Eating every 2-3 hours a MYTH!??? WTH!

death2thepixies

Good point.

BeachIron

I eat when I'm hungry, and stop I when I stop feeling hungry or hit my calorie goal, whichever comes first.

Okay, at least that's most of the time . . .

MuseofSong

I have seen so many infomercials (partway before I flip the channel) that talk about having litlte meals all day like you're constantly adding kindling to the fire and you burn fat faster with many meals. I understand the concept of it maintaining a stable blood sugar and that kind of stuff.

But, it just will not and cannot work for some people. I have a job where I cannot eat when I want. I literally can't. It's not like it's a choice where I could just have a quick something. It's a non-option. I have to eat, if I want to eat at all, at the lunchtime I'm allotted and that's it. We might have snacks for late meetings, but that's after the regular work day is over.

I'm sure there are many other people who have tight schedules, and the idea that you have to eat little meals all day long or your metabolism is starving and not burning fat is a defeating concept because it's something I could never do.

Sometimes on the weekends, I sleep past breakfast time, or I wake up early and nap later, thereby sleeping through lunch time, did I just murder my metabolism because I did not wake up in time for tea and toast or an afternoon sandwich? Somehow, I do not think so.

eric_sg61

1) Protein utilization - You cannot utilize more than ~30 grams of protein per meal for anabolic purposes. Protein consumed in excess of this amount is either used for its caloric value (not optimal because protein is a "dirty" fuel), or will be stored as fat. Individuals with protein needs in excess of 90 grams/day, and who only eat 3 meals/day run the risk of being in a continual protein deficit. The body will react to this by catabolizing lean body mass.

Stopped reading at this horse**it. Protein is nearly impossible to be stored as fat---
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/nutrition/nutrient-intake-nutrient-storage-and-nutrient-oxidation.html
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/nutrition/excess-protein-and-fat-storage-qa.html

Sarauk2sf

Holy broseph batman! There are some gems here.

OP, not that you probably care as you started this thread over a year ago, however, any possible benefits of meal timing (and we are only talking possible and insignificant ones, if at all) is far, far outweighed by eating in a way that suits gym performance and adherence. There is no credible source that indicates a more than potentially insignificant benefit of meal frequency on metabolism directly.

PunkyRachel

I eat 3 meals, sometimes a snack at night, like popcorn while watching TV. My job doesn't only gives me a 30 minute lunch break. So breakfast, lunch and dinner is all my schedule allows for.

Amadbro

This is a myth. I can tell you from EXPERIENCE. I use the Lean Gains/Intermittent fasting approach to diet and I can tell you meal frequency/timing is irrelevant. I generally eat twice a day. Once post workout lunch (about 1700 cals with about 317g carbs) and 2nd is dinner and around 1100 cals. I've done this through the entire 50 lbs I've lost in the last 6 months and have retained most of my lean body mass and strength in the gym. Eat when you want to. At the end of the day all that matters is calories in vs calories out.

Surplus=weight gain
deficit=weight loss

Sarauk2sf

1) Protein utilization - You cannot utilize more than ~30 grams of protein per meal for anabolic purposes. Protein consumed in excess of this amount is either used for its caloric value (not optimal because protein is a "dirty" fuel), or will be stored as fat. Individuals with protein needs in excess of 90 grams/day, and who only eat 3 meals/day run the risk of being in a continual protein deficit. The body will react to this by catabolizing lean body mass.

Stopped reading at this horse**it. Protein is nearly impossible to be stored as fat---
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/nutrition/nutrient-intake-nutrient-storage-and-nutrient-oxidation.html
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/nutrition/excess-protein-and-fat-storage-qa.html

Plus:

http://www.wannabebig.com/diet-and-nutrition/is-there-a-limit-to-how-much-protein-the-body-can-use-in-a-single-meal/


and


Venuto also has a good article as well.

Sarauk2sf

I'm just not hungry every two or three hours. Thirsty, yes.

In my opinion, you might just have a slow metabolism. So eat every 2-3 hours and your body's metabolism will speed up, unless you have thyroid problems or other conditions with at would prevent this. Do your research.

If you are on my fitness pal the. It's safe to assume you are trying to eat better and lose weight? How long have you been doing it and what's your results?

Not everyone is here to lose weight.

And also, there are many people who evidence results - and I would bet a significant number of them do not eat every 2 - 3 hours.

jobrian1984

Lee Labrada

http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/lee-labrada-12-week-lean-body-trainer-nutrition-overview.html

Additional source

Eat often. Berardi recommends eating every 2 to 3 hours. Each time you eat, you stimulate your metabolism for a short period of time, which means that the more often you eat, the more you’ll increase your metabolism. Eating every 2 to 3 hours feeds muscle and starves fat. By eating frequently, you reassure your body that you aren’t going to starve; that food will always be available. Skipping breakfast, eating only a sandwich for lunch, and pigging out at dinner, on the other hand, frightens your body into storing fat, just in case your next meal never comes. Research from Georgia State University shows that people who eat every 2 to 3 hours have less body fat and faster metabolisms than those who eat only 2 or 3 meals per day.

Back to the Basics

http://www.dietitiancassie.com/back-to-the-basics-nutrition-101/

PikaKnight

So everyone that has had success not eating frequently is still doing it wrong? Even if their metabolism is fine, etc....they are still doing it wrong because there can only be ONE way to do this, right? Is that what you are saying? Because sure sounds like it. If it isn't and the people eating 2-3 meals a day versus hours is still doing what works best for them....then that still debunks what you are saying.

DavPul

IN for frightening my body into ignoring thermodynamics!!!

Sarauk2sf

Lee Labrada

http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/lee-labrada-12-week-lean-body-trainer-nutrition-overview.html

Additional source

Eat often. Berardi recommends eating every 2 to 3 hours. Each time you eat, you stimulate your metabolism for a short period of time, which means that the more often you eat, the more you’ll increase your metabolism. Eating every 2 to 3 hours feeds muscle and starves fat. By eating frequently, you reassure your body that you aren’t going to starve; that food will always be available. Skipping breakfast, eating only a sandwich for lunch, and pigging out at dinner, on the other hand, frightens your body into storing fat, just in case your next meal never comes. Research from Georgia State University shows that people who eat every 2 to 3 hours have less body fat and faster metabolisms than those who eat only 2 or 3 meals per day.

Back to the Basics

http://www.dietitiancassie.com/back-to-the-basics-nutrition-101/

That is evidence? Really?

jrutledge01

It is the illusion of a health benefit packaged for helpless morons.

As one of those "helpless morons", I agree. A more steady-state blood sugar level keeps me at an "I'm satisfied, I only need to eat a little bit" level all day long. And when my blood sugar is low and I'm feeling dizzy and cranky because I haven't eaten anything in 12 hours, I'm helpless to resist my cravings and I make moronic food decisions.

But as long as calories burned > calories eaten, you're good - whatever you as an individual find works for you. If you're the type of person who prefers to eat your daily allotment calories in a sitting and can manage not to eat anything else for 24 hours, then that's what you should do. If you can eat (your daily allotment)/20 calories an hour for 20 hours, that also works. And anything in between is fine.

unless you're diabetic, i am pretty sure this is all in your head

Sarauk2sf

IN for frightening my body into ignoring thermodynamics!!!

You should also be in for using someone's meal plan from bb.com that incorporates supplements that bb.com sells, as evidence.

tiffysinc

I tend to get hungry ever few hours regardless of how much I eat (not kidding) so I usually try to eat smaller amounts more often to keep my myself from starving and subsequently going into Godzilla mode when I finally get near food.

jrutledge01

TinaLatina: do not read articles or take advice from noncredible sources. That article didn't even cite any research or analysis. It's just someone's personal opinion.

Ironic post is ironic.

i think you should look up the definition of irony. that post was not ironic

DavPul

IN for frightening my body into ignoring thermodynamics!!!

You should also be in for using someone's meal plan from bb.com that incorporates supplements that bb.com sells, as evidence.

nosebag1212

meal timing is irrelevant to body composition, eat as many or little times as you want it will not make a difference, personally I eat 3 meals a day in an 8 hour feeding window

Mrs_Bones

Everybody is different!!! I eat three meals with one or two snacks depending on how hungry I am, because I like to try to spread my calories out over the day for energy. Some people do great with six mini-meals and others go way over in their calories that way and find they do better just eating three square meals. Try around and find what works best for you. So long as you're sticking to your calorie goals and having energy to get through the day, you'll be golden.

Boogage

I eat whenever I feel like it. Quite often I'll have 4 meals and snacks in between and I don't think the time or amount of meals I've eaten in a day has affected my weight loss. Oh I also often eat a sandwich or something in the middle of the night and that doesn't stop me weighing in lighter as long as it fits within my calorie limits.

faely

I don't think anyone can tell you when you SHOULD eat. Our bodies tell us that, unless I'm confused on the word "hunger". (There are, ofc, exceptions to this as well). Everyone is different, period. There is no one perfect way that applies to all the world. IMO, there's nothing more conclusive than personal experience.

Research from Georgia State University shows that people who eat every 2 to 3 hours have less body fat and faster metabolisms than those who eat only 2 or 3 meals per day.

That research applies only to the people that were being researched. Stop blanket-applying it to everyone. We don't all fit into that mold, no pun intended.

MinMin97

I did that for a while, ate that often. I've also done IF. Currently eating 3 meals per day. Just do whatever keeps you on track and makes you happy.

tigersword

Lee Labrada

http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/lee-labrada-12-week-lean-body-trainer-nutrition-overview.html

Additional source

Eat often. Berardi recommends eating every 2 to 3 hours. Each time you eat, you stimulate your metabolism for a short period of time, which means that the more often you eat, the more you’ll increase your metabolism. Eating every 2 to 3 hours feeds muscle and starves fat. By eating frequently, you reassure your body that you aren’t going to starve; that food will always be available. Skipping breakfast, eating only a sandwich for lunch, and pigging out at dinner, on the other hand, frightens your body into storing fat, just in case your next meal never comes. Research from Georgia State University shows that people who eat every 2 to 3 hours have less body fat and faster metabolisms than those who eat only 2 or 3 meals per day.

Back to the Basics

http://www.dietitiancassie.com/back-to-the-basics-nutrition-101/

This goes 100% against human evolution. The human body evolved to eat large amounts of food at I e time, and then fast for an extended period of time until the next meal. If early humans had to eat every hour or two in order to function properly, the human race would've gone extinct over a million years ago.

For the record, it takes 3 to 4 days of complete fasting to see any kind of metabolic slowdown. Skipping breakfast and having a bigger dinner will actually offer a slight metabolic boost.

EmilyDuby

Two or three meals a day works best for me. I've tried eating little amounts often and it doesn't work for me because then I never feel truly satisfied. I like to eat a nice big meal that's like 700-900 calories, that is what keeps me happy and keeps me on my diet so I allow myself to do that just not several times during the day.

shierrarobin

It depends on you.

Me? I eat three meals a day. I eat breakfast sometime between 7:00 and 9:00 a.m. I eat lunch between 11:00 and Noon. And I eat dinner between 4:30 and 6:00 p.m. And that works for me. If I get hungry, I can wait till a meal because I've trained myself not to overeat, even if I'm really hungry. I once sat and watched my friends eat pizza when I hadn't eaten all day and I didn't touch a bite.

If you're okay with eating three meals a day, do it. If you think you'd be more comfortable with a bunch of small meals, do that. Don't even listen to what the Doctors tell you. A doctor told me if I needed to only eat 1000 calories a day in order to be healthy, so you can't always trust them either. You know your body better than anyone. You do what you think is best for it.

MinMin97

One thing with eating small meals all the time......
Eventually you are gonna get really-in-the-mood for a nice BIG MEAL.
Nothing wrong with that, just saying that it feels good to get filled up, too, every once in a while.

faely

It is the illusion of a health benefit packaged for helpless morons.

As one of those "helpless morons", I agree. A more steady-state blood sugar level keeps me at an "I'm satisfied, I only need to eat a little bit" level all day long. And when my blood sugar is low and I'm feeling dizzy and cranky because I haven't eaten anything in 12 hours, I'm helpless to resist my cravings and I make moronic food decisions.

But as long as calories burned > calories eaten, you're good - whatever you as an individual find works for you. If you're the type of person who prefers to eat your daily allotment calories in a sitting and can manage not to eat anything else for 24 hours, then that's what you should do. If you can eat (your daily allotment)/20 calories an hour for 20 hours, that also works. And anything in between is fine.

unless you're diabetic, i am pretty sure this is all in your head

You can have low blood sugar without being a diabetic.

I'm pretty sure he knows his body a lot better than you do.

jrutledge01

It is the illusion of a health benefit packaged for helpless morons.

As one of those "helpless morons", I agree. A more steady-state blood sugar level keeps me at an "I'm satisfied, I only need to eat a little bit" level all day long. And when my blood sugar is low and I'm feeling dizzy and cranky because I haven't eaten anything in 12 hours, I'm helpless to resist my cravings and I make moronic food decisions.

But as long as calories burned > calories eaten, you're good - whatever you as an individual find works for you. If you're the type of person who prefers to eat your daily allotment calories in a sitting and can manage not to eat anything else for 24 hours, then that's what you should do. If you can eat (your daily allotment)/20 calories an hour for 20 hours, that also works. And anything in between is fine.

unless you're diabetic, i am pretty sure this is all in your head

You can have low blood sugar without being a diabetic.

I'm pretty sure he knows his body a lot better than you do.

sure you can, but you won't get it from fasting for four hours

faely

It is the illusion of a health benefit packaged for helpless morons.

As one of those "helpless morons", I agree. A more steady-state blood sugar level keeps me at an "I'm satisfied, I only need to eat a little bit" level all day long. And when my blood sugar is low and I'm feeling dizzy and cranky because I haven't eaten anything in 12 hours, I'm helpless to resist my cravings and I make moronic food decisions.

But as long as calories burned > calories eaten, you're good - whatever you as an individual find works for you. If you're the type of person who prefers to eat your daily allotment calories in a sitting and can manage not to eat anything else for 24 hours, then that's what you should do. If you can eat (your daily allotment)/20 calories an hour for 20 hours, that also works. And anything in between is fine.

unless you're diabetic, i am pretty sure this is all in your head

You can have low blood sugar without being a diabetic.

I'm pretty sure he knows his body a lot better than you do.

sure you can, but you won't get it from fasting for five hours

Re-read it. He said 12 hours. And again, regardless of what you think you know and want to apply to a stranger, he knows what works for him so there's really no point in trying to debunk what he's applying to himself. It's not like he's applying it to you or anyone else.