Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
napsgear
genezapharmateuticals
domestic-supply
puritysourcelabs
Research Chemical SciencesUGFREAKeudomestic
napsgeargenezapharmateuticals domestic-supplypuritysourcelabsResearch Chemical SciencesUGFREAKeudomestic

So increasing number of meals a day doesnt really make a difference?

emptywallet

New member
Apparently Ive been in the dark about this because I eat just about every two hours. Or like 10-11 meals a day. Well, Ive been reading on here about how really if I have the same number of cals in 5 or 6 meals a day as I do in 10-11, it doesnt really make a difference at all. Anyone comment on this?
 
you posted the same thread on the anabolic. To answer your question it doesnt really matter as long as your eating enouhg meals to take in the cals you need. For most of our demands that equals out to about 5-6 meals, and some shakes. Splitting it up any more is unecessary..you just dont want to be eating huge ammounts in one meal, and you dont want some sort of spacing to keep your insulin levels and whatnot more stable(and give yourself time to digest).
 
Greek Freak said:
you posted the same thread on the anabolic. To answer your question it doesnt really matter as long as your eating enouhg meals to take in the cals you need. For most of our demands that equals out to about 5-6 meals, and some shakes. Splitting it up any more is unecessary..you just dont want to be eating huge ammounts in one meal, and you dont want some sort of spacing to keep your insulin levels and whatnot more stable(and give yourself time to digest).

what kind of meal frequency would you suggest? I eat about every 2 hours right now. maybe every 2 hours 15 minutes. Shoudl I go longer?
 
it is best to eat smaller meals throughout the day. Figure out the calorie intake you want to take in each day and divide that into 6- 7 meals. Think of your body like a fire, stoke it with kinling(sp?), not a big log- that will just put the fire out.
 
You can go several hours w/ out food if you are relying on whole foods and not shakes as food takes time to digest. There isn't much evidence to support 6 meals over even 3, so its really up to you and what you feel like doing and can manage. I like 2 meals b/c i'm busy as hell w/ 2 jobs and school, and I'm still losing fat w/ no noticable muscle or strength loss. Either way there is no added benefit anything over 6 meals and that could even be considered excessive.

Frequency of feeding, weight reduction and 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 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.

HERE IS A SUMMARY OF THE MEAL FREQ. RESEARCH.

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.
 
Top Bottom