Eating Five Or Six Meals Each Day Speeds Up Metabolism - MYTH?

[The True Adonis]

I am not, and have never juiced. I've tried eating multiple small meals throughout the day, weighed and measured macronutrients per each small meal, blah blah blah. My tendency is to gain weight very easily (muscle and fat), but leaning out comes not so easily.

I've also just eaten a couple of meals a day. I usually don't have much of an appetite, so the multiple meals thing really did take some getting used to. So I did both for about 4 months each. I was very diligent with the smaller more frequent eating style, making sure I got my 30g of protein per meal. I did not end up any leaner - just felt more tired and had less time in the day to get things done because I always seemed to be eating.

Two meals a day was really comfortable, didn't get fat, still gained nicely, and it was much easier to manage than eating frequently.

Just my two cents worth - I never found the results I was told I would with the smaller more frequent meals.

I do notice a difference when I up my protein though. Not to crazy proportions but it certainly adds some strength as far as I can tell.

And I think periodic fasting is fantastic for your health. Big big believer in it.

Post Quoted for Truth.  The small meal diet/30 g of Protein per meal is pure bullshit and Bro-Science.

I do 16 hour fasts combined with my Adonis Principles.  Its all you need.

[Disgusted]

Post Quoted for Truth.  The small meal diet/30 g of Protein per meal is pure bullshit and Bro-Science.

I do 16 hour fasts combined with my Adonis Principles.  Its all you need.

There really is no reason to fast other than wanting to.

[The True Adonis]

There really is no reason to fast other than wanting to.

Fasting is Scientifically proven to reduce bodyfat, decreased blood Glucose levels, decreased insulin sensitivity, increased lipolysis, increased glucagon levels, increased Growth Hormone levels, increased norandrenaline levels, no increase in cortisol and increased testosterone as well as many other anti-aging effects just to name a few benefits of Intermittent Fasting.  These all occur above your conventional diets and eating regimes.

If you are interested I can provide you with many studies on why IF is much better than your regular eating patterns.

[suckmymuscle]

Eating Five Or Six Meals Each Day Speeds Up Metabolism - MYTH?

  More along the line that if you go for 8 hours or or more without eating anything, your body starts to remove protein from your skeletal muscles to turn it into glucose in the liver via gluconeogenesis since it prefers to use muscle tissue as energy instead of fat for several reasons. By burning your muscles, your body solves two problems at once: it provides energy for the starving body and decreases the caloric needs of the body since muscles cost energy to maintain. Less muscle means a lower basal metabolic rate which in turn makes you burn less fat. Only after the skeletal muscles have been reduced to the minimum necessary for functioning will the body start burning your bodyfat for energy. This is highly effective if you are starving, but it is terrible for muscle hypertrophy. Your body doesen't care about big muscles one bit: it cares about your survival. Your entire body has one prime directive: to supply the brain with Oxygen and glucose(which gets converted in the brain into lactate) or ketones if no carbohydrates are available. Keeping the brain alive is what matters to your entire body and it will do whatever it takes to accomplish this. If you are in the middle of a fire in the woods and start suffocating for lack of Oxygen, your legs and arms will start to go purple as your body will cut Oxygen supply to all your limbs so that your brain gets enough. If it gets worse, it will make you pass out as less Oxygen is needed if you are making no movements and so forth. In the case of starvation, your body will canibalize itself to supply your brain, which is you, with the sugar it needs, and skeletal muscles are the first thing to go as they are the least necessary thing in the body - much less important than your internal organs like the liver, kidneys and heart.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[The True Adonis]

 More along the line that if you go for 8 hours or or more without eating anything, your body starts to remove protein from your skeletal muscles to turn it into glucose in the liver via gluconeogenesis since it prefers to use muscle tissue as energy instead of fat for several reasons. By burning your muscles, your body solves two problems at once: it provides energy for the starving body and decreases the caloric needs of the body since muscles cost energy to maintain. Less muscle means a lower basal metabolic rate which in turn makes you burn less fat. Only after the skeletal muscles have been reduced to the minimum necessary for functioning will the body start burning your bodyfat for energy. This is highly effective if you are starving, but it is terrible for muscle hypertrophy. Your body doesen't care about big muscles one bit: it cares about your survival. Your entire body has one prime directive: to supply the brain with Oxygen and glucose(which gets converted in the brain into lactate) or ketones if no carbohydrates are available. Keeping the brain alive is what matters to your entire body and it will do whatever it takes to accomplish this. If you are in the middle of a fire in the woods and start suffocating for lack of Oxygen, your legs and arms will start to go purple as your body will cut Oxygen supply to all your limbs so that your brain gets enough. If it gets worse, it will make you pass out as less Oxygen is needed if you are making no movements and so forth. In the case of starvation, your body will canibalize itself to supply your brain, which is you, with the sugar it needs, and skeletal muscles are the first thing to go as they are the least necessary thing in the body - much less important than your internal organs like the liver, kidneys and heart.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

I hope this helps.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21410865?dopt=Abstract

Obes Rev. 2011 Jul;12(7):e593-601. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-789X.2011.00873.x. Epub 2011 Mar 17.
Intermittent versus daily calorie restriction: which diet regimen is more effective for weight loss?

 These findings suggest that these diets are equally as effective in decreasing body weight and fat mass, although intermittent CR may be more effective for the retention of lean mass.

[suckmymuscle]

I hope this helps.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21410865?dopt=Abstract

Obes Rev. 2011 Jul;12(7):e593-601. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-789X.2011.00873.x. Epub 2011 Mar 17.
Intermittent versus daily calorie restriction: which diet regimen is more effective for weight loss?

 These findings suggest that these diets are equally as effective in decreasing body weight and fat mass, although intermittent CR may be more effective for the retention of lean mass.

  I would like to see what was the methodology of this study and how well controlled the parameters were. Was this study repeated? What were the conditions under which the participants undertook it? Were they taking medications that would alter their physiology in some way? I am not saying it isn't possible, but the first sign of starvation is an increased amount of ammonia, uric acid and also creatinine which are indicatives of protein breakdown. Since no protein is being ingested, it could only come from body tissues. This comes before ketones are increased in urine, which suggests that bodily tissue is catabolized before bodyfat stores are.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[Jadethegladiator]

Truth!

[Coach is Back!]

Just another thread to shake my head....fuck TA..."Broscience" hahaha. Do. You even have a clue?

[Nasty Nate]

Welcome to 1997 but you are wrong.

There is no such thing as "clean" eating and don`t make me post Layne Norton`s dissertation of why meal frequency does not have any effect on Metabolic Rate.

There is no "Conservation Mode".

Satiety has more to do with Personal Preference and Water Content than anything else.

I Hope this helps (I doubt that it will).

Yeah didn't Layne come to the conclusion that eating protein 4-5 hours apart was actually better than 2-3?

[Roger Bacon]

Good thread everyone, very informative!!!!

All the way helpful information!!!

[tbombz]

Myth: Fasting tricks the body into "starvation mode".


Truth

Efficient adaptation to famine was important for survival during rough times in our evolution. Lowering metabolic rate during starvation allowed us to live longer, increasing the possibility that we might come across something to eat. Starvation literally means starvation. It doesn't mean skipping a meal not eating for 24 hours. Or not eating for three days even. The belief that meal skipping or short-term fasting causes "starvation mode" is so completely ridiculous and absurd that it makes me want to jump out the window.

Looking at the numerous studies I've read, the earliest evidence for lowered metabolic rate in response to fasting occurred after 60 hours (-8% in resting metabolic rate). Other studies show metabolic rate is not impacted until 72-96 hours have passed (George Cahill has contributed a lot on this topic).

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).

Again, I have choosen extreme examples to show how absurd the myth of "starvation mode" is - especially when you consider that the exact opposite is true in the context of how the term is thrown around.


Origin

I guess some genius read that fasting or starvation causes metabolic rate to drop and took that to mean that meal skipping, or not eating for a day or two, would cause starvation mode.

[andreisdaman]

Myth: Fasting tricks the body into "starvation mode".


Truth

Efficient adaptation to famine was important for survival during rough times in our evolution. Lowering metabolic rate during starvation allowed us to live longer, increasing the possibility that we might come across something to eat. Starvation literally means starvation. It doesn't mean skipping a meal not eating for 24 hours. Or not eating for three days even. The belief that meal skipping or short-term fasting causes "starvation mode" is so completely ridiculous and absurd that it makes me want to jump out the window.

Looking at the numerous studies I've read, the earliest evidence for lowered metabolic rate in response to fasting occurred after 60 hours (-8% in resting metabolic rate). Other studies show metabolic rate is not impacted until 72-96 hours have passed (George Cahill has contributed a lot on this topic).

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).

Again, I have choosen extreme examples to show how absurd the myth of "starvation mode" is - especially when you consider that the exact opposite is true in the context of how the term is thrown around.


Origin

I guess some genius read that fasting or starvation causes metabolic rate to drop and took that to mean that meal skipping, or not eating for a day or two, would cause starvation mode.

I have no science to back this up so its just opinion...but I really don't think its a good idea to eat six meals a day in order to keep your metabolism burning.....I don't think its a good idea to have your body constantly burning......its like keeping your car engine on all the time....I think it could lead to premature death...you are literally working your organs to death

[tbombz]

I have no science to back this up so its just opinion...but I really don't think its a good idea to eat six meals a day in order to keep your metabolism burning.....I don't think its a good idea to have your body constantly burning......its like keeping your car engine on all the time....I think it could lead to premature death...you are literally working your organs to death

it doesnt keep your metabolism burning. your metabolic rate is the same whether you eat one meal per day or 20. 

[Rammstein]

Just reading "Purposeful primitive". Anybody read it? This discussion reminds me of the debate "Parillo" vs "Warrior" method in the book.

[matrixgh]

eating 5 meals a day does not speed up metabolize, nothing to do with it,
the reason bbs eat 5 meals ed cause of the calories consumption carb,protein,fat
is impossible consume 5000 calories in 2 meals your stomach will not absorb all this food at ones, cause your insulin goes up to the roof and u and up fat. that why we split it through the day. of course drugs needs to be in our blood all the time, other wise we and up fat after all this calories.

also eating 5 meals you get benefit for wightloss or balancing your wight, cause when you on 2k calories diet program you dont wont to put all 2k cal split it in 2meals, cause you will get more wight, is all about glycemic index.

[Roger Bacon]

Sir, you have certainly redeemed yourself for all the homosexuality, misguided political opinions, and bullshit you've spread here in the past.

I salute you!

Myth: Fasting tricks the body into "starvation mode".


Truth

Efficient adaptation to famine was important for survival during rough times in our evolution. Lowering metabolic rate during starvation allowed us to live longer, increasing the possibility that we might come across something to eat. Starvation literally means starvation. It doesn't mean skipping a meal not eating for 24 hours. Or not eating for three days even. The belief that meal skipping or short-term fasting causes "starvation mode" is so completely ridiculous and absurd that it makes me want to jump out the window.

Looking at the numerous studies I've read, the earliest evidence for lowered metabolic rate in response to fasting occurred after 60 hours (-8% in resting metabolic rate). Other studies show metabolic rate is not impacted until 72-96 hours have passed (George Cahill has contributed a lot on this topic).

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).

Again, I have choosen extreme examples to show how absurd the myth of "starvation mode" is - especially when you consider that the exact opposite is true in the context of how the term is thrown around.


Origin

I guess some genius read that fasting or starvation causes metabolic rate to drop and took that to mean that meal skipping, or not eating for a day or two, would cause starvation mode.

[mwbbuilder]

If this was so cut and dry and black and white, why wouldn't you just move on a worry about something else?

It's like arguing about the existence of god or if abortion should be legal.

[tbombz]

eating 5 meals a day does not speed up metabolize, nothing to do with it,
the reason bbs eat 5 meals ed cause of the calories consumption carb,protein,fat
is impossible consume 5000 calories in 2 meals your stomach will not absorb all this food at ones, cause your insulin goes up to the roof and u and up fat. that why we split it through the day. of course drugs needs to be in our blood all the time, other wise we and up fat after all this calories.

also eating 5 meals you get benefit for wightloss or balancing your wight, cause when you on 2k calories diet program you dont wont to put all 2k cal split it in 2meals, cause you will get more wight, is all about glycemic index.

Effect of meal frequency on glucose and insulin excursions over the course of a day


Background & aims

This study characterized the glucose and insulin responses to temporal alterations in meal frequency, and alterations in the macronutrient composition.

Methods

Eight subjects underwent three separate 12-h meal tests: three high carbohydrate (3CHO) meals, 6 high carbohydrate meals (6CHO), 6 high-protein meals (6HP). Blood samples were taken at 15-min intervals. Integrated area under the curve (AUC) concentrations for glucose and plasma insulin were determined (total, 4-h, and 2-h blocks) for each meal condition.

Results

Baseline glucose and insulin values were not different between study days. Peak glucose levels were highest on the 3CHO day; however the 12 h glucose AUC was higher during the 6CHO condition (p = 0.029) than 3CHO condition, with no difference in the insulin response. The 6HP condition resulted in a decreased glucose AUC (p = 0.004) and insulin AUC (p = 0.012) compared to 6CHO.

Conclusions

In non-obese individuals, glucose levels remained elevated throughout the day with frequent CHO meals compared to 3CHO meals, without any differences in the insulin levels. Increasing the protein content of frequent meals attenuated both the glucose and insulin response.


 
________________________ ________________________ ________________________ ________________________ _________



Myth: Eat small meals to keep blood sugar levels under control.

Truth

According to legions of diet and health "experts," eating small meals every so often will help you avoid hunger pangs, provide you with stable energy throughout the day and keep you mentally sharp. Contrary to what many people seem to believe, blood sugar is extremely well-regulated and maintained within a tight range in healthy people. It does not swing wildly up and down like a chimpanzee on meth and it doesn't plummet from going a few hours without food. Or even a full day without food. Or a week without food for that matter.

People seem to believe they will suffer severe hunger and mental impairment from not eating every so often. Consider for a second the evolutionary consequences for survival if this was true. Given that regular periods of fasting, even famine, was a natural part of our past, do you think we'd be here today if we were unable to function when obtaining food was most critical? I have seen healthy young males, bodybuilders nonetheless, complain of lethargy and mental haze if they didn't get to eat for a few hours. It's completely absurd. But I digress...

Maintaining blood sugar is of very high priority and we have developed efficient pathways that will make it happen even under extreme conditions. If you were to fast for 23 hrs and then go for a 90 min run at 70-75% VO2max, your blood sugar after the run would be identical to the same run performed in the fed state. It would take no less than three days or 84 hours of fasting to reach blood sugar levels low enough to affect your mental state; and this is temporary, as your brain adapts to the use of ketones. During 48 hours of fasting, or severe calorie deprivation, blood sugar is maintained within a normal range no measure of cognitive performance is negatively affected.

For more on blood sugar, read my review of Eat Stop Eat Expanded Edition, which includes a relevant excerpt. Also, keep in mind that the above cited studies are all performed under conditions that are much more extreme than the fasting protocol I, or Brad Pilon, recommends.

What about blood sugar and hunger? Blood sugar is one of many short-term feedback mechanisms used to regulate hunger and the notion which exists to say that low blood sugar may cause hunger is correct. Low just means lower range. This is subject to numerous confounders, such as your habitual diet, energy intake and genetics. Most importantly perhaps, it's subject to entrained meal patterns, regulated by ghrelin and other metabolic hormones. In essence, this means that blood sugar follows the meal pattern you are used to. This is relevant for those who fear blood sugar issues and hunger from regular periods of fasting, as it serves to explain why people can easily adapt to regular periods of fasting without negative effects.

Origin

Not sure how people came to believe that skipping a meal would dumb them down. There is some truth to blood sugar and hunger, but this is often taken out of context. There's no need to eat regularly to "maintain" blood sugar as it maintains itself just fine and adapts to whatever meal pattern you choose.


________________________ ________________________ ________________________ ________________________ ______

[Ropo]

eating 5 meals a day does not speed up metabolize, nothing to do with it,
the reason bbs eat 5 meals ed cause of the calories consumption carb,protein,fat
is impossible consume 5000 calories in 2 meals your stomach will not absorb all this food at ones, cause your insulin goes up to the roof and u and up fat. that why we split it through the day. of course drugs needs to be in our blood all the time, other wise we and up fat after all this calories.

also eating 5 meals you get benefit for wightloss or balancing your wight, cause when you on 2k calories diet program you dont wont to put all 2k cal split it in 2meals, cause you will get more wight, is all about glycemic index.

Finally someone, who even have a clue about the matter. How nice 

[Coach is Back!]

Provide a link for these studies. Just don't cut and paste

[WillGrant]

As far as I can tell, the only way to naturally speed up metabolism is to build more muscle mass, and that some foods/drinks can minorly contribute, and only temporarily.  That's it?

Well no , your body needs energy to digest and put that food to where its best used , its called TEF or Thermic Effect of Food and its well documented, the increase in metabolism is slight but over the course of a day you do burn more calories by taking in smaller feedings than if you were to take in 3 larger meals.

If you ate 3 large meals your metabolism would go up then drop right off - by smaller eating every few hours it keeps your metabilism raised.

[matrixgh]

Well no , your body needs energy to digest and put that food to where its best used , its called TEF or Thermic Effect of Food and its well documented, the increase in metabolism is slight but over the course of a day you do burn more calories by taking in smaller feedings than if you were to take in 3 larger meals.

If you ate 3 large meals your metabolism would go up then drop right off - by smaller eating every few hours it keeps your metabilism raised.

Well not true, every one have different metabolism, also depend on our lifestyle, age, stress, health. first we have to look what type of carbs and amount in this 3 meals before we force in our stomach, as I mention before is all about GI for more info http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glycemic_index, for example summo wrestlers consume 3 large meals some times 2 up to 5k cal a day including beer for extra cal,  and look at them

[Disgusted]

Fasting is Scientifically proven to reduce bodyfat, decreased blood Glucose levels, decreased insulin sensitivity, increased lipolysis, increased glucagon levels, increased Growth Hormone levels, increased norandrenaline levels, no increase in cortisol and increased testosterone as well as many other anti-aging effects just to name a few benefits of Intermittent Fasting.  These all occur above your conventional diets and eating regimes.

If you are interested I can provide you with many studies on why IF is much better than your regular eating patterns.

Eating a lower carb diet will do the same thing and you never have to feel hungry.

[Radical Plato]

Just Eat, Work, Sleep, defecate, and fuck if your lucky. Thats all

[WillGrant]

Well not true, every one have different metabolism, also depend on our lifestyle, age, stress, health. first we have to look what type of carbs and amount in this 3 meals before we force in our stomach, as I mention before is all about GI for more info http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glycemic_index, for example summo wrestlers consume 3 large meals some times 2 up to 5k cal a day including beer for extra cal,  and look at them

Its whats taught in exercise science classes all over the world dude , tested on athletes and everyday normal people - you are correct everyone of us has differences but you can not escape the fact that everytime you ingest something your metabolism is raised , 3 large meals a day puts spikes and plateaus in the TEF effects where as 6 - 7 smaller meals heightens your metabolism for the whole day..

Wiki vs Real tested and taught in ex sciences classes around the world - what do you pick