Whereas my bro-science intuition tells me that asking my pancreas to produce all the insulin I need in a tighter window is much more taxing

A single, giant meal is not going to be associated with the problematic blood sugar spikes and rapid insulin responses as long as it is a balanced meal that includes a good amount of fats, proteins and vegetables. All of these slow digestion, so the pancreas will be doling out insulin at a relatively steady, slow rate over the course of hours and then getting a nice long rest.

Eating 3 balanced meals throughout the day might be marginally better or worse for the pancreas, but neither of these dietary choices trigger the panic-level insulin responses (which ultimately lead to insulin resistance and diabetes) that snacking on large amounts of refined carbs and refined sugars are notorious for.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2121099/ This study found that although there was higher blood glucose and reduced glucose tolerance in the morning for the group eating 1 meal a day, surprisingly they had less insulin resistance than the group eating 3. Other indicators of dietary/hormonal health were the same between groups. Same caloric intake of glucose between groups, and the 1 meal a day group shared the same evening window just like OMAD. This was a pilot study with small sample size (irritatingly the actual number isn't listed from what I can see) as well as a high withdrawal rate, unsurprisingly.

I don't know. You're talking about the engagement of the pancreas itself and I am talking about the effects of that engagement on the entire body.

I note with interest that we make reference to insulin "spikes".

Do I want to insulin spike more, or fewer, times per day ?

Ideally you want no spikes, because you are eating a balanced diet and avoiding meals and snacks consisting largely of refined carbs and refined sugars. A proper meal shouldn't really create a blood sugar (and resulting insulin) spike as much as a gradual elevation and fall back to baseline, because protein, fat, and fiber all slow digestion, and complex carbs (and even sugars within fiber/nutrient matrixes ie whole fruits) don't tend to spike blood sugar too badly in the first place.

> depress a lot of immunity

That seems odd, in a non-city context wouldn't eating and drinking be one of the riskiest things in terms of getting sick?

Edit: After thinking about it maybe it's related to not overreacting to everything we eat and causing allergies?

Compared to not-eating and drinking? No.

How so? Wouldn't most pathogens be food or water borne if you're not in a crowded city in close proximity to other humans or livestock?

Either way I don't see how what you say is true. If I stop eating or drinking how does that make me catch the flu or something the immune response helps against?

It seems having it active when I eat would be the most useful, which is why I wondered why it worked how it does.

>Wouldn't most pathogens be food or water borne if you're not in a crowded city in close proximity to other humans or livestock?

In that eating and drinking is essential, and for the primitive man, not guaranteed everyday...

>If I stop eating or drinking how does that make me catch the flu or something the immune response helps against?

It just makes you die in a couple months from not eating, and a week or so from not drinking :-)

I don't really see how that relates, when I say "getting sick" I don't think most people from here would include starvation or dehydration in that bucket, but maybe that's a regional difference. I meant things you catch (virus, bacteria, parasites) because we're talking about immune response.