more ideal state. It seems like there would be less gluconeogenesis, and less gluconeogenesis means less nitrogen loss, right? I also think workout performance is enhanced by frequent feedings and constant blood sugar.

If you stopped eating at 6pm every day and didn't eat until morning, I think there would be catabolism. Eating only 3 meals per day while cutting seems similar to this.

Why look at nutrition in 24 hour periods instead of continuous time?

 

[plornive]

By the way, very interesting article. I wish I could somehow measure gluconeogenesis. I have never understood how gluconeogenesis factors into a diet.

 

[MS]

Plornive, I don’t pretend to know THE answers to your questions, but I’ll give you my opinion for all to flame or discuss. “Do you think that protein assimilation is unaffected by protein intake frequency?”
Without a doubt you can absorb more than 30g protein in one meal. If you read the first abstract I mentioned (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/entr...ve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10867039&dopt=Abstract) you'll see that they gave the women a 2 week "adaptive" protein diet to get their body's accustomed to higher protein intake before they fed the experimental protein diet. This is in contrast to earlier studies (where they grabbed some young guys off the street and shoved gobs of protein down their gullet without allowing their system to adapt). In any event, it prolly doesn’t matter so much for BB cutting diets since these tend to be grossly over supplied with protein anyway, and if some digestion/absorption is reduced it merely means less calorie intake than calculated, therefore a greater rate of weight loss.

“Also, do you think that fat-loss vs. muscle loss is the same regardless of meal frequency?” I dunno to be honest.

“It seems like keeping blood sugar at a constant would allow the body to constantly be in a more ideal state”. Not necessarily. Remember that in normal, healthy folks with good insulin sensitivity that insulin is very anabolic. Dieting to lose fat (from a BB perspective anyway) needs to balance the anabolic properties of carb intake with the need to burn fat.

“It seems like there would be less gluconeogenesis, and less gluconeogenesis means less nitrogen loss, right”. Again not necessarily. The best inhibitor of gluconeogenesis is glucose! Glucose is also the best nitrogen sparing nutrient available. If you don’t provide your body with glucose from carbs and you’re not in ketosis, then your body will use dietary and/or skeletal protein for gluconeogenesis. This does not have to be a problem if you’re eating a very large amount of protein. But when calories are limited you are walking a fine line, and muscle catabolism is inevitable if you get lean enough.

“I also think workout performance is enhanced by frequent feedings and constant blood sugar.” This is 100% on the mark unless you are in established long term ketosis. This is the best reason to eat a balanced low GI meal pre workout. This is also why I think CKD sucks if you have a job where you need to use your brain.

“If you stopped eating at 6pm every day and didn't eat until morning, I think there would be catabolism. Eating only 3 meals per day while cutting seems similar to this.

Why look at nutrition in 24 hour periods instead of continuous time?……………………..”

I agree. The second question is what I think is the key question. So what if short term protein turnover is increased by infrequent feedings (which it’s not in young females)? You have to look at whole body metabolism over the long term. Keeping in mind that muscle catabolism is absolutely required for muscle remodelling and growth (unless you’re using AAS or happen to be Belgiun Blue double muscled cattle/calypige), you shouldn’t lose sleep over short term changes as long as it’s is working for ya over the long haul. We all know that the stress of worrying about your diet is catabolic LOL. In other words, there may be catabolism from 6pm until the morning meal, but this will almost always be followed by anabolism provided protein intake is adequate and the training stimulus is intense enough. Our paleolithic ancestors would have never grown to adulthood if this weren’t true. They surely didn’t eat 6 squares a day every day (well, OK I’m not 100% sure about that because none of us were there). We all still manage to “grow up” even with an overnight fast and only 2-3 meals per day (I’m talking about your average child raised on an average western diet here). I think it’s important on boards like this to distinguish between what works (or doesn’t work) in general, such as Terra Noble’s friend, versus what is cutting edge for BB’s that have exhausted all of their natural training and diet avenues and are looking for that 1% advantage. I will venture to say that there are very few BB’s on this diet board that have given good training, diet and rest a fair trial over enough years to be worried about the details we’re discussing here.

 

[MR. BMJ]

This is one of the better threads we've had on this board in a long time...great reading here people.

BMJ

 

[MS]

Awe, come on MR BMJ....you of all people should have some really interesting insights into this topic. I was hoping to hear from you on this one becasue I'm sure you're more up-to-date than any of us around here. I'd love to hear your knowledge, opinions, theories or whatever. It's all good, even if it's preliminary or conjecture!

 

[MR. BMJ]

Hehehe...dang it...i'm put on the spot.

I'm a little brain dead right now, it's almost 12 midnight, and my melatonin is kicking in....have to think of an excuse

I'll come back here tomorrow and add some things if I can...Everyone pretty much already stated everything I would have said though...I have a midterm tomorrow that I did not even study for...i've been a lazy ass during my Easter vacation. I'm really upset at myself for not studying for this damn thing...after I fail, it will motivate me though...what a way to get motivated

I'm getting burned-out this semester though...My teachers suck!

Aaargghhh...i'm rambling.

BMJ

 

[MS]

Mwaaaahahahaha. Serves ya bloody right for comparing me to Courtney Cox and Ally McBeal. I hope ya fail your midterms J/K Good luck.

 

[PwB]

Other points I'd like to make that go along with what MS is saying, yes, children and people grow w/ 2-3 meals a day, even on our SAD (standard american diet), and from an evolutionary standpoint, even though I wasnt there either, it is reasonable to assume that 5-6 small meals a day were not consumed. Humans were active and didnt carry tuppaware's w/ meats and veggies or shake bottles with protein, we were opportunistic eaters that ate when food was available, and it was most likely not always there. We would never have survived if we required food and protein every few hours, which is why I believe these studies make sense that our genetics have allowed us the ability to utilize protein more efficiently in large doses less frequently, much like a cat or wolf who hunts would eat, rather than a grazing animal. I still don't know of any other animal that "grazes" on meat, grazing animals eat greens as they are available most of the time, u just bend down and eat, and they have the ability to utilize the proteins much like we can with meats. But meat eaters, like ourselves (i know we're omnivores but need meat to thrive) generally gorge and fast, and they are all muscular and lean.
And this plan, like any other may work wonders for some and not others, but so does every other diet. A ketogenic diet or CKD makes me look fatter like no other diet, but gets others shredded. I do know that one of the most impressive bodybuilders I've ever seen, Serge Nubret, at 1 huge meal of meat and a salad after his workout a day and ate nothing during the day. Theirry Pastel followed the same diet, and Rocky Marciano did as well. Of course Serge and Thierry had steroids to help, but so do all the other pro's now and when they were competeing, so they were on an even playing ground.
To lose fat the ideal hormonal environment is low insulin and elevated glucagon levels. To get into this state one most eat low protein and carb meals, with fat being basically neutral (keto, usually high fat diet) or one must fast and not eat at all. After all, a ketogenic diet is just trying to mimic starvation with food eaten. With actual fasting fat loss comes at an astounding pace, with up to .9lbs of fat being lost a day. The problem is that nitrogen losses are initially great as well, making fasting unnacceptable if muscle preservation is desired, which it better be with dieting if u want to look good. Well to preserve muscle protein must be ingested, fats and carbs are protein sparing, but only to a degree that u can eat as much fat and carbs u want a day, but without sufficient protein nitrogen loss will occur. The minimum amount to ingest a day to prevent losses is 150g a day of protein. I plan on starting to experiment w/ this concept very soon eating only 150g protein on non-workout days and a small amount of EFA's, to simulate fasting, similar to a protein sparing modified fast. Fats are only necessary on a Keto diet to keep calories up, they're TOTALLY UNNECCESARY in terms of leading a person into a state of ketosis, the main variables are keeping carbs low enough and not overeating protein, fats have NO special characteristics to make you enter ketosis, although EFA's are definitely necessary, but not in huge amounts. I also think the detoxification benefits of fasting outweigh eating several meals as digestion is a very taxing process on the human body. Fasting allows the body rest and more energy since digestion can take up as much as 30% of your bodies energy to break down foods, and divert blood flow from muscles to stomach for digestion and nutrient absorption. CRON (Caloric Restriction on Optimal Nutrition) is well supported and in many animals it is a FACT lifespan is increased with calorie restriction and especially insulin secretion restriction, as these 2 are regulators of lifespan to a strong degree.
Even Charles Poliquin said in a recent interview that athletes can absolutely build muscle on a low calorie diet, I believe its more quality not quantity that determines how u look and getting in several meals DOES work, but there are other ways that may actually be better and healthier in the long run. Damn, sorry for boring u guys, if anyone actually read this.

 

[OMEGA]

marked for future reading