Eating every 2-3 hours a MYTH!??? WTH!
Replies
-
You can have low blood sugar without being a diabetic.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
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.
why would i read his post? i didn't even read yours! besides:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9iZawGXJADk 0 -
I honestly don't know how anyone eats 3 square meals a day. I can't do it - I get too hungry!
On my days off I usually have 4 meals a day.
On my days at work I have 3 meals, and 2-3 snacks, depending if I go gym after work (protein bar after gym plus normal snacks).0 -
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.
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.
3) Fat storage - Larger, less frequent meals produce a greater insulin response, which results in increased fat storage.
4) Reduced time spent in energy deficit - This is related to the first point listed, but is slightly different. Consider that at any given time your body has a specific requirement for energy. It is less when you are at rest and more when you are exercising. Similarly, at any given time your body is receiving a certain amount of energy through nutrition. This level is high immediately following a meal and will taper off over time. Studies have shown that the less time spent during the day in energy deficit (and the avoidance of large deficits), the lower the amount of muscle catabolism the body will employ. Consider an extreme example of this: A person exercises hard in the morning, and eats one meal a day in the evening. Even if that meal is sufficient to cover the individual's daily caloric requirements, they will have spent most of the day in an energy deficit, catabolizing lean muscle mass, and they will spend most of the evening in a large caloric surplus, with a high insulin response, laying down fat. Think of this as reverse body recomposition. Now consider a person on the opposite end of the spectrum. They eat 5 small meals a day and they time their largest meals to be before and after their exercise period. This person can support both muscle growth and fat reduction. Ignoring that the frequent eater will have burned more calories as a result of the frequent meals, in these two example the two individuals will have engaged in the same amount of exercise and eating the same amount of calories per day, but by managing the amount of time during the day spent in extreme surplus or deficit, they will experience very different outcomes.
The slide below illustrates this. Eating Pattern 1 shows a person eating multiple small meals a day. Eating Pattern 2 shows a person eating three large meals a day. Eating Patter 3 shows a person eating one large meal in the evening. It's important to note that all three end the day at the 0 line, meaning that they all exactly covered their calorie requirements. However, each of them spent all of the minutes and hours during the day at various levels of caloric surplus or deficit. Studies suggest that Eating Pattern 1 is optimal for avoiding fat creation and muscle catabolism.
Anyway...that's what I've found, so that's my story and I'm sticking to it! :laugh:
interesting. I 've always eating small meals frequently, I'm the same size I was in high school.
why would i read anything here? I'd rather go to the experts?0 -
Quoted from a Registered Dietitian:"... if your trainer has you eating 6 small meals throughout the day to speed up your metabolism or believes that your body can't absorb more than 30g of protein in a meal, then he or she is incompetent about nutrition ...."
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/953531-protein-carbs0 -
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.
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.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/
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.
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.0 -
I used to eat a lot in a little time and I had stomach problems for a long time. I did not think that had anything to do with it but now I eat 5-6 times a day (mostly between 1100pm - 600am, I work nights) since I do this my stomach is much better. This worked for me BUT everyone is different.0
-
I really like this answer. I think it should be on an individual basis. I just try to eat before I get hungry or else I get Hangry( hunger and anger confused) and I will settle for junk.You do what YOUR body tells YOU to do, and stop listening to the BS claims that timing your eating to someone else's schedule will work for YOU.
Personally, I'm a snacker. When I can, I eat a very small something about every 1-2 hours. There are two reasons for this.
1. If I "starve" myself and wait for a full meal, I'm gonna eat. And eat. Because I'm HUNGRY. I'm not going to make good decisions. Because I'm HUNGRY. And when the table's empty I'm gonna hit the fridge. If I nibble all day long I'm never hungry. When I sit down for meals, I can look at the array of fuels laid out before me and make rational decisions about enjoying a little of what I want, and eating more of what I need.
2. Grazing gives me fewer opportunities to sit down in a setting where there ARE large amounts of food available.
Yes, I could plan out supper, but when I get home and I haven't eaten since lunchtime, my plans fall apart, and so does the fridge door in my desperate rush to get in there and start chewing at anything that doesn't move (and club anything that does and eat that anyway).
However, I have a lot of friends who can't stand grazing, and prefer 3, 2, or even in some cases 1 meal a day. I'd be stark-raving-bat$hit-crazy-hungry if I tried that, but it works for them.
EDIT: I also feel that eating smaller amounts more constantly gets me more used to being "satisfied" and less used to being "full", so when large amounts of food become available I don't feel like I have the stomach capacity to eat a LOT. I don't think my stomach is actually getting smaller, and it may well be psychosomatic for me to feel that way (and there are certainly times when I eat more than I should!), but I feel like converting to eating small amounts more frequently has allowed me to exercise better portion control when unhealthy foods are presented to me. I can be satisfied with half a donut instead of eating three of them. Again, I don't think there's a physiological explanation, but the psychology is working on me and that's enough for me!0 -
I eat 4 times a day on average.
I've quit listening to the 'noise' and I do what's right for me.
I eat what, when & how much I want to, not what some 'expert' claims is best.
You are your own expert. Find what works for you and what'll make you stick to your plan.0 -
I lol'd.IN for frightening my body into ignoring thermodynamics!!!0 -
In....for the eventual "everybody is different" conclusion to this thread.
And by conclusion, I mean backpedaling concession.0 -
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 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.
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.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/
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.
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.
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.0 -
I eat breakfast, lunch and dinner.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 cannot go with this "you have to eat a certain amount of times per day to lose weight".0 -
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 nutrition0 -
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?0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
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.html0 -
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.0 -
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?0 -
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/113196560 -
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
0 -
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=319Anyway...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.0 -
I like how CNN-source man is nowhere to be seen. Good and plenty of info there SS, thanks!0
-
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 citationsTinaLatina: 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.
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)0 -
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 citationsTinaLatina: 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.
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!0 -
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. #paleo0
-
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.0 -
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/113196563) 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=319Anyway...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 loss0 -
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.
^ 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.
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.
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.0 -
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.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions