Meal Spacing

[Blondell]

I have 2 questions.

1.What is the longest amount of time you should go between meals?

2. What is the optimal time to space your meals at?

[Erik]

Originally posted by bdd814@May 10 2006, 01:03 PM
I have 2 questions.

1.What is the longest amount of time you should go between meals?

2. What is the optimal time to space your meals at?
What does your hunger tell you?

Total end of day calories are more important than meal frequency, at least in terms of overall progress. The issues with meal frequency relate more to appetite control than anything, because if you go too long b/w meals most people have a tendency to raid the fridge.

I eat every 2-3 hours because I'm used to eating on that frequency schedule. I can't go much longer than that.

[Blondell]

Originally posted by Thunder@May 10 2006, 01:06 PM

What does your hunger tell you?

Total end of day calories are more important than meal frequency, at least in terms of overall progress. The issues with meal frequency relate more to appetite control than anything, because if you go too long b/w meals most people have a tendency to raid the fridge.
:lol: My hunger tells me to eat all day.

I have thought all this time that meal spacing had something to do w/ muscle loss. :huh: So I can go 4-1/2 hrs b/t meals w/ no problems?

[strongchick]

If you want. Total calories are most important. Your body is not so fragile tht 4 hours is going to make a difference. You sleep longer than that...

[Blondell]

You guys are life savers. I prefer to eat larger more infrequent meals, but have been forcing myself to eat every 2-3 hrs.

This "DUH" moment has been brought to you by Blondell. :lol:

[Strive2Define]

Originally posted by bdd814@May 10 2006, 01:14 PM
You guys are life savers. I prefer to eat larger more infrequent meals, but have been forcing myself to eat every 2-3 hrs.

This "DUH" moment has been brought to you by Blondell. :lol:
So, is there no truth that your body can only metabolize so much food at a time and the rest goes to storage? I thought this was the premise behind eating smaller, more frequent meals(barring the metabolism stoke)...that when most ate 3 meals they had a tendency too large of quantities.

[Erik]

Originally posted by Strive2Define+May 10 2006, 01:31 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Strive2Define @ May 10 2006, 01:31 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-bdd814@May 10 2006, 01:14 PM
You guys are life savers. I prefer to eat larger more infrequent meals, but have been forcing myself to eat every 2-3 hrs.

This "DUH" moment has been brought to you by Blondell. :lol:
So, is there no truth that your body can only metabolize so much food at a time and the rest goes to storage? I thought this was the premise behind eating smaller, more frequent meals(barring the metabolism stoke)...that when most ate 3 meals they had a tendency too large of quantities. [/b][/quote]
Fitness myth

[Strive2Define]

Wow I suppose one can learn something new everyday.

[Cindy Day]

Originally posted by Strive2Define@May 10 2006, 01:34 PM
Wow I suppose one can learn something new everyday.
I&#39;ll say.

I was under the impression that high meal frequency stimulated metabolism too and that is what you&#39;d want for fat loss. Is that all a myth?--such a foreign concept to me. The whole 5-6 meals a day structure is simply to passify hunger?

[Erik]

Originally posted by Liteweight@May 10 2006, 02:14 PM
I&#39;ll say.

I was under the impression that high meal frequency stimulated metabolism too and that is what you&#39;d want for fat loss. Is that all a myth?--such a foreign concept to me. The whole 5-6 meals a day structure is simply to passify hunger?
It doesn&#39;t.

Metabolism is governed by overall energy intake, not by meal frequency. The thermic effect of food is not going to be different based on eating more often, since it is more a function of total energy intake than it is anything else.

I think there are some benefits to meal frequency, but not for metabolic reasons. And yes, I think it&#39;s more an issue of satiation than anything.

I&#39;d personally much rather eat smaller meals more often than bigger meals less often.

[3sweeties]

Total end of day calories are more important than meal frequency, at least in terms of overall progress. The issues with meal frequency relate more to appetite control than anything, because if you go too long b/w meals most people have a tendency to raid the fridge.

That is good to hear.



If a meal was skipped , can two meals be combined as long as it didn&#39;t interfere with your pre and post workout meals? Would that be to much protien in one meal?

For me personally, I don&#39;t mind feeling hungry, but I kind of get tired of eating.

[jrb1980]

Well, I&#39;ll be damed.

[sweetpea_123]

WOW&#33; I thought it was ideal to eat mini meals, and not to go more than 4 hours, unless sleeping, so that your blood sugar would stay stable to help promote weight loss. (Nice run on sentance&#33;&#33;&#33;) :compute:

[Erik]

Originally posted by sweetpea_123@May 10 2006, 04:36 PM
WOW&#33; I thought it was ideal to eat mini meals, and not to go more than 4 hours, unless sleeping, so that your blood sugar would stay stable to help promote weight loss. (Nice run on sentance&#33;&#33;&#33;) :compute:
It does help with blood sugar regulation/control, but weight loss is a function of your end of day caloric deficit.

[Leah]

Originally posted by 3sweeties@May 10 2006, 03:01 PM


For me personally, I don&#39;t mind feeling hungry, but I kind of get tired of eating.
I hate people like you&#33; :dry:





J/K :p

[andi]

Originally posted by Leah+May 10 2006, 03:47 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Leah @ May 10 2006, 03:47 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-3sweeties@May 10 2006, 03:01 PM


For me personally, I don&#39;t mind feeling hungry, but I kind of get tired of eating.
I hate people like you&#33; :dry:





J/K :p [/b][/quote]
Ditto :p


wow, I always thought it was to get all of your protein in and digested.... :blink:

[Strive2Define]

You know it is kinda annoying to think I have driven many people around me to the point of NOT wanting to go anywhere with me because I am such a stickler about trying to eat on time.I now find out that there really isn&#39;t a reason for it. :mad:
Of course I won&#39;t tell them this..that would make them right.

[krispy1138]

I have always eaten small meals every 3-4 hours, even as a child. I&#39;ve never been able to eat a lot at one sitting, hence I&#39;m hungry every few hours. My husband could eat once a day, so I drive him crazy with all of my meals&#33;

[andi]

Originally posted by Strive2Define@May 10 2006, 04:40 PM
You know it is kinda annoying to think I have driven many people around me to the point of NOT wanting to go anywhere with me because I am such a stickler about trying to eat on time.I now find out that there really isn&#39;t a reason for it. :mad:
Of course I won&#39;t tell them this..that would make them right.
Uh-oh, so I have been so anal for nothing?&#33; :censor: my poor hubby, always I&#39;m rushing everytime we go somewhere b/c I have to get my meals in.
Hey Thunder, wait a minute, why is it such a big deal then to get up early enough on the weekends to eat whrn u could just combine some meals? sorry, I&#39;m confused&#33; ;)

[Erik]

Originally posted by andi+May 10 2006, 05:53 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (andi @ May 10 2006, 05:53 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Strive2Define@May 10 2006, 04:40 PM
You know it is kinda annoying to think I have driven many people around me to the point of NOT wanting to go anywhere with me because I am such a stickler about trying to eat on time.I now find out that there really isn&#39;t a reason for it. :mad:
Of course I won&#39;t tell them this..that would make them right.
Uh-oh, so I have been so anal for nothing?&#33; :censor: my poor hubby, always I&#39;m rushing everytime we go somewhere b/c I have to get my meals in.
Hey Thunder, wait a minute, why is it such a big deal then to get up early enough on the weekends to eat whrn u could just combine some meals? sorry, I&#39;m confused&#33; ;) [/b][/quote]
Cause Thunder said so ... and I prefer the meal frequency option.

[Leah]

Originally posted by andi+May 10 2006, 05:53 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (andi @ May 10 2006, 05:53 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Strive2Define@May 10 2006, 04:40 PM
You know it is kinda annoying to think I have driven many people around me to the point of NOT wanting to go anywhere with me because I am such a stickler about trying to eat on time.I now find out that there really isn&#39;t a reason for it. :mad:
Of course I won&#39;t tell them this..that would make them right.
Uh-oh, so I have been so anal for nothing?&#33; :censor: my poor hubby, always I&#39;m rushing everytime we go somewhere b/c I have to get my meals in.
Hey Thunder, wait a minute, why is it such a big deal then to get up early enough on the weekends to eat whrn u could just combine some meals? sorry, I&#39;m confused&#33; ;) [/b][/quote]
cause you still have to get all your calories in



so...are ya&#39;ll just gonna eat like one or two meals now or something? :unsure:

[Brandi]

Shit no. I like to be in a state of constant eating.

[Strive2Define]

Originally posted by Leah+May 10 2006, 06:23 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Leah @ May 10 2006, 06:23 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by andi@May 10 2006, 05:53 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-Strive2Define@May 10 2006, 04:40 PM
You know it is kinda annoying to think I have driven many people around me to the point of NOT wanting to go anywhere with me because I am such a stickler about trying to eat on time.I now find out that there really isn&#39;t a reason for it. :mad:
Of course I won&#39;t tell them this..that would make them right.
Uh-oh, so I have been so anal for nothing?&#33; :censor: my poor hubby, always I&#39;m rushing everytime we go somewhere b/c I have to get my meals in.
Hey Thunder, wait a minute, why is it such a big deal then to get up early enough on the weekends to eat whrn u could just combine some meals? sorry, I&#39;m confused&#33; ;)
cause you still have to get all your calories in



so...are ya&#39;ll just gonna eat like one or two meals now or something? :unsure: [/b][/quote]
UHm , no...not now that I have trained my body to DEMAND food every 3 hours.Sometimes it even wants it before then. The worst is when you just finish eating and are STILL starving. I hate that feeling. :curse:

[Inatic]

I prefer the frequent plan as well. I get hungry every few hours as well. Im not a nice person when im hungry/ have low bl sug..

[AgKitty]

Wholeheartedly agree Inatic. My family knows when I&#39;m hungry because I get pissy real quick.

[Lyn]

Well I definitely learned something today. :clap:

Next I supposed ya&#39;ll are gonna tell me that there&#39;s no Santa Claus. :p

[andi]

Originally posted by Leah+May 10 2006, 05:23 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Leah @ May 10 2006, 05:23 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by andi@May 10 2006, 05:53 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-Strive2Define@May 10 2006, 04:40 PM
You know it is kinda annoying to think I have driven many people around me to the point of NOT wanting to go anywhere with me because I am such a stickler about trying to eat on time.I now find out that there really isn&#39;t a reason for it. :mad:
Of course I won&#39;t tell them this..that would make them right.
Uh-oh, so I have been so anal for nothing?&#33; :censor: my poor hubby, always I&#39;m rushing everytime we go somewhere b/c I have to get my meals in.
Hey Thunder, wait a minute, why is it such a big deal then to get up early enough on the weekends to eat whrn u could just combine some meals? sorry, I&#39;m confused&#33; ;)
cause you still have to get all your calories in



so...are ya&#39;ll just gonna eat like one or two meals now or something? :unsure: [/b][/quote]
Yes, just 1 big pizza and one thing of ice cream&#33; :lol:

J/k, I&#39;m always hungary, but maybe I&#39;ll won&#39;t be so uptight at work in such when I get mad going 1/2 hour past my "feeding time"&#33; :oops:

[kjinwa]

I&#39;d eat every hour if I could get away with it. :innocent:

[Tearose]

but wait a minute.... i thought one of the things that wreck your metablism was eating only once or twice a day, i know that wreaks havok on your blood sugar and doesn&#39;t that affect your metabolism? i too have always been anal about getting my meals in every 2-3 hours because I thought i would start to lose muscle, and also because i am starving&#33;
If its true you don&#39;t HAVE to eat that often I&#39;m not telling anybody&#33; :mad:

Can you explain to me why we eat so opften then? I know getting the overall calories in is one factor but surely thats not the only one, because I could go to McDonalds once or twice a day and get my total daily calories in those meals. :huh:

[mochamajesty]

I learned something new today as well. This is great news&#33; At work, I don&#39;t often remember to eat every three hours, but then I&#39;m not hungry anyway. So I&#39;ve been wondering how to fit all of my meals in. Now, it&#39;s nice to know that it is not "required" to do this.

[strongchick]

Originally posted by Tearose@May 10 2006, 08:04 PM
but wait a minute.... i thought one of the things that wreck your metablism was eating only once or twice a day, i know that wreaks havok on your blood sugar and doesn&#39;t that affect your metabolism? i too have always been anal about getting my meals in every 2-3 hours because I thought i would start to lose muscle, and also because i am starving&#33;
If its true you don&#39;t HAVE to eat that often I&#39;m not telling anybody&#33; :mad:

Can you explain to me why we eat so opften then? I know getting the overall calories in is one factor but surely thats not the only one, because I could go to McDonalds once or twice a day and get my total daily calories in those meals. :huh:
But it DOESN&#39;T wreck your metabolism. Do you really think your body is that fragile? You SLEEP more than 3 hours, yes?

People spread out their meals when dieting because it helps their hunger. they eat more often when bulking because its hard to shovel in lots of food at once.

But it has no effect on metabolism.

[andromeda]

Since i&#39;m a busy mom, I am going to eat all of my calories in one daily SUPER meal from now on&#33; J/k :p

Actually I agree with what someone else said-I really do enjoy &#39;being in a state of constant eating.&#39; I don&#39;t get all jittery and shaky between meals now like I used to. :flex:

[3sweeties]

hate people like you&#33; :lol: I&#39;ve heard that one before.

[Tearose]

Originally posted by strongchick+May 10 2006, 08:51 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (strongchick @ May 10 2006, 08:51 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Tearose@May 10 2006, 08:04 PM
but wait a minute.... i thought one of the things that wreck your metablism was eating only once or twice a day, i know that wreaks havok on your blood sugar and doesn&#39;t that affect your metabolism? i too have always been anal about getting my meals in every 2-3 hours because I thought i would start to lose muscle, and also because i am starving&#33;
If its true you don&#39;t HAVE to eat that often I&#39;m not telling anybody&#33; :mad:

Can you explain to me why we eat so opften then? I know getting the overall calories in is one factor but surely thats not the only one, because I could go to McDonalds once or twice a day and get my total daily calories in those meals. :huh:
But it DOESN&#39;T wreck your metabolism. Do you really think your body is that fragile? You SLEEP more than 3 hours, yes?

People spread out their meals when dieting because it helps their hunger. they eat more often when bulking because its hard to shovel in lots of food at once.

But it has no effect on metabolism. [/b][/quote]
I guess so....so how do people wreck their metabolism?

[Erik]

Originally posted by Tearose+May 10 2006, 10:55 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Tearose @ May 10 2006, 10:55 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by strongchick@May 10 2006, 08:51 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-Tearose@May 10 2006, 08:04 PM
but wait a minute.... i thought one of the things that wreck your metablism was eating only once or twice a day, i know that wreaks havok on your blood sugar and doesn&#39;t that affect your metabolism? i too have always been anal about getting my meals in every 2-3 hours because I thought i would start to lose muscle, and also because i am starving&#33;
If its true you don&#39;t HAVE to eat that often I&#39;m not telling anybody&#33; :mad:

Can you explain to me why we eat so opften then? I know getting the overall calories in is one factor but surely thats not the only one, because I could go to McDonalds once or twice a day and get my total daily calories in those meals. :huh:
But it DOESN&#39;T wreck your metabolism. Do you really think your body is that fragile? You SLEEP more than 3 hours, yes?

People spread out their meals when dieting because it helps their hunger. they eat more often when bulking because its hard to shovel in lots of food at once.

But it has no effect on metabolism.
I guess so....so how do people wreck their metabolism? [/b][/quote]
Grossly undereating.

[Dane]

From Lyle McDonald&#39;s most recent newsletter: (Go here to subscribe, free--http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/newsletter.html )

Bellisle F et. al. Meal frequency and energy balance. Br J Nutr. (1997) 77 (Suppl 1):S57-70.

Several epidemiological studies have observed an inverse relationship between people&#39;s habitual frequency of eating and body weight, leading to the suggestion that a &#39;nibbling&#39; meal pattern may help in the avoidance of obesity. A review of all pertinent studies shows that, although many fail to find any significant relationship, the relationship is consistently inverse in those that do observe a relationship. However, this finding is highly vulnerable to the probable confounding effects of post hoc changes in dietary patterns as a consequence of weight gain and to dietary under-reporting which undoubtedly invalidates some of the studies. We conclude that the epidemiological evidence is at best very weak, and almost certainly represents an artefact. A detailed review of the possible mechanistic explanations for a metabolic advantage of nibbling meal patterns failed to reveal significant benefits in respect of energy expenditure. Although some short-term studies suggest that the thermic effect of feeding is higher when an isoenergetic test load is divided into multiple small meals, other studies refute this, and most are neutral. More importantly, studies using whole-body calorimetry and doubly-labelled water to assess total 24 h energy expenditure find no difference between nibbling and gorging. Finally, with the exception of a single study, there is no evidence that weight loss on hypoenergetic regimens is altered by meal frequency. We conclude that any effects of meal pattern on the regulation of body weight are likely to be mediated through effects on the food intake side of the energy balance equation.

My comments: Ok, since nothing interesting came up on Pubcrawler this week, I decided that I&#39;d crush another long-standing nutritional dogma (I thought about changing this from a research review to a mythbusting column but I&#39;m going to run out of stupid myths to dismiss). How many times have you heard something along the lines of "Eating 6 times per day stokes the metabolic fire." or "You must eat 6 times per day to lose fat effectively." or "Skipping even one meal per day will slow your metabolic rate and you&#39;ll hoard fat." Probably a lot.

Well, guess what? The idea is based on piss-poor observational studies and direct research says that it&#39;s all bullshit. The idea came, essentially out of a misunderstanding of the thermic effect of food (TEF) also called dietary induced thermogenesis (DIT) which are the calories burned in processing of the food you eat. While TEF differs for the different nutrients, on average it constitutes about 10% of a typical mixed diet. So every time you eat, your metabolic rate goes up a little bit due to TEF. Aha&#33; Eat more and metabolic rate goes up more, right?

Except, let&#39;s think about that. Say we have two people, both eating 3000 calories per day. One eats 6 meals of 500 calories/meal while the other eats 3 meals of 1000 calories/meal. The first will have a TEF of 50 calories (10% of 500) 6 times/day. The second will have a TEF of 100 calories (10% of 1000 calories) 3 times/day. Well, 6X50 = 300 calories/day and 3X100 = 300 calories/day. No difference. Sure, if you increase food intake from, say, 1500 calories to 2000 calories, you will burn more with TEF; but this has nothing to do with meal frequency, it has to do with eating more food.

Which brings us, the long way around, to the above review paper which examined not only earlier observational work but also direct studies of varying meal frequency on either weight loss (during such studies) or metabolic rate. And, with the exception of a poorly done study on boxers (which I&#39;ll discuss later, maybe next week), they found no effect of varying meal frequency. None. They concluded that earlier studies finding an effect of meal frequency on weight gain (or loss) had more to do with changes in appetite or food intake, not from a direct impact on metabolic rate. For example, early observational studies found that people who skipped breakfast were heavier. The study suggested that perhaps people who were overweight had started skipping breakfast in an attempt to lose weight; not that skipping breakfast made them fat.

That is, and in keeping with last week&#39;s study (and a lot of confusing issues regarding the effect of food on bodyweight/bodyfat), certain eating patterns tend to impact on caloric intake. Some early studies actually found that eating more frequently caused weight gain, mainly because the foods being added were snacks and were in addition to normal food intake. Other studies have shown that splitting one&#39;s daily calories into multiple smaller meals helps to control hunger: people tend to eat less when they split their meals and eat more frequently. When you go too long between meals (I usually find that 3-5 hours is about the limit depending on the meal composition), you tend to get hungry and end up at the vending machine eating candy. Eating more smaller meals can also have some health benefits in terms of blood glucose control and blood cholesterol; no-one is denying that.

However, this is all tangential to the claims being made for metabolic rate. Whether you eat 3 meals per day or 6, if your daily caloric intake is identical, you will expend the same number of calories per day from TEF. And, as opposed to mice and rats, for whom everything happens faster, skipping a meal will not affect human metabolic rate at all. Quite in fact, it takes at least 3-4 days of fairly strict dieting to impact on metabolic rate; a single meal means nothing. You will not go into &#39;starvation mode&#39; because you went more than 3 hours without a meal.

More practically, I sometimes wonder if the people who are adamant about 6 meals/day have ever worked with a small female athlete or bodybuilder. A 120 lb female may have a daily food intake of 1200 calories/day on a diet. Dividing that into 6 meals gives you 200 calorie &#39;meals&#39;. More like a snack. 4 meals of 300 calories or even 3 meals of 400 calories is a much more livable approach than a few bites of food every 3 hours. The low caloric intake on my Rapid Fat Loss Handbook more or less prevents a 6 meal/day approach, each &#39;meal&#39; ends up being nothing. I recommend 3-4 meals/day on that diet.

So, like last week&#39;s research review about the glycemic index, quit obsessing about meal frequency if it doesn&#39;t fit easily into your lifestyle. I consider 3-4 meals/day a workable minimum for most, 3 meals plus a couple of snacks works just fine too. High meal frequencies may have benefits under certain conditions but are in no way mandatory. And, in case you missed it the first time through: eating more frequently does NOT, I repeat DOES NOT, &#39;stoke the metabolic fire&#39;.

[Cindy Day]

Originally posted by Thunder+May 10 2006, 06:22 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Thunder @ May 10 2006, 06:22 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by andi@May 10 2006, 05:53 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-Strive2Define@May 10 2006, 04:40 PM
You know it is kinda annoying to think I have driven many people around me to the point of NOT wanting to go anywhere with me because I am such a stickler about trying to eat on time.I now find out that there really isn&#39;t a reason for it. :mad:
Of course I won&#39;t tell them this..that would make them right.
Uh-oh, so I have been so anal for nothing?&#33; :censor: my poor hubby, always I&#39;m rushing everytime we go somewhere b/c I have to get my meals in.
Hey Thunder, wait a minute, why is it such a big deal then to get up early enough on the weekends to eat whrn u could just combine some meals? sorry, I&#39;m confused&#33; ;)
Cause Thunder said so ... and I prefer the meal frequency option. [/b][/quote]
:lol:

I love this science. :p

(good info in this thread though)

[Cindy Day]

Originally posted by AgKitty@May 10 2006, 06:36 PM
Wholeheartedly agree Inatic. My family knows when I&#39;m hungry because I get pissy real quick.
Yep, my DH says "The B*tch is back, FEED her, feed her". :lol:

[strongchick]

Chronic dieting = lowered metabolism.

Your body is smart. 3 hours is nothing.

[Blondell]

I feel so much better now. I&#39;ve had times when class ran over and I&#39;d be beating myself up trying to get to a chicken breast quick&#33; :lol:

Well, live and learn, right?
Thank you for all the awesome reponses. :clap:
BTW--that article rocks&#33;&#33;

[AgKitty]

Originally posted by Liteweight@May 11 2006, 07:42 AM
Yep, my DH says "The B*tch is back, FEED her, feed her". :lol:
:lol: Always good to know I&#39;m normal.

[janey]

There is a debate going on on O2 about this very topic.

I *heart* strongchick. :love:

[Blondell]

Originally posted by janey@May 11 2006, 11:37 AM
There is a debate going on on O2 about this very topic.

I *heart* strongchick. :love:
Strongchick Rocks&#33;&#33; :lol:

Great debate&#33;

[strongchick]

Well, since T-man&#39;s gone, someone has to debate some science....

[Erik]

That thread is dumb.

[Robben]

The number one reason for people to spread out their meals and eat 5 to 7 times a day is simply to keep the metabolic master/leptin switch on.

As we have been told before by Thunder, as one becomes leaner it becomes harder to keep the fat loss going. As fat levels decrease, so do your leptin levels, which in turn stimulate intense hunger, and slows your metabolism, slows muscle growth, and speeds muscle breakdown. We also know on the flip side of the coin, a lack of food intake (either long periods with no food or with very small doses of food) will suppress your circulating insulin levels, thus suppressing leptin production..

Now for me, eating 6 to 7 meals per day is not about a diet thing as it is more about changing my eating habits, changing my way of thinking and doing what is best for meeting the needs of my body. As we all know, diets come and diets go; eating 6 to 7 meals a day has to become part of one&#39;s lifestyle...

It comes down to this: Keep the leptin levels balanced and you&#39;ll win the game of fat loss... :love:

[Erik]

The number one reason for people to spread out their meals and eat 5 to 7 times a day is simply to keep the metabolic master/leptin switch on.

Unfortunately Robben, leptin does not respond to meal frequency.

[Robben]

T, it has been shown that every time you eat your leptin levels increase by as much as 40 percent. As we both know, insulin is the mechanism that stimulates leptin production. And this is how I connect the dots..

[strongchick]

Originally posted by Thunder@May 11 2006, 12:38 PM
That thread is dumb.
Yup. She gave up anyway.

[Erik]

While insulin does play &#39;a role&#39; in leptin physiology, the two most important factors related to leptin levels are bodyfat levels, (size and number of cells) and energy balance.

Everything else is trumped by these two factors.

It doesn&#39;t matter if you&#39;re getting insulin responses during the day from meal frequency, if you&#39;re in a negative energy balance/eating under maintenance.

The insulin effects on elevating leptin levels are more related to the condition that the person also be in a positive energy balance/eating over maintenance.

[lilbear]

Where in the body is leptin produced?

[Pandora]

Ok, so facetious question.

If I eat one MEGA MEAL of my prescribed calories per day (not including my PWO meal), would that have the same effect on my physique as eating every 2-3 hours?

This is what this thread is saying without actually saying it, but somehow.. that seems doubtful.

T, any input? In plain English?

[Erik]

Originally posted by Pandora@May 11 2006, 11:07 PM
Ok, so facetious question.

If I eat one MEGA MEAL of my prescribed calories per day (not including my PWO meal), would that have the same effect on my physique as eating every 2-3 hours?

This is what this thread is saying without actually saying it, but somehow.. that seems doubtful.

T, any input? In plain English?
I don&#39;t think so no.

And I still prefer meal frequency, although 4 meals is probably just as good as 6.

One meal? I don&#39;t agree with that.

[Pandora]

Just a theory question. Thanks for your answer.

I could never eat one meal a day. Perish the thought&#33;&#33;&#33;

[donnajo]

So what is optimal? Is it individual to the person and their habits or is there an optimal meal frequency?

[Erik]

Originally posted by donnajo@May 11 2006, 11:51 PM
So what is optimal? Is it individual to the person and their habits or is there an optimal meal frequency?
I don&#39;t believe there is an optimal frequency. There are health benefits to meal frequency; it&#39;s just that metabolism isn&#39;t one of them.

The big determining factor from a fat loss standpoint will be the hunger issues related to how often or how not often one&#39;s eating.

[donnajo]

So what would you recommend based on the individual?

[Erik]

Originally posted by donnajo@May 11 2006, 11:56 PM
So what would you recommend based on the individual?
I really see no disadvantage to the old tried and true 5-6 meals a day. It&#39;s not like there are any draw backs to it.

The only one would be if someone was just so exceptionally busy that they didn&#39;t have time to eat with that kind of frequency.

[Mandy]

I would love to eat every 5 minutes. One green bean every 5 minutes, half an ounce of chicken the next. Oh that&#39;s my dream. That would require me never leaving the house though and I think I&#39;d be doing a mass amount of SS cardio walking from my room to the fridge to the microwave every so often. I could stockpile 30 minutes of food.

Actually, I&#39;m still trying to figure out how to time my meals out whether it&#39;s from the beginning or at the end. Sometimes I graze over my meal for 30 minutes or more depending on what it is or how much I don&#39;t feel like eating it.

[PowerManDL]

Originally posted by lilbear@May 11 2006, 10:53 PM
Where in the body is leptin produced?
Fat cells.

[strongchick]

Personally, I like to eat a lot. I&#39;m up to 7 meals a day. Since I&#39;m trying to eat above maintenance, its more helpful to break it up into lots of different meals....

T - there&#39;s an article somewhere comparing changes in LBM in a hypocaloric diet looking at a larger breakfast meal compared to a larger evening meal....one was better at fat loss the other better at muscle retention....does this sound familiar?

[jrb1980]

I have always thought that 3 is the minimum and after that it is up to individual preferences in terms of the breakdown. Personally, I prefer to be kinda hungry and then satisfied several times a day then feel starving and stuffed a couple of times. I don&#39;t do well with hunger.

[Blondell]

Originally posted by jrb1980@May 12 2006, 02:38 PM
I have always thought that 3 is the minimum and after that it is up to individual preferences in terms of the breakdown. Personally, I prefer to be kinda hungry and then satisfied several times a day then feel starving and stuffed a couple of times. I don&#39;t do well with hunger.
It varies day to day w/ me.

[Blondell]

Does the same principle apply w/ eating breakfast? Is it okay if I go a couple of hours before eating after waking up?

[Erik]

Originally posted by bdd814@May 14 2006, 08:21 AM
Does the same principle apply w/ eating breakfast? Is it okay if I go a couple of hours before eating after waking up?
Why would you do that? You&#39;ve already been a good 8 hours with no food.

That&#39;s very unwise in my opinion.

[Phoeff]

After reading this I need a primer on how my body uses food as fuel. Any stickies might cover this?

I&#39;ve always thought that if you eat too many calories in one sitting your body stores the rest and you should eat to fuel yourself until the next meal (don&#39;t laugh.) Or, in a caloric deficit, I&#39;d be dipping into my fat stores (hopefully.)Does it store as fat? Glycogen? Where?

I suppose if I ate more, went a little longer between meals, I&#39;d be burning more for that extra time, so it wouldn&#39;t be stored or would be dipping more into the fat burning process. This isn&#39;t metabolic?

Ugh. I&#39;ll stop now, I feel like I&#39;m not making sense.

[Blondell]

Originally posted by Thunder@May 10 2006, 01:06 PM

What does your hunger tell you?


Today I decided to do a test run and really listen to my hunger signals to answer the above question. I get hunger signals about every 2 hours. I planned my meals accordingly and have dealt w/ little to no hunger today. Thank you for asking and bringing it to my attetion. I am now able to space my meals in a way that suits me. Again Thanx a million&#33;&#33;&#33; :clap:

[KatieB]

*bump*

NM on the other thread lol.

[KatieB]

BTW, on the breakfast thing -- from what I have been able to find, there is no scientific "reason" per se to eat breakfast immediately or soon after waking. As far as I can see, the only connections between body composition and breakfast have been observational in nature, which really only tells us that fat people tend to have crappy eating habits (ie, skipping a meal in this case), not that one must eat breakfast in order to be healthy...

I am also super lost on why I am in trouble after being asleep and not having protein since the night before... is this really all that important, or is it primarily important for leaner individuals? (That makes more sense to me as they would have less available fuel in the form of bodyfat if they don't eat...)

[Aaron_F]

Fat cells.

mainly

plus a whole heap of other cells

[sunny]

Thunder and Strongchick: Thank you very much! :)