Metabolism

[chris_w_65]

Some people say that if you don't eat enough or skip meals your metabolism will slow down and you will store everything you eat as fat.

I think this is a load of cr@p.

Surely the only way your metabolism to slow down is for your heart rate to drop?

Surely it takes the same amount of energy for a person to walk around the block no matter how much food they have been eating or how often?

I do believe that if you rarely eat then your body makes sure it extracts every single calorie you eat but it can't extract more than 100% of the calories.

Comments?

[Black Widdow]

Howzit,

here is a long-ass article I read just the other day on this subject.... this should answer your question, enjoy

 

 

You’ve probably heard that eating smalls meals throughout the day ‘stokes the metabolic fire’ or is the ideal way to eat in order to control cravings and blood sugar; as consequence, this should also be the ideal way to eat for fat burning purposes. This belief is partly based on a gross and blatantly incorrect interpretation of research concerning TEF (Thermic Effect of Food).

 

Besides body weight, activity patterns and genetics, TEF is part of the equation that determines your metabolic rate for each given day. Paradoxically, ingesting energy costs energy and TEF is the increase in metabolic rate above basal conditions due to the cost of processing food for storage and use (ref). Simply put, every time you eat, the body expends a certain percentage of energy just to process the food you just ate. TEF varies between the macronutrients; protein is given a value of 20-25%, carbs 5% and fat 2-3% (ref). In a mixed diet, TEF is usually estimated to 10% of the calorie intake.

 

So, every time you eat, TEF comes into play and your metabolic rate increases in response to the meal you just ate. The problem here is that the research has been presented in such a way that it has lead people to believe that the net effect of TEF of several small meals would be greater than that of a few, large meals.

 

You see, TEF is directly proportional to the calories contained in the meal you just ate (ref). Assuming a diet of 2400 calories, with the same macronutrient composition, eating six small meals of 400 calories or three big meals of 800 calories, TEF will be exactly the same at the end of the day. The only thing that will differ between each meal pattern is the pattern of the spikes; six small meals will equal six small spikes in metabolic rates, while three big meals will equal three big spikes.

 

So, while eating several small meals a day will per definition ‘keep the metabolic furnace burning’, three big meals will ‘keep the metabolic furnace blasting’.

 

How about fat burning? As researchers have found, substrate metabolism is largely dictated by the meal you just ate and the macronutrient composition of your diet - how you split your meals have no consequence for the amount of fat oxidized at the end of the day (ref). Simply put, if you eat six small meals throughout the day, you will store and burn less fat between the meals compared to three meals a day, while you will store and burn more fat with three meals a day. Substrate metabolism will be different, but the net effect will be the same on either meal pattern.

 

Note that I say ‘store’, because fat storage and fat burning is an ongoing process – with six small meals you will store less AND burn less, and with three meals a day you will store more AND burn more. This is important to remember, as it can and has been twisted into ‘you will store more fat with three meals a day’. Sure, if you measure fat storage on a meal per meal basis, which is insane, but on the other hand you will burn more fat in between the meals. Whether you store or lose body fat at the end of the day is a consequence of intake minus expenditure; not meal frequency.

 

In conclusion, different meal splits have no effect on metabolic rate or fat metabolism.

 

I must admit that I’m a bit amazed at how people keep missing the boat when it comes to meal frequency and TEF. This myth is also prevalent in the minds of many professionals, which is even more confusing. The research is there, right in front of your eyes if you know where to look, and there’s been several large scale, meticulously controlled and well designed studies on the topic of meal frequency and TEF. And still, people keep believing that several small meals a day will increase your energy expenditure beyond what fewer, large meals will do.

 

Then again, the powers that be, in this case the supplement industry, loves the fact that the myth is being kept alive. What do people eat when they are being told that they should eat six meals a day? Well, it sure isn’t six home cooked meals. Rather, people are downing meal replacement products, protein shakes and bars in between the main meals. This is a billion dollar industry that is partly being kept alive by erroneous beliefs. Bodybuilding and fitness magazines usually have no interest in presenting accurate information about the topic, as they derive a large part of their financing from supplement ads. In fact, many magazine writers have a vested interest in keeping the myth alive as well, themselves being owners of supplement companies that make millions out of selling protein powders and meal replacement bars.

 

Is a high frequency meal plan ever warranted? Sure, if your energy expenditure is extremely high, it would probably be a lot more comfortable to consume your calories in several meals rather than a few very large ones. The 300 lbs off-season bodybuilder or endurance athlete that needs 5-6000 calories a day to maintain body weight would be better advised eating 6 meals of 1000 calories rather than 3 meals with 2000 calories. Some other instances, such as some teenagers having a hard time putting on weight, would also warrant a high frequency meal plan simply because it would be hard getting all the calories in three meals.

 

However, these cases represent a minority of people. Getting enough calories in few meals doesn’t seem to be a problem for the great majority, and going by the feedback the 16-8 system has been getting, it’s definitely a more comfortable way to eat for many people.

[chris_w_65]

Howzit,

here is a long-ass article I read just the other day on this subject.... this should answer your question, enjoy

 

 

 

Nice info

[Zeps]

Very long ass - no summary?

[chris_w_65]

Summary

 

It makes no difference if you eat 3 large or 6 small meals a day as long as they add up to the same number of calories

 

And I will add my bit

 

It makes no difference if you eat after 6pm

It makes no difference if you exercise before or after breakfast

It makes no difference if you wear a Powerbalance band (unless you spent your grocery money on it and then you go hungry)

[vanniri]

Very long ass - no summary?

 

In the middle of the article the author makes a conclusion, then he rambles on for another 6 paragraphs.

 

Irrespective the merit of his argument he seems more interested in making a point than pointing to the facts.

[Daniel XTR]

From my understanding, and this NOT my field of expertise, I think the argument misses the vital point of metabolic rate- If you starve yourself, ie- miss meals, have the usual cr@p, but in micro servings, dont eat the right things at all, then yes, your metabolism will slow down. Eating meals, the same calories over an equal period of time equals the same result is fair, I'd agree.

 

Ok, so a few months back, I was at my Endocrinologist, as my Thyroid levels were out, as my med dosage was too low. I was training regularly, and i admit, not following the cleanest of diets, but trying, yet i was still packing on the kg's. Long story short, your thyroid controls your metabolism, I dont have one (thanks Cancer), so i need artificial drugs to produce the hormone that controls the metabolism (again simplified, but thats how i understand it). the Doctor and I discussed this, and upped my dosage in line with what the Bloods showed. I have found it a lot easier to loose weight, by eating cleaner, and yes, smaller portions

 

These drugs (tertroxin)boost the metabolism, and when you eat less, and your metabolism wants to slow, these drugs over ride that tendency, and keep it boosting.

If ya want to look, go and look at some of the fat burners, and how they can eff up your thyroid, as the contain a part (micro amount of the drug), then your working thyroid becomes dependent the artificial hormone to activate the metabolism, once off the fat burners your thyroid is stuffed.

 

When my dosage is too high, you proper get the jitters, and become edgy, as you would on some fat burners, not nice at all.

 

So thats what i know, use, loose it.

Cheers

[chris_w_65]

I was just reading some info from a guy who wrote a book. He claims that in winter (in cold places) you spend more time in doors so your metabolism slows. Doesn't he really mean your energy expenditure drops? You probably also eat more because you are sitting at home in front of the TV. He also claims your metabolism slows down as you get older. Doesn't he mean your energy expenditure drops because you are less active?

[aungiers]

Metabolism isn't related to just physical activity that we do; it is all the chemical reactions in the body, catabolism and anabolism. Heart rate is not the factor which will determine your metabolic level (I do agree that a high heart rate will increase metabolism through an increase in energy expenditure). There are many other factors to think about including the anabolic portion. If you begin to skip meals on a chronic basis you will not get the nutrition required to build cells and regenerate tissue, therefore your metabolism will decrease.

 

Exercising before or after breakfast depends on the exercise you will begin to undertake; you wouldn't run a comrades without having something to eat prior! I agree with what you say about eating after 6pm. With regards to the book you have read; though I cannot make a comment on the literature, it does sound like a prime example of so-called "experts" think they know what they are talking about, publish something. The issue with this is that the general public seem to believe absolutely everything that they read purely because it was in a book or on the internet.

[chris_w_65]

Metabolism isn't related to just physical activity that we do; it is all the chemical reactions in the body, catabolism and anabolism. Heart rate is not the factor which will determine your metabolic level (I do agree that a high heart rate will increase metabolism through an increase in energy expenditure). There are many other factors to think about including the anabolic portion. If you begin to skip meals on a chronic basis you will not get the nutrition required to build cells and regenerate tissue, therefore your metabolism will decrease.

 

Exercising before or after breakfast depends on the exercise you will begin to undertake; you wouldn't run a comrades without having something to eat prior! I agree with what you say about eating after 6pm. With regards to the book you have read; though I cannot make a comment on the literature, it does sound like a prime example of so-called "experts" think they know what they are talking about, publish something. The issue with this is that the general public seem to believe absolutely everything that they read purely because it was in a book or on the internet.

 

Just to be clear, I didn't read the book. I was reading an internet article written by the author of a book and his statements were full of holes

 

There is of course a side effect of so called "slow metabolism" and that is that the sufferer would be sluggish and have no energy, therefore not move around too much or esercise