4 ms·

> Sorry for the dumb question, but given the total calories are the same, does this mean that it is generally healthier to eat one big meal per day rather than

> Sorry for the dumb question, but given the total calories are the same, does this mean that it is generally healthier to eat one big meal per day rather than 10 small ones? We can't answer this confidently, the way I would say it is: there isn't strong evidence to support the idea that either is better. > Given my current understanding from all the intermittent fasting hype lately, it is indeed better to eat big meals rarely rather than small meals frequently. For some reason, your post got me slightly confused because I lack the necessary knowledge to have a proper model about nutrition in place. The IF people (along with the Keto people) use a variety of tricks to try and prove their point. There is absolutely not a single paper showing calorically balanced food intake has different clinically significant outcomes. Period, full stop etc. There are tons of papers saying things like if you force people to eat in constrained windows they eat fewer calories (or if you force people to eat high fat diets they eat fewer calories etc.). Those are all useful outcomes: they are "compliance hacks." But they idea that any of these are significantly metabolically different is not at all supported by the science. As for yourself: nutritional science is weak, and if the nutritional science says do something, and you observe a bad outcome in yourself from doing it, I'd take your own personal data over the nutritional science, frankly. For instance: fiber is a great modulator. If you go to a GI specialist and say "I'm having dietary issues," increasing fiber is usually the first thing they recommend. But also, sometimes that doesn't work and then the next thing is decreasing fiber (FODMAP diet). So it's really hard to make sweeping recommendations because the body is so complex and nutrition involves so many different cooperating systems that can all go slightly wrong.

enraged_camel 8y ago
>>But they idea that any of these are significantly metabolically different is not at all supported by the science. This doesn't seem correct. IF has statistically significant benefits: https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/intermittent-fasting-surprising-update-2018062914156 https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/intermittent-fasting-sur... (Supporting papers linked at the end)
- wdewind 8y ago
  I'm sorry to just repost my paragraph from above, but I believe I already responded to this: > The IF people (along with the Keto people) use a variety of tricks to try and prove their point. There is absolutely not a single paper showing calorically balanced food intake has clinically significant outcomes. Period, full stop etc. There are tons of papers saying things like if you force people to eat in constrained windows they eat fewer calories (or if you force people to eat high fat diets they eat fewer calories etc.). Those are all useful outcomes: they are "compliance hacks." But they idea that any of these are significantly metabolically different is not at all supported by the science. 1. These papers do not show different outcomes with calorically controlled inputs, as I mentioned. One of the tricks used by the IF scientific community is to serve the same number of calories and so it looks like the same number of calories were consumed in the abstract. They never are, because if this did happen it would have massive implications for our understanding of the human body. It would require us to be wrong about a lot of things. 2. There is a difference between statistical significance (which could be, but has not been, shown in calorically controlled diets), and clinical significance (which definitely has not been shown in calorically controlled diets, and likely will not).
  - whiddershins 8y ago
    I agree with everything you are saying and have mostly come to the same conclusions you have except: It’s obviously not true that for any given set of calories consumed the body has only one option of what to do with them. It can build muscle, store fat, repair heart walls, excrete it, and so forth. This is determined by a bunch of factors including hormones. So if hormonal balance or other metabolic behavior is modulated by macro (or micro) nutrient intake, then the calorie emphasis might be overly simplistic.
    - wdewind 8y ago
      > It’s obviously not true that for any given set of calories consumed the body has only one option of what to do with them. It can build muscle, store fat, repair heart walls, excrete it, and so forth. Yep, I would not suggest anyone take up a diet of pure sugar, only that if you are trying to use science to set your diet we aren't really confident, at the level of macros, about what makes a difference, but we are very confident about excess calories.
airstrike 8y ago
Somewhat unrelated, but you seem knowledgeable enough and I have this burning need to ask this question to someone: when prescribed to the average non-diabetic person, does the average diet for diabetics promote improved health? In other words, should we all just be eating as if we were diabetics?
- wdewind 8y ago
  > In other words, should we all just be eating as if we were diabetics? I assume you mean low glycemic load. I don't think so. I think we should all focus primarily on eating the right number of calories, and the behaviors that get us to do that. If that is Keto, or IF, or Low GI, even something random like afternoon naps then great. Also, for some populations, like athletes, a low-gi diet would end up resulting in decreased performance. I think it's really difficult to make sweeping dietary recommendations because there are just so many confounding factors.

enraged_camel 8y ago

>>But they idea that any of these are significantly metabolically different is not at all supported by the science. This doesn't seem correct. IF has statistically significant benefits: https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/intermittent-fasting-surprising-update-2018062914156 https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/intermittent-fasting-sur... (Supporting papers linked at the end)

wdewind 8y ago
I'm sorry to just repost my paragraph from above, but I believe I already responded to this: > The IF people (along with the Keto people) use a variety of tricks to try and prove their point. There is absolutely not a single paper showing calorically balanced food intake has clinically significant outcomes. Period, full stop etc. There are tons of papers saying things like if you force people to eat in constrained windows they eat fewer calories (or if you force people to eat high fat diets they eat fewer calories etc.). Those are all useful outcomes: they are "compliance hacks." But they idea that any of these are significantly metabolically different is not at all supported by the science. 1. These papers do not show different outcomes with calorically controlled inputs, as I mentioned. One of the tricks used by the IF scientific community is to serve the same number of calories and so it looks like the same number of calories were consumed in the abstract. They never are, because if this did happen it would have massive implications for our understanding of the human body. It would require us to be wrong about a lot of things. 2. There is a difference between statistical significance (which could be, but has not been, shown in calorically controlled diets), and clinical significance (which definitely has not been shown in calorically controlled diets, and likely will not).
- whiddershins 8y ago
  I agree with everything you are saying and have mostly come to the same conclusions you have except: It’s obviously not true that for any given set of calories consumed the body has only one option of what to do with them. It can build muscle, store fat, repair heart walls, excrete it, and so forth. This is determined by a bunch of factors including hormones. So if hormonal balance or other metabolic behavior is modulated by macro (or micro) nutrient intake, then the calorie emphasis might be overly simplistic.
  - wdewind 8y ago
    > It’s obviously not true that for any given set of calories consumed the body has only one option of what to do with them. It can build muscle, store fat, repair heart walls, excrete it, and so forth. Yep, I would not suggest anyone take up a diet of pure sugar, only that if you are trying to use science to set your diet we aren't really confident, at the level of macros, about what makes a difference, but we are very confident about excess calories.

airstrike 8y ago

Somewhat unrelated, but you seem knowledgeable enough and I have this burning need to ask this question to someone: when prescribed to the average non-diabetic person, does the average diet for diabetics promote improved health? In other words, should we all just be eating as if we were diabetics?

wdewind 8y ago
> In other words, should we all just be eating as if we were diabetics? I assume you mean low glycemic load. I don't think so. I think we should all focus primarily on eating the right number of calories, and the behaviors that get us to do that. If that is Keto, or IF, or Low GI, even something random like afternoon naps then great. Also, for some populations, like athletes, a low-gi diet would end up resulting in decreased performance. I think it's really difficult to make sweeping dietary recommendations because there are just so many confounding factors.