Meal Frequency vs Consistent Meal Frequency

[Lost Dog]

In New Rules of Lifting for Women (NROL4W), Lou writes New Rule #17 - More Meals Are Better Than Fewer. Pages 46-48.

In the section, Lou highlights info from two studies that seem to indicate that it's primarily eating on a consistent schedule/pattern that's more important than the actual number of meals.


In an English study, there was higher TEF with 6 scheduled and regular meals per day vs 3 to 9 meals of varying times, patterns, etc. Same basic foods, macros, calories, etc.

A French study found that if they eliminated the culturally scheduled "fourth meal" (an afternoon snack), but kept the same daily calorie levels, the people now eating only three meals gained weight.

The takehome from Lou was

If nothing else, these two studies make a strong arguement for establishing a pattern and sticking to it.

I've had this on my mind for months now, but I was reminded of it yesterday, reading a blog post from Alwyn Cosgrove. A few diet studies...

In the blog post, he posts this little blurb.

A study from 2003:

Louis-Sylvestre et al.
Highlighting the positive impact of increasing feeding frequency on metabolism and weight management.
Forum Nutr. 2003;56:126-8. Review

This one showed that adults who were accustomed to eating 4 meals a day gained body fat and weight when switched to 3 meals a day (despite calories remaining the same). it seems that meal frequency is an important tool.

Is it the meal frequency or the change in patterns?

BTW, it's the same "French" study that Lou referenced, just two different conclusions.

Personally, I think Lou's correct. Maybe both can be correct. Was it frequency intself or the change in patterns that caused the weight gain?

I think AC is finding greater meal frequency to be more of a tool, particularly for the newbie, to keep on track with the diet and establish good eating habits and patters. If you eat six meals a day, you almost have to eat them at more regular intervals. There's no time to put one off.

But, while I think eating 6 meals a day is fine, it can also be a pain in the ass. I've gradually switched from 6 or more meals, down to 3 or 4 meals/snacks per day (maybe 5 if you count half and half as "a meal in itself").

So, my question (if you're still here) is this...

How long does it take to have established your new pattern/schedule?

Those French people must have eventually adapted to just three meals, right? How long did it take, or how long would it have taken?

Also, what constitutes a "regular pattern of meal frequency?"

I've vowed not to nitpick my dietary habits, but I can still think about this stuff, right?

[feralBoy]

Hypothetically, say you ate one meal a day. Even if your body adapted to it, don't you think the adaptation would mean carrying more fat, or atleast more weight.

[cycomiko]

The main problem with Alwyn is he loves the cherry pick information to suit his current frame of mind, or whoever he is borrowing stuff from.

its been awhile since I have seen that paper, but it was massively underpowered to detect any meaningful change in caloric intake.

The vast majority of trials that have been performd show no effect on metabolism (measured), but can show na effect on bodyweight in free living people. its because eating more frequently lowers the glyemic response, typicalyl presented as the second meal effect, where the digestion pattern of the first meal slows down the release of the second meal, and so on. Lowering the glycemic index of the diet will generally lower food intake. In the calorie controlled situation, it shows hunger suppression, but no other real advantage.

Maintaining the regularity fo meals also is important.

See

Beneficial metabolic effects of regular meal frequency on dietary thermogenesis, insulin sensitivity, and fasting lipid profiles in healthy obese women.

Farshchi HR, Taylor MA, Macdonald IA.
Centre for Integrated Systems Biology and Medicine, Institute of Clinical Research, School of Biomedical Sciences, Queen's Medical Centre, University of Nottingham, UK. mbxhrf@nottingham.ac.uk
BACKGROUND: Although a regular meal pattern is recommended for obese people, its effects on energy metabolism have not been examined. OBJECTIVE: We investigated whether a regular meal frequency affects energy intake (EI), energy expenditure, or circulating insulin, glucose, and lipid concentrations in healthy obese women. DESIGN: Ten women [x +/- SD body mass index (in kg/m(2)): 37.1 +/- 4.8] participated in a randomized crossover trial. In phase 1 (14 d), the subjects consumed their normal diet on 6 occasions/d (regular meal pattern) or followed a variable meal frequency (3-9 meals/d, irregular meal pattern). In phase 2 (14 d), the subjects followed the alternative pattern. At the start and end of each phase, a test meal was fed, and blood glucose, lipid, and insulin concentrations were determined before and for 3 h after (glucose and insulin only) the test meal. Subjects recorded their food intake on 3 d during each phase. The thermogenic response to the test meal was ascertained by indirect calorimetry. RESULTS: Regular eating was associated with lower EI (P < 0.01), greater postprandial thermogenesis (P < 0.01), and lower fasting total (4.16 compared with 4.30 mmol/L; P < 0.01) and LDL (2.46 compared with 2.60 mmol/L; P < 0.02) cholesterol. Fasting glucose and insulin values were not affected by meal pattern, but peak insulin concentrations and area under the curve of insulin responses to the test meal were lower after the regular than after the irregular meal pattern (P < 0.01 and 0.02, respectively). CONCLUSION: Regular eating has beneficial effects on fasting lipid and postprandial insulin profiles and thermogenesis

Regular meal frequency creates more appropriate insulin sensitivity and lipid profiles compared with irregular meal frequency in healthy lean women.

Farshchi HR, Taylor MA, Macdonald IA.
Centre for Integrated Systems Biology and Medicine, Institute of Clinical Research, School of Biomedical Sciences, Queen's Medical Centre, University of Nottingham, UK. mbxhrf@nottingham.ac.uk
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the impact of irregular meal frequency on circulating lipids, insulin, glucose and uric acid concentrations which are known cardiovascular risk factors. DESIGN: A randomised crossover dietary intervention study. SETTING: Nottingham, UK--Healthy free-living women. SUBJECTS: A total of nine lean healthy women aged 18-42 y recruited via advertisement. INTERVENTION: A randomised crossover trial with two phases of 14 days each. In Phase 1, subjects consumed their normal diet on either 6 occasions per day (regular) or by following a variable meal frequency (3-9 meals/day, irregular). In Phase 2, subjects followed the alternative meal pattern to that followed in Phase 1, after a 2-week (wash-out) period. Subjects were asked to come to the laboratory after an overnight fast at the start and end of each phase. Blood samples were taken for measurement of circulating glucose, lipids, insulin and uric acid concentrations before and for 3 h after consumption of a high-carbohydrate test meal. RESULTS: Fasting glucose and insulin values were not affected by meal frequency, but peak insulin and AUC of insulin responses to the test meal were higher after the irregular compared to the regular eating patterns (P < 0.01). The irregular meal frequency was associated with higher fasting total (P < 0.01) and LDL (P < 0.05) cholesterol. CONCLUSION: The irregular meal frequency appears to produce a degree of insulin resistance and higher fasting lipid profiles, which may indicate a deleterious effect on these cardiovascular risk factors. SPONSORSHIP:: The Ministry of Health and Medical Education, IR Iran.

Decreased thermic effect of food after an irregular compared with a regular meal pattern in healthy lean women.

Farshchi HR, Taylor MA, Macdonald IA.
Centre for Integrated Systems Biology and Medicine, Institute of Clinical Research and School of Biomedical Sciences, Queen's Medical Centre, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK. mbxhrf@nottingham.ac.uk
OBJECTIVES: To investigate the impact of irregular meal frequency on body weight, energy intake, appetite and resting energy expenditure in healthy lean women. DESIGN: Nine healthy lean women aged 18-42 y participated in a randomised crossover trial consisting of three phases over a total of 43 days. Subjects attended the laboratory at the start and end of phases 1 and 3. In Phase 1 (14 days), subjects were asked to consume similar things as normal, but either on 6 occasions per day (regular meal pattern) or follow a variable predetermined meal frequency (between 3 and 9 meals/day) with the same total number of meals over the week. In Phase 2 (14 days), subjects continued their normal diet as a wash-out period. In Phase 3 (14 days), subjects followed the alternative meal pattern to that followed in Phase 1. Subjects recorded their food intake for three predetermined days during the irregular period when they were eating 9, 3 and 6 meals/day. They also recorded their food intake on the corresponding days during the regular meal pattern period. Subjects fasted overnight prior to each laboratory visit, at which fasting resting metabolic rate (RMR) was measured by open-circuit indirect calorimetry. Postprandial metabolic rate was then measured for 3 h after the consumption of a milkshake test meal (50% CHO, 15% protein and 35% fat of energy content). Subjects rated appetite before and after the test meal. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in body weight and 3-day mean energy intake between the regular and irregular meal pattern. In the irregular period, the mean energy intake on the day when 9 meals were eaten was significantly greater than when 6 or 3 meals were consumed (P=0.0001). There was no significant difference between the 3 days of the regular meal pattern. Subjective appetite measurement showed no significant differences before and after the test meal in all visits. Fasting RMR showed no significant differences over the experiment. The overall thermic effect of food (TEF) over the 3 h after the test meal was significantly lower after the irregular meal pattern (P=0.003). CONCLUSION: Irregular meal frequency led to a lower postprandial energy expenditure compared with the regular meal frequency, while the mean energy intake was not significantly different between the two. The reduced TEF with the irregular meal frequency may lead to weight gain in the long term.


But then Alwyn goes on to repeat two godawful things

1)Kekwick and Pawan from 1957 - the low carbers love this one. A magical effect for 9 days. A later piece of research that more tightly controlled nad measured items (except at 800kcals for 10 days) shows similar protien losses, similar fat losses, but weight losses were 280 for a high carb diet, and 466 for a ketogenic diet. The difference was a massive loss of bodywater. 285grams of water lost per day compared to 102g per day. During a post experimental 1200kcal diet period (5days after the period) show continuing fat loss (and some protein loss) in each group, but the higher carb group did not gain any water, where as the keto group gained back nearly 200g per day of water.


2) Greene paper - I guess statistical significance means nothing but its a commonly report by low carb guys with complete ommission of the statistics. Never mind it hasn't actually been published yet. I have the abstract somewhere, I will post it up later.

[ljk]

I thought it really didn't matter how often you ate ... 2x a day, 6x, as long as cals are in check??

When you say "maintaining regularity of meals" -do you mean frequency?

[Cynic]

Originally Posted by ljk

I thought it really didn't matter how often you ate ... 2x a day, 6x, as long as cals are in check??

It doesn't with regrd to the metabolism. It does affect other parameters, such as lipid, insulin and glucose levels.

When you say "maintaining regularity of meals" -do you mean frequency?

Not as such. It means eating regularly and not skipping meals. Always eat breakfast.

[cycomiko]

Originally Posted by ljk

I thought it really didn't matter how often you ate ... 2x a day, 6x, as long as cals are in check??

if you tend to go all over the place in the meal frequency, often calories will start increasing. One of the usual observations in self selected eating is that skipping breakfast will increase food intake due to the greater eating happening later in the day.

When you say "maintaining regularity of meals" -do you mean frequency?

if you eat 5 meals a day, dont eat 2 one day, then 6 the next, then 4, and then 8

Eat routinely.

[Lost Dog]

If one's been eating 6 meals and wants to switch to 4, how long does it take to adapt to 4 meals? Not from a hunger standpoint.

[Terry Monk]

Originally Posted by Lost Dog

If one's been eating 6 meals and wants to switch to 4, how long does it take to adapt to 4 meals? Not from a hunger standpoint.

Typically takes me about a week to get myself in the habit of remembering that I need to eat a meal (or to skip one). - hunger aside - It's just a mental block either way you look at it (adding or subtracting meals)

[cycomiko]

2-4 weeks appears to be the standard period for dietary changes.

[Lost Dog]

thanks. You're the best.

[ljk]

Originally Posted by cycomiko

if you tend to go all over the place in the meal frequency, often calories will start increasing. One of the usual observations in self selected eating is that skipping breakfast will increase food intake due to the greater eating happening later in the day.


if you eat 5 meals a day, dont eat 2 one day, then 6 the next, then 4, and then 8

Eat routinely.

Thanks.

[RobLL]

I tried multiple meals, did not notice much change. I then started using a fast acting insulin, and could only eat three meals a day. Later I switched to a long acting insulin, and could eat or not eat however I wanted. My diet was stable, and unfortunately so was my weight. I lately have tried intermittent fasting, and started losing weight again.

upshot of all this: meal frequency may make a difference, but not that much. It all depends. That is on so many things that you really can't say much, beyond, "this works for me - now"

[Espi]

Thanks for clarifying all that Cycomiko!

My thought? First word that came up: Pavlov effect.
Remember the dog in the famous experiment? It secreted saliva as soon as a bell was rung as habitually this would mean that food was going to be served. Except that after a while they would not give the dog food but it would produce the saliva nonetheless.
Human beings aren't really all that much different.. like a dog, we're creatures of habit. No doubt about it that we also secrete saliva, insulin etc. at times we'd normally be eating. I'm sure our system gets upset from deviating from habitual meal times.
It's not just because of rather strict work schedules that people have meal times at the same time of day, it's also because of our nature. Many prefer to keep to that same schedule in the weekend.

Regularity sounds to me: eat at the same time every day and in effect that would mean eating the same amount of meals. At least most of the time.
I'm alternating my food patters EOD according to the workouts I do, viz. add another 'meal' (or rather carbs) during a WO.

[Fulmen]

I wouldn't worry about a "regular eating pattern". Whatever works for you is what you should worry with.

I started force feeding myself and it took me about 2 weeks to adapt. Now I'm starving if I go without food for 2-3 hours. I believe it to be partly a result of habit and my muscles needing the energy. I can't go with less than 5 meals a day.

However, I do believe that the majority here could get away with 3 meals a day because one, everyone here is dedicated. Two, I haven't seen many people here eat that many calories in one day (i.e. no more than 3k calories). It wouldn't be hard to get away with 3-4 meals a day then.

[Espi]

Hard, but not impossible. Especially not when you chose low-fiber calorie dense (fun/fast) foods. Scarily easily in that case.

After all these years I'm still surprised how I can eat 1200 kcal in 3 meals one day and be content and then pack away 4500 kcal another day in 3 or 4 meals and still have space for more .
It teaches the importance of calorie tracking when there's such poor feedback of satiation/satiety (forget difference between those).
This is the main reason why some do better on less meals and others who both feel full quickly and then get hungry again quickly too, do better on more meals.
It's galling when you've been told that eating 5-6 times/day is the only way to be able to drop wt easily, and find out 3-4 yrs later, to discover you've been told a lie.