Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
3 or 6-8 meals a day ?
- Thread starter anthrax
- Start date
S
satchboogie
Guest
for somebody with as many posts as you have that sure is a question one wouldn't expect.
I think 4 meal for me that is ..............
I do it two
ways
when maintaining bodyweight
3 regular 40-40-20 meals
then one post workout GLUTAMINE <PROTIEN< CARB DRINK
= 4 meals
when cutting the meals are as follows
and uses insulin response strategically
insulin sensitivity is highest at two times in the day
first thing in the morning
and
first thing after workout...........
1) ....GLUTAMINE <PROTIEN< CARB DRINK
2) .... Greens, Lean protien, good fats 20-45-35 (carbs 20)
workout
3) ....GLUTAMINE <PROTIEN< CARB DRINK
4) .... Greens, Lean protien, good fats 20-45-35 (carbs 20)
I do it two
ways
when maintaining bodyweight
3 regular 40-40-20 meals
then one post workout GLUTAMINE <PROTIEN< CARB DRINK
= 4 meals
when cutting the meals are as follows
and uses insulin response strategically
insulin sensitivity is highest at two times in the day
first thing in the morning
and
first thing after workout...........
1) ....GLUTAMINE <PROTIEN< CARB DRINK
2) .... Greens, Lean protien, good fats 20-45-35 (carbs 20)
workout
3) ....GLUTAMINE <PROTIEN< CARB DRINK
4) .... Greens, Lean protien, good fats 20-45-35 (carbs 20)
I didnt mean to come across as it being useless to eat more meals. My point is that it is bodybuilding lore that is always passed around w/ out anythiing backing it up.
I'm not the only one who feels this way, Lyle Mcdonald (probably the BEST source of diet information overall) has written extensively that the benefits there from a pure fat loss/weight loss standpoint or muscle preservation standpoint.
In terms of mass gains, more frequent meals would be advised as the diet will generally be higher carb and more meals will keep blood sugar more stable. But in the absence of most carbs on most cutting diets, meal frequency is terribly important.
For fat loss if more meals helps you control calories and appetite better then that is a better choice. For whatever reason (busy schedule/hunger/etc) less meals makes you follow the diet better, then less meals are better. I discussed this on another board recently w/ Lyle, i'll copy and paste it here later.
I'm not the only one who feels this way, Lyle Mcdonald (probably the BEST source of diet information overall) has written extensively that the benefits there from a pure fat loss/weight loss standpoint or muscle preservation standpoint.
In terms of mass gains, more frequent meals would be advised as the diet will generally be higher carb and more meals will keep blood sugar more stable. But in the absence of most carbs on most cutting diets, meal frequency is terribly important.
For fat loss if more meals helps you control calories and appetite better then that is a better choice. For whatever reason (busy schedule/hunger/etc) less meals makes you follow the diet better, then less meals are better. I discussed this on another board recently w/ Lyle, i'll copy and paste it here later.
Manu
New member
Here's this:
"From Lyle McDonald (http://musclemonthly.com/articles/0...d-body-talk.htm):
I've always heard that I need to eat at least 6 times per day while dieting. I don't have time to prepare or eat that many meals but I still want to lose fat efficiently. So what's the deal?
Among bodybuilders, six meals (or more) per day is usually the de-facto standard, whether dieting or trying to gain size. I'm only going to talk about dieting here. The question is basically this: Does it matter if I eat 6 meals per day versus say 3 meals per day? The answer, of course, depends on what you're talking about. The usual rationale given for eating more frequently is that when you eat many times per day, your metabolism goes up at each meal and you burn more calories. But let's think about it for a second. Say you're eating 2000 calories per day, with a nutrient breakdown of 50% carbs, 25% protein and 25% fat. If you eat 6 meals per day, each one will be about 333 calories or so. If you eat 4 meals per day, they will be 500 calories each. Now, the amount that your metabolism goes up in relation to a meal depends on the composition (carbs, protein, fat) of the meal and its size. In the examples above, the nutrient breakdown of each meal is the same, only the size differs. The 333 cal meal will raise metabolism a smaller amount but will do it more frequently and the 500 cal meal will increase metabolism more but do it less frequently. As it turns out (when it's actually measured and it has been in a lot of studies), the end result is exactly the same. So from the standpoint of metabolic rate, it appears to make little difference whether you eat more smaller meals or less larger meals.
What about weight loss?
Well, since eating more frequently vs. less frequently doesn't affect metabolic rate differently, you wouldn't expect there to be a difference in weight loss. And the studies looking at it, assuming that caloric intake is the same, show no difference between fewer and larger meals. Again, this assumes that the caloric intake is the same. I'll come back to this.
What about the composition (muscle vs. fat) lost?
Very few studies have looked at this, but the few that have showed basically no difference for one pattern versus another. Of course, none of them were looking at bodybuilders or athletes with above normal muscle mass levels. So you might see a difference in those individuals. It hasn't been studied, but for those individuals, especially as they are trying to get to super-lean levels, it's probably worth eating more frequently.
So if eating more frequently doesn't change metabolic rate, the total weight, or composition of the weight lost, why bother?
Well, there are at least two good reasons to eat more frequently. The first one is health-related, as studies have shown a decrease in blood lipid (cholesterol) levels with more frequent vs. less frequent meals. The second has to do with appetite. All the examples above assumed that caloric intake is kept the same (i.e. 2000 calories/day in 4 versus 6 meals). But in reality, when people skip meals or go too long without eating, they do tend to eat more. The reasons are complex and a topic for much later. But for a lot of people, eating more frequently helps to control appetite since it keeps blood glucose more stable. That alone may be reason enough to eat several small meals per day. One comment I want to make is that eating all of your daily calories in one meal per day (i.e. starving yourself all day and eating 2000 calories in one sitting) appears to really mess up normal endocrine function (both insulin and leptin) so that is one approach that should NOT be used. As a final issue, one thing that is never considered in the recommendation to eat 6 meals per day is the total caloric intake. A light female bodybuilder at 120 pounds may only be eating 1400 calories per day while dieting. Dividing that into 6 meals of 215 calories each would result in some depressingly small (and probably unsatisfying) meals. In that case, eating 3 larger meals (of perhaps 300 calories each) and 2 snacks of 100 calories (perhaps half a food bar) might be the better choice."
-------------------------------
here's the link from the original post
"From Lyle McDonald (http://musclemonthly.com/articles/0...d-body-talk.htm):
I've always heard that I need to eat at least 6 times per day while dieting. I don't have time to prepare or eat that many meals but I still want to lose fat efficiently. So what's the deal?
Among bodybuilders, six meals (or more) per day is usually the de-facto standard, whether dieting or trying to gain size. I'm only going to talk about dieting here. The question is basically this: Does it matter if I eat 6 meals per day versus say 3 meals per day? The answer, of course, depends on what you're talking about. The usual rationale given for eating more frequently is that when you eat many times per day, your metabolism goes up at each meal and you burn more calories. But let's think about it for a second. Say you're eating 2000 calories per day, with a nutrient breakdown of 50% carbs, 25% protein and 25% fat. If you eat 6 meals per day, each one will be about 333 calories or so. If you eat 4 meals per day, they will be 500 calories each. Now, the amount that your metabolism goes up in relation to a meal depends on the composition (carbs, protein, fat) of the meal and its size. In the examples above, the nutrient breakdown of each meal is the same, only the size differs. The 333 cal meal will raise metabolism a smaller amount but will do it more frequently and the 500 cal meal will increase metabolism more but do it less frequently. As it turns out (when it's actually measured and it has been in a lot of studies), the end result is exactly the same. So from the standpoint of metabolic rate, it appears to make little difference whether you eat more smaller meals or less larger meals.
What about weight loss?
Well, since eating more frequently vs. less frequently doesn't affect metabolic rate differently, you wouldn't expect there to be a difference in weight loss. And the studies looking at it, assuming that caloric intake is the same, show no difference between fewer and larger meals. Again, this assumes that the caloric intake is the same. I'll come back to this.
What about the composition (muscle vs. fat) lost?
Very few studies have looked at this, but the few that have showed basically no difference for one pattern versus another. Of course, none of them were looking at bodybuilders or athletes with above normal muscle mass levels. So you might see a difference in those individuals. It hasn't been studied, but for those individuals, especially as they are trying to get to super-lean levels, it's probably worth eating more frequently.
So if eating more frequently doesn't change metabolic rate, the total weight, or composition of the weight lost, why bother?
Well, there are at least two good reasons to eat more frequently. The first one is health-related, as studies have shown a decrease in blood lipid (cholesterol) levels with more frequent vs. less frequent meals. The second has to do with appetite. All the examples above assumed that caloric intake is kept the same (i.e. 2000 calories/day in 4 versus 6 meals). But in reality, when people skip meals or go too long without eating, they do tend to eat more. The reasons are complex and a topic for much later. But for a lot of people, eating more frequently helps to control appetite since it keeps blood glucose more stable. That alone may be reason enough to eat several small meals per day. One comment I want to make is that eating all of your daily calories in one meal per day (i.e. starving yourself all day and eating 2000 calories in one sitting) appears to really mess up normal endocrine function (both insulin and leptin) so that is one approach that should NOT be used. As a final issue, one thing that is never considered in the recommendation to eat 6 meals per day is the total caloric intake. A light female bodybuilder at 120 pounds may only be eating 1400 calories per day while dieting. Dividing that into 6 meals of 215 calories each would result in some depressingly small (and probably unsatisfying) meals. In that case, eating 3 larger meals (of perhaps 300 calories each) and 2 snacks of 100 calories (perhaps half a food bar) might be the better choice."
-------------------------------
here's the link from the original post
Burning_Inside
Elite Mentor
bilat said:
if 'better" means you being able to control your calories and hunger better on less meals then, yes.
Babyfaced Assassin
New member
i've tried 6 small meals a day
i've tried 3 medium meals a day
heck i've even done the 1 meal a day warrior diet!
I personally find 5-6 small meals the best for me but this is just me, i look more toned even though i eat the same amount of calories, i guess it might have something to do with insulin + im never hungry on this way of eating
i guess everyone's different and I dont religiously eat 6 meals a day, if i miss a meal i dont sweat it
i've tried 3 medium meals a day
heck i've even done the 1 meal a day warrior diet!
I personally find 5-6 small meals the best for me but this is just me, i look more toned even though i eat the same amount of calories, i guess it might have something to do with insulin + im never hungry on this way of eating
i guess everyone's different and I dont religiously eat 6 meals a day, if i miss a meal i dont sweat it
MrRTTB
New member
When I'm cutting I like to eat often and large(with few calories). Therefor eating 3 times per day wouldn't work.I do not focus on burning off fat all day long, but are more focused on burning fat at night(no carbs before bedtime), during my morningsession, and 1 hour post HIIT cardio and 20 minutes after myt workout in the gym.
S
satchboogie
Guest
ANTHRAX...
my apology for what would have appeared as flaming you.
the thing is....
5-6 meals a day are advised no matter what the goal is. (cutting or bulking)
but if you're cutting then reducing the amount of meals per day is not the scientific way to go about it.
instead, eat the usual 5-6 meals but cut your carb and fat intake.
my apology for what would have appeared as flaming you.
the thing is....
5-6 meals a day are advised no matter what the goal is. (cutting or bulking)
but if you're cutting then reducing the amount of meals per day is not the scientific way to go about it.
instead, eat the usual 5-6 meals but cut your carb and fat intake.
JJFigure
New member
I'm cutting right now on 1500 kcals/day, and I prefer to go with 6-7 small meals a day. I have a schedule and know when to eat, so this approach works well. It doesn't really bother me that my meals only average about 250 kcals/meal; I just get to look forward to eating every two hours or so. That's enough for me. 
S
satchboogie
Guest
JJ....
a few questions:
1) how many grams of protien to carbs to fat per meal?
2) what's your training routine like (include cardio session and weight training with durations of each.
3) supplements/anabolics?
a few questions:
1) how many grams of protien to carbs to fat per meal?
2) what's your training routine like (include cardio session and weight training with durations of each.
3) supplements/anabolics?
Verboeket-van de Venne WP, Westerterp KR.
Department of Human Biology, University of Limburg, Maastricht, The
Netherlands.
A study was conducted to investigate the effect of feeding frequency
on the rate and composition of weight loss and 24 h energy metabolism
in moderately obese women on a 1000 kcal/day diet. During four
consecutive weeks fourteen female adults (age 20-58 years, BMI
25.4-34.9 kg/m2) restricted their food intake to 1000 kcal/day. Seven
subjects consumed the diet in two meals daily (gorging pattern), the
others consumed the diet in three to five meals (nibbling pattern).
Body mass and body composition, obtained by deuterium dilution, were
measured at the start of the experiment and after two and four weeks
of dieting. Sleeping metabolic rate (SMR) was measured at the same
time intervals using a respiration chamber. At the end of the
experiment 24 h energy expenditure (24 h EE) and diet-induced
thermogenesis (DIT) were assessed by a 36 h stay in the respiration
chamber. There was no significant effect of the feeding frequency on
the rate of weight loss, fat mass loss or fat-free mass loss.
Furthermore, fat mass and fat-free mass contributed equally to weight
loss in subjects on both gorging and nibbling diet. Feeding frequency
had no significant effect on SMR after two or four weeks of dieting.
The decrease in SMR after four weeks was significantly greater in
subjects on the nibbling diet. 24 h EE and DIT were not significantly
different between the two feeding regimens.
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.
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.
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.
meal frequency as 3 meals vs. constant protein intaken showing less leucine oxidation in 3 meals vs. hourly feeding. Less leucine (an amino acid important for protein synthesis in muscle tissue) is a GOOD thing.
Leucine kinetics in reference to the effect of the feeding mode as
three discrete meals.
Raguso CA, El-Khoury AE, Young VR.
Laboratory of Human Nutrition, School of Science and Clinical Research
Center, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge 02139, USA.
In a recent study, we observed that the 24-hour leucine oxidation
measured when three equal meals providing a generous intake of leucine
(approximately 90 mg x kg(-1) x d(-1)) are eaten during the day is 16%
lower (P < .01) than that for the same diet given as 10 hourly, equal
meals. We hypothesized that the pattern of meal intake at a lower
level of dietary leucine would affect the 24-hour rate of leucine
oxidation and possibly improve the retention of dietary leucine. A
total of 11 healthy adults participated in this investigation. The
daily leucine intake was 182 micromol x kg(-1) x d(-1) (38 mg x kg(-1)
x d(-1)) given with an L-amino acid diet. All subjects received three
discrete meals daily for 6 days prior to a 24-hour intravenous (IV)
tracer infusion of L-[1-13C]-leucine on day 7 (study 1). Four of these
subjects participated in two additional studies of similar design.
Study 2 involved giving [1-13C]-leucine as a constant IV infusion
together with tracer added to the amino acid mixture at each meal
time. In study 3, subjects received the three meals with added
[1-13C]-leucine tracer while [2H3]-leucine was given as a constant IV
infusion. Total leucine oxidation in studies 1 and 2 was 238+/-66 and
231+/-85 micromol x kg(-1) x d(-1), respectively. Leucine balance was
positive, amounting to 18% of the total (diet + tracer) intake. The
estimated mean nitrogen balance was +8 mg x kg(-1) x d(-1). Leucine
oxidation was higher (P < .01) for breakfast than for the lunch meal.
This difference was associated with lower insulin and higher plasma
leucine concentrations at breakfast versus lunch periods. The results
from study 3 suggest that the higher rate of leucine oxidation
observed at breakfast as compared with lunch is not due to a
difference in the immediate splanchnic fate of absorbed leucine from
each meal. In comparison to our previous small frequent-meal studies,
the pattern of meal feeding influences overall leucine utilization at
both generous and limiting leucine intakes. Hence, it is possible that
the pattern of meal feeding may affect estimations of amino acid
requirements using the tracer-balance approach. Longer-term dietary
studies will be needed to establish whether and the extent to which
this is so.
Department of Human Biology, University of Limburg, Maastricht, The
Netherlands.
A study was conducted to investigate the effect of feeding frequency
on the rate and composition of weight loss and 24 h energy metabolism
in moderately obese women on a 1000 kcal/day diet. During four
consecutive weeks fourteen female adults (age 20-58 years, BMI
25.4-34.9 kg/m2) restricted their food intake to 1000 kcal/day. Seven
subjects consumed the diet in two meals daily (gorging pattern), the
others consumed the diet in three to five meals (nibbling pattern).
Body mass and body composition, obtained by deuterium dilution, were
measured at the start of the experiment and after two and four weeks
of dieting. Sleeping metabolic rate (SMR) was measured at the same
time intervals using a respiration chamber. At the end of the
experiment 24 h energy expenditure (24 h EE) and diet-induced
thermogenesis (DIT) were assessed by a 36 h stay in the respiration
chamber. There was no significant effect of the feeding frequency on
the rate of weight loss, fat mass loss or fat-free mass loss.
Furthermore, fat mass and fat-free mass contributed equally to weight
loss in subjects on both gorging and nibbling diet. Feeding frequency
had no significant effect on SMR after two or four weeks of dieting.
The decrease in SMR after four weeks was significantly greater in
subjects on the nibbling diet. 24 h EE and DIT were not significantly
different between the two feeding regimens.
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.
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.
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.
meal frequency as 3 meals vs. constant protein intaken showing less leucine oxidation in 3 meals vs. hourly feeding. Less leucine (an amino acid important for protein synthesis in muscle tissue) is a GOOD thing.
Leucine kinetics in reference to the effect of the feeding mode as
three discrete meals.
Raguso CA, El-Khoury AE, Young VR.
Laboratory of Human Nutrition, School of Science and Clinical Research
Center, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge 02139, USA.
In a recent study, we observed that the 24-hour leucine oxidation
measured when three equal meals providing a generous intake of leucine
(approximately 90 mg x kg(-1) x d(-1)) are eaten during the day is 16%
lower (P < .01) than that for the same diet given as 10 hourly, equal
meals. We hypothesized that the pattern of meal intake at a lower
level of dietary leucine would affect the 24-hour rate of leucine
oxidation and possibly improve the retention of dietary leucine. A
total of 11 healthy adults participated in this investigation. The
daily leucine intake was 182 micromol x kg(-1) x d(-1) (38 mg x kg(-1)
x d(-1)) given with an L-amino acid diet. All subjects received three
discrete meals daily for 6 days prior to a 24-hour intravenous (IV)
tracer infusion of L-[1-13C]-leucine on day 7 (study 1). Four of these
subjects participated in two additional studies of similar design.
Study 2 involved giving [1-13C]-leucine as a constant IV infusion
together with tracer added to the amino acid mixture at each meal
time. In study 3, subjects received the three meals with added
[1-13C]-leucine tracer while [2H3]-leucine was given as a constant IV
infusion. Total leucine oxidation in studies 1 and 2 was 238+/-66 and
231+/-85 micromol x kg(-1) x d(-1), respectively. Leucine balance was
positive, amounting to 18% of the total (diet + tracer) intake. The
estimated mean nitrogen balance was +8 mg x kg(-1) x d(-1). Leucine
oxidation was higher (P < .01) for breakfast than for the lunch meal.
This difference was associated with lower insulin and higher plasma
leucine concentrations at breakfast versus lunch periods. The results
from study 3 suggest that the higher rate of leucine oxidation
observed at breakfast as compared with lunch is not due to a
difference in the immediate splanchnic fate of absorbed leucine from
each meal. In comparison to our previous small frequent-meal studies,
the pattern of meal feeding influences overall leucine utilization at
both generous and limiting leucine intakes. Hence, it is possible that
the pattern of meal feeding may affect estimations of amino acid
requirements using the tracer-balance approach. Longer-term dietary
studies will be needed to establish whether and the extent to which
this is so.
