Eatting every 3 hours??

StirFriedGiblets

I believe you are referring to this graph. While there is validity to what you are saying, it really doesn't matter as much when you are eating at a constant caloric deficit to TDEE.

Ah yes, thank you very much. What does TDEE mean?

missikay1970

try it and see if it works for you. I don't think it is necessary

best comment here!

I will add...that I personally eat every 2.5 to 3 hours...I do this to keep from over eating...and because I am hungry all the time..

That's a completely different issue. Adherence/individual preferences are not what was being asked. She asked if meal frequency impacts metabolism - which is something that has been shown to proven false through various scientific studies.

ok i realized in my above reply that i didn't answer the question at-hand. i do not have any clue about metabolism. i was just commenting on eating frequently.

myak623

Ah yes, thank you very much. What does TDEE mean?

Total Daily Energy Expenditure

tobnrn

You can find peer reviewed articles on either end of this arguement.

Bottom line eat less than tdee and move more.

crisanderson27

Look very carefully at the physique maintained by each man that posted this.

Physical appearance determines your knowledge of human nutrition and physiology? I had no idea.

You dog!!

Glad I could help educate you.

The point I was making...since you chose to use sarcasm to try to deflect it, is that they are obviously very successfully maintaining a rather admirable level of physical conditioning without eating multiple meals spaced throughout the day. People on this forum could give a damn less about scientific studies, proof, or results. All they care about is anecdotal evidence...so I put some square in their face.

And I'd like to add...all three of the men I quoted are intelligent, experienced, and thorough in their research, along with having the dedication to strive for the BEST answer, not just an acceptable answer.

Funny, I could have said that in my post...but I kind of think the pictures carried more weight.

lilojoke

If you have a history of blood sugar issues eating more frequently may be a good idea

lilojoke

I've recently started eating every 3 hours but mine was more because I think I'm slightly hypoglycemic. After about 3 1/2 hours my hands would be so shaky I could barely work (I work with needles and other sterile things in a clean room-- shaky hands are not helpful). It seems to have helped me lose a little bit so far but I've also upped my calories, started c25k and my "snacks" at work are protein shakes since they're fast and easy. For some people it might not work, but I definately feel better when I'm not listening to my stomach growl.

Edit-- For me it is also helping me learn when I actually am hungry. If I know I just had something 30 minutes ago, then I know the feeling in my stomach is not hunger and it's just my brain craving more (unneeded) food).

I am the same way too most of the time

crisanderson27

If you have a history of blood sugar issues eating more frequently may be a good idea

Medical issues can be an exception...yes.

sniperzzzz

Have a read of this ;-)
Original article http://www.leangains.com/2010/10/top-ten-fasting-myths-debunked.html


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.

Origin

Seeing how conclusive and clear research is on the topic of meal frequency, you might wonder why it is that some people, quite often RDs in fact, keep repeating the myth of "stoking the metabolic fire" by eating small meals on a frequent basis. My best guess is that they've somehow misunderstood TEF. After all, they're technically right to say you keep your metabolism humming along by eating frequently. They just missed that critical part where it was explained that TEF is proportional to the calories consumed in each meal.

Another guess is that they base the advice on some epidemiological studies that found an inverse correlation between high meal frequency and body weight in the population. What that means is that researchers may look at the dietary pattern of thousands individuals and find that those who eat more frequently tend to weigh less than those who eat less frequently. It's important to point out that these studies are uncontrolled in terms of calorie intake and are done on Average Joes (i.e. normal people who do not count calories and just eat spontaneously like most people).

There's a saying that goes "correlation does not imply causation" and this warrants further explanation since it explains many other dietary myths and fallacies. Just because there's a connection between low meal frequencies and higher body weights, doesn't mean that low meal frequencies cause weight gain. Those studies likely show that people who tend to eat less frequently have:

* Dysregulated eating patterns; the personality type that skips breakfast in favor of a donut in the car on the way to work, undereat during the day, and overeat in the evening. They tend to be less concerned with health and diet than those who eat more frequently.

* Another feasible explanation for the association between low meal frequencies and higher body weight is that meal skipping is often used as a weight loss strategy. People who are overweight are more likely to be on a diet and eat fewer meals.

The connection between lower meal frequency and higher body weight in the general population, and vice versa, is connected to behavioral patterns - not metabolism.


2. Myth: Eat smaller meals more often for hunger control.


Truth

Given the importance of finding the most favorable meal pattern for hunger and appetite control, there's a surprising scarcity of studies on the topic. The most widely cited study is one where obese males were fed 33% of their daily calorie requirement ("pre-load") in either one single meal or five meals before being allowed to eat ad libitum five hours later (meaning as much as they desired).

A: One single meal was consumed. 5 hours later they were free to eat as much as they desired, "buffet"-style.

B: Same setup as above. However, the single meal was now split into five smaller meals, which were consumed every hour leading up to the ad libitum meal.

The results showed that subjects undergoing "A" ate 27% more calories when given the ad libitum meal. The same setup was used by the same researchers on lean males and showed similar results. However, upon closer scrutiny it's clear how little real world application those results have. The macrocomposition of the pre-load was 70% carbs, 15% fat and 15% protein; given as pasta, ice cream and orange juice. The situation created was highly artificial and abnormal. Who sits around nibbling on pasta and ice cream, sipping orange juice, every hour leading up to a regular meal?

The latest research, performed under conditions that more closely resemble a real-world scenario, shows the opposite result. In this study, three high-protein meals lead to greater fullness and appetite control when compared to six high-protein meals. You can read my summary of the study here: Three Meals Superior for Appetite Control.

There's no doubt that meal frequency is highly individual. However, absolute statements claiming smaller meals are superior for hunger and appetite control are untrue and are based on studies using methods that greatly differed from real-world meal patterns. Current research with a normal meal pattern and protein intakes that are closer to what can be seen in a typical non-retarded diet, suggests superior appetite control when eating fewer and larger meals.


Origin

This myth might have originated from the limited data from studies on meal frequencies and appetite control. It's also likely that it's another case of mistaking correlation for causation from studies and meal frequencies and higher body weights; if people who eat more often weigh less, then it must mean they can control their hunger better, etc.


3. Myth: Eat small meals to keep blood sugar levels under control.


Truth

According to legions of diet and health "experts," eating small meals every so often will help you avoid hunger pangs, provide you with stable energy throughout the day and keep you mentally sharp. Contrary to what many people seem to believe, blood sugar is extremely well-regulated and maintained within a tight range in healthy people. It does not swing wildly up and down like a chimpanzee on meth and it doesn't plummet from going a few hours without food. Or even a full day without food. Or a week without food for that matter.

People seem to believe they will suffer severe hunger and mental impairment from not eating every so often. Consider for a second the evolutionary consequences for survival if this was true. Given that regular periods of fasting, even famine, was a natural part of our past, do you think we'd be here today if we were unable to function when obtaining food was most critical? I have seen healthy young males, bodybuilders nonetheless, complain of lethargy and mental haze if they didn't get to eat for a few hours. It's completely absurd. But I digress...

Maintaining blood sugar is of very high priority and we have developed efficient pathways that will make it happen even under extreme conditions. If you were to fast for 23 hrs and then go for a 90 min run at 70-75% VO2max, your blood sugar after the run would be identical to the same run performed in the fed state. It would take no less than three days or 84 hours of fasting to reach blood sugar levels low enough to affect your mental state; and this is temporary, as your brain adapts to the use of ketones. During 48 hours of fasting, or severe calorie deprivation, blood sugar is maintained within a normal range no measure of cognitive performance is negatively affected.

For more on blood sugar, read my review of Eat Stop Eat Expanded Edition, which includes a relevant excerpt. Also, keep in mind that the above cited studies are all performed under conditions that are much more extreme than the fasting protocol I, or Brad Pilon, recommends.

What about blood sugar and hunger? Blood sugar is one of many short-term feedback mechanisms used to regulate hunger and the notion which exists to say that low blood sugar may cause hunger is correct. Low just means lower range. This is subject to numerous confounders, such as your habitual diet, energy intake and genetics. Most importantly perhaps, it's subject to entrained meal patterns, regulated by ghrelin and other metabolic hormones. In essence, this means that blood sugar follows the meal pattern you are used to. This is relevant for those who fear blood sugar issues and hunger from regular periods of fasting, as it serves to explain why people can easily adapt to regular periods of fasting without negative effects.

Origin

Not sure how people came to believe that skipping a meal would dumb them down. There is some truth to blood sugar and hunger, but this is often taken out of context. There's no need to eat regularly to "maintain" blood sugar as it maintains itself just fine and adapts to whatever meal pattern you choose.

mfpcopine

No, it's not necessary. As someone said, some people like to spread out food because they're afraid of getting hungry and over-eating. Others are afraid that constantly having having to eat will itself lead to over-eating. There's no metabolic benefit to eating several times a day.

I follow a moderate form of Intermittent Fasting (IF) several times a week. I eat only from the early afternoon through the evening. The rest of the time I drink coffee, tea, or water.

Do whatever works for you.

missikay1970

the above post was too long to quote by sniperzzzz, but i do not think you can make generalizations about people's blood sugar levels. i literally DO walk around in a haze when i do not eat frequently, esp when i was pregnant. i would faint if i didn't eat on my schedule. my brain function is completely different if i skip a meal or eat poorly. having a donut for breakfast can cause me to not be able to balance my checkbook. i think each person's body requirements are different.

Alicia_Monique

I only eat every 3 hours because I get cranky if I don't.
FOOD MONSTER RIGHT HERE.

crisanderson27

the above post was too long to quote by sniperzzzz, but i do not think you can make generalizations about people's blood sugar levels. i literally DO walk around in a haze when i do not eat frequently, esp when i was pregnant. i would faint if i didn't eat on my schedule. my brain function is completely different if i skip a meal or eat poorly. having a donut for breakfast can cause me to not be able to balance my checkbook. i think each person's body requirements are different.

I agree.

Partially.

MANY people who are turning to intermittent fasting have found that after a short period of time, these effects from not eating regularly go away COMPLETELY. This gives them a level of freedom that they were unable to imagine previously. So yes...it can definitely affect you! But for the majority (even those with issues like yours), I think it is something that can be adapted to...just as the article said.

mfpcopine

Look very carefully at the physique maintained by each man that posted this.

Physical appearance determines your knowledge of human nutrition and physiology? I had no idea.

I've heard plenty of obese people opine about how to lose weight. I listen to the people who've figured out how to apply the knowledge.

missikay1970

the above post was too long to quote by sniperzzzz, but i do not think you can make generalizations about people's blood sugar levels. i literally DO walk around in a haze when i do not eat frequently, esp when i was pregnant. i would faint if i didn't eat on my schedule. my brain function is completely different if i skip a meal or eat poorly. having a donut for breakfast can cause me to not be able to balance my checkbook. i think each person's body requirements are different.

I agree.

Partially.

MANY people who are turning to intermittent fasting have found that after a short period of time, these effects from not eating regularly go away COMPLETELY. This gives them a level of freedom that they were unable to imagine previously. So yes...it can definitely affect you! But for the majority (even those with issues like yours), I think it is something that can be adapted to...just as the article said.

and it is probably possible to overcome, but i don't see why i would want to change it??? if i didn't like eating frequently or if it didn't work for my lifestyle, i would probably attempt a change, but it's working for me. most likely, because of the changes that have been made in my blood sugar levels and my weight loss (lower cholesterol, etc.) i probably could make adaptations and be fine. but feeling like crap isn't worth messing with my routine. LOL i have read about the I.F. and it was interesting to me. perhaps when i am not in child-bearing years i will try it, but right now, we don't use b/control and i could be preg at any time, so i try really hard to eat on schedule just in case. trust me, if anyone had ever felt the way i do and the sickness i get if i don't eat properly, they would understand!

wackyfunster

I agree.

Partially.

MANY people who are turning to intermittent fasting have found that after a short period of time, these effects from not eating regularly go away COMPLETELY. This gives them a level of freedom that they were unable to imagine previously. So yes...it can definitely affect you! But for the majority (even those with issues like yours), I think it is something that can be adapted to...just as the article said.

I can vouch for this. Was mildly hypoglycemic before I started IF, and had been for years. Now I can go ~20 hours without food without any negative effects. Took about 3 weeks for the acute effects to go away, 2 months for everything. I did have to have people drive me to lunch at work for the first week or two (lol).

Obviously, consult with your doctor before trying this if you are hypoglycemic or have any other health issues.

gatecityradio

I eat whenever I'm hungry and stop when I run out of calories. If I want to eat more, I'll go work out to earn more calories.

mfpcopine

the above post was too long to quote by sniperzzzz, but i do not think you can make generalizations about people's blood sugar levels. i literally DO walk around in a haze when i do not eat frequently, esp when i was pregnant. i would faint if i didn't eat on my schedule. my brain function is completely different if i skip a meal or eat poorly. having a donut for breakfast can cause me to not be able to balance my checkbook. i think each person's body requirements are different.

I agree.

Partially.

MANY people who are turning to intermittent fasting have found that after a short period of time, these effects from not eating regularly go away COMPLETELY. This gives them a level of freedom that they were unable to imagine previously. So yes...it can definitely affect you! But for the majority (even those with issues like yours), I think it is something that can be adapted to...just as the article said.

Intermittent Fasting is not recommended for kids, pregnant women, women planning on getting pregnant in the near future, people with diabetes and other chronic diseases.

kekl

Usually I only eat 2-3 times a day.
Works for me, I feel more satisfied having larger portions than just snacking all day.
But each to their own.

mfpcopine

[If you are going to try Intermittent Fasting,] obviously, consult with your doctor before trying this if you are hypoglycemic or have any other health issues.

Exactly.