Help me out with this Metabolism article

[belairdfence99]

"The act of eating actually raises your metabolism—don't go super-sizing it just yet! As I just mentioned, digesting food takes energy, and a different amount of energy is required for each macronutrient. So eating several meals, as opposed to three squares, raises your metabolism five to six times a day, as opposed to only three.

This technique works on another level. When your body doesn't get food, your metabolism slows down. This is because our bodies are ingeniously programmed to protect against starvation—when your body senses that another meal may not be coming (even though food in our modern world is in abundance) it holds onto your body fat to use as energy.

When you only eat three times a day, your metabolism slows greatly between each meal. On the other hand, by eating consistently every three to four hours, your metabolism will stay elevated, knowing that another meal is coming soon.

An added benefit of eating every three hours is that you don't get hungry. By never getting hungry, you reduce the chances of overeating, or grabbing something quick and unhealthy just because it's there."

I don't buy into this at all but is there any truth to the fact that keeping your metabolism "elevated" has benefits as opposed to not keeping it "elevated"?

[vitornoob]

http://www.leangains.com/2010/10/top...-debunked.html here, some studies (:

[belairdfence99]

http://www.leangains.com/2010/10/top...-debunked.html here, some studies (:

Someone being helpful in the 1rd post? Amazing, thanks

[rand18m]

Here is the address to a paper that should answer your question as well as it can be answered. I tried to post a link and this site won't let me, if I understand correctly one has to have 50 posts before they can put forth a link, not sure why that would be but that is what I'm being told. Therefore go to this address and you can read the JISSN's stance on this subject.

jissn.com/content/8/1/4

[BlackHeart.au]

I don't buy into this at all but is there any truth to the fact that keeping your metabolism "elevated" has benefits as opposed to not keeping it "elevated"?

Eating 6 meals daily may be beneficial hypoglycemics and diabetics. Although it does not speed up metabolism itself, it shore does prevent me from low blood sugar.

[WonderPug]

^ Welcome back.

[jarekd1234]

Eating 6 meals daily may be beneficial hypoglycemics and diabetics. Although it does not speed up metabolism itself, it shore does prevent me from low blood sugar.

If I'm correct, there are studies(on leangains I think) that show meal frequency does not affect blood sugar levels?

[mynameisuntz]

I don't buy into this at all but is there any truth to the fact that keeping your metabolism "elevated" has benefits as opposed to not keeping it "elevated"?

-Eating does raise metabolism. This is referred to as TEF (thermic effect of food). It is dose-dependent, meaning eating 2,000 calories at the end of the day will result in the same NET boost regardless of the number of meals you eat them in - assuming macronutrients are the same. The number of times you raise your metabolism is irrelevant; the NET boost at the end of the day will be exactly the same.

-Metabolism does not slow down when you aren't eating. BMR runs at all times during the day, and is the greatest source of caloric output for most people, unless you have a high activity/non-exercise activity level, of course.

-I was never full eating every 3 hours. Whereas now, I am never hungry and can feel some satisfaction by doing intermittent fasting.

There is no truth that keeping your metabolism "boosted" via TEF throughout the day is beneficial to having larger, fewer meals.

[BlackHeart.au]

^ Welcome back.

Hello PUG... I always seem to be in trouble lol..... I apologized to Lorin, i was really only joking, never acctually wrote those crazy stalking stuff. They were just copy/pastas.

[Lvisaa2]

Here is the address to a paper that should answer your question as well as it can be answered. I tried to post a link and this site won't let me, if I understand correctly one has to have 50 posts before they can put forth a link, not sure why that would be but that is what I'm being told. Therefore go to this address and you can read the JISSN's stance on this subject.

jissn.com/content/8/1/4

And here is a critique. http://www.leangains.com/2011/04/cri...d-on-meal.html

And to quote Vitor's link:

"Seemingly paradoxical, metabolic rate is actually increased in short-term fasting. For some concrete numbers, studies have shown an increase of 3.6% - 10% after 36-48 hours (Mansell PI, et al, and Zauner C, et al). This makes sense from an evolutionary perspective. Epinephrine and norepinephrine (adrenaline/noradrenaline) sharpens the mind and makes us want to move around. Desirable traits that encouraged us to seek for food, or for the hunter to kill his prey, increasing survival. At some point, after several days of no eating, this benefit would confer no benefit to survival and probably would have done more harm than good; instead, an adaptation that favored conservation of energy turned out to be advantageous. Thus metabolic rate is increased in short-term fasting (up to 60 hours)."

[belairdfence99]

Good discussion guys thanks a lot.

I definitely knew that there was something screwy with the article but, before, I was not 100% certain whether the total TEF for the day would add up to the same with smaller meals or one big meal.