Meal Frequency

Posted by at 14:43 19/12/11

Everyone but the most simple person knows that to get big the more frequently we eat the better. Where some suggest eating six times a day is a must, others will dismiss such individuals as not hardcore enough and aim for up to eight meals a day. Recently I saw one guy from the Predator Nutrition Facebook Page mention a professional bodybuilder who claims to eat seventeen times a day! So short of hooking yourself up to a 24 hour infusion of nutrients what can we logically do if looking to enhance our physique? What does the research and real world evidence state when exploring the topic of meal frequency?

When discussing meal frequency the most frequently made arguments made in favour of a high meal frequency are:

•     Higher meal frequencies leads to more stable insulin levels which in turn means less fat gain for any given meal leading to improved body composition.

•     Higher meal frequencies will bump up the metabolism each time we eat.

•     Higher meal frequencies lead to greater satiety and prevents hunger induced binges

•     Higher meal frequencies make it easier to consume the amount of calories and protein needed for bulking.

Let's look at these points in turn.


Body Composition


It is certainly true that the hormonal response to several smaller meals would be less than the same insulin response from three meals assuming isoenergetic diets (meaning the same number of macronutrients ingested per day but consumed over six versus three meals per day). Additionally, research comparing higher frequency of meals versus a lower frequency found lower fasting and total levels of LDL cholesterol.

In terms of body composition though the research is conflicting. Although some research shows greater meal frequency had a better effect on body composition than a lower frequency, the majority show no difference and a recent abstract showed three meals per day to be superior to six meals a day for the purpose of muscle gain (although the lower frequency group also had greater fat gain which suggests they lower frequency group had a greater calorie intake than the higher frequency group). It bears repeating that the majority of studies show no difference in outcome assuming calories are controlled.

Metabolism


Every time we eat a meal our bodies produce some heat which is a natural consequence of consuming food. This is termed the thermic effect of food (TEF). Although different nutrients affect metabolism differently, assuming and average mixed meal of protein, carbs and fats, an average thermic effect would be 10%. That means 10% of the calories inherent in the meal are burned off when eating. Voila, the more you eat the more you burn right?

Not quite so fast. Assuming a day's intake of 2400 calories is split into three meals of 800 calories means 80 calories are burnt off after each meal (as 80 is 10% of 80). If you choose to split it up into six meals of 400 you burn off 40 calories per meal.

As anyone can see the end result is the same. While having more frequent meals leads to greater bumps in metabolism every time you eat, the larger bumps when eating a bigger meal compensate for this fact. Ultimately, 3 * 80 and 6 * 40 equals 240 calories per day burned off by both groups.


Appetite


If you eat more frequently the assumption high frequency advocates make is that hunger is suppressed before it gets too bad you overeat and blow your diet. Most of the research supports this showing greater appetite control being achievable using higher frequencies than lower frequencies, specifically when comparing 3 vs 1 meal a day. While this lends support to the idea that higher frequencies trump lower meal frequencies, most would consider three meals daily to be actually quite a low frequency.

An important point to make is that in uncontrolled studies where subjects could eat as they wish lower meal frequencies were associated with greater food intake lending support to the theory that a higher meal frequency controls appetite better. However, it should be noted that it is the fact people eat less that was the key driver to better success not a higher meal frequency having any special effect. What can be said though is that, in general, higher meal frequencies are associated with better appetite control.

Bulking


Contradicting the point above, higher meal frequencies are postulated to increase the ability of those bulking to get enough calories in a day to meet the needs of gaining size. By allowing more feeding opportunities, higher meal frequencies make it easier to get in enough calories per day to gain weight quickly. In practical terms, it is arguable that eating more frequently makes most sense with high daily calorie needs to prevent gastric distress and bloating from eating very large meals.

If we take the idea that we should eat extremely frequently (every hour or two in an extreme case) the argument is this provides our bodies with a near continuous inflow of nutrients to help maitain an anabolic state. Certainly, it is well established that providing protein to the body increase protein synthesis so doesn't it make sense to provide a steady stream of nutrients to help enhance our results? As ever things are never that simple.

Some research using amino acid infusion suggests that even in the presence of a high delivery of amino acids, the muscle can become insensitive to the effects of continuous feeding. The same research showed that urea production was increased meaning the protein was being broken down and excreted.

Given the fact that the muscle became resistant to further protein synthesis despite the high level of amino acids in the blood it is theorised that the transition from low to high levels of amino acids is the key element in driving protein synthesis rather than trying to force a continuous stream of amino acids into the muscle cell.

Now of course there is a world of difference between continuous infusion versus eating meals and it is hard to say what the number of meals per day would need to be to cause this type of negative feedback but it certainly makes it a less attractive strategy to try to eat every hour or so as some extreme bodybuilders might advise.

On a related note, this type of research suggests it is better to focus one's diet on meals that avoid too rapid a rise in protein synthesis to prevent the body from down regulating protein synthesis back to baseline levels. Given research showing that over an extended period of time casein displayed superior body composition benefits compared to whey, despite whey's greater elevation in protein syntheis and fat oxidation, it suggests that providing a slow rise in amino acids may be more beneficial when bulking arguing in favour of protein blends or slow releasing proteins.


How do we tie this altogether?

Making concrete recommendations is difficult but there is evidence suggesting we should not eat top frequently. A frequency of a meal every four hours should be fine for most people in allowing them both time to have reasonable sized meals and also to avoid the potential for lowering the rate of protein synthesis that can occur with continuous feeding.

Summary


There is no clearcut, one size fits all solution for choosing a particular meal frequency. Like most things related to training and diet, individual choice and circumstances should dictate what meal frequency is used, and not the influence of bodybuilding folklore. For those who feel they perform better on higher meal frequencies in terms of moods, gastric comfort, and appetite control there is no reason to change how you eat. However, if you currently eat with as little as a couple of hours break between a meal you may find better results with a less frequent eating plan.

For those who are concerned that they must follow a high meal frequency, the truth is that so long as daily macronutrient goals are met and you follow a controlled calorie eating plan, there is no reason why you cannot implement a lower meal frequency to fit better with your job or lifestyle so long as you avoid the extreme of just one meal daily.

For most people, eating between three to six meals a day will be fine so long as macronutrient goals are met. It is worth experimenting with different plans to see what works best for you but do not feel the need to slavishly adopt a particular frequency.

Author: Reggie Johal


If you liked this piece, please also take a look at the following articles:

Cheat Meal Strategies Everyone Should Know

Awesome Supplements You Can Take Year Round

Essential Fatty Acids - What You Need To Know