Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-sd5qd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-13T09:49:31.727Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Increased meal frequency does not promote greater weight loss in subjects who were prescribed an 8-week equi-energetic energy-restricted diet

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 November 2009

Jameason D. Cameron
Affiliation:
Behavioural and Metabolic Research Unit, School of Human Kinetics, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, CanadaK1N 6N5
Marie-Josée Cyr
Affiliation:
Behavioural and Metabolic Research Unit, School of Human Kinetics, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, CanadaK1N 6N5
Éric Doucet*
Affiliation:
Behavioural and Metabolic Research Unit, School of Human Kinetics, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, CanadaK1N 6N5
*
*Corresponding author: Éric Doucet, fax +1 613 562 5291, email eric.doucet@uottawa.ca
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

There have been reports of an inverse relationship between meal frequency (MF) and adiposity. It has been postulated that this may be explained by favourable effects of increased MF on appetite control and possibly on gut peptides as well. The main goal of the present study was to investigate whether using a high MF could lead to a greater weight loss than that obtained with a low MF under conditions of similar energy restriction. Subjects were randomised into two treatment arms (high MF = 3 meals+3 snacks/d or low MF = 3 meals/d) and subjected to the same dietary energy restriction of − 2931 kJ/d for 8 weeks. Sixteen obese adults (n 8 women and 8 men; age 34·6 (sd 9·5); BMI 37·1 (sd 4·5) kg/m2) completed the study. Overall, there was a 4·7 % decrease in body weight (P < 0·01); similarly, significant decreases were noted in fat mass ( − 3·1 (sd 2·9) kg; P < 0·01), lean body mass ( − 2·0 (sd 3·1) kg; P < 0·05) and BMI ( − 1·7 (sd 0·8) kg/m2; P < 0·01). However, there were NS differences between the low- and high-MF groups for adiposity indices, appetite measurements or gut peptides (peptide YY and ghrelin) either before or after the intervention. We conclude that increasing MF does not promote greater body weight loss under the conditions described in the present study.

Information

Type
Short Communication
Copyright
Copyright © The Authors 2009
Figure 0

Table 1 Characteristics of subjects in the high-meal frequency (HMF) and low-meal frequency (LMF) groups before and after weight loss(Mean values and standard deviations)

Figure 1

Fig. 1 Total ghrelin (a) and total peptide YY (PYY; b) measured for 6 h before and after the 8-week weight loss programme in the high-meal frequency (HMF) and low-meal frequency (LMF) groups. For total ghrelin (a), significant effects of time and weight loss at P < 0·01 were noted. NS effect of MF or MF by weight loss interaction was noted. For total PYY (b), significant effects of time (P < 0·01), time by weight loss (P < 0·01) and time by MF (P < 0·05) interactions were observed. NS interaction of time by MF or MF by weight loss was noted. —▲—, HMF pre; —■—, LMF pre; - - -▲- - -, HMF post; - - -■- - -, LMF post.