A compliation on meal frequency

Sidesteal

There seems to be a lot of recent posts with the fallacy that meal frequency boosts metabolic rate, all other conditions being held equal.
I wanted to make a separate post about this and provide some information in an effort to help dispel this.

I'll try and keep this short.

When you eat, you expend energy from your body processing/breaking down the food. This energy expenditure is called Thermic Effect of Feeding or Thermic Effect of Food (TEF) and is also sometimes called Diet Induced Thermogensis (DIT).

So, if eating causes us to expend energy, then clearly eating more often makes this happen more often and we "kickstart our metabolism", right?

Wrong.

TEF is based on total caloric intakes and to a lesser extent, macronutrient composition (P/F/CHO require varying amounts of energy to process).

And since I firmly believe that choosing reliable resources is an important part of self-educating, I'm going to provide separate studies and reviews from multiple, reliable and tried-and-true sources.

Steve Troutman occasionally posts on MFP, helping people out by providing great information. His website is www.body-improvements.com and I'd like to specifically direct you here, as his explanation of this is stellar:

http://body-improvements.com/resources/eat/#frequency

To quote Steve:
Quite often we hear clients say something like, “Man! I’m so frustrated. I simply can’t stick to eating 6 meals per day and I know it’s hindering my fat loss.
Unfortunately for the individuals who fall victim to this myth, it’s not something that’s supported scientifically.

Steve then goes on to explain things in detail.
I would urge people to read the rest of his articles on his website as well. It is packed with great information.


Martin Berkhan is the originator of the Leangains protocol for Intermittent Fasting (not the first IFer, but probably the most notorious and reliable now) For Martin Berkhan's take on this topic:

http://www.leangains.com/2010/10/top-ten-fasting-myths-debunked.html

See myth #1 specifically.


Lyle McDonald has some great information on it here:
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/meal-frequency-and-energy-balance-research-review.html

The take home from Lyle's article, in terms of practicality and application, would probably be this quote, this is Lyle here:


* If eating more frequently makes it easier to control/reduce calories, it will help you to lose weight/fat.
* If eating more frequently makes it harder to control/reduce calories, or makes you eat more, you will gain weight.
* If eating less frequently makes it harder for you to control/reduce calories (because you get hungry and binge), it will hurt your efforts to lose weight/fat.
* If eating less frequently makes it easier for you to control/reduce calories (for any number of reasons), then that will help your efforts to lose weight/fat

Or in other words, personal preference.


Some peer reviewed studies:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9155494
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19943985
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17483007


And it would be wrong of me to exclude Alan Aragon from this list. Here's a good read:
http://www.leangains.com/2011/04/critique-of-issn-position-stand-on-meal.html

Notably this quote:

"The aspects of metabolism discussed in this section are diet-induced thermogenesis (DIT – also called the thermic effect of food), resting metabolic rate, and protein metabolism. As for DIT, differences between varying meal distributions across several studies are negligible. The same lack of difference was also seen in several studies, including tightly controlled designs involving metabolic chambers to measure resting metabolic rate and total energy expenditure. These data further serve to invalidate the dying cliché of stoking the metabolic fire with frequent small feedings."


In conclusion: Do what works best for you. Strictly from a metabolic standpoint when looking only at expenditure (<-- please note the bold), it's not going to matter how you partition your calories.

dg09

I only eat twice a day, so this is very much true.

annabellj

bump and thank you!

ysamatar

Bump. Thnks.

ElizabethRoad

I only eat once a day. I start at 7 am and stop around 10 pm.

(Great post, btw.)

carrie_eggo

Excellent post.

meli_medina

Your wisdom cup runneth over. Thanks for filling a few others' who are running on empty! =D

Elizabeth_C34

Yanicka1

thank you. I eat twice a day and find it liberating

cmriverside

Perfect! I eat twice a day and I've kept off my weight for five years. The 5-6-a-day does nothing but keep me thinking about food and irritated all day long.

Love it. Thanks for saying it!

confuzzledwife

Great post.. thank you!

pukekolive

I stopped going to a nutrition and fitness establishment as they would not stop criticizing me for having only 2 main meals a day - I work 12.30pm to 9pm so eat at 11.30am (cooked) and 'lunch' at 4pm when I have 30 mins break.

Apart from an additional earlier breakfast if I am working out or evening meal at weekends, I graze the rest of the time from healthy snacks such as low fat yoghurt, protein bars/cookies and fruit - I still lose weight so works for me.

Sidesteal

I stopped going to a nutrition and fitness establishment as they would not stop criticizing me for having only 2 main meals a day -

If the criticism was because of metabolic reasons, then bravo to you for leaving them in the dust.

lilojoke

Aside from my pre and post workout its twice for me in about 6-8 hours.

myak623

Excellent! Thanks for taking the time to post!

HonkyTonks

Thanks! Let's pin this topic.. oh wait

You know, I can understand why people might think that eating more freqruently might 'stoke' your metabolism (even if it's false), but what amazes me is people who think you need to eat to START your metabolism, and when you don't eat it just stops!

Sidesteal

Thanks! Let's pin this topic.. oh wait

You know, I can understand why people might think that eating more freqruently might 'stoke' your metabolism (even if it's false), but what amazes me is people who think you need to eat to START your metabolism, and when you don't eat it just stops!

I LOL at that too. As if things just suddenly shut off and fat storage begins.

LOL

lilojoke

Thanks! Let's pin this topic.. oh wait

You know, I can understand why people might think that eating more freqruently might 'stoke' your metabolism (even if it's false), but what amazes me is people who think you need to eat to START your metabolism, and when you don't eat it just stops!

This is correct. We all have our systems setup! There is no magic in eating every 2-3 hours or even eating every day period!

I have done ADF with huge success and now doing Warrior type where I eat two big meals plus my workout shake. Also I have found eating this way you can actually have those 3-4 slices of pizza and call that your meal for the day!

lilojoke

Thanks! Let's pin this topic.. oh wait

You know, I can understand why people might think that eating more freqruently might 'stoke' your metabolism (even if it's false), but what amazes me is people who think you need to eat to START your metabolism, and when you don't eat it just stops!

I LOL at that too. As if things just suddenly shut off and fat storage begins.

LOL

Or you gonna pass out and muscles are going to waste!

Stephisonaroll

thank you for sharing this...now I can finally prove to my husband that only eating 3 meals with a snack or two is OK. he is always telling I would lose weight faster if I ate 6 small meals a day and I find that pretty hard to accomplish!

Sidesteal

thank you for sharing this...now I can finally prove to my husband that only eating 3 meals with a snack or two is OK. he is always telling I would lose weight faster if I ate 6 small meals a day and I find that pretty hard to accomplish!

If you are comparing equal calorie intakes in both scenarios then your husband is wrong. I would suggest a sex bet before proving.