I think you'd have to quantify what you mean for each (many vs fewer meals), have to quantify what meal composition is, and then after that ask why you'd even be worried about insulin (as long as you are a healthy individual).
You probably would want to be more cognizant of blood glucose levels rather than insulin and even then I am unsure how meaningful the differences will be (in terms of what to even worry about) when calories are matched.
*Keeping in mind this is all in regards to actual physiological benefits, not individual preferences and tolerances to what they can stick to and enjoy.
Got it.
Metabolic syndrome/disorder and insulin resistance are very, very common in the US. It is argued that most of that stems from frequent consumption of sugar and highly processed food. Being significantly overweight and having a large amount of abdominal fat), an inactive lifestyle, and a diet high in carbohydrates are the primary causes of insulin resistance. Some argue that frequent eating and snacking play a role as well. Metabolic syndrome/disorder/insulin resistance/diabetes/inflammation has skyrocketed since the 1970s/1980s when grain based and highly processed foods (much of which is LOADED with added sugar) became the norm. The studies are very conclusive in that regard.
In Endocrinologist Dr. Robert Lustig's book " “Metabolical: The Lure and the Lies of Processed Food, Nutrition, and Modern Medicine” he estimates that only 7% of Americans are considered metabolically healthy, while the other 93% are suffering from some sort of diagnosable metabolic dysfunction. A recent study published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism by researchers at the University of Alabama at Birmingham found that nearly 40 percent of young adults without diabetes experience insulin resistance, where the body does not respond correctly to insulin and is unable to use glucose from the blood for energy. According to that study the “Presence of insulin resistance is thought to be a precursor to development of diabetes and potentially fatal cardiovascular events such as heart attack, stroke and cardiac death”.
So, that is my focus -- to avoid these issues (I do not have them currently). You know, the ounce of prevention ...
At one point in my life I was a huge advocate of eating four to six small meals per day. The then-prevailing thought was that doing so kept insulin at a certain level, avoiding dramatic spikes. Much of that was espoused in Rob Fagin's book "Natural Hormonal Enhancement". He also had a book called "Hormonally Intelligent Exercise" that (IIRC) were based on these same concepts.
Today, a good deal of contemporary studies discuss the benefits of calendar-restricted eating, which many people refer to as intermittent fasting, frequently on an 18/6 schedule, and limiting carbs and sugars. I have been following this with pretty terrific results. This usually entails one or two meals per day (I suppose that is what I meant by referring to "fewer" meals) within the 6 hour feeding window. In theory, fewer meals might result in less insulin release and a more favorable reaction to insulin when it is released. I should add that I have eliminated all added sugar and processed foods (almost entirely).
My goal is to control inflammation and its associated negative impact on endothelial health, and to maintain low body-fat. so, this was the basis for my question. And yes, I agree, controlling blood glucose levels are (at least for me) a key part of this.
Now, this approach probably not optimal from a maximum strength gain and workout recovery perspective. But, it works for me - give what I am seeking to accomplish -- and I realize that whatever works for me may not be optimal for others.
