Nice review and post.
Conclusion: It appears that in my study of the topic I've been pointed to articles and research which supported my position of more meals is better. Certainly there are a few. I had read the abstracts and had not been pointed to alternative research. Even this meta-analysis which Steve pointed me to was originally only included as a supplement. However a clear review of the research shows (despite the meta-analysis bias) that there is no significant difference.
I can tell you that it wasn't 4 years ago that I too solely supported the idea of more frequent feedings. I was fed the garbage from the body building community, which of course was not backed by scientific evidence.
I then did research on my own and found plenty of research supporting frequent feedings.
However, it wasn't until I started speaking with Lyle McDonald (if you know Alan Aragon, I'm sure you know Lyle too) that he changed my viewpoint. He supported his claim that 3 vs. 6 meals is not going to make a difference at the end of the day with plenty of science.
I had that research saved, it must be on my home computer. I'll send them your way later tonight.
Here are a few more from my work computer... nothing earth shattering, but if you're interested:
I then took it to the 'drawing board.' N=1 is a 'great' sample population, I know
, but I can get just as lean in the same amount of time eating 3 vs. 6 meals as long as cals and macros are accounted for.
Since this finding, I've modified my advice to coincide along with the idea of 'it really doesn't matter.' At the end of the day, especially when you are dealing with non-athlete/bodybuilder individuals, your best bet is advising on eating as many meals as you are comfortable with while accounting for the proper cals and macros. If this happens to be 6 meals, great! If this happens to be 3 meals, great!
As I said in another thread, black/white thinking gets you nowhere fast in terms of applying science to your clients. There is far too much viable gray out there. And much of this 'gray' is what will work 'best' for certain individuals.
I'll add too, that I wouldn't advise going below 3 meals per day. I base this on some research, one such noted below. Plus, I've dealt with a handful of relatively lean individuals looking to get leaner. However, due to lifestyle and environment, they were eating twice per day. They proved to be my toughest cases for reaching sub-10% BF.
J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 1999 Feb;84(2):428-34. Links
Impact of binge eating on metabolic and leptin dynamics in normal young women.
* Taylor AE,
* Hubbard J,
* Anderson EJ.
Reproductive Endocrine Unit and National Center for Infertility Research, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston 02114, USA.
aetaylor@partners.org
Well defined eating disorders such as anorexia nervosa and bulimia are associated with significant known health risks. Although binge eating behavior is increased in unsuccessfully dieting obese women, other health implications of this common eating pattern are unknown. We hypothesized that ingestion of an entire day's calories at one time in the evening, a common eating practice among Americans, would lead to disruptions in glucose, insulin, and leptin metabolism and in menstrual cyclicity, even in healthy young women. Seven lean women without a history of eating disorders were studied on two occasions separated by one or two menstrual cycles. During one admission, they ate three regular meals plus a snack on each of 3 days. On the other admission, they ate the same number of calories, macronutrient matched to the normal diet, in a single evening meal. Glucose, insulin, and leptin were measured frequently for 12-14 h beginning at 0800 h on the third day of each diet, and an insulin tolerance test was performed while the subjects were fasting on the fourth day. Daily blood samples were obtained until ovulation was documented to assess any impact on menstrual function. Ingestion of an entire day's calories at dinner resulted in a significant increase in fasting glucose levels and a dramatic increase in insulin responses to the evening meal. The diurnal pattern of leptin secretion was altered, such that the gradual rise in leptin from 0800 h observed during the normal diet was abolished, and leptin did not begin to rise during the binge diet until at least 2 h after the evening meal. No changes were demonstrated in insulin sensitivity, follicular growth, or ovulation between the two diets. We conclude that 1) ingestion of a large number of calories at one time (binge eating) impacts metabolic parameters even when total calories and macronutrients are appropriate for weight; 2) the timing of energy intake is an independent determinant of the diurnal rhythm of leptin secretion, indicating a relatively acute affect of energy balance on leptin dynamics; 3) the mechanism of exaggerated insulin secretion after a binge meal remains to be determined, but may be related to the altered diurnal pattern of leptin secretion; and 4) as most binge eating episodes in the population are associated with the ingestion of excess calories, it is hypothesized that binge eating behavior is associated with even greater metabolic dysfunction than that described herein
The bottomline is this:
We could sling research for days, most likely. I'm not really a fan of that though. I'm more a fan or real world applicability.
My point I am trying to make: if you claim something is effective, then you need to be able to demonstrate its effectiveness.This doesn't necessarily require lab conditions; what it does require is enough people to demonstrably prove that a set of conditions will consistently provide a given result.
Will 6 meals do the trick? Certainly, we know this.
But what most 'gurus' fail to realize is that so will 3. And you are better off deciding what the best approach will be once you understand the clients individual situation.
A coach that works with athletes for 20 years and uses the same program to reliably get results with a diverse crowd is just as valid as a research study so far as I'm concerned. He may not have used lab conditions to come to his conclusions, but he has shown that his "theory" is reproducible and is up to the rigors of testing.
Discussion: What the hell? Since it is made clear in research that thermic effects of a meal go up for a few hours after eating and then dissipate, why wouldn’t more meals over the day increase your calorie burn? I offer two tentative explanations:
1) Most importantly, it appears that the thermic effect of a large meal not only lasts longer but is more pronounced initially. For example in the literature it says: 'glycogen synthesis is 2% inefficient' while lipogenesis 'is 25% inefficient'. This inefficiency could explain quite a bit. The formation of fat in a big meal might be more necessary if glycogen conversion is saturated (peaked) and thus the body must move to the more inefficient storage mechanism which requires more work to perform. Also, lipogenesis is a slower process, resulting in a lingering thermic effect.
2) The differences in this effect are usually balanced out by the general increase in overall thermal activity from smaller meals. (this explains the neutrality of the data and why it doesn’t swing the OTHER way).
At the moment, I don't have much to add to this discussion. I can say I agree strongly with your 'tentative explanations.'
Secondary Conclusion:
Eating more frequently is likely a good decision, but not because you are going to lose weight. Rather, it seems like singular meals spur on lipogenesis (fat development) while limiting protein synthesis due to its infrequent influx into the body. Protein that is not used is removed from the body as waste. So although the caloric difference is negligible the body composition differences are probably not.
Again, 1 vs. 6, yea, you are probably right.
3 vs. 6, I'd have to disagree based on what I've seen.
Woo you learn something new everyday. Right on.
If you are willing to, ya do.
Being forced to defend your beliefs will either 1) reinforce them or 2) create doubt, in which case you reassess and either go back to 1) or you learn something. In any event, having people disagree can only be a positive outcome IMO.
I should say, *should* only be a positive outcome. Unfortunately it usually isn't.
Most 'gurus' who wind up in this community are ego-driven primadonnas and can't think in those terms.
I sincerely respect your response and knowledge.
As I said to you in my PM, and I'll say here, welcome to the community. You'll certainly serve as an asset and I hope you stick around.
