6 meals a day is a lie. Your metabolism won't slow down.

Options
124678

Replies

  • kimchee_man
    kimchee_man Posts: 6
    Options
    I personally like having 5 to 6 meals a day since I don't want to put my body into starvation mode, with all the weight training I do i need to constantly fuel my muscle.

    yeah maybe that fasting stuff works, but if you lift weights you'll pass out doing that kind of dieting.
  • Rjperron
    Rjperron Posts: 150
    Options
    For me, I feel deprived when a meal consists of only 200-300 cals lol! I think that as long as your calorie count remains consistent, you're going to lose weight...regardless of when you eat them.

    However, I find that a 200-300 calorie breakfast and lunch (spaced out by around 2-3 hours), a 100-200 calorie snack (about 2 hours after lunch), a 400-500 calorie dinner (about 2-3 hours after the snack) and a glass of wine or piece of chocolate usually rounds out a good day for me...feel free to rip apart!
  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    Options
    I personally like having 5 to 6 meals a day since I don't want to put my body into starvation mode, with all the weight training I do i need to constantly fuel my muscle.

    yeah maybe that fasting stuff works, but if you lift weights you'll pass out doing that kind of dieting.

    The 5-6 meal thing can work fine and a lot of people like the feeling of the more frequent energy intake. Just be aware that you will not go into any type of "starvation mode" missing 1 or 2 meals or even in 1 or 2 days.
  • TateFTW
    TateFTW Posts: 658 Member
    Options
    I personally like having 5 to 6 meals a day since I don't want to put my body into starvation mode, with all the weight training I do i need to constantly fuel my muscle.

    yeah maybe that fasting stuff works, but if you lift weights you'll pass out doing that kind of dieting.

    NO, you won't!!! I thought I would too, but I just eat a smaller meal 1 hr before my workout and I feel great! I fasted before my leg workout Wednesday and my upper body power workout yesterday and I was just as strong as ever. I was squatting 275 atg for reps, and did some sumo dead lifts for reps too, touch and go. No light headedness, no problems! Then after the workout, all the carbs and proteins I can stuff in my face, and it all gets used to build MUSCLE, along with a surge in insulin to help all of my supplements get absorbed.
  • kimchee_man
    kimchee_man Posts: 6
    Options
    are you fasting or eating cause to me it sounds like you just ate two meals in one day.
  • DawnOf1969
    DawnOf1969 Posts: 726 Member
    Options
    I eat 3 meals and 2-3 "snacks" (i.e. piece of fruit, etc) throughout the day. Keeps me from feeling like I need to be munching on something all the time. So I typically eat something about every 3 hours.
  • alitarose
    alitarose Posts: 103 Member
    Options
    Wow, I've learned a lot from this site but "somebody spit in someone's holy water" has got to be one of the best descriptions I've heard in a long time! I'm going to steal that if you don't mind?!?
  • jen0619
    jen0619 Posts: 414
    Options
    I eat my 5 meals roughly 300+ calories keeps me a pretty happy camper. I used to eat just three times a day but felt hungry all the time so I just balance out my meals. Each to their own. :)
  • BrinaJo
    BrinaJo Posts: 9
    Options
    Hey I didn't mean to upset anybody. People get very emotional when it comes to their firmly held convictions being challenged. I'm everyone's friend on here. Maybe the use of the word lie was unnecessary but I wanted an intelligent debate so I used a headline grabbing word. You can eat 10 meals a day if you want but I am just challenging the notion of metabolism slowing down when you don't eat for a few hours. As well as the sites I listed below also check out the Warrior diet. Tom Venuto also explains this in some detail on his site. Keep an open mind. Peace!
    I agree that you should keep an open mind, and that no diet is perfect expecially for every person, we all have to individualize our own diet and lifestyle, and I think what you were actually trying to say is that alot of people take a thought and translate it wrong, like that of we need to eat 5 to 6 meals and think they need to actually eat more. But in reality they may need to cut their portions sugnificantly but eat more often. Also this thought is very good for those who think that when dieting they should starve themselves, which is also not good, because our body just stores the fat and slows down the metabolism, anyway kinda an interesting thought by all who were involved in this message.
  • Lyadeia
    Lyadeia Posts: 4,603 Member
    Options
    And while the fasting thing may work for some people for weight loss, it does not work for me...but not because of weight issues. I get really REALLY bad headaches if I don't have a bite to eat every so often...

    Like NOW for example. I was supposed to go out to eat with someone that cancelled...so not only am I am hungry, but I have a headache starting to form.

    While I agree that your metabolism won't come to a screeching halt because you miss a meal here or there, I just don't like the side effects it personally gives me.
  • TateFTW
    TateFTW Posts: 658 Member
    Options
    Here's what I'm thinking at the moment;

    We have found out that skipping breakfast, or skipping lunch, or arguably going an entire day without eating won't really adversely affect your metabolic rates. We've also found out that eating a little bit all the time don't really positively affect metabolic rates.

    So the conclusion I've come to is this; the main thing to worry about is your weekly calorie surplus or deficit. How you get there doesn't seem to matter as much as we thought it does. This is a great thing, because we can use whatever method we need to use in order to accomplish the goal of a weekly deficit, under the assumption that most here are trying to cut fat. If you need to take your daily intake goal and divide it by 6 and eat 6 times during the day, then go for it. If you would prefer to take your entire planned intake for the day and condense it into a 5-8 hour window and fast for the rest of the day, then you can do that too. If you need to take your planned intake for the week, consume most of it in 5 days and fast most of the other two, no problem.

    How cool is that?
  • yvonnej1
    yvonnej1 Posts: 904 Member
    Options
    ...and the Nobel peace prize goes to....TateFTW :bigsmile:
  • esorcel
    esorcel Posts: 459 Member
    Options
    glad to hear this! I also find it hard to beleive that if you don't eat all of your calories your metabolism will slow down..

    I have never seen anyone who deprive themselves of calories gain weight the way the experts say they do. Also, anyone who is obese and say that they barely eat are not being honest with themselves. I've seen people who don't exercise and who are barely eating lose weight faster than myself when I was exercising very often and trying to eat well-balanced meals.

    I understand this point, and I was a victim of the 6 meals a day. I had found myself thinking about food very often because it would be time to eat again, or if I didn't eat much at one meal, I was starving until the next meal time approached. I started gaining weigt because the calories might have been too much (I wasn't counting calories at the time). I think at least 2 of the meals are not meals, but they are actually snacks.

    Lastly, I currently know someone who eats 3 small meals a day (mostly vegetables) with snacks, and is losing weight at an incredible 1 pound a day without feeling any starvation. She mostly consumes low-glycemic foods that does not affect her blood sugar level.

    Remember calories is the key.
  • stephnsuarez
    stephnsuarez Posts: 68 Member
    Options
    I don't know about it being a lie, but I know it does not work for me. 4 is the magic number for me!!!
  • chocolatnoir
    chocolatnoir Posts: 182 Member
    Options
    Hmmm. Surprised at some of the personal attacks on here. If you don't agree with the Original Poster, then disagree and be on your way- what's the point of attacking? We are all on here for our own reasons and we don't all adhere to the same dieting principles. What MFP is good for is helping up stay on track with our individual goals, monitor our habits, support and learn from each other. I just don't think is a good place for personal attacks and arguments...

    I eat 3 meals a day and a couple of snacks- not cause I'm afraid my metabolism will slow down, but because I get hungry and need to somehow eat a healthy number of calories to offset my workouts. To each his own, I say. :)
  • porcelain_doll
    porcelain_doll Posts: 1,005 Member
    Options
    I have never seen anyone who deprive themselves of calories gain weight the way the experts say they do.

    Happened to me. I was exercising very intensely and only consuming 800-900 cal/day after all was said and done, and I quit losing and then began gaining. I gained almost 10 lbs. during that time.
  • EmmieSu
    EmmieSu Posts: 136
    Options
    WOW!! Sometimes, I think ppl post just to stir the pot up, you know what I mean? What works for one person, doesn't necessarily work for another person, and it doesn't make it a "lie". To each his/her own. If eating 3 meals works for someone, but someone else needs 6 small meals, and they are both seeing positive results, it's a good thing. Super size this, and extra that, is adding to the obesity crisis, not 6 SMALL meals a day. Come on, we don't even know what a serving is, until we start reading the labels. A serving of Oreos is two cookies. I wonder how many times, I ate 3 or 4 servings, and I didn't even know. To all you that eat 3 meals a day and lose weight congratulations!! For all you that enjoy 6 small meals a day, congratulations on your weigh loss!
  • TateFTW
    TateFTW Posts: 658 Member
    Options
    I have never seen anyone who deprive themselves of calories gain weight the way the experts say they do.

    Happened to me. I was exercising very intensely and only consuming 800-900 cal/day after all was said and done, and I quit losing and then began gaining. I gained almost 10 lbs. during that time.

    If you go from eating maintenance to a consistent deficit, it takes about 2 weeks (depending on the person and the deficit) for your metabolism to fully react and shift downward. to compensate for your new intake. This is why I came to the conclusion that weekly deficit is the main determining dietary factor in fat/weight loss.

    Lets say someone with a maintenance level of 1500 calories/day (or 10500/week) suddenly goes on a diet consuming 700 calories a day and exercising 1 hr/day, burning an average of 200 calories during each workout session. They are now consuming 3500 net calories a week [7(700-200)=3500], resulting in a deficit of 7000 calories for the week, which would theoretically result in 2 lbs of fat loss. In fact, under the assumption that not all of the weight lost would be fat, the weight loss would be even greater, since it takes less of a deficit to lose lean mass. But this is all based on faulty logic, because almost immediately the metabolism would start shifting downward. After approximately 2 weeks the metabolism would have shifted down relative to the consistent downward shift in intake.

    This really has very little to do with daily intake, or even intake over a number of consecutive days, and shouldn't be treated as such.

    This is why I believe that the weekly deficit is really the most important thing to which we should pay attention. The 7000 calorie deficit in my example is far too large for someone with such a low maintenance level to start.

    Therefore, theoretically, someone who was consuming 300 calories in a day could be more successful than someone consuming 700 calories in a day, if the former was only consuming 300 calories on certain days and consuming far more on others, and the latter was only consuming 700 calories every single day, because only the latter would experience a sever change in metabolic rates, assuming other factors were the same.
  • EmpressB
    EmpressB Posts: 36 Member
    Options
    Well I think the 6 SMALL meals a day is to prevent you from spacing out your meals so much that you're ravenous and then it leads you to overeating. I am not a nutritionist so I can't say anything about metabolism etc...

    I have just started my journey a month now and lost 12 lbs and I am eating frequently but NOT more. I am eating WAY LESS just more often and it is working. My entire life I would skip meals or wait until late in the day/dinner to eat and by then I was starving and would eat a whole bunch. It was also caused by snacking mindlessly as well, which is entirely different than eating consciously. I think that is also the big point, being more conscious of what you're putting into your body and how much and not just blind rules.

    If you eat 10 times a day but what you're eating is only 50/100 calories or fruits, vegetables etc then it is better than eating three times a day but 1500 calories each time. So I think that is what it boils down to; making sure you're not starving or putting yourself in a position to be ravenous (frequent small meals helps with that), knowing your caloric needs and sticking to them and just overall being more mindful and aware.
  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    Options
    I have not come across any well-designed studies that empirically support the idea the more frequent meals have any more beneficial effect on weight loss than less-frequent meals. In most cases such as this, the auto-suggestive effect of belief in a certain principle is the driving force behind any benefits. So, someone who believes that eating 6 meals a day is more beneficial might achieve success because that belief encourages greater adherence to maintaining a caloric deficit, but it is the maintenance of the caloric deficit that results in the improvement, not any physical effects of eating 6 meals a day.

    Now, strong belief that leads to greater adherence is not insignificant, so I don' t mean to diminish the "power of positive thinking", if you will. I just think it is necessary to separate "faith" from "facts" in this case.

Categories