JeffN wrote:SactoBob wrote:Jeff,
I was wondering if there is any evidence as to whether the traditional three meals per day is better than, for example, one or two meals per day. Also, if you are not hungry and wanting to lose weight, is there any drawback to skipping a meal (assuming that you don't overdo on the next meal)?
Hi Bob,
While you often here of the advantages of several small meals over less larger meals, as long as total calories are restricted, there is not really a big difference and
some recent studies in animals have shown that less frequent meals may have some advantages. There are studies being done where the animal are fed every other day (EOD) or once a day.
Years ago, they said it helped lower cholesterol levels, triglycerides, blood sugar, insulin, etc, however, most science organizations will no longer make these claims, as there was little if any evidence to support them.
The claims that eating frequently keeps your metabolism raised is false as the increase in metabolism to digest food is only around 10% of the total calories ingested. So if you consume 300 calories, you may "burn" 30 more than if you did not consume anything, but you end up with a net gain of 270 calories. Taking in a net 270 calories to raise your metabolism by 30 calories, would not be beneficial in regard to energy balance.
One of the problems with eating less frequent meals is we live in a society where food is inexpensive, calorie dense and everywhere, so skipping meals and saying "no" to the food around us, can be difficult. In addition, some people find if they eat less often, they have trouble controlling the amounts they eat when they do eat. So, in today's unhealthy culture, there may be some psycho(social)logical advantage to frequent small meals of health foods. For many, this may be the most important issue as they may find small frequent meals gives them better "control". Remember, many people see this lifestyle as one that takes a lot of discipline and effort. To then add in reducing meal frequency, is to add in more discipline and effort.
However, Seventh Day Adventists, who have the longest lifespan in the US, follow a recommendation of 2 meals per day. Studies on those who limit meal intake during Ramadan, have shown no adverse effects and some possible benefits to weight and risk factors for heart disease and diabetes. The effects of Ramadan "fasting", is well studies, even in children and pregnant women.
Br J Nutr. 2008 Jul;100(1):147-51. Epub 2007 Dec 6.Effect of Ramadan fasting on some indices of insulin resistance and components of the metabolic syndrome in healthy male adults. PMID: 18053308
In conclusion, the present study showed that the combined change in the number and timing of meals and portioning of the entire intake into only two meals per d may increase insulin sensitivity in subjects with the metabolic syndrome even when the decrease in energy consumption is minimal.
Pak J Biol Sci. 2007 Mar 15;10(6):968-71.Effects of fasting and a medium calorie balanced diet during the holy month Ramadan on weight, BMI and some blood parameters of overweight males. PMID: 19069900
Fasting resulted in significant (p<0.05) decreases in the mean values of both, weight and the BMI. Similarly, the mean values of glucose and cholesterol were significantly decreased in subjects after Ramadan, although none of these decreases reached to a level with pathological significance. Conversely, no significant changes in serum levels of triglyceride were noted.J Egypt Public Health Assoc. 2004;79(5-6):461-83. Ramadan fasting: relation to atherogenic risk among obese Muslims. PMID: 17265611
The study showed that by the end of Ramadan fasting, there was a significant improvement in the mean levels of hemoglobin (Hb), TC, TG, HDL-c, LDL-c, TC/HDL, LDL/HDL, Lp (a), APA, APB, PT and systolic (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) that persisted for four weeks after fasting (P < 0.05). Ramadan fasting has not adversely affected leucocytic count or coagulation parameters (P > 0.05). There was also a significant association between dietary intake, SBP, DBP, weight, BMI, percent body fat and waist, fibrinogen and factor VII activity and TC, TG, HDL-c, LDL-c, LDL/HDL, Lp (a) and APB (P < 0.05). The model of Ramadan fasting could be followed as a behavior modification program to control or prevent atherogenicity because of its positive impact on the lipid pattern, blood count and coagulation parameters. Reducing meal frequency has been show to beneficial to the brain and heartMattson MP, Duan W, Guo Z.
Meal size and frequency affect neuronal plasticity and vulnerability
to disease: cellular and molecular mechanisms.
J Neurochem. 2003 Feb;84(3):417-31. Review.
PMID: 12558961
Another article..
http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20030607/food.aspAnd as I mentioned earlier, total calories may be the key issue here..
Carlson O, Martin B, Stote KS, Golden E, Maudsley S, Najjar SS, Ferrucci L,
Ingram DK, Longo DL, Rumpler WV, Baer DJ, Egan J, Mattson MP.
Impact of reduced meal frequency without caloric restriction on glucose
regulation in healthy, normal-weight middle-aged men and women.
Metabolism. 2007 Dec;56(12):1729-34.
PMID: 17998028
"Collectively, the available data therefore suggest that meal skipping or intermittent CR diets can result in health benefits including improved glucose regulation,[b] but only if there is an overall reduction in energy intake."[/b]
Lastly, what may be one of the best discussions on the topic in the literature as of right now...
"Indeed, no clear evidence shows that the skipping of breakfast or lunch (or both) is unhealthy, and animal data suggest quite the opposite. "
Excerpts from...
The need for controlled studies of the effects of meal frequency on health
Mark P Mattson
Lancet 365 (9475) 1978-1980
2005
Only until relatively recently in human evolution have we eaten three meals (plus snacks) every day. Our ancestors consumed food much less frequently, and often had to subsist on one large meal per day or go for several days at a time without food.1 and 2 Thus, from an evolutionary perspective, human beings were adapted to intermittent feeding rather than to grazing. Although eating three or more meals every day can promote rapid growth and sexual maturation in children, it might not be the healthiest dietary pattern for adults. Indeed, the rising tide of obesity
in many developed countries occurs among individuals who consume several large meals per day. Overeating is now widely accepted as a major cause of premature death from cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and cancers,3 but surprisingly, few studies have determined how meal frequency affects health and disease risk. Nevertheless, individuals in the health-care professions and in the lay press have repeatedly stated that consumption of smaller and more frequent meals is healthier than that of larger and less frequent meals. This advice is given despite the lack of clear scientific evidence to justify it.
Studies that have attempted to determine the effects of meal frequency on health have resulted in mixed conclusions. For example, an early survey study4 suggested an association between reduced meal frequency and risk factors for diabetes and cardiovascular disease (obesity, hypercholesterolaemia, and glucose intolerance). In another study,5 healthy men ate either three meals or 17 small snacks every day. After 2 weeks on these diets, participants on the snacking diet had reduced fasting total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, and insulin concentrations, whereas blood glucose and insulin responses to a glucose challenge test did not differ. Some studies6 have shown that the omission of breakfast is unhealthy, whereas others have shown that this omission can reduce risk factors for
cardiovascular disease and diabetes, including elevations in concentrations of triglycerides, insulin, and glucose.7
Different populations of people practice intermittent fasting worldwide, usually as part of their religion. For example, during the period of Ramadan, which lasts 1 month, Muslims do not eat during the day and typically consume most of their food in the evening. Analyses of blood from people before, during, and after Ramadan have revealed several effects of this meal-skipping diet on indicators of health and disease risk, including increased HDL cholesterol and decreased LDL cholesterol concentrations8 and lowered platelet aggregation,9 suggesting a reduced risk of cardiovascular disease.
Unfortunately, the variable designs and mixed outcomes of past studies of meal frequency and health in people have resulted in questionable and unclear conclusions. In most instances, these studies were done over a
short period, their sample sizes were very small (eg, Jenkins and colleagues5 had seven participants in their study), and variables such as initial calorie intake and exercise were not taken into account. Epidemiological studies were confounded by various socioeconomic and behavioural risk factors, and relied on self-reporting of food intake.
The beneficial effects of diets with reduced meal frequency in rodents, which are striking and highly reproducible, beg the question of whether similar benefits might be achieved in human beings. Some aspects of studies of dietary restriction in laboratory animals introduce at least some uncertainty as to whether reduced calorie and meal-skipping diets will benefit people who already have a normal or low body-mass index. In most studies of rats and mice, controls are usually fed ad libitum, get little exercise, and are therefore overweight. Thus, whether meal-skipping diets will have physiological effects in people across a spectrum of bodyweights that are closely similar to those documented in rodents needs to be established.
The fact that such a fundamental aspect of our dietary habits, the number of meals we eat every day, has not yet been subject to rigorous scientific investigation is remarkable. Until the time that clear results are obtained in well controlled studies, specific recommendations concerning meal frequency and health are inappropriate to make. Indeed, no clear evidence shows that the skipping of breakfast or lunch (or both) is unhealthy, and animal data suggest quite the opposite.
Bottom line, following the recommendations here to consume a unrefined unprocessed plant based diet that is low in calorie density, high in nutrient density and high in satiety, along with the proper amount and type of physical activity may be the most important issue. Whether someone does this in 3 meals vs 5 meals vs 1 meal, may be less important than total calories and overall food choices, and a fine detail that would be up to the individual based on which method helps them incorporate the more important principles.
In Health
Jeff
, eating a set number of meals and/or at the same time each day is a contradiction to the very concept of true hunger. Hunger does not work by the clock. You can train yourself to eat only at certain times, and you will neuro-adapt accordingly, but that is not true hunger. 
