What does science say about how many times a day to eat?

Zozhnik popularly expounds the position of the International Society for Sports Nutrition regarding the frequency of meals, based on dozens of scientific sources. So how many times a day should you eat, according to research by scientists?

Statistics broadcast unemotionally: among US adults over 20 years old, 65% are overweight or obese and there are no signs of a significant improvement in this situation. In Russia, this indicator is not much better - about 51% of people (data: 2010) weigh more than necessary and the dynamics are also not happy.

We will not list the obvious harm from excess weight in this text. Let us dwell on just one of the frequently discussed topics - how body weight and composition change depending on the frequency of meals.

(Hereinafter, we will cite mainly Americans as an example of research, since a Russian person is essentially the same, only he has slightly different braces, and there is practically no data and research on Russia).

How many times a day do people eat?

Children exhibit a natural urge to eat small portions ("peck" food) throughout the day. However, upon reaching a certain age child gets used to consuming food in a certain way.

How much, often and what exactly we eat is influenced by many factors - from the traditions of the family and country, to genetics. Recent research indicates a partial genetic effect on individual meal frequency. According to the National Food Consumption Survey ( Nationwide Food Consumption Survey - NFCS, 1987 - 1988), the average frequency of meals among 3,182 American adults was 3.47 times a day - this is when all snacks, including high-calorie drinks are taken into account. if we discard intermediate meals up to 70 kcal (for example, tea, coffee, drinks), then the number of meals decreased to 3.12 per day.

Actually, this fact is confirmed by the traditional widespread 3 meals a day: the very same breakfast, lunch and dinner. Although dietitians and trainers often advise eating small meals more often throughout the day for metabolic benefits, people are slow to follow them.

Some scientists believe that eating infrequently, but in large portions, increases the risk of obesity by increasing synthesis and deposition (lipogenesis or "deposition" of fat) after meals. However, scientists did not come to a consensus: the discussion continues, since the research data are contradictory.

How many times a day are there: in Does the frequency of meals affect your body?

In the past few years, researchers have been looking at the effects of meal frequency. Here are some of the more interesting results.

Some early human studies published about 50 years ago assessed the effect of eating frequency on weight and body composition. In some experiments, a similar connection was found. Others deny the effect of increasing the number of meals on body weight and composition.

Some studies show an inverse relationship between eating frequency and composition / body weight - i.e. the more meals, the less weight (all other things being equal - for example, with the same number of calories). However, these data are questioned: in addition to the obvious genetic differences of the subjects, there are other factors that can influence the result and conclusions.

For example, in experiments using data collected by the subjects themselves to compare the total daily energy expenditure, food intake is often underestimated (We wrote about this in the text “” - there, in the study, people cheated 1.5-2 times). Several studies have found a very large underestimation of the calorie intake of overweight and obese people, as well as older people who tend to underestimate the amount of food they eat.

The source notes the rather positive effect of more frequent meals on body weight and composition, even taking into account the possibility of underestimating people who are restricting food / dieting. Nevertheless, this difference is insignificant and is not confirmed by many other studies.

If we discard the interfering factors, thenmost studies show that increased eating frequency does not play a significant role in weight loss / body composition changes.

Experimental studies: there is no difference in the number of meals for ordinary people

Most experimental studies have involved overweight and obese people. One study found: when the total daily calories are constant(but with a lack of calories - for weight loss), there is no difference in weight loss, even when the frequency of meals a day increases from one to nine. Roughly speaking, you can eat your own, for example, 1500 kcal at least in one meal, even if divided into 9 meals - there will be no difference - you will lose weight the same way.

In 2010, Cameron and colleagues evaluated the effects of an 8-week low-calorie (calorie-loss) diet on obese men and women. One group of subjects ate food 3 times a day (low frequency of meals), the other - did 3 main and 3 additional snacks (high frequency of meals). In both groups, calorie restriction was similar (minus 700 kcal / day from the norm). As a result, a similar decrease in body weight (about 5% of baseline), lean mass, fat and total BMI was recorded. No significant differences were found between groups with different feeding frequencies in any sign of obesity.

In addition to experimenting with fat people, there have been several studies with people of normal body weight. In terms of weight and body composition optimization, the results were similar to those obtained in overweight / obese people: increasing the frequency of eating does not provide any benefit. Even with an isocaloric diet or when calorie intake helps maintain current body weight, increasing the frequency of meals from 1 to 5 or from 1 to 3 did not improve weight loss.

How many times a day are there: and exceptions to the rule - children and athletes

The exception is the work of Fabry and co-authors. The researchers showed that the increase in skinfold thickness in 10-16 year old boys and girls was significantly greater with 3 meals a day compared with 5 or 7 meals. At the same time, no significant differences were found between girls and boys 6-11 years old.

Interestingly, many reports of improved body composition with increased eating frequency were obtained when the treatment group consisted of athletes. Thus, based on this limited information, it can be assumed that increasing the frequency of food intake in athletes may improve body composition.

A small number of studies involving athletes have demonstrated these benefits from increasing the frequency of eating: reduced loss of lean muscle mass with a hypocaloric (lack of calories) diet, a significant increase in lean muscle mass and anaerobic capacity, a significant increase in "fat burning".

Eating frequency and effect on cholesterol, blood pressure, insulin in the body

There is much less literature in the scientific literature regarding the effect of changes in dietary frequency on "health markers" such as blood lipids and glucose, blood pressure, hormone levels, and cholesterol.

Gwinup and colleagues were among the first to undertake several descriptive studies evaluating the effects of nutrition in humans like “herbivores” (often few) versus “carnivores” (rare and many). Five men and women who were in the hospital were prescribed the consumption of isocaloric food for 14 days using a cross method according to the following scheme:

• one large meal a day,
• 10 doses a day, every 2 hours,
• Three meals a day.

Eating carnivore-like (one meal a day) resulted in an increase in serum lipids compared to 3 meals a day. Eating herbivores (10 times a day) caused a decrease in serum lipids: phospholipids, esterified fatty acids and cholesterol.

More recently, studies involving obese and non-obese people also found significant improvements in total cholesterol when isocaloric foods were consumed 8 times versus one meal, and 17 snacks versus 3 meals a day.

In a crossover study of 6,890 males and 7,776 females aged 45–75 years, mean cholesterol concentrations in the general population decreased significantly with increasing meal frequency, even after adjusting for the influencing variables: obesity, age, physical activity and diet. After adjusting for these variables, total and LDL cholesterol levels were about 5% lower in people who ate more than 6 meals a day, as opposed to those who ate once or twice a day. Similar results were obtained by other researchers.

A recent cross-sectional study of the effect of eating frequency on health outcomes in humans compared traditional 3 meals a day (breakfast, lunch, and dinner) versus one serving of all of those meals. Each subject followed one of the dietary patterns for 8 weeks, with an 11-week break. With meals once a day, there was also a significant increase in total blood pressure..

Scientists have reported that increasing the frequency of meals has a positive effect on glucose tolerance. Specifically, when subjects consumed 4 small meals at 40-minute intervals, rather than one large serving containing exactly the same amount of calories, lower insulin secretion and glucose levels were observed.

When comparing consumption of isocaloric diets of 17 small servings per day (versus 3 per day), serum insulin levels were 27.9% lower.

However, there are several experiments in healthy men, healthy women, and overweight women that have not shown any benefits in terms of cholesterol and triglycerides.

Despite the mixed results of studies on markers of health such as total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, and glucose tolerance, it appears that increasing the frequency of meals is beneficial.

However, it is noted that the experiments showing the benefits of increasing the frequency of feeding were relatively short-term, and nothing is known about whether such a positive adaptation will occur in the long-term study.

How many times a day to eat: Protein is better absorbed with a more even distribution in the diet

It is widely believed that at one meal the body can absorb only a limited amount of proteins and it is necessary to distribute their intake throughout the day for the best effect, for example, when enhanced protein nutrition is needed for muscle growth. And there is a scientific basis for this.

Based on recent research, muscle protein synthesis in response to a meal is optimal when you consume 20-30 grams of high-quality protein or 10-15 grams of essential amino acids - that is, this amount is absorbed as efficiently as possible in a single meal.

Studies have shown that the diet of typical Americans does not distribute their protein intake adequately, for example, the amount of protein in breakfast is low (about 10-14 grams), the main part is at dinner (about 29-42 grams). Thus, the American diet optimizes protein synthesis only once a day - during dinner.

An animal study showed that an equivalent distribution of protein between three meals (16% protein per serving) leads to greater overall protein synthesis and muscle mass, compared to suboptimal intake (8%) for breakfast and lunch and more than optimum (27%) during the dinner. That is, protein is in theory better absorbed if consumed more evenly throughout the day.

To observe the actual relationship between eating frequency and protein status, it is necessary to use experimental models in which protein synthesis is optimized by consuming 5-6, rather than three servings. This was demonstrated by Paddon-Jones and colleagues, who found that mixed protein synthesis was about 23% higher when three large 800 kcal meals (containing about 23 g protein, 127 g carbohydrates, 30 g fat) were consumed, supplemented with three small 180 kcal servings with 15 g of essential amino acids each, compared to three large servings of 850 kcal each.

Combining the results of several studies, it can be concluded that if protein synthesis is optimized, increasing the frequency of meals can have a positive effect on protein absorption.

In addition, experimentation with meal timing shows the importance of protein intake before, during, and after physical activity.

CONCLUSIONS

• For ordinary people, not burdened with sports achievements and activities, for people with overweight, the frequency of meals does not matter. You can eat 1 time a day, or 9 times a day - the result will be the same, it all depends on the number of calories consumed per day, and not on the number of meals.
• However, an increase in the frequency of meals still has a positive effect on the normalization of blood pressure, cholesterol levels and surges in blood glucose and insulin levels.
• An increase in the frequency of meals (or rather, a more even and frequent distribution of protein among meals) also has a positive effect on the absorption of protein, which is required in an increased amount, for example, for muscle growth.
• Some studies have shown the positive effect of increasing the frequency of eating on the body quality of athletes: a decrease in the loss of dry muscle mass during "drying" (hypocaloric diet), a significant increase in lean muscle mass and anaerobic capacity, a significant increase in "fat burning".

List of used scientific research:

1. Hedley AA, Ogden CL, Johnson CL, Carroll MD, Curtin LR, Flegal KM: Prevalence of overweight, obesity among US children, adolescents, and adults, 1999-2002.
2. Jama 2004, 291 (23): 2847-50. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL
3. Howarth NC, Huang TT, Roberts SB, Lin BH, McCrory MA: Eating patterns and dietary composition in relation to BMI in younger and older adults.
4. Int J Obes (Lond) 2007, 31 (4): 675-84. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL
5. De Castro JM: Socio-cultural determinants of meal size and frequency.
6. Br J Nutr 1997, 77 (Suppl 1): S39-54. discussion S54-5
7. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL
8. de Castro JM: Behavioral genetics of food intake regulation in free-living humans.
9. Nutrition 1999,15 (7-8): 550-4. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL
10. Gwinup G, Kruger FA, Hamwi GJ: Metabolic Effects of Gorging Versus Nibbling.
11. Ohio State Med J 1964, 60: 663-6. PubMed Abstract OpenURL
12. Longnecker MP, Harper JM, Kim S: Eating frequency in the Nationwide Food Consumption Survey (U.S.A.), 1987-1988.
13. Appetite 1997,29 (1): 55-9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL
14. Verboeket-van de Venne WP, Westerterp KR: Influence of the feeding frequency on nutrient utilization in man: consequences for energy metabolism.
15. Eur J Clin Nutr 1991, 45 (3): 161-9. PubMed Abstract OpenURL
16. Mattson MP: The need for controlled studies of the effects of meal frequency on health.
17. Lancet 2005, 365 (9475): 1978-80. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL
18. Cohn C, Joseph D: Changes in body composition attendant on force feeding.
19. Am J Physiol 1959,196 (5): 965-8. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL
20. Cohn C, Shrago E, Joseph D: Effect of food administration on weight gains and body composition of normal and adrenalectomized rats.
21. Am J Physiol 1955,180 (3): 503-7. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL
22. Heggeness FW: Effect of Intermittent Food Restriction on Growth, Food Utilization and Body Composition of the Rat. J Nutr 1965, 86: 265-70. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL
23. Hollifield G, Parson W: Metabolic adaptations to a “stuff and starve” feeding program. II. Obesity and the persistence of adaptive changes in adipose tissue and liver occurring in rats limited to a short daily feeding period.
24. J Clin Invest 1962, 41: 250-3. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | PubMed Central Full Text OpenURL
25. Fabry P, Hejl Z, Fodor J, Braun T, Zvolankova K: The Frequency of Meals. Its Relation to Overweight, Hypercholesterolaemia, and Decreased Glucose-Tolerance.
26. Lancet 1964, 2 (7360): 614-5. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL
27. Hejda S, Fabry P: Frequency of Food Intake in Relation to Some Parameters of the Nutritional Status.
28. Nutr Dieta Eur Rev Nutr Diet 1964 64: 216-28. PubMed Abstract OpenURL
29. Metzner HL, Lamphiear DE, Wheeler NC, Larkin FA: The relationship between frequency of eating and adiposity in adult men and women in the Tecumseh Community Health Study.
30. Am J Clin Nutr 1977,30 (5): 712-5. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL
31. Drummond SE, Crombie NE, Cursiter MC, Kirk TR: Evidence that eating frequency is inversely related to body weight status in male, but not female, non-obese adults reporting valid dietary intakes.
32. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 1998,22 (2): 105-12. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL
33. Ruidavets JB, Bongard V, Bataille V, Gourdy P, Ferrieres J: Eating frequency and body fatness in middle-aged men.
34. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 2002, 26 (11): 1476-83. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL
35. Ma Y, Bertone ER, Stanek EJ, Reed GW, Herbert JR, Cohen NL, Merriam PA, Ockene IS: Association between eating patterns and obesity in a free-living US adult population.
36. Am J Epidemiol 2003,158 (1): 85-92. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL
37. Franko DL, Striegel-Moore RH, Thompson D, Affenito SG, Schreiber GB, Daniels SR, Crawford PB: The relationship between meal frequency and body mass index in black and white adolescent girls: more is less.
38. Int J Obes (Lond) 2008, 32 (1): 23-9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL
39. Dreon DM, Frey-Hewitt B, Ellsworth N, Williams PT, Terry RB, Wood PD: Dietary fat: carbohydrate ratio and obesity in middle-aged men.
40. Am J Clin Nutr 1988,47 (6): 995-1000. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL
41. Kant AK, Schatzkin A, Graubard BI, Ballard-Barbach R: Frequency of eating occasions and weight change in the NHANES I Epidemiologic Follow-up Study.
42. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 1995,19 (7): 468-74. PubMed Abstract OpenURL
43. Summerbell CD, Moody RC, Shanks J, Stock MJ, Geissler C: Relationship between feeding pattern and body mass index in 220 free-living people in four age groups.
44. Eur J Clin Nutr 1996,50 (8): 513-9. PubMed Abstract OpenURL
45. Andersson I, Rossner S: Meal patterns in obese and normal weight men: the ‘Gustaf’ study.
46. Eur J Clin Nutr 1996,50 (10): 639-46. PubMed Abstract OpenURL
47. Crawley H, Summerbell C: Feeding frequency and BMI among teenagers aged 16-17 years.
48. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 1997, 21 (2): 159-61. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL
49. Titan SM, Welch A, Luben R, Oakes S, Day N, Khaw KT: Frequency of eating and concentrations of serum cholesterol in the Norfolk population of the European prospective investigation into cancer (EPIC-Norfolk): cross sectional study.
50. Bmj 2001, 323 (7324): 1286-8. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | PubMed Central Full Text OpenURL
51. Berteus Forslund H, Lindroos AK, Sjöström L, Lissner L: Meal patterns and obesity in Swedish women-a simple instrument describing usual meal types, frequency and temporal distribution.
52. Eur J Clin Nutr 2002,56 (8): 740-7. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL
53. Pearcey SM, de Castro JM: Food intake and meal patterns of weight-stable and weight-gaining persons.
54. Am J Clin Nutr 2002, 76 (1): 107-12. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL
55. Yannakoulia M, Melistas L, Solomou E, Yiannakouris N: Association of eating frequency with body fatness in pre- and postmenopausal women.
56. Obesity (Silver Spring) 2007, 15 (1): 100-6. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL
57. Duval K, Strychar I, Cyr MJ, Prudhomme D, Rabasa-Lhoret R, Doucet E: Physical activity is a confounding factor of the relation between eating frequency and body composition.
58. Am J Clin Nutr 2008, 88 (5): 1200-5. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL
59. Bandini LG, Schoeller DA, Cyr HN, Dietz WH: Validity of reported energy intake in obese and nonobese adolescents.
60. Am J Clin Nutr 1990,52 (3): 421-5. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL
61. Black AE, Prentice AM, Goldberg GR, Jebb SA, Bingham SA, Livingstone MB, Coward WA: Measurements of total energy expenditure provide insights into the validity of dietary measurements of energy intake.
62. J Am Diet Assoc 1993, 93 (5): 572-9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL
63. Braam LA, Ocke MC, Bueno-be-Mesquita HB, Seidell JC: Determinants of obesity-related underreporting of energy intake.
64. Am J Epidemiol 1998,147 (11): 1081-6. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL
65. Heitmann BL, Lissner L: Dietary underreporting by obese individuals – is it specific or non-specific?
66. Bmj 1995, 311 (7011): 986-9. PubMed Abstract | PubMed Central Full Text OpenURL
67. Prentice AM, Black AE, Coward WA, davies HL, Goldberg GR, Murgatroyd PR, Ashford J, Sawyer M, Whitehead RG: High levels of energy expenditure in obese women.
68. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1986,292 (6526): 983-7. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | PubMed Central Full Text OpenURL
69. Schoeller DA, Bandini LG, Dietz WH: Inaccuracies in self-reported intake identified by comparison with the doubly labelled water method.
70. Can J Physiol Pharmacol 1990, 68 (7): 941-9. PubMed Abstract OpenURL
71. Tomoyasu NJ, Toth MJ, Poehlman ET: Misreporting of total energy intake in older men and women.
72. J Am Geriatr Soc 1999,47 (6): 710-5. PubMed Abstract OpenURL
73. Bellisle F, McDevitt R, Prentice AM: Meal frequency and energy balance.
74. Br J Nutr 1997, 77 (Suppl 1): S57-70. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL
75. Bortz WM, Wroldsen A, Issekutz B Jr, Rodahl K: Weight loss and frequency of feeding.
76. N Engl J Med 1966, 274 (7): 376-9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL
77. Finkelstein B, Fryer BA: Meal frequency and weight reduction of young women.
78. Am J Clin Nutr 1971, 24 (4): 465-8. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL
79. Garrow JS, Durrant M, Blaza S, Wilkins D, Royston P, Sunkin S: The effect of meal frequency and protein concentration on the composition of the weight lost by obese subjects.
80. Br J Nutr 1981,45 (1): 5-15. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL
81. Verboeket-van de Venne WP, Westerterp KR: Frequency of feeding, weight reduction and energy metabolism.
82. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 1993,17 (1): 31-6. PubMed Abstract OpenURL
83. Young CM, Scanlan SS, Topping CM, Simko V, Lutwak L: Frequency of feeding, weight reduction, and body composition.
84. J Am Diet Assoc 1971, 59 (5): 466-72. PubMed Abstract OpenURL
85. Cameron JD, Cyr MJ, Doucet E: Increased meal frequency does not promote greater weight loss in subjects who were prescribed an 8-week equi-energetic energy-restricted diet.
86. Br J Nutr 2010,103 (8): 1098-101. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL
87. Farshchi HR, Taylor MA, Macdonald IA: Decreased thermic effect of food after an irregular compared with a regular meal pattern in healthy lean women.
88. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 2004, 28 (5): 653-60. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
89. Stote KS, Baer DJ, Spears K, Paul DR, Harris GK, Rumpler WV, Strycula P, Najjar SS, Ferrucci L, Ingram DK, Longo DL, Mattson MP: A controlled trial of reduced meal frequency without caloric restriction in healthy, normal -weight, middle-aged adults.
90. Am J Clin Nutr 2007,85 (4): 981-8. PubMed Abstract | PubMed Central Full Text OpenURL
91. Swindells YE, Holmes SA, Robinson MF: The metabolic response of young women to changes in the frequency of meals.
92. Br J Nutr 1968,22 (4): 667-80. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL
93. Wolfram G, Kirchgessner M, Müller HL, Hollomey S: Thermogenesis in humans after varying meal time frequency.
94. Ann Nutr Metab 1987,31 (2): 88-97. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL
95. Fabry P, Hejda S, Cerny K, Osancova K, Pechar J: Effect of meal frequency in schoolchildren. Changes in weight-height proportion and skinfold thickness.
96. Am J Clin Nutr 1966, 18 (5): 358-61. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL
97. Benardot D, Martin DE, Thompson WR, Roman SB: Between-meal energy intake effects on body composition, performance, and total caloric consumption in athletes.
98. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 2005, 37 (5): S339. OpenURL
99. Deutz RC, Benardot D, Martin DE, Cody MM: Relationship between energy deficits and body composition in elite female gymnasts and runners.
100. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2000, 32 (3): 659-68. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL
101. Iwao S, Mori K, Sato Y: Effects of meal frequency on body composition during weight control in boxers.
102. Scand J Med Sci Sports 1996,6 (5): 265-72. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL
103. Aspnes LE, Lee CM, Weindruch R, Chung SS, Roecker EB, Aiken JM: Caloric restriction reduces fiber loss and mitochondrial abnormalities in aged rat muscle.
104. Faseb J 1997,11 (7): 573-81. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL
105. Martin B, Golden E, Carlson OD, Egan JM, Egan JM, Mattson MP, Maudsley S: Caloric restriction: impact upon pituitary function and reproduction.
106. Aging Res Rev 2008, 7 (3): 209-24. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | PubMed Central Full Text OpenURL
107. Weindruch R: The retardation of aging by caloric restriction: studies in rodents and primates.
108. Toxicol Pathol 1996,24 (6): 742-5. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL
109. Fontana L, Meyer TE, Klein S, Holloszy JO: Long-term calorie restriction is highly effective in reducing the risk for atherosclerosis in humans.
110. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2004, 101 (17): 6659-63. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | PubMed Central Full Text OpenURL
111. Gwinup G, Byron RC, Rouch W, Kruger F, Hamwi GJ: Effect of nibbling versus gorging on glucose tolerance.
112. Lancet 1963, 2 (7300): 165-7. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL
113. Gwinup G, Byron RC, Rouch WH, Kruger FA, Hamwi GJ: Effect of Nibbling Versus Gorging on Serum Lipids in Man.
114. Am J Clin Nutr 1963,13: 209-13. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL
115. Kudlicka V, Fabry P, Dobersky P, Kudlickova V: Nibbling versus Meal Eating in the Treatment of Obesity.
116. Proceedings of the Seventh International Congress of Nutrition, Hamburg 1966, 2: 246. OpenURL
117. Jenkins DJ, Wolever TM, Vuksan V, Brighenti F, Cunnane SC, Rao AV, Jenkins AL, Buckley G, Pattern R, Singer W: Nibbling versus gorging: metabolic advantages of increased meal frequency.
118. N Engl J Med 1989,321 (14): 929-34. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL
119. Edelstein SL, Barrett-Connor EL, Wingard DL, Cohn BA: Increased meal frequency associated with decreased cholesterol concentrations; Rancho Bernardo, CA, 1984-1987.
120. Am J Clin Nutr 1992,55 (3): 664-9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL
121. LeBlanc J, Mercier I, Nadeau A: Components of postprandial thermogenesis in relation to meal frequency in humans.
122. Can J Physiol Pharmacol 1993,71 (12): 879-83. PubMed Abstract OpenURL
123. Jagannathan SN, Connell WF, Beveridge JM: Effects of Gormandizing and Semicontinuous Eating of Equicaloric Amounts of Formula-Type High Fat Diets on Plasma Cholesterol and Triglyceride Levels in Human Volunteer Subjects.
124. Am J Clin Nutr 1964,15: 90-3. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL
125. Irwin MI, Feeley RM: Frequency and size of meals and serum lipids, nitrogen and mineral retention, fat digestibility, and urinary thiamine and riboflavin in young women.
126. Am J Clin Nutr 1967,20 (8): 816-24. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL
127. Mann J: Meal frequency and plasma lipids and lipoproteins.
128. Br J Nutr 1997,77 (Suppl 1): S83-90. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL
129. Kinabo JL, Durnin JV: Effect of meal frequency on the thermic effect of food in women.
130. Eur J Clin Nutr 1990, 44 (5): 389-95. PubMed Abstract OpenURL
131. Tai MM, Castillo P, Pi-Sunyer FX: Meal size and frequency: effect on the thermic effect of food.
132. Am J Clin Nutr 1991,54 (5): 783-7. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL
133. Molnar D: The effect of meal frequency on postprandial thermogenesis in obese children.
134. Padiatr Padol 1992,27 (6): 177-81. PubMed Abstract OpenURL
135. Smeets AJ, Westerterp-Plantenga MS: Acute effects on metabolism and appetite profile of one meal difference in the lower range of meal frequency.
136. Br J Nutr 2008,99 (6): 1316-21. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL
137. Taylor MA, Garrow JS: Compared with nibbling, neither gorging nor a morning fast affect short-term energy balance in obese patients in a chamber calorimeter.
138. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 2001, 25 (4): 519-28. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL
139. Verboeket-van de Venne WP, Westerterp KR, Kester AD: Effect of the pattern of food intake on human energy metabolism.
140. Br J Nutr 1993,70 (1): 103-15. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL
141. Dangin M, Guillet C, Garcia-Rodenas C, Gachon P, Bouteloup-Demange C, Reiffers-Magnani K, Fauquant J, Beaufrere B: The rate of protein digestion affects protein gain differently during aging in humans.
142. J Physiol 2003,549 (Pt 2): 635-44. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | PubMed Central Full Text OpenURL
143. Moore DR, Robinson MJ, Fry JL, Tang JE, Glover EI, Wilkinson SB, Prior T, Tarnopolsky MA, Phillips SM: Ingested protein dose response of muscle and albumin protein synthesis after resistance exercise in young men.
144. Am J Clin Nutr 2009, 89 (1): 161-8. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL
145. Bohe J, Low A, Wolfe RR, Rennie MJ: Human muscle protein synthesis is modulated by extracellular, not intramuscular amino acid availability: a dose-response study.
146. J Physiol 2003,552 (Pt 1): 315-24. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | PubMed Central Full Text OpenURL
147. What We Eat in America, NHANES 2007-2008 webcite 2008.
148. Wilson GJ, Norton LE, Moulton CJ, Rupassara I, Garlick PJ, Layman DK: Equal distributions of dietary protein throughout the day maximizes rat skeletal muscle mass.
149. The FASEB Journal 2010., 24 (740.17): OpenURL
150. Paddon-Jones D, Sheffield-Moore M, Aarsland A, Wolfe RR, Ferrando AA: Exogenous amino acids stimulate human muscle anabolism without interfering with the response to mixed meal ingestion.
151. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab 2005,288 (4): E761-7. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL
152. Campbell B, Kreider RB, Ziegenfuss T, La Bounty P, Roberts M, Burke D, Landis J, Lopez H, Antonio J: International Society of Sports Nutrition position stand: protein and exercise.
153. J Int Soc Sports Nutr 2007, 4: 8. PubMed Abstract | BioMed Central Full Text | PubMed Central Full Text OpenURL
154. Kerksick C, Harvey T, Stout J, Campbell B, Wilborn C, Kreider R, Kalman D, Ziegenfuss T, Lopez H, Landis J, Ivy JL, Antonio J: International Society of Sports Nutrition position stand: nutrient timing.
155. J Int Soc Sports Nutr 2008, 5:17. PubMed Abstract | BioMed Central Full Text | PubMed Central Full Text OpenURL
156. Blundell JE, Green S, Burley V: Carbohydrates and human appetite.
157. Am J Clin Nutr 1994,59 (3 Suppl): 728S-734S. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL
158. Prentice AM, Poppitt SD: Importance of energy density and macronutrients in the regulation of energy intake. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 1996, 20 (Suppl 2): ​​S18-23. PubMed Abstract OpenURL
159. Rolls BJ, Castellanos VH, Halford JC, Kilara A, Panyam D, Pelkman CL, Smith GP, Thorwart ML: Volume of food consumed affects satiety in men.
160. Am J Clin Nutr 1998, 67 (6): 1170-7. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL
161. Rolls BJ, Hetherington M, Burley VJ: The specificity of satiety: the influence of foods of different macronutrient content on the development of satiety.
162. Physiol Behav 1988,43 (2): 145-53. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL
163. Speechly DP, Rogers GG, Buffenstein R: Acute appetite reduction associated with an increased frequency of eating in obese males.
164. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 1999, 23 (11): 1151-9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL
165. Speechly DP, Buffenstein R: Greater appetite control associated with an increased frequency of eating in lean males.
166. Appetite 1999,33 (3): 285-97. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL
167. Burke LM, Gollan RA, Read RS: Dietary intakes and food use of groups of elite Australian male athletes.
168. Int J Sport Nutr 1991,1 (4): 378-94. PubMed Abstract OpenURL
169. Hawley JA, Burke LM: Effect of meal frequency and timing on physical performance.
170. Br J Nutr 1997,77 (Suppl 1): S91-103. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL
171. Hawley JA, Williams MM: Dietary intakes of age-group swimmers.
172. Br J Sports Med 1991,25 (3): 154-8. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | PubMed Central Full Text OpenURL
173. Lindeman AK: Eating and training habits of triathletes: a balancing act.
174. J Am Diet Assoc 1990, 90 (7): 993-5. PubMed Abstract

Most materials on weight loss advise to eat at least 4-5 times a day, assuring that without observing this rule it is impossible to get rid of excess weight. In this case, the diet of "ordinary" people - that is, eating 3 times a day - is automatically recognized as erroneous both for weight loss and for gaining muscle mass.

You can also hear that the processes of "distillation of food into fat" depend primarily on the time of its intake - they say, in the morning any calories are burned, and after six o'clock in the evening even a low-calorie salad goes straight to belly fat. Based on this rule, refusing breakfast "breaks the metabolism" and is equated to the main violation of the diet.

How often should you eat for weight loss?

Scientific research strongly suggests that both the maintenance of health and weight loss, it is the total daily calorie intake that is important, and not the frequency of meals (1). Basically, if you tend to overeat, then with 5 meals a day you will eat more food than 3 meals a day. In addition, what kind of food you eat plays a key role.

***

The frequency of food intake in no way accelerates or slows it down. In fact, with three meals a day, you can lose weight without any problems, and with five meals a day, you can gain weight (which bodybuilders do successfully). Much more important is not how often (or at what time) you eat, but what exactly is included in each meal.

Scientific sources:

1. Meal frequency and energy balance,
2. The causal role of breakfast in energy balance and health: a randomized controlled trial in lean adults,

It is necessary to immediately emphasize that any amount of alcohol can harm the body. It all depends on your overall health. You should not believe in the statement that if a person is completely, of which there are very few today, then he can be consumed in the amount in which he wishes. You must always know your own measure. The morning state after a large-scale drinking binge is unlikely to please anyone.

Alcohol and food

To avoid the harmful effects of alcohol the next morning, as well as for the rest of your life, you simply need not to drink. But if there is no choice, and you really need to drink, you should definitely eat any type of alcohol with a large amount of food. This will prevent the poisoning of the body with ethyl alcohol.

Drinking alcohol with soda is not recommended, as it harms the stomach, and also speeds up the absorption of alcohol in the blood.

Measure

The one that must be tirelessly observed while drinking alcoholic beverages is different for everyone. You can recognize her only once after going through with a drink. Or sometimes the body itself senses when there is already enough. In this case, do not give in to the persuasion of friends to drink a few more glasses. Otherwise, drinking a lot in the evening, the next day you can say goodbye to the cheerful one, and you will also have to drink at least 3 liters of water and eat 4 pain relievers. Several such parties in a row with a heavy hangover in the morning will bear fruit in a few months. There can be not only morning problems, but also health problems. Ethanol poisons almost all body systems, from iodine balance to the liver or heart. It also leads to addiction, and as a result, the well-known disease of alcoholism occurs.

Through extensive research, World Health has drawn conclusions. With the least harm to the body and psyche, in terms of pure alcohol, you can drink no more than two liters of alcohol per year. In some countries, this figure rises above the 15 liter mark. This is already considered excessive drinking.

The largest amount of alcohol, in terms of pure ethanol, is consumed in Moldova - over 18 liters per person per year.

Daily doses

In order not to calculate from the allowed two liters how much you can drink daily, scientists have calculated the conditional equivalent of drinking alcohol. This is 20 grams of pure alcohol, and no more than 15 grams for a woman. In terms of the amount of alcohol, 20 grams of alcohol is contained in one bottle of beer, two glasses of wine, or 50 grams of quality. But WHO advises not to use at least two days a week. These statistics do not take into account the characteristics of the organism. Therefore, it is best to drink only on holidays and not exceed the norms that the body will dictate itself.

Surely every second person knows what medicinal properties honey contains. Despite this, many have no idea how much honey you can eat per day, so as not to harm your health.

This natural product contains a lot of sugar in its composition, so it is not customary to refer it to a low-calorie delicacy. However, nutritionists recommend consuming honey while dieting. In some cases, doctors allow a person to consume this product even with diabetes.

It is worth understanding in more detail how much honey can be eaten per day and, in general, how often this product is allowed to be eaten.

It should be noted right away that the opinions between doctors and beekeepers regarding the daily the consumption doses of this product vary greatly... A lot of literature has been published on this topic and many articles have been written. All such sources have different numbers. How do you know who is right?

The main feature of a beekeeping product lies in its composition, which includes various minerals, vitamins, enzymes, amino acids and many other useful substances. It is for this reason that honey is able to have a healing effect on the human body. If this delicacy is consumed regularly, it will contribute to:

Opinion of doctors

Is it okay to eat honey every day? Most doctors say that a person can consume about 50 grams of this product. This will be quite enough to replenish the reserves of vitamins and minerals in your body. Eating a treat in this amount will be an excellent prevention for liver, gastrointestinal, heart disease and even the common cold.

Two tablespoons of amber gold, eaten per day, will also help speed up the healing process and restore strength after colds or heavy physical exertion. It is worth considering that the product belongs to allergens, so doctors do not recommend using too much of it.

The opinion of beekeepers

As a rule, beekeepers are ardent lovers of their product. They use it a lot and often. Beekeepers believe that if you consume about 150 grams of natural delicacies per day, this will not negatively affect the human body. You can eat about 4.5 kg of product per month (three-liter can). However, it is worth paying attention to the fact that it is less than the weight of the product that has already been candied.

It can be easy to get confused when getting the answer to the question posed. Each person has their own daily intake of honey. This the rate depends on many factors:

• general diet and diet;
• lifestyle and activity;
• personal taste preference;
• existing allergic reactions to the product.

As mentioned earlier, the delicacy is very high in calories. is about 350 calories per 100 grams of product. So that the use of amber gold does not affect the deposition of extra pounds, it is necessary to take into account the amount of other high-calorie foods eaten per day.

It is worth remembering that number of calories consumed should be equal to the energy spent per day. Therefore, people who lead a sedentary lifestyle should keep in mind that eating a lot of honey is contraindicated for them. But a person who leads an active lifestyle and is engaged in physical labor may not limit himself in the number of spoons of honey eaten.

If you suddenly want to consume a lot of honey, and the body will react to this normally, you can also not limit yourself in the amount of treats consumed. There are no strict restrictions and norms here. It will be enough just to choose an individual daily dose that will not adversely affect health.

How often can you consume honey?

Many people think about what will happen if there is honey every day. Here it can be noted that opinions on this issue between beekeepers and doctors agree. The beekeeping product is allowed to be consumed every day. If you eat a delicacy every day, it is will only bring positive results:

• reserves of vitamins and minerals will be replenished;
• the body will be cleansed of toxins and toxins;
• digestion will improve;
• cells will be rejuvenated;
• the immune system will be strengthened.

If a person eats one spoonful of honey in the morning, the body will be energized for the whole day. In the evening, you can drink a glass of warm milk with a spoonful of treats. It will be an excellent sedative, which can also relieve a person from insomnia.

Beer - aromatic hop with a low alcohol content, a favorite drink of many. Cold foaming comes to the rescue in hot weather, refreshes and tones well. This amber, slightly tart, and bitter beverage even has some health benefits. Of course, if consumed in moderate and safe doses. After all, intoxicating has not only excellent taste, it is also full of useful minerals.

A natural question arises, how much beer can you drink without harm to your health per day, so that it brings both usefulness and no damage. Some ordinary people have a misconception that this fragrant foam is akin to kvass, and you can consume it as much as you like. Such a dangerous opinion leads to the appearance of a number of dangerous pathologies and significantly shortens life.

Beer can only benefit the body if consumed in moderation.

This amber intoxicated drink can rightfully be called the oldest alcoholic beverage known to mankind. According to historical archival data, for the first time a person tasted beer about 8,500 years ago..

Archaeologists have established that initially only women were engaged in the production of beer. And men only got involved in its production when the first breweries were opened.

Large quantities of aromatic foam were produced during the Dark Ages. Many breweries have opened in Germany, the Czech Republic and England. The beer was prepared there according to special recipes and was famous for its excellent taste. And to this day, it is these countries that prepare the most delicious foam without losing their title.

Beer was also produced by our Slavic ancestors, but the spread in Ancient Russia of this drink happened much later. Individuals who knew all the secrets and tricks of this skill were appreciated and respected by everyone. Various components were used for the production of beer, therefore the taste of the drink was different.

Beer composition

Hops modern

Before figuring out how much beer you can drink at a time, you need to understand the richest assortment that modern producers supply to their consumers. Technologists have not yet developed a unified classification of hops, so confusion often arises. Varieties are determined by:

• fermentation methods (bottom or top);
• peculiarities of technological production;
• raw materials used (various types of malt).

Hop types by color:

1. Dark (3.5-4.5% alcohol). The rich and attractive color of this foam is given by the use in the production of roasted malt. But you should carefully monitor the roasting - if you overexpose the malt, the drink will acquire an unpleasant aftertaste of burnt barley. Dark beer has a small foam volume.
2. Light (fortress 4-5%). Light malt is used here, without roasting, from which the hop gets a straw shade. The light foam is distinguished by rich bitterness and a pronounced hop aroma. According to statistics, light shades are the most popular in Russia..

Types of beer by technological process:

1. Live (4-5% ethanol). Live culture brewer's yeast is used in the production process. The manufacturing technology of this foam does not provide for pasteurization and the use of preservatives. The main feature of such a hop drink is a short shelf life - only a few days. And this drink is sold only for bottling.
2. Filtered (4-5% alcohol). Light foam, from which all residues of fermentation processes are removed during production. This intoxicating drink is considered not so useful, but it has an attractive color.
3. Unfiltered (alcohol 4-8%). Manufacturing is carried out without filtration processes, due to which sludge formation is possible. This hop differs from the live one by the use of pasteurization and the preservatives included in the composition, which prolongs the period of its consumption. When choosing such a drink, one should be careful - after all, carcinogens can be used as preservatives.
4. Non-alcoholic (0.2-1% alcohol). Although this intoxicating drink is designated as non-alcoholic, no filtration system is able to completely rid the drink of alcohol. Due to the maximum reduced ethanol concentration, the taste of this drink differs sharply from other types. This beer is also the most expensive - its cost is significantly increased by the use of modern cleaning methods.

Is beer good for you?

According to experts, good quality intoxicants can really benefit the body. Of course, provided it is safe to use.

When consumed in moderation, beer can be beneficial

Beer is also actively used for cosmetic purposes - on its basis, effective masks for the skin and hair are made.

Beer has the following benefits:

• intoxicating improves the condition of the epidermal tissue;
• foam has a beneficial effect on metabolic processes;
• it contains silicon, which is extremely important and beneficial for the health of joints and bones;
• the aromatic drink has a diuretic effect and helps to eliminate toxins and toxic compounds from the body;
• according to experts, a liter of aromatic hops covers the norm of vitamins K and C, and compensates for 1/2 of the required amount of B-group vitamins.

The harm of the intoxicated

You should know that the above advantages and benefits for the body will be provided by foam only with moderate consumption. But rarely any of the beer lovers strictly follows the norms of drinking - they usually drink intoxicated in liters, and almost every day.

Beer can completely destroy human health

With an increase in the permissible norm, beer leads to the development of a number of dangerous pathologies, many of which can become irreversible.

What negative reactions can an excessive addiction to an intoxicated drink cause? Fragrant foam is dangerous as follows:

1. Disruption of the production of useful enzymes and the loss of vital proteins and vitamins. All the necessary trace elements will be flushed out of the body too quickly.
2. Negative effect on the liver. This organ is responsible for the processes of neutralization of alcohol metabolites; with an increase in their level, there will be disrupted work of hepatocides. The consequence of unreasonable consumption of intoxicating is the development of such deadly diseases as cirrhosis, alcoholic hepatitis.
3. Failure in the hormonal system. An excess of beer drink has a destructive effect on the balance of hormones, increasing the synthesis of testosterone. The sad result is the growth of adipose tissue, especially in the abdomen, a decrease in natural hair growth.
4. Obesity of the heart. Long-term lovers of aromatic foam often face high blood pressure, shortness of breath, and tachycardia. Beer drinkers are at risk of developing heart attacks and strokes. The kidneys will also be overloaded, because they will have to work in an increased mode.
5. Disorders in the digestive system. Foamy drink is extremely detrimental to the functioning of the digestive system due to excessive irritation of the gastric mucosa. The result will be excessive secretion of gastric juice and the development of gastritis and stomach ulcers.
6. The passion for foam leads to the development of alcoholism much faster, because aromatic intoxicating is consumed in much larger quantities than strong alcohol.
7. Beer is extremely detrimental to the state of the reproductive system.

In order to prevent such sad results, you should strictly follow the norms of consumption of the foamy drink and know how much beer you can drink per day. The benefits of intoxicating directly depend on a competent approach to this type of rest.

Reasonable approach

In the medical environment, such a concept as "standard dose of alcohol" is applicable. This is a specific amount of a beverage that contains 10 g of pure ethanol (absolute alcohol). A standard dose of beer, which contains this volume of alcohol, fits into 250 ml of foam.

What is the Safe Dose of Alcohol?

According to the WHO, a volume of beer equal to 4 standard servings for men and 3 standard servings for women becomes safe.

That is, without causing harm, you can consume daily:

• women: 750 ml of foam;
• men: one liter of intoxicating drink.

There is a recommendation for how many times a week you can drink beer. A dose of intoxicated drink is considered safe, consumed no more than 4-5 times a week. But at the same time, the annual beer rate should not exceed 800 standard portions. This means that a week without harm to health you can drink:

• women: up to 3 750 ml;
• for men: up to 5 liters.

WHO experts also designate foam doses that are already becoming hazardous to health. These are 4.8 standard doses for women and 6.4 standard doses for men. If we translate this into liters, then the dangerous beer portion is as follows:

• women: from 1.2 l;
• men: more than 1.6 liters.

Of course, each person has the right to control the amount of foam drunk by himself. But, if your own health is more expensive, you should refuse from excess volumes and adhere to the permitted consumption rates.

High risk groups

All conclusions of the specialists of the Health Organization are averaged. Here you should take into account a number of additional, individual factors, which include health status, body weight, the presence of chronic diseases and much more. For some individuals, even one standard and permitted daily dose of beer will become harmful.

There is a hereditary predisposition to alcohol, in which it is not recommended to consume any alcohol

The group that has an increased risk includes the following categories of citizens:

1. Pregnant women. The foamy drink will be excreted from the body of the expectant mother for about 1.5-2 hours. And all this time, ethanol will have a detrimental effect on the developing fetus.
2. Former alcohol addicts. Alcoholism, even if cured, leaves its mark on the body forever. Therefore, the former alcohol addicted throughout their lives will have to give up the consumption of any, even low-alcohol alcohol.
3. Persons with innate ethanol resistance. Such people should especially monitor the norms of alcohol. These individuals can drink a lot and not get drunk and are most prone to developing alcoholism.
4. With medical contraindications. Any alcohol, even foam, is prohibited to use for a number of existing pathologies, increased anxiety, mental disorders and some other diseases.
5. Drivers. Even a slight intake of alcohol significantly reduces the level of concentration, which can lead to an emergency on the way.
6. Elderly. With age, the human body weakens and becomes much more susceptible to alcohol. Therefore, doctors strongly recommend that guardians of 60 years limit themselves to one standard dose of beer per day.
7. Young. Especially teenagers, it is extremely dangerous for them to drink alcohol, even in permitted doses. At this time, the body develops rapidly, the hormonal system changes and changes. Even a minimal dose of alcohol has an extremely negative effect on health and sometimes leads to irreversible and dangerous consequences.

Situations requiring special attention

There are a number of symptoms that indicate the emergence of an excessive and dangerous addiction to drunkenness in a person. Moreover, even one warning sign makes you sound the alarm, as it shows the development of alcohol addiction. These are the following symptoms:

• a sharp drop in self-control while drinking;
• constant excess of the maximum permissible dose;
• drastic changes in human behavior after drinking beer;
• denial of the problem, even with all the available factors and evidence;
• a constantly high level of anxiety due to certain circumstances that interfere with indulging in your favorite drink.

What to do when there are these alarming signs and a person is slowly embarking on a dangerous path of addiction? With the available willpower and determination, you can overcome this addiction on your own, of course, with the full support of relatives and family members.

In the case when it is not possible to solve this problem on your own, you have to resort to the help of medical specialists. In modern pharmaceuticals, many drugs and methods have been developed that help people cope with the threat of alcoholism. It is important to notice the problem in time and not let it drift.