Thread: The Meal Frequency Fallacy

Is an 8 week study on the effects on the metabolism based on meal frequency long enough study to draw any real conclusions from?

Put it this way: if it weren't long enough, and there is some small effect, it was obviously so small as to be insignificant in practice.

Originally Posted by Built

Put it this way: if it weren't long enough, and there is some small effect, it was obviously so small as to be insignificant in practice.

Weight training definitely seems to give my metablosim a boost but it took a solid 1.5 - 2 months of training to see any difference and I noticed the same for cardio and meal frequency. So I would disagree, if the study wasn't long enough, and time is a crucial variable for metabolic changes, then no accurate conclusions could be drawn from the study.

Did you weigh your food? Did you live inside a metabolic lab for the duration? If not, then you have insufficient evidence to refute this conclusion.

Eating INfrequently has a plethora of health benefits, including improved insulin sensitivity and muscle synthesis. Intermittent fasting has fallen out of this fact. The six meals a day thing does feel more comfortable for some. But not all, and I for one am relieved that it is by no means necessary or metabolically advantageous, outside of personal comfort.

Put it this way: given the choice, I'd rather skip breakfast and have a larger supper - so I have trained myself to go hungry in the morning and overeat at night. For me - MUCH better. For you, not so much. Awesome that both approaches work.

I'll add this is not new information. We have known this since at least 1997:

Br J Nutr. 1997 Apr;77 Suppl 1:S57-70.
Meal frequency and energy balance.
Bellisle F, McDevitt R, Prentice AM.
INSERM U341, Hotel Dieu de Paris, France.

Abstract

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.

I have a question regarding the usage of intake. Wasn't one of the ideas behind smaller more frequent meals that you had enough energy to perform but not a surplus to store as fat? I dont understand the concept of how long does it take for what we consume to either be used or stored

If you eat a little, you use a little and stored a little. Then you eat a little more and store a little, use a little... and so on.

If you eat a lot, you use a little, store a lot.... then retrieve it as required until your next large meal.

It's like earning and spending money - if you make a ton of money once a year, you spend it through the year regardless.

This was a great and interesting read. Thanks for sharing!

Originally Posted by Built

If you eat a little, you use a little and stored a little. Then you eat a little more and store a little, use a little... and so on.

If you eat a lot, you use a little, store a lot.... then retrieve it as required until your next large meal.

It's like earning and spending money - if you make a ton of money once a year, you spend it through the year regardless.

great points, but if you already have "stores" youre trying to use wouldnt the smaller meals help control fat gain

I can't see how it would matter.

Suppose you earn $60,000 a year. Your rent costs $1000 a month. Ignoring the piddling amount of compound interest on your savings account, will it matter if you pay it weekly instead of monthly? It still costs you $12,000 a year, right?

I think your answer is too simple, for money we have one source which is money, for energy we have 2 sources, carbs and fat, trust me if i could simply say i'd like stored fat to be used performing a task i def would

Well, you have to realize WHY we have fat. We need to store energy. There isn't much that gets stored as blood sugar and as glycogen. Without fat cells, we'd die.

There is no research that supports your assertion. Why would you think it would make any difference, given equal calories consumed? At the moment, I don't see what you're thinking. If you drive a car, it doesn't matter if you fill it up, or drop in five gallons at a time. For a given number of starts and stops, and miles driven, fuel economy is the same.

Originally Posted by Built

Well, you have to realize WHY we have fat. We need to store energy. There isn't much that gets stored as blood sugar and as glycogen. Without fat cells, we'd die.

There is no research that supports your assertion. Why would you think it would make any difference, given equal calories consumed? At the moment, I don't see what you're thinking. If you drive a car, it doesn't matter if you fill it up, or drop in five gallons at a time. For a given number of starts and stops, and miles driven, fuel economy is the same.

yes we have fat, but my goal is to carry as little as possible, so if i consume a smaller meal and use as much as that as possible it stores less as fat, why would i want to have a huge meal , use only part of it as energy then store the rest as fat, and again your comparison of the human body to a car is rediculous

Originally Posted by M-Rods

yes we have fat, but my goal is to carry as little as possible, so if i consume a smaller meal and use as much as that as possible it stores less as fat, why would i want to have a huge meal , use only part of it as energy then store the rest as fat, and again your comparison of the human body to a car is rediculous

You still aren't making any kind of an argument. If you eat a small meal, you use some of the energy, and store the rest. Now you eat another small meal, use some of the energy, and store the rest. If the calories you consume in all of those tiny meals are greater than the calories you use, you'll gain. What part of elementary calculus don't you understand?

PS if you're going to tell me my argument is ridiculous, at least learn how to spell the word.

Originally Posted by Built

You still aren't making any kind of an argument. If you eat a small meal, you use some of the energy, and store the rest. Now you eat another small meal, use some of the energy, and store the rest. If the calories you consume in all of those tiny meals are greater than the calories you use, you'll gain. What part of elementary calculus don't you understand?

what part of using the majority of it before it gets stored as fat are you missing? i will not expend all my needed calories after one meal, i use them throughout the day, so why allow any of them to store as fat when i can slowly take in my calories as i need them. its alright you aren't understanding the concept, its ok that we agree to disagree

Oh, is that what you are thinking - that you'll use most of it? This is entirely possible. You'll have to consume at a deficit.

You could consume this deficit in fewer meals. You'll still lose.

There's nothing to agree to disagree on. You don't see why the research does not support any metabolic advantage. This does not change the fact that the research does not support any metabolic advantage.

PS the earth is not flat. Get over it. Now go eat something, you're wasting away!

Originally Posted by Built

You still aren't making any kind of an argument. If you eat a small meal, you use some of the energy, and store the rest. Now you eat another small meal, use some of the energy, and store the rest. If the calories you consume in all of those tiny meals are greater than the calories you use, you'll gain. What part of elementary calculus don't you understand?

PS if you're going to tell me my argument is ridiculous, at least learn how to spell the word.

LOL, good catch, regardless of the spelling error, the human body cannot be compared to a car

Originally Posted by Built

Oh, is that what you are thinking - that you'll use most of it? This is entirely possible. You'll have to consume at a deficit.

You could consume this deficit in fewer meals. You'll still lose.

There's nothing to agree to disagree on. You don't see why the research does not support any metabolic advantage. This does not change the fact that the research does not support any metabolic advantage.

PS the earth is not flat. Get over it. Now go eat something, you're wasting away!

Trust me I'm not, I still have plenty of......fuel stored

Newton's Laws of Thermodynamics. I welcome you to brush up on them.

Originally Posted by M-Rods

Trust me I'm not, I still have plenty of......fuel stored

Consume fewer calories than you require. Eat as often or as seldom as you choose; success is guaranteed provided you maintain a deficit over time.