QUOTE(-Dan @ Feb 8 2012, 11:33 AM)
Can we get your take on the subject then? You obviously know a considerable amount. (Not being sarcastic here) I'm no expert and my post merely reflected what I've read before, and I'm here to learn as well.
Sure. It has been proven time and time again through research that there is no metabolic advantage of meal frequency or timing. Actually i've seen about 10 or 11 studies done on this. When a study can be successfully replicated it is a good indication that the hypothesis is true. They all come to the similar conclusion. Scale weight is dictated by overall caloric intake. Body composition is dictated by overall macronutrient intake. Frequency or timing is irrelevant.
Here are 2 studies
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1905998QUOTE
A study was conducted to investigate whether there is a diurnal pattern of nutrient utilization in man and how this is affected by meal frequency to explain possible consequences of meal frequency for body weight regulation. When the daily energy intake is consumed in a small number of large meals, there is an increased chance to become overweight, possibly by an elevated lipogenesis (fat synthesis and accumulation) or storage of energy after the meal. Thirteen subjects, two males and eleven females, were fed to energy balance in two meals per day (gorging pattern) and seven meals per day (nibbling pattern) over 2-day intervals. On the second day on each feeding regimen, the diurnal pattern of nutrient utilization was calculated from simultaneous measurements of oxygen consumption, carbon dioxide production and urinary nitrogen excretion over 3 h intervals in a respiration chamber. A gorging pattern of energy intake resulted in a stronger diurnal periodicity of nutrient utilization, compared to a nibbling pattern. However, there were no consequences for the total 24 h energy expenditure (24 h EE) of the two feeding patterns (5.57 +/- 0.16 kJ/min for the gorging pattern; 5.44 +/- 0.18 kJ/min for the nibbling pattern). Concerning the periodicity of nutrient utilization, protein oxidation during the day did not change between the two feeding patterns. In the gorging pattern, carbohydrate oxidation was significantly elevated during the interval following the first meal (ie from 1200 h to 1500 h, P less than 0.01) and the second meal (ie from 1800 h to 2100 h, P less than 0.05). The decreased rate of carbohydrate oxidation observed during the fasting period (from rising in the morning until the first meal at 1200 h), was compensated by an increased fat oxidation from 0900 to 1200 h to cover energy needs. In the nibbling pattern, carbohydrate and fat oxidation remained relatively constant during the active hours of the day.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9155494QUOTE
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.
Layne Norton is a well known proponent of meal frequency and timing. In fact he has done research, and came up with a specific protocol to maximize protein synthesis (MPS). Look it up if you want more details on the theory behind this.
Through his reseach he came up with this recommendation:
- 3-4g of leucine per meal
- 5 meals per day every 4-5 hours.
- bcaa between meals to overcome refractory period
The issue I have with the study is that the research was done on rats. Thats not so say I'm discrediting it. It is best to view it as preliminary until it can be replicated in humans.
This is what he said when quizzed about the importance of nutrient timing.
QUOTE
"my articles also explain why i utilize nutrient timing. Mostly due to trying to maximize enhanced insulin sensitivity. Now this may only make a 2-3% difference, which isn't noticible to the average person, but 2-3% difference for someone trying to win a show, is a pretty big deal"
As you can see, he admits that the benefits of following his protocol is not very significant especially to the average person. There is nothing wrong with trying to maximize gains. The problem with fitness and bodybuilding is that most beliefs is based on false premise, especially that nonsense about the mythical 1 hour window of opportunity.
My conclusion for now, meal frequency or timing is not as important as satisfying caloric needs. Nutrient timing can be beneficial if done correctly, though the benefits would not be very significant. Therefore, meal frequency or timing should be personal preference and whatever that best fits ones lifestyle.
QUOTE(shankar_dass93 @ Feb 8 2012, 03:52 PM)
Yeah I remembered reading an article that it helps in burning fat is it increases your metabolic rate( an article from bb.com). I personally increased my consumption of ice water too.
Lets do a little math shall we.
1 calorie (Note the letter "c" is not capital) is needed to raise the temperature of 1g of water, 1 degrees Celsius
Lets say you drank 500g of ice water. Assume the temperature of the water is 0 degrees Celsius.
A good estimation of body temperature is 37 degrees Celcius
500X37=18500 calories
This unit with the small letter "c" does not represent the amount of energy contained in foods. That is actually the capital "C" or kilo-calories.
Therefore,
18500/1000=18.5 Calories
In the grand scheme of things. Does it really matter?
This post has been edited by darkseifer: Feb 8 2012, 07:57 PM 
Feb 6 2012, 01:12 AM, updated 14y ago
Quote
What you mean by that?
0.0397sec
0.39
7 queries
GZIP Disabled