More meals don't help you lose weight

M

Maclago

0
I haven't been on this board for so long. Have this been up to discussion here?

Normally it's a big bomb to drop: More meals don't help you lose weight.

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's a couple of other relevant studies:

Arnold LM et al (1993) Effect of isoenergetic intake of three or nine meals on plasma lipoproteins and glucose metabolism. Am J Clin Nutr. 57(3): 446-451.

Chapelot D et al (2006) Consequence of omitting or adding a meal in man on body composition, food intake and metabolism. Obesity. 14: 215-227.

Dalasso H et al (1982) Feeding frequency and energy balance in adult males. Human Nutrition. 36C: 25-39.
 
Not only for weight loss, but for muscle gain too!

I think there is a study where one group ate 3 meals and one ate 6. The 3 meal group gained more muscle. I'll see if I can find it.

With new knowledge about how protein synthesis is affected by diet, it really makes sense. Providing a steady flow of amino acids to the muscles can actually hamper MPS (muscle protein synthesis) instead of facilitating it. Having the amino acids go up and down might be a better way to go at it.
 
So you posted the abstract of a study? There’s not a great deal of information about the studies or the parameters of the study here.

Forget about the thermic effect of frequent meals for a minute. My assertion here is that if someone eats infrequently then they are likely to eat a great deal more in one sitting that they would have done if they split their meals out into more frequent sittings.
 
Maclago said:
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.
Click to expand...

Here's my problem, why would there have to be a metabolic advantage for there to be a difference?
My view is that someone who eats very frequently has very little inclination to binge which helps keep weight down whereas someone who only eats 3 meals a day will get hungry at various points in the day and be tempted to snack on convenience foods.
The abstract posted doesn't seem to make any mention of the psychological aspects of both eating patterns
 
Karky said:
Not only for weight loss, but for muscle gain too!

I think there is a study where one group ate 3 meals and one ate 6. The 3 meal group gained more muscle. I'll see if I can find it.

With new knowledge about how protein synthesis is affected by diet, it really makes sense. Providing a steady flow of amino acids to the muscles can actually hamper MPS (muscle protein synthesis) instead of facilitating it. Having the amino acids go up and down might be a better way to go at it.
Click to expand...

Yes! I know about a study done in Oslo, Norway. 3 meals group gained more muscles than 6 meals group.

There's also studies indicating a more positive nitrogen balance with only 1-2 meals a day VS 5-6 meals (the study was done on older woman, I think).

@tenpercent - Thanks.

@Typhon - I think all the studies are open for everyone on pubmed.com. I see your point, absolutely, but imo that's not relevant in this discussion. Of course, that's also an important topic.
 
Protein pulse feeding improves protein retention in elderly women.

Arnal MA, Mosoni L, Boirie Y, Houlier ML, Morin L, Verdier E, Ritz P, Antoine JM, Prugnaud J, Beaufrere B, Mirand PP.

Unite d'Etude du Metabolisme Azote, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, Clermont-Ferrand-Theix, France.

BACKGROUND: Adequate protein nutrition could be used to limit gradual body protein loss and improve protein anabolism in the elderly. OBJECTIVE: We tested the hypothesis that an uneven protein feeding pattern was more efficient in improving protein anabolism than was an even pattern. DESIGN: After a controlled period, 15 elderly women (mean age: 68 y) were fed for 14 d either a pulse diet (n = 7), providing 80% of the daily protein intake at 1200, or a spread diet ( n = 8 ), in which the same daily protein intake was spread over 4 meals. Both diets provided 1.7 g protein x kg fat-free mass (FFM)(-1) x d(-1). Protein accretion and daily protein turnover were determined by using the nitrogen balance method and the end product method (ammonia and urea) after an oral dose of [15N]glycine. RESULTS: Nitrogen balance was more positive with the pulse than with the spread diet (54 +/- 7 compared with 27 +/- 6 mg N x kg FFM(-1) x d(-1); P < 0.05). Protein turnover rates were also higher with the pulse than with the spread diet (5.58 +/- 0.22 compared with 4.98 +/- 0.17 g protein x kg FFM(-1) x d(-1); P < 0.05), mainly because of higher protein synthesis in the pulse group (4.48 +/- 0.19 g protein x kg FFM(-1) x d(-1)) than in the spread group (3.75 +/- 0.19 g protein x kg FFM(-1) x d(-1)) (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: A protein pulse-feeding pattern was more efficient than was a protein spread-feeding pattern in improving, after 14 d, whole-body protein retention in elderly women.
 
THE EFFECT OF MEAL FREQUENCY ON BODY COMPOSITION
DURING 12-WEEKS OF STRENGTH TRAINING

Hansen Øyvind, Fostervold Mathisen Therese, Raastad Truls

Institute of Basic Medical Sciences, University of Oslo,
Norwegian School of Sport Sciences

Human trials on the effect of meal frequency on body composition are scarce. Short-term studies show increased rate of protein synthesis immediately after intake of amino acids [1], and frequent meals are shown to aid in the preservation of lean body mass when dieting [2]. Consequently it could be hypothesised that in response to strength training, more frequent meals will give larger muscle mass accumulation and lower fat mass (FM) than fewer meals. The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of 3 vs. 6meals per day on changes in body composition in young men and women performing strength training over 12 weeks. Men (n=33) and women (n=15) aged 21 to 35 with at least one year of previous strength training experience were randomly assigned to either a 6 meals a day group or a 3 meals a day group. The prescribed total dietary intake in both groups was equal and calculated to give a positive energy balance of approximately 1200 KJ/day, a protein intake of 1.5-1.7 g/kg/day and a carbohydrate intake of 5-7 g/kg/day. During the training period the dietary intake was controlled by repeated 24-hours recalls. All participants performed the same strength training program, training four times per week, giving each muscle group one heavy session and one light session per week. In the heavy sessions, training intensity varied between 10 and 3 RM sets, and 3-6 sets were performed in each exercise. Determination of body composition was performed with DEXA at the beginning of and immediately after the training period. A total of 16 men and 11 women completed the project. After multiple regression analysis the 3 meal group had a significant greater gain in lean body mass (LBM) than the 6 meal group when adjusted for gender and energy intake (p=0.04), when adjusted for gender and protein intake (p=0.03), and when adjusted for gender, protein intake, carbohydrate intake and fat intake* (p=0.01). (*: Fat intake in g/kg body weight/day showed significance on LBM, p=0.03). No significant differences in regional changes in LBM were observed, although there was a tendency towards a greater gain in the three meal group. There were no significant differences in change in fat mass (FM) between the groups, but a tendency towards a greater gain in the three meal group, 7.33% (-5.23, 19.90), p=0.24. The three meal group had a 2.87%(0.62, 5.12) larger weight gain than the six meal group, p=0.01.The participants had a 2.31% (0.83, 3.79), gain in bone mineral density of the spine during the twelve weeks of strength training, p<0.01, but there were no differences between the groups. In this study, three meals per day resulted in larger muscle gain from strength training than six meals per day over a period of twelve weeks. The reason why 3 meals a day was superior to 6 meals a day in this study needs further investigation. More long-term studies are needed to determine the optimal meal frequency for gain in LBM from strength training.
 
Maclago said:
I see your point, absolutely, but imo that's not relevant in this discussion. Of course, that's also an important topic.
Click to expand...

It even says in the abstaract of the study that you posted that there is an ever-present link between frequent eating patterns and obesity avoidance.

Maclago said:
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.
Click to expand...

This leads my logical brain to conclude that there very probably is a link. The abstract then starts to talk about things like thermic changes in your body after eating and looking at the subject from completely the wrong angle. It then seems to conclude that there is probably no link between eating frequency and weight.

The reason the link will appear over and over again is because there is one – People who eat less frequently are more likely to overeat because they get hungry!

I think this is a very relevant point when answering your assertion that ‘more meals don’t help you lose weight’
 
Maclago said:
THE EFFECT OF MEAL FREQUENCY ON BODY COMPOSITION
DURING 12-WEEKS OF STRENGTH TRAINING
Click to expand...

This one looks interesting but I would question whether the amount of protein in each meal on the 6 meals a day diet was high enough.

What if the protein intake was raised to 1g/lb rather than 1.5-1.7lb/kg?
Would the 3 meals a day team still gain more muscle then?

Not trying to be picky but I think that these are limitations we often find with studies of this nature that are conducted using 'Joe the plumber' rather than a fairly well trained athlete. The diet sounds insufficient.
 
Ok. I see your point. I guess the headline should've said something els.

When giving John Doe tips I think these factors (i.e. appetite) are important, but in this thread I would like to exclude that factor and only focus on the connection between the energy balance and meal frequency.

When comparing each set of meal frequencies I think there should be a requirement that both groups digest the same amount of energy through out the day.

By the way, the studies above should back up what you said, Karky.
 
yeah. I'm a bit skeptical about protein pulse feeding though (putting 80% of your protein in one sitting), at least for athletes. I don't think they've seen the same gains in younger population as they have with old people.
 
Maclago said:
When comparing each set of meal frequencies I think there should be a requirement that both groups digest the same amount of energy through out the day.
Click to expand...

OK, well in that case then I agree that meal frequency would probably have very little effect on weight.

Body comp over time might be different matter though (over a far longer term than the studies have been conducted over)
I would have thought that larger, less frequent meals would create larger spikes in insulin release promoting fat storage. And over time wouldn't this also lead to lowered levels of insulin sensitivity?

+rep btw for getting debate started so quickly after registering :)
 
Typhon said:
This one looks interesting but I would question whether the amount of protein in each meal on the 6 meals a day diet was high enough.

What if the protein intake was raised to 1g/lb rather than 1.5-1.7lb/kg?
Would the 3 meals a day team still gain more muscle then?

Not trying to be picky but I think that these are limitations we often find with studies of this nature that are conducted using 'Joe the plumber' rather than a fairly well trained athlete. The diet sounds insufficient.
Click to expand...

To be a little critical to studies are good thing, imo. I've seen a lot of weird methods through the years... :)

In this case I think the protein intake (1.7g/kg) is ok. 1.6g/kg-1.8g/kg is what every protein intake study indicate as enough. Too much are often found to be negative.
 
what do you mean by "too much are often found to be negative?"
I've never seen any contraindications to high protein intakes in healthy individuals, as long as the high protein intake doesn't cut into other nutrients that are needed (carbs for glycogen loading in endurance athletes for example)
 
WITH all that said , why is it that NATURAL AND PRO. bodybuilders eat 6 or more meals a day for YEARS!=========SO JUST KEEP LOOKING AND YOU WILL FIND YOU COULD EAT 1 MEAL A DAY AND GAIN MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF MUSCLE!----------------EVERYBODY WANTS A QUICK FIX!
 
tenreps said:
WITH all that said , why is it that NATURAL AND PRO. bodybuilders eat 6 or more meals a day for YEARS!=========SO JUST KEEP LOOKING AND YOU WILL FIND YOU COULD EAT 1 MEAL A DAY AND GAIN MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF MUSCLE!----------------EVERYBODY WANTS A QUICK FIX!
Click to expand...

that's not even a real argument. It's been the accepted truth for a long time that eating often is better, which probably has a lot to do with why everyone is doing it. I don't think that the thread starter is presenting eating 3 times a day as a quick fix at all. Just that it might not be true that eating often is the best way to go. It is actually starting to get quite some support in the scientific journals.
 
Karky said:
what do you mean by "too much are often found to be negative?"
I've never seen any contraindications to high protein intakes in healthy individuals, as long as the high protein intake doesn't cut into other nutrients that are needed (carbs for glycogen loading in endurance athletes for example)
Click to expand...

I can't seem to find the study right now, but I remember one that did indicate increased leucine oxidation at 2.4 g/kg and over.

Anyway, I don't consider this important at all. The doggcrapp guys doesn't seem to be too affected by this oxidation, he he.

Typhon said:
OK, well in that case then I agree that meal frequency would probably have very little effect on weight.

Body comp over time might be different matter though (over a far longer term than the studies have been conducted over)
I would have thought that larger, less frequent meals would create larger spikes in insulin release promoting fat storage. And over time wouldn't this also lead to lowered levels of insulin sensitivity?

+rep btw for getting debate started so quickly after registering :)
Click to expand...

Thanks for the rep and very good questions. :)

I'm not sure over long term, but when eating a big meal, GLP-1 [1] will start some kind of gastric brake mechanism. This will - at least in some degree - slow down the insulin release. I don't know enough about this...

[1]
GLP-1 slows solid gastric emptying and inhibits insulin, glucagon, and PYY release in humans

Erik Näslund1, Jesper Bogefors2, Staffan Skogar2, Per Grybäck3, Hans Jacobsson4, Jens Juul Holst5, and Per M. Hellström2

1 Division of Surgery, Danderyd Hospital, Karolinska Institutet, SE-182 88; Departments of 2 Gastroenterology and Hepatology, 3 Radiology, and 4 Nuclear Medicine, Karolinska Hospital, 171 76 Stockholm, Sweden; and 5 Department of Medical Physiology, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, DK-1017 Denmark

The aim of the present study was to assess the effect of glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) on solid gastric emptying and the subsequent release of pancreatic and intestinal hormones. In eight men [age 33.6 ± 2.5 yr, body mass index 24.1 ± 0.9 (means ± SE)], scintigraphic solid gastric emptying during infusion of GLP-1 (0.75 pmol · kg1 · min1) or saline was studied for 180 min. Concomitantly, plasma concentrations of C- and N-terminal GLP-1, glucose, insulin, C-peptide, glucagon, and peptide YY (PYY) were assessed. Infusion of GLP-1 resulted in a profound inhibition of both the lag phase (GLP-1: 91.5, range 73.3-103.6 min vs. saline: 19.5, range 10.2-43.4 min) and emptying rate (GLP-1: 0.34, range 0.06-0.56 %/min vs. saline: 0.84, range 0.54-1.33 %/min; P < 0.01 for both) of solid gastric emptying. Concentrations of both intact and total GLP-1 were elevated to supraphysiological levels. Plasma glucose and glucagon concentrations were below baseline during infusion of GLP-1 in contrast to saline infusion, where concentrations were elevated above baseline (both P < 0.001). The insulin and C-peptide responses were lower during infusion with GLP-1 than with saline (P < 0.004 and P < 0.001, respectively). Plasma PYY concentrations decreased below baseline during GLP-1 infusion in contrast to saline, where concentrations were elevated above baseline (P = 0.04). Infusion of GLP-1 inhibits solid gastric emptying with secondary effects on the release of insulin, C-peptide, and glucagon, resulting in lower plasma glucose concentrations. In addition, the release of PYY into the circulation is inhibited by GLP-1 infusion, suggesting a negative feedback of GLP-1 on the function of the L-cell.
 
yeah..leucine being oxidised isn't a bad thing, it's just being used for energy. Amino acids will be oxidised all the time, and some authors have suggested that just because amino acids are being oxidised, doesn't mean they don't contribute to anabolic signalling (IE, just because they aren't the substrate in protein synthesis, doesn't mean they don't contribute to anabolism).
At first I thought you were gonna talk about kidney damage..

Very good debate. It's cool getting stuff like this going! + rep!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top