MYTH: Constant Grazing Boosts Your Metabolism

fitness_faeiry

Is it a myth? I want to know people's opinions on this topic. Fitness professionals and Nutrition experts step up...

http://www.jillianmichaels.com/fit/lose-weight/myth-small-meals?xid=nl_LosingItWithJillianMichaels_20140616

RodaRose

It is not about the "When." It is about the "How Much."

HeatherScent37

I graze because I'm friggin hungry all the time! I even changed my diary settings to reflect more meals. You know: Breakfast, Second Breakfast, Elevensies, Lunch, Dinner, Tea, Supper, etc... I'm basically a Hobbit. As long as I meet my calorie goals, I don't sweat how often I am eating.

bonniejo

Main issue is that the more often you eat, the more often you can mismeasure and log foods. I personally like to have lunch and dinner be large, but thats just me

dieselbyte

She should've quit while she was ahead...

Yes, it is a myth that more meals or constant grazing boosts your metabolism. Thermic Effect of Food (TEF) is the same whether spaced out over multiple meals or one meal. However, her point that grazing prevents the body from burning fat is just as ridiculous. Fat gain or loss is dependent on overall caloric intake. Grazing doesn't stop your body from burning fat. Calories in vs out for fat loss. Meal frequency is irrelevant.

WalkingAlong

I will be happy when we never see the verbs 'boost', 'kick start' or 'jump start' applied to metabolism.

Chelsarrr

Myth!

chrisdavey

She should've quit while she was ahead...

Yes, it is a myth that more meals or constant grazing boosts your metabolism. Thermic Effect of Food (TEF) is the same whether spaced out over multiple meals or one meal. However, her point that grazing prevents the body from burning fat is just as ridiculous. Fat gain or loss is dependent on overall caloric intake. Grazing doesn't stop your body from burning fat. Calories in vs out for fat loss. Meal frequency is irrelevant.

seconded

SpicesOfLife

so now that weve clarified that.. i have a different question that i dont feel deserves its own thread so ill just post it here.

i know that in theory its calories in vs. calories burned but i cant quite wrap my head around how exactly my body is supposed to burn all the calories when i, say, eat nothing all day and then eat all my calories at night. not that i want to do that, just wondering. in my head it doesnt make sense to work out before eating all that. wouldnt it make more sense to eat first and then work it all off? how can it not make a difference?

i mean what happens to all the calories i eat before bed when ive worked out at noon?

sijomial

so now that weve clarified that.. i have a different question that i dont feel deserves its own thread so ill just post it here.

i know that in theory its calories in vs. calories burned but i cant quite wrap my head around how exactly my body is supposed to burn all the calories when i, say, eat nothing all day and then eat all my calories at night. not that i want to do that, just wondering. in my head it doesnt make sense to work out before eating all that. wouldnt it make more sense to eat first and then work it all off? how can it not make a difference?

i mean what happens to all the calories i eat before bed when ive worked out at noon?

Remember that your body is burning calories all day and all night just performing all its natural functions not just movement.

Also realise that storing excess energy and then later using that excess energy later is completely normal and doesn't need any special tricks to make it happen. People are not in calorie deficit or surplus 24 x 7 - they are shuttling between the two states.

So you eat a meal (think of it as fuel) - you have taken on more fuel than you need right now so some gets stored as a reserve (fat or glycogen).

You finish digesting that meal - you start using energy (calories) from your reserves.

The only difference between someone losing weight or gaining weight is the energy balance over the course of a day or a week. They are both shuttling between energy storage and depletion but for weight loss the depletion is greater than the storage.

lynn_glenmont

so now that weve clarified that.. i have a different question that i dont feel deserves its own thread so ill just post it here.

i know that in theory its calories in vs. calories burned but i cant quite wrap my head around how exactly my body is supposed to burn all the calories when i, say, eat nothing all day and then eat all my calories at night. not that i want to do that, just wondering. in my head it doesnt make sense to work out before eating all that. wouldnt it make more sense to eat first and then work it all off? how can it not make a difference?

i mean what happens to all the calories i eat before bed when ive worked out at noon?

Think of it as a revolving line of credit. You spend money you don't have when you work out at noon, so you're "borrowing" the energy from stored fat (hopefully, or mostly fat, with stored protein --muscle -- providing the balance, assuming you've been eating at a deficit long enough that you don't have much stored glycogen to tap). Then, in the evening when you eat, you pay it back, so the excess energy you're not using right then does go into storage, but assuming you're eating at a caloric deficit, the net for the day is more energy taken out of storage than you put back in. The timing doesn't really matter, from a weight loss perspective (as opposed to the perspective of fueling your workouts, but I'm assuming you'd be eating more earlier if you didn't have the energy for your workouts).

SpicesOfLife

thanks for the great explanations, both of you. that actually makes a lot of sense.