Meta-analysis on the effects of meal frequency on body composition

[scottm]

Just pub'd by Brad Schoenfeld, Alan Aragon, and James Krieger:
http://nutritionreviews.oxfordjournals.org/content/73/2/69

I don't think there is anything ground breaking to the DS crowd, but is a well done meta and good discussion. Some interesting conclusions.

 

[snakeybizz]

for me 3 meals > 6 meals for improved body composition... not for physical reasons but purely psychological...on 3 meals a day, meals are much more satisfying, I don't feel starved and it is less stressful...easier to adhere to for me.

 

[Pathogenic]

Brad Schoenfeld is perhaps the greatest vanquisher of broscience in history.

 

[Synapse]

for me 3 meals > 6 meals for improved body composition... not for physical reasons but purely psychological...on 3 meals a day, meals are much more satisfying, I don't feel starved and it is less stressful...easier to adhere to for me.

Same, but 2 meals for me. Really, after reviewing the literature my stance is - if meal frequency/timing has practically no effect (save pre/post workout), then do whatever the hell makes your life easier.

 

[snakeybizz]

Same, but 2 meals for me. Really, after reviewing the literature my stance is - if meal frequency/timing has practically no effect (save pre/post workout), then do whatever the hell makes your life easier.

yeah exactly, 2 is fine, hell any number is "fine" whatever works for you...I honestly don't care about the bro science hypothesis of increased meal frequency/timing increasing calorie expenditure...maybe it does maybe it doesn't (most likely doesn't, or has very little effect) for me its about making it a lifestyle...and to do that I have to eat as often or as little as I want to eat to get under X calories...for me that is around 3 meals and light snacking...either way I'm consuming just under maintenance to keep a healthy body comp, I happen to find it easier eating my allocated calories spread over 3 meals as opposed to 6 even if the caloric content is the same...I dunno why that is, there must be a mechanism to explain this

I tried the whole 6 small meal thing and with my stomach rumbling 20 mins after eating my tiny Tupperware meal I decided it wasn't for me...that along with the 2 hour food prep zzzzzzzzz

 

[HockeyBjj]

By the review I saw, there's really no pro or con to any eating frequency? It's just do what does best for you to give energy levels on current calorie level?

All I know is I need a real meal within an hour and a half of lifting or there's a chance of manslaughter....

 

[selfcritical]

They didn't do an analysis for any performance factors to my knowledge. Nutrient timing will probably matter a lot more depending on energy system being stressed. I don't think the authors are going to advise doing tons of lactic conditioning on an intermittent fasting diet.

 

[Synapse]

They didn't do an analysis for any performance factors to my knowledge. Nutrient timing will probably matter a lot more depending on energy system being stressed. I don't think the authors are going to advise doing tons of lactic conditioning on an intermittent fasting diet.

I agree, but I think it can still be kept as simple as "If you're about to do/just did work, eat. Otherwise, eat whenever you want."

 

[scottm]

They didn't do an analysis for any performance factors to my knowledge. Nutrient timing will probably matter a lot more depending on energy system being stressed. I don't think the authors are going to advise doing tons of lactic conditioning on an intermittent fasting diet.

Yep, Aragon's study on Nutrient timing last year ... http://forums.sherdog.com/forums/f15/nutrient-timing-revisited-2393911/

 

[RafailNadull]

Unfortunately, the paucity of research on the topic precludes the formation of evidence-based conclusions

That's incorrect. The evidence might be such that conclusions are subject to considerable uncertainty, but the formation of evidence based conclusions is always possible.

Disproportionate weighting? If the standard error was much smaller in that study and this smallness is not an artifact of model assumptions unsuitable for the experiment that was performed (as it often is, in say, regression analysis of non experimental data), then the weight should be much larger. A big properly done experiment (which would lead to a small standard error) doesn't provide the same evidence as a poorly done small experiment, and should indeed receive much greater weight in a meta analysis.