Calculating Calories, Macronutrients & BMR

[MaxBrenner]

Well after lurking on the Nutrition Section is seems there is way to much conjecture on a number of basic nutritional ideas. I hope this can clear them up.

Calculating Calories and Macro's

Basic Terminology
1/ BMR (Basal Metabolic Rate): This is the amount of calories you need to consume to maintain your body if you were comatose (base level)....
2/ NEAT (Non-Exercise Associated Thermogenesis): The calorie requirements added by your daily activity that is NOT exercise (eg: washing, walking, talking, shopping, working). This is generally the most marked variable in a persons daily calorie requirements and something that everyone has a good amount of control over. This is what people term INCIDENTAL EXERCISE. It is also what helps keep 'constitutionally lean' people LEAN (they fidget)!
3/ EAT (Exercise Associated Thermogenesis): The calorie requirements associated with planned exercise.... Unless someone is doing a whole heap of exercise (eg: two or more hrs training a day) it usually doesn't add a stack of calories to your requirements (30 minutes of 'elliptical training isn't going to do it')
4/ TEF (Thermogenic effect of feeding): The calorie expenditure associated with eating.... REGARDLESS of what myths you have been told - this is NOT dependent on MEAL FREQUENCY. It is a % of TOTAL CALORIES CONSUMED (and 15% of 3 x 600 cal meals is the same as 15% of 6 x 300 cal meals). It varies according to MACRONUTRIENT content and FIBER content... For most mixed diets, it is something around 15%.... Protein is higher (up to 25%), carbs are variable (between 5-25%), and fats are low (usually less than 5%). So ->> More protein and more carbs and more fiber = HIGHER TEF. More FAT = LOWER TEF.
5/ TEE (Total Energy Expenditure): The total calories you require - and the sum of the above (BMR + NEAT + EAT + TEF).


How much do you need?
There is therefore a multitude of things that impact a persons MAINTENANCE calorie requirements
- Age and sex (males generally need > females for any given age)
- Total weight and lean mass (more lean mass = more needed)
- Physiological status (eg: sick or injured, pregnant, growth and 'enhancement')
- Hormones (eg: thyroid hormone levels, growth hormone levels)
- Exercise level (more activity = more needed)
- Daily activity level (more activity = more needed)
- Diet (that is - macronutrient intake)

In order to calculate your requirements the most accurate measure would be via Calorimetry [the measure of 'chemical reactions' in your body and the heat produced by these reactions], either directly (via placing a calorimeter where the heat you produce is measured) or indirectly (eg: HOOD studies where they monitor how much oxygen you use/ carbon dioxide and nitrogen you excrete over a given time). Although accurate - this is completely impractical for most people. So we mostly rely on pre-set formula to try to calculate our needs.

Estimating Requirements
The simplest method of estimating needs is to base your intake on a standard 'calories per unit of weight (usually kilograms)'. Typically:
- 26 to 30 kcals/kg/day for normal, healthy individuals with sedentary lifestyles doing little physical activity [12.0-14 kcal/pound]
- 31 to 37 kcal/kg/day for those involved in light to moderate activity 3-5 x a week with moderately active lifestyles [14-16 kcal/ pound]
- 38 to 40 kcals/kg/day for those involved in vigorous activity and highly active jobs [16-18 kcal/ pound].
For those involved in HEAVY training (eg: athletes) - the demand is even greater:
- 41 to 50 kcals/kg/day for those involved in moderate to heavy training (for example: 15-20 hrs/ week training) [18.5-22 kcal/ pound]
- 50 or above kcals/kg/day for those involved in heavy to extreme training [> 22 kcal/ pound]

There are, however, a number of more complex formula which calculate a baseline BMR, which you multiply by an 'activity variable' to give TEE.
1/ Harris-Benedict formula:
Particularly inaccurate & derived from studies on LEAN, YOUNG, ACTIVE males in a COLD lab MANY YEARS AGO (1919). Notorious for OVERESTIMATING requirements, especially in the overweight. IF YOU CAN AVOID IT, DON'T USE IT!
For MEN: BMR = 66 + [13.7 x weight (kg)] + [5 x height (cm)] - [6.76 x age (years)]
For WOMEN: BMR = 655 + [9.6 x weight (kg)] + [1.8 x height (cm)] - [4.7 x age (years)]

2/Mifflin-St Jeor:
Developed in the 1990s and more realistic in todays settings, but it still doesn't take into consideration the differences as a consequence of high BF%. Thus, once again, it OVERESTIMATES NEEDS, ESPECIALLY IN THE OVERWEIGHT.
For MEN: BMR = [9.99 x weight (kg)] + [6.25 x height (cm)] - [4.92 x age (years)] + 5
For WOMEN: BMR = [9.99 x weight (kg)] + [6.25 x height (cm)] - [4.92 x age (years)] -161

3/Katch-McArdle:
Considered the most accurate formula for those who are relatively lean. Use ONLY if you have a good estimate of your bodyfat %.
BMR = 370 + (21.6 x LBM)
Where LBM = [total weight (kg) x (100 - bodyfat %)]/100


What is an Activity Factor - Essentially, this is the COST OF LIVING. THIS IS BASED ON MORE THAN JUST YOUR TRAINING (include work/lifestyle, gym/ sport & a TEF of ~ 15% - ie: an average mixed diet). And unless you are an ATHLETE your job/ lifestyle is MORE important than the gym sessions you do! So to convert BMR a TOTAL requirement you multiply the result by:
1.2 = Sedentary (Little or no exercise and desk job)
1.3-1.4 = Lightly Active (Little daily activity & light exercise 1-3 days a week)
1.5-1.6 = Moderately Active (Moderately active daily life & Moderate exercise 3-5 days a week)
1.7-1.8 = Very Active (Physically demanding lifestyle & Hard exercise or sports 6-7 days a week)
1.9-2.0 = Extremely Active (Hard daily exercise or sports and physical job)

How Accurate are they?
Although these (sometimes) give rough ball-park figures, they are still 'guesstimations'. Most people still OVERESTIMATE activity, and UNDERESTIMATE bodyfat & end up eating TOO MUCH. So - use these as 'rough figures' and monitor your weight/ measurements for 2-4 weeks. IF your weight is stable/ measurements are stable, then you have likely found maintenance.


Using the Above to Recalculate Based on Goals
You will need to DECREASE or INCREASE intake based on your goals (eg: lose or gain mass). And instead of using 'generic calorie amounts' (eg: 500 cals/ day), this is calculated on a % of your maintenance. Why? The effect of a given calorie amount on an individual is going to be markedly different based on their size/ total calorie intake. For example - subtracting 500 cals/ day from a 115# females 1500 total intake is 1/3rd of her total cals but 500 cals/ day for a 215# male on 3500 total intake is only 1/6th of their total... And it will result in markedly different effects on their energy levels and weight loss. Generally:
- to ADD weight: ADD 10-20% calories to your total from above
- to LOSE weight: SUBTRACT 10-20% calories from your total from above
Then monitor your results and adjust as required.

 

[MaxBrenner]

Macronutrient Needs
Once you work out the above, you can work out how much of each macronutrient you should aim for. This should NOT be based on a generic RATIO of total calorie intake such as '30:40:30 or 40:40:20 Your body doesn't CARE what % intake you have for macronutrients. It works in terms of SUFFICIENT QUANTITY per LEAN MASS or TOTAL MASS. This is one of the areas that is MOST often confused - so to try to make it as simple as possible:

1. Protein: Believe it or not - Protein intake is a bit of a controversial issue. In this, the general recommendations given in the 'bodybuilding' area are nearly double the 'standard' recommendations given in the Sports Nutrition Arena. And to run through BOTH areas......
GENERAL sports nutrition /most studies out suggest that in the face of ADEQUATE calories and CARBS then the following protein intakes are sufficient:
STRENGTH training -> 1.2 to 1.6g per KG bodyweight (about .6 / pound)
ENDURANCE training -> 1.4 to 1.8g per KG bodyweight (about .8 / pound)
ADOLESCENT in training -> 1.8 to 2.2g per KG bodyweight (about 1g / pound)
BUT they also acknowledge that protein becomes MORE important in the context of LOWER calorie intakes, or LOWER carb intakes.

Some general 'bodybuilding' guidelines would be as follows:
- If bodyfat UNKNOWN but AVERAGE = 1-1.25g per pound TOTAL weight
- If bodyfat KNOWN = 1.25-1.5g per pound LEAN weight
If you are VERY LEAN or if you are on a LOW TOTAL CALORIE INTAKE then protein becomes more important - so:
- Average bodyfat, lower calorie intake = 1.25-1.5 per pound total mass
- Bodyfat known, lower calorie intake = 1.33-2 per pounds lean mass
If you are VERY OVERWEIGHT, VERY INACTIVE, and NOT on a lower calorie diet then you can decrease slightly BELOW the above levels:
- overweight or high calorie intake = ~ 1 x LEAN mass to 0.8-1 x total weight in pounds

Anecdotally, most find the HIGHER protein intake better for satiety, partitioning, and blood sugar control. So UNLESS you are specifically guided to use the GENERAL sports nutrition guidelines, I would suggest the BODYBUILDING values.


2. Fats: Generally speaking, although the body can get away with short periods of very low fat, in the long run your body NEEDS fat to maintain general health, satiety, and sanity. Additionally - any form of high intensity training will benefit from a 'fat buffer' in your diet - which acts to control free radical damage and inflammation. General guides:
Average or lean: 1 - 2g fat/ kg body weight [between 0.45 - 1g total weight/ pounds]
High bodyfat: 1-2g fat/ LEAN weight [between 0.45 - 1g LEAN weight/ pounds]
IF low calorie dieting - you can decrease further, but as a minimum, I would not suggest LESS than about 0.35g/ pound.
Note 1: Total fat intake is NOT the same as 'essential fats' (essential fats are specific TYPES of fats that are INCLUDED in your total fat intake)...


3. Carbs: VERY important for athletes, HIGHLY ACTIVE individuals, or those trying to GAIN MASS - Carbs help with workout intensity, health, and satiety (and sanity). But there are no specific 'requirements' for your body. Carbs are basically used by most as 'the extra stuff'.
For 'general folk' to calculate your carbs you just calculate it from the calories left over from fats/ protein:
carb calories = Total calorie needs - ([protein grams as above x 4] + [fat grams as above x 9])]
carbs in grams = above total/ 4

If you are an athlete - I would actually suggest you CALCULATE a requirement for these as a PRIORITY - then go back and calculate protein / fat:
moderately active: 4.5 - 6.5 g/ kg (about 2 - 3g/ pound)
highly active: 6.5 - 9 g/ kg (about 3 - 4g/ pound)

 

[MaxBrenner]

IIFYM
If It Fits Your Macro[nutrient]s

Quick explanation:

The phrase If It Fits Your Macros (often abbreviated to IIFYM) refers to meeting the individual macronutrient needs relevant to one's goals and then filling the remaining calories with foods of personal preference.

Quick example:

-200lb man at 20% body fat wants to lose weight
-Maintenance calories: 3000
-Calories to cut: 2400
-1.5g protein per lb/LBM: (1.5 * 160) 240g
-0.45g fat per lb/BW: (200 * 0.45) 90g
-Calories from fats + protein minimums: (240 * 4) + (90 * 9) = 1770
-Calories from reaching minimums taken from calories to cut: (2400 - 1770) 630
-He has 630 kcal left to fill with whatever foods he chooses and still lose weight as a result of remaining in a calorie deficit.

Tips (some are general and do not specifically pertain to IIFYM):

-Try to get most of your macros from whole foods. They are high in micronutrients needed to maintain overall health
-Tailor your meals to suit your individual preference. 6 meals a day is the same as 3 meals a day
-Timing your nutrients is not necessary. There is no universal macro or calorie breakdown you should be eating pre and/or post-workout. Overall micronutrient, macronutrient and calorie intake relevant to your goal(s) is far more important.

 

[MaxBrenner]

Meal Timing & Frequency.

Meal Timing & Frequency has NO bearing on Body Compostion.

Studies -

Influence of the feeding frequency on nutrient uti... [Eur J Clin Nutr. 1991] - PubMed result
Eur J Clin Nutr. 1991 Mar;45(3):161-9.Links
Influence of the feeding frequency on nutrient utilization in man: consequences for energy metabolism.

Verboeket-van de Venne WP, Westerterp KR.
Department of Human Biology, University of Limburg, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
A study was conducted to investigate whether there is a diurnal pattern of nutrient utilization in man and how this is affected by meal frequency to explain possible consequences of meal frequency for body weight regulation. When the daily energy intake is consumed in a small number of large meals, there is an increased chance to become overweight, possibly by an elevated lipogenesis (fat synthesis and accumulation) or storage of energy after the meal. Thirteen subjects, two males and eleven females, were fed to energy balance in two meals per day (gorging pattern) and seven meals per day (nibbling pattern) over 2-day intervals. On the second day on each feeding regimen, the diurnal pattern of nutrient utilization was calculated from simultaneous measurements of oxygen consumption, carbon dioxide production and urinary nitrogen excretion over 3 h intervals in a respiration chamber. A gorging pattern of energy intake resulted in a stronger diurnal periodicity of nutrient utilization, compared to a nibbling pattern. However, there were no consequences for the total 24 h energy expenditure (24 h EE) of the two feeding patterns (5.57 +/- 0.16 kJ/min for the gorging pattern; 5.44 +/- 0.18 kJ/min for the nibbling pattern). Concerning the periodicity of nutrient utilization, protein oxidation during the day did not change between the two feeding patterns. In the gorging pattern, carbohydrate oxidation was significantly elevated during the interval following the first meal (ie from 1200 h to 1500 h, P less than 0.01) and the second meal (ie from 1800 h to 2100 h, P less than 0.05). The decreased rate of carbohydrate oxidation observed during the fasting period (from rising in the morning until the first meal at 1200 h), was compensated by an increased fat oxidation from 0900 to 1200 h to cover energy needs. In the nibbling pattern, carbohydrate and fat oxidation remained relatively constant during the active hours of the day.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
Quote:
Compared with nibbling, neither gorging nor a morn... [Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2001] - PubMed result
Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2001 Apr;25(4):519-28.Links
Compared with nibbling, neither gorging nor a morning fast affect short-term energy balance in obese patients in a chamber calorimeter.

Taylor MA, Garrow JS.
Department of Nutrition and Dietetics, King's College London, London, UK.
OBJECTIVE: To test if a diet of 4.2 MJ/24 h as six isocaloric meals would result in a lower subsequent energy intake, or greater energy output than (a) 4.2 MJ/24 h as two isocaloric meals or (b) a morning fast followed by free access to food. DESIGN: Subjects were confined to the Metabolic Unit from 19:00 h on day 1 to 09:30 h on day 6. Each day they had a fixed diet providing 4.2 MJ with three pairs of meal patterns which were offered in random sequence. They were: six meals vs two meals without access to additional foods (6vs2), or six meals vs 2 meals with access to additional food (6+vs2+), or six meals vs four meals (6+vsAMFAST). In the AMFAST condition the first two meals of the day were omitted to reduce daily intake to 2.8 MJ and to create a morning fast, but additional food was accessible thereafter. Patients were confined in the chamber calorimeter from 19:00 h on day 2 until 09:00 h on day 4, and then from 19:00 h on day 4 to 09:00 h on day 6. The order in which each meal pattern was offered was balanced over time. MEASUREMENTS: Energy expenditure (chamber calorimetry), spontaneous activity (video) and energy intake (where additional foods were available) during the final 24 h of each dietary component. SUBJECTS: Ten (6vs2), eight (6+vs2+) and eight (6+vsAMFAST) women were recruited who had a BMI of greater than 25 kg/m2. RESULTS: From experiment 6vs2 the difference between energy expenditure with six meals (10.00 MJ) and two meals (9.96 MJ) was not significant (P=0.88). Energy expenditure between 23:00 h and 08:00 h ('night') was, however, significantly higher (P=0.02) with two meals (9.12 MJ/24 h) compared with six meals (8.34 MJ/24 h). The pattern of spontaneous physical activity did not differ significantly between these two meal patterns (P>0.05). Total energy intake was affected by neither meal frequency in experiment 6+vs2+ (10.75 MJ with six, 11.08 MJ with two; P=0.58) nor a morning fast in experiment 6+vsAMFAST (8.55 MJ/24 h with six, 7.60 MJ with AMFAST; P=0.40). The total diet of subjects who had a morning fast tended to have a lower percentage of total energy from carbohydrate (40%) than when they had six meals per 24 h (49%) (P=0.05). Subsequent energy balance was affected by neither meal frequency (6vs2; P=0.88, 6+vs2+; P=0.50) nor a morning fast (P=0.18). CONCLUSIONS: In the short term, meal frequency and a period of fasting have no major impact on energy intake or expenditure but energy expenditure is delayed with a lower meal frequency compared with a higher meal frequency. This might be attributed to the thermogenic effect of food continuing into the night when a later, larger meal is given. A morning fast resulted in a diet which tended to have a lower percentage of energy from carbohydrate than with no fast.

 

[MaxBrenner]

Acute effects on metabolism and appetite profile o... [Br J Nutr. 2008] - PubMed result
Br J Nutr. 2008 Jun;99(6):1316-21. Epub 2007 Dec 6. Links
Acute effects on metabolism and appetite profile of one meal difference in the lower range of meal frequency.

Smeets AJ, Westerterp-Plantenga MS.
Department of Human Biology, Maastricht University, P.O. Box 616, 6200 MD, Maastricht, The Netherlands. astrid.smeets@hb.unimaas.nl
A gorging pattern of food intake has been shown to enhance lipogenesis and increase body weight, which may be due to large fluctuations in storage and mobilisation of nutrients. In a state of energy balance, increasing meal frequency, and thereby decreasing inter-meal interval, may prevent large metabolic fluctuations. Our aim was to study the effect of the inter-meal interval by dividing energy intake over two or three meals on energy expenditure, substrate oxidation and 24 h satiety, in healthy, normal-weight women in a state of energy balance. The study was a randomised crossover design with two experimental conditions. During the two experimental conditions subjects (fourteen normal-weight women, aged 24.4 (SD 7.1) years, underwent 36 h sessions in energy balance in a respiration chamber for measurements of energy expenditure and substrate oxidation. The subjects were given two (breakfast, dinner) or three (breakfast, lunch, dinner) meals per d. We chose to omit lunch in the two meals condition, because this resulted in a marked difference in inter-meal-interval after breakfast (8.5 h v. 4 h). Eating three meals compared with two meals had no effects on 24 h energy expenditure, diet-induced thermogenesis, activity-induced energy expenditure and sleeping metabolic rate. Eating three meals compared with two meals increased 24 h fat oxidation, but decreased the amount of fat oxidised from the breakfast. The same amount of energy divided over three meals compared with over two meals increased satiety feelings over 24 h. In healthy, normal-weight women, decreasing the inter-meal interval sustains satiety, particularly during the day, and sustains fat oxidation, particularly during the night.
PMID: 18053311 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Quote:
Meal frequency and energy balance. [Br J Nutr. 1997] - PubMed result
Br J Nutr. 1997 Apr;77 Suppl 1:S57-70. Links
Meal frequency and energy balance.

Bellisle F, McDevitt R, Prentice AM.
INSERM U341, Hotel Dieu de Paris, France.
Several epidemiological studies have observed an inverse relationship between people's habitual frequency of eating and body weight, leading to the suggestion that a 'nibbling' meal pattern may help in the avoidance of obesity. A review of all pertinent studies shows that, although many fail to find any significant relationship, the relationship is consistently inverse in those that do observe a relationship. However, this finding is highly vulnerable to the probable confounding effects of post hoc changes in dietary patterns as a consequence of weight gain and to dietary under-reporting which undoubtedly invalidates some of the studies. We conclude that the epidemiological evidence is at best very weak, and almost certainly represents an artefact. A detailed review of the possible mechanistic explanations for a metabolic advantage of nibbling meal patterns failed to reveal significant benefits in respect of energy expenditure. Although some short-term studies suggest that the thermic effect of feeding is higher when an isoenergetic test load is divided into multiple small meals, other studies refute this, and most are neutral. More importantly, studies using whole-body calorimetry and doubly-labelled water to assess total 24 h energy expenditure find no difference between nibbling and gorging. Finally, with the exception of a single study, there is no evidence that weight loss on hypoenergetic regimens is altered by meal frequency. We conclude that any effects of meal pattern on the regulation of body weight are likely to be mediated through effects on the food intake side of the energy balance equation.

 

[MaxBrenner]

Myth of Post Workout Window.

The postexercise "anabolic window" is a highly misused & abused concept. Preworkout nutrition all but cancels the urgency, unless you're an endurance athlete with multiple glycogen-depleting events in a single day. Getting down to brass tacks, a relatively recent study (Power et al. 2009) showed that a 45g dose of whey protein isolate takes appx 50 minutes to cause blood AA levels to peak. Resulting insulin levels, which peaked at 40 minutes after ingestion, remained at elevations known to max out the inhibition of muscle protein breakdown (15-30 mU/L) for 120 minutes after ingestion. This dose takes 3 hours for insulin & AA levels to return to baseline from the point of ingestion. The inclusion of carbs to this dose would cause AA & insulin levels to peak higher & stay elevated above baseline even longer.

So much for the anabolic peephole & the urgency to down AAs during your weight training workout; they are already seeping into circulation (& will continue to do so after your training bout is done). Even in the event that a preworkout meal is skipped, the anabolic effect of the postworkout meal is increased as a supercompensatory response (Deldicque et al, 2010). Moving on, another recent study (Staples et al, 2010) found that a substantial dose of carbohydrate (50g maltodextrin) added to 25g whey protein was unable to further increase postexercise net muscle protein balance compared to the protein dose without carbs. Again, this is not to say that adding carbs at this point is counterproductive, but it certainly doesn't support the idea that you must get your lightning-fast postexercise carb orgy for optimal results.

To add to this... Why has the majority of longer-term research failed to show any meaningful differences in nutrient timing relative to the resistance training bout? It's likely because the body is smarter than we give it credit for. Most people don't know that as a result of a single training bout, the receptivity of muscle to protein dosing can persist for at least 24 hours:

Enhanced amino acid sensitivity of myofibrillar pr... [J Nutr. 2011] - PubMed result



The "windows" for taking advantage of nutrient timing are not little peepholes. They're more like bay windows of a mansion. You're ignoring just how long the anabolic effects are of a typical mixed meal. Depending on the size of a meal, it takes a good 1-2 hours for circulating substrate levels to peak, and it takes a good 3-6 hours (or more) for everythng to drop back down to baseline.

You're also ignoring the fact that the anabolic effects of a meal are maxed out at much lower levels than typical meals drive insulin & amino acids up to. Furthermore, you're also ignoring the body's ability of anabolic (& fat-oxidative) supercompensation when forced to work in the absence of fuels. So, metaphorically speaking, our physiology basically has the universe mapped out and you're thinking it needs to be taught addition & subtraction.
Properly done preworkout nutrition EASILY elevates insulin above and beyond the maximal threshold seen to inhibit muscle protein breakdown. This insulin elevation resulting from the preworkout meal can persist long after your resistance training bout is done. Therefore, thinking you need to spike anything is only the result of neglecting your preworkout nutrition"

 

[Rugby88]

Do you own the choc store?

 

[Shrek]

Do you own the choc store?

Beat me too it.

 

[MaxBrenner]

Do you own the choc store?

In my sleep I do

 

[MaxBrenner]

Studies

Increased meal frequency does not promote greater ... [Br J Nutr. 2010] - PubMed result
This study shows there was no difference in weight loss between subjects with high/low meal frequencies.

Meal frequency and energy balance. [Br J Nutr. 1997] - PubMed result
Evidence supports that meal frequency has nothing to do with energy in the subjects.

Compared with nibbling, neither gorging nor a morn... [Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2001] - PubMed result
Yet again, no difference in energy in the subjects compared to 2 meals/d to 6 meals/d.

And if you want to do some more detailed digging, you can read:


Influence of the feeding frequency on nutrient uti... [Eur J Clin Nutr. 1991] - PubMed result
Eur J Clin Nutr. 1991 Mar;45(3):161-9.Links
Influence of the feeding frequency on nutrient utilization in man: consequences for energy metabolism.

Compared with nibbling, neither gorging nor a morn... [Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2001] - PubMed result
Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2001 Apr;25(4):519-28.Links
Compared with nibbling, neither gorging nor a morning fast affect short-term energy balance in obese patients in a chamber calorimeter.

Acute effects on metabolism and appetite profile o... [Br J Nutr. 2008] - PubMed result
Br J Nutr. 2008 Jun;99(6):1316-21. Epub 2007 Dec 6. Links
Acute effects on metabolism and appetite profile of one meal difference in the lower range of meal frequency.

Influence of the feeding frequency on nutrient uti... [Eur J Clin Nutr. 1991] - PubMed result
Eur J Clin Nutr. 1991 Mar;45(3):161-9.Links
Influence of the feeding frequency on nutrient utilization in man: consequences for energy metabolism.

Compared with nibbling, neither gorging nor a morn... [Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2001] - PubMed result
Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2001 Apr;25(4):519-28.Links
Compared with nibbling, neither gorging nor a morning fast affect short-term energy balance in obese patients in a chamber calorimeter.

Acute effects on metabolism and appetite profile o... [Br J Nutr. 2008] - PubMed result
Br J Nutr. 2008 Jun;99(6):1316-21. Epub 2007 Dec 6. Links
Acute effects on metabolism and appetite profile of one meal difference in the lower range of meal frequency.

Meal frequency and energy balance. [Br J Nutr. 1997] - PubMed result
Br J Nutr. 1997 Apr;77 Suppl 1:S57-70. Links
Meal frequency and energy balance.

Highlighting the positive impact of increasing fee... [Forum Nutr. 2003] - PubMed result
Forum Nutr. 2003;56:126-8.Links
Highlighting the positive impact of increasing feeding frequency on metabolism and weight management.

Evidence that eating frequency is inversely relate... [Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 1998] - PubMed result
Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 1998 Feb;22(2):105-12.Links
Evidence that eating frequency is inversely related to body weight status in male, but not female, non-obese adults reporting valid dietary intakes.

Decreased thermic effect of food after an irregula... [Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2004] - PubMed result
Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2004 May;28(5):653-60. Links
Decreased thermic effect of food after an irregular compared with a regular meal pattern in healthy lean women.

Regular meal frequency creates more appropriate in... [Eur J Clin Nutr. 2004] - PubMed result
Eur J Clin Nutr. 2004 Jul;58(7):1071-7. Links
Regular meal frequency creates more appropriate insulin sensitivity and lipid profiles compared with irregular meal frequency in healthy lean women.

Association of eating frequency with body fatness ... [Obesity (Silver Spring). 2007] - PubMed result
Obesity (Silver Spring). 2007 Jan;15(1):100-6. Links
Association of eating frequency with body fatness in pre- and postmenopausal women.

Beneficial metabolic effects of regular meal frequ... [Am J Clin Nutr. 2005] - PubMed result
Am J Clin Nutr. 2005 Jan;81(1):16-24. Links
Comment in:
Am J Clin Nutr. 2005 Jan;81(1):3-4.
Beneficial metabolic effects of regular meal frequency on dietary thermogenesis, insulin sensitivity, and fasting lipid profiles in healthy obese women.

Acute appetite reduction associated with an increa... [Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 1999] - PubMed result
Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 1999 Nov;23(11):1151-9.Links
Acute appetite reduction associated with an increased frequency of eating in obese males.