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

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.

I would dispute your characterization of what the human body evolved to eat. There was no one single set of conditions to which humans, world-wide were subjected. Some may have experienced what you describe. Some may have had a more continuous food supply. And regardless of the conditions, I would suspect that they changed with climate and as the bands of humans migrated across the continents.

Having said that however, the human body is well adapted for the conditions you describe, as it is very good at laying down thick layers of fat when calories are in surplus, and in catabolizing tissue when there is a deficit. Those are the very tendencies we are trying to avoid. thanks for pointing this out to everyone.

Pointing out what? That eating one 1500 calorie meal or 5 300 calorie meals results in the exact same amount of acute fat storage/total fat oxidation? That how many meals a day you eat makes no difference to overall metabolism and body composition? That early humans, before agriculture, relied on hunting and gathering, were nomadic, and had no food storage system, so they are once a day, or once every few days, because they didn't have the time nor ability to consistently hunt and gather to adhere to a "eat every 2 hours" schedule? I'm confused, what are we trying to avoid? Gaining weight? Simple way to avoid it, don't eat over maintenance calories.

I'm not even sure the point you are trying to make here, beyond the fact that you are showing you have no idea how biology and metabolism work.

__Di__

Okay I came across this article in peer trainer about Myths of Eating every 2-3 hours. So which is it? 6 small meals a day or 3 meals a day!!!

Here is the article.

http://www.peertrainer.com/myth_busters_jjvirgin.aspx

What does everyone else do?

I eat breakfast, lunch and dinner.

I cannot go with this "you have to eat a certain amount of times per day to lose weight".

ninerbuff

Broscience trying to be strong on here.

Most competitive bodybuilders will tell people to eat several meals a day because that's what they had to do (not mentioning enhancement) to keep their muscles from catabolizing.

It's BS. There are several peer reviewed clinical studies that show that meal timing has no relevance on metabolism. Worry more about macros and total calories.

A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness industry for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

jobrian1984

Broscience trying to be strong on here.

Most competitive bodybuilders will tell people to eat several meals a day because that's what they had to do (not mentioning enhancement) to keep their muscles from catabolizing.

It's BS. There are several peer reviewed clinical studies that show that meal timing has no relevance on metabolism. Worry more about macros and total calories.

A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor


Been in fitness industry for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

So Shannon Clark and Jamie Eason use BroScience? If that were the case it wouldnt be called BroScience, now would it?

Lyadeia

The answer is simpler than you think, OP. Just get your calories in and it doesn't matter when you do it.

I typically eat 3-4 times a day, but have in the past just had 1 meal or have gone up to 6. It doesn't matter as long as the calories are the same.

Lyadeia

Broscience trying to be strong on here.

Most competitive bodybuilders will tell people to eat several meals a day because that's what they had to do (not mentioning enhancement) to keep their muscles from catabolizing.

It's BS. There are several peer reviewed clinical studies that show that meal timing has no relevance on metabolism. Worry more about macros and total calories.

A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor


Been in fitness industry for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

So Shannon Clark and Jamie Eason use BroScience? If that were the case it wouldnt be called BroScience, now would it?

Yes, they use broscience.

And just because it is "broscience" does not mean that it does not work. It is simply one way of doing things with anecdotal evidence that it works for them and others who do it. It is not "THE WAY" to do it as others do it differently and achieve the same or similar results.

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/

That is evidence? Really?

No, this is evidence:

http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/04/22/weight.loss.anita.mills/index.html

jofjltncb6

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

Was it hypocritical? People often confuse those two terms.

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?

No, this is evidence:

http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/04/22/weight.loss.anita.mills/index.html

Orly?

SideSteel

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?

No, this is evidence:

http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/04/22/weight.loss.anita.mills/index.html

You asked for people to "do their research". I and others have posted actual research that would indicate that meal frequency doesn't have an appreciable effect on metabolism.

You have yet to post any actual research to support your claim.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9155494
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19943985
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11319656

DavPul

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?

No, this is evidence:

http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/04/22/weight.loss.anita.mills/index.html

SideSteel

I would still like to see what supposed research you are using to make the below assertions.

Here's some stuff you must not have looked at yet.

I had these same questions so I did some investigation and I've summarized what I found, below. If anyone wants links to the source documents or studies, send me a PM and I can provide them. So...in no particular order, what I've learned in support of eating multiple smaller meals a day:

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.

In addition to Alan's awesome work here:
http://www.wannabebig.com/diet-and-nutrition/is-there-a-limit-to-how-much-protein-the-body-can-use-in-a-single-meal/

You should note that the original idea of 30g/day being a functional limit to protein utilization, is incorrect because it ignores the linear relationship that protein consumption has on preventing protein breakdown.

Maximizing the stimulation of protein synthesis has been shown in some research to occur around the 30g mark, however additional protein will continue to prevent protein breakdown. If the goal is protein accretion then you'd have to look at protein synthesis minus protein breakdown. Prevention of protein breakdown will increase protein accretion.

Please see here:
http://www.clinicalnutritionjournal.com/article/S0261-5614(12)00266-X/fulltext

2) Excess thermogenesis of multiple meals - This is not a myth. It has been demonstrated that single, large meals are more efficiently processed than are multiple, smaller meals of equivalent caloric value. Another way of saying this is that it takes more calories to process multiple small meals. The difference in the caloric requirements is not trivial, and does effectively raise the metabolic rate of the individual eating multiple meals.

Start here:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19943985
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9155494
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11319656


[/quote]

3) Fat storage - Larger, less frequent meals produce a greater insulin response, which results in increased fat storage.

See here please:
http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=319

Anyway...that's what I've found, so that's my story and I'm sticking to it! :laugh:

And I hope that you change your story when presented with enough evidence that tells you that your story is wrong.


I would certainly do the same and I welcome those opportunities.

Cat_Lifts

I like how CNN-source man is nowhere to be seen. Good and plenty of info there SS, thanks!

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

Was it hypocritical? People often confuse those two terms.

if you (not personally you) don't understand the original statement and context, it could be considered hypocritical or self defeating.. but what the original person (tina) was referring to is to not trust websites/pages that make statements about scientific "facts" without backing up said facts with citations

the person who thought it was ironic is mistaken because it would be hypocritical at best (at best being if you assume that the original statement also means to not take advice from people telling you to only take advice from websites with citations)

jofjltncb6

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

Was it hypocritical? People often confuse those two terms.

if you (not personally you) don't understand the original statement and context, it could be considered hypocritical or self defeating.. but what the original person (tina) was referring to is to not trust websites/pages that make statements about scientific "facts" without backing up said facts with citations

the person who thought it was ironic is mistaken because it would be hypocritical at best (at best being if you assume that the original statement also means to not take advice from people telling you to only take advice from websites with citations)

I'll be honest...

...I haven't even *opened* page one of this thread.

I'm just here to watch some widely-held myths be defeated by science...

...because



Science!

jenn26point2

I eat breakfast when i'm hungry, lunch when I'm hungry and dinner when I'm hungry. I eat real food so I'm never "starving" or feeling like I MUST EAT NOW or risk shanking someone. I hardly ever need a snack or a bite of food between meals. #paleo

wamydia

I haven't done a lot of reading on this, but what I have seen in several places is that it is a myth that eating many small meals helps with weight loss in any physiological sense (although it works better for some people for other reasons). That said, I'm a little suspicious of the reasoning in the article about burning sugar instead of fat (and about most of the article, to be honest). Biologically speaking, our body is going to use the incoming glucose first, then glycogen stores (if there are any), then fat (and then muscle if you are burning too many calories and your body has to resort to it for easier energy -- this is not good). If you are eating many small meals, you will only be taking in so much food to be broken down into glucose and once that was used up you would need to switch to glycogen and/ or fat to keep you going until your next small feed. If you eat larger meals less often, you get more food to break down into glucose which means that the glucose will last longer. But you still will eventually have to switch to glycogen and/ or fat when you run out. This is all assuming you are eating at a deficit, of course. I think the take home message is that it is a myth that it makes a difference for weight loss, but I have my doubts as to whether it has any impact on sugar vs. fat burning either way.

That said, I think the best thing for you to do is pick whatever method works best for your lifestyle and your body. Some people like fewer big meals because they don't snack much and don't want to carry food around everywhere. Some people like to eat more smaller meals because they get hungry otherwise and end up eating everything in the kitchen before the next meal time comes up. Do what works for you and just make sure that you are running a deficit. Your body will burn fat either way. It has to eventually.

jobrian1984

I would still like to see what supposed research you are using to make the below assertions.

Here's some stuff you must not have looked at yet.

I had these same questions so I did some investigation and I've summarized what I found, below. If anyone wants links to the source documents or studies, send me a PM and I can provide them. So...in no particular order, what I've learned in support of eating multiple smaller meals a day:

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.

In addition to Alan's awesome work here:
http://www.wannabebig.com/diet-and-nutrition/is-there-a-limit-to-how-much-protein-the-body-can-use-in-a-single-meal/

You should note that the original idea of 30g/day being a functional limit to protein utilization, is incorrect because it ignores the linear relationship that protein consumption has on preventing protein breakdown.

Maximizing the stimulation of protein synthesis has been shown in some research to occur around the 30g mark, however additional protein will continue to prevent protein breakdown. If the goal is protein accretion then you'd have to look at protein synthesis minus protein breakdown. Prevention of protein breakdown will increase protein accretion.

Please see here:
http://www.clinicalnutritionjournal.com/article/S0261-5614(12)00266-X/fulltext

2) Excess thermogenesis of multiple meals - This is not a myth. It has been demonstrated that single, large meals are more efficiently processed than are multiple, smaller meals of equivalent caloric value. Another way of saying this is that it takes more calories to process multiple small meals. The difference in the caloric requirements is not trivial, and does effectively raise the metabolic rate of the individual eating multiple meals.

Start here:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19943985
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9155494
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11319656

3) Fat storage - Larger, less frequent meals produce a greater insulin response, which results in increased fat storage.

See here please:
http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=319

Anyway...that's what I've found, so that's my story and I'm sticking to it! :laugh:

And I hope that you change your story when presented with enough evidence that tells you that your story is wrong.


I would certainly do the same and I welcome those opportunities.
[/quote]

Many people keep referring to nibbling....eating frequent is not nibbling if its planned meals.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/15806828/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/23703835/?i=19&from=increased meal frequency

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/23613461/?i=27&from=increased meal frequency

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/22027056/?i=17&from=eating 5 meals in weight loss

SideSteel

Many people keep referring to nibbling....eating frequent is not nibbling if its planned meals.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/15806828/

Abstract indicates that this is a correlative study.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/23703835/?i=19&from=increased meal frequency

^ This is a reasonable study (one of few).

Now compare total bodyweight differences between the 3 and 6 meal high protein treatment and then compare actual differences in fat loss between those treatments. The lower protein group is not really important as we should be talking about matched protein/cals across different meal frequencies.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/23613461/?i=27&from=increased meal frequency

Did you read this part?

Although meal skipping was associated with decreased energy intake, it was linked to increased calories per EO

Shocking, they skip meals and then consume extra calories to compensate. This is not a study controlling energy intake and then measuring the effects of meal frequency.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/22027056/

This one is another observational piece about meal frequency that speculates cause and effect. I really don't think this does anything to support your claim.

I'd suggest finding similar studies to the one you linked where efforts are made to control total caloric intake and then monitor changes as that's relevant to claims about causation. (For clarity sake, the second study you listed is pretty good. And if more studies like this produced these kinds of results, you'd be able to build a case for increased meal frequency actually increasing metabolism).

But I do applaud you for at least attempting to find research rather than the previous stuff you tried to use to support your claim.

pcastagner

It's about personality.

I like to feast, and I am more focused, stronger, and faster on an empty stomach. Every time I have a meal, it costs me a little bit of willpower not to go crazy and overdo it. So I eat massive post workout meals, and I only eat for 4-8 hours every day.

The feasting provides relief from feeling deprived
And avoiding food most of the day avoids draining the willpower I need for workouts and portion control


It's ENTIRELY about total calories over time.

Analogy - a door is either open or closed. All doors, in that sense, are the same. That does not mean the same key will fit in every lock.