PDA

View Full Version : The Three Hour Meal Myth


Siouxcountry
04-11-2008, 05:54 AM
Femalemuscle.com:

LINK (http://www.femalemuscle.com/weight-loss/the-three-hour-meal-myth/#more-1985)

You’ve likely heard it before. ‘Eat every three hours to keep your metabolism as high as possible.’ Because of this statement, people everywhere are anxiously watching the clock, making sure they hit their meal times on schedule, every day, every time.

They figure by doing so, they’ll boost their metabolism, thus allowing them to eat more food and still lose weight.

Does this sound like you? If so, you may be in for a bit of a surprise.

The three hour rule, when it comes to meal times, does have some benefits – namely, keeping your blood sugar levels under control, but in terms of your metabolic rate, isn’t going to make a difference.

Here’s why.

Every time you have something to eat, your body is going to burn calories simply digesting this food. Great hey? If that isn’t the easiest way you’ve ever burned off some calories, I don’t know what is! But, the key thing to remember here is that the calories you burn will be proportional to how much food you are consuming.

Therefore, consume more food, burn more calories.

Consume less food, burn fewer calories.

So, how does this stack up for your three hour rule?
Let’s say you have a 2000 calorie allotment for the day.

You don’t want to go over or under this as this is what you’ve predetermined is going to get you to your weight goals, be it weight loss, weight gain, or weight maintenance.

Now, this means you want to eat every three hours so, equating to about 5-6 meals for most people.

2000 calories divided by 5 meals (for simplicity sake) is 400 calories per meal.

On the flip side, let’s say you are busy and don’t really have the time to sit down for that many meals each day.

Instead, you prefer to have 3 meals a day (apart from your pre and post workout nutrition, of course).

You will be getting about 650 calories in each of these meals, still sticking to your 2000 calorie guideline.

So, person 1 eats five-400 calorie meals and person 2 eats three-650 calorie meals. Who burns more calories through digestion?

Neither of them – they burn pretty much the same! Since person two is consuming more food at each given time, they will burn proportionately more calorie digesting that meal than person one. So, at the end of the day, total calories burned due to digestion are relatively the same. So sorry, if you think eating eight mini-meals a day is going to skyrocket your metabolism like nothing you’ve seen before, you’re sadly mistaken.

Do keep in mind though that we are assuming the exact same macronutrient composition of both diets. If one was on a high protein diet and another was on a high fat diet, then it would be an entirely different story because the different macronutrients do require the body to expend more energy to digest them; protein coming in at around 20-25%, carbohydrates around 5%, and dietary fat around 2-3%. So, as you can see, protein is the most metabolically expensive nutrient to be consuming. A higher protein diet will have you ‘netting’ fewer calories overall. When you get these calories – that doesn’t really make all that much difference (again, apart from pre/post workout).

So, if you are feeling slightly stressed out over having to always make sure you eat every three hours, relax. At the end of the day, as long as you’ve hit your target calorie goal and consumed the foods you should be consuming, it’s not really going to make that big of a difference.

In fact, I’d wager that the stress you are experiencing from being tied to this menu schedule will be doing more harm than if you would have just eaten your meals when it was convenient for you!

Dawn Melanie
04-11-2008, 06:42 AM
Great READ SC! I definitely "feel" this way - especially when people ask me "WHY do you eat as late as 1:30am and still count it as part of the prior calendar day's meal?"

Food is food is food is pizza. I mean FOOD. Like most, I "try" every 3 hours or so to consume my scheduled meals. But "LIFE IS!" And neither me, nor you can stop it.

Besides who needs stress?! As that raises Cortisol levels. And that's like shooting ourselves in the foot. :banghead:

Anywhoo - good read. :waving:

KP DIVA
04-11-2008, 10:27 AM
That's true! I definitely eat after 7pm where many ppl don't. My trainer thinks skipping a meal is cheating just like eating something that isn't on the diet. So anywho, I'll eat late too...plus, I just can't seem to go to sleep w/ my stomach growling! Of course, it's just protein....can't do the pizza....but I will in 5 weeks!!! Ha Ha!!

Today is PIZZA FRIDAY!!!!! Eat up gurlie!!!


Great READ SC! I definitely "feel" this way - especially when people ask me "WHY do you eat as late as 1:30am and still count it as part of the prior calendar day's meal?"

Food is food is food is pizza. I mean FOOD. Like most, I "try" every 3 hours or so to consume my scheduled meals. But "LIFE IS!" And neither me, nor you can stop it.

Besides who needs stress?! As that raises Cortisol levels. And that's like shooting ourselves in the foot. :banghead:

Anywhoo - good read. :waving:

DAUGTHEROFGOD
06-18-2008, 01:53 PM
I EAT ABOUT 5 TO 7 TIMES A DAY AND IT HELPS ME, BECAUSE AS ALL WHO COMPETES, WE DO BURN THOSE CRAZY CALORIES. I'LL BE STARTIN' A TRAINING JOUR. AFTER THIS SHOW I'M DOIN' IN LOUISIANATHIS WEEKEND:)

Erik
06-18-2008, 02:14 PM
Good article.

dvsness
06-18-2008, 02:37 PM
Meh. Eating more frequently is better for insulin levels, sustained energy and satiety. Most people aren't eating frequently just to raise the metabolic rate. Eating every 3-4 hours makes me happy, not stressed.

bree marsh
06-18-2008, 02:40 PM
how about eating a lot of food more frequently, then what happens! in theory, this should speed up metabolism, right? that's my off season plan!:D

Rainy
06-18-2008, 02:41 PM
Eating every 3-4 hours makes me happy, not stressed.

Ditto :eat:

Erik
06-18-2008, 02:41 PM
Meh. Eating more frequently is better for insulin levels, sustained energy and satiety. Most people aren't eating frequently just to raise the metabolic rate. Eating every 3-4 hours makes me happy, not stressed.

Agree with that.

I think the context of the article is important to note - specific to any metabolic advantage, or lack thereof.

But for other things, such as you mentioned, and probably some other health advantages, meal frequency still has benefits.

I like my 6 meals per day.

Erik
06-18-2008, 02:43 PM
how about eating a lot of food more frequently, then what happens! in theory, this should speed up metabolism, right? that's my off season plan!:D

Due to the higher overall calories, yep. Up to a point of course. There's a 'law of diminishing returns' in place there. LOL

SBT
06-18-2008, 02:45 PM
Agree with that.

I think the context of the article is important to note - specific to any metabolic advantage, or lack thereof.

But for other things, such as you mentioned, and probably some other health advantages, meal frequency still has benefits.

I like my 6 meals per day.

I also like MY 6 meals per day :)

Still good article there SC!!

bree marsh
06-18-2008, 02:53 PM
Due to the higher overall calories, yep. Up to a point of course. There's a 'law of diminishing returns' in place there. LOL

oh yes, i know this man!!! hey, just a side question....do you believe in the "set point" theory? do you know what i am talking about? no rush, just curious.

Erik
06-18-2008, 02:55 PM
oh yes, i know this man!!! hey, just a side question....do you believe in the "set point" theory? do you know what i am talking about? no rush, just curious.

Set ... or settling? Two different things technically.

bree marsh
06-18-2008, 03:02 PM
Set ... or settling? Two different things technically.

i think it is called "set point" from what i know, your body likes to maintain weight at a certain point and it is very hard to go up or down...example, in my off-season i usually maintain around 135, but this past time, i got up close to 140, but it was pretty hard! of course i ate fairly clean, but did eat alot, and did pretty much no cardio! so my question is, do some peoples bodies just really like staying at a certain "set" weight and you must do somewhat extreme things to alter that weight or is this just an excuse???? and for some, it is the opposite way, they must do extreme things to lose...i think this may be why my body can lose easier with higher carbs??? maybe? and some have to do "extreme" things like no carb (keto) diets? whatchya think?

DanielleA
06-18-2008, 03:26 PM
:popcorn:

Erik
06-18-2008, 04:50 PM
i think it is called "set point" from what i know, your body likes to maintain weight at a certain point and it is very hard to go up or down...example, in my off-season i usually maintain around 135, but this past time, i got up close to 140, but it was pretty hard! of course i ate fairly clean, but did eat alot, and did pretty much no cardio! so my question is, do some peoples bodies just really like staying at a certain "set" weight and you must do somewhat extreme things to alter that weight or is this just an excuse???? and for some, it is the opposite way, they must do extreme things to lose...i think this may be why my body can lose easier with higher carbs??? maybe? and some have to do "extreme" things like no carb (keto) diets? whatchya think?

To differentiate between the two: Set point is physiological, and predominately controlled by leptin. Settling point is a combination of genetics and environmental factors (ie. exercise/nutrition, etc.) that combine to influence the perceived set point.

Keep in mind also that the set point theory is based on animal data as well. From the animal data, the set point can go up, but does not appear to go down. (the body tends to protect against lower calories far better than it does higher calories). So it tends to be where your body gravitates without much effort. But, it doesn't stop anything per se. Having a higher set point doesn't prevent one from getting lean. This is where the settling point comes in. You may be able to establish a new settling point by manipulating your environment (training, nutrition, lifestyle, etc) to achieve it.

So one's set point may make the ultimate goal harder to achieve, but that tends to be same for most things that you're not 'predisposed' to excel in.

From a physiological standpoint, you have the issue of genetics and a person's natural 'set point'. So, take two people, both striving for 10% bodyfat.

Person 1 is 25% bodyfat and Person 2 is 15% bodyfat - without much effort, or rather, this is where their body generally gravitates to.

The first person will obviously have to achieve more/work longer to hit the same goals as the second person. Unfortunately, for that person, the change in regulatory hormones (leptin, ghrelin, peptide YY, etc) are going to be more significant than in the person that is naturally leaner. As such the person who had more to lose to get there, is generally not going to 'feel' as good as the person that was naturally closer to that point; again due to greater changes in hormone levels.

For the person naturally leaner, the changes in hormones isn't going to be as great (since they're not moving as far from what is 'normal' for their body) and as such, they're going to feel better and probably have an easier time staying there.

The person that was fatter to begin with, will have to work harder to maintain their progress. But again, it will generally be easier, from a nutritional strategy standpoint, to maintain, than it would be to get there in the first place.

Erik
06-18-2008, 05:18 PM
i think this may be why my body can lose easier with higher carbs??? maybe? and some have to do "extreme" things like no carb (keto) diets? whatchya think?

To add ...

I don't think this has anything to do with set points, settling points, etc., however. I also don't honestly see any 'metabolic advantage' to keto diets either. In the end it's still going to come down to calories in vs calories out. The difference relates more to individual differences, whether that be glucose tolerance/degree of insulin resistance, satiation, what you just generally feel better on, etc., etc.

Blondell
06-18-2008, 05:37 PM
Person 1 is 25% bodyfat and Person 2 is 15% bodyfat - without much effort, or rather, this is where their body generally gravitates to.


Something I've wondered...

Set point is determined by bf% rather than weight?

redhead75
06-18-2008, 10:16 PM
Wow this is a great topic and i'm learning a ton! I think my "settling" point is 120 because my body is trying to get back there! I'm fighting with all my might to keep the fuel burning. I tend to be person 1 that Erik is talking about.

KristenAnn
06-19-2008, 02:57 AM
Ha - I wish my 'settling point' was 120! Mine is more like an easy 150... maybe more! :popcorn:

FitDancer
06-19-2008, 07:10 PM
Great article. I try to stay on schedule but sometimes it does not work. If I wait too long to eat, then I do notice the drop in blood sugar. I also notice that I am hungry all day when I am eating every 3 hours. I anticipate each and every meal.

marilynny
06-24-2008, 07:41 PM
Meh. Eating more frequently is better for insulin levels, sustained energy and satiety. Most people aren't eating frequently just to raise the metabolic rate. Eating every 3-4 hours makes me happy, not stressed.

i never imagined that eating more meals burned more calories...i ate frequently for these reasons as well, v.

Sportsgirl
06-29-2008, 06:53 AM
I used to eat 6 meals a day, but because of my job it's impossible for me to eat 2-3 meals at work. I barely have time to even 1 meal at lunchtime some days :mad:! I usually end up having 4 meals - or 3 big meals and my pre-workout protein shake. In fact, my biggest meal is my dinner, post workout. I haven't noticed a difference in results, if anything, better results; that has more to do with me keeping a hawk eye on calories than anything though.

Definitely a matter of preference and lifestyle.