Researchers Look at How Frequency of Meals May Affect Health

[Needlehole]

By Rosalie Marion Bliss
February 15, 2008

http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/pr/2008/080215.htm?pf=1

The health consequences of eating one large meal a day compared with eating three meals a day has not been established. Now two recently published journal articles are among the first to report the effects of meal skipping on key health outcomes, based on a study involving a group of normal-weight, middle-aged adults.

The study analyses were authored by scientists at the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) Beltsville Human Nutrition Research Center in Beltsville, Md., and colleagues at the National Institute on Aging (NIA) Intramural Research Program in Baltimore, Md.

For the study, a small group of male and female volunteers participated in two eight-week meal-treatment periods. The study's crossover design meant that each volunteer completed both of the treatment diets, enabling them to serve as their own controls.

Volunteers were divided into one of two groups during each treatment period. They consumed either all of their required weight-maintenance calories in one meal a day or in three meals a day. ARS physiologists David Baer and William Rumpler and NIA neuroscientist Mark Mattson designed the study.

The first study analysis showed that consuming a one-meal-per-day diet, rather than a traditional three-meal-per-day diet, is feasible for a short duration. It showed that when the volunteers were "one-mealers," they had significant increases in total cholesterol, LDL "bad" cholesterol and in blood pressure, compared to when they were "three-mealers."

The changes in cardiovascular disease risk factors occurred despite the fact that the one- mealers saw slight decreases in their weight and fat mass in comparison to when they were three-mealers. Those findings were published in the April 2007 issue of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

Further analysis of the study group showed that when the volunteers were one-mealers, they had higher morning fasting blood sugar levels, higher and more sustained elevations in blood sugar concentrations, and a delayed response to the body's insulin, compared to when they were "three-mealers." Insulin is required to lower blood sugar levels. Those findings were published in the December 2007 issue of Metabolism.

ARS is the U.S. Department of Agriculture's chief scientific research agency.

[Azlocarb]

What were they eating? Was it SAD, low-fat or what?

[Nancy LC]

This has findings quite contrary to a lot of the studies done on Ramadan participants.

[K Walt]

This does jibe somewhat with experiments done with high-starch, low-fat diets. If you're going to eat that way, better to divvy up your carb bombs into multiple bomblets.

I'm not sure the results hold in a lower-carb environment, however.

[TBoneMitch]

As Nancy LC pointed out, many studies of Ramadan fasters showed opposite results.

The work of Dr Mark Mattson also strongly supports skipping meals, AKA Intermittent Fasting:


http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20030607/food.asp

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/100/10/6216

[Dodger]

There are always numerous studies that contradict other studies. The problem is that most are constructed to get the results the researchers expect to get. I have heard (rumors only) that some researchers do a small sample test before hand to determine which parameters to include in the 'real' test to get data that proves the point that they want to prove.

[Nancy LC]

I suspect you're quite right here. Now which of the two groups of researchers are stacking the deck? Or are they both? :\

[rightnow]

Interesting, I'm glad to see any research on the topic, even if unfortunately so much needs doing that anything done is just another piece of data awaiting a million more before it really means much.

Even on IF I'm not sure that people are always eating "three meals worth of calories-etc. in one meal". I grant I only did IF briefly, and I did try to eat more than a 'normal' meal since I was trying to get nutrients into my daily counts, but I didn't eat three meals worth in just one meal.

I would think that no matter what else you are measuring, it's fairly clear that for example, the insulin effect is going to be a higher if you're eating 3x as much -- especially if the meals are planned according to the typical high-carb pyramid. That might not mean that eating once a day is worse, it might simply mean that the impact of "what" you are eating is more pronounced.

I don't really suspect it's even just an issue of macronutrients, like carbs, either. If you could only drink water once a day, you would drink more than you might if you had it three times a day. But if you simply tried to stuff 3x the water into your body all at once, that probably wouldn't be real good for it either.

When they set up research with plants, and let the roots drink on the timing they want, they take a little drink every couple of hours, as I recall. I found that interesting. It made me wonder if a LITTLE bit of food every 3 hours or so, 15 hours a day, might be useful (some bodybuilding regimes approach it that way, since allegedly protein isn't in the body longer than 3 hours). I would like to see that extreme, compared with the other extreme of eating once a day. But on lowcarb fare, because otherwise, the insulin impact of the single meal seems like it would have side effects totally apart from just the 'frequency' issue.

PJ

[joedoro]

Whatever happened to the concept of just eating when hungry? And how does hunger enter into the results of all the fasting studies. Hunger produces all sorts of changes in the body.

To me, if I'm hungry, that means my cells are energy deficient and they are telling me that they need fuel. So until I eat I am really in the fasting state.

On the other hand, if I'm not hungry, and do not feel the need to eat for say, 12 hours, then I don't consider myself to have been in a fasting state during that time.

BTW - I wonder how many polar bears intentionally fast?

[kneebrace]

BTW - I wonder how many polar bears intentionally fast?

Joe, not sure about the males ( I think they just hibernate for the same period), but female polar bears accumulate massive amounts of bodyfat and then intentionally fast for about 3months. They are very thin, and very hungry when they emerge from their winter burrows with their new cubs.

Before I added IF to long term LC, a bit over a year ago, I couldn't go without food for more than three waking hours without feeling physically ill with hunger. Now I alternate between 20 and 22 hr fasts 7 days a week. I can't see myself ever stopping. The health/bodycomp benefits are just too remarkable. In my experience almost all hunger is habit. Most people who fast for longer than 24 hrs report that hunger disappears. When I break my 20/22 hr fasts, I don't feel particularly hungry. But food and eating is fun, and I do look forward to it.

Stuart

[pbowers]

As Nancy LC pointed out, many studies of Ramadan fasters showed opposite results.

The work of Dr Mark Mattson also strongly supports skipping meals, AKA Intermittent Fasting:


http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20030607/food.asp

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/100/10/6216
mattson was in on this one too. i'm storing the article here (http://www.box.net/shared/8cdn7migw4) if anyone is interested.

[tom sawyer]

Eating only when hungry, sounds simple. But there are a whole lot of factors that go into what makes us hungry. It isn't just a matter of our bidies telling us we need food for energy. There are social cues, learned behaviors, even what we eat affects how soon we'll be hungry again.

I agree that when a diet is bad for you, spreading it out would theoretically give superior resluts. Eating your carbs a little at a time would seem perfectly reasonable as a means of reducing blood sugar spikes. The cholesterol effects, I think are inconsequential. The blood pressure effect, I would like to see reproduced. The effect on weight is understandable, I would think eating all your day's intake at once would lead to some slight decrease in absorption if nothing else.

Yes all research is likely to have some design bias. Thats why the devil is in the details, you can't simply read the abstract or conclusions and know what actually happened. Let alone get the Cliff's notes version from the popular news media.

[kneebrace]

mattson was in on this one too. i'm storing the article here (http://www.box.net/shared/8cdn7migw4) if anyone is interested.

I'd heard this study was done by the Mattson group too PB. And I'd echo whichever poster it was who suggested that if you are going to eat a lot of carbohydrate, far better it to be a lot of little 'bomblets' rather than one big bomb. If I wasn't also low carbing I wouldn't even dream of IF'ing. But it really seems to enhance the benefits of Low Carb. Insulin is damaging enough in small doses.

Stuart

[Nancy LC]

I think in our own IF experiment (we have a thread going about this (http://forum.lowcarber.org/showthread.php?t=357494)) our folks are getting better blood sugar readings, including diabetics.

Some of us are weak IFers, like me. I usually only fast until noon, if that long.

I think perhaps this might be the key:

However, when on 1 meal per day, the subjects would have
eaten less than those on 3 meals per day if we had not asked
them to consume the same amount of food that they normally
eat on a 3-meals-per-day schedule. When rodents are
subjected to an alternate-day fasting regimen, their overall calorie intake is decreased by 10% to 30%, they maintain a
lower body weight than animals on an ad libitum control
diet, and they exhibit increased insulin sensitivity and
decreased blood pressure [11,25]. Similarly, when maintained
on an alternate-day CR diet over a 2-month period,
human subjects lost weight and exhibited improved
cardiovascular disease and diabetes risk profiles [28]. In
the latter study, the subjects ate only 400 to 500 cal on CR
days, which resulted in a reduction in plasma leptin levels
and an elevation of β-hydroxybutyrate levels only on the CR
days, but sustained decreases in plasma insulin levels,
suggesting improved insulin sensitivity. Collectively, the
available data therefore suggest that meal skipping or
intermittent CR diets can result in health benefits including
improved glucose regulation, but only if there is an overall
reduction in energy intake.

That is disappointing about the BDNF not being raised.

[pbowers]

the macronutrient composition of the diets was not noted in this article, but here it is:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2328/2269199538_b9cdca93ff.jpg

[mike_d]

Disappointing and it doesn't fit well with the CAD diet's results.It showed that when the volunteers were "one-mealers," they had significant increases in total cholesterol, LDL "bad" cholesterol and in blood pressure, compared to when they were "three-mealers."My BP (130-140/80) and especially my LDL reading of (135 up to 172) have increased since starting IF several months ago, but I am not sure there is a correlation. I am still actively losing body fat.

Nancy, I agree "force feeding" people is not a good idea, when I first started this fasting I would "pig out" and feel terrible "meat drunk" the rest of the evening even though I still lost weight. Not sure how long they were given to eat, but its tough to do in one hour and get proper nutrients down. I often use whey protein shakes.Further analysis of the study group showed that when the volunteers were one-mealers, they had higher morning fasting blood sugar levels, higher and more sustained elevations in blood sugar concentrations, and a delayed response to the body's insulin ... I have found the opposite to be true-- my FBS was in the range 100-116 on LC and is down 88-77 on IF.

[rightnow]

Whatever happened to the concept of just eating when hungry? And how does hunger enter into the results of all the fasting studies. Hunger produces all sorts of changes in the body.
Well, I seem to have a nearly complete disconnect when it comes to my hunger. I have honestly wondered if this is related to the fact that I ended up really morbidly obese. Or if it's some side-effect. In any case, my hunger goes from one extreme to the other. Had I been eating mostly lowcarb I probably would have ended up super lean, but since high carb seems to drive it to the other extreme, well you see the result.

If I am eating high (normal) carbs (which also means not much protein), I am hungry every few hours. Or less. I can eat more food, because *I feel hungry*, than I can believe frankly. It verges on being some kind of nature documentary all its own. And even after eating more than any four humans ought to in calories in a day, I can wake up after a few hours -- feeling driven to eat. Specifically driven to eat carbs -- the bread/sugar food groups I guess you could say.

When Taubes' book talked about the overfeeding thing, and one group that was literally eating up to 10,000 calories a day and STILL willing to eat more at night -- that makes sense to me. It's almost like the more eaten the more needed, when it's high carb, for me.

It is difficult for me to know if this is "just" a carb issue, or the fact that when you're eating a lot of carbs, nearly everything has gluten in some form, which I suspect I'm intolerant to. It may be a mild allergic response that causes some form of craving, on top of the simple hunger issue.

When I'm eating lowcarb, I did a few times by sheer accident in the past but now by design of course, it's literally the opposite. I WANT (by intellectual plan) to eat several times a day, in order to get enough protein-etc. into my body. I can have a kitchen filled with ready food, even, just nuke it and it's done and I like it. Yet I am so chronically non-hungry, that I can't seem to remember to do so half the time. I have to set alarms to tell me to go eat or I will consistently space it out.

One modifying factor: once I'm in the HABIT of eating, and I have been eating regularly for about 3 days, THEN my body will start expecting food at the proper times, and I actually start getting hungry just before meals, and feel real hunger pangs if I miss one. But I have to eat consistently for a few days to cause this (and I have a real hard time eating before evening if I don't schedule it with alarms or events). If I'm lowcarb in this eating situation, my hunger starts to simply match the meals, and I'm just hungry. If I'm highcarb in this situation, I actually feel like I'm starving to death, and I'm so hungry I will nearly vomit from the force of it if I miss a meal.

Another modifying factor: no matter whether high or low carb, if I go without eating for about 6-10 waking hours, my hunger dies entirely. I literally forget about food, as if my body decides it's not getting any so it's not going to worry about it. And I can go for 24 hours, sometimes up to 48 or a few more, not eating, literally because I have forgotten about food. I do think of it on occasion and think yeah, need to do that pretty soon here, but then I forget again, busy doing other things. My daughter, now 11, has begun to realize this is an issue for me, and has started paying attention. She'll go, "You haven't eaten since yesterday morning mom, of course you don't feel like doing anything right now! Go eat!"

All that aside, I classify hunger into three categories based on my experience of it.

#1 Head hunger is what I call the most common. Most hunger is not really 'real' hunger I think. Most is "a driving need to eat" which makes me think/say "I'm hungry! I gotta eat!" even though in reality, my body is not feeling the way it does in the next two options. My body DOES want to eat, mind you. It's definitely asking for food. But differently...

#2 Real hunger is what I felt when I did lowcarb intermittant fasting, shortly before it was time to go into my eating cycle again. My actual stomach felt specific HUNGER, my entire body ramped up to the idea of eating, and whatever I ate next, was unusually tasty LOL. I noticed that I couldn't even remember the last time I had felt hunger in that particular way. A heavy physical workout, like outdoor gardening that takes hours, can sometimes leave me feeling like this.

#3 Sick hunger is what I call it when I eat a lot of food way too late (like midnight), then when I wake up, I need to eat soon or I'll feel like vomiting, like I am so hungry I am literally sick. If I'm eating high carb and regular meals, and then suddenly miss a meal, I get this. I am not sure if some kind of low blood sugar might tie into this one. I will eat just about anything at this point whether I like it or not.

I think the issue of hunger is something hugely important to study. It has always surprised me that it seemed no attention was given to this except that it's assumed that people who are fat obviously eat more than mere hunger calls for. But I'm hugely fat still, and I don't think that's true. Whether I was severely over-eating high carb, or now when I am often under-eating lowcarb (depending, I am not very consistent on lowcarb yet, I tend to have several months doing great then suck at it for awhile), I feel that since by default I usually forget about food (I'm very "focused" mentally and usually busy), if I eat, I feel that I eat and how much I eat is usually because I "feel like eating". With extremely rare exceptions, I don't eat from emotion (I tend to not-eat when upset in fact), and I don't eat until I'm overstuffed/sick (binging). I eat when I feel like eating. I would really like to better understand WHY I "feel like eating" when I do -- why it's chronically when highcarb, and not often enough on lowcarb -- why the different "types" of hunger exist and what can be done to manage them.

I think head-hunger is the primary driver (even though that's the wrong term, since the body IS involved in that too), and this does not seem to have anything to do with a need for calories. I think it might relate to a need for protein or amino acids or some micronutrients, but it doesn't seem to have the slightest relationship to calories.

Only if I am eating low carb, and eating substantial amounts of food, and then go for extended periods without eating (like IF) do I feel the kind of hunger that I think most "tribal peoples" might consider REAL hunger. But I'm as driven to eat by the other types (if not moreso) than by that.

PJ

[kindke]

oh so we have a study which shows the 'conventional' wisdom was supposedly correct all along, HOW FUCKING CONVEINENT.

the studies are tosh, as soon as you are aware that eating is in of itself both very stressful ( on the body and your liver) and inflammatory it should be obvious that everything bad resulting from those effects will follow.

IF, however you want to swallow it, is the healthiest way to live. The only real odditiy is the BP increase that even my own experience will confirm, but a slight increase in BP is welcome in return for significant lower levels of cortisol.

Cortisol is a hormone that loves to store fat on your face and around your neck, so yes it makes you ugly.

[mike_d]

Perhaps funded by the breakfast cereal industry?The only real odditiy is the BP increase that even my own experience will confirm, but a slight increase in BP is welcome in return for significant lower levels of cortisol.

Cortisol is a hormone that loves to store fat on your face and around your neck, so yes it makes you ugly.And the LDL increase I thought was odd. Cholesterol can increase during active weight loss. I just read in Men's Health the 1980's cortisol in urine studies were flawed and have since been debunked as having nothing to do with fat storage.

[pbowers]

oh so we have a study which shows the 'conventional' wisdom was supposedly correct all along, HOW FUCKING CONVEINENT.

the studies are tosh, as soon as you are aware that eating is in of itself both very stressful ( on the body and your liver) and inflammatory it should be obvious that everything bad resulting from those effects will follow.

IF, however you want to swallow it, is the healthiest way to live. The only real odditiy is the BP increase that even my own experience will confirm, but a slight increase in BP is welcome in return for significant lower levels of cortisol.

Cortisol is a hormone that loves to store fat on your face and around your neck, so yes it makes you ugly.
i don't think this is what the authors expected or probably wanted to see. mark mattson has been researching IF for a fairly long time and most of his IF-related research has shown positive results. there may be an explanation for the results (high carb diets perhaps), but i don't think you can blame the researchers in this case.

[Rachel1]

LDL went up, but what about HDL? Did it go up as well? If so, a higher HDL might offset the rise in LDL.

Rachel

[mike_d]

the macronutrient composition of the diets was not noted in this article, but here it is:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2328/2269199538_b9cdca93ff.jpgSo they were consuming ~50% carbohydrates, 36% fat on both plans and 2,400 calories.It is recommended that people consume 30% of total daily calories from fat, 55% from carbohydrates and 15% from protein--J. Larsen MS RDNot bad, maybe some fasting subjects were sneaking in Snicker's bars?

[joedoro]

[QUOTE=tom sawyer]Eating only when hungry, sounds simple. But there are a whole lot of factors that go into what makes us hungry. It isn't just a matter of our bidies telling us we need food for energy. There are social cues, learned behaviors, even what we eat affects how soon we'll be hungry again.[QUOTE]

I agree but why is that such a common thought? I think it's because, so much of obesity research was shunted to the psychologists, and the whole concept of hunger was approached from their point of view. And as a result we have been taught to disconnect what our bodies are saying with what we are to interpret them as saying.

For example - for the 20 years that I lived on a low fat high carb diet low energy diet after eating a large high carb breakfast, a couple of hours later I would always be hungry and people would ask "how could you be hungry, you just ate?" And after hearing that a million times, which was mostly uttered by lean people, I began to wonder whether in fact I was really experiencing hunger. Maybe it was visual cues of seeing food or some other non physiological factor causing me to experience this sensation which I thought was hunger. Then I started reading some of the research regarding hunger and that just seemed to confirm it. I really wasn't hungry after all and all I had to do was keep to the straight and narrow if I wanted to control my weight. Just watch the energy in and energy out and forget what I was feeling.

Well after eliminating carbs from my diet, I can tell you that it was hunger I was feeling all those years and nothing else. Why should an omelet equal in calories to my old high carb breakfast last me the whole day now if not because of a physiological phenomenon? Does a lack of carbs in the morning somehow make me immune to all of the non physiologic factors affecting hunger? It's possible, but then the that's adding another layer of explanation for this observation.

[rightnow]

I agree totally. I really wish we could drag BIOLOGY out of the crappy armchair of psychology so something could be accomplished. The "it's all in your head" and "have willpower" BS has been the most abysmal failure imaginable applied to this subject. It's the equivalent of transferring hard science into the realm of parapsychology, where imagination or magic is supposed to explain it all, to such a degree nobody will even LOOK for a physiological basis.

PJ

[LessLiz]

I used to be able to eat a 1.5 pound t-bone, a bunch of broccoli and a giant baked potato with all the fixins, be painfully full and hungry within an hour. I didn't *want* to eat then -- I was physically full -- but I was hungry.

It was only after 2 weeks of virtually no carbs that my blood sugar levels came down from 300 - 350 to 90 - 120 and my insulin levels dropped to something vaguely normal that I started losing weight and became not hungry. I was so excited about not being hungry for the first time in years that I didn't eat for a couple of days -- just because I could and it felt good. I babbled about not being hungry to anyone who would listen.

I only eat when I'm hungry. Of course, I got fat only eating when hungry, too. When I hear the whole "You aren't hungry you are: thirsty, sad, depressed, feeling deprived, bored, sabotaging yourself, etc., etc" garbage I want to slap someone. Live with constant hunger for 20 years and you pretty much recognize it when you feel it.

[OregonRose]

When I hear the whole "You aren't hungry you are: thirsty, sad, depressed, feeling deprived, bored, sabotaging yourself, etc., etc" garbage I want to slap someone.

Yes! (Of course, I feel that way about a lot of pop psychology. But especially dieting BS.)

And even after eating more than any four humans ought to in calories in a day, I can wake up after a few hours -- feeling driven to eat. Specifically driven to eat carbs.

The last time I tried the standard, 1,200-calorie low-fat diet, the dietitian (to whom I paid actual money--aargh!) allowed me two Ak-Mak crackers a day. If I broke down and had one at 10am instead of both at noon, I swore I got about three times hungrier--so hungry I couldn't concentrate any more. By the last three weeks of the five-week diet, I was so consumed by thoughts of food I was barely functional. And after five weeks of this high-carb starvation regimen, I gained a pound. Jeez.

Even my husband, who's still not a low-carb convert (he worries about his blood pressure, and I haven't found much that's helpful in the low-carb literature about that, but maybe I'm looking in the wrong places), says a bowl of cereal doesn't last him half the morning, and when he eats eggs and sausage for breakfast--like a smart person should :yum: --he's good until 1:30 or so.

It seems abundantly clear from the research Taubes discusses that insulin levels, along with fat storage, drive hunger--it's not low self-esteem, depression, co-dependency or any other such dopiness.

[mike_d]

Looks like the subjects were consuming ~300g of carbohydrates / day / meal-- end of story.

http://forum.lowcarber.org/showpost.php?p=7287307&postcount=1129

[joedoro]

I was so excited about not being hungry for the first time in years that I didn't eat for a couple of days -- just because I could and it felt good. I babbled about not being hungry to anyone who would listen.

I know what you mean - neighbors now cross the street when they see me coming!

Isn't it amazing? And the funny thing, people who are thin, like my wife, and who can eat carbs without problem, she has an english muffin with jam and heart healthy spread every morning and is ok until lunch, just don't get it.

The feeling of not being hungry - just so liberating.

[Nancy LC]

Even my husband, who's still not a low-carb convert (he worries about his blood pressure, and I haven't found much that's helpful in the low-carb literature about that, but maybe I'm looking in the wrong places), says a bowl of cereal doesn't last him half the morning, and when he eats eggs and sausage for breakfast--like a smart person should --he's good until 1:30 or so.

High blood pressure isn't caused by fat. It's that whole insulin resistance syndrome that causes it. High blood pressure, fat accumulation in the stomach, high blood sugar and so on.

I had a nice drop in blood pressure shortly after going LC, before I even lost much weight. It has stayed in the normal range ever since. All my siblings and parents were on BP meds by the time they 40. Not me!

[Beth1708]

Eating only when hungry, sounds simple. But there are a whole lot of factors that go into what makes us hungry. It isn't just a matter of our bidies telling us we need food for energy. There are social cues, learned behaviors, even what we eat affects how soon we'll be hungry again.


My guess is that if you give your body food at some particular time of day for long enough, you will "train" it to expect food at that time. It's somewhat like when you train your pet to expect food at 6pm when you come home from work (or whatever). When you come in the door, the pet travels between your feet & the food bowl until you get the hint. ;-)

Beth

[kneebrace]

My guess is that if you give your body food at some particular time of day for long enough, you will "train" it to expect food at that time. It's somewhat like when you train your pet to expect food at 6pm when you come home from work (or whatever). When you come in the door, the pet travels between your feet & the food bowl until you get the hint. ;-)

Beth

That's how intermittent fasting seems to work. And the increased energy experienced by everyone who bothers to discover this seems pretty convincing evidence that the human body really prefers to go for longer between meals than 'accepted wisdom' would have us believe.

Ditching the carbs five years ago was definitely an improvement in the frequent hunger thing, but it wasn't until I started gradually ramping up my overnight fast that I discovered that most of my low carb 'hunger' was simply habit. I've gained muscle (without increasing workout duration/intensity), redistributed my remaining bodyfat to places I needed more, all on slightly more than a third less low carb calories than I was convinced I 'needed' (because of the insatiable hunger I felt if I didn't get them).

IF seems to be a very clean burn. Probably not the best idea for someone who wants to maximize the amount of food they can consume without gaining weight. But I've long since realized that the less food you need to comfortably (ie. without hunger) eat to maintain optimal health/bodycomp the better.

Stuart

[santabarb]

In my case, I've found that high protein raises my blood pressure--I have to have plenty of water and greens to get it to an optimal level.

I guess we are all different.

But I kept coming across people like Dr. Julian Whitaker saying that one of the causes of high blood pressure was blood that needed thinning by water. All the supplements in the world, whether sold by him or anyone else, won't do for me what an abundance of pure water does. And then potassium and mineral filled greens.

[mike_d]

In my case, I've found that high protein raises my blood pressure--I have to have plenty of water and greens to get it to an optimal level. Celery helps some people or asparagus (asparagine). You could ask your Dr. about a thiazide "water pill" a low dose of 15mg/day helped me and I also lost weight with no dehydration yet.

[joedoro]

My guess is that if you give your body food at some particular time of day for long enough, you will "train" it to expect food at that time. It's somewhat like when you train your pet to expect food at 6pm when you come home from work (or whatever). When you come in the door, the pet travels between your feet & the food bowl until you get the hint. ;-)

Beth

Funny but my dogs are just different. They don't have a set time to eat, but pretty much get fed twice a day, depending how active they have been. And I feed them from the cues they give me, so you can say they have me trained :)

But I never paid attention to this until I started this LC life and then it dawned on me that they have been raised on this fancy food which is all meat - no grain since we got them. Even their snacks are meat and fat based. And what I've noticed is that how often and how much they want to eat depends upon how active they have been. Generally we walk 1 to 2 hours a day, depending on the weather. And the more we walk, the more they eat and the less we walk the less they eat. And their weight stays stable.

Just an anecdote. But I wonder how much it relates to to the fact that they eat carb free?

[kneebrace]

Funny but my dogs are just different. They don't have a set time to eat, but pretty much get fed twice a day, depending how active they have been. And I feed them from the cues they give me, so you can say they have me trained :)



Joe, just curious why you choose to feed them twice a day when they've been active?

Stuart

[joedoro]

Joe, just curious why you choose to feed them twice a day when they've been active?

Stuart

Stuart,

It seems to average out to that. Some days they will get 3 meals other days 1.
I've gotten pretty much to know what they want and they let me know when they want to eat. I used to put out their food when they hadn't indicated they wanted to eat, for example if I had somewhere to go and wanted to make sure they were fed, many times it just sat there, so I stopped doing that. Currently in the Midwest of the US we're having a particularly cold spell (as I type it's -23 C with a windchill of -38 C so were staying put today) with ice everywhere which makes it almost impossible to get out on foot so they've been confined to the house. Generally, we walk 1.5 to 2 hours a day. And I bet it'll be noon or so before either of them begins to sniff around their empty food bowls, whereas if we were to walk this AM then it would be a bee line to them as soon as we got home. And depending upon how far we went and how quickly they walked, and how much stuff they chased, would determine how much they would eat and then how long they would nap or play and then when they would be ready to eat again. Maybe it would be later, maybe the next day.

[teaser]

When you eat a bunch of carbs, your gut needs a whole lot of blood to absorb the digested sugars. This causes postprandial hypotension in some people. Anthony Colpo claims that the Warrior Diet (one meal a day) gave him postpandrial hypotension, and I believe him. I think your basal blood pressure might need to be higher so you don't pass out when you eat all those carbs at once, like the people in this study did.

Here's an abstract for the study from the USDA;

"Technical Abstract: Background: Although consumption of three meals per day is the most common pattern of eating in industrialized countries, a scientific rationale for this meal frequency in regards to optimal health is lacking. A reduced meal frequency diet can improve health and extend lifespan of laboratory animals, but its effect on humans has never been tested. Objective: A pilot study was conducted to establish the effects of a reduced meal frequency diet, without an overall decrease in energy intake, on a range of health indicators in normal weight healthy male and female subjects. Design: The study was a randomized cross-over design, with 2 eight-week treatment periods. During the 8 week treatment periods, subjects consumed all of their calories for weight maintenance distributed in either 3 meals/d (control diet) or 1 meal/d (experimental diet). Results: Subjects who completed the study maintained their body weight within 2 kg of their initial weight throughout the 6 month period. There were no significant effects of meal frequency on heart rate, body temperature and the majority of blood variables measured. However, when on 1 meal/d, subjects exhibited: a significant increase in hunger; a significant modification of body composition with reductions of fat mass; significant increases in blood pressure and levels of total and LDL and HDL cholesterol; and significant decreases in levels of triacylglycerol and cortisol. Conclusions: Normal weight subjects are able to comply with a 1 meal/d diet. When meal frequency is decreased without a decrease in overall calorie intake, there are modest changes in body composition, some cardiovascular risk factors, and hematological variables; some of the changes are suggestive of poorer health, while others are suggestive of improved health."


A little more balanced than the media articles, no? Yes, ldl increased. So what? So did Hdl.

[kneebrace]

Stuart,

It seems to average out to that. Some days they will get 3 meals other days 1.
I've gotten pretty much to know what they want and they let me know when they want to eat. I used to put out their food when they hadn't indicated they wanted to eat, for example if I had somewhere to go and wanted to make sure they were fed, many times it just sat there, so I stopped doing that. Currently in the Midwest of the US we're having a particularly cold spell (as I type it's -23 C with a windchill of -38 C so were staying put today) with ice everywhere which makes it almost impossible to get out on foot so they've been confined to the house. Generally, we walk 1.5 to 2 hours a day. And I bet it'll be noon or so before either of them begins to sniff around their empty food bowls, whereas if we were to walk this AM then it would be a bee line to them as soon as we got home. And depending upon how far we went and how quickly they walked, and how much stuff they chased, would determine how much they would eat and then how long they would nap or play and then when they would be ready to eat again. Maybe it would be later, maybe the next day.

That's amazing. What breed are they ?. My brother has a maltese terrier who will self regulate her consumption even of the most expensive high carb dog food, and her bodyfat level never changes. I've only ever had much bigger dogs of many different breeds and they've always had raw fatty meat/raw LC veges/bones and offal, and without exception they would happily eat whatever we put in front of them whether it was once a day or twice, and get fat on it too if it was more than their energy requirements. If our dogs aren't working, they're wrestling with each other vigorously a lot anyway. Particularly Labradors seem very efficient at gleaning energy from food and either using it or storing the excess.

Stuart

[lkpetro]

That's amazing. What breed are they ?. My brother has a maltese terrier who will self regulate her consumption even of the most expensive high carb dog food, and her bodyfat level never changes. I've only ever had much bigger dogs of many different breeds and they've always had raw fatty meat/raw LC veges/bones and offal, and without exception they would happily eat whatever we put in front of them whether it was once a day or twice, and get fat on it too if it was more than their energy requirements. If our dogs aren't working, they're wrestling with each other vigorously a lot anyway. Particularly Labradors seem very efficient at gleaning energy from food and either using it or storing the excess.

Stuart


Labs are commonly know to eat and eat and eat with no limits, a lab will just keep eating with no stop, this is why you see so many pudgy 'stocky' labs, they really should be a more slender dog. Historically labs were raised to deal with intense conditions (weather, long endurace endeavors, ect.) so they will be nature eat whenever food is available (even though in the modern labs world it is readily available) unrelated buy labs also have a much higher pain threshold than other dogs, it takes alot for a lab to feel pain, which can often be a problem because owners do not know of injuries until it is too late

[joedoro]

That's amazing. What breed are they ?. My brother has a maltese terrier who will self regulate her consumption even of the most expensive high carb dog food, and her bodyfat level never changes. I've only ever had much bigger dogs of many different breeds and they've always had raw fatty meat/raw LC veges/bones and offal, and without exception they would happily eat whatever we put in front of them whether it was once a day or twice, and get fat on it too if it was more than their energy requirements. If our dogs aren't working, they're wrestling with each other vigorously a lot anyway. Particularly Labradors seem very efficient at gleaning energy from food and either using it or storing the excess.

Stuart

2 terriers - a wire hair fox and a welsh, both spayed - my friend has a lab that got so fat that she couldn't turn it's head to look at you but rather had to turn it's entire body and would growl whenever anyone even made a step in direction of her bowl. Suspect she was on just a regular diet.

[mike_d]

Labs are commonly know to eat and eat and eat with no limits, a lab will just keep eating with no stop, this is why you see so many pudgy 'stocky' labs, they really should be a more slender dog.Mine is doing well on a raw diet of meat, bone, egg, offal and some vegetables. No weight or exercise problems yet and hip problem went away with the exit of bagged pet food.