Are there any certain foods or suppliments that can help boost your Metabalism?
Sport Metabalism boost
- Thread starter dapperdaveia
- Start date
Sport Fitness
Actually, the relationship between greater meal frequency and enhanced metabolism is still very much a matter of debate.
Agreed.
This is one study done on the subject of meal frequency and manipulation of calories and metabolism:
An article that that tends to say meal frequency DOES NOT tend to increase Metabolism. And, I stress "frequency" not manipulation of caloric content totals. Bare in mind this is one study, and this is very much in debate.
I don't mean to jump in and butt heads, but I think there are some serious errors with this study that I think is important to point out.
After reading that article, I believe it is fundamentally flawed. They only did the study on women, and on top of that, they never indicated the fitness level of each woman. On top of that, the women, in order to be accepted for the study, had to have not done any exercise in the past three months. They didn't discuss what type of food was eaten either, which I think would have played an important role as eating junk would probably have a negative effect.
I think the fundamental error is the time length and not allowing the women to exert physical activities which would have played an important role in overall metabolism. This test was only done for a week, and I don't think that is sufficient time for something such as this.
On top of that, with such short time, and no physical activities, I think the result is a static metabolism rate that would probably change after a length of time for the better or worst.
After reading that article, I believe it is fundamentally flawed. They only did the study on women, and on top of that, they never indicated the fitness level of each woman. On top of that, the women, in order to be accepted for the study, had to have not done any exercise in the past three months. They didn't discuss what type of food was eaten either, which I think would have played an important role as eating junk would probably have a negative effect.
I think the fundamental error is the time length and not allowing the women to exert physical activities which would have played an important role in overall metabolism. This test was only done for a week, and I don't think that is sufficient time for something such as this.
On top of that, with such short time, and no physical activities, I think the result is a static metabolism rate that would probably change after a length of time for the better or worst.
With the flawed opinion or not. Meal "frequency" has not been adequately proven to improve metabolism and on the same note, there is some strong opinions that the manipulation of calories does have an effect but this too is a matter of some debate. In any event, the metabolism is a VERY complicated subject matter. This question gets asked alot, and I advocate Meal Frequency in the diet to encircle the body with nutrition (for a variety of reasons), and advocate manipulation of calories for a variety of reasons.
One example is that the body will self adjust to a set calorie limitation over time, and is one possible reason for weight loss plateaus, and increasing calories reasonably for a small duration, and then reverting back, can enable fat loss to get back on track (manipulation of calories is powerful, and this is only one example of usage). Metabolism is of course important, but in healthy individuals the more important things are frequency and calorie manipulation (where appropriate, and dependent on personal goals), and the arguement and/or debate on metabolism is mute.
One example is that the body will self adjust to a set calorie limitation over time, and is one possible reason for weight loss plateaus, and increasing calories reasonably for a small duration, and then reverting back, can enable fat loss to get back on track (manipulation of calories is powerful, and this is only one example of usage). Metabolism is of course important, but in healthy individuals the more important things are frequency and calorie manipulation (where appropriate, and dependent on personal goals), and the arguement and/or debate on metabolism is mute.
There are more then one study with some dating as far back as the 60's-70's that show increased meal frequency does not help felicitate weight loss. At the end of the day, any increase in metabolism from "eating more often" is completely negligible.
How, it became widley believe that it does "boost matabolism". Completely evades me...
How, it became widley believe that it does "boost matabolism". Completely evades me...
Oh. I always thought that meal frequency and exercise played a very important role in metabolism. So I always tend to believe that metabolism can be boosted if one used meal frequency and exercise properly. It seems like that is what you're saying, too. That's what I thought the topic creator wanted to know.
In order for there to be a positive effect on metabolism, one has to eat at the minimum, 17.84 meals per day.
AFAIK there are many good reasons to eat many meals, but they have to do with insulin levels, that the body can't store proteins and that muscle can only grow so fast, but not manipulating your metabolism.
If you can manipulate your metabolism, it's probably in the exact opposite direction that you want - eat more to make it higher, eat less to lower it :11doh:
If you can manipulate your metabolism, it's probably in the exact opposite direction that you want - eat more to make it higher, eat less to lower it :11doh:
I too think that eating more frequently keeps your metabolism at it's peak. I don't have references to lots of research but I choose to believe what I see for myself.
Somewhere on here today I read
'If you want to find the fastest way up the mountain ask the man who walks it everyday'
Or something like that, and I think this is very true, ask a big yet lean and healthy man how he eats and it's not gonna be 2 or 3 meals a day. The only people who eat like that are the fat people busting their gut on the treadmill for 3 hours a day. I feel starved if I eat less than about 4,000 calories a day yet I never get fat and I only workout for 30 minutes 4 days a week
Somewhere on here today I read
'If you want to find the fastest way up the mountain ask the man who walks it everyday'
Or something like that, and I think this is very true, ask a big yet lean and healthy man how he eats and it's not gonna be 2 or 3 meals a day. The only people who eat like that are the fat people busting their gut on the treadmill for 3 hours a day. I feel starved if I eat less than about 4,000 calories a day yet I never get fat and I only workout for 30 minutes 4 days a week
Stout........Please come out...and...spout......your knowledge on this area, and staighten this thread up.......impart your thoughts on meal "frequency" and "calorie manipulation" and "exercising" how it may or may not effect metabolism. I would love to see your knowledgeable opinion.
Thanks in advance.
Thanks in advance.
Last edited:
Stout........Please come out...and...spout......your knowledge on this area, and staighten this thread up.......impart your thoughts on meal "frequency" and "calorie manipulation" and how it may or may not effect metabolism. I would love to see your knowledgeable opinion.
Thanks in advance.
Lol, I don't think anyone can given the evidence available. I think Wrangell put it best when he said there was still a lot of debate over the matter.
I just threw my opinion into the hat and admitted it was based purely on anecdotal evidence rather than scientific mainly because I've never seen anything scientific that was more convincing to me
I didn't know it was a debate... sorry, I was simply trying to see the reason behind this idea.
I think the best way to sum up what everyone is trying to say is: it may or may not work, but no one person proven any method to be the correct method?
I don't think science can explain everything that is going on in your body. If one particular thing worked for everyone, then no one would have any weight problems. If you want science to prove something for you, then you're going to be wasting a lot of time as many people proven science wrong whether it be for good or bad.
One thing I do know that works is diet and exercise... no matter where you stand in terms of science or otherwise. For some it just takes time, but it always work eventually. I think many of us proven that... but science cannot prove it because no one person experience it the same way.
I think the best way to sum up what everyone is trying to say is: it may or may not work, but no one person proven any method to be the correct method?
I don't think science can explain everything that is going on in your body. If one particular thing worked for everyone, then no one would have any weight problems. If you want science to prove something for you, then you're going to be wasting a lot of time as many people proven science wrong whether it be for good or bad.
One thing I do know that works is diet and exercise... no matter where you stand in terms of science or otherwise. For some it just takes time, but it always work eventually. I think many of us proven that... but science cannot prove it because no one person experience it the same way.
Last edited:
I really don't think getting into the science of how food is digested and its effects on metablism is necessary.
At the end of the day, assuming calories and macros are accounted for, the difference between 3 and 6 meals is going to be nothing short of insignificant IMO.
I'll add that I advocate eating more meals though. People in general seem to do 'better' doing so.
Better = less cravings and satiety
I simply don't like how people spew on about how eating small, frequent feedings elevated metabolic rate when it simply isn't founded. If anything, more studies say there isn't a positive correlation than studies that do.
The reason I don't like this 'spew' of misinformation is simple: You have a bunch of novices coming into the lifestyle assuming they MUST eat 6 times per day and it's enough to scare them off. And for them to believe this based on unfounded information is just sad to me.
Science certainly doesn't create reality. It merely defines it. If science says one thing and the real world says another, you certainly don't throw out the real world and keep the science.
That said, of course plenty of people have had success eating small, frequent meals. But let's not forget that many have had success doing differently too. From this, I base my statement that at the end of the day as long as cals and macros are accounted for, results are probably going to be very similar.
At the end of the day, assuming calories and macros are accounted for, the difference between 3 and 6 meals is going to be nothing short of insignificant IMO.
I'll add that I advocate eating more meals though. People in general seem to do 'better' doing so.
Better = less cravings and satiety
I simply don't like how people spew on about how eating small, frequent feedings elevated metabolic rate when it simply isn't founded. If anything, more studies say there isn't a positive correlation than studies that do.
The reason I don't like this 'spew' of misinformation is simple: You have a bunch of novices coming into the lifestyle assuming they MUST eat 6 times per day and it's enough to scare them off. And for them to believe this based on unfounded information is just sad to me.
Science certainly doesn't create reality. It merely defines it. If science says one thing and the real world says another, you certainly don't throw out the real world and keep the science.
That said, of course plenty of people have had success eating small, frequent meals. But let's not forget that many have had success doing differently too. From this, I base my statement that at the end of the day as long as cals and macros are accounted for, results are probably going to be very similar.
Last edited: