How to speed up my metabolism

very intresting ! thank you

Let's say your job is to file paperwork. If your boss were to give you stacks of paper as high as your chin every 4 hours it could be overwhelming. What if you didn't have a chance to finish filing before the next stack came in? In most cases you would end up with extra papers to file by the end of the night. Now let's say your boss only brings in a stack that’s half the size. It should take half the time to file the paperwork. What do you do if you finished early? Text your friends, chat on Facebook? In the end, you get a second to relax until the next load comes.

Eating more than your body can digest in one sitting is like that stack of papework up to your chin. Keep it simple and watch your metabolism work harder for you.

Nice analogy, but it doesn't work that way. It will take that much longer for your body to digest a larger meal. I eat basically all my calories in a 3-4 hour window and have no problems dropping bodyfat.

*LIKE*

If this is incorrect, then what is the right way?

ICE CREAM FOR EVERYONE!

It does not work that way in the least bit. Food does not "speed up" your metabolism. Energy (calorie) expenditure is the same at the end of the day if you eat one meal or seven.



Meal timing, size, and frequency are largely irrelevant to weight loss in the context of proper daily nutrition.

I know that you have researched this extensively, but some of this still seems illogical. Perhaps my understanding is incomplete, or perhaps we are thinking of what are actually two different topics. I accept that meal timing does not affect daily calorie expenditure, but my question is related to exercise and the timing of fueling the body. One of the most widely held views in sports is that there is a window of up to two hours after exercise in which the body apprehends any food ingested and puts it immediately to work repairing and building muscle. I just read this last night in Runners World and have read it in virtually every book and periodical that I have (a very large number.) I not citing RW or any other book/periodical as an authority, merely pointing out that this is commonly accepted as truth. If your answer is that this is wrong, then part b is how can timing not matter? My basic assumption is that exercise increases the body's need for certain nutrients (carbs, protein.) If I exercise at 6:00 AM (common for me,) do you really mean to say that I can go without food all day until midnight and the effect of a meal eaten then is the same on my body as if I had eaten three meals (or whatever) earlier in the day? At what point do we get so far removed from the exercise that it does matter (because it is actually in another day.) It just seems illogical that fueling the body 18 hours later provides the same benefit as fueling right after exercise. Anyway, I am listening but not really on board with the idea that the timing of meals makes no difference for strenuous exercisers.

It does not work that way in the least bit. Food does not "speed up" your metabolism. Energy (calorie) expenditure is the same at the end of the day if you eat one meal or seven.



Meal timing, size, and frequency are largely irrelevant to weight loss in the context of proper daily nutrition.

I know that you have researched this extensively, but some of this still seems illogical. Perhaps my understanding is incomplete, or perhaps we are thinking of what are actually two different topics. I accept that meal timing does not affect daily calorie expenditure, but my question is related to exercise and the timing of fueling the body. One of the most widely held views in sports is that there is a window of up to two hours after exercise in which the body apprehends any food ingested and puts it immediately to work repairing and building muscle. I just read this last night in Runners World and have read it in virtually every book and periodical that I have (a very large number.) I not citing RW or any other book/periodical as an authority, merely pointing out that this is commonly accepted as truth. If your answer is that this is wrong, then part b is how can timing not matter? My basic assumption is that exercise increases the body's need for certain nutrients (carbs, protein.) If I exercise at 6:00 AM (common for me,) do you really mean to say that I can go without food all day until midnight and the effect of a meal eaten then is the same on my body as if I had eaten three meals (or whatever) earlier in the day? At what point do we get so far removed from the exercise that it does matter (because it is actually in another day.) It just seems illogical that fueling the body 18 hours later provides the same benefit as fueling right after exercise. Anyway, I am listening but not really on board with the idea that the timing of meals makes no difference for strenuous exercisers.

The body is anabolic after working out into the next day. I personally know of someone that doesn't eat anything for several hours after working out and he is built to say the least.

Let's say your job is to file paperwork. If your boss were to give you stacks of paper as high as your chin every 4 hours it could be overwhelming. What if you didn't have a chance to finish filing before the next stack came in? In most cases you would end up with extra papers to file by the end of the night. Now let's say your boss only brings in a stack that’s half the size. It should take half the time to file the paperwork. What do you do if you finished early? Text your friends, chat on Facebook? In the end, you get a second to relax until the next load comes.

Eating more than your body can digest in one sitting is like that stack of papework up to your chin. Keep it simple and watch your metabolism work harder for you.

Nice analogy, but it doesn't work that way. It will take that much longer for your body to digest a larger meal. I eat basically all my calories in a 3-4 hour window and have no problems dropping bodyfat.

^^This.

There are several intermittent fasting methods that require getting your entire days work of calories in just a few hours, then not eating the rest of the day and IF is extremely effective.

@mapexdrummer69 Thank you for your response. In my case I'm not referring to drinking protein drinks or other supplements, just the timing of fueling the body with good foods. Neither am I referring to trying to use food or supplements to "bulk up." I strength train 2/3 times a week, run 3/4 times a week, and cycle 3 times a week (weather permitting.) Being in my late fifties my sole goal is health and overall fitness going into my later years. I'm not trying to make this conversation about me personally, just wanting to eliminate goals such as bulking up from the conversation.

If I understand you correctly you insists that there is no "window" after exercising in which the body more readily accepts and processes nutrients. I am still uncomfortable with this as I continually read articles and books from the endurance/aerobic community (not the lifters,) and the articles (not ads) insist that there is such a window in which the body accepts and processes nutrients more efficiently. I am aware of and respect your passion for scientific answers to such questions, but it still seems illogical to me that a meal eaten 18 hours after exercise would have the same benefit as the same meal eaten soon after exercise. Could you again post some links to the studies that support your position? I’ll try to hang on to them this time! Thank you.

Sure thing man! I'm at work right now and will respond in detail with some links as well this evening at some point. If I forget, just send me a message.