Thanks again for the discussion. It’s always helpful.

Cheers,
Kiefer

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.

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

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

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.