Metabolism Trick

Ok, why wouldn't this work?

If you're supposed to eat smaller meals more often because eating more often "stokes the coals" of your metabolism. Why dont you just eat normally, but have a small amount of food that is very low cal (i.e. a single handful of popcorn). every hour on the hour throughout the day.

And, of course, reducing carbs at meal time to compensate.  But then you would literally always be making your metabolic functions process something. While still eating normally at appropriate times.

So is this a dumb idea or not. I honestly don't know. I'm sure there is some flaw here, cause I can't imagine I am the first person to think of this. love to hear comments.

-Sonny

I've been eating either a small meal or healthy snack about every two hours, almost on the clock.  The goal is to boost my metabolism... I have more energy, but haven't been doing it long enough to comment on weight loss.

Makes sense to me... I think if I ate every hour though, it could turn into mindless grazing. 

Weight loss is much more about calories in vs calories out than it is about metabolism.

Whether you eat 3 meals a day or 10 won't help you lose weight faster. What matters is what you eat and how much you exercise.

There aren't any magic tricks to weight loss, sorry.

Original Post by sonnysideup:

Ok, why wouldn't this work?

Because the 'eating lots of small meals' plan doesn't actually increase your metabolism over the course of a day.  6 small meals = 6 small spikes in your metabolism while 3 large meals = 3 large spikes, at the end of the day it all comes out in a wash.

I think what you're describing is just 'constant grazing'.... and that's the bad habit that makes a lot of people very overweight.  Hourly nibbling on bits and pieces doesn't really do a lot for feelings of satiety or for the metabolism....if you never feel 'empty' you're unlikely to appreciate what 'full' feels like...  and it's a really easy way to overeat.

technically it would "work" its just not as practical for everyday living as eating 6 times a day and also probably not much more effective, if any, for the trouble its worth to eat 16-20 times a day. 

And I disagree with merly, it is not just about calories.  If you eat 2000 cals in one sitting compared to eating it spread out over 6 meals you will not see the same results due to the effect on your metabolism. 

Original Post by sonnysideup:

Ok, why wouldn't this work?

 

If you're supposed to eat smaller meals more often because eating more often "stokes the coals" of your metabolism. Why dont you just eat normally, but have a small amount of food that is very low cal (i.e. a single handful of popcorn). every hour on the hour throughout the day.

And, of course, reducing carbs at meal time to compensate.  But then you would literally always be making your metabolic functions process something. While still eating normally at appropriate times.

So is this a dumb idea or not. I honestly don't know. I'm sure there is some flaw here, cause I can't imagine I am the first person to think of this. love to hear comments.

-Sonny

I tend to eat small meals throughout the day, and sometimes I do eat more like 100 calories an hour.  the only downside i have noticed is that when I eat that way I will feel like either A) I haven't eaten REAL FOOD all day and then overeat on a meal or B) I've been eating all day long on low-cal foods and end up restricting too much and undereat.