Comments on: Eating More Meals Does NOT Speed Up Your Metabolism

By: Why Are Some People Always Cold? « Willowy Endeavor

Why Are Some People Always Cold? « Willowy Endeavor — Wed, 11 Apr 2012 00:30:11 +0000

[...] hear how important it is to eat every three hours or whatever to keep our metabolisms in check. There is a lot of debate about this topic recently however. Also, this is often part of the reason anorexics are always cold and cover up with many layers of [...]

By: Busted: Top 3 Myths About Your Metabolism | The Great Fitness Experiment

Busted: Top 3 Myths About Your Metabolism | The Great Fitness Experiment — Tue, 20 Mar 2012 03:46:43 +0000

[...] Busted: The studies that showed an increased metabolism due to multiple small meals were a) few and b) showed only a very small increase. While the “thermogenic effect” – i.e. the increased output of energy your body uses to burn food – is real, it’s so slight as to be inconsequential in most practical situations. Unless you are a pro athlete, bodybuilder or fitness model it’s unlikely that this will make much difference to you. In addition, other studies on intermittent fasting have showed that prolonged periods without eating can be excellent for your metabolism because it allows for better hormone regulation of leptin and gherlin, among other benefits. Lastly, all the research has shown that it’s way more important what you eat than when you eat it. [...]

By: Diet Rules That Are More Myth Than Fact | Losing My Mommy Fat

Diet Rules That Are More Myth Than Fact | Losing My Mommy Fat — Tue, 28 Feb 2012 17:46:42 +0000

[...] Eating More Meals Does Not Speed Up Your Metabolism Logic Does Not Apply Part 1: Meal Frequency Skipping Meals Can Be Healthy for You [...]

By: 40 things I've learned in 40 years | The IF Life with 2 Meal Mike

40 things I've learned in 40 years | The IF Life with 2 Meal Mike — Wed, 22 Feb 2012 23:13:53 +0000

[...] often (6 mini meals compared to 3 larger ones..and calories/nutrients are the same overall) has NOT been proven to speed up overall metabolism, control hunger better, nor have very good long term adherence for [...]

By: 5 Myths « Why not?

5 Myths « Why not? — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 18:22:39 +0000

[...] IF article with research links [...]

By: "2 Meal" Mike

"2 Meal" Mike — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 03:26:56 +0000

Well done Ben!

By: Ben

Ben — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 01:18:16 +0000

You use the word “famine” too lightly in this context. Overweight people can not be famished, they are fat – the very reason people get fat is because the body likes to store energy for later – its kinda lazy like that. Why would the body then sabotage itself by slowing down metabolism when it has all that lovely blubber to use?!

Think about it: The gene pool that has survived to present day came from humans that could survive eating berries, plants, water and the occasional meats and walk miles a day to watering holes and whilst hunting.

If these humans simply went state of starvation because they couldn’t eat 4 or 6 times a day, the human race would probably be extinct! Imagine a race living through a brutal winter if they went into famine mode every four hours…..

This is not even to mention the fact that after a big meal you have energy “dripping” into your system for several hours afterwards.

There are but two states: fed and unfed. Not fed or famished. The unfed state raises HGH and adrenalin and enhances mental acuity.

Through IF and heavy basic weight training I have gone from 205 lbs @ 20% bodyfat to 191 lbs @ 10% bodyfat. Years of eating 6 x a day simply left me fatter!

By: One Meal a Day | The IF Life with 2 Meal Mike

One Meal a Day | The IF Life with 2 Meal Mike — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 17:33:09 +0000

[...] (like the 3 Meal/day people). They did not gain weight just by lowering the meal frequency (as I’ve pointed out in the past with studies about meal frequency and metabolism not effecting energy [...]

By: "2 Meal" Mike

"2 Meal" Mike — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 20:21:20 +0000

Hunger was my main problem with continuous mini meals regardless of calorie load…the “sense” of starvation through hunger all day, not actual starvation. I’ll help clarify it, thanks for pointing it out with your oh so gentle opinion (note tremendous sarcasm there).

I’m not recommending anyone starve themselves just by not eating 6x a day. Point is that meal frequency is just not needed for a higher metabolism. You can still get plenty of daily calories in a condensed eating window, since starvation is really more about overall calories/nutrients after all. Even morons like me know that.

By: asdf

asdf — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 18:51:30 +0000

So first you bash the 6 meal plan because when you did it, you were ‘starving and miserable’ while doing it and then you go on to recommend literally starving yourself? You’re a moron.