First one: I cant get the full text right now, but Ive seen this study before and the protein intakes were absurdly low (about 60g/day IIRC) and in purely liquid form which is important (and not totally realistic). Not a very relevant study design for our purposes, ie BBer with an adequate (largely solid) protein intake.
Second one: Well, obese sedentary subjects are just about as far from lean BBers as you can get, but nevertheless it says
'In the short term, meal frequency and a period of fasting have no major impact on energy intake or expenditure', which bascially means meal frequency has no effect on
weight loss. Body composition wasnt even measured in this study.
Third one: Again, obese sedentary subjects. This time they were fed just 800cals with shockingly low protein intakes (even the highest, 15%, works out at 30g/day), so its no wonder some LBM was lost. This set-up hardly compares to a trained individual with an adequate protein intake. Retarded study design at best!
And even though the authors make a conclusion
associating increased meal frequency with increased LBM (
'...a diet with a high-protein concentration, fed as frequent small meals, is associated with better preservation of lean tissue than an isoenergetic diet with lower-protein concentration fed as fewer meals...'), they make the acknowledgement that since the variables of meal frequency and protein intake werent separated out, its not valid to make any
direct link between meal frequency and LBM retention (
...this result reached significance only when the effects were combined...).
Fourth one: Slothlike fatties again, but still concludes:
'There was no significant effect of meal frequency on 24 h EE [Energy Expenditure] or ADMR [Average Daily Metabolic Rate]. Furthermore, BMR [Basal Metabolic Rate] and ACT did not differ between the two patterns'. Also,
'no significant effect of meal frequency on the contribution of DIT [Dietary Induced Thermogenesis]to ADMR could be demonstrated'. Still no measure of body composition (isnt that what we're interested in here?)
Ugh, Im not having a go at you, but none of these studies do anything to prove what youre saying. The only one that comes close (the first one) was so poorly designed its results are meaningless in this context.
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]What about the body's lacking ability of storing aminoacids?
It cant be optimal to eat two times a day, when you want muscle growth and therefore want constant aminoacid availability ??
In answer to your question, I agree, the body cannot store amino acids very well
once they have been digested.
The 'trick' here is that solid protein sits for a long time, undigested, in the gut (which is I mentioned the liquid feeding in the first study - liquid=quicker gastric emptying). Look up the 'ileal brake mechanism' if you dont believe me.
What happens if you eat a lot of solid protein in one go (ie few large meals) is that it takes a long time leave the stomach and be digested (and we're talking more than a few hours for a big meal), thus supplying a constant 'drip drip' of aminos to the blood.
This is explained pretty well by thinking in evolutionary terms. In our past we would have had protein sporadically and in large amounts when we did (think of a tribe gorging on a kill). It would make no sense if the body made no use of this protein, oxidised it, and ended up losing lots of LBM. If this was the case then we probably wouldnt have survived very long as a species. The adaptation to this pulse feeding is to slowly digest the protein, evening out the supply somewhat (referring again to the importance of a totally liquid intake - protein shakes werent a staple part of the cavemans diet, so the body handles it a bit differently).
Im not saying that there arent other benefits to frequent feeding (eg controlling hunger if dieting or making it easier to get sufficient calories if appetite is poor), but that you wont lose LBM by eating 2-3 meals versus 6-8, given the same calories and adequate protein.
Anyway, its late and Im hungry!
