4.7 Article

Effects of Increased Meal Frequency on Fat Oxidation and Perceived Hunger

Journal

OBESITY
Volume 21, Issue 2, Pages 336-343

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/oby.20032

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Japan Society for the Promotion of Science for Young Scientists
  2. University of Colorado Clinical and Translational Science Award [1UL1 RR025780]
  3. Nutrition and Obesity Research Center [P30 DK048520]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: Consuming smaller, more frequent meals is often advocated as a means of controlling body weight, but studies demonstrating a mechanistic effect of this practice on factors associated with body weight regulation are lacking. The purpose of this study was to compare the effect of consuming three (3M) vs. six meals (6M) per day on 24-h fat oxidation and subjective ratings of hunger. Design and Methods: Lean (body mass index <25 kg/m(2)) subjects (7M, 8F) were studied in a whole-room calorimeter on two occasions in a randomized cross-over design. Subjects were provided isoenergetic, energy balanced diets with a 1- to 2-week washout between conditions. Hunger, fullness, and desire to eat'' ratings were assessed throughout the day using visual analog scales and quantified as area under the curve (AUC). Results: There were no differences (P < 0.05) in 24-h energy expenditure (8.7 +/- 0.3 vs. 8.6 +/- 0.3 mj d(-1)), 24-h respiratory quotient (0.85 +/- 0.01 vs. 0.85 +/- 0.01), or 24-h fat oxidation (82 +/- 6 vs. 80 +/- 7 g day(-1)) between 3M and 6M, respectively. There was no difference in fullness 24-h AUC, but hunger AUC (41850 +/- 2255 vs. 36612 +/- 2556 mm. 24 h, P = 0.03) and desire to eat'' AUC (47061 +/- 1791 vs. 41170 +/- 2574 mm. 24 h, P = 0.03) were greater during 6M than 3M. Conclusion: We conclude that increasing meal frequency from three to six per day has no significant effect on 24-h fat oxidation, but may increase hunger and the desire to eat.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available