I always thought this was true. If you eat small meals 5 to 6 times a day that its better for fat loss.
But, recently Ive read a couple different articles that it doesnt really make a difference.
Does eating once or twice a day really screw up your metabolism that badly? I always thought breakfast was so important and if you dont eat breakfast your metabolism will be slow till you get some food in you.
|
-
05-22-2008, 11:38 PM #1
- Join Date: Jun 2007
- Location: Chicago, Illinois, United States
- Age: 34
- Posts: 2,366
- Rep Power: 4798
Does Eating Every 3 Hours Actually Speed Up Metabolism?
****************************G-Money******************************
-------------------------------- Chicagoan Crew -----------------------------------
-----------------------Da Vice President of Da Chicagoan Crew--------------------------------
-----------=[$]MISC. FINANCE CREW[$]=- (Intern on his way to CEOinggg)---------------------
-
05-23-2008, 12:35 AM #2
It doesn't, most of people still believe it does. Amino acids from a meal stay in a body for around 6 or 7 hours if they were solid food. The upper limit of limiting muscle breakdown is around 5 hours. For bulking purposes, eating every 5 hours will make eating those calories needed very hard, so it's better to increase meal frequency.
"All of the protein in the world won't help when your hormones are putting your body in an inherently catabolic state." -Lyle McDonald
-
05-23-2008, 12:37 AM #3
Sure does. It's like constantly stoking the flames or putting coal in the fire - it just burns hotter and hotter. Just be sure the meals are small in portion and contain protein, carbs and healthy fats. Oh, and that occasional cheat meal blast your metabolism, too, so be sure and get that in as well.
Idiotic and inconsequential people are still idiotic and inconsequential.
-
05-23-2008, 12:53 AM #4
- Join Date: Oct 2005
- Location: New York, United States
- Posts: 24,222
- Rep Power: 34134
http://alanaragon.com/an-objective-l...t-fasting.html
Originally Posted by Alan AragonIt is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
-
-
05-23-2008, 01:08 AM #5
- Join Date: Sep 2007
- Location: British Columbia, Canada
- Age: 38
- Posts: 1,009
- Rep Power: 1286
Hmmm quite interesting...I was under the impression that eating more frequent did speed up metabolism, from word of mouth and personal experience.
Anyone else have any info on this?I prefer to train when few people are in the gym. Even if the place is packed, I pay no attention to the other bodybuilders except for my training partner. No eye contact. No talking. Even between sets, if I'm not helping my training partner, I just sip water and look at the floor, making it clear that I don't want my mental focus to be interrupted.
-Dorian Yates
-
05-23-2008, 02:20 AM #6
-
05-23-2008, 02:24 AM #7
- Join Date: Oct 2004
- Location: Sherwood Park, Alberta, Canada
- Age: 39
- Posts: 5,158
- Rep Power: 1291
-
05-23-2008, 05:51 AM #8
- Join Date: Feb 2008
- Location: Rochester, New York, United States
- Age: 39
- Posts: 141
- Rep Power: 205
im not sure if it really speeds up the process. but so far from almost every magazine i read it states that it does. also ever since i changed my diet and started to eat frequently i lost mega weight(since feb 12th i lost 54lb to date).... -=oP
imo it does, i eat a good amount of food every 2.5-3 hrs. and after 2.5hrs i feel my stomach growling. and have to eat once agian. but all day i feel full and dont binge or have craving for bad food.
-
-
05-23-2008, 06:04 AM #9
- Join Date: May 2008
- Location: Virginia, United States
- Age: 48
- Posts: 734
- Rep Power: 208
I wonder if breaking your meals up allows your body to expend more of the calories you eat instead of storing them as fat. For instance, if I took in a whole days worth of calories in one sitting would my body use what it could, and then store the rest as fat. Meanwhile three hours later I would be starving because my body had already distributed the calories from my meal?
For me, eating six meals a day (as opposed to three) is the difference between feeling a little hungry because of my cal deficient and wanting to eat my desk at work because I am going into starvation mode!
-
05-23-2008, 08:14 AM #10
-
05-23-2008, 08:19 AM #11
- Join Date: Jul 2007
- Location: Sugar Land, Texas, United States
- Posts: 3,237
- Rep Power: 4359
Regardless if it does or doesn't, by eating smaller meals more frequently, your body is less likely to over eat which would result in more food being stored as fat. Since your eating smaller meals spread out, you aren't over stuffing your body and storing what you don't need.
I eat 7 meals a day, breakfast always the largest followed by my post workout meal being slightly smaller.MTS Nutrition Houston rep.
"No BS, no hype. Just results."
Upcoming show NPC Optimum Classics: 5-20-2017
"I don't believe in following any one training style. I couldn't tell what DC or H.I.T. or FST-7 entail. I have no clue and really don't give a ****. I go to the gym to train hard. I don't need to follow a ****ing "program" to do that." - Evan Centopani
-
05-23-2008, 08:28 AM #12
-
-
05-23-2008, 10:40 AM #13
- Join Date: Jan 2008
- Location: Osby, Scania, Sweden
- Age: 47
- Posts: 307
- Rep Power: 311
"infinite diversity, infinite possibilities", need i say more? We all know change is what makes us better, stronger and healthier too! Change in all aspects of your life is only good. So what does this break down to in fat loss? Some change is good, alot of change may not be helpful.
Not big news i guess, but it helps me be on track. Cheat meals can help, it can also screw things up cause it has more then 1 aspect of fatloss then just the eating aspect, also gotta consider the mind aspect of eating.
But then again, we all do things a little different dont we? find your own way is the only way to ensure 100% success. Get going my friend, i know you dont want to loose time listening to peoples advice of a question that hasnt been settled among the most prestigeous scientists on the planet."A single measurement is worth a thousand opinions"
-
05-23-2008, 11:45 AM #14
-
05-23-2008, 11:51 AM #15
-
05-24-2008, 03:14 AM #16
- Join Date: Jun 2007
- Location: Chicago, Illinois, United States
- Age: 34
- Posts: 2,366
- Rep Power: 4798
****************************G-Money******************************
-------------------------------- Chicagoan Crew -----------------------------------
-----------------------Da Vice President of Da Chicagoan Crew--------------------------------
-----------=[$]MISC. FINANCE CREW[$]=- (Intern on his way to CEOinggg)---------------------
-
-
05-24-2008, 03:15 AM #17
- Join Date: Jun 2007
- Location: Chicago, Illinois, United States
- Age: 34
- Posts: 2,366
- Rep Power: 4798
****************************G-Money******************************
-------------------------------- Chicagoan Crew -----------------------------------
-----------------------Da Vice President of Da Chicagoan Crew--------------------------------
-----------=[$]MISC. FINANCE CREW[$]=- (Intern on his way to CEOinggg)---------------------
-
05-24-2008, 03:23 AM #18
-
05-24-2008, 05:48 AM #19
-
05-24-2008, 07:01 AM #20
- Join Date: Apr 2008
- Location: United Kingdom (Great Britain)
- Age: 40
- Posts: 1,297
- Rep Power: 342
1 meal a day? isnt that pushing it? lol.
Results:Subjects who completed the study maintained their body weight within 2 kg of their initial weight throughout the 6-mo period. There were no significant effects of meal frequency on heart rate, body temperature, or most of the blood variables measured. However, when consuming 1 meal/d, subjects had a significant increase in hunger; a significant modification of body composition, including reductions in fat mass; significant increases in blood pressure and in total, LDL-, and HDL-cholesterol concentrations; and a significant decrease in concentrations of cortisol."Current trades: Shorting fat, going long on muscle"
-
-
05-24-2008, 07:11 AM #21
Half the studies over the IntE3rn3Tz are useless because we don't know anything about the subjects, or their diet/workout.
I would love to see a study where the subjects are bodybuilders who workout 5 days a week, and if they will get same results with 1-2 meals, compared to 5-6 meals.
Show me that study, and I'll believe what you guys are saying...
-
05-24-2008, 07:24 AM #22
- Join Date: Apr 2008
- Location: United Kingdom (Great Britain)
- Age: 40
- Posts: 1,297
- Rep Power: 342
Its not a 'internet study'.
From the Beltsville Human Nutrition Research Center, US Department of Agriculture, Agriculture Research Service, Beltsville, MD (KSS, DJB, KS, DRP, GKW, and WVR), and the Clinical Research Branch (PS and LF), and the Laboratories of Cardiovascular Science (SSN), Experimental Gerontology (DKI), Immunology (DLL), and Neurosciences (MPM), National Institute on Aging Intramural Research Program, Baltimore, MD"Current trades: Shorting fat, going long on muscle"
-
05-24-2008, 07:27 AM #23
You don't see a difference in the controlled lab setting because we are just dealing with "if you eat the same thing, but in only 2 meals, what happens". Whereas, most people would be absolutely starving if they restricted intake to two meals and seek out more food. It is going to be easier to stick to a diet where you eat more often.
So the answer is, it doesn't make a difference to how you split up the calories BUT you should be doing what will increase your personal dietary compliance.
I personally get pretty ravenous at anything under 5 meals.31-26-36.
Mother of 3
www.hotnfit.com - need help with fat loss, muscle gain, or having a healthy pregnancy? Visit my site! Yes safe for work and mobile friendly :)
www.********.com/hotnfitcom
-
05-24-2008, 07:30 AM #24
-
-
05-24-2008, 08:01 AM #25
-
05-24-2008, 08:29 AM #26
-
05-24-2008, 09:18 AM #27
-
05-24-2008, 09:40 AM #28
I actually think the exact opposite. I think it's easier to stick to a diet where you eat less often. IMO, when you eat every few hours (well when cutting at least, which is what i'm doing) you have to eat smaller portions and if you're eating 6-7 times a day it can be tough. It's way more satisfying eating 3 LARGE meals when cutting because it's a lot of food and you get pretty full. Rather when you spread your calories out you are more likely to cheat because you're hungry eating those small portions and that's when you cheat, when you're hungry. I've done both ways, but have only recently started eating few meals. (I'm actually doing Intermittent Fasting) And it's working wonders right now and so far it is really easy to stick to and I haven't cheated once. I really never had much control over what I ate because I would get so damn hungry when eating 6-8 meals a day but now it's not a problem. Big satisfying meals > smaller portioned meals.
So far i've dropped from 200 when I started to about 193.
-
-
05-24-2008, 09:52 AM #29
-
05-24-2008, 09:57 AM #30
Bookmarks