# Meal Frequency



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

There seem to be a lot of arguments going on at the moment over the old claim that greater meal frequency boosts metabolism and weight loss during a cut. The argument seems to rgae mostly between experienced prep coaches and bodybuilders claiming an obvious beneficial effect of high meal frequency in most cases, and bro-science busters on the other side going back to the studies that consistently show no metabolic advantage from the number of feeds a days food intake is separated into, and that such observations must be flawed.

The experienced guys usually then propose a hypothesis suggesting that the effect may be conditional to highly muscular and already lean individuals and that normal individuals studied do not make a good example to generalise to bodybuilders. The argument then remains unanswered.

What I think is missing from all this, and that offers a potential explanation for the difference between the study data and many practical experiences of many, is this - the positive effects seen with more frequent smaller meals are not due to changes in metabolic rate but might instead be due to changes in substrate oxidation.

In other words, eating 1800kcals a day for a person with a 2000kcal maintenance level (for example) doesn't affect total calories burned via metabolism whether eaten as 3x600kcals or 6x300kcals, but the x6 meal frequency might well result in ever so slightly greater retention of glycogen and lean tissue compared to body fat and therefore result in higher fat burn compared to the x3 meal frequency which burns slightly more muscle and a tiny bit less fat (to exactly the same total calorie value).

These idea actually looks promising when you look at study data -



> *Effects of meal frequency on body composition during weight control in boxers*
> 
> The effects of meal frequency on changes in body composition by food restriction were investigated. Twelve boxers were divided between a two meals day?1 group (the 2M group) and a six meals day?1 group (the 6M group). Both groups ingested 5.02 MJ (1200 kcal) day?1 for 2 weeks. Although there was no difference in change of body weight by food restriction between the two groups, the decrease in lean body mass (LBM) was significantly greater in the 2M group than in the 6M group. The decrease in urinary 3-methylhistidine/creatinine was significantly greater in the 6M group than in the 2M group. These results suggest that the lower frequency of meal intake leads to a greater myoprotein catabolism even if the same diet is consumed.
> 
> http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1600-0838.1996.tb00469.x/abstract





> *Components of postprandial thermogenesis in relation to meal frequency in humans*
> 
> Experiments on dogs have shown that the size of the meal has no effect on the early cephalic postprandial thermogenesis, and that four small meals are more thermogenic than a larger meal with the same total caloric content as the four meals. A study was repeated on human subjects who were fed during alternating weeks either one large meal (653?kcal (1?kcal?=?4.1855?kJ)) or four small meals (163?kcal) at 40-min intervals. Oxygen consumption and respiratory exchange ratio determinations indicated (i) larger overall increase in postprandial thermogenesis with the four meals than with one meal and (ii) an enhancement of glucose utilization with the large meal compared with greater lipid utilization with the four meals. *On the basis of indirect evidence from previous investigations it is suggested that the enhanced thermogenesis observed in the four-meal experiment is due to lipid mobilization caused by repeated stimulation of the sympathetic nervous system with palatable food.* Blood analysis indicated a reduced elevation of plasma glucose in the four-meal experiment. The variations of insulin and C-peptide exactly paralleled those observed for glucose. It is concluded that the increased frequency of feeding significantly reduces insulin secretion in subjects fed a relatively high carbohydrate meal. In addition to this beneficial effect, *increasing the number of meals increased thermogenesis and fat utilization.*Key words: feeding thermogenesis, insulin secretion, meal frequency, lipid oxidation.
> 
> http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/abs/10.1139/y93-133





> *Thermogenesis in humans after varying meal time frequency*
> 
> *Abstract*
> 
> ...


The improvement in insulin sensitivity from more frequent feedings is also reported elsewhere, as well as more favorable plasma lipid profiles:



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


In short, arguing that greater meal frequency during a cut helps fat loss due to increased metabolic rate may be flawed, but if the argument is that greater meal frequency improves fat oxidation a tiny bit then there is at least some clinical evidence that appears to support that kind of protocol after all.


----------



## Dr Manhattan (Jan 8, 2012)

Seriously though, nice post. I'm not convinced it'll stop the debates though


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

Dr Manhattan said:


> View attachment 111730
> 
> 
> Seriously though, nice post. I'm not convinced it'll stop the debates though


Thanks man, and no i don't think it will (or should) stop the debates... still loads of research needed before anything can be claimed to have a high level of evidence scientifically.

I just have been frustrated with this debate because it always focuses on metabolic rate whereas there are other factors I think that are relevant that the MR data just distracts from.


----------



## Xbigdave79 (Mar 30, 2012)

Good post, I have recently started having 5 meals instead of 6-7 and it is so much simpler

For the average trainer I don't think it makes much difference


----------



## Dh2909 (Aug 9, 2011)

to me it makes sence tht more meals are better simply becuase it helps keep insulin levels more stable. compared to a big insulin spike with fewer larger meals, (meals tht contain carbs obviously)


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

Xbigdave79 said:


> Good post, I have recently started having 5 meals instead of 6-7 and it is so much simpler
> 
> For the average trainer I don't think it makes much difference


Convenience is massively important on a cuttign diet... ultimately the most successful cut is one that you can stick to, so if someone has probs either with a high meal frequency or a more IF approach then they shouldn't do it.

Agreed also that the difference is small - the changes shown in those and other studies is only tiny, but nonetheless fairly consistent, and it may be the case that at very lean levels the difference is exaggerated... certainly the improved insulin sensitivity (meaning reduced total insulin response to all food thus less potential insulin induced inhibition of lipolysis) from the higher meal frequency is likely to help at low b/fat levels.


----------



## hackskii (Jul 27, 2003)

It always made sense to me to keep the blood sugars stable.

Nice read man.


----------



## Dr Manhattan (Jan 8, 2012)

dtlv said:


> Thanks man, and no i don't think it will (or should) stop the debates... still loads of research needed before anything can be claimed to have a high level of evidence scientifically.
> 
> I just have been frustrated with this debate because it always focuses on metabolic rate whereas there are other factors I think that are relevant that the MR data just distracts from.


No, I totally agree. Debate is good and healthy and it's nice you've introduced new factors for people's consideration.

I feel the issue of it being MR that's affected brings a certain simplistic beauty on the theory, which appeals to the masses and on face value would seem to make sense, hence bro science hanging onto that claim. But that as a lone factor often leaves people disagreeing in principle, whilst on closer inspection, they'd probably agree on more complex benefits that might be on offer.

But fingers crossed in future discussions on here, people may start to draw on the various points you've raised, which if they do, there might be more agreement around frequency and potential benefits for lipid mobilisation et al.


----------



## Dr Manhattan (Jan 8, 2012)

dtlv said:


> Thanks man, and no i don't think it will (or should) stop the debates... still loads of research needed before anything can be claimed to have a high level of evidence scientifically.
> 
> I just have been frustrated with this debate because it always focuses on metabolic rate whereas there are other factors I think that are relevant that the MR data just distracts from.


No, I totally agree. Debate is good and healthy and it's nice you've introduced new factors for people's consideration.

I feel the issue of it being MR that's affected brings a certain simplistic beauty on the theory, which appeals to the masses and on face value would seem to make sense, hence bro science hanging onto that claim. But that as a lone factor often leaves people disagreeing in principle, whilst on closer inspection, they'd probably agree on more complex benefits that might be on offer.

But fingers crossed in future discussions on here, people may start to draw on the various points you've raised, which if they do, there might be more agreement around frequency and potential benefits for lipid mobilisation et al.


----------



## Milky (Nov 30, 2008)

hackskii said:


> It always made sense to me to keep the blood sugars stable.
> 
> Nice read man.


Since incorperating Pauls diet l have never had an episode where l have gone hyper which used to be a common thing for me so l defiantly endorse the more frequent eating regime.


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

Dr Manhattan said:


> No, I totally agree. Debate is good and healthy and it's nice you've introduced new factors for people's consideration.
> 
> *I feel the issue of it being MR that's affected brings a certain simplistic beauty on the theory, which appeals to the masses and on face value would seem to make sense, hence bro science hanging onto that claim. *But that as a lone factor often leaves people disagreeing in principle, whilst on closer inspection, they'd probably agree on more complex benefits that might be on offer.
> 
> But fingers crossed in future discussions on here, people may start to draw on the various points you've raised, which if they do, there might be more agreement around frequency and potential benefits for lipid mobilisation et al.


I very much agree, and I think many ideas are held on to simply because they are eloquent rather than because they are actually true (or as important as they are believed to be).


----------



## WilsonR6 (Feb 14, 2012)

In your opinion, for the average gym guy (not a bodybuilder) looking to maintain muscle while on a cut, are the differences likely to be negligible? (Over the duration of a cut)

Not quite sure how to interpret your usage of the phrase 'ever so slightly' lol


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

WilsonR6 said:


> In your opinion, for the average gym guy (not a bodybuilder) looking to maintain muscle while on a cut, are the differences likely to be negligible? (Over the duration of a cut)
> 
> Not quite sure how to interpret your usage of the phrase 'ever so slightly' lol


Any differences are gonna be small for certain as we are only talking a small percentage (<5%) of total energy.... perhaps 1lb fat loss in 6-8 weeks as a guestimate based on the few numbers I have seen. It also appears that the effect might be co-dependent upon total amount of protein in the diet and also size of protein serving at each meal - in an average or below average protein diet the low frequency eating will be noticeably less protective of muscle mass than if protein intake is higher, and it is possible that once 24hr protein intake reaches a certain level then at that point the feeding frequency might not matter so much to substrate oxidation... there may be a different effect for the trained vs untrained here though, I suspect there would be but can't say for sure, and also possible that an individuals insulin sensitivity might make a difference - am not saying anything definitive for all people under all conditions.


----------



## Bull Terrier (May 14, 2012)

When cutting I don't like eating too many small meals but prefer to just get in 3/4 meals, i.e. breakfast, lunch, post-workout shake, dinner. Not for any reason with scientific grounds but rather because I don't like eating lots of tiny meals which just make hunger worse for me.


----------



## WilsonR6 (Feb 14, 2012)

Bull Terrier said:


> When cutting I don't like eating too many small meals but prefer to just get in 3/4 meals, i.e. breakfast, lunch, post-workout shake, dinner. Not for any reason with scientific grounds but rather because I don't like eating lots of tiny meals which just make hunger worse for me.


Same, I usually go for huge carb breakfast then wait for as long as possible until I'm hungry, eat fruit/veg then wait a bit and gym, then have a relatively large PWO meal and then as much as I can before bed without going over macros

Hate being hungry :/


----------



## hackskii (Jul 27, 2003)

WilsonR6 said:


> Hate being hungry :/


I hate feeling full.


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

WilsonR6 said:


> Same, I usually go for huge carb breakfast then wait for as long as possible until I'm hungry, eat fruit/veg then wait a bit and gym, then have a relatively large PWO meal and then as much as I can before bed without going over macros
> 
> Hate being hungry :/


you hate being hungry but you wait as long as you can until you are hungry??


----------



## WilsonR6 (Feb 14, 2012)

hackskii said:


> I hate feeling full.


I love it, even more so when I have nothing to do, yesterday I ate a 1100 calorie paella for post-fasted-workout meal and just monged for hours, was great lol



Pscarb said:


> you hate being hungry but you wait as long as you can until you are hungry??


I wait until I'm on the verge.. then eat big again, if I eat small meals I find I'm constantly hungry and craving


----------



## hackskii (Jul 27, 2003)

Or, ordering the best pizza, cant put it down, finish it off, then go to bed and get acid reflux. :lol:


----------



## G-man99 (Jul 15, 2008)

I just find it much easier having 6 meals a day so that I can consume all the food I need to eat.

If I tried it in 3 meals then it would take about an hour to eat each one and even then I don't think I could finish them off


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

WilsonR6 said:


> I love it, even more so when I have nothing to do, yesterday I ate a 1100 calorie paella for post-fasted-workout meal and just monged for hours, was great lol
> 
> I wait until I'm on the verge.. then eat big again, if I eat small meals I find I'm constantly hungry and craving


ah gotcha i must of missed the word "Verge"


----------



## WilsonR6 (Feb 14, 2012)

I get the feeling you don't like me very much :lol:


----------



## hackskii (Jul 27, 2003)

WilsonR6 said:


> I get the feeling you don't like me very much :lol:


Just Paul? :lol:

Just kiddin


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

WilsonR6 said:


> I get the feeling you don't like me very much :lol:


Why? Because I took your post at what it said not what you meant to say, Jesus mate grow a pair


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

WilsonR6 said:


> I get the feeling you don't like me very much :lol:


Paul loves everyone mate, he just sometimes seems really really grumpy :lol:

The eating pattern I have kind of fallen into when looking to cut a bit of fat is actually a bit strange and kind of like an IF fasting period followed by a frequent meal feeding window - I tend to have a relatively long overnight and morning fasting period of about 10-14 hours, but from then on will feed frequently, usually every 2 -2.5 hours or so. On training days though I do usually add in a shake immediately after waking. Am not employing any specific scientific ideas with that, just seems to be what works for me and how my diet has evolved.


----------



## big_jim_87 (Jul 9, 2009)

Pscarb said:


> Why? Because I took your post at what it said not what you meant to say, Jesus mate grow a pair


lol


----------



## WilsonR6 (Feb 14, 2012)

Pscarb said:


> Why? Because I took your post at what it said not what you meant to say, Jesus mate grow a pair


I've seen your videos, and am pretty sure you could tear my arm from my body so I'm not even going to reply :cool2:



dtlv said:


> Paul loves everyone mate, he just sometimes seems really really grumpy :lol:
> 
> The eating pattern I have kind of fallen into when looking to cut a bit of fat is actually a bit strange and kind of like an IF fasting period followed by a frequent meal feeding window - I tend to have a relatively long overnight and morning fasting period of about 10-14 hours, but from then on will feed frequently, usually every 2 -2.5 hours or so. On training days though I do usually add in a shake immediately after waking. Am not employing any specific scientific ideas with that, just seems to be what works for me and how my diet has evolved.


What macros do you aim for when cutting?


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

WilsonR6 said:


> I've seen your videos, and am pretty sure you could tear my arm from my body so I'm not even going to reply :cool2:
> 
> What macros do you aim for when cutting?


Bear in mind with anything I do that I'm not a proper bodybuilder and have never cut to anything like contest shape - what I do might not be the best for someone else or what I'd necessarily suggest. I tend to start out with the same macros that I normally eat, roughly 45,30,25 c/p/f then gradually reduce the carbs and fats. Protein normally stays a relative constant at around 3g/1kg bodyweight. Food is mostly clean but not utterly obsessive, sugars and sat fats limited, and some effort made to get a decent omega 3 intake. I only reduce kcals slowly and gradually, but also increase exercise to add to the kcal deficit.


----------



## hackskii (Jul 27, 2003)

dtlv said:


> Bear in mind with anything I do that I'm not a proper bodybuilder and have never cut to anything like contest shape - what I do might not be the best for someone else or what I'd necessarily suggest. I tend to start out with the same macros that I normally eat, roughly 45,30,25 c/p/f then gradually reduce the carbs and fats. Protein normally stays a relative constant at around 3g/1kg bodyweight. Food is mostly clean but not utterly obsessive, sugars and sat fats limited, and some effort made to get a decent omega 3 intake. I only reduce kcals slowly and gradually, but also increase exercise to add to the kcal deficit.


Well, *beer* in mind makes me move more macro's towards protein and fats, as beer has carbs.

OOPS, dammit its Friday night here, Oh, I gotta say, I love this board, and love your posts bro, you are logical.

Love the dialogue of the topic, great subject.


----------



## Englishman (Oct 4, 2012)

Thanks for taking the time to post the studies, really enjoyed reading them. Learnt a couple of new things as well.


----------



## boxer dog (Jul 16, 2010)

Great post bro, something to think about.


----------



## stryker007 (Nov 12, 2012)

My rule of thumb is thus: if we weren't doing it 10,000 years ago then its probably bad for you.

So as food goes, yep I can't disagree with the research but eating frequently, say 5 times a day is what we've done as a species up till the point we had agriculture and modern society. So eating frequently as were designed to and keeping blood sugar levels stable is best. As some have said eating frequently leaves them more hungry.... that was the case for me for some time, however your insulin sensitivity normalises over time when eating frequently and now I'm happy doing it that way... plus (and its still early days because I've only been at it a couple of months) it seems to have shook me loose from my fat loss plateau. My body fat is low at around 9% but I still had fat covering my lower abs... dare I say since eating frequently I think its slowly shifting now..... just my experience is all


----------



## ksrcrider (Feb 20, 2013)

Nice write up OP.. I was huge on 6 meals a day 3-4 hours apart.. As i did get great results losing around 60 lbs in a year time, it got old to me.. I'm now doing the leangains diet fast 16 hours and eating in a 8 hour window.. Im eating around 3-4 times while still meeting my macronutients for the day and i'm loving it.. Its weird causing for the longest time it was eat 3 meals a day then in the 80's all of a sudden it was no you have to eat 6 times a day the more the better.. I also noticed that eating breakfast made me even more hungry just a few hour later.. Now i skip it.. I feel great and have lots of energy in the gym..


----------



## Kimball (Feb 26, 2012)

stryker007 said:


> My rule of thumb is thus: if we weren't doing it 10,000 years ago then its probably bad for you.
> 
> So as food goes, yep I can't disagree with the research but eating frequently, say 5 times a day is what we've done as a species up till the point we had agriculture and modern society. So eating frequently as were designed to and keeping blood sugar levels stable is best. As some have said eating frequently leaves them more hungry.... that was the case for me for some time, however your insulin sensitivity normalises over time when eating frequently and now I'm happy doing it that way... plus (and its still early days because I've only been at it a couple of months) it seems to have shook me loose from my fat loss plateau. My body fat is low at around 9% but I still had fat covering my lower abs... dare I say since eating frequently I think its slowly shifting now..... just my experience is all


Your first paragraph, I do hate that "thousands or hundreds of years ago" logic, have you any idea what the average and maximum life spans were 10,000 years ago


----------



## stryker007 (Nov 12, 2012)

Cos there were no gyms m8


----------

