It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Another Dietary Myth Exposed: Meal Frequencey Is Irrelevant

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 15 2011 @ 12:13 PM
link   
Link


The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of dietary protein and eating frequency on perceived appetite and satiety during weight loss. A total of 27 overweight/obese men (age 47 ± 3 years; BMI 31.5 ± 0.7 kg/m2) were randomized to groups that consumed an energy-restriction diet (i.e., 750 kcal/day below daily energy need) as either higher protein (HP, 25% of energy as protein, n = 14) or normal protein (NP, 14% of energy as protein, n = 13) for 12 weeks. Beginning on week 7, the participants consumed their respective diets as either 3 eating occasions/day (3-EO; every 5 h) or 6 eating occasions/day (6-EO; every 2 h), in randomized order, for 3 consecutive days. Indexes of appetite and satiety were assessed every waking hour on the third day of each pattern. Daily hunger, desire to eat, and preoccupation with thoughts of food were not different between groups.

[Conclusions:] The HP group experienced greater fullness throughout the day vs. NP (511 ± 56 vs. 243 ± 54 mm · 15 h; P < 0.005). When compared to NP, the HP group experienced lower late-night desire to eat (13 ± 4 vs. 27 ± 4 mm, P < 0.01) and preoccupation with thoughts of food (8 ± 4 vs. 21 ± 4 mm; P < 0.01). Within groups, the 3 vs. 6-EO patterns did not influence daily hunger, fullness, desire to eat, or preoccupation with thoughts of food. The 3-EO pattern led to greater evening and late-night fullness vs. 6-EO but only within the HP group (P < 0.005). Collectively, these data support the consumption of HP intake, but not greater eating frequency, for improved appetite control and satiety in overweight/obese men during energy restriction-induced weight loss.



Eating occasionally (EO) was not independently associated with increased satiety. It was only when higher protein was consumed that any effect was observed. I'm sure we all know the relationship that exists between satiety (hunger) and obesity.

The idea of "grazing", or eating 4-8 small meals throughout the day, is retarded. We're not gorillas; and we're not cattle.




posted on Apr, 15 2011 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd
 


Some people will do better with big meals less often and some with frequent small meals. YMMV but nice to know neither is more efficient. Good Find S&F



posted on Apr, 15 2011 @ 01:16 PM
link   
reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd
 


While I wouldn't say that is quite conclusive.. It was a small study. 27 Men is not a large group, and did they even evaluate women?

I'm not saying their wrong. I wholly think they are right. I think this myth of eating 6 small meals a day to increase your metabolism is absurd. It is a well known branch of science called bro-science. Although it used to be the dogma of body builders, there is a greatly growing number of people in body building groups that have called the theory for what it is..

My theory is whatever suits you best. If eating small meals 6-7 times a day works for you.. do it. But I don't have time to stop to make food every two hours..

I know body builders that do the opposite of grazing.. They eat hardly anything all day, then they consume a huge meal at the end of the day. I believe it's called the warrior diet.. I know of people that have very good results with it.

In the end I think more people need to take some courses in biology to understand these things.. I find that there's a lot of body builder types that claim science but have never stepped into a classroom. In one case I found a guy who thought that the hyrdate in carbohydrate thought that it meant it makes you retain water..



posted on Apr, 15 2011 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Miraj
reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd
 

In the end I think more people need to take some courses in biology to understand these things.. I find that there's a lot of body builder types that claim science but have never stepped into a classroom. In one case I found a guy who thought that the hyrdate in carbohydrate thought that it meant it makes you retain water..


Great post OP, but as you know we dont even know why we are the way we are, everything is related to food, emotional states, some anger issues, deficiencies in hormones caused by lack of certain nutrients thus leading to changes in moods, some people I know have been treated unconventionally for depression by changing feeding habits and lo and behold, it seems to curb some symptoms.

Sadly I wave witnessed that we are totally disconnected to everything else that isn't some silly menial banal simply watered down version of reality.

We dont listen to our bodies, or notice its reactions, we accumulate crap through out the years and when our systems collapse we always wonder why.

Food intake timetables are a direct consequence of the silly working hours we have to cover in order to survive, we have allowed some really inhuman forces to control us, our energy intakes are polluted by imposed habits and half truths about nutrition, energy and our relationship with everything else.

The debate continues, if eating the meat of a stressed hormone injected and polluted animal has any real effects on ourselves, the organic vs the fabricated items, etc, etc.

In the end Its all a matter of personal responsibility as city dwellers we have plenty against us, but still, one controls what comes in and hopefully what comes out!
More information, more responsibility less tears, the majority ignores the simple facts, let alone the grand scheme of things...



posted on Apr, 15 2011 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Miraj
 


Good points. It certainly isn't conclusive. The same results have been observed in other dietary studies for which meal frequencey and protein consumption weren't designed. I had planned on expounding but I have limited time at work to post.

I couldn't agree more with your assesment. I personally know of some very healthy, aesthetically appealing individuals that eat 6 meals some days, 1 meal on others and intermittently fast on a weekly basis. Thanks for the comments.



Edit to add: My philosophy is simply: Eat when you're hungry.

edit on 15-4-2011 by DevolutionEvolvd because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 15 2011 @ 01:39 PM
link   
As a skinny guy with a fast metabolism and a poor appetite, the large number of smaller meals help. It's the only way I can really eat enough to put on some weight.
edit on 15-4-2011 by Proctor11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 15 2011 @ 01:40 PM
link   
reply to post by TheOneEyedProphet
 


I do believe we should listen to our bodies more. I believe there are a lot of issues that are treated with medication that don't need to be.

As in the case of depression you mentioned.. I can attest to this in a less direct fashion. When I was younger, I ate horribly, didn't exercise. Ect. Mild depression occured. Never had any treatment for it.

Now I eat better. Not great, but quite a bit better.. I don't eat incredibly fattening foods anymore.. And I stay religious about my exercise.. and I don't think I could say I've had any depression of emotional issues that weren't caused by some sort of external drama.. Which even that is usually taken well in stride



posted on Apr, 15 2011 @ 01:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Proctor11
 


I know people like you. Wish I had the metabolism you guys did..
But I have friends that scarf down lots of fried foods, sweets, energy drinks and are skinny. While I need to watch it and make sure I dont get over 2400 kcals a day or so if I want to lose weight.



posted on Apr, 15 2011 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Proctor11
 


Your appetite is poor because, instead of storing fat in the fat cells, you're actually burning it as fuel. I'm sure you have plenty of energy as well. Conversely, when obese individuals eat, the fat is partitioned to the fat cells and away from the cells that need it for daily needs; therefore, although fat people eat 3000-4000, they're starving at the cellular level.
edit on 15-4-2011 by DevolutionEvolvd because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 15 2011 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd
 


It's a good philosophy. I believe there is a great difference in the physiology of metabolism from person to person.
Of course I think some of our foods will throw off and distort metabolism in Americans.. hence why we get such big people.

I'm usually impressed to see people that are so big that they can get over 500 pounds.. you would think that impossible unless you had some sort of severe thyroid disorder or anything else associated with a slow metabolism.



posted on Apr, 15 2011 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheOneEyedProphet
The debate continues, if eating the meat of a stressed hormone injected and polluted animal has any real effects on ourselves, the organic vs the fabricated items, etc, etc.



Just to touch on this for a second...Have you ever seen how long it takes for a lion to suffocate its prey? How stressful to you think that is?



posted on Apr, 15 2011 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Miraj
 


But if most of the calories you're consuming are going to the fat cells, it's understandable how you could become so grossly corpulant. It would also explain the lack of energy, laziness and general lethargy associated with obesity. The body wants to burn as little as possible if it's starving...and since the fuel is going to the fat cells instead of the rest of the body, it's literally starving, regardless of the exogenous caloric quantity.



posted on Apr, 15 2011 @ 01:55 PM
link   
I once heard a wise man say that the battle of life and death is fought in our stomachs, we deliberately starve and poison ourselves, and as has been wisely pointed out, on a celular level some obese persons are malnourished, thus their needs to continually over eat the wrong foods, like carbohydrates without anything to compensate that fact.

Some have even reported in this very website that loosing gluten and some dairy products helps curbs depressions and other nasty by products of a deficient diet.
We seldom vary our foods, and even less notice the small print in the products we buy, a large percentage of manufactured foods contain gluten as means of adding some "substance" to some inert crap with little to no nourishing values, if they didn't do this then the nutritional value stated would amount to nothing.

Eating only when hungry varied things from all food groups have proven to be the most effective way of covering our needs, sometimes we eat whatever without any hunger or pleasure because we only have 1 hour for meals before we get back to work.

Its hard to balance and to be varied when we have our current options, but there are ways, there always exists a hidden option in everything, the challenge is finding them!

BTW, there are also some conspiracy theorists that claim that the food group pyramid is also a hoax perpetrated by TPTB to control or at least try to have power over us in every possible way, who knows, fact is, we are unhealthy because we decide to be unhealthy and make poor judgments based on what we currently know and understand, as our areas of knowledge broaden then more options become available...

regarding the suffocation of the prey, hey I´d rather kill my meat than buy it, at least I know what I did to bring it down!, of course one could debate if the stress conditions of a lion gnawing at the throat is considered less stressful than growing and fattening in an animal factory! but hey the debate could even be stretched further if we begin to consider all the reports about vegetables and plants suffering and emanating chemicals to warn other plants about potential dangers! I for one, will be humane and stress vegetables in equal manners as I stress my meat!



cheers!


edit on 15-4-2011 by TheOneEyedProphet because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-4-2011 by TheOneEyedProphet because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-4-2011 by TheOneEyedProphet because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 15 2011 @ 02:02 PM
link   
reply to post by TheOneEyedProphet
 


The food pyramid isn't a hoax...it's just extremely flawed. Here...read this post on the Dietary Guidelines for Americans.. Dietary Guidelines Failure
edit on 15-4-2011 by DevolutionEvolvd because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 15 2011 @ 02:09 PM
link   
awesome thread you made there, I wasn't implying I believed it was a hoax, as you say, I believe its flawed, and the plethora of info you provided in the other thread is overwhelming! thanks!



posted on Apr, 15 2011 @ 02:32 PM
link   
The title of this thread is preposterous when associated with what little information was provided in the linked article.


The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of dietary protein and eating frequency on perceived appetite and satiety during weight loss.


While pursuing my degree in biochemistry, I took a course that required we look at studies in primary literature and then as a class debate the efficacy of said studies based upon the information presented in said studies. Granted you only linked to the Abstract rather than the actual study but to make a title such as you did is disingenuous...to put it mildly.

To propose that a dietary recommendation be a myth based upon a study of 27 obese males centered around the age of 47 years old is laughable at best.

This should be moved to the Hoax forum.




edit on 15-4-2011 by bozzchem because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 15 2011 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by bozzchem
 


If you'll read down a bit further, you'll notice the part where I very readily admitted that this study, on its own, is hardly conclusive. I didn't have time to finish the thread because I'm at work.

If you'd like to discuss the efficacy of anything, we can discuss it as it regards to protein and satiety, which, I'm sure you know, has been studied quite extensively. Considering the numerous studies that indirectly show an independent association between satiety and protein consumption; and considering the numerous studies that indirectly show no real, consistent, independent association between satiety and meal frequency, one can easily see how unstable and unscientifically based the recommendation to eat multiple, small meals throughout the day--to stay fuller, boost metabolism and lose weight-- really is.

Granted, the title is may be claiming conclusiveness based on, considered by some, ambigous data, but it's a journalistic angle to attract readers.



edit on 15-4-2011 by DevolutionEvolvd because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 15 2011 @ 04:02 PM
link   
free Fulltext

www.pork.org/filelibrary/Dietary Guidelines/Eating Frequency and Dietary Protein during Free-living Weight Loss.pdf


Acknowledgments

This study was funded by the National Pork Board and the American
Egg Board—Egg Nutrition Center. Additional support was provided by
the Purdue University Ingestive Behavior Research Center (postdoctoral
fellowship (H.J.L.); and, the Indiana Clinical and Translational Sciences
Institute, funded in part by grant # RR 02576 from the National Institutes
of Health, National Center for Research Resources.

Disclosure
The authors declared no conflict of interest.



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 03:36 PM
link   
While the document focuses on satiety and weight-loss concerns, I'm far more interested in the impact on the digestive system.

Let's say I consume 75 grams of protein (half in the form of amino acids) in one meal versus that same balance of 75 consumed across two - which one results in higher absorption rates for that protein? Or does it really matter?

The same could go for any other nutrient.

Further - what kind of stress is put on my digestive system by my dietary habits? Does gorging one meal down a day risk gastric problems or some other side-effect? How about "grazing" (perhaps being more prone to incontinence)?

I will say that metabolism can be fairly heavily linked to what you eat. When working a more intense job at a factory - I felt it when I didn't get breakfast. Even if it was just junk from the geedunk - something with some sugar helped me engage (though this could merely be psychological in nature, or perhaps psychosomatic - I never tried using artificial sweeteners to see if the 'pick me up' was due to the presence of sugars or the anticipation of them).

Though I am one of those thin guys who can eat a horse, get seconds, and never gain an ounce. I weigh a whopping 136.5 in full uniform with boots and my normal complement of pocket-stowed items. Working out makes me lean and defined as hell - but still weighing in about the same.

I suppose it would make sense - my body operates more on what is coming in, rather than what is stored. Someone with more body fat is likely going to have a metabolism less influenced by the frequency and consistency of their diet. I just know that my energy levels and even sleep patterns are heavily influenced by my diet. A lack of food coming in means more sleeping and less doing. A lot of food coming in means I'm up pacing like a caged lion, looking for something to do.



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aim64C
Let's say I consume 75 grams of protein (half in the form of amino acids) in one meal versus that same balance of 75 consumed across two - which one results in higher absorption rates for that protein? Or does it really matter?


Good question. I have to wonder, however, if by absorption you mean from the digestive system into the bloodstream or if you mean cell uptake and secretion rates...

There won't be much difference in absorption rates into the bloodstream between a 75g protein meal and two 37.5g protein meals. However, cell uptake and nutrient delivery will differ between the two.

Body builders and weight-lifters typically take in between 25-50g of protein in the form of a shake immediately after lifting, and they're looking for optimal uptake and utilization. 75g of protein would be better off eaten in two seperate meals a few hours apart to avoid secretion.

And, if you're wondering, the speed in which protein is absorbed into the blood stream will depend highly upon the amount and type of foods consumed along with it. The same goes for fat and carbohydrate.


Further - what kind of stress is put on my digestive system by my dietary habits?


Considering our ancestors very often ate 1 huge meal very often, usually after the hunters killed their prey, after which they would certainly be fasting for a day or two, experts see no problem in this type of dietary habit. In fact, it be the most beneficial for sustaining a healthy lifestyle, as intermittent fasting is gaining tons of credit in the research field by producing healthy results.


Does gorging one meal down a day risk gastric problems or some other side-effect? How about "grazing" (perhaps being more prone to incontinence)?


That will depend heavily on the types of foods being consumed.


. Even if it was just junk from the geedunk - something with some sugar helped me engage (though this could merely be psychological in nature, or perhaps psychosomatic - I never tried using artificial sweeteners to see if the 'pick me up' was due to the presence of sugars or the anticipation of them).


Though I couldn't say for sure, it highly likely you were experiencing a physiological response. Hypoglycemia, even mildly, can make one feel sluggish.


Working out makes me lean and defined as hell - but still weighing in about the same.


Just goes to show how weight gain/loss is subconsciously controlled physiologically.


I suppose it would make sense - my body operates more on what is coming in, rather than what is stored. Someone with more body fat is likely going to have a metabolism less influenced by the frequency and consistency of their diet. I just know that my energy levels and even sleep patterns are heavily influenced by my diet. A lack of food coming in means more sleeping and less doing. A lot of food coming in means I'm up pacing like a caged lion, looking for something to do.


Funny how that works, huh? The body wants to maintain homeostasis. Some researchers call it the body fat set point. Eating less calories than you expend will slow the metabolism, lower body temperature and will make you tired and "lazy", all to try and expend less energy. Eating more, as observed with healthy metabolisms, will make you warmer, make you move more and give you tons of energy, as well as a general feeling of wanting to do something active. This is why dieting doesn't work when quantity is being calculated and quality is being ignored.

Remember when you were told as a kid to go work up an appetite? Or when you were going through puberty and you would sleep all day and eat a ton? It's because your body was growing and you needed to conserve/consume energy to meet the demands of tissue of growth. Anyways...that's a little off-topic I guess.

Thanks for the comments!



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join