PDA

View Full Version : Number of meals?



ppowell
07-06-2005, 09:29 AM
I don't usually eat a good breakfast. Protein shake w/ 40 gr or 2 yogurts. I usually eat a good luch, shake at 3- 3:30, good dinner around 6 - 7, workout before or after and 1 or 2 cans of tuna before bed or maybe a shake.

What is the downside of only eating 2 "real" meals a day, as opposed to 3? Am i missing something?

I have considered eating 2 or 3 eggs every morning, but that would be less protein.

EJFan
07-06-2005, 10:41 AM
you have to eat a good breakfast. as soon as i roll outta bed i have eggs, natty pb, milk and ww bread in my stomach. gotta stoke the fire straight away.

pfc3rex
07-06-2005, 10:45 AM
EJ is absolutely correct, you need to have a good breakfast. Your body hasn't had any type of nutrient in atleast 6 hours. You should also be consuming about 6-7 meals a day. Those don't have to be actual meals ie - one meal could be a protein shake and some cottage cheese.

bradley
07-07-2005, 10:00 AM
I don't think you are going to see any difference between eating 3 meals a day and 6 meals a day, since the larger meals will sit in the gut longer. If you are cutting then I would recommend trying both ways and see which plan keeps your hunger in check. I do agree that breakfast is important for the reasons mentioned above as well as your last meal of the day.

trainerSI
07-07-2005, 10:11 AM
yes you will see a big differnce between 3 and 6 meals a day. By eating smaller meals, your digestive system is capable of handling the food and absorbing MORE nutrienst and storing less away as fat.
Also by eating six smaller meals thru the day, you keep your metabolism higher, more fat gets burned AND you are capable of injesting MORE calories at the same time than by eating just 3 squares a day. Eating every 2.5-3 hours is optimal for best all round dietary plan. It keeps your blood sugar level constant instead of spiking and plunging all the time due to lack of sufficent nutritional intake.

bradley
07-07-2005, 10:28 AM
yes you will see a big differnce between 3 and 6 meals a day. By eating smaller meals, your digestive system is capable of handling the food and absorbing MORE nutrienst and storing less away as fat.
Also by eating six smaller meals thru the day, you keep your metabolism higher, more fat gets burned AND you are capable of injesting MORE calories at the same time than by eating just 3 squares a day. Eating every 2.5-3 hours is optimal for best all round dietary plan. It keeps your blood sugar level constant instead of spiking and plunging all the time due to lack of sufficent nutritional intake.

Your body is very effecient at absorbing nutrients, and total calories consumed is the determining factor as to whether you will gain/lose weight. If you eat larger meals the food will take longer to digest and therefore will be in your stomach longer. This will still provide your body with a constant supply of nutrients, which would be equivalent of eating two smaller meals. When eating larger meals you will be consuming all three macronutrients which will keep insulin levels at a more constant level. I have posted some studies below, which illustrate my point.


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.


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.

pfc3rex
07-07-2005, 11:07 AM
If you eat larger meals the food will take longer to digest and therefore will be in your stomach longer.
Eating larger meals would take longer to burn the calories then right? Since they havne't been digested yet
When eating larger meals you will be consuming all three macronutrients which will keep insulin levels at a more constant level.
Eating smaller meals should produce the same results
I have posted some studies below, which illustrate my point.
To much reading :p

^ ^ ^

zimbo
07-07-2005, 11:07 AM
To me, personally, the advantage of eating lots of small meals during weight loss is that I don't feel hunger pangs. If I get hungry, I eat a baggie full of carrots, a 1/2 cup of cottage cheese, or an apple.

--Steve

pfc3rex
07-07-2005, 11:30 AM
I still stick by that if you eat small consistent meals throughout the day you will burn more carbs (because your most likely going to do cardio or weight lifting)

trainerSI
07-07-2005, 12:42 PM
Bradley ,

I see 3 of4 of your studies come from ONE source which can ( not saying it is) be very biased. HOWEVER we can get on debates till the end of time over this matter. I draw on my own expereiences from myself and the clientel I have helped over the last 17 years, along with studying Chris Aceto and Chad Nicoles ( both with health science degrees in nutrition) that mulitple meals work better than sporatic or overindulgence in eating habits. By smaller meals I am not talking nibbling, I am refering to a good meal with a balance of carbs/protein and essential fats. On a personal level, If I dont eat within 4 hours of each meal , my blood sugar level drops noticably ( NO I am not anywhere near diabetic either).
I noticed that 2 out of 3 studies did NOT include the type of people associated with activity levels found within these boards but deal with inactive and over weight people.

If three meals a day work for you, great, your very lucky, but for most active people it takes more than that to see results.

Built
07-07-2005, 01:38 PM
I prefer the multiple-meal approach for comfort myself, but I'm not sure why you feel that carbs are necessary at each of those meals. And I'm pretty careful to avoid eating "balanced" meals - I prefer to take advantage of macronutrient timing instead.

But hey, if it works...

:)

bradley
07-07-2005, 01:50 PM
Bradley ,

I see 3 of4 of your studies come from ONE source which can ( not saying it is) be very biased. HOWEVER we can get on debates till the end of time over this matter. I draw on my own expereiences from myself and the clientel I have helped over the last 17 years, along with studying Chris Aceto and Chad Nicoles ( both with health science degrees in nutrition) that mulitple meals work better than sporatic or overindulgence in eating habits. By smaller meals I am not talking nibbling, I am refering to a good meal with a balance of carbs/protein and essential fats. On a personal level, If I dont eat within 4 hours of each meal , my blood sugar level drops noticably ( NO I am not anywhere near diabetic either).
I noticed that 2 out of 3 studies did NOT include the type of people associated with activity levels found within these boards but deal with inactive and over weight people.

If three meals a day work for you, great, your very lucky, but for most active people it takes more than that to see results.

Do you have anything that you are basing these assumptions other than personal experience? Have you tried just eating 3 meals a day? I agree that the multiple meal approach will work, but I have yet to see anything that contradicts what I posted earlier.

trainerSI
07-07-2005, 03:04 PM
I dont back my claims up by using OTHER studies. I did mention a few upper level names in the fitness and nutrition circles AND I also stated that I CANNOT make it at my level of expereince and lifting/bbing abilities on three meals a day quite plainly. Just because they do not end in UNIVERSITY STUDY does not make them any less factual that they do and always HAVE worked. My programs dietary and exercise have lead to quite successful endeavors by my clientel either on a begging level and on competition levels.....2 first place finishes in mid level bb comps by a client, One marine finishing second in his platoon below a cert nutritonist in PT, one Air force finishing second in his platoon in PT, several state level powerlifters and several personal fitness lifters loosing 40+ lbs under my dietary and exercise guidance. No I dont have anthing past a Cert Personal Training degree, but again, my methods work and thats what counts. So you see I dont need a university study to back my findings up thru the 22 years I have been training and the 17 years I have been training and guiding others.

Again, If you can get by on three a day, more power to you. If you want, I could dig up university studies, but it would probably be wasting both of our times. oh... I found your japanese study on boxers but if you read down a bit further under under CTLEA ( computerized time line energy assessment). states.....bottom line that people that eat more frequent meals are leaner due to less energy deficiencies than those who have greater energy deficiencies ( smaller frequent meals vr larger infrequent meals.) and also states that those who eat smaller frequent meals are more apt to be active in some form or another compared to those who eat less frequently and are NOT active.

Bottom line also states that those who eat 5-7 meals a day are more apt to have stronger leaner bodies.

Studies by Georgia state University and Dr. Bernardot.



A study in the American Journal of Epidemiology also shows that people who eat small meals many times a day are less likely to be obese as those who eat fewer meals [7]. Those eating four or more times daily (generally three meals and one or two snacks) were less likely to be obese.

Eating more frequently will have a greater effect on fat loss when you incorporate protein in each meal. That's because your metabolic rate rises to a greater extent following the consumption of a meal high in protein, compared to one high in carbohydrate. The rise in metabolism also lasts a lot longer [4].

Of course, some argue that they don't have the time to cook and prepare all these meals, and that the benefits just aren't worth the extra effort. This is a matter of opinion.

Making any significant change to your eating habits requires discipline. Some people will find it relatively easy. Others will decide that it's too much hassle. Remember a "meal" doesn't have to be complicated. It can be as simple and convenient as an apple and a handful of almonds.

ok, Im done

Built
07-07-2005, 03:34 PM
An apple and a handful of almonds wouldn't make much of a meal - not much protein, just carbs and fat.

Bleah.

Now toss in some cottage cheese, and we're talking...

:)

Holto
07-07-2005, 06:07 PM
If you want, I could dig up university studies

that would be nice...

I have never seen anything that would support the common myths surrounding meal frequency

Myths such as eating frequently increases energy expenditure

Shao-LiN
07-07-2005, 07:15 PM
I still stick by that if you eat small consistent meals throughout the day you will burn more carbs (because your most likely going to do cardio or weight lifting)

This doesn't make sense to me.

Shao-LiN
07-07-2005, 07:17 PM
In any event, whether you see a difference from eating 3 meals vs. 6 is probably individual. There aren't any studies proving that such is the case, at least that I have seen.. In my opinion, you shouldn't see any significant differences. But, if you were to have a minimum, I would definately say at least 3 meals a day and no less.