This is a common complaint and it represents a typical misunderstanding of muscular strength. Let's say you are able to do 200 X 5 X 5 on your bench press. Something comes up and you are forced to layoff training for several weeks, maybe a month. During that time you are then "detraining."

Once you get back to training, of course, the first thing you do is jump on the bench, 200 loaded on the bar. But, to your dismay, you have a hard time getting your reps. You can only manage 2 to 3 per set and that is pushing it. Oh, no! You've lost so much strength!

But you haven't. You haven't truly lost any strength at all, at least judging by this performance. Your performance has changed, but what you've really lost is "strength endurance" or "muscular endurance." See, you could bench press 200lbs before your layoff. If, after resuming training, you can still bench press 200lbs, you cannot take that as strong evidence that you've lost a lot of absolute strength. You've lost endurance but you can still "lift" what you lifted before.

Sometimes people equate their 'strength' to a particular rep maximum that is more than one. So if your 5RM changes, you've lost strength. But the absolute force required to move the bar each time is the same, so you haven't lost your overall ability to apply that absolute force, you've just lost some ability to continue to apply it for up to five reps.

RSS

Main GUS Feed
New Forum Threads
RSS By Email
(What is RSS?)

More Articles Concerning Maximum Strength

Other times, though, trainees are not talking about losing the reps, they are talking about their supposed 1RM (maximum strength) as represented by this particular 5RM or any other RM. Well, sure, a lot of misinformed 'trainers' still think estimated maxes are useful. In fact, some of them say that's all that should ever be done for a max: Estimate it! But in reality, estimates are only a tiny bit useful and an estimate about anything is only as good as what information you use to guess it with! You know what they say: A guess is only as good as the person making it.

See, if you lose some weight off your 5RM, or to put it more simply, you drop some reps during a layoff, you really have no way of knowing if and how that affected your maximum strength. The bar speed, etc. during your performance, may give you a clue that you lost some maximum ability but this is all imaginary. In other words, in this instance, you are worried about losing strength that you have never actually displayed. That's like worrying about getting your car stolen and then remembering you don't own a car.

As I've said so many times, to the point I sound quite pedantic, I'm sure, your max is the most you can actually lift and do lift; not what you think you can lift.

Given the above scenario, where you've dropped some reps off your 5x5 with 200 pounds, you should be able to regain that lost endurance fairly quickly and easily. Really, the quickest way to add back in reps, is to perform sets to failure. Next workout, do so again, and before you know it you'll have you're old reps back. The only problem with this is it may compromise form somewhat because you may get in too much of a hurry and be caught up in counting reps instead of paying attention to how badly you are lifting. So, there are more conservative but sounder ways to recapture that performance while still paying attention to what the heck you are doing.

This might consist of an easy build up of sets of 2 to 3, with good rest in between so that performance stays consistent. Build up to a place close to or exceeding your working weight from before, if you can.

Then, the next workout, you can do a similar thing, except that you tend toward sets of three and four in your build up. The next time, you could build up to your working range and hit the 5 reppers and see if you feel on solid enough ground to go ahead and start back where you left off. This can be generally applied to other types of sets, not just 5 reppers, of course! You just have to build up to it over fewer or more sessions, depending on the rep number you were looking to regain. This method assures that quality is maintained while getting your reps back. Once you have done that, you will want to reduce your rest periods back down to where they were before, approximately, if you need to.

by EricT

You got stung by a bee, put some baking soda and vinegar on it, and ten minutes later the pain was gone! It worked. OR, maybe there is another explanation. Maybe you are not allergic to bee stings, had a minor local reaction, and the pain simply went away on its on. I personally seldom have the pain from a bee sting last longer than 10 or 20 minutes and I forget all about it. Yep.

So you can see why I am not overly impressed when someone claims that such and such made the bee sting boo-boo all better in ten minutes. Ten minutes? So what? I would have been impressed with 20 seconds. Moral, pain often goes away on it's own. Even a minor headache, unless the relief from a pill is almost instantaneous, you can never be quite sure that your headache medicine did any good. Heck, it could have been a placebo effect, which wields it's power most obviously in the realm of pain.

But let's say someone else told you they tried another remedy for bee stings. Raw onion. They grated up the onion, applied it to the stung area, and applied a bandage. The relief was "immediate" and the swelling went down. You might think, 'wow, that works better than my baking soda and vinegar…which took ten whole minutes'. Well, before you jump to conclusions, you might want to ask what your fried means by "immediate". Maybe his idea of immediate is different than yours. A scientific inquiry would not use such a word without giving it a concrete definition. And then, of course, a whole lot more people would have to get this immediate relief.

RSS

Main GUS Feed
New Forum Threads
RSS By Email
(What is RSS?)

More First Aid Articles

Alas, it is not immediate to many people, but it is too others. If you can't abide any physical discomfort far longer than a few seconds without slathering on a salve or popping a pill, nothing short of a nano-second may be mean immediate relief to you. However, if you are more stoic and bravely wait for the pain to resolve on it's own, maybe for hours, ten minutes may seem to be more immediate to your way of thinking. So be aware of the language and it's meaning. What is your criteria for naming an event which follows another event "immediate?" Is it the same as 'instantaneous'?

The point is that different people feel and deal with pain in different ways. The experience of pain is subjective. So, to actually test these remedies, although it is not likely anyone would, you'd need a lot more than one test subject. You'd need many. And you'd need a control group, that does nothing to treat the bee stings. And you'd need a placebo group. And perhaps a statistician to tie it all up with a nice bow. But, you can't really administer to bee stings to people from an ethical standpoint, which is often what gives those who sell anecdotal evidence as real evidence an ace in the hole, as they see it. How do we counter this? Well it's pretty easy. Even without well controlled clinical studies, science still has better information. That is because any study with a decent number of subjects is still better than some dude, his kitchen, and his blog.

Therefore, for instance, consider studies such as this Randomized Controlled Trial of Topical Aspirin in the Treatment of Bee and Wasp Stings. There are lots and lots of things wrong with conducting a study by recruiting people who call a poison information center after being stung by a bee. But hey, it's loads better than NO STUDY AT ALL. The study did garner some interesting results, after all. Topical aspirin didn't work, plus significantly increased the duration of the redness. And the control treatment, traditional ice application, well that seemed to do the trick fairly quickly. We could probably say that ice has more evidence for being a good choice than baking soda or onion, then.

But wait a minute. Do we really need a 'treatment' for minor bee or wasp sting reactions? I mean, do we need a treatment other than something to dull the discomfort? What all the self-help gurus with their one million home remedies don't get is that so many of the things they have treatments for don't really need to be treated! When it comes to bee and wasp stings, most of them cause minor local reactions, and as I hope I've made abundantly clear, they resolve themselves fairly quickly, regardless if you treat them. A healthy body doesn't need any help to deal with this on its own, providing there is not a severe reaction. So any treatment that you choose, really only needs to be palliative. That is, it helps control the discomfort or pain, if you really need it. A topical analgesic from the drug store will work. And if you think big pharma is evil and a little ointment will kill you, slap some ice on it and it'll numb right up. OR, you could just buck it up and stop being such a cry baby. It could be MUCH worse, you could have suffered a large local reaction or a systemic reaction, requiring emergency medical care.

I don't mean to make a big deal out of baking soda. The above examples are, to me, silly, but not exactly harmful. When it comes to bee stings, as long as you understand how to recognize and deal with a large systemic reaction, messing around with a common local reaction will probably not harm you much, unless you dispense with 'common sense' altogether and put caustic substances on it. Pouring hot sauce on a bee sting would not be a great idea, and yet, I wouldn't be surprised if some self-help medical book touted it.

But what about something that really needs to be dealt with in a decisive way, lest it turn into a bigger problem. What if your kid has head lice? You pick up your handy copy of "Clean It! Fix It! Eat It!" and you are advised to use mayonnaise to get rid of the lice. So now, you have a kid with a greasy head and head lice, and next thing you know, the whole family has it. There is a danger in calling forth the slippery slope argument. Just because you believe one claim about bee sting treatments does not mean you'll believe every other similar claim you read. I know that. But when such thinking represents a pattern, and it normally does, it is quite possible for legitimate medical care could be sidestepped in favor of home brew alternative treatments at the wrong time, putting you or your loved ones in needless danger.

If you came to this page looking for first aid information for bee and wasp stings, please see How to Recognize and What to Do About Allergic Reactions to Bee and Wasp Stings.

Comments

by EricT

You may have noticed that it can be difficult to get a good deep breath in between reps of the front squat. Not everybody has this problem to the same extent, but most everybody would have noticed that the front squat makes breathing a bit restricted. The position of the elbows, combined with the heavy load on the shoulders, restricts the chest. It is easy to simulate this effect right now as you read this: simply raise your arms up over your head and try to take a deep breath into your upper chest. You should notice that the chest wall is restricted and it is close to impossible to take a full breath this way.

Now, many of you should right now be saying, but Eric, dammit, you're not supposed to breathe into your upper chest. Bingo! This means that those trainees who are upper chest breathers will have more difficulty during the front squat than those who are diaphragmatic breathers. For the purpose of this explanation, we will assume two general groups of trainees:

• Habitual upper chest breathers (you breath this way all the time)
• Stress chest breathers (you breathe this was when your are out of breath, anxious, etc.)

Each group, to some extent, must be able to take proper diaphragmatic breaths during the front squat in order to get that precious air. This means each group may need to practice diaphragmatic breathing on a fundamental level. Therefore, the first thing to do to begin solving this problem is to read Paradoxical Versus Diaphragmatic Breathing, see where you stand and follow the steps in the article accordingly.

RSS

Main GUS Feed
New Forum Threads
RSS By Email
(What is RSS?)

More Breathing Articles

Even some of us who a good diaphragmatic breathers during normal, quiet breathing may switch to upper chest breathing when we a exerting ourselves and are out of breath.

During the front squat itself, beyond the trouble getting a good breath between reps, there are a couple of other associated problems. When you front squat, your core is braced. Now, your core "braces" automatically in response to you loading a heavy bar on your shoulders and trying to maintain equilibrium. Also, you probably would have used an "abdominal brace" which is the conscious act of tightening the core muscles to get ready for a heavy lift, which would serve to reinforce the natural contraction that is already happening intermittently as you hold the bar, because you are about to initiate a rep. What some people may find is that they are unable to maintain this core brace while breathing, which may lead to breath holding, either consciously or unconsciously. If you are a chest breather you will notice that this actually perturbs you and causes your upper body to actually move posteriorly and anteriorly. just slightly, but enough to cause further perturbation down the chain so that it is harder to maintain your front squat setup.

Also, some who do breathe correctly into through the diaphragm may find that they have a hard time maintaining a brace while using diaphragmatic breathing. In other words, they cannot maintain and abdominal brace without holding their breath. If you have this problem, and you have also been told that you have to suck in a big breath and hold it in order to brace the core, then you'll have a hard time ever learning to breath freely during front squats.

All that breath holding, both during the lift itself and in between when you don't know you're doing it, can end up making you dizzy, subject to exertional headaches, or even brief but dangerous blackouts. Now, you know me, I am no fear monger. These things are possible, not likely. One thing is clear, though, if you can't breathe you are going to be missing an essential ingredient in your lifting, so that's enough reason to solve this problem. However, if you are subject to dizzy spells or exertional headaches, the ability to take diaphragmatic breaths without feeling like you need to dump the bar can help you a great deal. Many lifters take a series of short panting breaths between reps of a very heavy lift, and although some of them do it for no reason other than to get ready to take an even bigger breath, others due it to "clear the cobwebs" for lack of a better phrase. Breaths like this may help to regulate elevating blood pressure between repetitions of a lift.

The Front Squat Breathing Drill

The first thing to do, as mentioned above, is to learn about proper diaphragmatic breathing and then to learn to do it. Depending on the depth of your problem with chest breathing, this may take a long while or just a couple of days or weeks. There is no point in engaging in a breathing drill that uses diaphragmatic breathing if you have never taken a diaphragmatic breath! You have a more fundamental problem and it is quite important that you fix it, as the article will explain: Fix Your Upper Chest Breathing.

Once you have become somewhat "adept" at correct breathing, you can begin to use the front squat breathing drill. The first part uses a concept invented by Stuart McGill, which he calls developing and "athletic diaphragm." For this purpose, he tells us to get ourselves good and out of breath, in some way, and then do front planks for time. The front planks force you to brace your core, through co-contraction of the abdominal, back, and glute muscles and being out of breath forces you to have to breathe while maintaining that core brace. For McGill, the purpose of this was not heavy lifting, but dynamic and multi-directional athletic movements that require core activation while continually breathing. As you can see, certain lifts cause similar needs, as they force us to maintain an activated core while still being able to catch our breath, and the front squat makes breathing more difficult for chest breathers.

So, the front planks are very useful for this, and I use them in this drill, but while they make diaphragmatic breathing more likely to be the breathing pattern used, they do not absolutely force you not to breathe correctly. This makes the front planks a good fit for those who are already habitual diaphragmatic breathers and just need to learn to maintain a core brace while breathing but not as useful for those that are having trouble during the front squat because they are chest breathers. Remember, you should have already learned about diaphragmatic breathing before starting this drill, but I do not expect you to be a master and do it under periods of stress.

For that reason, I have also included supine or 'glute' bridges. Bridges actually force you to breathe through the abdomen much better than planks. You will find, although you may have never noticed, that they restrict the chest in a similar way to the front squat. Once you combine that with being short of breath, it is a good trainer and reinforcer for maintaining correct breathing under stress. Still, the bridge does not require the core to be braced as vigorously as the front plank, so we use both. The bridge comes first, to remind us, activate, and reinforce proper breathing, and the front plank comes second to train it more effectively. So the first phase of this drill should last for several weeks, as long as you need it to feel thoroughly masterful of breathing in this way. Here are the steps, although they are so simple, listing them out is probably overkill.

So this is Phase One:

1. Do some kind of vigorous movement to get out of breath. You want to be panting and needing to "catch your breath." Hint: Larger muscles groups used through a large ROM will work quicker than something like the treadmill. Do body weight squats or something like that for ver quick repetitions. It is really your choice though, as long as get the job done.

2. As soon as you are out of breath, get into a supine bridge position and hold it for 15 to 30 seconds.

3. If you need to, get out of breath again.

4. Do another supine bridge, hold for 15 to 30 seconds.

5. If you need to, get out of breath again.

6. Get into a front plank position. If you are very tired you can do it on your elbows. Hold for 15 to 30 seconds.

7. Repeat. (I shouldn't have to tell you to get out of breath again if you need to, right.)

Continue phase one for at least three weeks or as long as you feel you need to. Then go to phase two. Phase two will involve Heavy Barbell Walkouts. A walkout is nothing more than loading a heavy bar on your shoulders and "walking out" as if you are about to do squats, but instead you only stand there with the bar for a while, forcing you to maintain position (it's a core thing).

This is phase two:

1. Set up the squat rack for a front squat and load the bar with your about ten pounds below your current heaviest working weight, or UP TO 10 to 20 lbs beyond it, if you are comfortable supporting it. Remember, you are going to be compromised and having trouble catching your breath, so act accordingly.

2. Get out of breath, just like in phase one.

3. Load the bar onto your shoulders in a front squat position and perform a front squat walkout. Hold for 15 to 30 seconds. You should be forced to catch your breath by breathing through your belly instead of your chest while also needed to maintain enough core brace to keep steady.

4. Put the bar back on the rack (I can't believe I wrote that out).

5. Rest a little then get out of breath again and repeat steps two and three.

6. Repeat step four.

As you move along, you can load the bar heavier and heavier. Normally you should always be able to do a heavy bar walkout with a heavier weight than you actually squat with but you do not normally do aerobics and get all panty before a walkout, so tread carefully and build up when you feel comfortable with it. Continue practice should make breathing during front squats second nature to you.

Breathing for Overhead Press (Military Press)

The same breathing difficulties are common during overhead press, if not even even more. More intrathoracic pressure is created during the press. The drill is used in the same way for the press as the beginning position for the press is similar to the front squat. See comments below for further explanation.

Comments

by EricT

By Paul M La Bounty¹, Bill I Campbell², Jacob Wilson³, Elfego Galvan⁴, John Berardi⁵, Susan M Kleiner⁶, Richard B Kreider⁷, Jeffrey R Stout⁸, Tim Ziegenfuss⁹, Marie Spano¹⁰, Abbie Smith¹¹ and Jose Antonio¹²

Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition 2011

Abstract

Position Statement: Admittedly, research to date examining the physiological effects of meal frequency in humans is somewhat limited. More specifically, data that has specifically examined the impact of meal frequency on body composition, training adaptations, and performance in physically active individuals and athletes is scant. Until more research is available in the physically active and athletic populations, definitive conclusions cannot be made. However, within the confines of the current scientific literature, we assert that:

1. Increasing meal frequency does not appear to favorably change body composition in sedentary populations.

2. If protein levels are adequate, increasing meal frequency during periods of hypoenergetic dieting may preserve lean body mass in athletic populations.

3. Increased meal frequency appears to have a positive effect on various blood markers of health, particularly LDL cholesterol, total cholesterol, and insulin.

4. Increased meal frequency does not appear to significantly enhance diet induced thermogenesis, total energy expenditure or resting metabolic rate.

RSS

Main GUS Feed
New Forum Threads
RSS By Email
(What is RSS?)

More Nutrition Articles

5. Increasing meal frequency appears to help decrease hunger and improve appetite control.

The following literature review has been prepared by the authors in support of the aforementioned position statement.

Introduction

Among adults 20 years or older, living in the United States, 65.1% are classified as overweight or obese [1]. Furthermore, there is no indication that this trend is improving [1]. Excess body fat has potential physical and psychological health implications as well as potential negative influences on sport performance as well. The various dietary aspects that are associated with overeating and obesity are not well understood [2]. One debated area that is often purported to play a role in body weight/composition changes is meal frequency. The amount and type of calories consumed, along with the frequency of eating, is greatly affected by sociological and cultural factors [3]. Recent evidence suggests that the frequency in which one eats may also be, at least in part, genetically influenced [4]. Infants have a natural desire to eat small meals (i.e., nibble) throughout the day [5]. However, as soon as a child reaches a certain age he/she is trained to consume meals in a generally predictable manner [5]. In the modernized world, meal frequency is affected by cultural/social norms as well as an individual's personal beliefs about his/her health or body composition. According to a study utilizing data from the 1987-1988 Nationwide Food Consumption Survey (NFCS), the average daily meal frequency for the 3,182 American adults that completed the study was 3.47 [6]. If meals that consisted of less than or equal to 70 kcals, (primarily consisting of tea, coffee, or diet beverages) were excluded from the analysis, the number decreased to 3.12 meals per day. These habits closely mirror the traditional three meals per day pattern (i.e., breakfast, lunch, and dinner) that is common throughout the industrialized world. Although it is often suggested that "nibblers" or "grazers" (i.e., defined in much of the pertinent literature as those that eat smaller meals, but more frequently throughout the day) may be at a metabolic advantage as compared to the "gorgers" (i.e., those that eat fewer, but larger meals), the evidence is inconclusive. Some scientists have theorized that consuming a small number of larger meals throughout the day may lead to increased obesity possibly due to increased fat synthesis and storage (i.e., lipogenesis) following a meal [7]. However, there remains debate within the scientific community as the available data is still somewhat equivocal.

In the last few years, studies on the effects of meal frequency have been encouraged among researchers [8]. A majority of this research is justifiably centered on the obesity epidemic. Unfortunately, there is very limited data that has examined the impact of meal frequency on body composition, training adaptations, and performance in physically active individuals and athletes. The primary purpose of this position stand is to discuss the various research findings in which meal/eating frequency has been an independent variable in human studies that assess body composition, various health markers, thermic effect of food (a.k.a. diet induced thermogenesis), energy expenditure, nitrogen retention, and satiety. Also, an attempt has been made to highlight those investigations that have included athletes and physically active individuals in interventions that varied meal frequency eating patterns.

Body Weight and Body Composition

Observational Studies

Several studies utilizing animal models have demonstrated that meal frequency can affect body composition [9-12]. Specifically, an inverse relationship between meal frequency and body composition has been reported [9-12]. Some of the earliest studies exploring the relationship between body weight and meal frequency in humans were published approximately 50 years ago. Table 1 and 2 provide a brief summary of several observational (i.e., cross-sectional, prospective, etc.) human studies that have examined the effect of meal frequency on body weight and/or body composition.

The observational studies listed in Table 1 tend to support [13-19], while investigations in Table 2 refute [2,20-29] the effectiveness of increased meal frequency on body weight and/or body composition. Some of the aforementioned studies [13-15,18,19], if taken at face value, seem to effectively suggest a compelling negative correlation between meal frequency and body composition/body weight. However, aside from obvious genetic differences between subjects, there are other potential confounding factors that could alter the interpretation of these data. Studies in humans that have compared self-reported dietary intake to measured and/or estimated total daily energy expenditure have shown that under-reporting of food is not uncommon in both obese and non-obese individuals [30]. Several investigations have demonstrated that the under-reporting may be significantly greater in overweight and obese individuals [24,30-35]. Additionally, older individuals have also been shown to underreport dietary intake [36]. Under-reporting of dietary intake may be a potential source of error in some of the previously mentioned studies [13-15,18,19] that reported positive effects of increased meal frequency. In fact, in their well written critical review of the meal frequency research from ~1964-1997, Bellisle et al. [37] point this out and suggest that classification of subjects' meal frequency and under-reporting of dietary intake can potentially complicate the interpretation of these previously mentioned studies as well as future studies that explore this relationship. Bellisle and colleagues [37] also bring up the valid point of "reverse causality" in which someone who gains weight might skip meal(s) with the hope that they will lose weight. If an individual chooses to do this during the course of a longitudinal study, where meal frequency data is collected, it could potentially alter data interpretation to make it artificially appear that decreased meal frequency actually caused the weight gain [37]. However, even taking reverse causality into account, certain studies listed in Table 1 still demonstrated a positive effect of increased meal frequency on body weight/composition even after accounting for possible under-reporters [16,17] and dieters/restrained eaters [17]. Thus, the potential problem of under-reporting cannot be generalized to all studies that have shown a benefit of increased meal frequency.

Equally important, several studies that initially found a significant inverse relationship between meal frequency and body weight/composition were no longer significant after the investigators adjusted for under-reporters [22,23], dieters/restrained eaters [24], physical activity/peak oxygen consumption [29], or other various potential confounding variables such as age, energy intake, physical activity, smoking status, etc. [21]. Nevertheless, Ruidavets et al. [17] still demonstrated a significant negative correlation between meal frequency and both BMI and waist-to-hip ratio even after adjusting for under-reporters, and dieters.

Taking all of the observational studies listed in Table 1 and 2 into account, it is difficult to make definitive conclusions about the relationship between meal/eating frequency and body weight/composition. However, when accounting for the effects of under-reporting, exercise, and other confounding variables, the preponderance of the research suggests that increased meal frequency does not play a significant role in decreasing body weight/weight composition.

Experimental Studies

The majority of experimental studies utilizing meal frequency interventions recruited overweight/obese populations [38-42]. When total daily calories were held constant (but hypocaloric) it was reported that the amount of body weight lost was not different even as meal frequency increased from a range of one meal per day up to nine meals per day [38-42]. Most recently in 2010, Cameron et al. [43] examined the effects of an eight week hypocaloric diet in both obese male and female participants. The subjects consumed either three meals per day (low meal frequency) or three meals plus three additional snacks (high meal frequency). Individuals in both the high and low meal frequency groups had the same caloric restriction (~700 kcals/day). Both groups lost ~5% of their initial weight as well as similar decreases in lean mass, fat mass and overall BMI [43]. There were no significant differences between the varying meal frequencies groups in any measure of adiposity [43].

In addition to overweight/obese populations, a few experimental investigations have been conducted in normal weight subjects [44-47]. In relation to improvements in body weight and body composition, the results were similar to those of the overweight/obese trials - no improvements with increasing meal frequencies [44-47]. Even under isocaloric conditions or when caloric intake was designed to maintain the subjects' current body weight, increasing meal frequency from one meal to five meals [47] or one meal to three meals [45] did not improve weight loss. One exception to the non-effectiveness of increasing meal frequency in bodyweight/composition was conducted by Fabry and coworkers [48]. The investigators demonstrated that increases in skinfold thickness were significantly greater when ingesting three meals per day as compared to five or seven meals per day in ~10-16 year old boys and girls. Conversely, no significant differences were observed in ~6-11 year old boys or girls [48].

Application to Nutritional Practices of Athletes: Based on the data from experimental investigations utilizing obese and normal weight participants, it would appear that increasing meal frequency would not benefit the athlete in terms of improving body composition. Interestingly, when improvements in body composition are reported as a result of increasing meal frequency, the population studied was an athletic cohort [49-51]. Thus, based on this limited information, one might speculate that an increased meal frequency in athletic populations may improve body composition. The results of these studies and their implications will be discussed later in the section entitled "Athletic Populations".

Blood Markers of Health

Reduced caloric intake, in a variety of insects, worms, rats, and fish, has been shown to have a positive impact on health and lifespan [52-54]. Similarly, reduced caloric intake has been shown to have health promoting benefits in both obese and normal-weight adults as well [55]. Some of the observed health benefits in apparently healthy humans include a reduction in the following parameters: blood pressure, C-reactive protein (CRP), fasting plasma glucose and insulin, total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, and atherosclerotic plaque formation [55]. However, much less has been published in the scientific literature regarding the effects of varying meal frequencies on markers of health such as serum lipids, serum glucose, blood pressure, hormone levels, and cholesterol.

Gwinup and colleagues [56,57] performed some of the initial descriptive investigations examining the effects of "nibbling" versus "gorging" on serum lipids and glucose in humans. In one study [57], five hospitalized adult women and men were instructed to ingest an isocaloric amount of food for 14 days in crossover design in the following manner:

• One large meal per day

• 10 meals per day given every two hours

• Three meals per day

"Gorging" (i.e., one meal per day) led to increases in serum lipids when compared to eating three meals per day. Conversely, 14 days of "nibbling" (i.e., 10 meals per day) led to small decreases in serum lipids such as serum phospholipids, esterified fatty acids, and cholesterol [57]. It is important to point out that this study only descriptively examined changes within the individual and no statistical analyses were made between or amongst the participants [57]. Other studies using obese [58] and non-obese [59] subjects also reported significant improvements in total cholesterol when an isocaloric amount of food was ingested in eight meals vs. one meal [58] and 17 snacks vs. 3 normal meals [59]. In a cross-sectional study which included 6,890 men and 7,776 women between the ages of 45-75 years, it was reported that the mean concentrations of both total cholesterol and LDL cholesterol significantly decreased with increased meal frequency in the general population, even after adjusting for possible confounding variables such as obesity, age, physical activity, and dietary intake [25]. Specifically, after adjusting for confounding variables, the mean total and LDL cholesterol concentrations were ~5% lower in the individuals that ate more than six times a day as opposed to those only eating once or twice per day [25]. Similarly, Edelstein and colleagues [60] reported that in 2,034 men and women aged 50-89, the individuals that ate greater than or equal to four times per day had significantly lower total cholesterol than those who ate only one to two meals per day. Equally important, LDL concentrations were also lower in those who ate with greater frequency [60].

A more recent study examined the influence of meal frequency on a variety of health markers in humans [45]. Stote et al. [45] compared the effects of consuming either three traditional meals (i.e., breakfast, lunch, and dinner) or one large meal on markers of health. The study was a randomized, crossover study in which each participant was subjected to both meal frequency interventions for eight weeks with an 11 week washout period between interventions [45]. All of the study participants ingested an amount of calories needed to maintain body weight, regardless if they consumed the calories in either one or three meals per day. The individuals who consumed only one meal per day had significant increases in blood pressure, and both total and LDL cholesterol [45].

In addition to improvements with lipoproteins, there is evidence that increasing meal frequency also exerts a positive effect on glucose kinetics. Gwinup et al., [5,56] along with others [13], have reported that "nibbling" or increased meal frequency improved glucose tolerance. Specifically, when participants were administered 4 smaller meals, administered in 40 minute intervals, as opposed to one large meal of equal energy density, lower glucose and insulin secretion were observed [61]. Jenkins and colleagues [59] demonstrated no significant changes in serum glucose concentrations between diets consisting of 17 snacks compared to three isocaloric meals per day. However, those that ate 17 snacks per day significantly decreased their serum insulin levels by 27.9% [59]. Ma et al. [18] point out that the decrease in serum insulin with increased meal frequency may decrease body fat deposition by decreasing lipase enzyme activity.

Contrary to the aforementioned studies, some investigations using healthy men [62], healthy women [63], and overweight women [39] have reported no benefits in relation to cholesterol and triglycerides. Although not all research agrees regarding blood markers of health such as total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, and glucose tolerance, it appears that increasing meal frequency may have a beneficial effect. Mann [64] concluded in his review article that there seems to be no deleterious effects in regard to plasma lipids or lipoproteins by eating a relatively large number of smaller meals. It is noted, however, that the studies where benefits have been observed with increased meal frequency have been relatively short and it is not known whether these positive adaptations would occur in longer duration studies [64].

Application to Nutritional Practices of Athletes: Although athletic and physically active populations have not been independently studied in this domain, given the beneficial outcomes that increasing meal frequency exerts on a variety of health markers in non-athletic populations, it appears as if increasing meal frequency in athletic populations is warranted in terms of improving blood markers of health.
Metabolism

Metabolism encompasses the totality of chemical reactions within a living organism. In an attempt to examine this broad subject in a categorized manner, the following sections will discuss the effects of meal frequency on:

• Diet induced thermogenesis (i.e., DIT or also known as the thermic effect of food)

• Resting metabolic rate/total energy expenditure

• Protein Metabolism

Diet Induced Thermogenesis

It is often theorized that increased eating frequency may be able to positively influence the thermic effect of food, often referred to as diet induced thermogenesis (DIT), throughout the day as compared to larger, but less frequent feedings [65]. Kinabo and Durnin [65] investigated this theory when they instructed eighteen non-obese females to consume either a high carbohydrate-low fat diet consisting of 70%, 19%, and 11% or a low carbohydrate-high fat diet consisting of 24%, 65% and 11% from carbohydrate, fat and protein, respectively [65]. Each diet was isocaloric and consisted of 1,200 kcals. In addition, on two different instances, each participant consumed their meal either in one large meal or as two smaller meals of equal size. The investigators observed no significant difference in the thermic effect of food either between meal frequencies or between the compositions of the food [65].

In two other studies utilizing normal-weight young women [66] and obese children [67] as subjects, it was reported that the ingestion of one large meal significantly increased resting energy expenditure/thermic effect of food as compared to an isocaloric food intake that was ingested in either six [66] or three [67] smaller meals. LeBlanc et al. [61] tested the thermic effect of food in six individuals after consuming four small meals as opposed to one large meal of equal caloric density. Contrary to the earlier findings of Tai et al. [66], post-prandial thermogenesis and fat utilization was greater in the group that consumed the smaller, more frequent meals [61].

Smeets and colleagues [68] conducted a very practical study comparing the differences in consuming either two or three meals a day in normal weight females in energy balance. In this randomized, crossover design in which participants consumed the same amount of calories over a traditional three meal pattern (i.e., breakfast, lunch, and dinner) compared to just two meals (breakfast and dinner) it was demonstrated that there was no significant difference on diet induced thermogenesis when measured over 36 hours in a respiration chamber [68]. However, by consuming three meals per day, fat oxidation, measured over 24 hours using deuterium labeled fatty acids was significantly greater and carbohydrate oxidation was significantly lower when compared to eating just two meals per day [68].

Resting Metabolic Rate/Total Energy Expenditure

It is argued that the best methodology to study the effects of meal frequency on metabolism utilizes a metabolic/respiratory chamber (i.e., a whole body calorimeter). While these conditions are not free living, these types of studies are able to control extraneous variables to a greater extent than other methods. Four investigations utilizing overweight/obese participants [40,41,69,70] and one investigation examining normal-weight participants [7] confined the participants to either a metabolic/respiration chamber [7,41,69,70] or a confined metabolic unit [40] and reported that there were no improvements in resting metabolic rate or 24-hour energy expenditure due to increasing the number of meals ingested. In each of these investigations, the same number of calories were ingested over the duration of a day, but the number of meals ingested to consume those calories varied from one vs. three and five feedings [40], two vs. three to five feedings [41], two vs. seven feedings [7,70], and two vs. six feedings [69]. The amount of time the participants were confined to the metabolic/respiratory chambers or metabolic unit ranged from a few hours [7] to a few days [41,69,70] to several weeks [40]. From the aforementioned studies examining the effect of meal frequency on the thermic effect of food and total energy expenditure, it appears that increasing meal frequency does not statistically elevate metabolic rate.

Protein Metabolism

Garrow et al., [40] reported that during a hypocaloric diet lasting three weeks in obese subjects, nitrogen loss was significantly less when the diet consisted of 15% protein as opposed to 10% protein. Additionally, nitrogen loss was also significantly less when five versus one meal per day were consumed and protein was kept at a constant 13% [40]. Equally important, the lowest nitrogen loss occurred when five versus one meal per day were consumed and protein content was 15% versus 10% [40]. The authors concluded that the protein content of total caloric intake is more important than the frequency of the meals in terms of preserving lean tissue and that higher protein meals are protein sparing even when consuming low energy intakes [40]. While this study was conducted in obese individuals, it may have practical implications in athletic populations. Specifically, the findings support the idea that frequent feedings with a higher protein content (15% vs. 10%) may reduce nitrogen losses during periods of hypocaloric intake.

In contrast to the Garrow et al. findings, Irwin et al. [63] compared the effects of different meal composition and frequency on nitrogen retention. In this study, healthy, young women consumed either three meals of equal size, three meals of unequal size (two small and one large), or six meals (calorie intake was equal between groups). The investigators reported that there was no significant difference in nitrogen retention between any of the different meal frequency regimens [63].

Finkelstein and Fryer [39] also reported no significant difference in nitrogen retention, measured through urinary nitrogen excretion, in young women who consumed an isocaloric diet ingested over three or six meals. The study lasted 60 days, in which the participants first consumed 1,700 kcals for 30 days and then consumed 1,400 kcals for the remaining 30 days [39]. The protein and fat content during the first 30 days was 115 and 50 grams, respectively, and during the last 30 days 106 grams of protein and 40 grams of fat was ingested. The protein content was relatively high (i.e., ~27% - 30% of the total daily calories) and may have aided in the nitrogen retention that was observed. Similarly, in a 14-week intervention, Young et al., [42] reported that consuming 1,800 kcals fed as one, three, or six meals a day did not have a significant impact on nitrogen retention in 11 moderately obese, college aged men.

It is important to emphasize that the previous studies were based on the nitrogen balance technique. Nitrogen balance is a measure of whole body protein flux, and may not be an ideal measure of skeletal muscle protein metabolism. Thus, studies concerned with skeletal muscle should analyze direct measures of skeletal muscle protein synthesis and breakdown (i.e., net protein synthesis). Based on recent research, it appears that skeletal muscle protein synthesis on a per meal basis may be optimized at approximately 20 to 30 grams of high quality protein, or 10-15 grams of essential amino acids [71-73]. In order to optimize skeletal muscle protein balance, an individual will likely need to maximize the response on a per meal basis. Research shows that a typical American diet distributes their protein intake unequally, such that the least amount of protein is consumed with breakfast (~10-14 grams), while the majority of protein is consumed with dinner (~29-42 grams) [74]. Thus, in the American diet, protein synthesis would likely only be optimized once per day with dinner. This was recently demonstrated by Wilson et al. [75] in a published abstract (utilizing a rodent model). The investigators found that equally distributing protein over three meals (16% per meal) resulted in greater overall protein synthesis and muscle mass, in comparison to providing suboptimal protein (8%) at breakfast and lunch, and greater than optimal protein (27%) with dinner [75]. In eucaloric meal frequency studies, which spread protein intake from a few (i.e., two to three meals) to several meals (i.e., greater than five meals), the bolus of protein per meal shrinks, which may provide several suboptimal, or possibly non-significant rises in protein synthesis as opposed to a few meals which may maximally stimulate protein synthesis. This is likely the case in the previously mentioned study by Irwin et al [63] who compared three ~20 gram protein containing meals, to six ~10 gram protein containing meals. Such a study design may negate any positive effects meal distribution could have on protein balance.

With this said, in order to observe the true relationship between meal frequency and protein status, studies likely need to provide designs in which protein synthesis is maximized over five-six meals as opposed to three meals. This was demonstrated by Paddon-Jones and colleagues [76] who found that mixed muscle protein synthesis was ~23% greater when consuming three large ~850-calorie meals (~23 g protein, ~127 g carbohydrate, and ~30 g fat), supplemented with an additional three small 180-calorie meals containing 15 grams of essential amino acids, as compared to just three 850-calorie meals alone. In summary, the recent findings from the Wilson study [75] combined with the results published by Paddon-Jones et al. [76] suggest that when protein synthesis is optimized, increased feeding frequency may positively impact protein status.

The inattention paid to protein intake in previously published meal frequency investigations may force us to reevaluate their utility. Nutrient timing research [77,78] has demonstrated the importance of protein ingestion before, during, and following physical activity. Therefore, future research investigating the effects of meal frequency on body composition, health markers, and metabolism should seek to discover the impact that total protein intake has on these markers and not solely focus on total caloric intake.

Application to Nutritional Practices of Athletes: Athletic and physically active populations have not been independently studied in relation to increasing meal frequency and observing the changes in resting metabolic rate/total energy expenditure. Considering the data published in overweight/obese and normal weight populations, it appears as if increasing meal frequency would not improve resting metabolic rate/total energy expenditure in physically active or athletic populations. In regards to protein metabolism, it appears as if the protein content provided in each meal may be more important than the frequency of the meals ingested, particularly during hypoenergetic intakes.

Hunger and Satiety

Research suggests that the quantity, volume, and the macronutrient composition of food may affect hunger and satiety [79-83]. However, the effect of meal frequency on hunger is less understood. Speechly and colleagues [83] examined the effect of varying meal frequencies on hunger and subsequent food intake in seven obese men. The study participants consumed 1/3 of their daily energy requirement in one single pre-load meal or evenly divided over five meals administered hourly. The meals consisted of 70% carbohydrate, 15% protein, and 15% fat. Several hours after the initial pre-load meal(s), another meal (i.e., lunch) was given to the participants ad libitum to see if there was a difference in the amount that was consumed following the initial pre-load meal(s). The scientists reported that when the single pre-load meal was given, participants consumed 27% (i.e., ~358 kcals) more energy in the ad libitum meal than those who ate the multiple pre-load meals [83]. Interestingly, this difference occurred even though there were no significant changes in subjective hunger ratings [83]. Another study with a similar design by Speechly and Buffenstein [84] demonstrated greater appetite control with increased meal frequency in lean individuals. The investigators also suggest that eating more frequent meals might not only affect insulin levels, but may affect gastric stretch and gastric hormones that contribute to satiety [84].

Stote et al. [45] reported that there were significantly greater increases in hunger in individuals eating only one meal as compared to three meals per day. In addition, Smeets and colleagues [68] demonstrated that consuming the same energy content spread over three (i.e., breakfast, lunch, and dinner) instead of two (i.e., breakfast and dinner) meals per day led to significantly greater feeling of satiety over 24 hours [68]. To the contrary, however, Cameron and coworkers [43] reported that there were no significant differences in feelings of hunger or fullness between individuals that consumed an energy restricted diet consisting of either three meals per day or three meals and three snacks. Furthermore, the investigators also determined that there were no significant differences between the groups for either total ghrelin or neuropeptide YY [43]. Both of the measured gut peptides, ghrelin and neuropeptide YY, are believed to stimulate appetite.

Although all research does not agree, it appears that the preponderance of the available research suggests that eating more frequently may decrease hunger and/or food intake at subsequent meals. Even if nothing else was directly affected by varying meal frequency other than hunger alone, this could possibly justify the need to increase meal frequency if the overall goal is to suppress the feeling of hunger.

Application to Nutritional Practices of Athletes: Athletic and physically active populations have not been independently studied in relation to increasing meal frequency and observing the changes in subjective hunger feelings or satiety. Utilizing data from non-athletic populations, increasing meal frequency would likely decrease feelings of hunger and/or food intake at subsequent meals for athletes as well. For athletes wishing to gain weight, a planned nutrition strategy should be implemented to ensure hyper-energetic eating patterns.

Athletic Populations

To date, there is a very limited research that examines the relationship of meal frequency on body composition, hunger, nitrogen retention, and other related issues in athletes. However, in many sports, including those with weight restrictions (gymnastics, wrestling, mixed martial arts, and boxing), small changes in body composition and lean muscle retention can have a significant impact upon performance. Therefore, more research in this area is warranted.

In relation to optimizing body composition, the most important variables are energy intake and energy expenditure. In most of the investigations discussed in this position stand in terms of meal frequency, energy intake and energy expenditure were evaluated in 24-hour time blocks. However, when only observing 24-hour time blocks in relation to total energy intake and energy expenditure, periods of energy imbalance that occurs within a day cannot be evaluated. Researchers from Georgia State University developed a method for simultaneously estimating energy intake and energy expenditure in one-hour units (which allows for an hourly comparison of energy balance) [50]. While this procedure is not fully validated, research has examined the relationship between energy deficits and energy surpluses and body composition in elite female athletes. In a study by Duetz et al. [50], four groups of athletes were studied: artistic and rhythmic gymnasts (anaerobic athletes), and middle-distance and long-distance runners (aerobic athletes). While this study did not directly report meal frequency, energy imbalances (energy deficits and energy surpluses), which are primarily influenced through food intake at multiple times throughout the day were assessed. When analyzing the data from all of the elite female athletes together, it was reported that there was an approximate 800 kilocalorie deficit over the 24-hour data collection period [50]. However, the main purpose of this investigation was to determine energy imbalance not as a daily total, but as 24 individual hourly energy balance estimates. It was reported that the average number of hours in which the within-day energy deficits were greater than 300 kcal was about 7.5 hours, while the average number of hours where the within-day energy surpluses were greater than 300 kcal was about three hours (which makes sense since these athletes were consuming a hypocaloric diet) [50]. When data from all the athletes were combined, energy deficits were positively correlated with body fat percentage, whereas energy surpluses were negatively correlated with body fat percentage. Similarly, the total hours with deficit kcals was positively correlated with body fat percentage, while the total hours with surplus kcals were negatively correlated with body fat percentage. It is also interesting to note that an energy surplus was (non-significantly) inversely associated with body fat percentage. In light of these findings, the authors concluded that athletes should not follow restrained or delayed eating patterns to achieve a desired body composition [50].

Iwao and colleagues [51] examined boxers who were subjected to a hypocaloric diet while either consuming two or six meals per day. The study lasted for two weeks and the participants consumed 1,200 kcals per day. At the conclusion of the study, overall weight loss was not significantly different between the groups [51]. However, individuals that consumed 6 meals per day had significantly less loss of lean body mass and urinary 3-methylhistidine/creatinine as opposed to those that only consumed two meals [51]. This would suggest that an increased meal frequency under hypocaloric conditions may have an anti-catabolic effect.

A published abstract by Benardot et al. [49] demonstrated that when a 250 calorie snack was given to 60 male and female college athletes for two weeks after breakfast, lunch, and dinner, as opposed to a non-caloric placebo, a significant amount of fat (-1.03%) was lost and lean body mass (+1.2 kg) gained. Furthermore, a significant increase in anaerobic power and energy output was observed via a 30-second Wingate test in those that consumed the 250 calorie snack [49]. Conversely, no significant changes were observed in those consuming the non-caloric placebo. Interestingly, when individuals consumed the total snacks of 750 kcals a day, they only had a non-significant increase in total daily caloric consumption of 128 kcals [49]. In other words, they concomitantly ate fewer calories at each meal. Lastly, when the 250 kcal snacks were removed, the aforementioned values moved back to baseline levels 4 weeks later [49].

In conclusion, the small body of studies that utilized athletes as study participants demonstrated that increased meal frequency had the following benefits:

• suppression of lean body mass losses during a hypocaloric diet [51]

• significant increases in lean body mass and anaerobic power [49] (abstract)

• significant increases in fat loss [49] (abstract)

These trends indicate that if meal frequency improves body composition, it is likely to occur in an athletic population as opposed to a sedentary population. While no experimental studies have investigated why athletes may benefit more from increased meal frequency as compared to sedentary individuals, it may be due to the anabolic stimulus of exercise training and how ingested nutrients are partitioned throughout the body. It is also possible that a greater energy flux (intake and expenditure) leads to increased futile cycling, and over time, this has beneficial effects on body composition.

Even though the relationship between energy intake and frequency of eating has not been systematically studied in athletes, available data demonstrates that athletes (runners, swimmers, triathletes) follow a high meal frequency (ranging from 5 to 10 eating occasions) in their daily eating practices [85-88]. Such eating practices enable athletes to ingest a culturally normalized eating pattern (breakfast, lunch, and dinner), but also enable them to adhere to the principles of nutrient timing (i.e., ingesting carbohydrate and protein nutrients in the time periods before and immediately following physical activity/competition).

Conclusion

Like many areas of nutritional science, there is no universal consensus regarding the effects of meal frequency on body composition, body weight, markers of health, markers of metabolism, nitrogen retention, or satiety. The equivocal outcomes of the studies that have examined the relationship between meal frequency and body composition may be attributed to under-reporting of food intake (especially in overweight or obese individuals), the various ages of participants, and whether or not exercise/physical activity was accounted for in the analysis. Furthermore, it has been pointed out by Ruidavets et al. [17] that the various ways a meal versus a snack is defined may lead to a different classification of study participants and ultimately influence the outcome of a study. Equally important, calculating actual meal frequency, especially in free-living studies, depends on the time between meals, referred to as "time lag", and may also influence study findings [17]. Social and cultural definitions of an actual "meal" (vs. snack) vary greatly and time between "meals" is arbitrary [17]. In other words, if the "time-lag" is very short, it may increase the number of feedings as opposed to a study with a greater "time-lag" [17]. Thus, all of these potential variables must be considered when attempting to establish an overall opinion on the effects of meal frequency on body composition, markers of health, various aspect of metabolism, and satiety. Taking all of this into account, it appears from the existing (albeit limited) body of research that increased meal frequency may not play a significant role in weight loss/gain when under-reporting, restrained eating, and exercise are accounted for in the statistical analyses. Furthermore, most, but not all of the existing research, fails to support the effectiveness of increased meal frequency on the thermic effect of food, resting metabolic rate, and total energy expenditure. However, when energy intake is limited, increased meal frequency may likely decrease hunger, decrease nitrogen loss, improve lipid oxidation, and improve blood markers such as total and LDL cholesterol, and insulin. Nonetheless, more well-designed research studies involving various meal frequencies, particularly in physically active/athletic populations are warranted.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Authors' contributions

All authors read and extensively reviewed and contributed to the final manuscript.

References

Hedley AA, Ogden CL, Johnson CL, Carroll MD, Curtin LR, Flegal KM: Prevalence of overweight, obesity among US children, adolescents, and adults, 1999-2002. Jama 2004, 291(23):2847-50.

Howarth NC, Huang TT, Roberts SB, Lin BH, McCrory MA: Eating patterns and dietary composition in relation to BMI in younger and older adults. Int J Obes (Lond) 2007, 31(4):675-84.

De Castro JM: Socio-cultural determinants of meal size and frequency. Br J Nutr 1997, 77(Suppl 1):S39-54. discussion S54-5

De Castro JM: Behavioral genetics of food intake regulation in free-living humans. Nutrition 1999, 15(7-8):550-4.

Gwinup G, Kruger FA, Hamwi GJ: Metabolic Effects of Gorging Versus Nibbling. Ohio State Med J 1964, 60:663-6.

Longnecker MP, Harper JM, Kim S: Eating frequency in the Nationwide Food Consumption Survey (U.S.A.), 1987-1988. Appetite 1997, 29(1):55-9.

Verboeket-van de Venne WP, Westerterp KR: Influence of the feeding frequency on nutrient utilization in man: consequences for energy metabolism. Eur J Clin Nutr 1991, 45(3):161-9.

Mattson MP: The need for controlled studies of the effects of meal frequency on health. Lancet 2005, 365(9475):1978-80.

Cohn C, Joseph D: Changes in body composition attendant on force feeding. Am J Physiol 1959, 196(5):965-8.

Cohn C, Shrago E, Joseph D: Effect of food administration on weight gains and body composition of normal and adrenalectomized rats. Am J Physiol 1955, 180(3):503-7.

Heggeness FW: Effect of Intermittent Food Restriction on Growth, Food Utilization and Body Composition of the Rat. J Nutr 1965, 86:265-70.

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. J Clin Invest 1962, 41:250-3.

Fabry P, Hejl Z, Fodor J, Braun T, Zvolankova K: The Frequency of Meals. Its Relation to Overweight, Hypercholesterolaemia, and Decreased Glucose-Tolerance. Lancet 1964, 2(7360):614-5.

Hejda S, Fabry P: Frequency of Food Intake in Relation to Some Parameters of the Nutritional Status. Nutr Dieta Eur Rev Nutr Diet 1964, 64:216-28.

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. Am J Clin Nutr 1977, 30(5):712-5.

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. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 1998, 22(2):105-12.

Ruidavets JB, Bongard V, Bataille V, Gourdy P, Ferrieres J: Eating frequency and body fatness in middle-aged men. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 2002, 26(11):1476-83.

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. Am J Epidemiol 2003, 158(1):85-92.

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. Int J Obes (Lond) 2008, 32(1):23-9.

Dreon DM, Frey-Hewitt B, Ellsworth N, Williams PT, Terry RB, Wood PD: Dietary fat:carbohydrate ratio and obesity in middle-aged men. Am J Clin Nutr 1988, 47(6):995-1000.

Kant AK, Schatzkin A, Graubard BI, Ballard-Barbach R: Frequency of eating occasions and weight change in the NHANES I Epidemiologic Follow-up Study. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 1995, 19(7):468-74.

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. Eur J Clin Nutr 1996, 50(8):513-9.

Andersson I, Rossner S: Meal patterns in obese and normal weight men: the 'Gustaf' study. Eur J Clin Nutr 1996, 50(10):639-46.

Crawley H, Summerbell C: Feeding frequency and BMI among teenagers aged 16-17 years. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 1997, 21(2):159-61.

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. Bmj 2001, 323(7324):1286-8.

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. Eur J Clin Nutr 2002, 56(8):740-7.

Pearcey SM, de Castro JM: Food intake and meal patterns of weight-stable and weight-gaining persons. Am J Clin Nutr 2002, 76(1):107-12.

Yannakoulia M, Melistas L, Solomou E, Yiannakouris N: Association of eating frequency with body fatness in pre- and postmenopausal women. Obesity (Silver Spring) 2007, 15(1):100-6.

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. Am J Clin Nutr 2008, 88(5):1200-5.

Bandini LG, Schoeller DA, Cyr HN, Dietz WH: Validity of reported energy intake in obese and nonobese adolescents. Am J Clin Nutr 1990, 52(3):421-5.

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. J Am Diet Assoc 1993, 93(5):572-9.

Braam LA, Ocke MC, Bueno-be-Mesquita HB, Seidell JC: Determinants of obesity-related underreporting of energy intake. Am J Epidemiol 1998, 147(11):1081-6.

Heitmann BL, Lissner L: Dietary underreporting by obese individuals—is it specific or non-specific? Bmj 1995, 311(7011):986-9.

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. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1986, 292(6526):983-7.

Schoeller DA, Bandini LG, Dietz WH: Inaccuracies in self-reported intake identified by comparison with the doubly labelled water method. Can J Physiol Pharmacol 1990, 68(7):941-9.

Tomoyasu NJ, Toth MJ, Poehlman ET: Misreporting of total energy intake in older men and women. J Am Geriatr Soc 1999, 47(6):710-5. Bellisle F, McDevitt R, Prentice AM: Meal frequency and energy balance. Br J Nutr 1997, 77(Suppl 1):S57-70.

Bortz WM, Wroldsen A, Issekutz B Jr, Rodahl K: Weight loss and frequency of feeding. N Engl J Med 1966, 274(7):376-9.

Finkelstein B, Fryer BA: Meal frequency and weight reduction of young women. Am J Clin Nutr 1971, 24(4):465-8.

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. Br J Nutr 1981, 45(1):5-15.

Verboeket-van de Venne WP, Westerterp KR: Frequency of feeding, weight reduction and energy metabolism. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 1993, 17(1):31-6.

Young CM, Scanlan SS, Topping CM, Simko V, Lutwak L: Frequency of feeding, weight reduction, and body composition. J Am Diet Assoc 1971, 59(5):466-72.

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. Br J Nutr 2010, 103(8):1098-101.

Farshchi HR, Taylor MA, Macdonald IA: Decreased thermic effect of food after an irregular compared with a regular meal pattern in healthy lean women. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 2004, 28(5):653-60.

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. Am J Clin Nutr 2007, 85(4):981-8.

Swindells YE, Holmes SA, Robinson MF: The metabolic response of young women to changes in the frequency of meals. Br J Nutr 1968, 22(4):667-80.

Wolfram G, Kirchgessner M, Müller HL, Hollomey S: Thermogenesis in humans after varying meal time frequency. Ann Nutr Metab 1987, 31(2):88-97.

Fabry P, Hejda S, Cerny K, Osancova K, Pechar J: Effect of meal frequency in schoolchildren. Changes in weight-height proportion and skinfold thickness. Am J Clin Nutr 1966, 18(5):358-61.

Benardot D, Martin DE, Thompson WR, Roman SB: Between-meal energy intake effects on body composition, performance, and total caloric consumption in athletes. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 2005, 37(5):S339.

Deutz RC, Benardot D, Martin DE, Cody MM: Relationship between energy deficits and body composition in elite female gymnasts and runners. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2000, 32(3):659-68.

Iwao S, Mori K, Sato Y: Effects of meal frequency on body composition during weight control in boxers. Scand J Med Sci Sports 1996, 6(5):265-72.

Aspnes LE, Lee CM, Weindruch R, Chung SS, Roecker EB, Aiken JM: Caloric restriction reduces fiber loss and mitochondrial abnormalities in aged rat muscle. Faseb J 1997, 11(7):573-81.

Martin B, Golden E, Carlson OD, Egan JM, Egan JM, Mattson MP, Maudsley S: Caloric restriction: impact upon pituitary function and reproduction. Ageing Res Rev 2008, 7(3):209-24.

Weindruch R: The retardation of aging by caloric restriction: studies in rodents and primates. Toxicol Pathol 1996, 24(6):742-5.

Fontana L, Meyer TE, Klein S, Holloszy JO: Long-term calorie restriction is highly effective in reducing the risk for atherosclerosis in humans. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2004, 101(17):6659-63.

Gwinup G, Byron RC, Rouch W, Kruger F, Hamwi GJ: Effect of nibbling versus gorging on glucose tolerance. Lancet 1963, 2(7300):165-7.

Gwinup G, Byron RC, Rouch WH, Kruger FA, Hamwi GJ: Effect of Nibbling Versus Gorging on Serum Lipids in Man. Am J Clin Nutr 1963, 13:209-13.

Kudlicka V, Fabry P, Dobersky P, Kudlickova V: Nibbling versus Meal Eating in the Treatment of Obesity. Proceedings of the Seventh International Congress of Nutrition, Hamburg 1966, 2:246.

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. N Engl J Med 1989, 321(14):929-34.

Edelstein SL, Barrett-Connor EL, Wingard DL, Cohn BA: Increased meal frequency associated with decreased cholesterol concentrations; Rancho Bernardo, CA, 1984-1987. Am J Clin Nutr 1992, 55(3):664-9.

LeBlanc J, Mercier I, Nadeau A: Components of postprandial thermogenesis in relation to meal frequency in humans. Can J Physiol Pharmacol 1993, 71(12):879-83.

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. Am J Clin Nutr 1964, 15:90-3.

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. Am J Clin Nutr 1967, 20(8):816-24.

Mann J: Meal frequency and plasma lipids and lipoproteins. Br J Nutr 1997, 77(Suppl 1):S83-90.

Kinabo JL, Durnin JV: Effect of meal frequency on the thermic effect of food in women. Eur J Clin Nutr 1990, 44(5):389-95.

Tai MM, Castillo P, Pi-Sunyer FX: Meal size and frequency: effect on the thermic effect of food. Am J Clin Nutr 1991, 54(5):783-7.

Molnar D: The effect of meal frequency on postprandial thermogenesis in obese children. Padiatr Padol 1992, 27(6):177-81.

Smeets AJ, Westerterp-Plantenga MS: Acute effects on metabolism and appetite profile of one meal difference in the lower range of meal frequency. Br J Nutr 2008, 99(6):1316-21.

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. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 2001, 25(4):519-28.

Verboeket-van de Venne WP, Westerterp KR, Kester AD: Effect of the pattern of food intake on human energy metabolism. Br J Nutr 1993, 70(1):103-15.

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. J Physiol 2003, 549(Pt 2):635-44.

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. Am J Clin Nutr 2009, 89(1):161-8.

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. J Physiol 2003, 552(Pt 1):315-24.

What We Eat in America, NHANES 2007-2008 / www.ars.usda.gov/ SP2UserFiles/ Place/ 12355000/ pdf/ 0708/ tables_1-36_2007-2008.pdf webcite 2008.

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. The FASEB Journal 2010., 24(740.17):

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. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab 2005, 288(4):E761-7.

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. J Int Soc Sports Nutr 2007, 4:8.

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. J Int Soc Sports Nutr 2008, 5:17.

Blundell JE, Green S, Burley V: Carbohydrates and human appetite. Am J Clin Nutr 1994, 59(3 Suppl):728S-734S.

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.

Rolls BJ, Castellanos VH, Halford JC, Kilara A, Panyam D, Pelkman CL, Smith GP, Thorwart ML: Volume of food consumed affects satiety in men. Am J Clin Nutr 1998, 67(6):1170-7.

Rolls BJ, Hetherington M, Burley VJ: The specificity of satiety: the influence of foods of different macronutrient content on the development of satiety. Physiol Behav 1988, 43(2):145-53.
Speechly DP, Rogers GG, Buffenstein R: Acute appetite reduction associated with an increased frequency of eating in obese males. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 1999, 23(11):1151-9.

Speechly DP, Buffenstein R: Greater appetite control associated with an increased frequency of eating in lean males. Appetite 1999, 33(3):285-97.

Burke LM, Gollan RA, Read RS: Dietary intakes and food use of groups of elite Australian male athletes. Int J Sport Nutr 1991, 1(4):378-94.

Hawley JA, Burke LM: Effect of meal frequency and timing on physical performance. Br J Nutr 1997, 77(Suppl 1):S91-103.

Hawley JA, Williams MM: Dietary intakes of age-group swimmers. Br J Sports Med 1991, 25(3):154-8.

Lindeman AK: Eating and training habits of triathletes: a balancing act. J Am Diet Assoc 1990, 90(7):993-5.

© 2011 La Bounty et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

The opinions and conclusions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those of Ground UP Strength or it's owners.

Comments

by EricT

The bird dog exercises are a group of core exercises peformed in a quadruped position. The purpose of these movements are to strengthen the core muscles and promote the maintenance of a neutral pelvis while encorportating limb movements, along with exercise tracks such as the dead bug track. When used as part of a rehabilitation program for lumbar injury or other spine problems, this stabilization exercise progresses from a beginner to an advanced level, starting with moving only one arm, and then progressing to moving the opposite arm and leg. This is basically moving from 4-point kneeling, to 3-point kneeling, and then to 2-point.

This article describes the "advanced" version, which uses simultaneous arm and leg movement. This can be used in a non-rehab setting for those wishing to use this exercise as part of a dynamic warmup routine. A neutral spine must be maintained throughout the performance of the exercise and the hips must not be allowed to roll (lower or raise).

For more information see McGill's Ultimate Back Fitness and Performance and Therapeutic Exercise for Musculoskeletal Injuries by Peggy Houglum.

Category

Pelvic and spine stability, glute activation

Steps

1. Get into a quadruped position (4-point kneeling) with a neutral spine/pelvis. The lower back should be held in its natural arch.

2. Contract your abdominal muscles and simultaneously raise your right arm and your left leg and push them both away from you as shown in the video below. Pause for several seconds and repeat or pause for a count and perform several repetitions.

3. Repeat the same pattern except use your left arm and your right leg and push them both away from you.

4. The leg movement should be done by contracting the glutes and hamstrings respectively. There should absolutely no shift in the position of the pelvis, lower back, or spine in general. The shoulders and hips should remain parallel with the floor throughout.

5. If you are unable to do this advanced version, you can start by only raising one arm at a time. Then you can move on to raising one leg at a time. After both these movements have been mastered without any compensatory movement of the pelvis or lower back, move on to moving one arm and one leg, as described above (2-point kneeling).

6. If you cannot perform this movement at all while keeping a neutral pelvis you may need to consult a professional about a more basic stabilization program.

Bird Dog Exercise (Advanced) Video

Comments

by EricT

Why? I've always wondered about this? Are you such an Adonis but at the same time so weak that you need to work your butt off so that you can become as strong as you look? Even pro bodybuilders are pretty darn strong compared to the average Joe. But let's just stick with the average Joe, not the pro. Let me ask again, why would you want to get strong without adding any muscle?

I wonder this because at least once a month I see a new article explaining how to do this. Why is this concept so popular? Is it because:

You Don't Want to Get Bulky

Well, that won't happen. I know that you may have read articles that tell you that doing strength training will turn you into Arnold faster than Arnold himself became Arnold with bodybuilding, but those articles are, pardon me, full of crap. It will take years of dedicated strength training for you to get all huge. And as I have pointed out again and again, those big old bulky strength dudes who you THINK got their quasi-bodybuilder look from pure strength training, have likely done their fair share of work in bodybuilding parameters, as well as plenty of biceps curls and chest flyes. If you don't want to get bulky you will not, unless you are a muscle gaining freak, what is typically referred to as an "easy-gainer".

You Think Big Muscles will Slow you Down

RSS

Main GUS Feed
New Forum Threads
RSS By Email
(What is RSS?)

More Strength Training Articles

See point one, above. Nope. High force strength training increases speed. Even if you don't train for speed it increases rate of force production. Strength training has become a very important part of athlete's training for speed. Likely you will read that high repetition bodybuilding training will bloat you with big "empty" muscles, decrease your ROM, and slow you down. Well, Flash, if you are so concerned about speed, why are you into bodybuilding? Stick to strength training and you can have your speed and eat it..I mean you can have your speed and your muscular strength. Obviously, those training for speed should have most of their training dedicated to that skill.

You Want Dense Muscles, Not Big Ones

I take it you've been reading Pavel. This goal, nowadays, seems to be the most popular one. To bad it is utterly meaningless. Muscle density is not a clearly defined concept. Some people think that muscle density is something similar to muscle tone, or tonus. I.E. it is how hard your muscles are and is related to…

Wait a minute. Let's start from the beginning. Some think that the word tone refers to the shape and definition of muscles. This is the origin of "toning exercise" and toning routines. This is an incorrect usage of the word tone.

More correctly, the term muscle tone or "tonus" refers to the tension in the muscles. You can think of it as a state of partial contraction (very slight) in which the muscles are kept, kinda like the muscle is always "ready for action." More specifically, it refers to the slight tension that can always be felt in a relaxed muscle, which is called the muscle's resting tone. Strength trainees, athletes, and active individuals will tend to have increased resting tone. That is the technical explanation.

Problem is, even within this technical arena, it's used differently by different experts and authors (common problem), so that some people may only consider tone by looking at the muscle's resistance to passive stretch and others might only press the muscle (palpation) to test its tone, which is a way of judging its stiffness and consistency. These two different methods do not measure the same property but are both looking for "tone". Different pathological states may change these features relative to one another, making tone an ambiguous term.

Not only does tone lack an exact definition (or true understanding), other words related to it are also ambiguous, like firmness, stiffness, elasticity, and tension. Then comes in muscle density. It goes like this: "I want to have strong and hard muscles without being big. Therefore I want dense and toned muscles." It seems like to get dense and toned muscles you have to go for the same ambiguous firmness, stiffness, etc. to get these two different features. The guys in lab coats cannot even decide on what exactly they mean, but you can?

Density could refer to the actual density of an individual muscle fiber, which for mammalian muscles is about 1.056 g/cm³. You cannot change that.

Or it could refer to the intramuscular fat content or how closely packed together the myofibrules are. If intramuscular fat is decreased or the density of myofibrillar packing is increased, this should theoretically serve to increase muscle tension capacity. When you engage in strength training, these things happen. You don't do resistance training to have these things happen, you do it to increase the strength (tension generating capability) of the muscles. These changes in the muscle, and many others, are part of the explanation of how muscles get stronger. They are a couple of features, among several, that are side effects of the strength training process. The goal of isolating this one component of the results of strength training through a special kind of strength training simply means that you are capping off just how strong you are willing to get.

Why? Because these changes are part of the initial stages of strength training! They happen early on, along with neural change and simply help explain why there can be such a profound increase in muscular strength in the early stages of training without apparent changes in muscle mass. Eventually, to keep getting stronger, morphological changes become more and more important. You "only" want to have toned and dense, but small muscles, then you only want to get so much stronger, and no more. Period. That is easy. Strength train a little, and then maintain. There is no magic recipe, really.

I cannot imagine a more silly and boring goal than "decreasing my intramuscular fat, increasing myofibrillar and resting tone." If that is your goal, then happy training. If it seems I'm engaging in a bit of hyperbole, perhaps I am. But specific measurable goals are fairly important in training. If I have correctly translated the "tone and density" hoopla into it's actual components, then I'll leave it up to you to determine whether these are goals within themselves or simply a couple of components of the outcome of increasing muscular strength.

Strength training is a fairly specific activity. Its goal is to increase the absolute force producing potential of our body. But I have to tell you, when someone starts telling people they should be careful, they don't want to get too bulky! Better train for tone! Increase density! Do body weight only training!…Some of us get a little perturbed. Because these people are implying that developing large strong muscles through strength training is a walk in the park. They are acting as if this happens because we accidentally trained too heavy and too hard. No. It takes years and years of "backbreaking" work to get "big, strong, and muscular" let alone huge and bulky. Many people who do dedicated strength training, past noticing that they seem in shape and "look strong" you would not think of as huge and bulky. It just doesn't work like that. You have to want to get huge and bulky to get truly huge and bulky.

Comments

This page contains an affiliate link to Amazon.com. We have not been compelled in any way to place links to particular products and have received no compensation for doing so. We receive a very small commission only if you buy a product after clicking on one of these affiliate links.

by EricT