Meal frequency question

Just a final question on this, more on the keto diet side of things, At the momement with the diet I am eating two biggish meals per day with a 3rd post workout at night (mainly 2 coocked egs). My question his:

1. Would smaller but more regular meals increase the motabilism and as a result improve the results? or should I stick to the two big meals at small meal post workout?

Would love to hear your comments.

There is no difference in metabolism if someone eats 2 meals per day or 6.

Pyroclasm wrote: There is no difference in metabolism if someone eats 2 meals per day or 6.

I dont agree.

I also read that increasing meals increases motabilism. More motabilism = more calories burnt = more weight loss?

A meta-analysis conducted on eating frequency notes that "studies using whole-body calorimetry and double-labelled water to assess total 24 h energy expenditure find no difference between nibbling and gorging."

Bellisle F, McDevitt R, Prentice AM. Meal frequency and energy balance. Br J Nutr. (1997)

Various individual studies that modify meal frequency while keeping calories the same find that there is no difference in metabolic rate (measured as 24 hour energy expenditure) between the two groups, seen here:

Verboeket-van de Venne WP, Westerterp KR. Influence of the feeding frequency on nutrient utilization in man: consequences for energy metabolism. Eur J Clin Nutr. (1991)

and,

Smeets AJ, Westerterp-Plantenga MS. Acute effects on metabolism and appetite profile of one meal difference in the lower range of meal frequency. Br J Nutr. (2008)


These studies below find that there are no changes in weight loss at the end of the trial periods.

Cameron JD, Cyr MJ, Doucet E. Increased meal frequency does not promote greater weight loss in subjects who were prescribed an 8-week equi-energetic energy-restricted diet. Br J Nutr. (2010)

and,

Verboeket-van de Venne WP, Westerterp KR. Frequency of feeding, weight reduction and energy metabolism. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. (1993)

The above study also finds that when calories are dropped significantly, metabolic rate declines slightly but find that overall declines are based on calories and not meal frequency.

One recently published paper actually finds the opposite, and that when comparing 3 meals against 14 meals over a period of 36 hours in a metabolic chamber in healthy males, that there were no significant differences in total energy expenditure and a slight increase in resting energy expenditure in the lower frequency group.

Munsters MJ, Saris WH. Effects of meal frequency on metabolic profiles and substrate partitioning in lean healthy males. PLoS One. (2012)

Interesting find Pyro. Some good info there. I read that last study (3 vs 14 meals) and was very surprised to read that despite the massive difference in insulin spikes and dips in the 3 meals a day group, there was no significant difference in fat oxidation. I'm interested to know whether or not that related directly to lipolysis and body composition (fat/muscle). That's what it really comes down to.

Yes bud that's why I didn't say effects on fat loss. I have yet to find any conclusive study on the effects of meal frequency on fat loss. For the moment it comes down to calorie and macro intake more than meal frequency. Meal timing also very important.

I agree. Calories and macro intake most important. With a huge emphasis on nutrient timing

I only have a basic understanding but am very interested in sharing and acquiring info on this.

I understand the role that nutrient timing may have in satiety and energy, but in terms of body composition, surely meal timing has no impact? With the Thermic Effect of Food, energy expended to metabolise nutrients is directly proportional to the quantity of nutrients in the meal, as evidenced here and here . It's also evident that "Meal frequency influences circulating hormone levels but not lipogenesis rates in humans" here . (edit: a la intermittent fasting)

Slightly off topic but for anyone who's interested, there's also evidence that specific food types bear no impact on change in body composition, whether it's "clean" or "dirty" or high GI or low GI, to the point of this being the consensus: macros are the most, if not only, important factor, and you can lose or gain weight eating McDonald's or Twinkies (see Mark Haub's Twinkie Diet). Of course this isn't good for long-term health, but in terms of composition (that is, the results we strive for) the weight gained or lost seems solely dependent on caloric intake vs expenditure. Here's a great article I found a while ago. Obviously AAS users should pay closer attention to diet's impact on health and appearance (eg sodium intake).

In accordance with the principles of " Discretionary Calorie Allowance " or "If It Fits Your Macros", you can eat clean or dirty, one meal or six, and the results will be the same if you're attaining your macronutrient and micronutrient requirements. This isn't evidence in and of itself but I've personally spoken to a dietitian and a biochemist who have confirmed this to me, and anything I've read by respectable and qualified people in the field is also in line with this ( Emma-Leigh , Lyle McDonald ... great info). Does this deserve its own thread?

I think you're missing the point. We are talking about optimal nutrient timing for heavy weight training bodybuilders, strength training athletes and generally guys like us for maximal muscle growth. Not your average happy jogger or couch potato who plays tennis once a week. You need to be looking for studies with that in mind.

Our nutrient timing is based on matching what and when we eat with our hormonal release during the day, particularly our hormonal responses to strength training, and timing the correct nutrition to maximise anabolism and minimise catabolism with those hormonal changes in mind. Bodybuilders' entire diet is based on the principles of the energy phase, anabolic phase and growth phase and eating around that.

I generally comment far less on in depth diet related threads because there is a fricken study disproving every other study on what supposedly works best and articles pop up weekly showing how some Harvard Prof shows that X is definitely better than Y, although last month some other PhD genius just proved beyond a doubt that Y is better than X. When it comes to researching nutrition it's hard to find indisputable scientific answers, because there are so many variables involved that are often not taken into consideration. Like how the human body and our hormones adapt to different diets and different lifestyles.

But understanding the basics of nutrient timing for maximal muscle growth is not rocket science. Simple example. If you stuff yourself right before your workout you can't work your muscles properly because you will be sluggish and tired. If you don't eat or drink anything for a few hours after a heavy workout, then your recovery and optimal muscle growth is compromised. Surely nobody here can disagree with that and if they do they probably look like Napolean Dynamite.

"Discretionary Calorie Allowance" has nothing to do with nutrient timing. That is about the amount of calories you eat and what your macro split looks like, not about when you eat what. So yes that is for another topic.

Thanks man, I have a lot to learn but that makes a lot of sense. Something that comes to mind is the discrepancy between protein recommendations for bodybuilders and for other athletes; people asserting that only a small amount of protein is needed to build muscle, but it seems common sense that it's far better (and not dangerous in normal circumstances) for us bodybuilders to consume an excess than to risk consuming too little, especially when AAS comes into play with its enhanced protein synthesis and such. Even the smallest factors will probably make a significant difference for us.

The protein thing is definately one of those Y is better than X things MA is talking about. Gives me a headache every time I talk about it. The reality is that it all comes down to your genetic make-up and how your body responds to protein. This is why we always give daily protein as a starting point, and then we change it all the time depending on how the body responds. Remember that dieticians especially have the same mind set as doctors- their goal is to keep you healthy and not to make you look like a genetic freak.