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

Options
1234568»

Replies

  • binary_jester
    binary_jester Posts: 3,311 Member
    Options
    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
    sara_xo Posts: 195 Member
    Options
    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
    CombatVet_Armywife Posts: 300 Member
    Options
    :yawn:

    Couldn't agree more!!
    I feel sorry for the guy who started this thread...
  • binary_jester
    binary_jester Posts: 3,311 Member
    Options
    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
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    Options
    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
    HealthyChanges2010 Posts: 5,831 Member
    Options
    :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. :tongue:
  • HealthyChanges2010
    HealthyChanges2010 Posts: 5,831 Member
    Options
    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
    SHBoss1673 Posts: 7,161 Member
    Options
    HC, which post are you referring to? Just curious.
  • HealthyChanges2010
    HealthyChanges2010 Posts: 5,831 Member
    Options
    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
    binary_jester Posts: 3,311 Member
    Options
    *gasp* are you saying hyperbole works? I will immediately inform the news industry. I don't think they have ever used that method. joke.gif
  • SarahBC
    SarahBC Posts: 72 Member
    Options
    :yawn:

    +1

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

    AGREEEEEE!!!
  • kristafields1
    kristafields1 Posts: 5
    Options
    I fast often. A week or less at a time. Sometimes with juice and sometimes just water. I dont have time to eat 6 meals a day. When Im not I actually eat like a man and I have since a little kid. Ive eaten such big meals my metabolism is beastly. Im the smallest in my family and the biggest eater. I lose weight better than anyone Ive ever met. Im kinda on your side. Ive been worried lately about all the hooplah bout how Im destroying my metabolism. Nice to hear something else.
  • kristafields1
    kristafields1 Posts: 5
    Options
    actually EVERYONE LOOK UP INTERMITTENT FASTING IN THE ONLINE WIKPEDIA ENCYCLOPEDIA!! NOT ONLY IS HE RIGHT BUT ITS ACTUALLY GOOD FOR YOU AND HELPS WITH CANCER, DISEASE, LONGEVITY, ECT. THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!
  • HealthyChanges2010
    HealthyChanges2010 Posts: 5,831 Member
    Options
    actually EVERYONE LOOK UP INTERMITTENT FASTING IN THE ONLINE WIKPEDIA ENCYCLOPEDIA!! NOT ONLY IS HE RIGHT BUT ITS ACTUALLY GOOD FOR YOU AND HELPS WITH CANCER, DISEASE, LONGEVITY, ECT. THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!
    shhhhh! Calm down:wink::flowerforyou:
  • GIBride01
    GIBride01 Posts: 328 Member
    Options
    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.

    Agreed. And can someone tell me exactly what specialized training and education a "nutrition counselor" has?
  • SHBoss1673
    SHBoss1673 Posts: 7,161 Member
    Options
    double post
  • SHBoss1673
    SHBoss1673 Posts: 7,161 Member
    Options
    Intermittent fasting is 24 to 48 hours, not a week. There's a big difference there, the body goes through drastic changes at around 48 to 72 hours that can cause serious issues if continued.

    The studies that Wikipedia is referring to are short term, narrow focus studies looking at the effects of cholesterol during an intermediate fast. which is fine, but lowering your LDL doesn't mean you have to stop eating for days at a time. There are a lot of ways to help lower your LDL cholesterol levels. for example, cutting out the processed carbs (simple carbs) will have a huge affect on it.

    If done correctly, short term intermediate fasting cycles can help some people to reach their goals, but it isn't a magic bullet, no more than any other tool is a magic bullet for weight loss. Consistency, knowledge, patience, and willpower are the way you achieve success.

Categories