Weight Loss
Moderators: spoiled_candy, Mollybygolly, coach_k, devilish_patsy, nycgirl


the eat every 2 hour theory


Quote  |  Reply

Hi All !

I'm Amber, and i recently joined CC , and im soooooooo thankful to you guys that everyone here is so very very helpful in no matter what i ask for.. thumbs up to that <3

So, my next question here is, i have heard about this divide you day into smaller meals rather than taking big meals 3 times a day do it 6 meals or more and eat every two hours a little so the metabolism remains active.

the issue i am having here is that i eat small portions , i do try to eat every 2 to 3 hours, but its happening to me that most of the times i am really feeling already full and don't at all feel like eating for next 2 to 4 hours like right now.. i had a good healthy 500 calorie breakfast and its been already 4 hours and i am fulllllll

Should i still eat?.. even if i feel full?.. or should i wait for it to pass a little and feel a little hungry before eating even if that means no food for 3 to 4 hours. Also, sometimes this also happens that my day is almost at end and its almost bed time and i still have to take 200-300  calories and i am not hungry at all. do i still have to eat.. man o man 1500-1600 calories are ALOT.. and usually i have to add some that i burn of exercise. please reply

:-)  Huggggssssss

33 Replies (last)

please please anyone

#2  
Quote  |  Reply
You shouldn't eat once you feel full, it's best to stop when you start to feel full, other wise your eating more then you need to, it's best to have about 4 smaller meals a day, and when you feel hungry just have some fruit of low fat yogurts, hope this helped xx

Hi beck.. ty for reply.. but i thought i should mention i am eating right within the limits of my calorie intake as prescribed by CC calculators.. and even then at the end of the day sometimes still 200 to 300 calories remain to eat and im so full .. i am confused what to do

There is no truth to eating every two hours for your metabolism. 

The only reason this sometimes works is sometimes eating an apple now prevents eating a pound of pasta later. If you are not hungry no need to eat. But eat before you are so ravenous that you want the entire mcdonalds menu

I agree with everyone I eat smaller meals all day because it works for me my schedule and my body. But if you want to do 3 500 cal meals it won't matter. If you are working out i do recommend a snack before tho. And depending what u do maybe one after. But that's just me, do what works for you just try to get to your calorie goal

There are 2 reasons to break your meals into 5 / 6 small meals.

1) You eat a snack between meals so you are not hungry at the time you eat your main meal so do not overdo it. So this is a way to control your eating.

2) This some people here agree with and I follow it as it works for me / us. Break your meal into 5 equal parts. My theory for why this works and it is only my theory, kind of my understanding of what I have read not specifically read it anywhere, so take it with a pinch of salt,

is that by breaking up my calories over the day my body never has any leftover calorie intake to save as fat. What i am eating is getting used up before the next meal comes along. If I do any extra body taps into fat stores. On the other extreme say you ate one big meal a day your body would store some of it and release over the day. I am never actually feeling hungry either so on a metabolism basis the body is continously recieving food so would not slow it's metabolism even over long periods of sticking to this.

 

Question - If you have eaten a 500 calorie breakfast and say you are eating broken into 6 meals are you having 3,000 calories a day.

Why would you be adding extra for the exercise you do ?

#8  
Quote  |  Reply
Original Post by smashley23:

There is no truth to eating every two hours for your metabolism. 

im actually curious about this because i've heard (like the poster above me) that the reason you should break your meals up is because your body can only absorb so many calories and nutrients at one time. so using made up numbers, if my body can only absorb 30g of protein at a time but i eat 70 in one sitting, the extra 40g has to get stored as fat (or wasted?). but if i ate 30 in one siting and 30 next time i ate i would absorb all of it and put it all to good use. anyone else know anything about this?

eating 5-6 meals isn't for everyone....for me I NEED to eat every  3 hours or I am sooooo hungry and will end up over eating at dinner. Eating 5-6 small meals has really helped me to reach my goals.
Some people who eat more meals do poorly because they end up eating more calories than they should.

I also eat 5-6 meals because it helps to up my protein intake....there is alot of debate about the 5-6 meals for the metabolism and I kind of agree that it does help out not significantly but still somewhat...and all of the articles I read on professional fitness models/body builders all eat 6 meals a day


im actually curious about this because i've heard (like the poster above me) that the reason you should break your meals up is because your body can only absorb so many calories and nutrients at one time. so using made up numbers, if my body can only absorb 30g of protein at a time but i eat 70 in one sitting, the extra 40g has to get stored as fat (or wasted?). but if i ate 30 in one siting and 30 next time i ate i would absorb all of it and put it all to good use. anyone else know anything about this?

That is incorrect.  It takes several hours for the body to fully digest a meal and absorb the nutrients, so if you eat 70g of protein at a time, you may only have 30g or so available within the next two hours, but your body will absorb the rest of the protein later in the day.  

When you eat, your body doesn't just store everything you don't use immediately as fat. It has the ability to store nutrients and energy until it is prepared to use them, and that is precisely what the body does.  You only store food as fat if you overeat (i.e. your body never expends enough energy to use the food), and it doesn't matter if you overeat in 3 meals or in 6.

Eating every two hours to make sure you use the food you ate and it doesn't convert to stored fat does not make sense.  It's like not eating carbs after 6 because you think it will immediately turn to fat.  It's just not how the body works.  The body does not see time in the linear fashion that we do.

There is no evidence that dividing your food into meals has any effect on your metabolism.  How much you eat does affect your metabolism, but the thermic effect of food (TEF) is directly proportional to how much food you ate.  If you eat the same food in 3 meals or in 6, the metabolism boost is exactly the same.  It's just a bigger boost 3 times or a boost half the size 6 times.  It's like taking the integral under a curve.  It doesn't matter how many slices you make, the area is still the same.

Original Post by dmndangel:

Original Post by smashley23:

There is no truth to eating every two hours for your metabolism. 

im actually curious about this because i've heard (like the poster above me) that the reason you should break your meals up is because your body can only absorb so many calories and nutrients at one time. so using made up numbers, if my body can only absorb 30g of protein at a time but i eat 70 in one sitting, the extra 40g has to get stored as fat (or wasted?). but if i ate 30 in one siting and 30 next time i ate i would absorb all of it and put it all to good use. anyone else know anything about this?

This is true... For example with protein your kidneys can only process a certain amount at a time, as per my Dr. So if you are eating a 10 or 8 oz steak it is very hard on the kidneys and it is doing nothing good for you. I dont know about other nutrients as I have had kidney issues in the past from doing a low carb diet where most food is protein. Proof it is hard on you..... So basically do what is best for you, but if at 3 meals you are gorging on more then about 4-5ox meat for women its to much. Just a thought, I would find it extremely difficult to have 500 clories at 3 meals when you have to still care about portions.

@smashly - like I said I'm only inferring from what I read. But If 3 or 5 meals doesn't make a diff would 1 meal a day matter. Further how about if you ate 1 meal every 2 days with 2 days worth of calories ?
Also proof for what I say is that it worked for me. You say there is no proof that it works. Do you know where I could find some proof that it does not work ?
You are right that the body does not store energy only as fat. It also stores in muscle and in the blood stream. Fat cells are the last place it will store when the others are full. And it taps from them at different speeds when needed. That is why you find fat burn heart rate, cardio heart rate numbers on tread mills. As far as I am concerned I'll try not to store in the fat cells then have to figure out how to get it out.

@ajith....I am with you on this.  Have seen several places that it is better to break your meals up.  And a doctor has told me the same thing.  I don't think he got his M.D. behind his name by knowing nothing.  It feeds your body energy.  Your body has time to break this down until your next meal.  Just think of how bloated you feel after having a big meal and how you feel when eating a small one (yet still full).  You feel comfortable.  This has worked for me.  Everyone is different.  Do what works for you.  Good luck!

#16  
Quote  |  Reply

AjithGunawrdana...if something works for you, that's great, but quite frankly it proves nothing (other than you believe that it works for you).  Dispensing advice to others as "fact" when all you really know is that it works for you is irresponsible.  Smashley did a good job of providing facts.  If you all chose not to listen, then that's your choice.  

I eat 2-3 meals a day within an 8 hour window, a form of Intermittent Fasting (and I don't eat at all for 16 hours).  I like feeling full when I eat.  Eating 4-6 times a day does not work for me.  There are many ways to eat, and people have to do what works for them.  But there is no science to support the idea that you are storing fat if you don't eat multiple small meals throughout the day. 

OMG!  Celestial, this is exctly how I feel everyday. I eat every 3 hours and sometimes it feels like a chore. Like you said 1500 cal seems like a lot.

However it's better to eat when you not hungry than wait when you are starving and eat something you are not proud of.  You don't have to et a whole meal just have a piece of cheese or some nuts and a fruit. You can also get a shake.

Original Post by AjithGunawardana:

 Further how about if you ate 1 meal every 2 days with 2 days worth of calories ?

Actually, alternate day fasting is something that people do for weight loss or as a lifestyle, and it is quite effective.  I don't do it, but that is because it doesn't appeal to me. There's no negative metabolic advantage to it, and there are plenty of advantages: reducing LDL, improving HDL, triglyceride levels, and cell proliferation.

I'm not staying that there is anything particularly bad about eating several meals throughout the day.  I am just trying to dispel the belief that it is necessary or that failing to do so is inherently bad.

 If people do it because it works for them, then that's great, but people shouldn't force themselves to do it because they believe it has nonexistent benefits.  The idea that your metabolism will suffer for not eating every two hours is simply incorrect.  If you believe it will, then you are credulous, which is fine, but not what I want to be.

@lkvd -Actually my issue with smashly is that he is making statements without facts.(Refer #4 posted by him) And if you read my post (refer #7 posted by me) above you will see that when I am making inferences I take the starting point of the opinion given by many to eat in 5 meals (which is recomended even by doctors (refer #15 by funbnagrammy ) I then clarify that I am making opinions as to why this could be happening. (again refer #7 and #12) 

That said I am learning by taking smashly into a discussion so politely I would suggest you contribute your opinion or back off.

@ ajith

Not all doctors agree on everything.  Some might recommend eating smaller meals through out the day, but mine don't. Dr. Oz says plenty of things that are bogus.  Just because he has an MD doesn't mean he is always right.  It also doesn't mean he can't say things to make money via his endorsements and network.  

Eating fewer calories works.  It works if you eat them in 3 meals or 30.  I have lost weight eating 3 meals a day, and I gained weight eating 5.  That alone is evidence of nothing, but I use your logic, I can go ahead and tell people that they will lose weight eating 3 meals a day, but will gain it eating 5.

There is no evidence that eating more meals will increase your metabolism.  If you had any, you would have cited it instead of saying that some doctors said it.  My mother's a doctor, and I know not everything she says is true.  

33 Replies (last)
Advertisement
Advertisement