PDA

View Full Version : does calorie distribution REALLY affect metabolism and overall weight loss



nddillon
12-04-2007, 08:47 AM
http://www.wannabebigforums.com/showthread.php?p=1835798&posted=1#post1835798
I was reading this and would like to know if you all have read studies proving or disproving this and where those studies are.

I am talking about the 6 small meals vs. 3 medium meals vs. 1 big meal

mc wb
12-04-2007, 08:57 AM
[
I was reading this and would like to know if you all have read studies proving or disproving this and where those studies are.

I am talking about the 6 small meals vs. 3 medium meals vs. 1 big meal

yes there's a lot of research on this topic. You need a pubmed subscription to get at the articles. do you have that?

there's also a few books on what's called "nutrient timing" that supports the claim.

The thesis is rather straight-forward: if you put more fuel into your system than you can use at a go, the excess fuel gets stored, more often than not as fat. So for fat management, that's one reason to keep to feedings regularly.

There's also issues about times of day that our systems can best handle different kinds of nutrients.

There's also notions of regularly refreshing the types of energy we need to stay optimally fueled - energy available for our needs.

As said, if you can get access to pubmed, i can point you to a few articles.

mc wb

Slim Schaedle
12-04-2007, 09:03 AM
yes there's a lot of research on this topic. You need a pubmed subscription to get at the articles. do you have that?

there's also a few books on what's called "nutrient timing" that supports the claim.

The thesis is rather straight-forward: if you put more fuel into your system than you can use at a go, the excess fuel gets stored, more often than not as fat. So for fat management, that's one reason to keep to feedings regularly.

There's also issues about times of day that our systems can best handle different kinds of nutrients.

There's also notions of regularly refreshing the types of energy we need to stay optimally fueled - energy available for our needs.

As said, if you can get access to pubmed, i can point you to a few articles.

mc wb

How about you log into pubmed and copy and paste those abstracts?


Now, obviously more fuel than the sytem needs leads to fat gain.

The issue is number of meals whille still being in caloric deficit.

So, make sure whatever you post includes that.

nddillon
12-04-2007, 09:12 AM
I can get access to pubmed.gov databases

mc wb
12-04-2007, 09:18 AM
How about you log into pubmed and copy and paste those abstracts?


are you speaking to me or to the other poster?



Now, obviously more fuel than the sytem needs leads to fat gain.

The issue is number of meals whille still being in caloric deficit.

So, make sure whatever you post includes that.

I'm not sure what you're saying. Do you think people interpret 6 meals to mean doubling the calories of three meals, rather than understanding that this means distributing WHATEVER your calories are for a day across these feedings? To be clear, then, 6 or more feedings based on whatever macro nutrient ratios you've learned are appropriate for you, and whatever cal. loading is appropriate for your goals (you may be bulking up so eating above maintenance, or at maintenance, so not needing a caloric deficit, etc)

best

dr mc wb

Slim Schaedle
12-04-2007, 09:35 AM
are you speaking to me or to the other poster?



I'm not sure what you're saying. Do you think people interpret 6 meals to mean doubling the calories of three meals, rather than understanding that this means distributing WHATEVER your calories are for a day across these feedings? To be clear, then, 6 or more feedings based on whatever macro nutrient ratios you've learned are appropriate for you, and whatever cal. loading is appropriate for your goals (you may be bulking up so eating above maintenance, or at maintenance, so not needing a caloric deficit, etc)

best

dr mc wb

I am well aware of what you are talking about :) Gotta run now though.

What field do you specialize in?

Holto
12-04-2007, 09:46 AM
mc wb:

This thread shows some abstracts done on meal frequency:

http://wannabebigforums.com/showthread.php?t=66713&highlight=meal+frequency

Eating more frequently does not increase metabolism or impact body composition and has never been shown to do so in a clinical setting.

jdeity
12-05-2007, 04:30 PM
thanks holto!

Yup, you eat 1000 calories, your body metabolizes them. You're not 'ramping up dat metabolism dude!' by splitting that into 15 mini-meals throughout the day. Calories in / calories out, don't know what else needs to be said!

arnoldsclone
12-05-2007, 05:34 PM
thanks holto!

Yup, you eat 1000 calories, your body metabolizes them. You're not 'ramping up dat metabolism dude!' by splitting that into 15 mini-meals throughout the day. Calories in / calories out, don't know what else needs to be said!

n you're not ramping up your metabolism, but you are limiting the amount of cals your body has to digest at a given time. and by doing that you're not giving your body enough cals to store fat, hence why it is a better way to eat.

BFGUITAR
12-05-2007, 05:41 PM
It takes hours to digest and absorb food. So eating 6 meals a day really doesnt do anything else. If you have a 1000 calorie meal in the morning, it will take until lunch for it all to be digested and absorbed. In the mean time you can have snack, no problem. But the whole idea of constantly giving your body nutrients throughout the day is silly because thats what your body is already doing. Your never really giving yourself too much food at once, with the incredible length for digestion, absorption will be slow.

Some people like the 6 meal idea because it makes them feel fuller. Me, I love eating a few big meals a day as I dont really get hungry (although I can always eat food :P)

To some degree timing has an effect, but not nearly as much as how many calories. I wouldnt have a 3000 calorie meal in the morning because by the night your setting yourself up for muscle breakdown. While digestion takes time, if your eating a 3000 calorie meal I can safely assume its calorie dense thus making it easier to digest (more volume=longer diestion time). As a result, you may be done digestion after 5-6 hours rather than 4 leaving you screwed for the night. So one meal a day isnt the best, and 6 meals a day is fine, but its just as effective as say 3 a day.

Here are some digestion times

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...romoid=googlep

Some foods and their digestive times which Drs. Maile & Scott tested:

Hours Hours

Cane Sugar .... 1, Eggs, soft boiled. 2

Banana, raw .... 4 Eggs, raw 3

Gooseberries, stewed 3, Eggs, hard boiled. 4

Eggs & Milk, raw 4

White Bread 3... Beef, boiled 4

Cream, thin .... 3

Butter, 6 Vegetable Salad 2

As you can see, things take time. Really, it takes an entire day for food to go in and come out. While digestion takes 3-6 hours, absorption could take a lot longer. Thus eating 6 meals a day doesnt make a difference in the end.

The concept for eating 6 meals a day based on "keeping your body fueled" or "not giving your body too much at once" is a perfect example of scientific ignorance. Your never overloading your body like mad, your body always feeds itself slowly. Of course, eating 6 meals a day for comfort is a great idea but dont bring science into the picture.

Fat and protein generally take longer to digest and if you have them combined with some carbs your looking at a good 6 hour digestion.

BTW if you guys didnt know, Bananas contain some of the longest digesting carbs out there in fruit. And its not all fructose so dont worry lol.



From another thread I posted

Holto
12-05-2007, 06:14 PM
n you're not ramping up your metabolism, but you are limiting the amount of cals your body has to digest at a given time. and by doing that you're not giving your body enough cals to store fat, hence why it is a better way to eat.

Assuming this bolded statement was accurate.

Why would this result in more fat gained over a period of time?

jdeity
12-06-2007, 09:41 AM
I think he's meaning t..... better use an example.

Eating 3k calories daily.

example1: eat a 3k meal, one time daily
example2: eat a 500 calorie meal, 6X daily

In example one, he's proposing you'd gain more fat, since your body would have far more calories in it at one time than it could use for bodily functions/anabolism, and the rest would carry over into fat.

In example two, he's proposing that, since there's never enough surplus at any one time, your body wouldn't put on as much fat over a long time period.

Arnoldsclone, let me know if I botched that.






Either way though, it's inaccurate, it's calories in / calories out, you're not tricking the body by splitting your meals (hmmm, if you were, then I guess the most logical solution for clean bulking would be a liquid drip at a steady rate 24hrs a day, but I digress haha). The thing that a lot of people seem to miss is that the metabolism boost is directly related/correlated to the calorie intake, so yeah, while your 6 meals/day may have you at a higher metabolic rate at most times, it doesn't matter, since the 1 huge meal daily provides a shorter, yet far more pronounced, metabolic increase.

<did I get that right holto?>

jdeity
12-06-2007, 09:43 AM
holto - if you got a minute, I'd love to hear what you'd have to say on antioxidants over here:
http://www.wannabebigforums.com/showthread.php?t=105101

Unreal
12-06-2007, 10:42 AM
n you're not ramping up your metabolism, but you are limiting the amount of cals your body has to digest at a given time. and by doing that you're not giving your body enough cals to store fat, hence why it is a better way to eat.

Did you even read the article or abstract? Read up all the info on intermintent fasting if you really want to get more info.

arnoldsclone
12-06-2007, 11:26 AM
Did you even read the article or abstract? Read up all the info on intermintent fasting if you really want to get more info.

i didn't get a chance to read it, i was just speaking from personal experience, i lost 100 lbs by having 6 small meals daily......i will read it though and jdiety you hit what i was getting at on the head lol

Holto
12-06-2007, 12:17 PM
i didn't get a chance to read it, i was just speaking from personal experience, i lost 100 lbs by having 6 small meals daily......i will read it though and jdiety you hit what i was getting at on the head lol

Yeah your body just doesn't work that way. Congrats on the weight loss dude.

You can also think of it like this. If you give your body a perfect stream of nutrients all day and (your logic) don't deposit fat, you're also never in need of breaking fat down. Again, though, your body doesn't work that way.

Holto
12-06-2007, 12:18 PM
holto - if you got a minute, I'd love to hear what you'd have to say on antioxidants over here:
http://www.wannabebigforums.com/showthread.php?t=105101

I've actually been doing some reading/refreshing to do just that!

Guido
12-06-2007, 12:45 PM
It's pretty simple, really. Nutrient timing WILL affect your metabolism. Will your metabolism affect your weight loss/gain? You bet!

jamrock
12-06-2007, 01:49 PM
Man I've done it all.. 8 meals a day, 4 meals a day, 1.5 meals a day.. As long as I'm eating 2800 cals, of which 250g of protein are involved I lose weight. Doesn't matter how I do it.. I still burn it up like a dude that let it drip for a month. Ohh and on days I allow myself more carbs it tends to be in the late evenings! *gasps* Yup, right before I hit the sack!

I'm not saying you guys are liars, or that the scientists are wrong, or that I don't care what you get for xmas... I'm just saying all that doesn't pertain to me, so I can save some time reading. ;)

Unreal
12-06-2007, 01:54 PM
I lost 115lbs eating 3 meals a day, so 3 must be better then 6. Too bad that logic is flawed.

smalls
12-06-2007, 02:17 PM
Man I've done it all.. 8 meals a day, 4 meals a day, 1.5 meals a day.. As long as I'm eating 2800 cals, of which 250g of protein are involved I lose weight. Doesn't matter how I do it.. I still burn it up like a dude that let it drip for a month. Ohh and on days I allow myself more carbs it tends to be in the late evenings! *gasps* Yup, right before I hit the sack!

I'm not saying you guys are liars, or that the scientists are wrong, or that I don't care what you get for xmas... I'm just saying all that doesn't pertain to me, so I can save some time reading. ;)


Most of the people with knowledge and this subject and the studies agree with you on this topic.

jdeity
12-06-2007, 04:06 PM
Man I've done it all.. 8 meals a day, 4 meals a day, 1.5 meals a day.. As long as I'm eating 2800 cals, of which 250g of protein are involved I lose weight. Doesn't matter how I do it.. I still burn it up like a dude that let it drip for a month. Ohh and on days I allow myself more carbs it tends to be in the late evenings! *gasps* Yup, right before I hit the sack!

I'm not saying you guys are liars, or that the scientists are wrong, or that I don't care what you get for xmas... I'm just saying all that doesn't pertain to me, so I can save some time reading. ;)

I'll second that eating before bed thing - I typically do 3 meals, one is always in bed watching a movie and it's one of my biggest of the day :p

arnoldsclone
12-06-2007, 04:18 PM
I'll second that eating before bed thing - I typically do 3 meals, one is always in bed watching a movie and it's one of my biggest of the day :p

i do the same thing but i have 5 meals daily and the 5th meal is at like 12pm right before i sleep lol, and it's the biggest, but i get out of the gym at like 1030 pm so i need thw biggest meal of the day then:indian:

so the general consensus then is that it doesn't matter when you eat your meals and how many you have as long as you don't go over the caloric amount you intended to stay at??

BFGUITAR
12-06-2007, 04:24 PM
i do the same thing but i have 5 meals daily and the 5th meal is at like 12pm right before i sleep lol, and it's the biggest, but i get out of the gym at like 1030 pm so i need thw biggest meal of the day then:indian:

so the general consensus then is that it doesn't matter when you eat your meals and how many you have as long as you don't go over the caloric amount you intended to stay at??

Yes.
Timing does have an effect but not nearly as most people preach.

Holto
12-07-2007, 11:09 AM
It's pretty simple, really. Nutrient timing WILL affect your metabolism. Will your metabolism affect your weight loss/gain? You bet!

So can you site flaws in the studies I posted?

I find it incredibly simple also. Which is why I trust the data.

BFGUITAR
12-07-2007, 11:37 AM
Saying that timing your meals makes a big difference shows you dont know your body. There's a lot of scientific ignorance out there.

If it takes 4.5 hours to FULLY digest a banana as I posted above, than during those 4.5 hours your absorbing nutrients. So really, from eating one banana your fueling your body for 4.5 hours. So why eat 8 meals a day if your already fueling yourself slowly?

This process is slightly different for fat as fat is digested and absorbed in the intestines from what I recall. Sugars and proteins are digested in both the stomach and intestines.

McIrish
12-08-2007, 10:35 PM
So can you site flaws in the studies I posted?

I find it incredibly simple also. Which is why I trust the data.

I have a problem with the studies from that link, Holt, and I would *love* a response to this from either you or any member of the "eating is just a simple physics problem!" crowd.

From the link you posted....


Effects of meal frequency on body composition during weight control in boxers.

Iwao S, Mori K, Sato Y.

First Division of Health Promotion Science, Graduate School of Medicine, Nagoya University, Japan.

The effects of meal frequency on changes in body composition by food restriction were investigated. Twelve boxers were divided between a two meals day-1 group (the 2M group) and a six meals day-1 group (the 6M group). Both groups ingested 5.02 MJ (1200 kcal) day-1 for 2 weeks. Although there was no difference in change of body weight by food restriction between the two groups, the decrease in lean body mass (LBM) was significantly greater in the 2M group than in the 6M group. The decrease in urinary 3-methylhistidine/creatinine was significantly greater in the 6M group than in the 2M group. These results suggest that the lower frequency of meal intake leads to a greater myoprotein catabolism even if the same diet is consumed.

Please refer to the bolded portion. I know the size isn't large enough to make this statistically significant, but if you can all use these to support your claims, allow me the same leeway. :) I understand that total weight will be the same (that is, after all, a simple physics problem) but BODY COMPOSITION gets kicked in the nuts when you eat 2 meals a day, apparently.

Isn't "a [significant] decrease in lean body mass" something that we're all trying to avoid...?

BFGUITAR
12-08-2007, 11:16 PM
The study doesnt tell us the what they ate which has a HUGE impact as how fast absorption is... If it was somewhat balanced containing fats and protein it would make a difference than just protein and carbs. And its not realistic in a sense that its only 1200 calories! When you get to extremes like this things change. A person eating a normal days worth of food will always have food in their system.

VikingWarlord
12-09-2007, 06:38 AM
there's also a few books on what's called "nutrient timing" that supports the claim.

I actually own the book Nutrient Timing by Drs. John Ivy and Robert Portman.

According to what I've read, including the book mentioned above, the only time that timing the intake of specific nutrients is 30-60 minutes before and 45 minutes after your training session, then another meal within 2 hours after that.

The rest of the time, it's mostly a matter of comfort. If your workout window nutrition is on, then it doesn't really matter when or how often you're eating. It's not likely to see

In my own experience, I didn't notice any real difference in weight loss when eating 3, 4, or 6 times per day. The only thing that changed was how comfortable I was. 4-5 times per day is where I sit now because that's what feels the best to me.

jdeity
12-09-2007, 08:31 AM
uhhh, I finally realized, I think, what that book is you guys are talking about. Is this 'nutrient timing' book a rather small one? It came out maybe 2 years ago? If so, it was released with a product line that never took off, I used to give those out for free as promotional pieces..

VikingWarlord
12-09-2007, 09:04 AM
uhhh, I finally realized, I think, what that book is you guys are talking about. Is this 'nutrient timing' book a rather small one? It came out maybe 2 years ago? If so, it was released with a product line that never took off, I used to give those out for free as promotional pieces..

It's this one (http://www.amazon.com/Nutrient-Timing-Future-Sports-Nutrition/dp/1591201411/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1197216168&sr=8-1) that I'm talking about. Berardi was a contributor and he's mentioned it a few times in some of his articles. It's over 200 pages, so I don't think that qualifies as "small".

McIrish
12-09-2007, 09:07 AM
The study doesnt tell us the what they ate which has a HUGE impact as how fast absorption is... If it was somewhat balanced containing fats and protein it would make a difference than just protein and carbs. And its not realistic in a sense that its only 1200 calories! When you get to extremes like this things change. A person eating a normal days worth of food will always have food in their system.

Guitar, you seem to be missing the point. On one hand, you are arguing that food takes 4 hours to digest anyway, so you'll always have nutrients, but in this post you come back and say "a person eating a normal days worth [sic] of food will always have food in their system."

Uhh, but by your previous logic, if food takes a long time to digest, a person eating half a day's worth of food will pretty much always have food in their system, too.

Furthermore, my post had nothing to do with food absorption, and the study doesn't care whatsoever about food absorption?

I see it like this - yes, the study size is small, and yes, the sample group is a bunch of severely calorie-restricted boxers... HOWEVER, everyone else here is whipping out these studies like candy to say "a cal is a cal is a cal, all that matters is how many you get in a day, not when or how you get them, heck slam down 3,000 calories of table sugar and protein powder at breakfast and go hungry the rest of the day, it doesn't matter, blahblah". Mind you, I know that's a bit of an exaggeration, but bear with me.

Doesn't this single study give you pause for thought that MAYBE eating a few smaller meals might be more beneficial to preserving LBM and favorable body composition (assuming ceteris paribus conditions otherwise)? I know people here are concerned with optimizing, and if it's an issue as easy as "eat half of chicken breast and green beans now, eat remainder in three hours", why the heck wouldn't you?

Anyhow, I'd still love a response that strictly addresses the points that I made. I don't mean to come down hard on your post, but you are pulling out different variables that may or may not be entirely irrelevant (type of food consumed, which was never a consideration in anybody's posts so far... this isn't a clean/dirty bulk thread, after all).

BFGUITAR
12-09-2007, 12:00 PM
Never a consideration? Look at my long post... its all about digestion time, which is directly connected to absorption and is very important in this discussion. If you digest food quickly, you absorb quickly, you use it faster, and left with less in your bloodstream which resorts to you burning fat and or muscle. I dont see how this isnt important.

"Guitar, you seem to be missing the point. On one hand, you are arguing that food takes 4 hours to digest anyway, so you'll always have nutrients, but in this post you come back and say "a person eating a normal days worth [sic] of food will always have food in their system."

Uhh, but by your previous logic, if food takes a long time to digest, a person eating half a day's worth of food will pretty much always have food in their system, too."

That depends largely on what they eat. Not all food are digested and absorbed equally which is what my whole argument is about. If these guys were eating 1k calories worth of carbs and 200 calories of protein I would say this study is useless as OBVIOUSLY a person will digest, absorb and use their food a lot faster if its all carbs leaving them with nothing. A serving of butter can take 6 hours to fully digest. At the same time, your body is absorbing as its digesting giving you a steady flow of energy. Sugar is digested and absorbed a lot faster giving your body a lot of energy at once thus having to use it and store any excess. If it were a mixture of fat and sugar, than the sugar would be digested and absorbed a lot slower.

So yes your right when you say that if a person were to eat half a days worth of food theyll have food in their system, but if that food is composed of fast digesting food, than you wont. Youll be done the digestion/absorption cycle in a few hours rather than 5-6, which is enough time to start your next meal.

The conditions are not ideal for LBM preservation in any sort of way. Youve got boxers with ridiculously high metabolisms (who also digest food faster) eating 1200 calories. Things really start to break down at this point and every little thing matters. This is why I said timing does have an effect but as much as people think. When you get to unnatural/unfavorable conditions you can make any hypothesis come true. Eating 2500 calories a day with a balanced diet of fat, carbs and protein digestion time is long and timing becomes insignificant.

These variables are incredibly important. Sure, calories are calories but when your talking about normal conditions where digestion time is over 5 hours/meal, than timing doesnt matter anymore.

If that study told me what they ate and it consisted of normal meals, I would definitely take note of how timing affects LBM preservation. What doubts me are the ridiculous conditions these guys are going through to prove a hypothesis.

If there were a study that consisted of people losing weight over at least a month eating normal meals and realistic calories I would be sold as this is the most standardized way we can make the judgment. Tweaking the conditions like that study and getting that result definitely raises an eyebrow though, but until the conditions above are met, im not sold.

To sum up my points:
1) Meal timing doesnt matter when digestion time is long (ie normal people's diet). As well 2 meals of 600 calories are generally low volume which affect digestion/absorption speed (more volume=less surface area for digestion=slower digestion). Compared to say 3 1000 calorie meals a normal person would eat.
2) Tweaking conditions to ridiculous circumstances doesnt prove anything, but it does give reason to continue research which is why im not calling shinanagins on that study.

Holto
12-09-2007, 12:14 PM
I'm going to address the only question in your post. If you have any more please fire away. I've been posting these studies for years and I don't think I've ever really delved too deeply into them.


Isn't "a [significant] decrease in lean body mass" something that we're all trying to avoid...?

Yes, we are all trying desperately to avoid a decrease in lean mass.

Looking at this study I think it's safe to say it's best to avoid the following (especially all in conjunction):

1) eating twice a day
2) serverely restricting calories
3) not lifting heavy weights
4) engaging in high intensity, long duration steady state cardio

McIrish
12-09-2007, 01:58 PM
Yes, we are all trying desperately to avoid a decrease in lean mass.

Looking at this study I think it's safe to say it's best to avoid the following (especially all in conjunction):

1) eating twice a day
2) serverely restricting calories
3) not lifting heavy weights
4) engaging in high intensity, long duration steady state cardio

Holt, thanks for taking time to respond to my post. I agree wholeheartedly, that sample size is puny and the study only really tells us that you shouldn't eat twice daily if you're a boxer who is taking in 1,200 cals daily. :)

Let me just play devil's advocate for a sec here. I read through all of the abstracts in that link you posted a bit higher (http://wannabebigforums.com/showthread.php?t=66713&highlight=meal+frequency).

All THOSE tell me is that it is the same to eat one meal or a bunch of smaller meals if I were a morbidly obese woman trying to lose weight.... I'm not. I think it's therefore a huge jump of logic to say that it doesn't matter to the rest of us whether or not we eat one time or ten times each day.

Anyhow, back to the study of boxers. I understand you can't extrapolate the entirety of that study to the general population, but couldn't you assume that some of it would be applicable to body composition for weightlifters/general athletes, too? Why would anyone willingly sacrifice LBM/body composition, especially since we're already fighting so hard to build up a few lbs of LBM to begin with?