Case for less meals

Discussion in 'Diet & Nutrition' started by pete69, May 15, 2003.

  1. pete69

    pete69 New Member

    I'm looking for opinions on eating less frequently. I have some theories as to why it may prove to be a greater advantage than eating more often. 1st off, I'm unable to use protein powders. I have allergies to whey, casein, and egg protein (and don't wish to use soy/rice, etc). My only option is real foods so the ability to ingest protein frequently is more difficult w/ my school/work schedule.

    1st reasoning is based on an evolutionary base. I've talked to Lyle about this a few times and even Dr. Cordain (author of the paleo diet) and they agree that through most of our existance we evolved to hunt, kill an animal, and eat a huge amount of protein at one time. As a general rule, our ancestors were much leaner and more muscular than modern humans. Of course there is the activity factor, but regardless they were active and ate meat in this type of fashion, and still had muscle mass and leaner physiques. Protein absorption from meat is always going to be 90+% effecient, so there isn't going to be more of a waste or passing of aminos and Berardi even mentioned that protein is more efficiently absorbed in large amounts (although I found no sources). My understanding is if you gorge on a large amount of meat, the amino acids are just released slowly into the bloodstream. So it would stand to reason that say over a 12 hour period, if one were to eat 50g protein every 12 hours (8AM, 12PM, 4PM, 8PM), this would equal 200g protein, the same nitrogen balance should be achieved with one meal of 200g protein at 8AM. Although we are not carnivores examples in nature show that most meat eating animals hunt their prey, gorge on it and are generally large, muscualr and lean. Humans are the only animals that now graze on meat, where most grazing animals live off of greens.

    I'm not talking about the warrior diet because this allows too much time in a fasting state (18 hours), but perhaps 2 meals spaced 12 hours or 3 meals evey 8 hours could work just as well as the 6 meals a day. There was a study looking at the same protein eaten in 10 hourly feedings or 3 distinct meals, the 3 distinct meals group had a higher nitrogen balance. Based on this study and a few others, ingesting protein too frequently seems to cause the body to stop responding. This is also the case w/ infusion studies w/ amino acids, where the body stops response somewhere after the 2hr mark. Regarding the protein pulse research, it worked on the older women but not younger (80% protein in 1 meal). It also worked on stimulating muscle protein synthesis in older rats. I understand the problems w/ extrapolating this data to bodybuilders, but sometimes these type of studies are all we have. Perhaps 2 pulses (spread 12 hours) could provide superior to frequenct small meals. Also, perhaps w/ the protein pulse studies, the research w/ the older women would be more applicable b/c the older women were in more of a negative nitrogen balance than the younger women. Wouldnt bodybuilders be in a similar situation after a workout, so ingesting a larger than normal amt. of protein (protein pulse) perhaps would be advantageous at this time. This is the way our ancestor prob. ate, hunting, anaerobic like lifting, then gorging on meat. 250g protein from chicken, turkey, lean beef provides about 15g leucine, an important stimalator of muscle protein synthesis. Another theory that I talked about w/ Dr. Cordain, is similar to carbohydrate depletion and loading. Similar to what bodybuilders do in a CKD, w/ carb depletion and low carb intake, there is an upregulation of (I believe GLUT-4 transporters) that basically makes the body more sensitive to uptaking more carbohydrates than normal into glycogen storage (supercompensation). Perheps there is a similar ability w/ a short (less than 12 hr) fast from protein followed by an increase in absorption, utilization. One study showed that the effects of fasting are altered after the ingestion of a high protein meal.
    "The HP diet but not the control diet caused a significant retention of nitrogen. Postabsorptive leucine kinetics as assessed with [1,2-13C]leucine were similar in the two groups. In the control subjects, the rate of nitrogen excretion did not change in response to fasting, but leucine oxidation increased. In contrast, nitrogen excretion progressively decreased with fasting after the HP diet. Leucine rate of appearance was increased after fasting after the HP diet but oxidation was not increased, meaning that the calculated rate of whole-body protein synthesis was higher than in the control group. The response to a short period of food deprivation is dependent on prior protein intake."

    After having read as much research as possible on pubmed, it seems meal freq. isn't overly important in terms of weight loss and even fat loss. An summary of the meal freq. research even states there are no significant differences. Lyle had an article stating that 3 meals at 600 cals vs 6 meals at 300cals show basically no difference, metabolic rate is either raised more freq. but less, or less freq. but more. End of the day results are the same. And no the body does not go into starvation mode if you dont get food for a say 12 hours, its more related to too low a calorie intake and days w/out food. I also found a study (have to look it up) that showed that leptin levels didnt even drop until at least 12 hours of no food intake.

    One other case regarding this subject relates to the overnight fast. Generally there is an 8-12hr period w/ no food when sleeping. So you eat 4-6 small meals during waking hours, then go a long time w/ no food. Well what if you wake up, eat a large protein meal, say 8 AM. And potentially, this will keep a positive nitrogen balance for at least a 12hr period, then another large meal at 8PM, this will keep a positive nitrogen balance over night. Perhaps this is even better than eating freq. during the day where only a small meal is eaten at night, b/c this large meal will keep aminos steadily flowing into the body at night. Yes, theres the nightime proteins and the Biore study looking at fast vs slow proteins (whey vs casein) Which supports this idea even more. If a 30g serving of casein protein keeps nitrogen balance for 7+ hours, how would it not be possible for the ultimate slow protein (real food), ingested in a large amount (say 100-150g protein at once), to not maintain a balance even higher and longer than the 7 hr period experienced w/ the casein group. It seems like the idea of small frequent meals was started to sell supplements like MRP's and protein drinks, since eating 6 meals a day is next to impossible make people think its necessary and the only way they would be able to do it is to get some meals w/ the MRP being sold. The original freq. feeding recommendations were for diabetics fed a high carb diet, as eating every 3 hours was necessary to maintain blood sugar levels. But on people on a lower carb diet, this is less an issue. And according to Dr. Cordain, during a short fast, after a protein based meal, blood sugar is maintained by a small amt. of dietary amino acids, and insulin levels are dropped significantly (good for fat loss, avoidance of degenerative disease, and perhaps expanding lifespan as insulin is being recognized as on of the regulators, along/ w calorie restriction). In addition, some new research on mice found fasting every other day, even if calories were compensated for on the following day of eating, provided the same benefits as calorie restriction. Sorry for the long post, I have more points to make but will cut it short here for now. Next i'd like to talk about the potential psychological benefits and convenience issue as well.
  2. micmic

    micmic New Member

    I know many bodybuilders who don't have the time for 6 meals and eat two times + one shake. There are advantages and disadvantages in this and both of them depend on the kind of protein you'll be ingesting. If we're talking about real food, I'd expect a lower rate of protein synthesis but also a lower rate of protein breakdown (less hyperaminoacidemia but prolonged action). In the end, I don't think there would be any significant difference as long as the total protein intake remains the same.
  3. Cliner9er

    Cliner9er New Member

    I eat 4-5 times a day but this better serves appetite control for me. I really can't see any difference at the end-of-the-day with 3 feedings versus 5 or more other than subjective appetite control.
  4. Haiyai

    Haiyai New Member

    Gaining weight is done using only 2 meals per day in professional Sumo Wrestling. According to Akebon, Konishiki, and Musashimaru, to name a few. They maintain that they eat only 2 meals per day. They gain lots of weight on stews and white rice. Granted, they are really big (fat) but they are also really strong and have large amounts of muscle mass under the fat.
  5. Wedgewod

    Wedgewod New Member

    Given that many people workout after their work day, I'd be curious to hear what your take is on compromised energy levels in a fasted state. You could always break your fast with your pre-workout shake, but I'm not sure what a high carb drink would do to your system in a fasted state.

    However, I seriously think you are on the right track as relates to health. Nice post.

  6. Yeah, but a sumo wrestler's two meals take up half the day! [​IMG]
  7. Cliner9er

    Cliner9er New Member

    I read a small French study some while back (I will dig it up if someone wants to see it), but it correlated increased feedings and BMI. The more feedings per day the lesser BMI was the gist of the study.
  8. Aaron_F

    Aaron_F New Member

    In those studies, it is hard to seperate the 'chicken or the egg'
    which came first, the raised BMI, or the reduced number of meals

    In controlled calorie trials, there is no real measureable difference between different feedings
  9. pete69

    pete69 New Member

    Here are some parts of a conversation on the same topic w/ Lyle McDonald on MFW.

    "As a random tangent, one set of studies found that too frequent protein
    feeding (in this case hourly meals) gave LESS net nitrogen balance than
    3 discrete protein meals. Admittely, it's an extreme example but eating
    too frequently might be worse in the long run than eating less so. I
    suspect a happy medium is ideal." Lyle

    "I have a set of studies (2 which were compared to one another) comparing
    hourly meals to 3 discrete meals (identical protein intakes) in terms of
    leucine balance (one marker of protein synthesis). The 3 discrete meals
    gave better results. They suggested that spikes of AA in the
    bloodstream has a greater impact on protein synthesis than keeping
    levels super stable, for whatever mechanistic reasons. Of course eating
    hourly is at the other extreme, be interesting to see 3 vs. 6 meals.
    There may very well be a downside to keeping blood AA levels too stable,
    b/c protein synthesis appears to quit responding." Lyle

    "A problem with many of these studies is that they are based on reported
    meal frequency after the fact, they are not interventional. One critic
    of the studies (in a review) pointed out that folks who get fat may
    start skipping meals, not the other way around.

    Most of the interventional studies looking at meal frequency with a
    fixed caloric intake show no real effect but most have only looked at
    weight loss, no measure of body composition.

    The one study that gets trotted out most frequently was in wrestlers,
    comparing 2 to 6 meals/day, same caloric intake. They were dieting as I
    recall and the 2 meal/day group lost more muscle. Thing is, they were
    skipping breakfast (again, as I recall). So say dinner is at 6pm, lunch
    at noon the next day. That's 18 hours without any nutrient/protein
    intake far too long and you're going to go catabolic and start
    hemmhoraghing body protein.

    I suspect that 3 vs. 6 meals (meaning both groups had the same length of
    time between the evening and breakfast protein intake) would have shown
    minimal impact. Or even having the 2 meal/day group eat breakfast and
    dinner. That would have at least minimize the break with no protein to
    12 hours between meals (say breakfast at 8am, dinner at 8pm) instead of 16.

    Based on AA kinetics from meals, I certainly wouldn't go any longer than
    8 hours between protein containing meals which would make 2 meals/day
    unrealistic. 3 meals would be about as infrequent as I'd go (when I cut
    calories hard to 1200 cal/day, I typically do 4 small meals spaced
    fairly evenly apart). Breakfast at 8am, lunch at 1-2 pm, dinner at 8pm
    and you never get much more than 6 hours between meals (except the night
    time fast which is going to happen no matter what you do). But I think
    2 meals/day is going to leave too long without protein intake to be workeable." Lyle

    I can actually make a case for less meals on a psychological basis.
    For me i'm an obsessive dieter. I need complete control and when I
    cheat a little it usually ends up being an all-out binge session.
    Being obsessed w/ meals, sometimes meals of lean meat and veg. are
    unsatisfying, especially eating them every 3-4 hrs. Eating them so
    often I sometimes look to add something to make th meal somewhat
    satisfying, diet soda which doesnt agree w/ me, nuts, fruit,etc, which
    takes me off my diet, then leads to guilt, possible cheating, etc.
    Also, the smaller meals are pretty unsatisfying, even though 2 meals
    seems extreme the meals are very satisfying b/c of higher calorie
    level, and tends to hold my hunger over for the 12 hour period between
    meals. B/c of this I don't need to add crap to meals b/c i'm

    Eating less often allows me to not feel like a slave to my meals/watch
    where I have to keep track of time and when my meal is. I also don't
    have to carry around a friggin bad w/ me everywhere I go w/ containers
    of food. I've done it for years and this isn't a complaint, but its
    much easier not dealing w/ all this. Also much more freedom not
    worrying about when the next meal will be. Another thing is going out
    w/ friends/family. I dont need to carry food or worry what resturaunt
    carries what food to comply with my diet. I can almost always be home
    at the 2 times I eat meals to cook them and have the rest of my days
    free to do what I have to (study/work/etc). And eating food just
    cooked is MUCH better than eating microwaved chicken/turkey/etc which
    tends to taste like crap, and even if the food isn't reheated it isn't
    as good sitting around which goes back to the fact its unsatsfying.
    Another benefit is not having to buy protein drinks/MRP's and instead
    get to use real food which I prefer 100% and handle much better.

    Eating this way allows me to get used to some of the hunger, and after
    a while isn't bothersome to me. Its actually worse stopping to eat a
    meal then being hungry/unsatisfied. Since getting and staying lean
    below setpoint will be a situation of constant hunger, I can get used
    to it now since i'm getting close to below setpoint anyway (approx
    9-10% bodyfat).

    Lyle, is it possible that when below setpoint less meals could be
    beneficial b/c even though there is hunger between meals, could 2
    larger meals at say 800-1000 cals be enough for some satiating value
    (even though Im away u don't agree w/ 2 meals)

    Perhaps slighly less muscle is the result of such an eating pattern,
    but if u don't have a plan you can/want to follow then u won't follow
    it. If you make some comprimises in results to have something that is
    more livable, then success will likely be much greater.

    Some studies I came across on medline

    Verboeket-van de Venne WP, Westerterp KR.

    Department of Human Biology, University of Limburg, Maastricht, The

    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.

    I'd love to see the details of the study above to see actual changes
    in body comp in both groups, amt. of time between meals, also the amt.
    of protein (probably insufficient) in the diets. The above study seems
    to suggest that 2 meals is sufficient in preserving LBM and allowing
    fat loss comparable to more frequent feedings.

    A summary of the 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.

    Here is another one similar to the other.

    Verboeket-van de Venne WP, Westerterp KR.

    Department of Human Biology, University of Limburg, Maastricht, The

    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.

    The next one seems to suggest less meals increases energy expenditure
    during the night. I am assuming though that there is less energy
    expenditure during the day which would balance things out between the
    2 vs 6 meals over the 24hr period.

    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,

    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[​IMG]0 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[​IMG]0 h on day
    2 until 09[​IMG]0 h on day 4, and then from 19[​IMG]0 h on day 4 to 09[​IMG]0 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[​IMG]0 h and 08[​IMG]0 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.

    I believe this is the study regarding meal frequency as 3 meals vs.
    constant protein intake.

    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.

    I'm still trying to learn here. This next one I believe shows only a
    small rise in leucine oxidation at the 12 hour mark (4% rise) w/ a
    higher leucine intake. WOuld that suggest a 12h period of small amt of
    aminos being oxidized?

    The 24-h pattern and rate of leucine oxidation, with particular
    reference to tracer estimates of leucine requirements in healthy

    el-Khoury AE, Fukagawa NK, Sanchez M, Tsay RH, Gleason RE, Chapman TE,
    Young VR.

    Laboratory of Human Nutrition, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
    Cambridge 02139.

    Daily leucine oxidation and derived values for whole-body leucine
    balance, obtained by continuous measurement throughout a 24-h period,
    were compared with those predicted from short-term measurements during
    fasted and fed states in five healthy adults studied during two 6-d
    experimental diet periods, each immediately followed by a 24-h
    continuous intravenous tracer infusion of L-[1-13C]leucine. Leucine
    intake was either 14 or 38.3 Mean measured daily leucine
    oxidation (mg was 27.8 and 45.2 for the 14- and
    38.3-mg intakes, respectively. Oxidation rates predicted by
    extrapolation of rates measured during the final hour of fasting (15 h
    after last meal) and the 5th h of feeding were approximately 12%
    higher (P < 0.01) than measured rates for both diets. For the
    prediction based on the 12th h of fasting and 5th h of feeding, it was
    4% higher or 0.4% lower than measured rates for the 38.3- and 14- mg
    intakes, respectively. Hence, relatively small differences exist
    between measured vs predicted estimates of daily leucine oxidation and
    balance. These studies support previous conclusions that the current,
    international requirement value for leucine in healthy adults is far
    too low.
  10. Cliner9er

    Cliner9er New Member

    Hmm, very interesting. I grew up in the frequent feedings = better nitrogern balance, appetite supression, yada, yada. Seems like Lyle's analysis puts this dogma to rest. I seem to have better satiety with 3-4 meals anyways.
  11. Cliner9er

    Cliner9er New Member

    Anyone have anymore insight regarding this topic? I am rather intreged by this.
  12. Aaron_F

    Aaron_F New Member

    Frequent feedings can be good
    the biggest reason to have more frequent feedings is if you cannot eat enough normally.
    If you are dieting, and getting down quite low in calories, if you were to eat 6 measl a day you could be eating 300kcals (1800kcal) it makes meals pathetic. Try 200kcal meals, not even a hamburger (~250-270kcla).
    having larger meals during this point allows people to have some substance to the meal.

    All swings and roundabouts to what you want
    in the end all that really matters is do what feels right to you.
  13. restless

    restless New Member

    I've been doing great with 4 meals per day going at the most for 5 and a half hours without eating anything. I also feel much more saciated and it's great not to have to worry so much about eating every three hours. Sometimes I eat five meals though.
  14. Cliner9er

    Cliner9er New Member

    I have recently gone down to four meals a day and I can say after a week that my appetite is under better control than with 5. A 250-300 calorie meal just makes me want more to eat. We shall see how this plays out in thsi HST cycle.
  15. pete69

    pete69 New Member

    I'd like to continue w/ this topic. Anyone have info as to the rate of digestion of different meat sources. I figure meats will maintain a positive nitrogen balance for +8 hours b/c a)Lyle has said this on another board and b)the biore studies on fast vs. slow proteins shows a serving of casein maintaining a positive nitrogen balance of 7 hours. It stands to reason meat would be as slow or slower, and more protein taken in at a given time will keep levels elevated even longer as large intakes of food slow down the digestive process.
  16. robefc

    robefc New Member

    sort of the along the lines of this post I guess - has anyone heard of temporary protein starvation and supercompensation? (not sure if thats exactly what is called, might be deprevation or something).

    was reading about it on trevor smiths site, bascially involves gradually lowering your protein intake to near zero for a bit and then eating loads of protein, your body apparently absorbs the protein like crazy as its scared of being starved again. This is meant to be done now and again, not constantly! But does seem similar to the argument about fewer meals = greater proetin uptake.
  17. Determined

    Determined New Member

    I, too would very much like this idea to work. While I can understand how (some) protein may digest slowly enough to allow it, what about carbs?

    I assume carb. digestion is much faster, even for complex starches. If avoidance of simple (high GI) sugars is beneficial, based on glucose & insulin leveling, then why wouldn't more frequent (~ 3 hrs.) carb. intake be better than less?
  18. Aaron_F

    Aaron_F New Member

    Most carb will be digested in <120mins, if it isnt it would be classed as a fibre, rather than a digestible carbohydrate
  19. Baoh

    Baoh New Member

    Very impressive, Pete69.

    I will use this to my advantage. Thank you.

Share This Page