frequent feedings

kurnia38

New Member
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]1. Research into meal frequency does not support a substantial difference in terms of weight loss (or anything else) for varying frequency as long as calories are the same. The occasinoal negative result is usually from studies comparing extremes (i.e. 2 to 6+ meals) which means going extended periods without protein in the 2 meal/day group. I doubt a 3 vs. 6 meal frequency with identical macro/caloric intake would show an iota of difference. People forget that it takes many hours for a meal to be completely utilized and the bigger the meal, the longer it takes. 3 large meals vs 6 small meals at the identical daily calorie level balance over 24 hours.
There was a good review in Br J Nutrition on this a few years back.
Btw, I have never seen an iota of data suggesting htere is any meal limit on protein intake. The gut/our bodies are smarter than that, longer protein meals just sit in the stomach longer (the presence of nutrients in the intestine causes gastric emptying to slow via something called teh ileal brake mechanism), and will be released over a longer time frame.
2. You need to pick up the protein symposium from Journal Of nutrition (vol 132: 2002). They deal with the issue of latency of amino acid stimulation and most of the other topics you discussed in this post. One thing to note is that the study you referenced was a constant infusion study achieving steady state AA levels; this is non physiological. So while it does appear that a constant supply of amino acids would cause problems, it shouldn't happen under normal meal feeding conditions (where the gut and liver are controlling how much protein gets released into the system).
Even with meals spaced 3 hours apart, there will be an initial surge of aminos into the free pool followed by a drop. Interestingly, they note research comparing leucine balance for 3 meals/day vs hourly meals (same leucine content) with the 3 meals/day showing better net leucine balance. it was actually 2 studies they did but they compared the data to look at mechanisms. But hourly meals are equally non-physiologic except for insane bodybuilders. It may very well be that eating far too frequently is a bad thing (then again, higher meal frequency generally means smaller meals so it may all balance out) but eating too infrequently is probably just as bad.
3. The protein pulse feeding was shown to be superior in elderly folks but was inferior in younger individuals (compared to standard feeding) so don't draw too many conclusions from that. there appears to be differences in protein metabolism between young and old folks (and, of course, neither study included exercise).

I got this from Lyle's forum. Comments? I always thought that I HAVE TO eat 6 meals to grow.

Please state the comments in the context of hypocaloric and hypercaloric situations.
 
either way who cares :)

Hypocaloric, larger meals give more satiety

Hypercaloric, larger meals are harder to eat, so you try to eat smaller meals more often to get adequate calories.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Aaron_F @ Jan. 08 2004,9:48)]either way who cares :)
Hypocaloric, larger meals give more satiety
Hypercaloric, larger meals are harder to eat, so you try to eat smaller meals more often to get adequate calories.
Hi Aaron,

I prefer eating 3 large meals than 6 meals. I always thought that supplying the body with constant flow of amino acid every 3 hours are the ONLY way to go. If I can get the same results with 3 meals, I would go for it because I hate stopping what I'm doing every 3 hours just to eat. :)

Kurnia
 
larger meal will have a longer digestion time, which means the flow of aminos happens over a longer period.

The body is smarter than we are :D
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (kurnia38 @ Jan. 09 2004,9:55)]Aaron,
In other words, meal frequency DOESN'T matter?
Other comments, guys?
Meal frequency matters insofar as:

1) more frequent meels tend to keep blood sugar levels more stable than less frequent meals. This really only matters when you're eating eu- or hypercalorically, because if you're eating hypocalorically, you're probably going to feel like crap no matter how you divide your calories up. Your body doesn't like you when you starve it.

2) when eating a hypercaloric diet, it's usually physically easier to divide the calories up into a greater number of smaller meals rather than trying to down a bunch of calories all at once. Conversely, when you're eating hypocalorically, I find that fewer larger meals keeps me feeling relatively more full than lots of little snacks. I lose fat best on 8 kcal/lb/day, which works out to around 1200 kcal/day for me. 6x200 kcal meals don't do jack except make me miserable.

Otherwise, AFAIC, convenience rules.
 
I'll try to summarize all the points above. Let me know if I got it right or wrong.

In hypocaloric diet, eating more meals only help people to feel less hungrier and don't have any effect on LBM/adipose ratio in weight loss.

In hypercaloric diet, eating more meals are just a way to help you eat more food, but don't have any effect on LBM/adipose ratio in weight gain.

Which brings me to a new question. One of the reasons people suggest eating around 6 meals are the claim that the body will become catabolic if not fed protein every 3 hours. How much truth is in this statement? Could it be that the body DOES become catabolic ONLY if it is not fed protein for a longer period of time (more like 6 - 8 hours), not 3 hours as most people believe?
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]One of the reasons people suggest eating around 6 meals are the claim that the body will become catabolic if not fed protein every 3 hours. How much truth is in this statement? Could it be that the body DOES become catabolic ONLY if it is not fed protein for a longer period of time (more like 6 - 8 hours), not 3 hours as most people believe?
if your body is adapatedto a way of eating, adn tehn suddenly you stop, it will cause some catabolism, but probbakly such a low amount it could be insignificant.
Bbrs in general will say you have to eat 6x day for protein, to inc metabolism, blah blah blah
Potentially it will have an effect at the extremes of BF and LBM, but in the end that will be relying on anecdotes, and they are usually uncontrolled, and for hte most part untrustworthy
 
I started a thread a while back in regards to meal frequency, it turned out to be a good discussion here. You can search it. Keeping calories equal, i've switched from 4 meals to 2 meals a day (spaced 12 hours apart) and noticed no change in body composition, no extra muscle loss. I find life much easier and enjoy the larger meals. I don't agree w/ some of what was said on wannabebigs forum. Esp. the idea that only x amount of protein can be absorbed, this is utter nonsense. An ileal break mechanism slows down gastric emptying, or the rate at which food leaves the stomach to the small intestines, when larger meals are eaten, and there is still a 90+ % absorption rate for protein when extremely large amounts are eaten.

The study on boxers was done without a breakfast, as was said on the discussion board, and Lyle has told me as well. This is leaving over 12hrs. between meals, probably around 14-16 hours which would be too long w/out protein and would result in muscle loss, but this does not mean a large amount of protein eaten every 12 hours will have the same results. Remember the casein/whey study by Biorie showing just 30g of casein elevates amino acid levels for 7 hours, imagine a meat source taken in, which will likely take as long or longer to digest, with extra fat, and a larger amount of protein (100-150g). Either way i've done this with myself and it hasn't caused any muscle loss that is noticable.
 
On a personal level [something I really dont like to do in posts] i believe that 5 meals a day tends to fit my lifestyle adequately. I eat at 7am, again at 12pm, again at 5pm, postworkout at 10pm, before bed @ 2am - then sleep! Yes this is my lifestyle, its horrible, alas, im still a school boy and it is the way it is :)
 
I eat three large meals and a few snacs. Even if it had any disadvantages concernin body composition, the positives would probably still make up for it. Especially dieting I feel so less hungry eating large meals as opposed to smaller more frequent feedings.

Personally, I think the theory of more stable blood sugar levels with frequent feedings holds very little water, it does sound nice in theory but the delayed gastric emptying that large meals give keeps hunger away a lot more.
 
Back
Top