How many feedings? How many calories?
I don’t know who originally said that you should surround yourself with people than you are but it was probably someone smarter than me.
I’m lucky enough to have some great people to discuss ideas with. The latest topic came to us via our strength coach, Ron Dykstra, who came across this article online.
The author disputes a common nutritional argument, that people should eat several small deals per day. He cites a list of academic citations thicker than the phone book to argue that frequent meals will not lead to faster metabolism, as is commonly thought. What he learned is that the number of meals people are given a day (bear in mind, these are relatively controlled research situations) doesn’t really change anything, assuming the calories are the same.
Six 300 calorie meals? Two 900 calories meals? Same difference?
Below are some thoughts from myself, Kyle Byron and Krista Scott-Dixon. I’ve edited them for a bit more cohesion.
KSD: There’s more to this than numbers. The body is a visionary and a big-picture thinker rather than a bean counter.
GG: The impact of diet and lifestyle habits (not including exercise) might account for 10% of calories burned outside of exercise. For example, a sedentary person may have a resting metabolism of 1500 calories a day (bear in mind that this is outside of exercise). Absolutely revving up their metabolism may bring this up to 1650. While this is significant, an extra doughnut will erase that advantage.
KB: It doesn’t matter unless we reduce cravings and improve recovery and energy levels.
GG: Those cravings are key because a feeling of deprivation will create them and that’s where we get into trouble.
KSD: Hormones are pretty significant as well. Low blood sugar can create an adrenaline rush after cortisol levels drop. This feels like panic to people.
So now we have poor decision making plus low blood sugar plus an adrenaline freak-out. Thrown on top of a stressful day and a big pile of messy life habits and you’ve got the perfect storm
GG: Exactly. One of the most significant ways that people mess up is by waiting too long to eat and then going ape-shit on whatever they can find the fastest (namely, carbs and other nonsense with low nutrient density). Coming back to that original example, over-shooting by 160 calories is easy to do when you’re in this situation.
There may not be a hormonal cascade created or circumvented if we eat dinner before hitting the grocery store but I’ll bet that sated people are less likely to leave with a Halloween bag full of Twix than hungry people.
The science here is right, but it doesn’t factor in the psycho-social aspect of things.
Frequent feedings:
* manage the panic reaction that people have
* force them to plan better in general
* counter the weird deprivation/guilt combo that so many people have
We all agreed and then, later, high-fived.
Print This Post
| 
Email This Post
8 Responses to “How many feedings? How many calories?”
Leave a Reply
Join our Mailing list
Latest Blog Posts
- Hardstyle Kettlebell Certification™ (HKC™) with Master RKC Jon Engum
- When things Turn Into THINGS
- +1 Training: When Less is More
- Heart Rate and Training Readiness (Part 1)
- +1 Training: Predicting Body Composition
Wow. Krista is so much taller than the rest of you. Do you feel emasculated?
11.07.2010, 7:22 amAs the author, I thought I’d point out a few things that you seemed to gloss over.
1) The article states that when cutting calories, several smaller meals can aid in hunger control and offers the citations to back that up. No opinions necessary to push that point.
2) These anxiety attacks are not related to any absolute time span that’s applicable to everyone. It is based on their prior feeding history. People who eat on a regular schedule can set their watches by hunger pangs, as ghrelin adjusts to release on cue at a set time each day based on eating schedule. You can program yourself for long or short feeding intervals sans anxiety.
3) The research actually assesses the most important psycho-social factor, which you forgot to mention: that people hate eating more than three times per day. More people flat-out quit the program because they had to eat too often. The lowest attrition rate in the study was for those eating 3 to 4 meals per day. I think this is probably the most important psycho-social factor: why would you make a recommendation that you know increases the probability of a client failing?
Just some food for thought.
11.07.2010, 6:05 pmThanks for posting, Kiefer.
Your second point is an important one. We definitely know that, when it comes to exercise, consistency trumps everything else. I think that this extends to nutrition as well.
I would argue that any situation in which calorie and macronutrient intake are controlled will be effective. The finer points are unimportant until all that is handled.
Like you said, it’s not the number of feedings but the consistency. That consistency is what kills people. Our experience has indicated that a higher meal frequency to be helpful but this should obviously be taken on a case-by-case basis.
Which brings us to three . . .
There’s definitely a good argument there. Ron mentioned John Broz, who, after finishing what was probably pretty gentle Bulgarian style training, was too pooped to microwave pre-prepared food for himself. That’s an extreme example but speaks to some potential issues.
I don’t think that everyone hates eating more than four times a day. I don’t. Of course, I hate preparing more than four meals a day . . . which is probably the real issue for other too. So start small? Definitely. Stay small? That is the question.
Coming back to the psycho-social stuff, it seems like any abrupt change is going to be problematic. The more complications the less likely people are to stay with the program.
Four days a week of resistance training is great for most people. However, trying to jump them from zero to four is asking a lot and setting people up for failure. When we start them at twice, however, a goodly percentage will, when they’re ready, begin adding days on their own. Naturally, their results are better.
I think that there are more commonalities in what we’re saying than there are differences. The main point I’d make is that we need to differentiate between what is ideal for beginners (generally a softer entry point) and what is actually ideal.
GG
12.07.2010, 2:55 pmGeoff,
Nice response, but I still feel a little unsettled. I agree that most people would not enjoy a radical change to their day, a change that required preparing several meals and carrying them to work, having them at home and the like. In these studies, however, as was pointed out in the article, the researchers actually prepared all the meals and had the meals delivered to the appropriate place at the appropriate time. The only thing the participants had to do was A) fill out a food preference questionnaire at the beginning and B) eat. The respondents clearly identified eating frequently as the annoying part.
In my experience with diets–from the average person trying to lose 20 lbs by using my first diet book, to professional physique, strength and endurance athletes–the overwhelming majority prefer 3 squares. For my physique competitors in the off-season, and my Ironman and marathon competitors they don’t have the luxury of choosing, but everyone else does (I don’t constrain them to any set number of meals or times) and the vast majority end up settling into 3 or 4 scheduled meals per day.
The real question is: why are you seeing something different with your clients and why do your observations not match the available research?
And my real point is: just let people choose what works for them because metabolically, there’s no advantage either way. (This is the only place I think we don’t really see eye-to-eye.)
Thanks for your time in responding.
Kiefer
12.07.2010, 3:35 pm“The real question is: why are you seeing something different with your clients and why do your observations not match the available research? ”
In truth, we generally wait until we’re relatively far along before dealing with this at all. The statistics, I would argue, are very different for more advanced people.
“And my real point is: just let people choose what works for them because metabolically, there’s no advantage either way. (This is the only place I think we don’t really see eye-to-eye.)”
I’m actually with you 100% on this. Whatever works.
Thanks very much for taking the time to respond, Kiefer.
12.07.2010, 4:27 pmGreat site guys. I’m glad you picked up on my article so I could find it.
Thanks again for the discussion. It’s always helpful.
Cheers,
12.07.2010, 7:07 pmKiefer
When people cut food intake right down they often experience an increased appetite and a general craving for food. Some believe this is because they are eating less however, it may actually be driven by a deficiency or lack in the correct amount of certain nutrients.
13.08.2010, 9:54 amWow. Krista is so much taller than the rest of you. Do you feel emasculated?
21.12.2010, 3:17 pm