Key result
Increased meal frequency shows unclear effects on CHD risk markers compared to feasting.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Dietary interventions that limit saturated fat, cholesterol, and energy are generally implemented as the first line of therapy to reduce the risk of coronary heart disease (CHD). Another form of diet therapy that may be effective in protecting against CHD is altering meal frequency without limiting energy. Meal-frequency regimens are classified into two major forms: 1) feasting, i.e., consuming all energy needs in one meal/day, and 2) nibbling, i.e., consuming all energy needs in three, six, nine, 12, or 17 regimented meals/day. Whether one meal pattern, feasting or nibbling, is more effective at improving indicators of CHD risk than the other, remains unresolved. Moreover, whether a dose-dependent relationship exists between biomarker improvement and the number of meals consumed per day also remains unknown. The objective of the present review was to determine which meal pattern, nibbling or feasting, is more effective at improving key indicators of CHD risk in normal-weight and obese, non-diabetic individuals.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bhutani et al. (2009) conducted a review in Coronary heart disease risk. Nibbling meal pattern (3, 6, 9, 12, or 17 regimented meals/day) vs. Feasting meal pattern (1 meal/day) was evaluated on Key indicators of coronary heart disease (CHD) risk. Nibbling (3, 6, 9, 12, or 17 meals/day) versus feasting (1 meal/day) was reviewed to evaluate effects on CHD risk indicators in non-diabetic individuals, though no results were stated in the abstract.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: