Help me make the argument against one giant meal

Okay, all you scientific experts, here's a call for help!

I've got an acquaintance who's a Ph.D. biochemist.  Physically, he's not weak, but he's very...soft. He started enquiring, not as an offical training client, just in a social setting, about excercise routines.

Then we started talking nutrition, and he's got a theory, all science-y, about how eating one large meal a day is better for you than many small meals. Doh.

Here's what I got of the gist of his argument: one large meal a day causes a spike in blood sugar, but shortly after that, sugar levels will flatten out, and you will enter a fasting state in which your body will start "lipid metabolism". If you keep eating every couple of hours, you will not enter this lipid metabolism phase, and that is...not good for you. ???

Anyhoo.

I've given him the typical fasting state discussion, how his body is storing and holding on to fat, and that no amount of excercise can out-work dietary habits like that, because he's got a pudgy layer that will not go away.

Any big brains here who can contribute? He's not overweight, but the body composition issues are many! I'd love a couple of melkor's scientific references!

Edited for typos. kant spelll.

well, i do have a scientific background and a Masters- but Melkor & others can give you the science behind a MAJOR insulin dump like that  in one meal and the increase of subq fat...

i will give you this concept tho--

Sumo wrestlers eat ONE TIME A DAY-- they work out 5-7 hours a day or more & load up on calories at the end of teh day- and it works PERFECT for loading on gobs of subcutaneous fat - and they DO gain muscle as they eat plenty of protein at that one meal--

i read it can be up to 15,000kcal in one Sumo meal sitting- YES- 15,000 kcal- but i'm sure your pal is NOT consuming or working out as much as a sumo wrestler- but i believe it's applicable to someone smaller w/one great meal & limited exercise!

iamme - I love that comparison. A sumo diet. That's sweet! Thanks.

I really feel that in terms of eating "each to their own" - if he wants to eat 1 meal a day and feels good doing so, let him - if you feel good eating 4-6 times a day go for it! I personally eat 2 rather large meals a day which tends to make me feel just fine so I stick with it - I also believe that the types of food you eat makes a huge different - if you are eating 1 large meal of McDonalds a day you will not see ANY benefit in that one large meal & probably will feel pretty disgusting for the rest of the day but if that meal is a nice piece of fish, some whole grains, lots of vegetables & fruit as dessert, you will benefit from all the nutrients. Some people can stomach eating ONE LARGE meal a day while others really need to break it up! In the end, everyone is different so it really depends on what makes you feel good! 

finn- thanks!

you know who's got good sound info on this kind of stuff too is gi-jane- she makes great analysis and comparatives on these kind of topics that are in plain talk-- give her a nudge! her & coach-k! oh try amethystgirl too! they seem to analyze nutrition info well!

thanks iamme. will do.

Original Post by iamme1270:

finn- thanks!

you know who's got good sound info on this kind of stuff too is gi-jane- she makes great analysis and comparatives on these kind of topics that are in plain talk-- give her a nudge! her & coach-k! oh try amethystgirl too! they seem to analyze nutrition info well!

 Gosh - I hope I can deliver... although I'm a biologist, I am not too sure on the science for this, but here are my rambling thoughts:

Regarding the sugar spike - I'm not sure that sugar levels would flatten out so much as plunge - at least for me, if I go for too long without eating, I get lethargic, grouchy, and there is no way I'm going be active to increase my burn rate, especially through exercise. If you ate everything in one large meal (think Thanksgiving), you are also more likely to, even without the sugar level drop, feel lethargic and weighed down. Obviously, you are still burning calories, but at a slower rate than if you had the energy to get up and get moving.

I know nothing about "lipid metabolism" and what you have to do to be in this state, but I cannot imagine that a) you can't burn fat without being in this state, assuming b) to be in it you can't have eaten for some time.  Mainly because I (and everyone else who eats every 3-4 hours) would not be burning fat, and I (we) am (are).

Unless what he meant was that it is healthier (you just said "you will not enter this phase and that is... not good for you?", so I don't know if that was health-wise or diet-wise. If he meant healthier, I call bull, since our ancestors the cavemen most likely ate small meals throughout the day (think about it - they were hunter gatherers, which means that they probably grazed on nuts and berries throughout the day, along with pieces of fresh (cooked) or preserved meat) - evolution would say that this is not unhealthy. If it were more healthy to eat one big meal, we would have evolved to do that (a herpitologist could correct me, but snakes do eat one big meal and then fast for a long time, even weeks. But last I checked, we ain't reptiles - mammals tend to eat all the time or at least throughout their waking day). 

what Iamme says about subq fat might be true - it sounds good to me, and the sumo wrestler makes sense. 

Oh, and the last thing I'll say is that it seems like a lot of us find that if we go for a long time without food, we are more likely to eat more, unhealthier foods, which we will eat quickly and therefore miss signs of satiation. So it just doesn't seem worth it! Even if it did work, you'd have to suffer to follow it, and what would  be the point. Unless, as giasbash says, you can do it and feel good.

Original Post by amethystgirl:

If it were more healthy to eat one big meal, we would have evolved to do that (a herpitologist could correct me, but snakes do eat one big meal and then fast for a long time, even weeks. But last I checked, we ain't reptiles - mammals tend to eat all the time or at least throughout their waking day). 

You are correct that snakes (and other reptiles) tend to eat large, infrequent meals.  This works for them because they have vastly different metabolisms then mammals, being cold blooded and all. 

Now that the wildlife biology lesson is over, back to the real topic:  I don't have time to look up a source for this, but I've read that there is a limit to the amount of nutrients the body can absorb in a given time period.  I've usually seen this mentioned in terms of protein when some muscle-head is bragging about how they eat 200 grams of protein per meal, and then someone points out that you can only absorb 30-50 grams per hour and the rest of the protein just passes through your system without being absorbed.  I'd assume if it's true for protein it's probably true for other nutrients.

Thanks, amethyst and sully, good points. I have read that about the nutrient absorbtion limits as well, now that you mention it.

This answers part of the question

http://caloriecount.about.com/ask/eat-most-ca lories-late/49.html

After you eat, glucose starts hitting your blood stream.  The body releases insulin and your muscles and liver will start storing the glucose for energy later.  Once your muscles and liver has stored as much they can - the rest of the glucose is stored as fat.  Any additional fats, proteins - everything extra gets broken down into glucose and then stored as fat.

Additionally, he will be VERY LUCKY if his blood sugar levels flatten out after eating the huge meal.  Usually, after a huge blood sugar surge, so much insulin is released that his blood sugar will plummet and he will be hungry again soon anyway.  If he eats mostly proteins and fats, it will hit the blood stream more slowly and MAYBE prevent this.

He will not enter "lipid metabolism" until all the glycogen (glucose) stored in his muscles and liver are gone - and since they are completely loaded, it won't happen anytime soon.

A great alternative plan is to eat small meals frequently to energize your muscles without storing extra calories as fat.

There is strong research showing major health benefits from various forms of intermittent fasting, although most of it was done with lower animals. Sorry, but you're not going to find any "hard science" telling him this will kill him .

This human pilot study from last year is often referenced, comparing three meals per day to one:

A controlled trial of reduced meal frequency without caloric restriction in healthy, normal-weight, middle-aged adults

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/85/4 /981

Results: ... There were no significant effects of meal frequency on heart rate, body temperature, or most of the blood variables measured. However, when consuming 1 meal/d, subjects had a significant increase in hunger; a significant modification of body composition, including reductions in fat mass; significant increases in blood pressure and in total, LDL-, and HDL-cholesterol concentrations; and a significant decrease in concentrations of cortisol.

However, it's very important to read the full paper, because the results are muddy on grounds not made clear in the abstract. For example, cortisol was measured in the morning for the 3 meal/day subjects, but late afternoon in the 1 meal/day subjects, and it's normal for everyone that cortisol falls significantly from morning until night. IOW, the decrease in cortisol seen in the 1 meal/day subjects may simply be due to the difference in the time of day cortisol was measured. There are a number of potential confusions like this, acknowledged in the abstract only by the cryptic disclaimer "diurnal variations may affect outcomes".

It's also important to note that, in this study, the 1 meal/day subjects were compelled to eat more than they wanted to eat -- it was more a study of forced once-a-day binging than of what people who eat once a day "naturally" do. The study authors wanted to eliminate weight loss as a confounding factor, so forced the 1 meal/day eaters to consume as many calories as the 3 meal/day eaters (previous studies all showed that humans left to their own devices generally consume fewer calories overall when put on any sort of intermittent fasting schedule).

By far the largest body of more-or-less relevant human research has been done on Muslims doing Ramadan fasting: during the month of Ramadan, all eating and drinking is prohibited from sunrise to sunset. There are many dozens of studies on what happens as a result. Most show mildly benign consequences.

If your friend wants to try this, I strongly recommend downloading the free book here:

http://www.fast-5.com/

The Fast-5 book advocates fasting (at least) 19 hours per day, confining all eating to a (at most) 5-hour window. The author is a doctor and explains the relevant biochemistry well, although at a shallow level. There's lots of practical advice on how to ease into such a scheme, and wise warnings about what to look out for (e.g., while there's no particular physical danger for most people, any form of fasting can trigger eating disorders in people prone to such).

> one large meal a day causes a spike in blood sugar, but shortly after that, sugar levels will flatten out, and you will enter a fasting state in which your body will start "lipid metabolism". If you keep eating every couple of hours, you will not enter this lipid metabolism phase

lipid is fat, he is talking about fasting so your body consumes fat and you lose weight, which is a fad diet like atkins or cleansing potions.

normal people take the easy route and just eat normal small portions

you can either eat like an athlete (work hard, eat frequently), or you can eat like a freakshow

That's interesting, tpgish, thanks for taking the time to contribute that info. My suspicion is that he's habitually or naturally inclined to this kind of routine, and has lived in such a routine for the better part of 20 years. So it's obviously not crazy detrimental to his health, as he's a highly functioning executive, and an intelligent person.

I think, though, that as he's aging (nearing 40), his metabolism is naturally slowing and he's not liking the body composition that's emerging. I do feel that it will be difficult for him to find a workout routine that will give him the body compo results that he wants with those eating habits.

finnsal, I suggest you've both focused on an unhelpful thing here. Fact is prospective studies have been done comparing meal frequencies from one a day to 17(!) a day, and overall they find little difference in pretty much any measured outcome. For example, no difference in resting energy expenditure (REE -- aka base metabolic rate), no difference in body composition, and, in hypocaloric diets, no difference in rate of weight loss.

If your friend were, say, an elite bodybuilder, then sure, eating 7 meals a day may be necessary to continue making progress. But sounds like he's a middle-aged couch potato. For him, the most important things are the true basics:

1. Stop eating junk (high-GI, low-nutrition carbs, like added sugar and white flour).
2. Do challenging whole-body strength training, 2 or 3 times per week.
3. Fill up whatever exercise time he has remaining with various kinds of cardio work and play.
   

Those will change body composition (for the better ) much more surely than fiddling with the number of times per day he eats.

As to aging and metabolism, this isn't fully understood. The strongest factor in slowing metabolism with increasing age currently appears to be simply that sedentary adults lose muscle and gain fat, relentlessly, as they age. Less muscle decreases REE directly. Strength training can stop muscle loss, and even reverse it, and this has been shown to be true even for people who start lifting in their 90s. Strength training also acts to slow bone loss, etc, etc.

Since he's an executive with a background in science, challenge him to follow the same general plan he'd follow with any other project:

1. Establish quantifiable goals.
2. Find objective ways to measure progress towards those goals (weight, inches, strength, BF%, whatever).
3. Pay egoless attention to the results of objective measurement: "the proof is in the pudding".

If measurement shows acceptable progress while he's eating one meal a day, neither of you can really complain . But if he doesn't make acceptable progress that way, he should be more open to trying other approaches. Meal frequency is one thing he could change in that case, and if measurement shows he's indeed not making progress, he should be much more open to trying it "your way".

One thing to note: in my experience lack of progress is often due to inadequate protein intake. If he does eat once a day, he's probably going to spend much of each day in a state of ketosis ("lipid metabolism"), but not all cells can utilize fatty acids and ketone bodies for energy. Some cells require glucose for energy. If glucose isn't coming from food for a time, the liver manufactures glucose, primarily from certain amino acids. This increases his overall protein requirement (while he's in ketosis, protein is his primary source of glucose). That's one reason I can see for reduced meal frequency increasing desirable protein intake.

He should also get plenty of plain water all day long. That's needed for protein metabolism, and also to flush unused ketone bodies (byproducts of fat breakdown) out of his system.

BTW, sumo wrestlers don't skip breakfast "to get fatter". They're strength athletes, and typically begin intense strength training, for hours straight, immediately upon waking. They'd puke their guts out if they tried that on a full stomach. So they do it on an empty stomach instead. After the morning exercise, they stuff themselves to the gills and go back to sleep. Then they get up and eat again (they generally eat twice a day, not once). Weight of any kind is helpful in their sport, and they'll settle for fat weight if they can't get more muscle weight. What makes them fat is eating upwards of 10000 Calories/day, not merely eating twice instead of three times .