You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
meal frequency debate
- Thread starter footyfan
- Start date
I would definitely recommend little and often. 5-6 small meals a day will increase your metabolism as your body is constantly burning calories in the digestion process. It is important to also make sure the combination of macro-nutrients is correct in order to optimize fat loss. Try to eat lean protein with every meal and keep your fat intake down. Also, make sure you don't eat refined carbohydrates, but instead opt for wholegrain varieties.
The best thing to do is to work out your calorie needs for weight loss and to divide your meals up so that you know you are not going over your requirements. You have to create a calorie deficit in order to lose fat!
Fasting can be good, but isn't for everyone. Some people swear by fasting 1 or 2 days a week. It is a bit of a science so I would recommend really looking into it before trying anything that extreme.
The other great way to trick your body into releasing stored fat is to zig-zag your calories, this is also called calorie cycling. Good Luck!
The best thing to do is to work out your calorie needs for weight loss and to divide your meals up so that you know you are not going over your requirements. You have to create a calorie deficit in order to lose fat!
Fasting can be good, but isn't for everyone. Some people swear by fasting 1 or 2 days a week. It is a bit of a science so I would recommend really looking into it before trying anything that extreme.
The other great way to trick your body into releasing stored fat is to zig-zag your calories, this is also called calorie cycling. Good Luck!
Thanks for replying, i would tend to agree with you but more because of keeping insulin levels consistent. i read an interesting article that says that the small and often strategy is misguided. i've heard about it a few times more recently and this prompted me to ask the question. i pasted the article below, would love to know what you think??
"An intern that worked for cressey wrote this a few years ago.
The idea that eating several smaller meals is better came from a few pieces of information. The first was because of an association between greater meal frequency and reduced body weight in a couple of epidemiological studies, although this only shows a correlation,not causation. Breakfast eaters are more likely to engage in other health activities, such as exercise, which explains the relationship. In the most comprehensive review of relevant studies, the authors state that any epidemiological evidence for increased meal-frequency is extremely weak and “almost certainly represents an artefact†(1).
The second piece is related to the Thermic Effect of Food (TEF), which is the amount of energy needed to digest and process the food you eat. Fortunately, this is dependent on total quantity of food, not on how it’s spaced, making the distinction irrelevant.
So, now we can see that the supposed benefits from increased meal frequency do not hold up to closer inspection, but why would we want to purposefully wait longer in between meals?
Originally, researchers thought Caloric Restriction (CR) was the bee’s knees. Preliminary research showed that CR slows aging, reduces oxidative damage, and reduces insulin and levels. All good, right? Unfortunately, these benefits come with some nasty trade-offs, including reduced metabolic rate, low energy levels, constant hunger, and low libido, pretty much what you would expect from chronically restricting food intake. These were not happy animals.
[/b]
Recent research has shown that Intermittent Fasting or reduced meal frequency can convey many of the benefits of CR while avoiding the negative side effects. Some of these benefits include:
Favorable changes to blood lipids
Reduced blood pressure
Decreased markers of inflammation
Reduction in oxidative stress
Increased Growth Hormone release
Greater thermogenesis/elevated metabolic rate
Improved fat burning
Improved appetite control
Some of these effects may be secondary to the reduction of calories due to improved appetite control, or they may be primary effects of IF, the research is not conclusive on this yet.
One of the most interesting findings was that contrary to conventional wisdom, reduced meal frequency actually causes an increase in thermogenesis (metabolic rate), which is mediated through the increase of catecholamines (stress hormones), such as adrenaline and norepinephrine (1,2). Yep, you read that right: instead of slowing your metabolism down, it speeds it up. Catecholamines also help with the liberation of fatty acids from fat cells, making them available to be burned as energy.
That’s the “why†and the “how†for some of the effects of IF. Whatever the mechanism for it, IF seems to be effective for at least some people, myself included. But before you rush off to go start fasting 16 hours a day, here are some tips and caveats.
Important Considerations[/b]
Many people ask me if IF is good or bad, but as with most things, it depends. IF is not appropriate in certain situations. It can be good or bad, depending on who you are[/b] [/b](your current health status/lifestyle) and what your goals are[/b]. IF is a stressor on the body; one of the primary effects is an increase in stress hormones. If you’re lacking sleep, eating low quality foods, stressed out about your job, and excessively exercising then don’t start an IF protocol.[/b] [/b]It will backfire and you will end up fat and tired!
Only experiment with an IF program if you are getting 8-9 hours of sleep a night, eating a high quality diet, appropriately recovering from exercise, and don’t have too many mental/emotional stressors.
As far as what goals this works for, common sense applies here. IF is generally best for people who are already moderately lean and are trying to get leaner. If you’re trying to put on 30 pounds of mass, don’t start IF. If you’re an athlete with a very heavy training load, don’t try IF.
For those of you who fit the criteria of goals and health status, I suggest experimenting with the 8-hour fed/16-hour fasted periods. Eat quality foods to satiation in your eating window, especially focusing on the post-training period.
Keep in mind that IF is not for everyone, but it can be a powerful tool at certain times. Most importantly, even if IF isn’t for you, remember that you shouldn’t stress out if you miss a meal occasionally!
References[/b]
1. Bellisle, F., & McDevitt, R. (1997). Meal frequency and energy balance. British Journal of Nutrition, 77, 57-70.
2. Mansell, P., & Fellows, I. (1990). Enhanced thermogenic response to epinephrine after 48-h starvation in humans. The American Journal of Physiology, 258, 87-93.
3. Staten, M., Matthews, D., & Cryer, P. (1987). Physiological increments in epinephrine stimulate metabolic rate in humans. American Journal of Physiology, Endocrinology, and Metabolism, 253, 322-330.
"An intern that worked for cressey wrote this a few years ago.
The idea that eating several smaller meals is better came from a few pieces of information. The first was because of an association between greater meal frequency and reduced body weight in a couple of epidemiological studies, although this only shows a correlation,not causation. Breakfast eaters are more likely to engage in other health activities, such as exercise, which explains the relationship. In the most comprehensive review of relevant studies, the authors state that any epidemiological evidence for increased meal-frequency is extremely weak and “almost certainly represents an artefact†(1).
The second piece is related to the Thermic Effect of Food (TEF), which is the amount of energy needed to digest and process the food you eat. Fortunately, this is dependent on total quantity of food, not on how it’s spaced, making the distinction irrelevant.
So, now we can see that the supposed benefits from increased meal frequency do not hold up to closer inspection, but why would we want to purposefully wait longer in between meals?
Originally, researchers thought Caloric Restriction (CR) was the bee’s knees. Preliminary research showed that CR slows aging, reduces oxidative damage, and reduces insulin and levels. All good, right? Unfortunately, these benefits come with some nasty trade-offs, including reduced metabolic rate, low energy levels, constant hunger, and low libido, pretty much what you would expect from chronically restricting food intake. These were not happy animals.
[/b]
Recent research has shown that Intermittent Fasting or reduced meal frequency can convey many of the benefits of CR while avoiding the negative side effects. Some of these benefits include:
Favorable changes to blood lipids
Reduced blood pressure
Decreased markers of inflammation
Reduction in oxidative stress
Increased Growth Hormone release
Greater thermogenesis/elevated metabolic rate
Improved fat burning
Improved appetite control
Some of these effects may be secondary to the reduction of calories due to improved appetite control, or they may be primary effects of IF, the research is not conclusive on this yet.
One of the most interesting findings was that contrary to conventional wisdom, reduced meal frequency actually causes an increase in thermogenesis (metabolic rate), which is mediated through the increase of catecholamines (stress hormones), such as adrenaline and norepinephrine (1,2). Yep, you read that right: instead of slowing your metabolism down, it speeds it up. Catecholamines also help with the liberation of fatty acids from fat cells, making them available to be burned as energy.
That’s the “why†and the “how†for some of the effects of IF. Whatever the mechanism for it, IF seems to be effective for at least some people, myself included. But before you rush off to go start fasting 16 hours a day, here are some tips and caveats.
Important Considerations[/b]
Many people ask me if IF is good or bad, but as with most things, it depends. IF is not appropriate in certain situations. It can be good or bad, depending on who you are[/b] [/b](your current health status/lifestyle) and what your goals are[/b]. IF is a stressor on the body; one of the primary effects is an increase in stress hormones. If you’re lacking sleep, eating low quality foods, stressed out about your job, and excessively exercising then don’t start an IF protocol.[/b] [/b]It will backfire and you will end up fat and tired!
Only experiment with an IF program if you are getting 8-9 hours of sleep a night, eating a high quality diet, appropriately recovering from exercise, and don’t have too many mental/emotional stressors.
As far as what goals this works for, common sense applies here. IF is generally best for people who are already moderately lean and are trying to get leaner. If you’re trying to put on 30 pounds of mass, don’t start IF. If you’re an athlete with a very heavy training load, don’t try IF.
For those of you who fit the criteria of goals and health status, I suggest experimenting with the 8-hour fed/16-hour fasted periods. Eat quality foods to satiation in your eating window, especially focusing on the post-training period.
Keep in mind that IF is not for everyone, but it can be a powerful tool at certain times. Most importantly, even if IF isn’t for you, remember that you shouldn’t stress out if you miss a meal occasionally!
References[/b]
1. Bellisle, F., & McDevitt, R. (1997). Meal frequency and energy balance. British Journal of Nutrition, 77, 57-70.
2. Mansell, P., & Fellows, I. (1990). Enhanced thermogenic response to epinephrine after 48-h starvation in humans. The American Journal of Physiology, 258, 87-93.
3. Staten, M., Matthews, D., & Cryer, P. (1987). Physiological increments in epinephrine stimulate metabolic rate in humans. American Journal of Physiology, Endocrinology, and Metabolism, 253, 322-330.
re thermic effect - are you saying the body will use the same amount of energy for one larger meal as it would for two smaller meals spaced apart?
do you think is there an argument for small and often with regards to insulin levels? it's been purported that small and often keeps insulin levels more consistent than eating larger meals with more time inbetween them.
do you think is there an argument for small and often with regards to insulin levels? it's been purported that small and often keeps insulin levels more consistent than eating larger meals with more time inbetween them.
Here is an example:
Lets say hypothetically someone had 1000calories of protein.
Person A has it in one sitting and person B has it in 2 smaller meals. Thermic effect of protein being ~30%.
Person A: 30% of 1000 = 300
Person B: (30% of 500) x 2 = 150 x 2 = 300
There is no difference. Thermic effect of food doesn't go up magically.
I don't think smaller, frequent meals has anything to do with making the BGL more stable in a healthy individual.
The body will adjust so as to keep the BGL in the optimum range. I mean, if we didn't eat for a day, we wouldn't drop dead. I used to work in the healthcare system and checking BGL was a regular for me. Non-diabetics on nil by mouth diets all had stable BGLs, some of them nil by mouth for up to an extended period of time. Every time i checked their BSLs, it was in the acceptable range.
Lets say hypothetically someone had 1000calories of protein.
Person A has it in one sitting and person B has it in 2 smaller meals. Thermic effect of protein being ~30%.
Person A: 30% of 1000 = 300
Person B: (30% of 500) x 2 = 150 x 2 = 300
There is no difference. Thermic effect of food doesn't go up magically.
I don't think smaller, frequent meals has anything to do with making the BGL more stable in a healthy individual.
The body will adjust so as to keep the BGL in the optimum range. I mean, if we didn't eat for a day, we wouldn't drop dead. I used to work in the healthcare system and checking BGL was a regular for me. Non-diabetics on nil by mouth diets all had stable BGLs, some of them nil by mouth for up to an extended period of time. Every time i checked their BSLs, it was in the acceptable range.
Jane Zumers
Banned
I also try fasting and it has no effect in me so I stopped it, It depends on how your body react on it.