PDA

View Full Version : 6 Meals? 3 Meals? Why?



Lox
06-09-2003, 01:00 PM
Ok.. Sorry If I am bringing up already covered material. I did a search and couldn't really find what I was looking for so here it goes.....

The idea behind eating more meals in a day is what??
The two I hear constantly are..

1. It keeps your metabolism up. Or raises your metabolism. Making it 'easier' to lose weight, etc.
and/or
2. It makes for a better more even distribution of needed protien and other things throughout the day. Therefore being better for you.

Now my questions are...

a) Which of these is right? Or are the both right?
b) Are there scientific studies that show it does infact raise metabolism?

MrWebb78
06-09-2003, 01:01 PM
they are both right, and they are both proven

Maki Riddington
06-09-2003, 01:22 PM
Here's some food for thought.

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

Effect of the pattern of food intake on human energy metabolism.

Verboeket-van de Venne WP, Westerterp KR, Kester AD.

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

The pattern of food intake can affect the regulation of body weight and lipogenesis. We studied the effect of meal frequency on human energy expenditure (EE) and its components. During 1 week ten male adults (age 25-61 years, body mass index 20.7-30.4 kg/m2) were fed to energy balance at two meals/d (gorging pattern) and during another week at seven meals/d (nibbling pattern). For the first 6 d of each week the food was provided at home, followed by a 36 h stay in a respiration chamber. O2 consumption and CO2 production (and hence EE) were calculated over 24 h. EE in free-living conditions was measured over the 2 weeks with doubly-labelled water (average daily metabolic rate, ADMR). The three major components of ADMR are basal metabolic rate (BMR), diet-induced thermogenesis (DIT) and EE for physical activity (ACT). There was no significant effect of meal frequency on 24 h EE or ADMR. Furthermore, BMR and ACT did not differ between the two patterns. DIT was significantly elevated in the gorging pattern, but this effect was neutralized by correction for the relevant time interval. With the method used for determination of DIT no significant effect of meal frequency on the contribution of DIT to ADMR could be demonstrated.

Influence of the feeding frequency on nutrient utilization in man: consequences for 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 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.

restless
06-09-2003, 01:26 PM
I only have 4 meals a day and I'm doing much better like this in what regards appetite control.

Here's a copy of a excerpt of a conversation of someone with Lyle at some other board that was posted at the HST board:

"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
satisfied.

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
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.

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
Netherlands.

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,
UK.

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 190 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 190 h on day
2 until 090 h on day 4, and then from 190 h on day 4 to 090 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 230 h and 080 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
adults.

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 mg.kg-1.d-1. Mean measured daily leucine
oxidation (mg leucine.kg-1.d-1) 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.

Ferry Costen
06-09-2003, 01:31 PM
well how big are the meals supposed to be? I eat 6 or 7 times a day. Meals are usually half a can of tuna on bread. Next meal may be peanut butter on bread with banana and milk. just enough to satisfy the hunger

restless
06-09-2003, 01:56 PM
well, in my case it depends. They can be 1000 calories or maybe just 500-600. It doesn't seem to make much difference. What I found interesting is that too frequent feedings seems to have a negative impact on protein synthesis which makes me wonder.....

Lox
06-09-2003, 02:01 PM
Do you guys happen to have links to the studies you've showed me or are they directly out of books and whatnot??

If you have links can you post them so I can bookmark them for future reference? Well.. and to prove my point if I have to argue it of course :p

*procedes to get out his dictionary and tries to make some sense about the prior posts*

restless
06-09-2003, 02:05 PM
The full studies you usually have to pay to see. You can find the abstracts at pubmed.

Lox
06-09-2003, 07:49 PM
Alright.. cool. Thanks.

Now I do have to say I think paying to see studies is a joke. Keep people ignorant. Lets make people have to pay. Although I do suppose they need money from somewhere to continue the studies. *shrugs* I dunno what I'm arguing anymore. Ah Well... Thanks for the help.

bradley
06-10-2003, 02:35 AM
Originally posted by Ferry Costen
well how big are the meals supposed to be? I eat 6 or 7 times a day. Meals are usually half a can of tuna on bread. Next meal may be peanut butter on bread with banana and milk. just enough to satisfy the hunger

It really depends on how many calories you are taking in at the end of the day. The number of meals is not really that important, but the total amount of calories is. Just divide your daily calorie intake over the 6 to 7 meals.

chocko
07-11-2003, 08:12 PM
The reason (I believe) these journal articles cost $$$ to see is becausethey are published by a company that specializes in online distribution of print articles. In other words, if they didn't convert the articles into online form noone else would, therefore they can charge.


Originally posted by Lox
Alright.. cool. Thanks.

Now I do have to say I think paying to see studies is a joke. Keep people ignorant. Lets make people have to pay. Although I do suppose they need money from somewhere to continue the studies. *shrugs* I dunno what I'm arguing anymore. Ah Well... Thanks for the help.

Delphi
07-11-2003, 08:45 PM
Royalties must be paid. I've gotten full-text articles faxed to me in the past from surgical journals. Royalty fees are sometimes $20.

LAM
07-12-2003, 02:49 PM
Originally posted by Maki Riddington
Here's some food for thought.

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

Effect of the pattern of food intake on human energy metabolism.

Verboeket-van de Venne WP, Westerterp KR, Kester AD.

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

The pattern of food intake can affect the regulation of body weight and lipogenesis. We studied the effect of meal frequency on human energy expenditure (EE) and its components. During 1 week ten male adults (age 25-61 years, body mass index 20.7-30.4 kg/m2) were fed to energy balance at two meals/d (gorging pattern) and during another week at seven meals/d (nibbling pattern). For the first 6 d of each week the food was provided at home, followed by a 36 h stay in a respiration chamber. O2 consumption and CO2 production (and hence EE) were calculated over 24 h. EE in free-living conditions was measured over the 2 weeks with doubly-labelled water (average daily metabolic rate, ADMR). The three major components of ADMR are basal metabolic rate (BMR), diet-induced thermogenesis (DIT) and EE for physical activity (ACT). There was no significant effect of meal frequency on 24 h EE or ADMR. Furthermore, BMR and ACT did not differ between the two patterns. DIT was significantly elevated in the gorging pattern, but this effect was neutralized by correction for the relevant time interval. With the method used for determination of DIT no significant effect of meal frequency on the contribution of DIT to ADMR could be demonstrated.

Influence of the feeding frequency on nutrient utilization in man: consequences for 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 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 only problem I have with those studies is that most likely athletes were not used. Our bodies operate at a much higher level of efficiency compared to the average sedentary individual...

ace dogg
07-13-2003, 11:40 AM
I don't think it makes a difference either way. The only reason i ever do it is when i need a ton of cals, cuz its easier to get them all down in smaller sittings that huge ones.

just do whichever you prefer. as long as you got a breakfast, post workout, and before bed meal.