Raising your metabolism

rachmaree

Ummm... I would just say- have a look at 5nak3s pictures Also, I am eating more and more and still noticing changes in my body composition (losing body fat and becoming more muscular) so I am all for eating more frequently and doing strength training to boost metabolism.

Agglaki

I really hate that you took all that time to post such erroneous information.


You are significantly misinformed.



Again,


1. Meal frequency has no effect on weight loss.
2. Meal frequency has no effect on metabolism.
3. Repeat 1,2.
4. Nutrient timing has no effect on weight loss.
5. Nutrient timing has no effect on metabolism.
6. Repeat 4,5.
7. Gain nutritional knowledge, not anecdotal results.
8. Profit.

Well, as I said in my previous post, I'm posting a section from a book. I didn't type all that. So don't worry I did waste too much time. Thanks for your concern though, I have better ways of spending Saturday night.

Now, while I appreciate that not everyone will subscribe to more meals and meal frequency, and while I also understand some people do respond better to different routines and diets.

I at least provided some evidence to back up my belief. You have done nothing of the sort. So please do at your earliest convenience.

If what you are doing works for you great. Post a picture of yourself maybe I like your results and you change my outlook. Until then, or until you provide evidence to debunk not only the benefits of a staple stream of food into the body but also the fact it doesn't have any effect on the metabolism, please do not feel offended if I ignore your eight steps to profit.

As mentioned you neednt look further than any gym in any country. The people who are "toned", ripped, muscular, usually all do the same, train hard and eat big.

If you want weight loss, great don't follow the above advice, follow a twinkie diet and keep under your calorie limit for the day, you'll drop the weight. If you want lto maintain or grow muscle and drop the fat, start paying closer attention to the way you eat and what you eat.

Weight loss and fat loss are different. Everyone should be looking to fat loss as opposed to weight loss. In fact, burning fat while maintaining a lean body mass will in itself boost a metabolism as you will have more muscles which burns more calories than fat.

It isn't rocket science, but it requires some thought.

But hey-ho, I'm not here to argue. If you find something more substantial to correct my "misinformation" that would be a real help. One of the problems of hitting my goal is that once you are into single digit body fat, it becomes harder to speed up your metabolism any more.

By the way this was typed on my phone, so apologies for any spelling errors or lack of punctuation.

registers

Cardio, weights and small frequent meals WILL boost the metabolism.

Your body is a very clever "machine" it will adjust based on the above three factors.

Sitting on your backside, hardly eating or "starving and stuffing" WILL NOT boost your metabolism.

Pills and supplements probably work, but do you know the health risks?

Please, post any evidence showing that meal frequency will boost metabolism. There isn't any.


I eat, at most, two meals a day. What's wrong with that?

Firstly, some people if they are genetically gifted can get away with low meal numbers, eat what they want and burn through it all without storing anything. These are the people who seem to do very little at the gym and always end up looking good....

Let's ignore them.

Obviously everything is slightly different for all people because of different factors, age, height, weight, activity level etc etc etc

What might work for some will not for others. In terms of meal frequency however, two meals a day will not provide the body with the correct nutrient supply during the day. Your body is a machine, that needs fuelling all the time. Not having the correct nutrient supply over the 24 hour period will mean your body starts to break down muscles and eventually fat to get the nutrients it needs.

By reducing the number of meals you are having the options available is pig out for a bit, starve yourself, then pig out and starve yourself again. This approach will hamper progress in the long run for most people.

When you eat your body will use everything it needs, then starts storing the rest as fat. Also by starving yourself over a long period of time with this starve and stuff mentality (over a period of weeks for instance) you will slow down your metabolism as your body will soon start to ask where is the food.

You (Mapexdrunner69) have a 2300 calorie diary going on and seem to have HUGE meals even at night. Most people who work 9-5 find they body slows down in the evening, eating a large meal before bed will simply mean most of it gets stored as fat as the body is less active (obviously again there are some differences based on individual routines).

Since I'm running out in a bit and don't have time to type everything I want to say, I'll post a passage from a book by Tom Venuto - Burn the Fat, Feed the Muscle:

The reason most beginners have a hard time accepting the five or six meals
concept is because what I’m suggesting, in many cases, is that some people actually eat
MORE FOOD than they’ve ever eaten before; the food is simply spread out into smaller
portions. This idea might sound contrary to everything you’ve ever heard about losing
weight. I even said so myself in our previous talk about calories; you have to eat less than
you burn in order to lose weight, right?

True, calories count. But the amazing thing about eating frequently is that IT
MAKES YOU BURN MORE CALORIES! Five or six meals a day accelerates your
body’s natural rate of calorie burning.

Why skipping meals is one of the cardinal sins of fat burning nutrition...and how to
eat more food and lose more fat at the same time

Skipping meals (or leaving long gaps between meals) is the cardinal sin of fat-
burning and muscle-building nutrition. Missing meals slows down your metabolism,
causes muscle loss and triggers your body’s starvation responses.

Suppose you skip breakfast and you haven’t eaten since 8:00 p.m. the previous
evening. If you eat lunch at 12:00 pm, you’ve gone 16 hours without any food. At this
point, you are not only in a highly catabolic (muscle wasting) state, you’re also sending an
unmistakable starvation signal to your body.

If skipping meals is the cardinal sin of fat burning and muscle building nutrition,
then skipping breakfast is a capital crime suited for the death penalty! And yet
“everybody” is doing it!

When I analyze nutrition programs for my clients, one of the most common errors
I see is skipping breakfast or eating it late, around 10:00 a.m. or even later. “I don’t have
time” is usually the excuse justifying this unforgivable blunder. Let’s take a close look at
the devastating impact this lack of planning and discipline has on your fat loss efforts:
Suppose you’re in a hurry to get to work in the morning and you bolt out the door
without eating breakfast. Your first meal of the day is lunch at 12:00 noon. It’s
moderately sized, let’s say 500 calories, consisting of a turkey sandwich on wheat and a
banana. Sounds fairly healthy so far. By your customary dinnertime of 6:00 p.m., you are
ravenously hungry, and you polish off a massive plate of pasta for a total of 800 calories.
Later that night you’re still hungry and craving something sweet. Some cookies and low
fat milk do the trick – about 300 calories. Then you go right to sleep. Although far from
perfect, this menu doesn’t sound like a total disaster to the average, uniformed person...
But IT IS! It’s a nightmare!

If we add up those calories, it totals only 1600 for the entire day. In theory, at least
according to the calorie calculations you did previously, you should be losing fat – quite
rapidly if you’re a man. So why aren’t you? It’s because you’re doing EVERYTHING
possible to encourage your body to store fat: You are going catabolic by leaving 18 hours
between dinner and the next day’s lunch. This causes muscle loss and metabolic
downgrade. Because you’ve only eaten one meal during the day, you’re famished and you
eat too much at dinner. Even though you’re in a 24-hour calorie deficit, this causes fat
storage anyway because you’ve eaten more than you can handle at one sitting. By
“starving and stuffing,” you’ve also set yourself up for serious cravings at night; usually
the wrong foods – like cookies or ice cream!

In the long run, this type of diet is a sure-fire way to slow down your metabolism,
lose muscle and gain body fat. On the other hand, 2400 calories spread out into five or six
small meals of 400 - 480 calories each (about 300-350 calories per meal for women), will
increase energy, accelerate muscle growth, and speed up your metabolism without fat
storage. Frequent eating can actually allow you to consume up to 50% more calories
without storing an ounce of it as fat!


Not a scientific study, but it is one passage of the book.

If you are still not satisfied with that answer I'll propose something to you:

Picture a body builder (I train with enough of them on a day in day out basis...I see them during their on and off season).

When a body builder is looking at getting on stage, the idea is to grow muscle and drop fat. These guys are always eating! I mean ALWAYS.

They also have body fat % in the low single digits. Their bodies are as lean as possible.

Sure they work out a lot, sure they measure everything, and are super strict and dont cheat etc etc etc...but it doesn't stop them from eating. In fact, they have alarms that are set to go off to remind them to eat to keep fuelling their bodies.

These guys train themselves in such a way that their bodies are able to process everything they eat so efficiently that they maintain their lean physique while still holding onto muscle mass (which is usually the first thing the body attacks when it is starved of nutrients).

Oh and I'm well aware of their pre-competition routines or dehydrating themselves, tanning themselves to make the muscles look bigger and the skin to feel and look tighter. I don't condone this aspect. But ultimately you cannot argue with the results.

You did get great results, no question about that. You stated a lot of things that go against scientific evidence. Mostly a bunch of myths in the fitness community. At the end of the day, it boils down to how many calories you ate at a specific ratio. You talk about eating 6 meals a day, that's fine. You did your workouts, you got good results. Like i said it boils down to how many calories you eat. and at what ratios. I perfer one meal a day in the evening. Like someone said for conveniences, what people usually don't know is that hunger releases growth hormone. Which preserves muscle tissue, and even helps with muscular growth. this implies eating most of your calories at one sitting, is more effective than eating multiple times a day. This doesn't mean eating multiple times a day ISNT effective, like i said it mostly boils down to the calories at the end of the day.

aborgschulte

LOL at those unaware in this thread. Keep eating 7 times a day for no reason. I eat at noon, 4 pm and then the remaining 60% of my daily calories at 7:30pm (usually between a 1300-1400 calorie meal) and have been losing a pound a week with no appreciable loss of LBM (oh, and setting PRs in the gym).

But I'm sure it's super convenient to pack 4 meals for work, so keep it up.

Nemlein

People are unnecessarily aggressive in this thread.... if what you're doing is working, keep it up and let others do what works for them. Who cares. To the OP, I would hesitate to go the route of taking pills. Millions have lost weight without them, and they very rarely work. You don't want to be on them long term, either so just keep on track with the common sense method of healthy eating and exercise.

lodro

Your BMR is always at 70%. You can raise the rest of the 30% through exercise and frequent meals. Eat small meals 5-6 times a day to keep your metabolism active. Of course exercise is going to help alot too.

Just to inform you, not trying to sound rude or anything. But that 5-6 meal a day thing is a myth. There are a lot of myths in the fitness community, that's just one.

below is a link dismissing that claim.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8399092

Your not being rude eveyone has their opinion. For me this "myth" worked completely. I did not change anything except my eating habits. I used to eat 2 meals a day thats it and constantly gained weight. I changed and starting eating breakfast then a snack or lunch then dinner then another snack before bed and I have lost 13 lbs pretty much just doing this. I rarely have time to exercise because of my schedule. So yeah it may not work for some but it sure as hell worked for me!!!

Oh yeah just another funny note...when I ate 2 meals my stomach never growled, when I started eating 5 meals a day it growled every 3 hours like clock work lol saying heelllloooooo feed me!!! : )

yes of course, because you had an insulin response 5 times a day.

also, you may have overeaten your mark on these 2 meals, and have been able to control intake better by eating 5 times a day.

wildon883r

There is no scientific data that shows eating 6 meals a day is a significant metabolism booster. You can gain a 10% boost to metabolism by drinking a glass of cold water or drinking a cup of coffee. There is also no scientific data that states eating before bed converts that food into fat sheesh. Sorry alot of armchair dietary experts in these forums sometimes. Eating cinammin or hot peppers boost your metabolism as to many things but i don't consider 10% anything other then better then not having 10% gain. The trouble is that people make it harder then it really needs to be.

It's only about calories in and calories out. If you burn more calories the you consume you will lose weight. I don't exercise other then what i get at work and at home working in my garden or riding my bike. I did the same things when i was at my heaviest. The only thing i've done differently thats caused me to drop 41lbs is to watch my daily calorie intake, cut my beer consumption back to 1/3rd what it was a month and thats it. I still eat whatever the hell i want. I just don't eat like a pig anymore. Instead of eating a 1/2 lb hamburger at Wendy's occasionally i eat 1/4 lb or instead of having 2 Johnsonville Brats i eat one instead.

People fail to get that small dietary changes are huge when you look at them in a years time window. Losing just 1 lb a week is 52lbs a year and thats an amazing weight drop. Heck even .5 lbs a week is 25lbs a year. Keep it simple thats all you need to do.

atachauer

I think there is some merit for eat little and often. I am not sure if it does affect metabolism, there are lots of arguments for and against. The main reason I am eating little and often is to reduce dips in blood sugar level. If i leave it too long and let myself get a bit hypo, then I tend to binge on rubbish food. I am not diabetic, but I do find myself getting a bit hypo at times. I think eating little and often will help me stay 'topped up' and satisfied- making me less likely to binge. The snacks I have a generally between 100-150 calories and include something like a piece of fruit or a Nutrigrain bar with a cup of tea. I have only been doing this regular eating over the last week, and am trying to stick to timings I'd use at work , so we'll see how it goes.

Having a larger muscle mass should help with metabolism-

good luck!

atachauer

yeah i agree, some folks are getting a bit hot-headed on here!!!!! I read this post to get advice, not to read people b*tching! Do whatever works for you! hey if the scales are going the right way and you're healthy, who cares! Yeah....pills are a no go area for me!

Agglaki

There is no scientific data that shows eating 6 meals a day is a significant metabolism booster. You can gain a 10% boost to metabolism by drinking a glass of cold water or drinking a cup of coffee. There is also no scientific data that states eating before bed converts that food into fat sheesh. Sorry alot of armchair dietary experts in these forums sometimes. Eating cinammin or hot peppers boost your metabolism as to many things but i don't consider 10% anything other then better then not having 10% gain. The trouble is that people make it harder then it really needs to be.

It's only about calories in and calories out. If you burn more calories the you consume you will lose weight. I don't exercise other then what i get at work and at home working in my garden or riding my bike. I did the same things when i was at my heaviest. The only thing i've done differently thats caused me to drop 41lbs is to watch my daily calorie intake, cut my beer consumption back to 1/3rd what it was a month and thats it. I still eat whatever the hell i want. I just don't eat like a pig anymore. Instead of eating a 1/2 lb hamburger at Wendy's occasionally i eat 1/4 lb or instead of having 2 Johnsonville Brats i eat one instead.

People fail to get that small dietary changes are huge when you look at them in a years time window. Losing just 1 lb a week is 52lbs a year and thats an amazing weight drop. Heck even .5 lbs a week is 25lbs a year. Keep it simple thats all you need to do.

I really wish I could agree with you on the calorie in vs calorie out mentality. But I can't.

A calorie is not just a calorie. There is a difference between weight loss and fat loss. If you're only concerned with the number on the scale. Calories in vs calories out is great. You can eat what you want and as long as you are hitting your numbers you will drop the weight. But it is likely that this will come from muscle as opposed to fat.

Imagine two diets, one consisting of junk food (crisps / potato chips, chocolate bars and fizzy drinks) and the other consisting of lean proteins and complex carbs (two very extreme examples I know, but bear with me on this). If both have the same calorie count and put the individual below their calorie target for the day, the individual will drop weight.
But which of the two diets is healthier and which of the two will yield a lower body fat % for the individual?

Can you honestly say both diets will yield the same results?

---

For the OP:

Ultimately, my standpoint in relation to the original message posted is that the more muscle mass you have, the more capable of burning more calories.

I'm not talking about having 24inch biceps, and lats so big you can't touch your back, but having a higher muscle concentration in the body will increase your metabolism. Replacing the body fat with lean muscle will speed up your metabolism. There is a reason why competitive athletes can eat several thousand calories a day and maintain their physique, put simply their bodies are capable of burning through calories much quicker than an average person. Sure their training regimes will also aid in this as they'll burn a lot more than an average person when working out, but if you see some of their diets you'd be amazed at what these guys can eat and get away with. Surely this isn't the product of exercise only.

By eating healthy meals e.g. can of tuna and some veg (approximately 400 cal) several times a day, you are feeding your muscles with nutrients they need to avoid being broken down. You are not going too long without a meal and therefore you potentially avoid the case of over eating / binging at a later time, and more importantly your body is doing some digestion after the meal.
Digesting food burns calories, in more cases with fruit and veg the energy it takes to digest them is actually more than the fruit or veg contains.

Combine this with exercise and your body will adjust and burn through calories much quicker than if you were sitting on the sofa watching TV day in day out.

Your body will adapt over time. If you feed it correctly, it will know that a new meal is coming sooner rather than later and will not resort to storing food as fat. But if you starve yourself it will do its best to hold onto every last calorie it can. Your body is slowing down its metabolism to keep you alive.

Regarding the use of diet pills, a typical scenario is one where you take the pill that either gives your body a boost e.g ephedrine, caffeine tablets or whatever variation exists today. You're putting your body into overtime and therefore you can burn through your food much better.
Once you stop taking these pills you've gone from one extreme where you were working overtime to one where your body is no longer running at 120% and it is likely during this time your dietary habits haven't changed because there has been no need to change. Once you go off the pill the weight comes back.

So the natural reaction is the pill works, "I'll buy some more", you go back onto the pill, drop the weight, once you stop, you're weight shoots back up. The pill is working, but unless you change the fundamentals of your eating habits in the long run it is a waste of money.

But as I've said in all my posts thus far (if I'm not mistaken), not everyone is the same. Starting weight, fitness level, body fat composition, genetics, body type, allergies, health all mean different things work for different people.

The one thing I've noticed from personal experience, from my research and from my time spent at various gyms is that regardless of age, body size, weight bracket, all the guys who go on stage to compete or all the guys who seem to be able to maintain lean physiques while increasing their size seem to follow the very same setup:

Lift correctly (good form and controlled weights)
Eat regularly (several meals a day a few hours apart)
Load up on complex carbs and lean proteins
Still have the cheat meals / days / weekends

Ladyrabc

You have made me chuckle......... and I think you are right,Ive been one of those eat well, exercise well and regularly people and unfortunately over the years have started skipping meals just through time etc, bad excuse I know. However I do think you are right and have been stated to eat little and often for the past month, nothing was happening so joined MFP in order to diarise what I am eating, Once again nothing is still happening and if anything I've put 2Lb on! I will stick with it but if your able to give me any advise I would be very grateful.

Will re read your post later as need to really take it in, thanks for taking the time to explain it really is helpful to us newbies.

Rabc

pwrchrd

Interesting article and findings. I wonder if they also measured the satisfaction or hunger scale of the participants. I know personally that when I distribute my caloric intake across the day I feel less hungry then if I eat a few larger meals.

christy_cross

I didn't want to quote your whole post, so just to 5nak3 when you said this:

"Imagine two diets, one consisting of junk food (crisps / potato chips, chocolate bars and fizzy drinks) and the other consisting of lean proteins and complex carbs (two very extreme examples I know, but bear with me on this). If both have the same calorie count and put the individual below their calorie target for the day, the individual will drop weight.
But which of the two diets is healthier and which of the two will yield a lower body fat % for the individual?"

Interestingly enough, there was a professor who restricted his caloric intake, but ate (i think it was) 70% junk food. Its been dubbed the 'twinkie diet'

Here's a link:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html

Apparently, he lost 27lbs in 2 months and went from BMI of overweight to healthy (28.8 to 24.9) and his LDL dropped as well. So while most nutritionists don't encourage people to follow suit, they do acknowledge that this experiment reinforces that calories in and out is VERY important in weight loss.

One thing to keep in mind when reading about weight loss and diet is this ---> just because its in a book doesn't make that 'evidence'
Its easy enough to get a book published in the market place (especially if the publisher knows you are a famous person and will sell books, and they don't care what you put in it either). What you might want to look for is a book by an author who has credentials (and not just ancedotal, look at my results credentials because those are for one person's experience), and massive studies published in journals (since these need to be peer reviewed by more than one scientist there are more checks in place to ensure good science was done, though I will admit the odd thing does get published that is total crap in science journals).

Now I know I linked to an article in CNN so I'm being a bit hypocritical but hopefully you get my point (and the twinkie diet was just too fun of an example so I had to link to it).

DrHDLM

What you should do is increase your BMR (Basic Metabolic Rate), you can achieve this by increasing your Muscle mass, bodybuilding. Go for it!

Agglaki

I didn't want to quote your whole post, so just to 5nak3 when you said this:

"Imagine two diets, one consisting of junk food (crisps / potato chips, chocolate bars and fizzy drinks) and the other consisting of lean proteins and complex carbs (two very extreme examples I know, but bear with me on this). If both have the same calorie count and put the individual below their calorie target for the day, the individual will drop weight.
But which of the two diets is healthier and which of the two will yield a lower body fat % for the individual?"

Interestingly enough, there was a professor who restricted his caloric intake, but ate (i think it was) 70% junk food. Its been dubbed the 'twinkie diet'

Here's a link:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html

Apparently, he lost 27lbs in 2 months and went from BMI of overweight to healthy (28.8 to 24.9) and his LDL dropped as well. So while most nutritionists don't encourage people to follow suit, they do acknowledge that this experiment reinforces that calories in and out is VERY important in weight loss.

One thing to keep in mind when reading about weight loss and diet is this ---> just because its in a book doesn't make that 'evidence'
Its easy enough to get a book published in the market place (especially if the publisher knows you are a famous person and will sell books, and they don't care what you put in it either). What you might want to look for is a book by an author who has credentials (and not just ancedotal, look at my results credentials because those are for one person's experience), and massive studies published in journals (since these need to be peer reviewed by more than one scientist there are more checks in place to ensure good science was done, though I will admit the odd thing does get published that is total crap in science journals).

Now I know I linked to an article in CNN so I'm being a bit hypocritical but hopefully you get my point (and the twinkie diet was just too fun of an example so I had to link to it).

Hiya,

Welcome to the forums!

Yes I'm well aware of the Twinkie diet. In fact that is what spurred me to make that comment about two diets for comparison.

I hadn't read the article you posted, and will do so after I walk the dog. But I have skimmed through it. I've seen no mention of the professors body fat percentage level.

The reliance on BMI as a measure is fundamentally flawed. In fact I'm right at the top of the normal BMI bracket at 24 BMI...Most body builders and athletes are classed as very high normal in some cases even overweight. For reference Usain Bolt depending on what measurements you take ranges from 24.5 - 25.2 on the BMI scale....he is running 100m in less than 10 seconds, I doubt he is overweight.

BMI as a measure fails to take muscle mass into consideration.

In fact from the article, the drop from 28 BMI to 24.9 BMI puts the professor at just under the overweight category...so he still has a lot more Twinkies to eat

Furthermore, as far as I saw in the article there was no mention of the persons LDL prior to the diet...I don't know enough about this subject so I won't delve any further into LDL's and HDL's. Although I will say he did supplement his diet with what seem like some healthy choices such as beans, veg, vitamins and protein shakes. So I think his diet must have had some nutritional element.

There is some truth to the Twinkie diet. If you want to loose weight and you don't care if your muscles are wasting away, all you should look at are calories in and calories out so you will drop weight. I already mentioned that.

That is fine. If you are simply concerned about the weight on the scale.

But I'm talking about body composition and the effect it has on your metabolism. The Twinkie diet will drop your weight, but because your body is malnourished you will waste away your muscle composition. Doing this will slow down your metabolism.

Fat loss is not easy, nor is it a quick process. Subscribing to the Twinkie diet will lead to a huge drop in (mostly muscle) weight and very little else.

Regarding the book publication vs peer journals. I agree with you just because it is written down in a book it doesn't mean that it is true. Peer journals would be a much better reference point. I quoted the book's passage as that is what I had to hand at the time of being asked for "evidence", and also because what is said in the book seems to tie up with what I've seen in many different gyms and what I'm reading on the internet, in magazines, and other books.

My intention wasn't to make it seem as if this one book is the be all and end all of nutrition. There is no such thing in my opinion. The reason behind the quote of the book was to give an idea about meal frequency and the effect on the metabolism and it was somewhat convenient for me to post it at the time.

mapexdrummer69

Body COMPOSITION is determined by macronutrient consumption. Body WEIGHT is determined by energy balance.

registers

Body COMPOSITION is determined by macronutrient consumption. Body WEIGHT is determined by energy balance.

very great post.

mapexdrummer69

Interesting article and findings. I wonder if they also measured the satisfaction or hunger scale of the participants. I know personally that when I distribute my caloric intake across the day I feel less hungry then if I eat a few larger meals.

There have been studies that show that satiety and hunger hormones like ghrelin and GLP-1 will adjust to your eating patterns. When I first started fasting, I would be starving in the morning. Now I don't get "hungry" until around noon, and my large first meal keep me feeling full until my second meal. I'm almost never hungry, and I'm cutting.


Different foods and macronutrients also have an effect on satiety.

rileysowner

If you have issues with the "Twinkie Diet" guy, you really need to watch the documentary "Fat Heads" certainly a very interesting take on this. As for meal timing, it has not metabolic effect and has no effect on fat loss. That is all about energy in versus energy out and the exercise you do. The vast amount of research into this in recent years all points to the truth of that. If 6 meals (or 10 for that matter) a day works for you to control what you eat, great, for me it leaves me completely unsatisfied and more likely to eat extra calories, but don't say things about 6 meals a day that a verifiable untrue base on repeated peer reviewed controlled studies.

mapexdrummer69

If you have issues with the "Twinkie Diet" guy, you really need to watch the documentary "Fat Heads" certainly a very interesting take on this. As for meal timing, it has not metabolic effect and has no effect on fat loss. That is all about energy in versus energy out and the exercise you do. The vast amount of research into this in recent years all points to the truth of that. If 6 meals (or 10 for that matter) a day works for you to control what you eat, great, for me it leaves me completely unsatisfied and more likely to eat extra calories, but don't say things about 6 meals a day that a verifiable untrue base on repeated peer reviewed controlled studies.

You sir are very correct. Meal timing literally comes down to personal preference.