6 meals a day is a lie. Your metabolism won't slow down.

TateFTW

Man! I'm glad I didn't start this back and forth controversial thread, but since I'm here this is what I believe; The main way to loose weight is to take in less calories than we need to maintain our current weight on a daily basis. we could reduce the calories, or burn calories by exercise, or both, which is preferred. Now after saying that, I believe there are better ways to accomplish this to obtain the Best result, Yes I think eating serveral small meals a day often increases the metabolism, thus help burn fat, so 6 small meals would be better than 3 large meals, however if more calories were consumed by eating 6 small meals then the whole effort would be in vain. Also, keep in mind to loose fat and not muscle you need to loose slowly, no more than 2 pounds per week, Also keep a diet adequate in Protein, fat, and carbs, to maintain muscle. And I believe that alternating daily calories (more one day-less the next & so on) can help burn fat better by Not sending your body in a "ghost starvation" mode. Again, most anyone can loose weight by just cutting back on calories, But doing it Healthy verses non Healthy is the concern in my post. ~cheers~

Not to be a jerk, but that's the problem. It doesn't really matter what you or anyone else thinks, because what people think has no effect on reality. It takes your metabolism at least days and usually weeks to speed up or slow down as a result of changes in intake. I can tell you that if you climb Mt. Olympus a magical purple unicorn will tell you the secret to lose 50 lbs. Doesn't mean it's true.

Thanks for your input as to what you "Think"!

I try not to think. I just follow the science.

mirenner

you can lose weight by not eating... yes

but the question is... should you not eat and if you chose to, is that demonstrating healthy eating....

remember, its healthy eating... not healthy non-eating

jmltrooper

TOTALLY AGREE, six small meals a day is the BOMB! It works and no one will convince me otherwise, I lost 70 lbs doing this, small healthy nutrionally balanced meals six times a day and good exercise, that is the key. Fasting...BLAHHHH, that is no fun and I get agitated when I am hungry. I fast once a month for two meals for religious reasons, but beyond that I like the eating six times a day.

ProTFitness

All I have to is WOW!!!! Really!!! People are overweight and obese because they are eating 6 times a day it is because they are eating the wrong foods and too much of them!!!!! They are not exercising. They eat large meals at night they starve there bodies all day and that get yous no were!! I am PHYSICALLY hungry almost every 3-4 hours. I know both ends of this and I go for the 5-6 meals a day! HEALTHY CLEAN FOODS!!!!! PS WORKING OUT HELPS TOO

rockieschick

I love my 5-6 meals a day! I have way more energy and I just feel great! Might not work for everyone but it does for me!

Certified_Femail

Pullright
where is there info on fasting that you would recommend? I envy your job lol. I had a trainer for about a year and i was in the best shape of my life. This was about 5 yrs ago. So thats my goal lose the 20 or so more pounds and am starting the gym this next week. wasnt able to go to the gym for over a year cuz of a injury. But now i can. I loved having a trainer and he sculpted me the way he wanted and well all i can say is he did a good job. I am going to try hard to remember what i learned from him. Im getting down in weight but need the tone so i can have a situation again lol I had a girl washboard lol

CombatVet_Armywife

I didn't read through everyone's post, but I did just want to say I completely disagree with the topic of this thread. Just yesterday I watched an entire program with a group of doctors who specialize in particular areas and they talked about the importance of eating 5-6 portioned meals. They talked about the many benefits, but in particular was the effects on the blood sugar levels AND your metabolism. I WISH there were a way to post that show on here!!! People need to see it if they are believing "6 meals a day is a lie". I suggest for anyone who wants to know the truth to do a bit of research.

CombatVet_Armywife

Women's metabolisms are different than men's metabolisms first off. Secondly, if you eat very small meals many times a day you will have a constant source of energy and will avoid the after lunch and 3 pm slumps. Every body is different, but a lot of ppl trying to lose weight or have a healthier lifestyle find that eating small meals throughout the day is better than 3 larger meals.

Guys can usually get away with just 1 or 2 meals a day, women not so much.

Also, when your body has to digest food you burn more energy, and if you're eating small meals throughout the day that means your body is burning energy at regular intervals and doesn't really have a chance to slow down. If it is being forced to deal with large quantities of food at a time it is more likely to store some as fat, where as if it only has to deal with a small amount of food at a time it is usually able to handle everything.

Wow, this is not true. I practice Intermittent Fasting and I am a woman. I go most days about 17 hours between eating and I am never HUNGRY, low on energy and I lose weight effortlessly this way.

I gained weight and had MAJOR blood sugar swings eating 5 or 6 meals a day the way they tell you your supposed to eat.

I am certified Nutrition Counselor and I agree with the Original Poster.

THIS actually scares me.
I'd love to know how a board of specialized doctors could say the EXACT opposite of a nutrition counselor who is providing their opinion for hundreds of others to read.

Azdak

I didn't read through everyone's post, but I did just want to say I completely disagree with the topic of this thread. Just yesterday I watched an entire program with a group of doctors who specialize in particular areas and they talked about the importance of eating 5-6 portioned meals. They talked about the many benefits, but in particular was the effects on the blood sugar levels AND your metabolism. I WISH there were a way to post that show on here!!! People need to see it if they are believing "6 meals a day is a lie". I suggest for anyone who wants to know the truth to do a bit of research.

I "do a bit of research" in my spare time and I can say that there is plenty of evidence that suggests that meal frequency has no independent effect on weight loss. IMO, almost all the of discussion on this topic is ideological, not scientific.

chatal36

Efficient adaptation to famine was important for survival during rough times in our evolution. Lowering metabolic rate during starvation allowed us to live longer, increasing the possibility that we might come across something to eat. Starvation literally means starvation. It doesn't mean skipping a meal not eating for 24 hours. Or not eating for three days even. The belief that meal skipping or short-term fasting causes "starvation mode" is so completely ridiculous and absurd that it makes me want to jump out the window.


Pulled this from a website... thought it was relevant
please do not attack me :flowerforyou:

millermichellelea

I just want to say that a lot of people on here have been told the myth down the years that your metabolism will slow down if you don't keep eating. The fact that people keep eating is the reason why obesity is epedemic. The diet and food industry want people to keep eating so they can sell their products. Have a look at intermittent fasting for the truth on weight loss.

I have read a lot about how if you eat over 600 calories in one sitting your body stores it as fuel and it goes right to your middle. I have also read a lot about small meals helping to keep your metabolism up and help lose weight. I really don't know anything, except what works for me. I think you have to learn how your body is made, what works for you, and then ignore the background noise. My husband eats 2 to 3 meals a day, 1,000 calories or more at each meal. He is fairly slender, if I do that, well I tried eating on his schedule for four years and gained 45 pounds. Now I have lost 22 just eating smaller meals more often.

MacMadame

I have read a lot about how if you eat over 600 calories in one sitting your body stores it as fuel and it goes right to your middle. I have also read a lot about small meals helping to keep your metabolism up and help lose weight.

And I've read a lot that
-our bodies can only absorb 30 g of protein at a time ... not true.
-caffeine is a diuretic ... not true.
-if you make a protein shake in a blender, the protein is destroyed ... not true.
-you lose more weight if you work out in your fat burning zone than a higher zone ... not true.

The thing is, people can say anything. Especially on the internet. :laugh: This is why we need to learn to evaluate sources of information. Also, when it comes to weight loss, the science isn't always there and instead so-called experts repeat whatever the current thought of the day is about the "best" way to lose weight. Just because a lot of people are saying something, it doesn't make it true.

Also, people need stop being so afraid of "storing fat". Our bodies store fat ALL THE TIME. It's how they are made. You eat and some calories get used right away, but the rest get stored. The stored calories are then pulled out and used the next time you do a bit of work. People act like any stored calorie is stored FOREVER but that's not how it works.

Every day we burn a combination of glycogen (stored 'sugar' in the muscles), stored fat and food. You can't eat exactly as many calorie as you are burning 24/7 so our bodies have to store some. They store some as ready energy (glycogen) and some as long-term energy (fat). But as long as you eat less than you burn, you will tap into all your stores and any stored fat will be burned.

For your 600 calorie example... let's say someone works out intensely and burns 1500 calories but only consumes 500 during that time (you can't absorb more than a certain amount of calories when you work out). Do you really think that if they then eat a 700 calories meal that 100 of it will get stored as stomach fat that will never get used by their bodies? That just doesn't make sense. They've got a 1000 calorie deficit that has to be made up somehow. There is no reason to store 100 of the calories as fat when the body needs them. It's like putting $100 into savings and then taking it out immediately to pay a bill.

SHBoss1673

-caffeine is a diuretic ... not true.

FYI Caffeine is a diuretic.

From Advanced Nutrition and Human Metabolism, chapter 8, page 251

"Caffeine
Ergogenic effects of caffeine are seen in endurance events. It is generally recognized that the largest impact is seen in individuals who do not consume caffeine on a regular basis. Caffeine is a CNS stimulant, increasing blood flow to the kidneys (thus acting as a diruetic) and stimulating the release of fatty acids from adipose. Sports regulatory bodies have set an upper limit for the permissible levels of caffeine consumption."

FYI the above text is the most used text for accredited Nutrition programs in Universities in the US and is widely regarded as the bible of Nutrition and Metabolism by most certification organizations. Almost every RD program and 4 year Nutrition program in the country use this book at some point during nutrition degree programs. It's also super expensive, but a really worthwhile read if you understand chemistry.

MacMadame

A diuretic is something that increases the amount of fluid that leaves your body overall. Caffeine does that in the short term, but not in the long term. So it's doesn't really fit the definition. In one study, they found is that people would consume caffeine and would pee more in the 2 hours after. But they didn't pee more in a 24 hour period than people who didn't consume caffeine. IOW, it didn't make you lose more water overall, it just made what water you were going to lose anyway come out faster. It's like an ON switch for your kidneys. Whatever is in there comes out but more doesn't go into the kidneys so it just means you pee less later.

Obviously, if you are in the middle of an endurance event, peeing more during a two hour period can impact your performance, but for normal people drinking coffee and tea over the course of a day, they aren't having an overall diuretic effect.

I can't find the link to the study that showed the 2 hours vs. 24 hours effects but this article talks a bit about why people believe it's a diuretic (because of studies that only look at 1 time caffeine use) and why it really isn't (other studies that look at long term effects)

http://www.medicinenet.com/caffeine/page3.htm

liltrainer

It really is all about what people are eating and portion not the number of times a day. I eat 5 times a day and my body fat is 20. Keep in mind I consume healthy stuff.

HealthyChanges2010

:yawn:

keithinphilly

i agree with u, i dont eat 5 meals a day, i'm doing great as well as feel great, plus i'm very active,..

TateFTW

:yawn:

+1

It's time to let this thread die. Eat when you want. Follow the numbers, drop the lbs.

SHBoss1673

A diuretic is something that increases the amount of fluid that leaves your body overall. Caffeine does that in the short term, but not in the long term. So it's doesn't really fit the definition. In one study, they found is that people would consume caffeine and would pee more in the 2 hours after. But they didn't pee more in a 24 hour period than people who didn't consume caffeine. IOW, it didn't make you lose more water overall, it just made what water you were going to lose anyway come out faster. It's like an ON switch for your kidneys. Whatever is in there comes out but more doesn't go into the kidneys so it just means you pee less later.

Obviously, if you are in the middle of an endurance event, peeing more during a two hour period can impact your performance, but for normal people drinking coffee and tea over the course of a day, they aren't having an overall diuretic effect.

I can't find the link to the study that showed the 2 hours vs. 24 hours effects but this article talks a bit about why people believe it's a diuretic (because of studies that only look at 1 time caffeine use) and why it really isn't (other studies that look at long term effects)

http://www.medicinenet.com/caffeine/page3.htm

no, a diuretic, by definition, is something that raises urinary function in the kidney, dehydration would be something that reduces the water levels in the body. They are two different things, and have two different practical meanings for the human body, confusing them is common, but wrong.

there are classifications of strength of diuretic, from mild to strong, caffeine is considered by the USDA and the FDA as a mild diuretic. Until they change their classification I think I'll stay with that.

http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=7103

I think maybe what you meant to say was that it's a myth that COFFEE dehydrates you, because while the caffeine in it is a mild diuretic, the water in it counterbalances that, and the over all water balance from drinking a cup of coffee is positive, not negative. I.E. the amount of water you ingest via the coffee is more than the increase in water output from the kidneys, so coffee hydrates you just like water does, but just less volume wise than the same fluid amount of water would.

IsMollyReallyHungry

glad to hear this! I also find it hard to beleive that if you don't eat all of your calories your metabolism will slow down..

I have never seen anyone who deprive themselves of calories gain weight the way the experts say they do. Also, anyone who is obese and say that they barely eat are not being honest with themselves. I've seen people who don't exercise and who are barely eating lose weight faster than myself when I was exercising very often and trying to eat well-balanced meals.

I understand this point, and I was a victim of the 6 meals a day. I had found myself thinking about food very often because it would be time to eat again, or if I didn't eat much at one meal, I was starving until the next meal time approached. I started gaining weigt because the calories might have been too much (I wasn't counting calories at the time). I think at least 2 of the meals are not meals, but they are actually snacks.

Lastly, I currently know someone who eats 3 small meals a day (mostly vegetables) with snacks, and is losing weight at an incredible 1 pound a day without feeling any starvation. She mostly consumes low-glycemic foods that does not affect her blood sugar level.

Remember calories is the key.

Agree.....:-) At the end of the day it is all about calories in.

binary_jester

I didn't read through everyone's post, but I did just want to say I completely disagree with the topic of this thread. Just yesterday I watched an entire program with a group of doctors who specialize in particular areas and they talked about the importance of eating 5-6 portioned meals. They talked about the many benefits, but in particular was the effects on the blood sugar levels AND your metabolism. I WISH there were a way to post that show on here!!! People need to see it if they are believing "6 meals a day is a lie". I suggest for anyone who wants to know the truth to do a bit of research.

Here are 2 medical studies supporting that increased meal frequency does not effect metabolism:

Br J Nutr. 2010 Apr;103(8):1098-101. Epub 2009 Nov 30.
Increased meal frequency does not promote greater weight loss in subjects who were prescribed an 8-week equi-energetic energy-restricted diet.
Cameron JD, Cyr MJ, Doucet E.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19943985


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.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3592618

sara_xo

I just want to say that a lot of people on here have been told the myth down the years that your metabolism will slow down if you don't keep eating. The fact that people keep eating is the reason why obesity is epedemic. The diet and food industry want people to keep eating so they can sell their products. Have a look at intermittent fasting for the truth on weight loss. .

I disagree .. I used to eat one or two meals a day, but those meals were a couple thousand calories each ... at least.

These days, I tend to eat small portions of healthier food every couple hours during the day, and it keeps me from getting overly hungry.

very much agreed. I find that if I let myself go longer than 3 hours with out food I will end up having a binge.. reagardless of how good I've been, I HAVE to keep my blood sugar levels even and make sure that everything is in stone so that I know what's going to happen, I carry my Six Pack Lunch Bag with me at all times, and everything keeps me sane.

best lunch bag ever; www.sixpackbags.com

CombatVet_Armywife

:yawn:

Couldn't agree more!!
I feel sorry for the guy who started this thread...

binary_jester

I just want to clarify. The point of this thread is stating meal frequency has no effect on metabolism or increased thermogenesis, which medical studies support. That says nothing about binging, blood sugar etc.
If you tell people eat multiple meals so you won't be hungry, so you won't binge, etc, that makes more sense. Telling people that eating multiple meals because it increases your metabolism or helps you burn fat is incorrect.
Having the correct information is never a bad thing.

Azdak

I just want to clarify. The point of this thread is stating meal frequency has no effect on metabolism or increased thermogenesis, which medical studies support. That says nothing about binging, blood sugar etc.
If you tell people eat multiple meals so you won't be hungry, so you won't binge, etc, that makes more sense. Telling people that eating multiple meals because it increases your metabolism or helps you burn fat is incorrect.
Having the correct information is never a bad thing.

These things take on a life of their own. Imagine how someone feels who spends an hour putting together a serious, researched topic and gets like 5 responses. This guy throws off a rant-fart and it goes on forever..........

But you have restated the essential issue well. Too often people mistake individual experience, subjective impressions, psychological reactions, etc, as science. It doesn't necessarily mean they are wrong (for them), but it does not represent "evidence" or proof of any principle. Plus, it is easy to mistake coincidental events as causal (e.g. I decreased my calories to 1200 a day, exercised, and ate 6 meals and lost weight---therefore, eating 6 meals results in weight loss). That is why, in an earlier comment (one that I thought would be my last on this topic :laugh: , I referred to this discussion as being mostly "ideological" rather than factual.

HealthyChanges2010

:yawn:

Couldn't agree more!!
I feel sorry for the guy who started this thread...

Well actually my yawn wasn't a dis to anyone. I had posted then decided I didn't want to add my thoughts to the rest after all so had to add something. So a yawn was it since it was late.

HealthyChanges2010

I just want to clarify. The point of this thread is stating meal frequency has no effect on metabolism <snip>

Having the correct information is never a bad thing.

I very much agree, correct info is never a bad thing! I had been told by so many on here and a few other places that it effected the metabolism by breaking up my meals throughout the day. Well heck I believed it, I didn't know any better. That's the tough part about message boards, so much of it is opinions and among that is nuggets of truth.

Then I read a thread Banks wrote that made so much sense I learned that day it's not a bad thing to break down your meals but it doesn't effect our metabolism. I do it for my blood sugar levels to stay consistent. I think the difference in this thread was the title of it with the word 'lie' in it as an attention grabber. It ruffled ppl's feathers quite a bit and the battle of words began. I think the rest of the thread title wording would have still got enough readers on it's own to pop open the thread.

Thank you Banks for teaching me about how spreading my meals out in the day doesn't effect my metabolism and for doing it in a way that didn't feel like an attack against those of us that decide to eat that way. I appreciate how you word your posts, they never feel harsh when you share info unless they need to in particular situations.:drinker: :flowerforyou:

SHBoss1673

HC, which post are you referring to? Just curious.

HealthyChanges2010

HC, which post are you referring to? Just curious.

OMG....I don't know right off...but it was a great post and it was within the last 6 months for sure! I wish the search component here was a wee bit more refined and I imagine I could pull it up.

But it So helped me to fully understand it myself and to QUIT telling others on here misinformation!:blushing: I feel bad that I was passing on incorrect info but I guess if it's all we know it tends to happen.:blushing: :flowerforyou:

binary_jester

*gasp* are you saying hyperbole works? I will immediately inform the news industry. I don't think they have ever used that method.