Question regarding metabolism.

[stroutman81]

Honestly mate.

That post doesn't even deserve a response. Not trying to be rude. Just very lame.

We can let the readers decide for themselves.

You had something work for you. Great.

I have worked with a lot of people and experienced great success by not always abiding by your bro-science.

 

[stroutman81]

Oh.

And it seems like you forgot what you said.

You said:

your metabolism in a positive manner, by eating small to medium size meals OFTEN during the day, meaning about every 3 to 4 hours or so. Its like putting fire in the furnance

I simply corrected you. And you went off on a tangent, much of it meaning nothing.

 

[Chillen]

It was not a lame post, stoutman. but your entitled to your opinion. My heart and soul is to try to assist persons to help them selves. And, if someone with a weaker willpower (than us, were not better then them, we just can do something they cant) can use frequent meals to stave off feeling hungry and feeling of deprivity, then they SHOULD USE IT---because it adds one tick toward their success, and I do believe it assists metabolism. We can be men and agree to disagree on this subject. one can litterally drive them self nuts with what works and what doesnt work, and the vast number of opinions, and opinions on those opinions, on diet and exercise. the key is educating ones self, weeding through the BS, and finding out what works for oneself, and having common sense to come to the bottom line on some things, and facing the facts that it wont be an easy road at times.

 

[stroutman81]

Dude, again, the reading comprehension thing.

The only thing I refuted was meal frequency's impact on metabolic rate. Stop assuming I said more than this.

And I am a man that bases my advice on science and how it applies to real world results.

This discussion has nothing to do with you or me. It has everything to do with the topic at hand. You seem to like making things more than they are.

 

[matt182]

2. Keeps FUEL in the body ALL DAY that assists in workout and recovery, 3. Aide in metabolism, everytime you eat, the system starts, and fuels or shuttles the digested food nutrients throughout the body (argue that), to name a few. Eating frequently(and maintaining the defcit for fat loss) or advising someone to do so, is GOOD ADVICE; however, if 3 squares work,,,,,it worked and 6 isnt necessary, WHY? because everyones metabolism is different young or old........QUOTE]

You keep saying everyones metabolism is different, however they all go the same basic universal pathways for energy production, i think a better word would be rate. And metabolism doesnt "start" as you put it when you digest food, it is a constant process that allows organs in the body such as the brain and heart to continually work via the energy from different nutrients.

Anyone can look up things on google it is pretty apparent to me many on this forum do. Although it may provide many bits of information it often as you put it often leads to confusion, and to me is a very superficial form of knowledge..


Best to be clear & concise, and to stay on the matter otherwise it becomes complicated and often misinterpretated.

 

[Chillen]

bottom line: I believe eating frequently DOES impact metabolism, and doing so does not have ANY negative impact (if eating the correct foods). I have a question though: THere is science that says, that if your in a caloric deficit for a long period, your body adjusts to this, and slows metabolism (to conserve itself, it wants to stay the same and not change), and by eating more often, tends to stave off this problem OR eating over your limit (a small surplus once in awhile) tends to bring metabolism back up. Have you heard this. Im not trying to argue, just want a different opinion, on a slightly different twist near the same subject we are talking about, okay?

 

[Wrangell]

This simply isn't true. Period.

I agree with you stroutman81

At best, based on all the literature I have read, the jury is still out on whether meal frequency - in and of itself - boosts metabolism or not.

Further research is needed IMO.

However, this presumes of course, that the calorie consumption level being compared is the same. For example, does consuming 2,000 calories over 6/7 meals expend the same number of calories to digest as 2,000 calories consumed only over 3 meals. Again, the jury is still out on this one. But, consuming more calories in and of itself likely does burn calories to digest - i.e digesting 2,000 calories burns more than digesting 1,500 calories.

As was mentioned, I think the more important reasons for being " pro 6/7 meals a day " comes from a host of other reasons other than it may result in enhanced metabolism.

 

[Chillen]

I agree with you Steve.

At best, based on all the literature I have read, the jury is still out on whether meal frequency - in and of itself - boosts metabolism or not.

Further research is needed IMO.

However, this presumes of course, that the calorie consumption level being compared is the same. For example, does consuming 2,000 calories over 6/7 meals expend the same number of calories to digest as 2,000 calories consumed only over 3 meals. Again, the jury is still out on this one. But, consuming more calories in and of itself likely does burn calories to digest - i.e digesting 2,000 calories burns more than digesting 1,500 calories.

As was mentioned, I think the more important reasons for being " pro 6/7 meals a day " comes from a host of other reasons other than it may result in enhanced metabolism.

The last few lines of your reply, is the main reason I am pro 6 meals aday, mainly, thanks for your opinion, and your response.

 

[stroutman81]

And I agree with Wrangell.

I was debating the fact that frequent feedings impacted metabolic rate, as you so eloquently stated, Chillen.

I speak on numerous forums and I if you'd known anything about me, you would know that I am a proponent of frequent feedings. But when I suggest it, I like to explain, correctly, why.