Timing of your calories

The internet is a dangerous place.

From the article:

You hear it everywhere now: if you want to lose weight, it helps to eat smaller meals more frequently. In other words, spread out the calories (energy) you take in over the course of day instead of eating all those calories in one sitting. This helps to keep your blood sugar level and curb cravings, amongst others.

This is total crap. To paraphrase Martin Berkhan (and the National Institutes of Health), you cannot trick your body into burning more calories by eating more frequently.

See: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9155494, a study which found no metabolic difference between grazing all day or eating one huge meal in a 24 hour period.

See also: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20339363, a study which found that 3 high-protein meals provided greater fullness and appetite control than 6 high-protein meals.

Instead, your body assesses your needs in “real-time”, as it happens. To quote Dr. Benardot, in the article: “Much like you can’t provide all the fuel your car needs for a 1000-mile trip at one time, you can’t provide all the fuel your body needs for a day at one time.”

Worst analogy ever. You can't fuel your car for a 1000 mile trip at one time because your gas tank is not physically big enough. Your stomach can hold way more than 300 to 400 calories at once. I know this because I regularly consume 1500 to 1600 calories meals, and I am a small woman. I can throw around some pretty heavy weight for a little chick, so I think my body is having its "real-time" needs met just fine.

Your blood sugar levels fluctuate instead of holding steady, which can result in a loss of lean body mass. In other words, it’s not fat that’s being lost but potentially muscle. And we don’t want to lose muscle. Lowering your lean body mass means your body burns less calories. Not good.

Eating when your blood sugar is low (because you’ve hardly eaten anything all day) causes you to release more insulin — which means more fat is produced.

Just flat out untrue. Your blood sugar, unless you are diabetic or hypoglycemic, just does not swing up and down like that. Your body is very, very efficient at keeping your blood sugar level stable, especially if you eat on a regular schedule rather than at random times throughout the day.

See: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2405701, a study which found that it takes 84 hours of fasting to lower a healthy (meaning non-diabetic) person's blood sugar level enough to alter his or her mental state.

See also: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18779282, a study which found that during 48 hours of fasting or severe calorie deprivation, blood sugar is maintained within a normal range.

For example, if your body needs 300 calories in a three hour period, and you’re not feeding it more calories after that three hour period is up, your body is going to start looking for energy in your lean body mass.

Total horse****. It takes SEVERAL hours for amino acids from protein to get into your blood stream. If you eat a meal that is very high in protein (my larger meals regularly contain well over 100 g), you can take that 3-hour window mentioned in the article, and multiply it by about 7 or 8, and your body will still be processing that protein. Muscle catabolism is a product of extreme caloric deficit and depletion of liver glycogen caused by fasting for very long periods, not simply going without a meal for a few hours or even an entire day.

See: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17909674, a study which found that Ramadan fasting actually had a positive effect on body fat percentage

See also: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9040548, a study which found that people who eat most of their calories late in the day preserved more of their muscle mass than those who ate more calories earlier in the day.

BOTTOM LINE: A healthy person's body is a very well-oiled machine, full of intricately designed systems that are capable of things you cannot possibly even imagine. It is designed primarily to keep you alive, which means your blood sugar can't be jumping around all over the place all day long, and your muscle can't be disappearing within a matter of hours. If it were even remotely true that our bodies needed food every 3 to 4 hours in order to function, the human race would've died out with Adam and Eve. Our ancestors went days and even WEEKS without food. I know you don't think they were running down to the 7-11 to grab a burrito every 3 to 4 hours. Once again, this is all horse****.

From the article:

You hear it everywhere now: if you want to lose weight, it helps to eat smaller meals more frequently. In other words, spread out the calories (energy) you take in over the course of day instead of eating all those calories in one sitting. This helps to keep your blood sugar level and curb cravings, amongst others.

This is total crap. To paraphrase Martin Berkhan (and the National Institutes of Health), you cannot trick your body into burning more calories by eating more frequently.

See: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9155494, a study which found no metabolic difference between grazing all day or eating one huge meal in a 24 hour period.

See also: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20339363, a study which found that 3 high-protein meals provided greater fullness and appetite control than 6 high-protein meals.

Instead, your body assesses your needs in “real-time”, as it happens. To quote Dr. Benardot, in the article: “Much like you can’t provide all the fuel your car needs for a 1000-mile trip at one time, you can’t provide all the fuel your body needs for a day at one time.”

Worst analogy ever. You can't fuel your car for a 1000 mile trip at one time because your gas tank is not physically big enough. Your stomach can hold way more than 300 to 400 calories at once. I know this because I regularly consume 1500 to 1600 calories meals, and I am a small woman. I can throw around some pretty heavy weight for a little chick, so I think my body is having its "real-time" needs met just fine.

Your blood sugar levels fluctuate instead of holding steady, which can result in a loss of lean body mass. In other words, it’s not fat that’s being lost but potentially muscle. And we don’t want to lose muscle. Lowering your lean body mass means your body burns less calories. Not good.

Eating when your blood sugar is low (because you’ve hardly eaten anything all day) causes you to release more insulin — which means more fat is produced.

Just flat out untrue. Your blood sugar, unless you are diabetic or hypoglycemic, just does not swing up and down like that. Your body is very, very efficient at keeping your blood sugar level stable, especially if you eat on a regular schedule rather than at random times throughout the day.

See: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2405701, a study which found that it takes 84 hours of fasting to lower a healthy (meaning non-diabetic) person's blood sugar level enough to alter his or her mental state.

See also: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18779282, a study which found that during 48 hours of fasting or severe calorie deprivation, blood sugar is maintained within a normal range.

For example, if your body needs 300 calories in a three hour period, and you’re not feeding it more calories after that three hour period is up, your body is going to start looking for energy in your lean body mass.

Total horse****. It takes SEVERAL hours for amino acids from protein to get into your blood stream. If you eat a meal that is very high in protein (my larger meals regularly contain well over 100 g), you can take that 3-hour window mentioned in the article, and multiply it by about 7 or 8, and your body will still be processing that protein. Muscle catabolism is a product of extreme caloric deficit and depletion of liver glycogen caused by fasting for very long periods, not simply going without a meal for a few hours or even an entire day.

See: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17909674, a study which found that Ramadan fasting actually had a positive effect on body fat percentage

See also: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9040548, a study which found that people who eat most of their calories late in the day preserved more of their muscle mass than those who ate more calories earlier in the day.

BOTTOM LINE: A healthy person's body is a very well-oiled machine, full of intricately designed systems that are capable of things you cannot possibly even imagine. It is designed primarily to keep you alive, which means your blood sugar can't be jumping around all over the place all day long, and your muscle can't be disappearing within a matter of hours. If it were even remotely true that our bodies needed food every 3 to 4 hours in order to function, the human race would've died out with Adam and Eve. Our ancestors went days and even WEEKS without food. I know you don't think they were running down to the 7-11 to grab a burrito every 3 to 4 hours. Once again, this is all horse****.

^^^^ Yup. What she says. Boy, you saved me about two hours of writing. :-) Well said. This is spread your calories out crap is bull***

The internet is a dangerous place.

But you can't put anything on the internet that isn't true.

Meal timing can still affect weightloss, but its really just a behavioral thing. If you plan meals well, and dont get into desperate, starving situations...then you're less likely to binge or reach for a less-than-nutritious choice

Yes, but... your body also can only process so many calories an hour. In fact this is a problem for ultramarathoners for instance. You have to train your body to actually be able to take in all those extra calories. 200-300 is the normal range for most people, long distance athletes can push it up to say 600+ calories an hour but even then they are in calorie debt. I burn over 1000 calories hour when I run now.

Wow jq2122, you are a little fire cracker. I like that.


I have been studying this for quite awhile. We all know that to gain weight all you have to do is have more calories going in than going out. And to lose weight more calories going out than going in. And to maintain you just keep it even. There obviously is a time frame involved. Can you please give me your opinion what that time frame is for a person with a sedentary lifestyle. My research and experience has taken me to a window of 3 hours before the body starts to store it's extra unused fuel concoction as fat. What time frame do you think the human body converts the surplus to fat?


Thank you for your opinion.

Scott,

It's not really relevant what time frame it takes the body to store fat acutely.

What matters is the difference between fat storage and fat oxidation over long periods of time. So for example, if you eat all of your food in one big meal for the day, fat storage goes up acutely because you're overeating relative your energy needs in that small window of time.

However, you then spend the rest of the day not eating. Fat oxidation eventually goes way up because you're spending all that time without any incoming energy.

All that matters is the difference between oxidation and storage and this is largely determined by energy balance.

Meal frequency does matter for behavioral/preferential/performance effects and those can certainly play a role in energy balance, but not due to frequent feedings being inherently "metabolically beneficial".

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9155494
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/meal-frequency-and-energy-balance-research-review.html

Irrelevant. If meal timing was a nesscary thing, overnight workers would be ****ed.

The hour of the day has nothing to do with it. The point is a person cant take in more calories per meal than their body can process in a set amount of time. The average sedentary person can only process around 300 calories every 3 hours. If you binge and take in 1500 calories at one meal then the excess from that meal is going to fat storage. Even if you didnt meet your calorie goal for the day. Calories convert to fat fast.

Irrelevant since total energy balance over time will dictate differences in storage vs oxidation. Eat it all at once, store some fat acutely, oxidize it between meals. See previous reply.

The internet is a dangerous place.

But you can't put anything on the internet that isn't true.

"Look. Here comes my date. I met him on the Internet. He's a French model."

Nay.

The internet is a dangerous place.

But you can't put anything on the internet that isn't true.

Lol. You look just like Eva Green in your photo by the way, beautiful!

That article is a terrible misrepresentation of what Venuto actually says in the first place. I am not sure whether the article linked is an old one - but Venuto himself disagrees that meal timing has any significant impact and he definitely does not say that you will gain weight on a deficit.

http://www.leangains.com/2008/07/tom-venuto-responds-to-criticism.html

Quote from Venuto

"I haven't read your post but Ive read all the literature on meal frequency (I have at least 40 full text papers in my files), actually I read them a long time ago.. which is why its' my "bad" that I havent updated the book yet. The first edition was written in 2002.

yes there will be a new edition. Burn the Fat 2.0 may get released later this year, or at the latest early 2009.

heres what you will see in the new edition:

You will still see me recommend 5-6 small meals per day,and rather strongly. But not dogmatically. What you wont hear me say is that 6 meals increases metabolism or weight loss over 3 meals at an equal caloric intake.

You will also not hear me say that your metabolism slows down if you miss a single meal. (starvation
response) I already reviewed that data on my public blog last year:
http://www.burnthefatblog.com/archives/2007/11/is_starvation_mode_a_myth_no_i.php"

Looking forward to my food turning to fat while I sleep tonight.