These ideas are largely based on mechanistic studies whose data was derived via steady intravenous infusion of amino acids [117, 118].
Long-term studies are needed to determine if the refractory nature of MPS seen in acute infusion data would have any real impact on the gain or preservation of LBM at various meal frequencies. Munster and Saris  recently shed further light on what might be optimal in the context of pre-contest dieting. Lean, healthy subjects underwent 36-hour periods in a respiration chamber. Interestingly, three meals per day resulted in higher protein oxidation and RMR, along with lower overall blood glucose concentrations than an isoenergetic diet composed of 14 meals per day. The lower glucose AUC observed in this study is in agreement with previous research by Holmstrup et al. , who reported lower 12-hour glucose concentrations
find more as a result of consuming three high-carbohydrate meals compared to the equivalent distributed over the course of six meals. Another interesting c-Met inhibitor finding by Munster and Saris  was lower hunger and higher satiety ratings in the lower meal frequency condition. This finding concurred with previous work by Leidy et al. , who compared varying protein levels consumed across either three or six meals per day. Predictably, the higher-protein level (25% vs. 14%) promoted greater satiety. Interestingly, the higher meal frequency led to lower
daily fullness ratings regardless Celecoxib of protein level. Meal frequency had no significant impact on ghrelin AMN-107 levels, regardless of protein intake. PYY, a gut peptide associated with satiety, was 9% lower in the higher meal frequency condition. However, Arciero et al.  recently found that six meals per day in a high-protein condition (35% of total energy) were superior to three meals with a high-protein or traditional protein intake (15% of total energy) for improving body composition in overweight subjects. The discrepancy between Leidy et al’s short-term effects and Arciero’s chronic effects warrants further study, preferably in subjects undergoing progressive resistance training. Other common meal frequencies (i.e., 4 or 5 meals per day) have eluded scientific investigation until very recently. Adechian et al.  compared whey versus casein consumed in either a ‘pulse’ meal pattern (8/80/4/8%) or a ‘spread’ pattern (25/25/25/25%) over a six week hypocaloric period. No significant changes were seen in body composition between conditions. These outcomes challenge Phillips and Van Loon’s recommendation for protein-rich meals throughout the day to be isonitrogenous (40). Moore et al.  compared evenly spaced distributions of two, four, and eight meals consumed after a fasted, acute bout of bilateral knee extension.