Is it bad to...?

Options
2»

Replies

  • aj_rock
    aj_rock Posts: 390 Member
    Options
    Sunshine, you're asking the wrong people :P Talk to some nutritionists or something if you want to about it, but IF is becoming a lot more widely accepted... IF you know what you're doing :P

    For the average person, it's difficult to do. If it's what you're comfortable with, go with it!
  • fallenangelloves
    fallenangelloves Posts: 601 Member
    Options
    Sumo Wrestlers do that....



    You might lose weight faster but it's not healthy to let your body go that many hours without eating... I doubt there is a health expert out there that will tell you it's a good thing...
  • Acg67
    Acg67 Posts: 12,142 Member
    Options
    Sumo Wrestlers do that....



    You might lose weight faster but it's not healthy to let your body go that many hours without eating... I doubt there is a health expert out there that will tell you it's a good thing...

    why isn't it good for your body to fast for under 24 hrs?
  • hush7hush
    hush7hush Posts: 2,273 Member
    Options
    Not really, it's Intermittent Fasting. I eat all my calories in an 8 hour window, and have 16 hours of fasting. DAILY.
  • hush7hush
    hush7hush Posts: 2,273 Member
    Options
    No. Those doing the leangains.com approach to eating do a short eating window every day.

    There's a fellow IFer!
  • annemareef
    annemareef Posts: 7
    Options
    I ate all my calories in the evening because it annoyed me to stop and eat and prepare food during the day.
    I hurt my body, over time put on fat because my body thought I was starving and stored calories. I developed a style of living that did not respect my body and I have been paying for it.
    You might like to try a new way of living that actually loves and supports your body.
    The change is amazing and good things will come to you on every level as you respect yourself....you are worth the effort it takes to eat!
  • pinkita
    pinkita Posts: 779 Member
    Options
    I don't see how it would matter as long as you're within your calorie limit. I couldn't do it (nor am I interested in trying), but if it works for someone else I'm not going to try to talk them out of it.
  • chevy88grl
    chevy88grl Posts: 3,937 Member
    Options
    Honestly? I think it depends on the person. For me, I eat every couple hours throughout the day. It is how I keep my blood sugar level through the entire day. I've found when my blood sugar drops is when I want to make bad food choices. If I eat every couple hours, it keeps it level and all is well. Plus, I don't care what anyone says - I truly believe eating every few hours boosts your metabolism too. You are keeping your body fueled all the time - a fueled body keeps the metabolism burning. As someone who eats 2200-2500 NET calories a day at 143-145lbs -- I have a pretty high metabolism and I think it is because I am constantly eating.

    Copied from leangains:

    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.

    B) 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.



    Congrats on your loss and great metabolism! But i believe in science. To each their own i suppose :]

    Well, I'll be honest I skimmed that article.

    I know what works for me and eating every few hours is it. Science is great, but believing every scientific word out there means that ALL of our bodies work exactly the same way. Let's face it -- they don't. We may have the same parts, but what works for one person won't work for another. So quite honestly -- science means nil to me when it comes to MY body. How on earth would a scientist know what is working better for MY body?

    They don't. You can find an article out there to support just about anything or to not support just anything.

    I don't care what anyone says - I clearly know what works for me and that is to eat constantly. Obviously I am doing something right .... and there isn't an article out there that will change my mind.
  • chevy88grl
    chevy88grl Posts: 3,937 Member
    Options
    I have to ask - if you are only interested in debunking everyone's opinion that disagrees with you, then why post the thread?

    Because perhaps she is more educated than most of these bandwagon posters.
    All those people saying "It's bad" please show me a peer reviewed published article that proves your claims.

    Why do *I*have to post articles to prove something? If it works for you - do it. If it doesn't work for you - don't. People get so bogged down with articles. You can honestly find an article that will show support or be against everything on the internet.

    For me, real life experience that people have speak volumes from the "articles" that are out there.
  • chasidieason
    chasidieason Posts: 23
    Options
    I have to ask - if you are only interested in debunking everyone's opinion that disagrees with you, then why post the thread?

    Because perhaps she is more educated than most of these bandwagon posters.
    All those people saying "It's bad" please show me a peer reviewed published article that proves your claims.

    Why do *I*have to post articles to prove something? If it works for you - do it. If it doesn't work for you - don't. People get so bogged down with articles. You can honestly find an article that will show support or be against everything on the internet.

    For me, real life experience that people have speak volumes from the "articles" that are out there.

    I agree CG.

    And I also have to point out that supporters of long-standing, widely accepted methods of eating, such as eating small meals throughout the entirety of the day and the importance of eating breakfast are not "band wagoners". It stands to reason that those on the other side of the debate are the ones jumping on a band wagon, as it seems to be a new trend - but I honestly don't know enough about it to say to speak to it's age or possibly being a fad.

    However, I made no implication of taking either side of the debate, I simply posed a question. It seemed as though the original poster was seeking advice, though it later became obvious that she had formed a very strong opinion which she wished to debate with people who simply wanted to be helpful.

    Either way, I hope whatever you choose to do works for you. Again, agreeing with CG, I know what works for me and I'm going to stick with it.
  • Lift_hard_eat_big
    Lift_hard_eat_big Posts: 2,278 Member
    Options
    I have to ask - if you are only interested in debunking everyone's opinion that disagrees with you, then why post the thread?

    Because perhaps she is more educated than most of these bandwagon posters.
    All those people saying "It's bad" please show me a peer reviewed published article that proves your claims.

    Why do *I*have to post articles to prove something? If it works for you - do it. If it doesn't work for you - don't. People get so bogged down with articles. You can honestly find an article that will show support or be against everything on the internet.

    For me, real life experience that people have speak volumes from the "articles" that are out there.

    If you found something that works for you, then by all means, fee free to continue doing so. Where did I say to show me "any article off the internet" I specifically asked for a "peer reviewed published articles" that prove that eating all your meals in a 6 hour window is bad. Those making claims that it is bad for you better have something to back it up, if not, keep quite and stop spreading misinformation. Why do you think the internet if full of so many bs articles, because any Joe Blow can write some "he said, she said" article and post it on the internet. Show me a scientifically peer reviewed journal article, I'd much rather take that articles conclusion into consideration when deciding how to plan my diet, vs, "Random Joe Blow's article"
  • _Ben
    _Ben Posts: 1,608 Member
    Options
    Ill be honest, due to my schedule, I mainly eat one large meal everyday, and two very small ones at other points. I know it may be because I have that 20 year old metabolism, but its working great for me. I realize this is probably atypical results
  • rileysowner
    rileysowner Posts: 8,238 Member
    Options
    There is a ton of research on meal timing. All of it shows that when you eat your calories makes no difference at all. NONE! As long as you don't eat too many calories, whether you eat them all in one meal or eat them in nine meals or anything in between it makes no difference in terms of weight loss or metabolism. The only difference meal timing can make is in your mental perceptions. Thus for some eating many small meals is more satisfying than say 3 large meals. They would be hungry between meals with the 3 meal a day approach. For others, like me, eating constantly with 5-6 small meals a day just makes me more hungry. I want to eat all the time and never ever feel full and satisfied with a meal. I, however, don't have that when I eat 3 solid meals a day. I am full, happy and satisfied and doing that (other than when I first started eating 6 meals and day and always being hungry) for the vast majority of time I ate 3 meals a day with maybe a late night snack if I had the calories left.
  • tigersword
    tigersword Posts: 8,059 Member
    Options
    I have to ask - if you are only interested in debunking everyone's opinion that disagrees with you, then why post the thread?

    Because perhaps she is more educated than most of these bandwagon posters.
    All those people saying "It's bad" please show me a peer reviewed published article that proves your claims.

    Why do *I*have to post articles to prove something? If it works for you - do it. If it doesn't work for you - don't. People get so bogged down with articles. You can honestly find an article that will show support or be against everything on the internet.

    For me, real life experience that people have speak volumes from the "articles" that are out there.

    I agree CG.

    And I also have to point out that supporters of long-standing, widely accepted methods of eating, such as eating small meals throughout the entirety of the day and the importance of eating breakfast are not "band wagoners". It stands to reason that those on the other side of the debate are the ones jumping on a band wagon, as it seems to be a new trend - but I honestly don't know enough about it to say to speak to it's age or possibly being a fad.

    However, I made no implication of taking either side of the debate, I simply posed a question. It seemed as though the original poster was seeking advice, though it later became obvious that she had formed a very strong opinion which she wished to debate with people who simply wanted to be helpful.

    Either way, I hope whatever you choose to do works for you. Again, agreeing with CG, I know what works for me and I'm going to stick with it.

    Actually the eating several small meals approach is not a "long-standing, widely accepted" method of eating. It was a fad diet technique about 10 years ago that people in the fitness industry latched on to. The most widely accepted eating schedule throughout history was basically one or two large meals a day, because they didn't have time or cooking fuel to cook more than that until relatively recently.
  • Lift_hard_eat_big
    Lift_hard_eat_big Posts: 2,278 Member
    Options
    There is a ton of research on meal timing. All of it shows that when you eat your calories makes no difference at all. NONE! As long as you don't eat too many calories, whether you eat them all in one meal or eat them in nine meals or anything in between it makes no difference in terms of weight loss or metabolism. The only difference meal timing can make is in your mental perceptions. Thus for some eating many small meals is more satisfying than say 3 large meals. They would be hungry between meals with the 3 meal a day approach. For others, like me, eating constantly with 5-6 small meals a day just makes me more hungry. I want to eat all the time and never ever feel full and satisfied with a meal. I, however, don't have that when I eat 3 solid meals a day. I am full, happy and satisfied and doing that (other than when I first started eating 6 meals and day and always being hungry) for the vast majority of time I ate 3 meals a day with maybe a late night snack if I had the calories left.

    Thank you! Finally someone who's actually done some research rather than just making claims because "I know what works for me so it must be bad to eat all your food in a 6 hour window"
    I've only been on this site for a few weeks and the amount of misinformation spread is ridiculous! I wish there was a point system where we could give people negative feedback for posting bogus info.

Categories