20

I have heard this argument time and again.

Human race started off as hunters. At that time, finding food by hunting was not an easy task, and was not always successful. Couple this with the absence of refrigeration and other preservation techniques, and intense competition in their society for food, there should have been heavy and less frequent meals. Doesn't this mean that humans are genetically tuned to eat heavy meals once in one or two days? Agreed, cooking probably changed things a bit, the food could be preserved a tad longer, but probably not enough to have frequent small meals.

The other misconception about 'gatherer' is that prehistoric human was a vegetarian forager (in the garden of Eden?), which is wrong. The presence of canines in human teeth indicates meat eating capability, hence, I am sure even gathering involved scavenging/stealing meat.

Given these, I do not feel that the statement 'eating small frequent meals is healthier' can be true. Or, am I missing something?

Suma
  • 6,086
  • 5
  • 36
  • 57
CMR
  • 1,001
  • 6
  • 14
  • 7
    Human evolution has not stopped since the time of hunters and gatherers! Polynesian people have evolved to survive long (weeks, months) journeys in their canoes and floats, Europeans have evolved lactose tolerance (the ability to drink milk and not get sick from it). – Lagerbaer Apr 15 '11 at 03:42
  • @Lagerbaer, I agree, it is an excellent point that evolution does not end. Humans are omnivores, so adapting is possible. On your other point, just to make things clear, lactose intolerance is only among certain genetic groups: most of civilization in tropics ~10k years ago had dairy farming, much before Europeans ventured out of their caves [cf.1](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7th_millennium_BC#Inventions.2C_discoveries.2C_introductions) [cf.2](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mehrgarh#Mehrgarh_Period_I) – CMR Apr 15 '11 at 05:29
  • 2
    **Related** http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/325/6-meals-a-day-strategy – Sklivvz Apr 15 '11 at 07:00
  • What are you asking? If your logic is correct? If speculation about evolution can be used to predict healthy foods? If your assumptions about prehistory is correct? I can find a lot of wrongness with the question, but I don't really know what you are asking... – Lennart Regebro Apr 15 '11 at 08:10
  • 4
    @Lagerbaer Evolution certainly didn’t end but it’s worth noting that evolution takes a loooong time, especially in humans which have very long generations. Humans spent most of their existence as hunters / gatherers and only a tiny fraction actually cooking and having regular meals. It’s not plausible that they would have adapted to this new lifestyle in such a short time (only a few thousand years!). That would be a complex adaptation and even single point mutations usually take hundreds to thousands of years to spread through a population (with few exceptions). – Konrad Rudolph Apr 15 '11 at 10:59
  • @Sklivvz, my question was if humans are genetically adept for this at all. Was expecting counter-arguments like LagerBaer had... – CMR Apr 15 '11 at 11:34
  • @hence the "possible": it seems to me that you are talking about the same underlying claim. But then again, I am not sure. To err on the side of caution I'll change the comment to "Related" – Sklivvz Apr 15 '11 at 11:38
  • Predators do eat rarely. But vegetarian species eat often. I prefer to think that people are by their nature vegetarians, so they should eat often :) . Besides, eating often is good for your catabolic balance, which is good for your muscles if you are a sportsman of some kind. Anyway, I think you should try and find a good balance that suits you yourself, and not listen to what other say. – Bogdan0x400 Apr 20 '11 at 13:37
  • 1
    I cite some relevant studies on the health aspects of frequent meals in [this answer](http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/1996/does-having-late-or-heavy-dinner-make-you-fat/2000#2000). – ESultanik Apr 20 '11 at 14:26
  • @Konrad Maybe not the humans, but certainly the bacteria living in their digestive tracts. – Lagerbaer Apr 20 '11 at 14:47
  • @Bogdan0x400 “I prefer to think that people are by their nature vegetarians” – but that is *wrong*. Humans were never really vegetarians and as the question shows, there are indications that humans were never exclusively gatherers either, they were more likely scavengers. As for “you should try and find a good balance that suits you yourself, and not listen to what other say”, that is just as wrong, and dangerously so. We are not health experts. Listening to advice from health experts *is* important. – Konrad Rudolph Apr 21 '11 at 08:39
  • "I have heard this argument time and again." - I heard it from my dietitian. I complained I was sleepy after lunch: she told me to eat smaller meals, more often ... starting with breakfast. Having a more constant supply of fuel to your body is helpful when you want energy to work all day. – ChrisW Jun 25 '11 at 11:37
  • "Human race started off as hunters." - Really. They might have started off as prey. And the reference which you cited about homo habilis said "scavenger". – ChrisW Jun 25 '11 at 11:37
  • "Doesn't this mean that humans are genetically tuned to eat heavy meals once in one or two days?" - No. Do you think we're genetically tuned to sit around on the cold, wet grass in the dark? Just because we had to put up with it doesn't mean it was good for us or that we're suited to it. – ChrisW Jun 25 '11 at 11:38
  • "The presence of canines in human teeth indicates meat eating capability" - Canine teeth are also present in horses, antelopes, etc. – ChrisW Jun 25 '11 at 11:38
  • @Konrad: The discovery of fire and cooking goes back a few hundred thousand years. – Christian Jun 25 '11 at 13:33
  • @ChrisW, that article **talks about hunting**. Excerpt *earliest ''hunts'', which took place around 30 million... Over the next 3 million years, humans learned methods of hunting... kill larger prey by throwing rocks at it... weapons and machines... were developed... to defeat even bigger prey. Hand-eye coordination...* Among other things, (i) the ease in availability of food in the past 1000 years does not change our genetic makeup, (ii) it is not about being good for us, it is about what a body is built for. For e.g., fat is good for us, it yields highest calories per gram. – CMR Jun 25 '11 at 13:36
  • http://www.semisportmed.com/the-no-crave-diet-p135644 agrees with you – JoseK Aug 23 '11 at 12:21

1 Answers1

3

It seems that one of the most obvious disadvantages with irregular meals is the increase of insulin resistance which can lead to type 2 diabetes.

http://www.ajcn.org/content/81/1/3.full#R19

The effect of the timing of food intake on metabolism has been the subject of active investigation for >40 y. Indeed, whether it is "better" to eat many small meals a day is one of the questions most frequently posed by the lay public. Comparing the potential benefits of nibbling and of gorging has been the focus of much animal and human research, but no clear consensus has emerged (1-7). Simply put, the question of whether there is a health benefit from the consumption of multiple small meals will ultimately depend on how much energy is consumed, as opposed to how often or how regularly one eats. This possibility raises 2 questions. First, is it easier to overeat under a regimen of frequent, irregular meals? Second, how does the pattern of meal consumption affect metabolic health?

...

As shown by Farshchi et al, the regular eating frequency was associated with lower reported ad libitum energy intakes and lower fasting total and LDL-cholesterol concentrations. In addition, they concluded that the irregular eating frequency may have reduced insulin sensitivity because that pattern was associated with a lower thermic effect of food (TEF), a higher peak insulin concentration, and a larger 3-h area under the curve of postprandial insulin concentrations. One practical limitation of the work by Farshchi et al is that each dietary phase was only 14 d long and thus did not result in large effects (eg, an ≈9% greater peak postprandial insulin concentration and an 8% lower TEF).

...

Two last issues raised by Farshchi et al (8) are whether the effects on metabolism of eating regularity are independent of or mediated by energy intake, and, if there are independent effects, what mechanisms contribute to these effects. With respect to insulin resistance, endocrinologists have long known that, when diabetics are hospitalized for observation, they have significant improvements in blood glucose and insulin concentrations—an effect partially caused by the consumption of regular balanced meals (19). Yet the exact mechanism supporting improved insulin response is unknown.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15085170

RESULTS: There were no significant differences in body weight and 3-day mean energy intake between the regular and irregular meal pattern. In the irregular period, the mean energy intake on the day when 9 meals were eaten was significantly greater than when 6 or 3 meals were consumed (P=0.0001). There was no significant difference between the 3 days of the regular meal pattern. Subjective appetite measurement showed no significant differences before and after the test meal in all visits. Fasting RMR showed no significant differences over the experiment. The overall thermic effect of food (TEF) over the 3 h after the test meal was significantly lower after the irregular meal pattern (P=0.003).

CONCLUSION: Irregular meal frequency led to a lower postprandial energy expenditure compared with the regular meal frequency, while the mean energy intake was not significantly different between the two. The reduced TEF with the irregular meal frequency may lead to weight gain in the long term.

Nostrum
  • 441
  • 3
  • 6