Is it bad to...?

SergeantSunshine_reused

Is it bad to eat the majority of your calories in like a 6 hour window?

I tend to do this because I never was a breakfast or lunch eater. I would just workout in the afternoon then eat a good meal for dinner and a few snacks then im good for the day. Just kind of how my schedule was forever. Now eating all day is just annoying to me xD

Opinions?

billsica

Yes

christine24t

Even if you're not hungry, eat breakfast and lunch! It is important not to eat all of your calories at once. You want to keep your blood sugar steady throughout the day.

rileysowner

No. Those doing the leangains.com approach to eating do a short eating window every day.

fionat29

I'd have to say yes too!!
I'm sure it can't be good for you. There must be a way to spread them a bit. Lol!

skinnyminniexx

you should ALWAYS eat within the first hour of waking up. it kick-starts your metabolism. if you don't you're body isn't burning as many calories as it should be. even if it's something small like a piece of fruit, EAT IT! and eating every 2-3 hours keeps your blood sugar at a steady level. when your blood sugar spikes and drops it makes you more hungry, which is probably what's happening to you. you don't eat all day and then get really hungry in the afternoon/night time and just keep eating, right? you'll be a lot less hungry if you eat something SMALL every 2-3 hours.

SergeantSunshine_reused

Those who say yes... why?

Just curious :]

I have read up a lot on leangains recently and am thinking about going back into that old habit xD

mem50

Eating like that will spike your blood sugar levels. Try a meal replacement drink for breakfast and lunch. Work your way up to eating though the day.

I was like you for quite a while. Not good with eating in the morning and would forget lunch and eat all evening. Since I was told I am hypoglycemic 2 years ago I am finding I don't have the highs and lows anymore. Plus I am not feeling tired and sick and shaky.

My doctor is the one who had to explain to me why I need to eat every 3 or so hours. Even if it is something small I make sure it has at least 15 grams of carb. Makes the body work better

SergeantSunshine_reused

you should ALWAYS eat within the first hour of waking up. it kick-starts your metabolism. if you don't you're body isn't burning as many calories as it should be. even if it's something small like a piece of fruit, EAT IT! and eating every 2-3 hours keeps your blood sugar at a steady level. when your blood sugar spikes and drops it makes you more hungry, which is probably what's happening to you. you don't eat all day and then get really hungry in the afternoon/night time and just keep eating, right? you'll be a lot less hungry if you eat something SMALL every 2-3 hours.

This in not true actually

You do not have to eat right when waking up. And there is no metabolism boost from eating every 2-3 hours.

You might want to read this: http://www.leangains.com/2010/10/top-ten-fasting-myths-debunked.html

Acg67

actually no it's not, i get all my cals in an 8hr window and 75-80% of them in a 4hr window at night eek! totally made me fat

chevy88grl

Honestly? I think it depends on the person. For me, I eat every couple hours throughout the day. It is how I keep my blood sugar level through the entire day. I've found when my blood sugar drops is when I want to make bad food choices. If I eat every couple hours, it keeps it level and all is well. Plus, I don't care what anyone says - I truly believe eating every few hours boosts your metabolism too. You are keeping your body fueled all the time - a fueled body keeps the metabolism burning. As someone who eats 2200-2500 NET calories a day at 143-145lbs -- I have a pretty high metabolism and I think it is because I am constantly eating.

SergeantSunshine_reused

Honestly? I think it depends on the person. For me, I eat every couple hours throughout the day. It is how I keep my blood sugar level through the entire day. I've found when my blood sugar drops is when I want to make bad food choices. If I eat every couple hours, it keeps it level and all is well. Plus, I don't care what anyone says - I truly believe eating every few hours boosts your metabolism too. You are keeping your body fueled all the time - a fueled body keeps the metabolism burning. As someone who eats 2200-2500 NET calories a day at 143-145lbs -- I have a pretty high metabolism and I think it is because I am constantly eating.

Copied from leangains:

1. Myth: Eat frequently to "stoke the metabolic fire".


Truth

Each time you eat, metabolic rate increases slightly for a few hours. Paradoxically, it takes energy to break down and absorb energy. This is the Thermic Effect of Food (TEF). The amount of energy expended is directly proportional to the amount of calories and nutrients consumed in the meal.

Let's assume that we are measuring TEF during 24 hours in a diet of 2700 kcal with 40% protein, 40% carbohydrate and 20% fat. We run three different trials where the only thing we change is the the meal frequency.

A) Three meals: 900 kcal per meal.

Six meals: 450 kcal per meal.

C) Nine meals: 300 kcal per meal.

What we'd find is a different pattern in regards to TEF. Example "A" would yield a larger and long lasting boost in metabolic rate that would gradually taper off until the next meal came around; TEF would show a "peak and valley"-pattern. "C" would yield a very weak but consistent boost in metabolic rate; an even pattern. "B" would be somewhere in between.

However, at the end of the 24-hour period, or as long as it would take to assimilate the nutrients, there would be no difference in TEF. The total amount of energy expended by TEF would be identical in each scenario. Meal frequency does not affect total TEF. You cannot "trick" the body in to burning more or less calories by manipulating meal frequency.

Further reading: I have covered the topic of meal frequency at great length on this site before.

The most extensive review of studies on various meal frequencies and TEF was published in 1997. It looked at many different studies that compared TEF during meal frequencies ranging from 1-17 meals and concluded:

"Studies using whole-body calorimetry and doubly-labelled water to assess total 24 h energy expenditure find no difference between nibbling and gorging".

Since then, no studies have refuted this. For a summary of the above cited study, read this research review by Lyle McDonald.

Earlier this year, a new study was published on the topic. As expected, no differences were found between a lower (3 meals) and higher meal (6 meals) frequency. Read this post for my summary of the study. This study garnered some attention in the mass media and it was nice to see the meal frequency myth being debunked in The New York Times.



Congrats on your loss and great metabolism! But i believe in science. To each their own i suppose :]

SergeantSunshine_reused

actually no it's not, i get all my cals in an 8hr window and 75-80% of them in a 4hr window at night eek! totally made me fat

Haha to all of you saying its bad... uhhh ^^^ thinking not then xD

servilia

I like the leangains approach. I don't feel hungry during the day either so during the work week especially (when I'm busy working) I don't mind skipping breakfast and lunch. It works for me. Eating during the day wipes me out.

chasidieason

I have to ask - if you are only interested in debunking everyone's opinion that disagrees with you, then why post the thread?

Acg67

also studies have shown metabolism slow down will occur generally 48-72hrs after fasting, not eating for 12-16 or even 24hrs isn't going to do much damage

SergeantSunshine_reused

I have to ask - if you are only interested in debunking everyone's opinion that disagrees with you, then why post the thread?

Because I like to be proved wrong too? I like to get people's opinions and possibly some who have done their research.

People do not have to read or post on this thread. If they do and I post something that might get them to think then I see nothing wrong with that.

asyouseefit

I think it's important to eat according to your hunger signals. If you're not hungry, don't eat. If you're hungry, eat. Eat breakfast if you are hungry in the morning. If you're not, don't. My OH never eats breakfast and is super fit!

Lift_hard_eat_big

I have to ask - if you are only interested in debunking everyone's opinion that disagrees with you, then why post the thread?

Because perhaps she is more educated than most of these bandwagon posters.
All those people saying "It's bad" please show me a peer reviewed published article that proves your claims.

Kalrez

I personally don't think it matter all that much. I also don't think it matters if you eat past 7/8/9pm.

Stay under your calorie goal. Eat reasonable food. Get in some exercise. You'll be fine.

JennLifts

Nope, it's like IF...

aj_rock

Sunshine, you're asking the wrong people :P Talk to some nutritionists or something if you want to about it, but IF is becoming a lot more widely accepted... IF you know what you're doing :P

For the average person, it's difficult to do. If it's what you're comfortable with, go with it!

fallenangelloves

Sumo Wrestlers do that....



You might lose weight faster but it's not healthy to let your body go that many hours without eating... I doubt there is a health expert out there that will tell you it's a good thing...

Acg67

Sumo Wrestlers do that....



You might lose weight faster but it's not healthy to let your body go that many hours without eating... I doubt there is a health expert out there that will tell you it's a good thing...

why isn't it good for your body to fast for under 24 hrs?

hush7hush

Not really, it's Intermittent Fasting. I eat all my calories in an 8 hour window, and have 16 hours of fasting. DAILY.

hush7hush

No. Those doing the leangains.com approach to eating do a short eating window every day.

There's a fellow IFer!

annemareef

I ate all my calories in the evening because it annoyed me to stop and eat and prepare food during the day.
I hurt my body, over time put on fat because my body thought I was starving and stored calories. I developed a style of living that did not respect my body and I have been paying for it.
You might like to try a new way of living that actually loves and supports your body.
The change is amazing and good things will come to you on every level as you respect yourself....you are worth the effort it takes to eat!

pinkita

I don't see how it would matter as long as you're within your calorie limit. I couldn't do it (nor am I interested in trying), but if it works for someone else I'm not going to try to talk them out of it.

chevy88grl

Honestly? I think it depends on the person. For me, I eat every couple hours throughout the day. It is how I keep my blood sugar level through the entire day. I've found when my blood sugar drops is when I want to make bad food choices. If I eat every couple hours, it keeps it level and all is well. Plus, I don't care what anyone says - I truly believe eating every few hours boosts your metabolism too. You are keeping your body fueled all the time - a fueled body keeps the metabolism burning. As someone who eats 2200-2500 NET calories a day at 143-145lbs -- I have a pretty high metabolism and I think it is because I am constantly eating.

Copied from leangains:

1. Myth: Eat frequently to "stoke the metabolic fire".


Truth

Each time you eat, metabolic rate increases slightly for a few hours. Paradoxically, it takes energy to break down and absorb energy. This is the Thermic Effect of Food (TEF). The amount of energy expended is directly proportional to the amount of calories and nutrients consumed in the meal.

Let's assume that we are measuring TEF during 24 hours in a diet of 2700 kcal with 40% protein, 40% carbohydrate and 20% fat. We run three different trials where the only thing we change is the the meal frequency.

A) Three meals: 900 kcal per meal.

Six meals: 450 kcal per meal.

C) Nine meals: 300 kcal per meal.

What we'd find is a different pattern in regards to TEF. Example "A" would yield a larger and long lasting boost in metabolic rate that would gradually taper off until the next meal came around; TEF would show a "peak and valley"-pattern. "C" would yield a very weak but consistent boost in metabolic rate; an even pattern. "B" would be somewhere in between.

However, at the end of the 24-hour period, or as long as it would take to assimilate the nutrients, there would be no difference in TEF. The total amount of energy expended by TEF would be identical in each scenario. Meal frequency does not affect total TEF. You cannot "trick" the body in to burning more or less calories by manipulating meal frequency.

Further reading: I have covered the topic of meal frequency at great length on this site before.

The most extensive review of studies on various meal frequencies and TEF was published in 1997. It looked at many different studies that compared TEF during meal frequencies ranging from 1-17 meals and concluded:

"Studies using whole-body calorimetry and doubly-labelled water to assess total 24 h energy expenditure find no difference between nibbling and gorging".

Since then, no studies have refuted this. For a summary of the above cited study, read this research review by Lyle McDonald.

Earlier this year, a new study was published on the topic. As expected, no differences were found between a lower (3 meals) and higher meal (6 meals) frequency. Read this post for my summary of the study. This study garnered some attention in the mass media and it was nice to see the meal frequency myth being debunked in The New York Times.



Congrats on your loss and great metabolism! But i believe in science. To each their own i suppose :]

Well, I'll be honest I skimmed that article.

I know what works for me and eating every few hours is it. Science is great, but believing every scientific word out there means that ALL of our bodies work exactly the same way. Let's face it -- they don't. We may have the same parts, but what works for one person won't work for another. So quite honestly -- science means nil to me when it comes to MY body. How on earth would a scientist know what is working better for MY body?

They don't. You can find an article out there to support just about anything or to not support just anything.

I don't care what anyone says - I clearly know what works for me and that is to eat constantly. Obviously I am doing something right .... and there isn't an article out there that will change my mind.

chevy88grl

I have to ask - if you are only interested in debunking everyone's opinion that disagrees with you, then why post the thread?

Because perhaps she is more educated than most of these bandwagon posters.
All those people saying "It's bad" please show me a peer reviewed published article that proves your claims.

Why do *I*have to post articles to prove something? If it works for you - do it. If it doesn't work for you - don't. People get so bogged down with articles. You can honestly find an article that will show support or be against everything on the internet.

For me, real life experience that people have speak volumes from the "articles" that are out there.

chasidieason

I have to ask - if you are only interested in debunking everyone's opinion that disagrees with you, then why post the thread?

Because perhaps she is more educated than most of these bandwagon posters.
All those people saying "It's bad" please show me a peer reviewed published article that proves your claims.

Why do *I*have to post articles to prove something? If it works for you - do it. If it doesn't work for you - don't. People get so bogged down with articles. You can honestly find an article that will show support or be against everything on the internet.

For me, real life experience that people have speak volumes from the "articles" that are out there.

I agree CG.

And I also have to point out that supporters of long-standing, widely accepted methods of eating, such as eating small meals throughout the entirety of the day and the importance of eating breakfast are not "band wagoners". It stands to reason that those on the other side of the debate are the ones jumping on a band wagon, as it seems to be a new trend - but I honestly don't know enough about it to say to speak to it's age or possibly being a fad.

However, I made no implication of taking either side of the debate, I simply posed a question. It seemed as though the original poster was seeking advice, though it later became obvious that she had formed a very strong opinion which she wished to debate with people who simply wanted to be helpful.

Either way, I hope whatever you choose to do works for you. Again, agreeing with CG, I know what works for me and I'm going to stick with it.