Medically Approved Ways to Boost Metabolism

Options
24

Replies

  • Sued0nim
    Sued0nim Posts: 17,456 Member
    Options
    So your rebuttal is to copy and paste from your link?

    which has been debunked?

    good job I go to the gym cos I don't need no God to give me strength
  • zyxst
    zyxst Posts: 9,136 Member
    Options
    ksy1969 wrote: »
    zmusic wrote: »
    Boosting Metabolism

    http://www.webmd.com/diet/ss/slideshow-boost-your-metabolism

    Having a small meal or snack every 3 to 4 hours keeps your metabolism cranking, so you burn more calories over the course of a day. Several studies have also shown that people who snack regularly eat less at mealtime.

    http://www.health.com/health/gallery/0,,20306911,00.html

    Enjoying six small meals a day should do the trick; keep them around 300 calories each, or divide your usual day's calories by six.

    OMG, this has been debunked so much it is almost a "dead horse". Also, where is the common sense. If I eat 1800 calories split up over 24 hours, or eat it all at once, why would it be less work on my metabolism to burn the 1800 all at once? It wouldn't. If all foods are the equal, it takes the same amount of energy to burn up those 1800 calories no matter what the scenario.

    tumblr_n85kculCP01t4o62mo1_250_zps56cfa1bc.gif

    76576d99381f7dc7388ac42d5bd2e161251f1dd203f55a7a079c9b6ef14827c5.jpg
  • trogalicious
    trogalicious Posts: 4,584 Member
    Options
    WNYEj9G.gif
  • ljcolasanto
    ljcolasanto Posts: 6 Member
    Options
    My understanding is that exercise and eating at a moderate caloric deficit are both medically approved. Sorry, I can't remember which study that was based on. ;)
  • yopeeps025
    yopeeps025 Posts: 8,680 Member
    Options
    I don't know why OP thought people would agree with this. We did not agree because your wrong in the other thread. Now you can see from MFP community that you are in fact wrong.
  • I_Will_End_You
    I_Will_End_You Posts: 4,397 Member
    Options
    This has been debunked so many times it's not even worth discussing.

    My anecdotal evidence......5'6, 115lbs, eats a lunch around 400 calories, and saves the other 1200-1400 for dinner.
  • healthygreek
    healthygreek Posts: 2,137 Member
    Options
    How did I lose all the weight eating a small breakfast and one huge meal a day?
    I must be special.
  • I_Will_End_You
    I_Will_End_You Posts: 4,397 Member
    Options
    healthygreek wrote: »
    How did I lose all the weight eating a small breakfast and one huge meal a day?
    I must be special.

    snowflake.gif
  • DemoraFairy
    DemoraFairy Posts: 1,806 Member
    Options
    healthygreek wrote: »
    How did I lose all the weight eating a small breakfast and one huge meal a day?
    I must be special.

    Well, to be fair to the OP, they're not saying that not eating every 3 to 4 hours means you can't lose weight, just that it makes weight loss quicker/easier.

    Not saying I agree with the OP at all, just that eating your calories in bigger meals and losing weight isn't enough to disprove the point.
  • TimothyFish
    TimothyFish Posts: 4,925 Member
    Options
    Whether it boosts their metabolism or not, most people do have a snack between meals. I've never noticed a significant difference in weight loss from when I did and when I didn't. The thing that boosts metabolism the most is exercise. You burn more calories and you metabolize more food. Funny how that works.
  • Asher_Ethan
    Asher_Ethan Posts: 2,430 Member
    Options
    I'm so glad that it's not true. My whole life I have tried the, "6 small meals," thing and I always ALWAYS end up binging at night. Once I started MFP 2 months ago and found out that was a myth I started eating 2 big meals andddddddd ta-da! I'm 12 pounds lighter and hardly ever hungry!
  • randomtai
    randomtai Posts: 9,003 Member
    Options
    EdgarMellencamp wrote: »
    This thread reminded me this website is full of toxic house marms.

    tumblr_inline_nlbsf4gPn11t0n67w.gif
  • DemoraFairy
    DemoraFairy Posts: 1,806 Member
    Options
    zmusic wrote: »
    The Good Doctors affiliated with WebMD have far more credibility than anonymous posters who have no scientific or medical sources to their unfounded opinions.

    Except... people have posted scientific sources for what they're saying. One person has at least, anyway.
  • Sued0nim
    Sued0nim Posts: 17,456 Member
    Options
    EdgarMellencamp wrote: »
    This thread reminded me this website is full of toxic house marms.

    @EdgarMellencamp

    I'm sorry I'm a little unclear here. Are you intimidated by fit, strong, intelligent women expressing an opinion based on science or are you just generically sexist?
  • Alyssa_Is_LosingIt
    Alyssa_Is_LosingIt Posts: 4,696 Member
    Options
    DeguelloTex wrote: »
    NoIdea101NoIdea wrote: »
    "This tool does not provide medical advice".
    At least one tool appears to be trying to, though.

    10/10
  • snickerscharlie
    snickerscharlie Posts: 8,578 Member
    edited May 2015
    Options
    rabbitjb wrote: »
    EdgarMellencamp wrote: »
    This thread reminded me this website is full of toxic house marms.

    @EdgarMellencamp

    I'm sorry I'm a little unclear here. Are you intimidated by fit, strong, intelligent women expressing an opinion based on science or are you just generically sexist?

    <popcorn>

    It's a snack.

    For my metabolism. ;)
  • jessupbrady
    jessupbrady Posts: 508 Member
    Options
    EdgarMellencamp wrote: »
    This thread reminded me this website is full of toxic house marms.

    i'm not a house marm - but i do wish i was intoxicated.
  • yopeeps025
    yopeeps025 Posts: 8,680 Member
    Options
    zmusic wrote: »
    The Good Doctors affiliated with WebMD have far more credibility than anonymous posters who have no scientific or medical sources to their unfounded opinions.

    What is there to post why everyone else agree that you are showing outdated information?

  • ndj1979
    ndj1979 Posts: 29,136 Member
    Options
    Ummm no...

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Thermogenesis+in+humans+after+varying+meal+time+frequency
    Ann Nutr Metab. 1987;31(2):88-97.

    [Thermogenesis in humans after varying meal time frequency].

    [Article in German]

    Wolfram G, Kirchgessner M, Müller HL, Hollomey S.

    Abstract

    To a group of 8 healthy persons a slightly hypocaloric diet with protein (13% of energy), carbohydrates (46% of energy) and fat (41% of energy) was given as one meal or as five meals in a change-over trial. Each person was 2 weeks on each regimen. Under the conditions of slight undernutrition and neutral temperature the balances of nitrogen, carbon and energy were assessed in 7-day collection periods, and according to 48-hour measurements of gaseous exchange (carbon-nitrogen balance method) by the procedures of indirect calorimetry. Changes of body weight were statistically not significant. At isocaloric supply of metabolizable energy with exactly the same foods in different meal frequencies no differences were found in the retention of carbon and energy. Urinary nitrogen excretion was slightly greater with a single daily meal, indicating influences on protein metabolism. The protein-derived energy was compensated by a decrease in the fat oxidation. The heat production calculated by indirect calorimetry was not significantly different with either meal frequency. Water, sodium and potassium balances were not different. The plasma concentrations of cholesterol and uric acid were not influenced by meal frequency, glucose and triglycerides showed typical behaviour depending on the time interval to the last meal. The results demonstrate that the meal frequency did not influence the energy balance.

    OP - why do you always do this? You get called out in one thread and then start another ridiculous thread...

Categories