Eating - little and often or every 5 hours??
mercurymumof3
Posts: 18
I know this kind of looks like an obvious question - I have always believed that little and often is the key to losing weight. But more than one diet/way of living I have read about recently states that you should leave 5 hours between meals, ie no snacks - not even milk in tea/coffee, and not combine proteins and carbs in order that the body digests the food efficiently, and also to stop blood sugar being elevated and consequently stored as fat between meals. I'm totally confused as to which I should be doing. TIA
0
Replies
-
I eat 6 times a day every 3 hours. Ive lost 17 pounds by doing tjat and exercise last month.
The majority of the poeple that use this site and have exeperince great results have sone either the same or something similar.
Its about feeding and fueling your metabolism.
I think you should stick with whats obvious0 -
So everyone's metabolism is different, but recent studies are showing that eating more than 3 times/day has essentially no effect on metabolism. Nor does it matter when in the day you eat. If you don't like breakfast, for example, skip it.
The number of times you eat/day may have an impact on how hungry you get, however, which may have an effect on your weight loss.0 -
I know this kind of looks like an obvious question - I have always believed that little and often is the key to losing weight. But more than one diet/way of living I have read about recently states that you should leave 5 hours between meals, ie no snacks - not even milk in tea/coffee, and not combine proteins and carbs in order that the body digests the food efficiently, and also to stop blood sugar being elevated and consequently stored as fat between meals. I'm totally confused as to which I should be doing. TIA
the food separation theory is nonsense. and meal frequency is a personal preference it has no effect on weight loss. i eat all my cals for the day in an 8hr window and about 75-80% of them in a 4 hr window0 -
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.
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.
I have just started this. eat most of my cals in 6-7 hours and skip *GASP* breakfast. I even eat 80-100g of carbs in one meal.
Have been losing so much faster this way. LOVE IT :]0 -
Thanks - I'll continue to stick to the obvious then0
-
Posted at the same time - that's great info, ta very much!0
-
I eat little and often (3 meals, 3 snacks plus coffee/water/green tea in between). And I've been doing that for 3 months, it's totally changed my stomach, I get hungry now if I have to go just a couple of hours without eating. But, I also get full much quicker than I used to.
It's amazing how quickly your body can get used to a new way of eating.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 427 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions