Sources, in no particular order:
tl:dr
Some of the research said there were no significant changes in weight between methods if the caloric intake was maintained, however it mentioned cardiovascular disease risk factors and negative change in hematologic variables in a 1 meal per day diet.
Some of the research on obese subjects showed positive weight loss in increased meal frequency.
Some of the research said that there was positive changes in weight loss on a more frequent meal diet, mostly done on women and children.
Some of the research found there was no corelation between metabolism "speed" and meal frequency.
Most of the research found that increased meal frequency is beneficial for regulation of insulin, lipid and colesterol levels.
Most of the research concluded that the results were influenced too much by caloric intake missreporting by the subjects.
Most of the research cited a multitude of other factors that could influence the results.
Most of the research concluded that eating more meals was highly recommended for non-insulin dependant diabetes patients.
Most of the research said that more research was needed.
My conclusion: If you are a healthy subject, eating more frequently or eating 1 meal a day will not matter in terms of weight loss if the caloric intake is the same, however eating more meals per day prevents cardiovascular diseases, maintains leves or essential fats, insulin and colesterol levels. On non-healthy (obese) women and children, studies found that eating more meals a day is beneficial to weightloss, but i would take this information with a grain of salt because: missreporting, outside factors.
tl:dr of the tl:dr - Eating 1 meal, or a lot, is the same in terms of weightloss if the caloric intake is the same. However, eating more frequently is healthier than eating 1 meal a day. On obese subjects the weight loss benefits of meal frequency are still debated.
P.S. if someone can find me meal frequency research on male obese subjects, that would be great for more insight
P.P.S. can anyone explain what this means:
Morning plasma glucose concentrations were significantly greater in subjects when they were consuming 1 meal/d compared to when they were consuming 3 meals/d (Table 1). When consuming 1 meal/d the subjects exhibited poorer glucose tolerance as indicated by a significantly greater and more prolonged elevation of plasma glucose concentrations compared to subjects consuming 3 meals/d diet (Fig. 1). Fasting plasma insulin concentrations were not significantly affected by meal frequency (Table 1), and there were no significant effects of diet on insulin responses to glucose during the OGTT, although there was a trend towards a delayed insulin response when subjects consumed 1 meal/d
link
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2121099/
Thanks guys, now im interested in food research, ill keep you posted if i find more stuff relevant to this thread lol. Holy shit its 3 am
"Results:Subjects who completed the study maintained their body weight within 2 kg of their initial weight throughout the 6-mo period. There were no significant effects of meal frequency on heart rate, body temperature, or most of the blood variables measured. However, when consuming 1 meal/d, subjects had a significant increase in hunger; a significant modification of body composition, including reductions in fat mass; significant increases in blood pressure and in total, LDL-, and HDL-cholesterol concentrations; and a significant decrease in concentrations of cortisol.
Conclusions:Normal-weight subjects are able to comply with a 1 meal/d diet. When meal frequency is decreased without a reduction in overall calorie intake, modest changes occur in body composition, some cardiovascular disease risk factors, and hematologic variables. Diurnal variations may affect outcomes."
"A team of cardiologists in the UAE found that people observing Ramadan, the Islamic fast, enjoy a positive effect on their lipid profile, which means there is a reduction of cholesterol in the blood.[11] Also adherence to Eastern Orthodox fasting periods contributes to an improvement in the blood lipid profile, including a decrease in total and LDL cholesterol, and a decrease in the LDL to HDL cholesterol ratio. These results suggest a possible positive impact on the obesity levels of individuals who adhere to these fasting periods"
"There is no biological reason for eating three meals a day," says Yale University history professor Paul Freedman, editor of Food: The History of Taste (University of California Press, 2007).
The three-meals model is also being fought by the food industry.
"The food industry wants you to buy more food," thus it urges us to eat as much and as often as possible. It's an easy sell, "because Americans have always liked snacks."
“The effects of differences in meal frequency on body weight, body composition, and energy expenditure were studied in mildly food-restricted male rats. Two groups were fed approximately 80% of usual food intake (as periodically determined in a group of ad libitum fed controls) for 131 days. One group received all of its food in 2 meals/day and the other received all of its food in 10-12 meals/day. The two groups did not differ in food intake, body weight, body composition, food efficiency (carcass energy gain per amount of food eaten), or energy expenditure at any time during the study. Both food-restricted groups had a lower food intake, body weight gain, and energy expenditure than a group of ad libitum-fed controls. In conclusion, these results suggest that amount of food eaten, but not the pattern with which it is ingested, has a major influence on energy balance during mild food restriction.“
Meal frequency and energy balance.
Br J Nutr. 1997 Apr;77 Suppl 1:S57-70.
“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.”
Thermogenesis in humans after varying meal time frequency
Wolfram G, Kirchgessner M, Miller HL, Hollomey S.
To a group of 8 healthy persons a slightly hypocaloric diet with protein (13% of energy), carbohydrates (46% of energy) and fat (41% of energy) was given as one meal or as five meals in a change-over trial. Each person was 2 weeks on each regimen. Under the conditions of slight undernutrition and neutral temperature the balances of nitrogen, carbon and energy were assessed in 7-day collection periods, and according to 48-hour measurements of gaseous exchange (carbon-nitrogen balance method) by the procedures of indirect calorimetry. Changes of body weight were statistically not significant. At isocaloric supply of metabolizable energy with exactly the same foods in different meal frequencies no differences were found in the retention of carbon and energy. Urinary nitrogen excretion was slightly greater with a single daily meal, indicating influences on protein metabolism. The protein-derived energy was compensated by a decrease in the fat oxidation. The heat production calculated by indirect calorimetry was not significantly different with either meal frequency. Water, sodium and potassium balances were not different. The plasma concentrations of cholesterol and uric acid were not influenced by meal frequency, glucose and triglycerides showed typical behaviour depending on the time interval to the last meal. The results demonstrate that the meal frequency did not influence the energy balance.
Intermittent fasting may function as a form of nutritional hormesis.[10]
Alternate-day fasting may encourage fat oxidation.[11]
Alternate-day fasting may reduce body weight, LDL, and triglyceride levels to the same degree regardless of maintenance of low fat or high fat diet on the feeding day.[12]
A 2007 review of alternate day fasting in said "the findings in animals suggest that ADF may effectively modulate several risk factors, thereby preventing chronic disease, and that ADF may modulate disease risk to an extent similar to that of CR. More research is required to establish definitively the consequences of ADF."[9]
---
As you can see, it has both "benefits" and "cons", and the cons aren't a problem for normal individuals. On the other hand, 1-meal a day eaters had significant reductions in fat mass compared to the frequent eaters. Therefore, it's better for people wanting to lose weight.
http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=120853941